The 1935 Italian Invasion of Abyssinia - What did Britain and France do?

In 1935 Fascist Italy, under Benito Mussolini’s rule, invaded Abyssinia, one of the few independent countries in Africa at the time. The war split opinion in Europe, and caused particular issues for Britain and France as they hoped to ally with Italy against Nazi Germany’s plans. Should they strongly intervene against Italy, or offer a more limited response? Stephen Prout explains.

Italian troops advancing on Addis Ababa during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War (1935-37).

Introduction

In 1935 Italy invaded Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia). Italy was then under the control of a fascist regime ruled by Benito Mussolini and part of his grandiose plans was to expand Italy’s modest empire. In the immediate years after the First World War’s end there was deep dissatisfaction with the terms of the Paris Peace conference, Vittorio Orlando and Sonnino his Foreign Ministers departed early betrayed by her Western allies. In the 1915 Treaty of London Italy’s former allies, Britain, France, and Russia, promised her territory in the Balkans and North Africa in return for her participation in the war on the Allied side - but these promises were broken and she left empty handed. Mussolini came to power in 1921. His aspiration was clear - it was to make Italy great, respected and feared.  Part of that plan was the expansion of the Italian Empire.

Abyssinia was Italy’s first major territorial gain and in October 1935 forces of the Italian Army conquered the country isnless than a year. The new League of nations would be outraged and on the surface Britain and France would be disapproving. Although the conflict was on a different continent thousands miles away it had grave significance for European affairs. The outcome would place an isolated Italy in the Nazi Camp and once again divide Europe into two opposing camps.

Abyssinia and its relations with Europe

The imperial powers had always been present and hovering in the background since the late nineteenth century ready to meddle in Abyssinian affairs. Italy had long carried an irreconcilable sense of national humiliation from her defeat by Abyssinian forces in 1896 at Adwa. She had not had the opportunity to repair her international standing in the same way Britain did when the Zulu army overcame British forces at Isandlwana in the 1880s. This had always been a blight to Italy’s new national pride.

As far as other European powers were concerned, in 1906 Italy along with Britain and France formed a Tripartite Pact in which spheres of influence in Abyssinia were established amongst the three powers, and they were ready to enact and occupy in the event of the country’s collapse following a period of turmoil.

Abyssinia was one of two independent countries in Africa in the 1930s (the other was Liberia). That set them apart from the rest of the colonized continent (slight exceptions were South Africa and Egypt who had semi-autonomous roles as either veiled protectorates or Dominion status). Africa was still very much under European domination, mainly Britain and France. Italy was seeking expansion in North Africa, the Balkans and the Mediterranean.  Abyssinia offered that sole opportunity as far as Africa was concerned. Trying to seize British or French territory was militarily out of the question for her.

When compared to European standards Abyssinia was very much behind economically, socially, and politically. Abyssinia entered the twentieth century with many of its medieval ways and customs intact. It operated a slave trade this far into the twentieth century and it did not end until after the Second World War.  The education system excluded much of the population and the army was largely equipped with traditional weaponry. Conversely there was evidence of a nascent modernization as she had access to modest trade with the USA, Germany, Britain, and Italy at the turn of the century. For example in 1906 its exports to the USA amounted to 3 million dollars ($106 million in today’s money). Internally the education system was also progressing as a government edict made education compulsory for all males and it was no longer restricted to religious instruction.    

For Italy there was the unresolved matter of her military defeat in 1896 and the promise to expand the Italian Empire to make good the broken promises of the 1915 Treaty of London. The pretext Italy used to justify the war was a retaliation to border violations after growing tensions supported with a spurious claim to abolish the slave trade that continued in Abyssinia. Mussolini had made it clear that he wanted to build a new Roman Empire and make Italy respected and feared. Abyssinia was his opportunity and he justified the action by believing that he was acting no differently to Britain and France in Africa.  However, his mistake was not realizing that the time of empires and colonies had no place in the mid-twentieth century. Italy was fifty years too late for an African scramble.

The Dilemma for Europe

As far as the British public was concerned, on the surface this was a moral battle. An underdog nation was fighting for its existence against a more powerful aggressor. This hypocrisy seemed to largely ignore the fact that Britain still had a firm grip of its empire and was in some areas supressing with force independence movements. The resolve that was expressed however was clear and it was any action short of war, with no intention or plan for any alternative.  In diplomatic circles in Europe the perspective was very different indeed. The events in Abyssinia from the Italian invasion were more of a side show but how could a developing country some eight thousand kilometres from Europe be a concern to the Western Powers of Europe and indeed Germany?

In truth the British and French were not concerned over Abyssinia. It was public opinion and the state of the League of Nations that forced the appearance of urgency from Britain and France.  Underneath all this Italy was an ally despite its Fascist nature - and more importantly a member of the recently formed alliance that became known as the Stresa Front Alliance with France and Britain that had the aim of maintaining peace and stability in Europe and containing revisionist Germany. It was important that she was not irked or isolated by actions that Britain or France may be compelled to take on direction or pressure from the League of Nations.

Britain only had her own interests in mind and that was security in Western stability and her own colonies. The Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, John Maffey, quickly assured the Government that none of the nation’s British interests were at risk after the Italian invasion. At home not all British politicians shared the public outrage. Within the Conservative Party, Leo Amery expressed his support for the Italian actions. Churchill remained quiet on the matter. The widely held belief of Amery is that he was an anti-appeaser due his famous speech that he would make later in 1940 demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. In fact, quite the reverse was true. Amery voiced support for the Japanese invasion of Manchuria as well as for Italy’s actions in Africa. Amery argued in the case of the former that Japan had a “strong case for her invasion of Manchuria” and that Britain and France should have ceded Abyssinian territory much earlier to Italy and eschew League intervention. More specifically, in 1936 he stated that the Italian intervention would give a “merciful deliverance to be released from Abyssinian control”.

Britain was also concerned with her appearance before the League of Nations and had to balance her own interests with her obligations as a leading member. The Abyssinian crisis showed how impotent the League could be in the face of aggression from a permanent member and also when combined with conflicting interests and agendas of the members. Some diplomats were quite willing to circumvent the League in such cases as Lord Curzon during Italy’s actions in Corfu.  In the background there was the concern that the presence of an independent nation on the borders of Europe’s colonies could also spread nationalistic ideas.  This was especially a worry for Britain who had lost Egypt, Ireland, and Iraq already, while India was showing noisy displays of dissent. Therefore the Italian invasion of Abyssinia would not inconvenience her nor the French too much. Ever since In the Tripartite Treaty of 1906, the three were all prepared to occupy this independent nation if their own interests were threatened or if the situation in the country did not favor them.

For Britain and France Italy was more valuable in keeping on side within the 1935 Stresa front. Italian membership and military support were vital and essential if Germany was to be contained. The Western democracies were making overtures to Mussolini to avoid his isolation while applying very modest and meek sanctions to keep up appearances in the League. Abyssinia would be a small price to pay for their own security and interests, but ultimately the 1935 Stresa Front would crumble.

The Outcome

The outcome of the war was a victory for Italy. Within a year of the conflict ending the new Prime Minister of Great Britain Neville Chamberlain was already exchanging friendly correspondence with Mussolini and in 1937 was ready to acquiesce to Mussolini’s requests for recognition of Italy’s complete annexation of Abyssinia. Spheres of influence that were established in the Tripartite Act of 1906 were forgone, and the Western Powers even passed up the chance to fight for territory in Abyssinia. This displayed not so publicly how quickly the Western Powers could move on but how unimportant the sovereignty of Abyssinia was to them. Britain and France were colonial powers, and the disappearance of a sovereign nation would help to extinguish ideas of independence reaching their own colonies.

Britain and France could potentially have saved some of Abyssinia if they chose to by invoking the 1935 Stresa Front.  By occupying their self-proclaimed spheres, they could have denied much of the country to Italian forces.  This would have been a grander gesture than the mild sanctions applied. It only strengthened the point that the fate of Abyssinia was just not important enough.

Like all wars it had atrocities and more has been focused on the use of poison gas by Italy. Equally, Abyssinian combatants also acted outside of the conditions of the Geneva convention. The International Red Cross reported the castration of Italian prisoners of war by Abyssinian troops. Furthermore, it should be also noted that while under Italian occupation the slave trade was curtailed and outlawed, something which showed no signs of being arrested under the country’s old rulers. During Italian rule two laws were issued in October 1935 and in April 1936 which abolished slavery and freed 420,000 Ethiopian slaves. While not condoning Fascist actions the campaign was not as one sided as some accounts suggest. As far as the rest of the world was concerned the indifference to the fate of Abyssinia fate was shared as only six nations failed to recognise the Italian fait accompli.

The Abyssinians endured ten years of Italian occupation. Europe had now been forced into two camps with Italy now firmly on the side of the totalitarian powers rather than a country that would contain a growing and powerful Germany. Italian actions in Abyssinia along with Japanese intervention in Manchuria were portents. Italy would soon join Germany in intervening in Spain before participating against her former allies in the Second World War. Was it inevitable or was it a diplomatic tragedy?

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

Now, if you enjoy the site and want to help us out a little, click here.

Sources

Encyclopaedia of Antislavery and Abolition [Two Volumes] -Greenwood Press, 2006 - Peter P. Hinks, ‎John R. McKivigan, ‎R. Owen Williams

Mussolini- A New Life – N Farrell – 2003 – Weidenfeld & Nicholson.

AJP Taylor – English History 1914 – 1945

Europe of The Dictators

Report of War Crimes and Atrocities Abyssinia – International Red Cross

Leo Amery’s Imperial Attitude to Appeasement in the 1930’s – Richard S Grayson – University of London 2006

The Mexican War of Independence: Sudden Independence - Part 5

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

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at the Mexican War of Independence. Here he looks at how the Mexican War of Independence finished rapidly. This was in large part due to Agustín de Iturbide and the Plan of Iguala. However, independence did not bring calm and prosperity.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later years is here. Then, you can read about the Abdications of Bayonne here, the start of the Mexican War of Independence here, how Hidalgo continued the war here, the impact of José Morelos here, and the changes of the 1810s here.

A print of Agustín de Iturbide as Emperor of Mexico.

The revolution in Spain meant the mother country had no credibility left either at home or abroad. The country was a basket case. For the last 30 years, some of the most feckless and dim-witted leaders in the sorry history of humanity had presided over the Spanish people and empire. Revolutions, war (worse—a guerilla war), coups, invasions, mismanagement. You name it, Spain had gone through it. The country could not get its act together. What was there left to be loyal to at this point?

The grueling continuation of the war of independence was destroying New Spain. Most of the original leaders of the war, on both sides, were either dead or out of the country. The economy had been devastated. The rebels had their backs to the wall, and there seemed to be no way for the rebels to militarily achieve their goals, namely the expulsion of the Spanish and freedom for the people of Mexico. The situation seemed hopeless. Yet, within a matter of months, Mexico would achieve its independence. This was due to the machinations of one man, Agustín de Iturbide.

Return of Iturbide

Iturbide has been seen before, in the decisive defeat of Morales’ army. He was born in Valladolid (as seemingly so many others in this war were). After studying at the Colegio de San Nicolás (again, as so many others did), he joined the royal army and progressively rose through the ranks. Recognized as a bold and forceful soldier, he achieved several victories against Morelos.

Cruelty was something that came naturally to Iturbide. He ruthlessly crushed his opponents and harshly punished civilian populations that had supported the rebels. To celebrate Good Friday one year, he had 300 rebels executed. Relieved of command in 1816 for corruption and graft in even greater excess than those around him, he spent a year on the sidelines clearing his name, which he did. Despite his exoneration, Iturbide would never forgive those who sullied his name.

Iturbide was young and dashing on the battlefield. Handsome, and cutting a good figure on a horse, he looked like a hero out of central casting. But still, he was born in New Spain. The leaders of the viceregal government, particularly Calleja, had never really trusted him. Ambition is a good thing, in moderation, and Iturbide was full of naked ambition. During the war, he had risen from lieutenant to general. Having powerful enemies, this fact is a testament to the skill he did have. Iturbide was a good general, and a very good leader of men, which is something that gets forgotten with later events. It does explain, however, that when he did say to the effect “move in a different direction”, everyone did.

He had never forgotten his humiliation. Like an old wound that would not heal, the ordeal he went through to clear his name festered. Added to this resentment was the humiliation of what was happening in Spain. Now, he was fighting for a government that did not support the ideals he held dear anymore. There was a liberal government in Spain, and the king had been forced to reintroduce the constitution. What was the point? Perhaps, there was another way.

Seeing Another Way

Why would independence mean, by default, a social revolution and the chaos inherent in republican rule? Why would liberal ideas, which Iturbide and the rest of the royalists thought were foolish at best, and malevolent at worst, automatically guide an independent Mexico? Couldn’t an independent Mexico be guided by conservative ideals, based on order and structure in society?

What if, as the most powerful leader on the royalist side, and as a native-born Mexican, Iturbide could bring the two sides together? If the independentists and the royalists joined forces, then everyone could get what they wanted. The rebels would get a Mexico free from Spain and Spanish oppression. The royalists would get a conservative Mexico with a monarchy at its head. And Iturbide…he would get to be the leader of it all.

In 1820, Iturbide was given command of troops in the south of New Spain. This put him in direct conflict with Vincente Guerrero. The two fought several battles, with both men gaining victories over the other. However, despite the clashes, both men were exchanging letters, decrying the fighting, and trying to convince the other of their good intentions. The letters, and the subsequent negotiations, would lead to both commanders coming to an agreement.

The Plan of Iguala

On February 24, 1821, the proclamation of the Plan of Iguala was made. It was a plan made by Iturbide and supported by Guerrero. There was a list of 24 articles that laid out how the newly independent Mexico would be governed. In a brilliant piece of branding, the combined armies of Iturbide and Guerrero would be known as the Army of the Three Guarantees, after the first three articles of the plan. These were an independent Mexico, Catholicism was to be the official religion, and racial and political equality was to be had by all. There was something in the plan for everyone. Independence for the rebel leaders. Protection for the church for the royalists. Civil equality for the masses. Under this umbrella, it was felt everyone in New Spain could unite and transform the country into Mexico.

Iturbide and Guerrero met at Acatempán. When they saw each other, they embraced as a symbol of their new union, receiving cheers from their watching armies. For Iturbide, there was the concern of convincing his army to go along. This is where the previous successes of the royalists doomed the viceregal government. The former viceroy, Apodaca, had been able to sway many former rebels to come over to the royalist side. There was a not insignificant proportion of the royalist army that were former rebels. This meant many were happy about this turn of events and formed the basis of support within the regular army for this new turn. In addition, many were touched by the prospect of quick advancement in a new national army after independence. Antonio López de Santa Anna, for example, was a captain. He, at first, refused to come over to the rebel side. He was offered the rank of lieutenant colonel if he did. He began to “waver” in his firmness and was offered the rank of colonel. When he joined Iturbide, it was as a general.

The key to military support was the army of Anastasio Bustamante, commander of the royalist army in Guanajuato. Known as one of the royalist’s best commanders, and probably just as aggressive and ruthless as Iturbide, with 6,000 men under his command, he could make life very difficult for the Army of the Three Guarantees. It was not to be. Not only did Bustamante declare for the Plan of Iguala, he symbolically came over as well. This royalist commander, who had executed as many rebels as he could get his hands on, took the skull of Hidalgo out of the cage in which it had been on public display since his execution and buried it will full honors.

After Bustamante came over, the movement snowballed. Commanders in the north declared for the Plan of Iguala. By August, Iturbide marched his army into Puebla with Guadalupe Victoria, now out of hiding, by his side. Puebla was a good prize on its own, yet its position was most important for Iturbide. A new viceroy, Juan de O’Donojú, had arrived in New Spain and was in Veracruz. Iturbide had cut the route between Veracruz and Mexico City.

O’Donojú was in a tough spot. He had just arrived at his new posting and the rebels were taking over the country. He and his family were stuck in Veracruz and the city was notorious for terrible yellow fever outbreaks. His family was becoming ill, and he feared for their lives. O’Donojú was not a dumb man. He could see the writing on the wall. The only thing left to determine was if Spain could have relations with this new Mexican nation, or if the two nations would be determined enemies. O’Donojú preferred friendship.

The Treaty of Cordoba

The new viceroy came out of Veracruz to negotiate with the rebels. The two sides were able to hammer out an agreement very quickly, and the viceroy and the general signed the Treaty of Córdoba. Article 1 of the treaty stated that Mexico would receive independence from Spain as the Mexican Empire. So far so good.

The problem arose with Article 3, which stated that Ferdinand VII was to be invited to take the throne. How serious this offer was is unknown. Many conservatives supported the reactionary king, and for the liberals, Ferdinand was still the “desired one” from all those years ago. Should Ferdinand refuse, the throne would descend through his brothers. Here was the rub.

When informed about the treaty, Ferdinand immediately repudiated it and denied for all his relations any rights to the throne of Mexico. Going even further, Ferdinand notified the other courts of Europe that should any royal house accept an offer of the Mexican crown, that would finish all diplomatic relations between Spain and that country. To him, New Spain was simply another rebellious colony that would be suppressed in time. This, however, was for the future.

There was now a treaty that guaranteed independence. Iturbide, Guerrero, O’Donojú, and the rest now began a triumphal march to Mexico City. On September 27, 1821, the Army of the Three Guarantees entered the capital, bringing the War of Independence to an end. Unfortunately, the unifying act of both conservatives and liberals arriving in the capital to begin a new national life would not be the end. The conflict between the two sides began.

The Plans Fall Apart

First, a government had to be set up. The Treaty of Córdoba laid out a framework. Article 2 stated that the government would be a monarchy but limited by a constitution. Article 6 laid out that an assembly would be created, to be made up of the “most eminent” men. It was explicitly said that this assembly would be named, not elected. The assembly would then name a president (Article 9), set up the rules for the election of a national Cortes, or legislature (Article 10), and set up a regency council of three men (Article 11). The goal of the regency was to rule in the name of Ferdinand VII, or if he were to refuse, find another to take up the throne.

Of course, Ferdinand refused. With the automatic rejection from his brothers, who would be made emperor? Even Joseph Bonaparte, the usurper against whom the entire empire had risen in 1808 was allegedly offered the throne, but he refused. With no ruling houses taking the job, yet still supporting the concept of a monarchical government, someone had to be found.

In February 1822, elections were held for the first Mexican Congress. With no history or tradition of democratic rule, the elections were obviously weighted toward the wealthy and powerful. The assumption by all concerned was that the congress would assemble and ratify the choice of the new Emperor, Ferdinand VII, to be Ferdinand I, Emperor of the Mexicans.

When it became clear that Ferdinand would not be coming by the time the congress convened, the members declared that they would not be bound by the Treaty of Cordoba and would not allow all power to be concentrated into the hands of one person (which was not what the treaty said, by the way). Congress, it declared of itself, was the ultimate holder of sovereignty with a legitimate claim to exercise, not only the legislative powers, but executive and judicial as well. In addition, the congress struck at the army, considering it a threat. The army was to be reduced to 60,000 men. Further, no member of the regency council was to be allowed to hold a military command, striking directly at Iturbide.

Same Song, Different Words

There had been several attempts to name Iturbide emperor. At least twice, back in September and October, 1821, he had rejected calls to assume the throne. On May 18, 1822, soldiers of the 1st infantry regiment marched out of their barracks and demonstrated in favor of making their old commander, Iturbide, the emperor. Appearing at his doorstep, the soldiers called out for their hero to take the crown. This time, he would “reluctantly” acquiesce. The congress, now surrounded by mobs of soldiers and citizenry voted for Iturbide to become emperor. Only 15 congressmen voted no.

On July 21, 1822, Iturbide was officially declared Emperor Agustín I in the National Cathedral of Mexico. Modeled on the coronation of Napoleon, the ceremony had all the pomp and circumstance befitting the birth of a new, grand empire. New titles of nobility and offices were created for Agustín’s cronies. Orders of chivalry issued row upon row of shiny medals for the heroes of the revolution in an attempt to buy loyalty to the new regime.

The Infighting Begins - and Truly Never Ends

Immediately, the new emperor and congress squabbled. The country was bankrupt, and the lavish spending was the first issue upon which the congressmen felt they could attack Agustín. Not having any money, but needing more, especially to pay his power base in the army, the emperor’s government authorized the printing of paper money, causing massive inflation and economic dislocation, driving discontent. By August, Agustín ordered the arrest of 15 members of congress. Due to the discontent this caused, he would disband congress by force.

The conservative forces rallied around the figure of the emperor and the liberals rallied around the congress. Two divergent views of how the future of Mexico would be. Now, seemingly, those views were irreconcilable. Not even a year before, both sides had united around the Plan of Iguala and marched triumphantly into Mexico City side by side. There had been so much hope, and so much hope had died.

This was the great tragedy of the Mexican War of Independence. The conservatives believed that they could simply transfix the edifice of the Spain of old onto the new structure that was Mexico. The good old days could come back, only this time they would be in charge. They believed that the people could easily be led by their intellectual and social betters, and building a conservative Mexico would be simple if everyone could just be put back in their place. The conservatives were blind to the idea that they expected everyone to go back to their old social and economic stations but them. They could rise to the top of the social pyramid, but everyone else should stay in their place. That would be only right and just in their eyes.

Unfortunately, the liberals were just as good at fooling themselves. They believed in the greatest lie ever told, that human nature is changeable with laws, constitutions, and good intentions. If the perfect constitution could be drafted, an elected government of Plato’s philosopher kings could transform society and the hearts of men. Everyone would be brothers who would live in social and economic harmony. It was obvious. Once good government for all the people was instituted, knowing the right and subsequently doing the right would finally be possible. Everyone would live happily ever after.

Then Santa Anna opened Pandora’s box.

What do you think of the sudden independence of Mexico and the results? 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.

How did Roosevelt’s Paralysis Affect his Presidency?

Franklin D. Roosevelt was US President from 1933 to 1945 - the years of the Great Depression through to the end of World War 2. What is less well known is that he was paralyzed by illness in 1921 and did not have full use of his legs from that time. Here, Richard Bluttal explores the affect of paralysis on Roosevelt’s presidency.

President Roosevelt in a wheelchair with a girl in February 1941. Source: FDR Presidential Library & Museum photograph by Margaret Suckley, available here.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was US President from 1933 to 1945 - the years of the Great Depression through to the end of World War 2. What is less well known is that he was paralyzed by illness in 1921 and did not have full use of his legs from that time. Here, Richard Bluttal explores the affect of paralysis on Roosevelt’s presidency.

Speaking at a Georgia rally in 1932 Franklin Delano Roosevelt addresses the crowd, as was his practice, from a standing position, holding onto a podium bolted to the floor. By inadvertence, this one, however, was not bolted and midway into his speech podium the presidential candidate pitched forward into the orchestra pit. The audience was spellbound as the candidate and podium were retrieved from the pit and set back upon the stage. Roosevelt finished his speech, taking up from the point at which he had stopped, without giving either comment or acknowledgement to his fall. At the conclusion he received a standing ovation.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt woke up on August 10, 1921, with plans to take his wife and three older children out for a sail in New Brunswick, Canada, he had no idea that it would be the last day he would have full use of his legs. Enjoying some vacation time after running for vice president under James Cox, FDR and his kids sailed the scenic waters near Campobello Island. Afterward, they had a swim in a nearby pond and then he raced the kids back to the cottage. But it was when they returned to the cottage that Roosevelt began to feel odd, feverish and more tired than usual. He decided to skip dinner and go right to bed. “And he never walked without help again,” says Biographer Geoffrey C. Ward. When he woke the next morning, he couldn’t move his left leg, and then his right leg gave way. “I tried to persuade myself that the trouble with my leg was muscular,” Roosevelt wrote later, “that it would disappear as I used it. But presently it refused to work. And then the other.” Two days later, he lost the use of all his muscles from the chest down. He also had a high fever and pain in his neck and back.

Paralysis

The life of Franklin Delano Roosevelt is an astonishment. In 1921, at the age of 39, he was struck by this attack of infantile paralysis which left him paralyzed below the waist for the rest of his life. In a time when the severely handicapped were seldom even seen in public, FDR resumed his political career. He was twice elected governor of New York and in 1932 he was elected president of the United Sates. No one else in the recorded history of mankind has been chosen as the leader of his people even though he could neither stand alone nor walk unassisted.

His leg muscles were graded as "poor" and "trace" -- and thus were unable to function in any useful manner. In order to stand upon his legs FDR had to don long-leg steel braces. The gluteus maximus muscles of his hips were similarly impaired. The muscles of his trunk were weak and as a result, in the early stages of his rehabilitation, he was forced to wear a corset and to struggle with a pelvic band attached to his braces.

Paralysis resulting from an attack of infantile paralysis, or poliomyelitis, is confined to the nerves that control the voluntary muscles. FDR had virtually normal function of his sensory and autonomic nervous system. This meant that his digestive tract, his bowels and bladder functioned normally, as did his sexual organs. The onset of the disease had a shattering impact upon the man and his expectations. Clearly both he and Eleanor, his wife and closest political adviser, believed that public knowledge of the extent of the disease, like family scandal, would endanger FDR's political future. The severity in nature of the attack was kept secret from all but the closest family members and at first the press was told only that Roosevelt had contracted a case of influenza.

As noted by author Hugh Gregory Gallagher, FDR tried everything that had been used in the past. He tried massage, salt-water baths, ultraviolet light, electric current, walking on braces with parallel bars at waist height, walking while hanging from parallel bars mounted above his head. He tried horseback riding strapped to the saddle; he tried an electric tricycle his mother had brought from Europe. He tried exercises in warm water and exercises in cold water. He tried various theories of muscle training: working with gravity, against gravity, with resistance and without. He tried osteopathy. Even the eminent doctor, Emile Coue, ("every day in every way I'm getting better and better,") was consulted on his behalf.

During his 12 years in the White House, Franklin D. Roosevelt was hardly ever photographed in a wheelchair. Not surprisingly, the longest-serving president in American history disliked drawing attention to his polio symptoms, he still led the country from a wheelchair. He was helped -- most often lifted bodily -- into or out of cars, tubs, chairs or beds. Journalist John Gunther reports it was a startling experience to see the president of the United States being carried up and down stairs "like a sack of potatoes," as his son James once described it.

Roosevelt stood up only for ceremonial occasions and only for as long as was absolutely necessary. He was able to stand only with the support of his braces and crutches. His braces caused him pain and he despised them roundly. He was able to "walk" only by the use of "hitching" the muscles on either side of his trunk. Leaning on his crutches, he would hike first one leg, swing it forward, transfer the weight of his body upon it and then, hiking up the other, he would swing it forward. This means of locomotion was a slow, lurching process. It was made worse by a drop foot which forced him to swing his foot around and forward in a wide arc so as to clear the ground.

Running for president

He never learned how to walk again but he learned, instead, how to get on with his life using what muscles he had left. He learned this at Warm Springs, Ga. At Warm Springs, he created what was in many ways the first modern rehabilitation center. Warm Springs was a reflection of Franklin Roosevelt's personality and philosophy, his enthusiasm and motivation. These were the same qualities Roosevelt later brought to the presidency. They were fully as effective in Washington as they had been in Georgia.

Though the public may not have been aware of the extent of his disability, most knew that his battle with polio left him with limited mobility. James Tobin, author of The Man He Became: How FDR Defied Polio to Win the Presidency, believes that Roosevelt’s disability may have helped him to be elected and given him more empathy for the common man. Tobin told NPR’s Dave Davies that FDR had “a kind of passion for people who are suffering that he couldn’t have had if he had not deeply suffered himself.”

Surprisingly, the subject of his inability to walk never became an issue during his campaign for president in 1932. FDR preferred not to speak of it, even to his family, as he did not want sympathy or pity—what he referred to as “sob stuff.” But the fact is FDR’s disability only strengthened his determination and resolve. He was perhaps a better president as a result of his condition, as it taught him perseverance and gave him a sense of compassion and acceptance for those less fortunate. “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people,” he said. “A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.”

Optimism

Roosevelt's fate could have been similar to that of many polio victims, except for his political ambition and his inherent optimism. Roosevelt understood very well the fate of a disabled person, not to speak of a disabled person with political ambitions. Physical disability was an automatic disqualification for public life, let alone for the highest political office. His chances lay in his ability to hide his disability. Yet, these very efforts reflected "a view of the disabled body as stigmatizing, shameful, and as a physical marker of weakness of intellect and character"

Roosevelt realized that when you were crippled — and that was the word that he would use — you have a tendency to make people uncomfortable. People don't know what to say, they don't know where to look, they don't know how to treat you, they don't know whether to feel pity for you, when pity is the last thing that you want. He had to persuade people to feel comfortable in his presence. The therapists and he began to work on his gait, to work on the way he would walk with the canes and crutches and assistance he would use. So his walk, although slow, began to look more and more natural. And he would seat himself, and he would throw up his head, he would begin to talk — he was always talking, actually — to put people at ease. And this whole physical routine that he developed of putting people at ease was enormously effective, and it made people forget that he was disabled.

In a speech in Rochester, N.Y., he was talking about the needs of disabled children in the state of New York and he mentions himself. He says, "I myself have been through this ordeal, and I am a symbol of what can happen when people with disabilities are strongly supported." And nobody had expected him to say this out loud; nobody had expected him to address this issue in this way, to turn the disability on its head and make it into this advantage. And so it had [an] electrifying effect on the audience. ... I think Roosevelt ... realized this was a strong part of his presence as a candidate, and it was something that actually appealed to people.

In the decades after his death, a narrative emerged about the extent of Roosevelt's deceptions to hide his condition from the American people. It's true that Roosevelt made every effort to appear as able-bodied as possible, only appearing in public through carefully orchestrated maneuvers that showed him "walking" a short distance. The press was discouraged from focusing on vulnerable moments, and for the most part, he was photographed either sitting down or speaking at a carefully fastened podium.

But the president's disability was never a secret. Prior to entering the White House, he had been profiled in major publications like Time and Liberty, which displayed his heavy leg braces and detailed the excruciating efforts he underwent to hoist himself around on unresponsive legs. The Liberty article, in particular, addressed the elephant in the room of whether a "cripple" was fit to be president, concluding that FDR was more physically sound than most men half his age. On a personal level, those close to Roosevelt felt that dealing with his disease made him a better leader. The younger FDR had been known to harbor arrogance along with his impressive intellect, but that version was replaced by a more grounded, empathetic person. "There had been a plowing up of his nature," noted his longtime labor secretary, Frances Perkins. "The man emerged completely warm-hearted, with new humility of spirit and a firmer understanding of philosophical concepts.”

Conclusion

Roosevelt embraced his status as a polio survivor and fully leveraged his position to help others who were similarly afflicted. He held the first of his "birthday balls" in 1934 to raise money for polio research, an endeavor that eventually became the March of Dimes and led to the discovery of a cure in the form of a vaccine developed by U.S. researcher Jonas Salk. By meeting his disease head-on, Roosevelt turned it into a non-issue when it came to doing his job while spearheading a way to stamp it out as a public menace.

FDR’s permanent association to a failing body serves as a reminder that in addition to steering America through the Great Depression and World War II, FDR managed to convince a public that his physical disability was no hindrance.

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

Now read Richard’s piece on the history of slavery in New York here.

Consider the Birds: When Bipartisanship Took Flight in the USA

A bipartisan bill that has lasted over 100 years was signed in 1918 in America. The bill was America’s earliest wildlife conservation life and has saved the lives of millions of birds. Will McLean Greeley, author a new book on the subject, explains the important role of Senator George P. McLean in its creation.

Will’s book is A Connecticut Yankee Goes to Washington, Senator George P. McLean, Birdman of the Senate. Available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Senator George P. McLean.

Imagine Democratic President Joe Biden at a White House bill signing ceremony handing the signatory pen to Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.  They then shake hands, celebrating a shared legislative accomplishment that would endure for over one hundred years.  That’s essentially what happened on July 3, 1918, when Democratic President Woodrow Wilson and Senator George P. McLean (R-CT) unveiled the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, America’s earliest and most important wildlife conservation law.   The MBTA, which is still in effect today, has saved millions if not billions of birds from senseless killing and likely prevented the extinction of entire bird species.

My new book A Connecticut Yankee Goes to Washington, Senator George P. McLean, Birdman of the Senate is about the struggle to lead societal change, exploring the intersection of culture and politics.  While the book offers fresh insights into a neglected milestone in conservation history, it also contains a rare and intriguing example of bipartisanship, that elusive ideal that polls show most Americans desire but whose leaders seem hopelessly unable to deliver.   What, if anything, can we learn about bipartisanship from the MBTA, when President Wilson and Connecticut Republican George P. McLean overcame their past enmity and found common ground to save the birds?

From Hunter to Conservationist

When Senator George P. McLean came to Washington in 1911 the protection of birds was his top priority.  A hunter in his youth, McLean renounced the sport as an adult because of declining bird populations and rising avian extinctions.  Conservation historians refer to the latter half of the nineteenth century as the “Age of Extermination,” when birds and other wildlife were on a fast track to eradication.  Early settlers of North America had viewed birds and other natural resources as limitless; but by around 1900, this illusion of abundance was replaced by the realities of scarcity and extinction.  What had gone wrong?  Following the Civil War, the nation’s population surged from 31 million people in 1860 to 72 million by 1900.  There were simply more mouths to feed, and opportunistic bird hunters eagerly met the need.   Adding to this rising demand was the insatiable desire for bird plumage to adorn women’s hats.  But it was advances in gun technology that supercharged bird mortality rates, namely the advent of the automatic shotgun around 1890.  The slaughter of birds went from hundreds of thousands each year to millions, then tens of millions, and higher.  There was no easy solution to stop or slow the killing.  States and localities were free to devise their own hunting laws and enforce them however they wished.

Senator McLean Finds an Unlikely Ally

This perilous situation for birds is the backdrop to Senator George P. McLean’s tenure in the US Senate from 1911-1929.  McLean’s first speech on the Senate floor was on the importance of protecting migratory birds.  Change starts small, usually by just a few visionary and courageous people.  Leaders of change must then create consensus and form broad-based coalitions.  McLean did this by holding highly publicized hearings on bird destruction.  He next enlisted the support of Audubon clubs and other conservation groups, business leaders like automaker like Henry Ford, newspapers, magazines, and even gun manufacturers, who had contributed to the problem but had an obvious stake in its solution.  Opposition to bird protection came from hunters, the millinery or hat industry (that employed 83,000 people in the early 1900s), and states-rights advocates.  This loose coalition opposing bird protection used a variety of tactics to delay or stop McLean’s bill.  Their opposition solidified after America entered the First World War in April 1917.  Opponents of bird protection argued with patriotic fervor that McLean’s unnecessary quest for bird protection should be delayed indefinitely.

Undeterred, McLean found a seemingly unlikely ally from across the aisle, President Woodrow Wilson.  Despite their past differences on many issues, McLean and Wilson were both political reformers.  Each claimed his place within the Progressive movement, a political and social-reform crusade that brought major changes to the US during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Progressives sought to remedy many of the social and political injustices of the Gilded Age, a time of rapid industrialization and immense wealth creation following the American Civil War.  While Wilson agreed to help McLean, he had a caveat: Wilson insisted that Democratic leaders in Congress take ownership of the bill, forcing McLean into the background.   McLean accepted his reduced role, calling to mind the political dictum expressed by President Harry Truman many years later: “It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don’t care who gets the credit.”

The Renewing Effect of Generational Change

Wilson and McLean collaborated effectively to pass the MBTA even though the nation was a full combatant in World War I, suffering through a global flu pandemic, and experiencing rising political, labor, and social unrest in response to an unpopular war.  Is such bipartisan collaboration possible today to address concerns like climate change, gun violence, and immigration policy?  While a quick-fix solution to create bipartisanship is unlikely, there is hope for the future.  It is important to remember that George P. McLean came of age as a young leader around 1900, part of a new generation of reformers like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.  These young reformers had to throw off the aging “Old Guard” political leaders of the Gilded Age, rooted in patronage and corruption.  In a similar fashion it may take a generational change to end today’s polarization and excessive partisanship.  Our aging political leaders are seemingly unwilling or unable to change.  Millennials and Generation Z, or those born after 1980, may emerge as a new progressive movement, emulating the Progressive Era leaders of the early 1900s.  Recent polling by both Gallup and CNN reveal that Millennials and Gen Zers tend to approach complex issues critically and creatively and are more likely to be centrist and less partisan than earlier generations.  We can only hope that future generations will look back at today’s dysfunctional political polarization with cringeworthy disbelief.  Much like we wonder why free cigarettes were distributed to soldiers during World War II and even included with ration kits.

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

Will’s book is A Connecticut Yankee Goes to Washington, Senator George P. McLean, Birdman of the Senate. Available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

RIT Cary Graphic Arts Press; March 2023

https://www.rit.edu/press/connecticut-yankee-goes-washington

The 1775 Battle for Quebec - The Importance of Benedict Arnold

In September 1775, a small handpicked group of men boarded a makeshift flotilla embarking from Cambridge, Massachusetts. Having successfully bypassed Royal Navy scout ships this ramshackle fleet made for the wild and desolate Coast of Maine. Their objective was to disembark and march through the thick North Woods to the Citadel of Quebec, which stood like a sentinel at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. Their intended route had never been taken which proved to have dire consequences as distances and conditions were critically misunderstood. Conducting such an operation took considerable skill, determination, and sheer force of will to which the leader of this expedition did in fact possess. His name was Benedict Arnold.

Brian Hughes explains.

A portrait of Benedict Arnold. By Thomas Hart.

Prelude

Following the initial outbreak of hostilities at Lexington and Concord an obscure Captain of Connecticut Militia arrived outside of Boston Massachusetts to join the coalescing colonial forces turning up in their masses to contest British rule. Benedict Arnold had been a successful sea-going merchant and Apothecary owner from the prosperous city of New Haven, Connecticut. It didn’t take long for Arnold to draw the conclusion that the Colonials found themselves in a difficult situation. Having successfully contained British forces within Boston, this ragtag Army of Patriots lacked the necessary artillery required to dislodge them. Arnold proposed capturing the guns from the dilapidated Fort Ticonderoga, located at the strategic nexus of Lake George and Lake Champlain. Arnold was granted a commission as a Colonel and would lead the enterprise in tandem (though begrudgingly) with the leader of the infamous Green Mountain Boys, Ethan Allen. The enterprise turned out to be successful, having secured more than enough weapons and materials for the besiegers who were then able to displace their foes.

Having now made a name for himself, Arnold displayed impressive military acumen by deducing that a major British counterattack was inevitable and measures would need to be taken in order to avert such a predicament. Traditionally, armies operating in the North American theater of war utilized the strategic Champlain-Hudson Corridor, a nearly continuous series of waterways from Quebec to New York City. With the absence of numerous roads this aquatic highway was the most efficient and logical method for transporting men and material throughout this vital region. Both the French and British armies made consistent use of these lakes and rivers throughout the French and Indian war as had various indigenous peoples for time immemorial. When the British returned, they would arrive in the north and attack from here.

Knowing full well that Quebec was to be the logical focal point of the British counterblow the now reinvigorated Patriot forces were in some haste to prevent this incursion from happening. Philip Schuyler, an influential New York Patroon and newly made Major General opted to lead a detachment from Fort Ticonderoga and capture Montreal. This plan would soon be dashed as Schuyler became immobilized by gout. Command then passed to General Richard Montgomery, a former British Army Officer and transplant to North America.

March

Benedict Arnold simultaneously proposed an additional invasion route. Arnold offered to lead a small column of men from Massachusetts to Maine (then still part of Massachusetts) and lead his file overland traversing multiple portages, to surprise and ultimately capture Quebec before the British could respond to the taking of Montreal. The route proposed by Arnold was untried, having been only partially scouted by military surveyors; the most noteworthy map had been drawn up by a British Military Engineer by the name of John Montressor in 1761. It proved to be hopelessly flawed however, misjudging distances and elevations to a considerable degree.

To this day Maine remains one of the most wild and remote states on the Atlantic Seaboard. Men would have to trek through dense forests, ford flooded rivers and treacherous currents, brave extreme temperatures, all while sustaining themselves on meager rations. All of this was compounded with the lateness of the season as the brutal northern winter approached abruptly. In early September Arnold assembled an ad hoc flotilla consisting of 1,100 men and proceeded to lead his vessels up the New England Coast successfully evading Royal Navy vessels in the process. The troops disembarked and began making their way up the Kennebec River but the various columns of troops quickly became separated.

The conditions were appalling. Men were constantly soaked between fording waterways and the relentless autumn rains. The Bateaux and watercraft utilized were not capable of handling the necessary logistical requirements, often floundering and breaking, losing vital provisions in the process. Arnold often traveled ahead of the main bodies of troops sending any essential supplies in which he could requisition from the inhabitants. Food became increasingly scarce. The men had to scrounge for whatever sustenance the country could offer, with some eventually succumbing to hunger while others consumed bits of leather from their shoes and clothing. With supreme endurance coupled with Arnolds exemplary leadership, this small force endured these tribulations to reach their destination in time to rendezvous with Montgomery. But their already small numbers had been significantly depleted, losing about half of their men in the process.

Attack

By now the Anglo-Canadians were aware of Montgomery’s successful capture of Montreal on the 13th November and were coming to realize their vulnerable situation as Arnolds men stormed out of the North Woods and stood defiantly across the river from the city. The British Commander and acting Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, Guy Carleton proved more than capable in dealing with the tenuousness of the situation. Mobilizing all the personnel he could muster, including several sailors aboard the few ships still in the St. Lawrence, the opposing forces would be roughly equal in size, a factor which benefited the defenders as the American troops possessed only scant siege material.

With Montgomery arriving with his body on the 2nd of December, Arnold proceeded to meet and confer with the Major General as they eventually drew up a plan of attack. With both commanders leading a contingent, Arnold and Montgomery intended to launch a two pronged assault on the upper and lower towns. Making use of whatever artillery and siege equipment they had in their possession, they would swiftly overrun the garrison whom they believed possessed low morale and defended decrepit posts. The Americans would be forced to act quickly as another factor to which they had to consider was the soon to expire enlistments of the various militia troops comprising the bulk of their already small force. It was imperative that the assault occur before the end of the year, when the commanders would be obliged to send these troops home.

On the 31st of December a blinding snowstorm took hold. The timing of such a blizzard served as yet another impediment to the American besiegers. With no other choice but to attack the assault was carried out as intended. Both Arnold and Montgomery characteristically led from the front braving a storm of bullets that seemed to be as numerous as the falling snowflakes. It was then that a fatal blow afflicted the Americans as General Montgomery urged his column ahead from the vanguard; he was instantly struck down by a cannon blast killing himself and several accompanying officers instantly. As confusion struck the attackers the next officer in charge wavered under the strain of combat and ordered a hasty withdrawal isolating Arnold’s troops to press on alone. While this was happening, Arnold was struck in the leg by a musket ball causing agonizing pain. Arnold tried his best to lead his men on but the wound was too much as he reluctantly withdrew to the rear urging his men on the entire time. Famed woodsmen and rifle corps leader Daniel Morgan then took command as he aggressively spearheaded a renewed assault leading his men and fighting ferociously. As the American assault made its way toward the agreed upon rallying point with Montgomery the disorientation of the weather and the resistance of the defenders became too much. As Morgan continued to push forward through the unfamiliar city a reformed British counterattack stopped the invaders in their tracks inflicting several casualties in the process with Morgan and hundreds of others being taken prisoner.

Aftermath

The attack had failed. The Anglo-Canadians continued their dogged resistance even as the Americans withdrew, maintaining a tenacious siege once again led by Arnold. But between the severity of the Canadian winter and their well supplied adversaries the Americans would eventually have to withdraw yet again this time to Montreal before reinforcements did eventually arrive months later and placated them from Quebec for good. Arnold's march through Maine remains one of the most impressive feats of daring fortitude in American history. Some would even refer to him as America’s Hannibal, after the Carthaginian General who boldly led his Army over the Alps to attack Rome. Although the Americans failed in their objective to take the City of Quebec, their stamina and perseverance foreshadowed that this conflict would not be resolved quickly after all.

What do you think of Benedict Arnold? Let us know below.

Now, if you enjoy the site and want to help us out a little, click here.

The Bud Dajo Massacre: An American War Crime in The Philippines?

If asked to name atrocities carried out by the United States military, responses would most likely focus on Wounded Knee or the My Lai Massacre. Few would have knowledge of US military presence in the Philippines during the early 20th century, and fewer still would have heard of the Bud Dajo Massacre. Felix Debieux explains.

Americans soldiers fighting with Moros during the Moro Rebellion.

Sometimes euphemistically referred to as a “Battle”, the Bud Dajo Massacre was a counter-insurgency operation perpetrated by the US Army in 1906 against Filipino Muslims - known as the Moros - who had sought refuge at Bud Dajo, a volcanic crater on the island of Jojo. Despite the appalling death toll – as high as 1,000 Moros by some estimates – the Bud Dajo Massacre does not feature prominently in histories of the US military, US imperialism, or in popular understandings of US power projected abroad. How has such a dark episode been forgotten? And what does it tell us about the place of war crimes in our collective memory? Before that however, it is worth explaining what the US military was doing in the Philippines to begin with.

US in the Philippines

The Bud Dajo Massacre is best understood as part of the Philippine-American War. This was a conflict which erupted in 1898 when the US, which refused to recognise the Philippines’ declaration of independence from Spanish colonial rule, annexed the fledgling republic at the conclusion of the Spanish-American War. For the Philippines, this represented the next phase in its struggle for independence. Having first contended with Spanish colonialism, it now had to deal with an American threat to its sovereignty. By 1901, President Emilio Aguinaldo was captured and the US declared the war officially over the following year. That, however, did not deter various Filipino factions from continuing the fight.

In areas of Mindanao, the Sulu Archipelago, Palawan and Sabah, the US government sought to undermine resistance to its rule by signing the Kiram-Bates Treaty with the Sultanate of Sulu. Once resistance began to weaken, however, the US decided to tear up the treaty and proceeded to colonise Moro lands. In addition to the loss of territory, the Moros also endured what they saw as pressure to convert from Islam to Christianity, something they were all too familiar with from the days of Spanish rule. Ultimately, this stoked what came to be known as the Moro Rebellion, which began with the Battle of Bayang in May 1902 and ended with the Battle of Bud Bagsak in June 1913. It is against this backdrop of colonial warfare that the Bud Dajo Massacre can be situated. The question, however, is how did the conflict become so bloody?

Stoking rebellion

The massacre occurred during the tail end of General Leonard Wood’s term as Governor of the Moro Province, a period of upheaval for the region’s inhabitants. Major reforms included the abolition of slavery and the imposition of the cedula, a form of poll tax. The latter was very unpopular with the Moros, and was regarded as a form of tribute payable to their colonial masters. These reforms were layered on top of a widespread resentment of foreign Christian occupation. Tensions predictably boiled over, with heavy fighting and a refusal to pay taxes. When efforts to pacify the insurgents failed, the Moros dared to believe that the Americans lacked the strength to keep them in line.

It is in this volatile context that a rumour began to circulate among the Moros. The Americans were conspiring to exterminate them. Fearing the worst, several hundred Moros, including women and children, decided to relocate to Bud Dajo, where legend described the presence of spirits who would aid the Moros in their hour of need. Even without its supernatural defences, Bud Dajo represented a sound tactical choice for those seeking refuge. Indeed, the extinct volcano was around 2,100 feet tall, guarded by steep jungle-covered slopes, and only accessible by three narrow paths. Its well-stocked provisions didn’t harm the Moro’s chances either. One disputed aspect of the retreat is whether the Moros remained actively hostile to US forces. For Major Hugh Scott, the District Governor of Sulu Province, the answer was clear. Those who fled to the volcano “declared they had no intention of fighting, ran up there only in fright, and had some crops planted and desired to cultivate them”. Whatever the true intentions of the Moros, the subsequent conduct of the US military is difficult to comprehend.

The massacre

After the break down of negotiations between friendly chiefs and Bud Dajo’s occupants, a military campaign was launched by General Wood on 5th March 1906 with the aim of ending the standoff. As artillery shelled the volcano, a combined force of US and Philippine Constabulary troops under the command Colonel Joseph W. Duncan began hacking their way up the dense jungle slopes. While the initial attack proved ineffective, by 7th March the Moros were suffering heavy casualties. They were nevertheless able to offer limited resistance. Indeed, as Duncan’s troops pushed closer to the summit of the volcano, they were ambushed by Moros who had feigned death. This, however, was not enough to stop the US from taking control of Bud Dajo on 8th March.

With the outer rim secured, US forces spent the night heaving mountain guns up to the edge of Bud Dajo. At first light the blood bath began. The guns, positioned carefully to allow a sweeping arc of bullets to be rained down on Moro defences, opened fire. What exactly happened next is difficult to determine. One account suggests that the defenders retaliated, using a mixture of kalis, barung and homemade grenades improvised from black powder and seashells. Another claims that all Moros fortified in the crater perished. Without dwelling on the inconsistencies, all accounts concur that few, if any, Moros survived. The corpses piled five deep, with many of the bodies wounded multiple times. Where twenty-one Americans lost their lives, Moro casualties ran as high as 1,000. This figure includes women and children.

The public reaction

Bud Dajo was by any measure the bloodiest engagement of the Moro Rebellion. The carnage was not lost on General Wood, who took the executive decision to censor all telegrams describing the casualties. Back home, US authorities commended Wood for what they considered a significant victory on the battlefield. His friend, President Theodore Roosevelt, sent him a congratulatory telegram. He also received approval for his results from William Howard Taft, the Secretary of War. When the truth finally made its way into the news however, the US Army found itself embroiled in a public relations disaster.

On 11th March 1906, the New York Times ran with the headline:

“WOMEN AND CHILDREN KILLED IN MORO BATTLE; Mingled with Warriors and Fell in Hail of Shot. FOUR DAYS OF FIGHTING Nine Hundred Persons Killed or Wounded—President Wires Congratulations to the Troops”.

Mark Twain also condemned the massacre. "In what way was it a battle? It has no resemblance to a battle ... We cleaned up our four days' work and made it complete by butchering these helpless people”. Such coverage fuelled public cynicism about the role of the US in both the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War. The protracted conflict with the Moros was not common knowledge, and many were appalled to learn of the killings.

Faced with public outrage, Taft demanded that Wood account for the "wanton slaughter" of women and children. Wood tried to explain away the deaths, claiming that the women of Bud Dajo had dressed as men and joined the fighting, and that the men had used the children as human shields. This clumsy account conflicted with a different explanation given by the Governor-General of the Philippines, Henry Clay Ide, who said that the women and children were simply collateral damage caught up in the artillery barrages. Naturally, the contradictory accounts only inflamed anger and led to accusations of a cover up. Angrier still were the Moros, who were outraged not just at the treatment of their people but also the desecration of a sacred site. Anti-American sentiment only gave rise to further Moro resistance, which took the form of another Bud Dajo Campaign in 1911 and the Battle of Bud Bagsak in June 1913.

Legacy

How is it that our collective memory leaves such little room for war crimes? We could venture that growing nationalist sentiment, apparent today the world over, leaves us too proud to reckon with the darkest aspects of our past. Perhaps a shared sense of shame or guilt also plays a part? We could also point to attempts by the perpetrators of war crimes to control the story. History, after all, is written by the victors. Understanding this is key – not only because conflict rages today across the Ukraine, but also because we have a duty to seek justice for those who have been wronged. Where My Lai and Wounded Knee have become emblematic of US atrocities committed during the Indian Wars and Vietnam War, Bud Dajo has been largely forgotten. This is remarkable, since the death toll arguably makes Bud Dajo the biggest massacre in US military history. Indeed, ninety-nine percent of Moros were killed, a greater percentage than other incidents remembered for their cruelty.

One belligerent of the conflict which has not forgotten the massacre is the Philippines. In fact, the Bud Daju Massacre has been a feature of its more recent relations with the US. Back in 2016, President Duterte used the incident to criticise President Obama, resulting in the cancellation of a formal meeting. Even though Duterte apologised the next day, he referred to the incident again while calling for the exit of US soldiers from Mindanao. In a more extreme example, Duterte held aloft photographs of the brutalized corpses during a speech at the 2016 Metrobank Foundation. It is also worth highlighting the efforts of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), a Muslim separatist movement based in the southern Philippines. In 2015, the MNLF published an open letter to President Obama demanding to know why the US was supporting Filipino colonialism against the Moro Muslim people, the Filipino "war of genocide", and atrocities against the Moros. The letter reminds the world that the Moros have long resisted atrocities perpetrated by Filipino, Japanese, American, and Spanish invaders. While the massacre may not be widely acknowledged in the US, it is clear that for at least some Filipinos the pursuit of justice remains unresolved.

What do you think of America and the Bud Dajo Massacre? Let us know below.

Now read Felix’s article on Henry Ford’s calamitous utopia in Brazil: Fordlandia Here.

References

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/events/the-bud-dajo-massacre-and-the-savage-way-of-war

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/moro-insurgents-1906/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Bud_Dajo

http://mnlfnet.com/Articles/Editorial_03Mar2015_Memorandum%20to%20Pres%20Barrack%20Obama.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20171110224826/http://philippinesnewsonline.com/index.php/show/news/43/Politics/september-05-2016/President-Duterte-reminds-us-of-1906-Bud-Dajo-massacre-by-the-US-troops

http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/09/12/16/duterte-us-forces-in-mindanao-must-go

The Sinking of the Titanic - Final Hours on the Ship

The tragic sinking of the Titanic is surely one of the most infamous naval stories. The ship, the largest afloat at the time, sank in the icy waters of the North Atlantic on April 15, 1912. To this day it remains the most deadly peacetimes inking of such an ocean liner. Richard Bluttal explains.

The Titanic leaving Belfast, Northern Ireland. Here the ship was guided by tugs as part of sea trials.

1:45 AM- April 15, 1912 Atlantic Ocean

Number 2, an emergency cutter, is launched under the command of Fourth Officer Boxhall. Aboard are some twenty people.

Number 11 is lowered with some 50 people aboard.

Number 4 is readied for launch. Madeleine Astor, some five months pregnant, is helped onto the boat by her husband, John Jacob Astor. When Astor asks if he may join her, Second Officer Lightoller—who has strictly followed the order of women and children first—refuses. Astor does not press the issue and steps away. His body will later be recovered.

The Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 required the largest-class ships, those weighing over 10,000 tons, to carry at least sixteen lifeboats. Even though the Titanic, which launched in 1911, weighed 45,000 tons, that minimum was the same. The Titanic carried twenty lifeboats, giving it enough capacity for roughly half of the people on board the night the ship sank. The prevailing thinking at that time was that the ship itself would serve as a gigantic lifeboat. Nearly everyone believed that even a heavily damaged vessel would remain afloat for many hours before sinking. That would allow plenty of time for the lifeboats to go back and forth several times, ferrying passengers to nearby ships. 

On April 10, 1912, the Titanic set sail on its maiden voyage, traveling from Southampton, England, to New York City. Nicknamed the “Millionaire’s Special,” the ship was fittingly captained by Edward J. Smith, who was known as the “Millionaire’s Captain” because of his popularity with wealthy passengers. Indeed, onboard were a number of prominent people, including American businessman Benjamin Guggenheim, British journalist William Thomas Stead, and Macy’s department store co-owner Isidor Straus and his wife, Ida. In addition, Ismay and Andrews were also traveling on the Titanic.  Unsinkable, that is what most people thought. The actual title of “unsinkable” was bestowed on her by the press on both sides of the Atlantic, so impressed were they at the emphasis on safety evident in her design. Titanic was in fact built to the highest safety standards of her day. Every known possibility was considered, and that was just the problem. Titanic was well-protected against any of those possibilities (collisions and groundings, primarily), but no one ever thought that a huge liner might suffer fatal damage colliding with an object that was not a ship way out at sea where no rescue ships were nearby.

Iceberg

Titanic struck a North Atlantic iceberg at 11:40 PM in the evening of 14 April 1912 at a speed of 20.5 knots (23.6 MPH). The berg scraped along the starboard or right side of the hull below the waterline, slicing open the hull between five of the adjacent watertight compartments. If only one or two of the compartments had been opened, Titanic might have stayed afloat, but when so many were sliced open, the watertight integrity of the entire forward section of the hull was fatally breached. Titanic slipped below the waves at 2:20 AM on 15 April.

Thomas Andrews, the ship's designer, happened to be on board that night and was able to observe the rate at which the forward compartments were filling with water. Being intimately familiar with Titanic's design, he knew that she could not float with five watertight compartments breached, and so all he had to do was figure out roughly how long it would take for the fifth compartment to fill, because water would then spill over into the sixth, and so on.

His exact words to Captain Smith were "She's going to founder. It's a mathematical certainty. We have perhaps two hours. Not more."

The story of the Titanic tragedy is one of many questions but not necessarily answers that satisfy the facts we know. William Hazelgrove has taken what we know and added a new and important context: wireless radio, in his book One Hundred and Sixty Minutes The Race to save the RMS Titanic, the time It took from the collision with an iceberg to the final sinking of the Titanic. I will be examining the final 30 minutes and thanks to Mr. Hazelgrove be including portions of his amazing book.

This is what we know for the first 130 minutes of the collision.

• 11:40 PM
  The starboard side of the Titanic scrapes along the iceberg.
  Captain Smith arrives on deck and is told that the ship has struck an iceberg. Shortly thereafter he is informed that the mail room is filling with water. Other reports soon come in of water in at least five of the ship's compartments.
  Designer Thomas Andrews surveys the damage. The Titanic was built to remain afloat with only four compartments flooded. Andrews predicts that the ship has only about one to two hours before sinking.

April 15, 1912

• 12:00 AM
  The lifeboats begin to be readied for launch. An order is later given for women and children to board first, with crewmen to row and guide the boats.

• 12:15 AM
  Captain Smith orders Phillips and Harold Bride to send out a distress signal. The Frankfurt is among the first to respond, but the liner is some 170 nautical miles (315 km) away, to the south. Other ships also offer assistance—including the Titanic's sister ship the Olympic—but are too far away.

• 12:20 AM
  The Carpathia receives a distress signal from the Titanic: “Come at once. We have struck a berg. It's a CQD, old man.” The Cunard liner immediately changes course to aid the stricken ship some 58 nautical miles (107 km) away. It will take the Carpathia more than three hours to arrive.
  Passengers waiting to enter lifeboats are entertained by the Titanic's musicians, who initially play in the first-class lounge before eventually moving to the ship's deck. Sources will differ on how long they perform—until shortly before the ship sinks, according to some.

• 12:45 AM
  Number 7 on the starboard side is the first lifeboat lowered. It carries some 27 people even though it has room for 65. Many of the first lifeboats will be launched well below capacity, partially because of the crewmen's worry that the davits would be unable to hold a fully loaded lifeboat. In addition. The Titanic fires the first of eight distress rockets. A ship has been sighted less than 10 nautical miles (18.5 km) away, but the crew is unable to contact it through telegraph or Morse lamp. The rockets also prove unsuccessful.
  Crewmen aboard the Californian see the rockets but fail to determine their source.

• 12:55 AM
  Number 5 is the second lifeboat to leave the Titanic. As it is being lowered, two male passengers jump into the boat, injuring one of the female occupants.
  Number 6 is launched, containing passenger Molly Brown and lookout Fleet. The lifeboat is commanded by Quartermaster Robert Hichens, who was at the wheel when the Titanic struck the iceberg.

• 1:00 AM
  Number 3 is lowered. It carries approximately 39 people, 12 of whom are part of the ship's crew.
  Water is seen at the base (E deck) of the Grand Staircase.
  Number 1 is launched with only 12 people; it can hold 40.

• 1:10 AM
  Number 8 is among the first lifeboats lowered on the port side. It is launched with only 28 people, including first-class passenger Lucy Noël Martha, countess of Rothes, who will later man the tiller. Isidor and Ida Straus are offered seats in the boat

• 1:20 AM
  Number 10 is launched. Among the occupants is nine-week-old Millvina Dean, who will become the last living survivor of the disaster; she will die in 2009 at the age of 97.
  Number 9 on the stern starboard side is lowered. With some 56 people on board, it was nearly full. One of the occupants is American businessman Benjamin Guggenheim's alleged mistress.

• 1:25 AM
  Possibly not understanding the direness of the situation, the Olympic radios: “Are you steering southerly to meet us?” The Titanic responds: “We are putting the women off in the boats.” While still hours away, the Olympic will be informed by the Carpathia of the Titanic's sinking.
  Number 12 is lowered with about half of its seats empty. However, it will eventually carry more than 70 people.

• 1:30 AM
  Amid the growing panic, several male passengers try to board number 14, causing Fifth Officer Harold Lowe to fire his gun three times. He is later placed in command of the boat. After the sinking of the Titanic, Lowe will transfer people into lifeboats 4, 10, 12, and collapsible D so he can return to look for survivors in the water. Phillips continues to send out distress calls with growing desperation: “Women and children in boats. Cannot last much longer.”
  Number 13 is launched and is soon followed by number 15, which holds many third-class passengers. As it is being lowered, number 15 nearly lands on number 13, which has drifted under it. However, the crewmen in number 13 are able to cut the launch ropes and row to safety.

• 1:35 AM
  Number 16 is launched.

• 1:40 AM
  Collapsible C is lowered. Among its occupants is White Star chairman J. Bruce Ismay. Although he will later claim that no women or children were in the area when he boarded the lifeboat, others will refute that assertion. His not to go down with the ship will result in many branding him a coward.

FINAL 30 MINUTES 1:50AM

On Sunday night, wireless operator Joseph Cannon was Listening to the news from Cape Race to put into Monday’s onboard newspaper on the Russian East Asiatic Company vessel Birma. Cannon was twenty-four and had just married before taking his position as junior wireless officer on the 4,859-ton Birma. The static filled his headphones and then cleared. “CQD-SOS from MGY. We have struck an iceberg sinking fast come to our assistance. Position Lat 41 46 N. Cannon wrote down the message, recording the corrected position the Titanic was sending out. He didn’t know the call letters of the ship but woke up Ward, who immediately sent back. “MGY, what is the matter with you? SBA.” 2 Phillips tapped back. “Ok. We have struck iceberg and sinking, please tell captain to come. Joseph Cannon read the words, not believing what he saw. “MGY is the new White Star Liner Titanic—Titanic-OM DFT.”6 The ship started to vibrate beneath the two men, and they understood then they were going to attempt to rescue the largest ship in the world.

What Jack Phillips and Harold Bride didn’t know as they tapped out the last wisps of electric current with the water rising all around them and the wireless room inverting like a rocket about to be launched was that the Parisian was only fifty miles away, but her wireless operator, Donald Sutherland, had gone to bed after spending all day trying to get assistance for the steamer Deutschland, which was disabled. Captain Haines had ordered Sutherland to bed at 10 p.m. The two wireless operators didn’t know the closest ship was the Californian with its sleeping Captain Lord and two officers on the bridge watching the Titanic sink. They didn’t know the Mount Temple was nosing around the far side of the ice field with crew and passengers watching the Titanic blast off her rockets while her captain refused to enter the ice.

FINAL 20 MINUTES 2 AM

On the Californian, the closest ship to the Titanic, Captain Lord was stretched out in the chart room with his arms crossed. There was no way that Captain Lord was going to take his ship into the ice.

The only lifeboats that remain on the Titanic are three of the collapsible boats. The Titanic's bow has sunk low enough that the stern's propellers are now clearly visible above the water.

Crewmen lower collapsible lifeboat D from the roof of the officers' quarters. More than 20 people are in the boat.

As the Titanic's bow goes under, collapsible A is washed from the deck. Some 20 people managed to get into the boat, which is partly filled with water. By the time Lowe in number 14 comes to their aid, only 12 are alive. Three bodies are left in the boat, which will be discovered a month later by the Oceanic.

As crewmen try to release collapsible B, it falls, and, before it can be righted, it is swept off the Titanic. Some 30 men find safety on the still-overturned lifeboat, including wireless operator Bride and Second Officer Lightoller. The men will later be taken aboard numbers 4 and 12.

Captain Smith releases the crew, saying that “it's every man for himself.” Smith is reportedly last seen on the bridge. His body will never be recovered.

FINAL 10 MINUTES 2:10AM

Between 2:10 and 2:15 Bride had gone one final inspection of the ship to access his and Phillips chances of finding a lifeboat. Water was seeping in the wireless room with Phillips still working and his ankles were covered with the water. Phillips continued squeezing every bit of electricity out of his wireless set.

Third class passengers were like ants rising as far as they could go topside. “the crystal chandeliers of the a la carte restaurant hung at a crazy angle, but they still burned brightly, lighting the fawn panels of French walnut and the rose-coverewd carpet. Now the only real music heard was that of the smashing dishes and tables sliding across room.”

Bride draped his life jacket over his friend’s shoulders. Both men dashed out of the wireless room. They found the lasts collapsible boat (B) on the boat deck. Bride would tell a reporter later that “Phllips ran aft, and that was the last time I saw him alive.” A large wave came off the deck and carried Bride into the boat which was upside down when it hit the water, if he was to stay alive in the this upside boat he had to halt his breathing for he was under water.

FINAL TWO MINUTES

The lights on the Titanic go out, plunging the ship into darkness.

As the Titanic's bow continues to sink, the stern rises higher out of the water, placing great strain on the midsection, and the ship breaks in two between the third and fourth funnels. Reports would later speculate that it took some six minutes for the bow section, likely traveling at approximately 30 miles (48 km) per hour, to reach the ocean bottom.
The stern momentarily settles back in the water before rising again, eventually becoming vertical. It briefly remains in that position before beginning its final plunge.

The oarsmen lay on their oars and all in the lifeboat were motionless…. And then as we gazed awe struck, she tilted up slowly, revolving apparently about a center of gravity just astern of the midships, until she attained a vertically upright position, and there she remained—motionless! As she swung up, her lights, which had shone without a flicker all night, went out suddenly, came on again with a single flash, then went out altogether. And as they did so, there came a noise… partly a roar, partly a groan, partly a rattle, and partly a smash…. It went on successively for some seconds, possibly fifteen to twenty, as the heavy machinery dropped down to the bows of the ship.

The stern disappears into the ocean, and the Titanic is gone.

Water pressure allegedly causes the stern, which still has air inside, to implode as it sinks. The stern lands some 2,000 feet (610 meters) from the bow.

Hundreds of people are in the freezing water. Although there is room in most of the lifeboats, crewmen are fearful that the boats will be swamped. Several boats eventually return, but too late. A few people are pulled to safety, but most die of exposure.
Over the next several hours, numerous ships try in vain to contact the Titanic. At one point, the Birma's wireless operator, believing that he has heard the liner, sends a message: “Steaming full speed to you; shall arrive you 6 in morning. Hope you are safe.”

Titanic sank with over 1,500 passengers and crew still on board. Almost all of those who jumped or fell into the sea drowned or died within minutes due to the effects of cold shock and incapacitation. RMS Carpathia arrived about an hour and a half after the sinking and rescued all of the 710 survivors by 09:15 on 15 April, some nine and a half hours after the collision. The disaster shocked the world and caused widespread outrage over the lack of lifeboats, lax regulations, and the unequal treatment of third-class passengers during the evacuation. Subsequent inquiries recommended sweeping changes to maritime regulations, leading to the establishment in 1914 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea.

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

Now read Richard’s piece on the history of slavery in New York here.

Japanese Anti-Submarine Warfare in World War 2: A Little Bit of Technology, a Little Bit of Luck

The U.S. submarine campaign in the Pacific during World War II is well known. However, less is known about the Japanese anti-submarine force that faced the U.S. submarines during the war. Daniel Boustead tells us about the Japanese campaign here.

U.S. submarine ace Richard H. O’Kane (right) being awarded the Medal of Honor by US President Harry S. Truman (left) in March 1946.

During World War II, the Japanese had important wins against the Allies. These wins were attributable to some well-developed technology, weapons, and tactics. The Japanese were also helped along  by several American blunders. The Japanese anti-submarine force was more effective than previously thought.

The Imperial Japanese Navy’s anti-submarine forces killed or captured two out three of the top three American Submarine Aces during World War II. The Japanese patrol craft  P-34 captured top American submarine ace Richard H. O’Kane between October 24th and  October 25th, 1944, when O’Kane’s sub-USS Tang was sunk by a circular run of its own torpedoes(1). O’Kane was the top U.S. Sub Ace with 27 ships sunk(11).  He would end up at the Ofuna P.O.W. Camp and the Omori P.O.W. camp in Japan for the rest of the war(12).

The Japanese also killed Number 3 American Sub Ace Dudley “Mush” Morton on October 11th, 1943 after Japanese airplanes sunk Morton’s Sub U.S.S. Wahoo. A total of over 60 depth charges and 40  bombs were expended against the sub at the  Le Perouse Strait(13). Dudley “Mush” Morton had sunk 19 Japanese Ships(14).

The Japanese anti-submarine campaign was beginning to have  a negative effect on the American submarine crewmen’s morale. For example, U.S.S. Harder Exec Tim Lynch said of his skipper Sam Dealey “Sam was showing unmistakable signs, of strain,”, (15). Lynch continued,  “He was becoming quite casual about Japanese anti-submarine measures. “Once, on the previous patrol, I found Sam in a sort of state of mild shock, unable to make a decision” (15).

Technology and tactics

By contrast the Allies  were only able to capture or kill  one out of three  of Nazi’s Germany Top U-Boat Aces during World War II. The British captured Otto Kretschmer on March 17th, 1941, after the British Destroyer HMS Walker brought Kretschmer’s boat U-99 to the surface after a long depth charge attack(2). Kretschmer was the Third Reich Top Scoring Ace with 47 ships sunk. He sent 274,418 tons of shipping to the bottom(3).

A total of 52 out of 288 U.S. subs that were commissioned were lost by the end of war. By September 2nd, 1945, the  loss rate was 18.06%(17). The Japanese sunk 41 out of 52 lost U.S. subs while they were on war patrol or due to enemy action. The other 11 were lost by various other causes.

The Japanese success can be attributed to technology and tactics. First, Japan’s radio direction finder network was very well developed(18). The Japanese were able to intercept almost all U.S. radio transmissions, except for very low or very high frequency calls. Thus, the Japanese could fix the position of a submarine transmitting on the surface within an area of about 100 square miles. This provided a means of keeping tabs on the U.S. subs in various areas, the number on patrol, and the general distribution in the Pacific. Japanese underwater listening gear was also excellent and echo ranging destroyers were always a threat to U.S. Subs. In the fall of 1943, the Japanese High Command organized the Grand Escort Fleet, along with an air escort squadron specifically designed to protect convoys against submarines.

By 1944, the Japanese radio detection system was growing more effective each month. Japanese Radio detection system was so successful it could intercept communications between subs in an American wolf pack. In addition, Japanese anti-submarine forces  were now equipped with electronic devices that could sense U.S. radar beams coming their way and could therefore detect American boats in the vicinity. The effect of Japanese electronic devices forced O’ Kane to keep his radar searches to a minimum and then only in short bursts(16). This development compromised O ‘Kane’s stealth.

Lastly, by early 1944, the Japanese had depth charges with an explosive charge of 1,000 lbs.  These weapons  could be set to explode at depth exceeding 600 feet (17). In 1944, they  were using new airborne radar in their night searches of U.S. subs. U.S. Subs were often subjected to night attacks by the Japanese while they recharged their batteries on the surface. Japanese planes carried standard bombs that were modified for use as an anti-submarine warfare weapon. Small planes were loaded with 150-pound bombs and larger aircraft dropped 625- pound bombs. The bombs were equipped with delayed-action fuses , which were set to explode at predetermined depth (16).

By 1944, the Japanese also began to organize anti-submarine air squadrons. The Japanese  around the same time , were putting up extensive anti-submarine minefields. These were planted in the hundreds in many areas where a U.S. submarine would be operating. The Japanese mined these areas all the time. This made it very difficult for the Americans to locate the mines. During much of the war many submarines were lost trying to locate Japanese minefields. By losing a submarine, it was the only reliable way for them to locate a Japanese minefield (16).

American mistakes

Beyond the technology and tactics, the Japanese campaign was helped along by two important American mistakes. First, the Bureau of Ordnance made a fatal mistake right before the war. They did not test fire the Mark VI magnetic exploder, which was used on the warhead section of Mark XIV steam driven torpedo (4).The decision was made out of secrecy and as a cost cutting measure. The Bureau of Ordnance claimed that their Mark VI magnetic exploder would only need one to shot to work. In actuality, U.S. submarines would fire six shots directly at the target, and it would still not work. Instead, torpedoes, weighted down by the magnetic exploder would either run too deep, explode prematurely (because of the intense magnetic field of the target), or fail to explode if they reached the target. The magnetic exploder was at fault for the first two short comings, while faulty contact exploder pins were responsible for the last problem. Consequently, American submarines would pursue daring attacks, only to see their torpedo wakes bubble under a target or prematurely detonate, giving away their position (5). This problem was so bad that not until October 1943, over 21 months after the start of hostilities, could American submariners put to sea and know that their torpedoes would actually work (6).

Even after this point,  there was still cases where there  were fatal torpedo faults that would cost lives. American submarine torpedoes would sadly sometimes do a dreaded a circular run where they would turn back and hit their submarine instead of hitting the target. This was fatally demonstrated between October 24th and October 25th 1944 , when a circular of run of torpedoes sunk U.S.S. Tang commanded by top U.S submarine ace O’Kane (7). This incident was exploited by the Japanese Anti-Submarine forces who picked up O’Kane and his crew (8). According to what he told his Japanese captors, the Destroyer U.S.S. Pruitt and his first Submarine the U.S.S. Argonaut were equipped with equipment to prevent circular runs (9). However early in the war,  for unknown reasons, the Bureau of Ordnance  had done away with anti-circular run devices aboard American Submarines and American  Destroyers. It was during O’Kane’s interrogation with his Japanese captors, that he stated his sub U.S.S. Tang was not the first victim of this fatal design flaw. Had the torpedoes been functioning properly the U.S. submarine force would have sunk more Japanese ships.

The second major mistake for the Americans occurred when an intelligence leak seriously compromised the secrecy of the U.S. submarine force. Congressmen Andrew Jackson May, a 68-year-old member of the House Military Affairs Committee, returned from a junket to the Pacific in the summer of 1943 and held a press conference (10). In that press conference, “He pointed out that the  Japanese claims of sinking U.S. subs were overstated, because their depth charges were set to go off too shallow. U.S. subs could avoid them by diving deep, perhaps deeper than the Japanese thought them capable” (10). The newspaper reports of this catastrophic blunder reached Japan and its Navy reset their depth charges accordingly. The Commander of U.S. sub forces Charles A. Lockwood was enraged by this congressional leak. Privately, Admiral Lockwood blamed Congressmen May’s bombast for the loss of U.S. submarines and lives (10). An incensed Lockwood wrote to a colleague: “I heard Congressmen May say the depth charges are not set deep enough. He would be pleased to know (they) set them deeper now.” (10) Later Lockwood wrote, “I consider that indiscretion cost us ten submarines and 800 officers and men”(10). How deeply a U.S. Submarine could dive was a closely held secret prior to this incident.

Conclusion

The Japanese anti-submarine campaign had important successes owing to strong radio direction technology. They were also assisted by great weapons, tactics, and other technologies. However, they were significantly aided by U.S foibles. Ultimately, the end of the war was brought about with the atomic bomb attacks and the Soviet Intervention in the Pacific War. The Japanese surrender cannot be attributed to the American submarine campaign.

What do you think of Japanese anti-submarine warfare in World War 2? Let us know below.

Now, you can read World War II history from Daniel: “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here, “Japanese attacks on the USA in World War II” here, and “Was the Italian Military in World War 2 Really that Bad?” here.

Bibliography

Gruner, William P. U.S. Pacific Submarines in World War II. San Francisco Maritime National Park Association-2010. https://archive.hnsa.org/doc/sbinpacific.htm.

Holwitt, Joel Ira. “Execute Against Japan”: The U.S. Decision to Conduct Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. College Station: Texas. Texas A& M University Press-William-Ford Military History Series. 2009.

Keith, Don. Undersea Warrior: The World War II Story of “Mush” Morton and the USS Wahoo. United States of America. Caliber Press. 2011.

Paterson, Lawrence. Otto Kretschmer: The Life of the Third Reich’s Highest Scoring U-Boat Commander. Annapolis: Maryland. Naval Institute Press.  2018.

Tuohy, William. The Bravest Man: Richard O’Kane and the Amazing Submarine Adventures of the USS Tang. New York: New York. Presidio Press. 2006.

References

1 Tuohy, William. The Bravest Man: Richard O’Kane and the Amazing Submarine Adventures of the USS Tang. New York: New York. Presidio Press. 2006. 315-318 and  334.

2 Paterson, Lawrence. Otto Kretschmer: The Life of the Third Reich’s Highest Scoring U-Boat Commander. Annapolis: Maryland. Naval Institute Press.  2018. 194-204.

3 Paterson, Lawrence. Otto Kretschmer: The Life of the Third Reich’s Highest Scoring U-Boat Commander. Annapolis: Maryland. Naval Institute Press.  2018. 257.

4 Holwitt, Joel Ira. “Execute Against Japan”: The U.S. Decision to Conduct Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. College Station: Texas. Texas A& M University Press-William-Ford Military History Series. 2009. 162.

5 Holwitt, Joel Ira. “Execute Against Japan”: The U.S. Decision to Conduct Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. College Station: Texas. Texas A& M University Press-William-Ford Military History Series. 2009. 162-163.

6 Holwitt, Joel Ira. “Execute Against Japan”: The U.S. Decision to Conduct Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. College Station: Texas. Texas A& M University Press-William-Ford Military History Series. 2009. 163.

7 Tuohy, William. The Bravest Man: Richard O’Kane and the Amazing Submarine Adventures of the USS Tang. New York: New York. Presidio Press. 2006. 315-318.

8 Tuohy, William. The Bravest Man: Richard O’Kane and the Amazing Submarine Adventures of the USS Tang. New York: New York. Presidio Press. 2006. 334.

9 Tuohy, William. The Bravest Man: Richard O’Kane and the Amazing Submarine Adventures of the USS Tang. New York: New York. Presidio Press. 2006. 338.

10 Tuohy, William. The Bravest Man: Richard O’Kane and the Amazing Submarine Adventures of the USS Tang. New York: New York. Presidio Press. 2006. 164-165.

11 Tuohy, William. The Bravest Man: Richard O’Kane and the Amazing Submarine Adventures of the USS Tang. New York: New York. Presidio Press. 2006. 393

12 Tuohy, William. The Bravest Man: Richard O’Kane and the Amazing Submarine Adventures of the USS Tang. New York: New York. Presidio Press. 2006. 354 and 389.

13 Keith, Don. Undersea Warrior: The World War II Story of “Mush” Morton and the USS Wahoo. United States of America. Caliber Press. 2011. 263-268

14 Keith, Don. Undersea Warrior: The World War II Story of “Mush” Morton and the USS Wahoo. United States of America. Caliber Press. 2011. 312.

15 Tuohy, William. The Bravest Man: Richard O’Kane and the Amazing Submarine Adventures of the USS Tang. New York: New York. Presidio Press. 2006. 299

16 Tuohy, William. The Bravest Man: Richard O’Kane and the Amazing Submarine Adventures of the USS Tang. New York: New York. Presidio Press. 2006. 243-244.

17 Gruner, William P. U.S. Pacific Submarines in World War II. San Francisco Maritime National Park Association-2010. https://archive.hnsa.org/doc/sbinpacific.htm.

18 Tuohy, William. The Bravest Man: Richard O’Kane and the Amazing Submarine Adventures of the USS Tang. New York: New York. Presidio Press. 2006. 163-164.

Piracy and the Atlantic Slave Trade

Pirates have played a key role on the seas for many centuries; however, many of their impacts are less known and less romantic than is portrayed in many films. Here, Martin Mumper considers some unexpected aspects of the role of piracy in the Atlantic slave trade.

Captain Henry Morgan, circa 1680.

ew words in history conjure such an iconic image as the word “pirate.”  Pirates, particularly the pirates of the “Golden Age,” capture our imagination and exemplify our ideals of freedom.  As a perfect example of this cultural popularity, a CNBC article published in 2021 has the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise as number thirteen on its list of the highest-grossing film franchises, having generated $4.5 billion since the debut of the first movie in 2003.(1)  Thanks to these popular movies, shows like Black Sails (Starz) and The Lost Pirate Kingdom (Netflix), and books like Treasure Island, our image of pirates and their way of life is not always accurate.  In the defense of The Lost Pirate Kingdom it is at least presented as more of a dramatic documentary, covering the true events of the “Golden Age of Piracy.”  Regardless of the source, names like Edward “Blackbeard” Teach (or Thatch), Sam Bellamy, and Benjamin Hornigold are well known in popular culture, as is their so called “republic” (a misnomer that I will cover in another article).  But there is a connection that often goes less noted: piracy and the slave trade.

Slavery emerges

First, let’s set the foundation.  The “discovery” of the New World opened land for European colonization and exploitation. This notion was not long in coming; Columbus introduced sugarcane during his second voyage to the New World.  It grew well in the climate of the Caribbean and sugar was a highly prized commodity in Europe.  The issue was not in the growing, but in finding the labor to work the plantations. Indigenous Caribbeans like the Taino, Arawak, and Caquetio peoples were quick to succumb in the face of European diseases.  Indentured servants, though readily available, had difficulty adapting to the Caribbean climate.  Some even attempted using indigenous peoples from New England following the Pequot and King Phillip’s wars.(2) Luckily for planters (not so much for the millions affected by the subsequent practice) there was a ready made solution already being practiced.  Sugarcane was already being grown and processed in Madeira, the Azores, and the Canary Islands, having been introduced by Arabs and adopted by the Portuguese.  During the 1440s the Portuguese had taken over the capturing, then buying, of slaves from African traders on the west coast.  These enslaved people were already accustomed to the climate found in the Caribbean, has some natural immunity or resistance to equatorial diseases, and were not Christians.(3)  Voila, the Atlantic slave trade is born.

I will not beat the dead horse of pirate formation too much, as other authors and articles have covered that topic.  Pirate crews were a motely bunch, and incidentally a remarkable instance of cultural melding.  Escaped slaves and unemployed Europeans from all social strata found themselves serving on crews equally.  Slavery then became a particularly profitable enterprise for pirates.  Slave ships were loaded with money and those looking to escape their current situation.  This included the crews of slave ships. Disease, poor hygiene, bad food, and tough discipline were norms aboard slave vessels.  Slaves and sailors alike often leaped at the opportunity for the democratic freedom offered by piracy.  As the development of plantations in the Caribbean progressed English sugar planters became the richest members of British society, building immense wealth off the backs of slave labor.  The slave trade quickly became a particular target for pirates.

Slaves who became pirates

Due to pirate crews’ inclusive nature, there are several documented instances of formerly enslaved people serving on board pirate vessels.  Blackbeard had five Black men serving in his crew at the time of his death in 1718.  According to “Captain” Charles F.L. Johnson these men were tried and hung with the rest of Blackbeard’s crew in Virginia.(4)  In 1722 pirate Bartholomew Roberts was killed in a battle with the HMS Swallow.  Approximately 250 men were captured by the victorious Royal Navy, including 75 formerly enslaved men.  Captains were even willing to believe slaves over their masters in some instances.  Captain Henry Morgan, upon capturing the city of Maracaibo in 1669, interrogated and tortured prisoners in his search for treasure, including an elderly Portuguese man who had been reported as rich by a slave.(5)  This indicates Morgan’s willingness to accept the word of a presumed slave over that of a European prisoner.  One of the most infamous pirates, Sam Bellamy, captured the slave ship Whydah and used it for his own in 1716.  Based on testimony of his victims it is believed there were somewhere between thirty and fifty Black men in Bellamy’s crew.  When the ship was wrecked in a nor’easter off of the coast of Cape Cod in 1717 only two men survived.  One was Welshman Thomas Davis, the other a half Native American named John Julian.(6)  This perfectly illustrates the inclusive nature of pirate crews.

The end of the age

For all intents and purposed the “Golden Age of Piracy” gradually disappeared by 1726 following the defeat of Roberts.  Piracy did not end altogether, but the romanticism and profit had waned.  During its height it is estimated that nearly one-third of pirate crews were black, likely liberated slaves.(7)  The planters and slavers of the early eighteenth century, their profits being impacted significantly by piracy, pushed the Crown to crackdown on piracy.  Once pirates were no longer preying on slave ships, and there was no romantic pirate life beguiling captains and crew to piracy, the slave trade boomed.  In 1720 approximately 24,780 slaves were transported from Africa to the Americas.  By 1725 that number had increased to 47,030.  The rest of the eighteenth century saw a steady rise in slave importation into the Americas; the average for the first quarter was 33,000, increasing to 45,000 in the second, and up to 66,000 in the third.(8)  Piracy and the slave trade were intricately intertwined throughout the late seventeenth and the early eighteenth centuries.  Without the introduction of African slavery to the Caribbean and the Americas, piracy would have likely stayed a minor nuisance of maritime trade. The flip side of that coin is that without piracy to check the slave trade, it clearly boomed.  Though it is often overlooked with the recent popularity of pirates, the picture of the “Golden Age of Piracy” cannot be considered complete without including its importance in limiting the slave trade.

What do you think of slavery and piracy? Let us know below.

Now read about the Golden Age of Piracy here.

Bibliography

Calloway, Colin. New Worlds For All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.

Exquemelin, Alexander. The Buccaneers of America. Amsterdam: Jan ten Horn, 1678. Translated by Alexis Brown, 1969.  http://www.loc.gov/flash/pagebypage/buccaneers/bookBorder.html.

Johnson, Charles F. L. The Lives and Adventures of Sundry Notorious Pirates. New York: Robert McBride and Company, 1922.

Sanders, Richard. “Pirates and the Middle Passage.” Times Higher Education, March 23, 2007. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/pirates-and-the-middle-passage/208336.article.

Standage, Tom. A History of the World in 6 Glasses.  New York: Walker Publishing Company, 2005.

Webster, Donovan. ”Pirates of the Whydah,” National Geographic. May 1999. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/whydah/story.html.

Whitten, Sarah. “The 13 highest-grossing film franchises at the box office.” CNBC.  January 31, 2021.  The 13 highest-grossing film franchises at the box office (cnbc.com).

References

1 Sarah Whitten, “The 13 highest-grossing film franchises at the box office,” CNBC, (January 31, 2021), The 13 highest-grossing film franchises at the box office (cnbc.com), accessed 3/8/2023.

2 Colin Calloway, New Worlds For All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America, (Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013), 104.

3 Tom Standage, A History of the World in 6 Glasses, (New York: Walker Publishing Company, 2005), 102.

4 Charles F. L. Johnson, The Lives and Adventures of Sundry Notorious Pirates, (New York: Robert McBride and Company, 1922), 48.

5 Alexander Exquemelin, The Buccaneers of America, (Amsterdam: Jan ten Horn, 1678) Translated by Alexis Brown, 1969, ) http://www.loc.gov/flash/pagebypage/buccaneers/bookBorder.html, accessed 3/8/2023.

6 Donovan Webster, ”Pirates of the Whydah,” National Geographic, (May 1999), https://www.nationalgeographic.com/whydah/story.html, accessed 3/8/2023.

7 Richard Sanders, “Pirates and the Middle Passage,” (Times Higher Education, March 23, 2007), https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/pirates-and-the-middle-passage/208336.article, accessed 3/8/2023.

8 Sanders, “Pirates.”

19th Century American Business Leaders - Robber Barons or Captains of Industry?

The 19th century was a time of great change in America. Over the century the American population grew significantly and the the economy developed across the American continental landmass from the Atlantic to the Pacific. As the economy grew, more recognisably modern companies came into being. Here, Richard Bluttal returns and considers whether leaders of some of the largest companies were robber barons or captains of industry: Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller.

John D. Rockefeller in 1895.

On February 9, 1859, Henry J. Raymond, editor of the New York Times, said something strange about Cornelius Vanderbilt. Raymond didn’t like Vanderbilt, a steamship tycoon with such a vast fleet he was known as the Commodore, then the highest rank in the United States navy. In an editorial titled “Your money or your line,” Raymond blasted him for taking a large monthly payment from the Pacific Mail Steamship Company in return for Vanderbilt’s foregoing competition on the sea lanes in California. “Like those old German barons, who from their eyries along the Rhine, swooped down upon the commerce of the noble river and wrung tribute from every passenger that floated by,” Raymond wrote,” Mr.Cornelius Vanderbilt …..has insisted that the Pacific Company should pay him toll, taken of all of America that had business with California.” Though Raymond never used the phrase “robber barron”, his editorial was the first known of the metaphor in American journalism. This phrase conjures up greedy individuals running around destroying competitors, and rigging the market. What is strange is that this is not what Raymond meant. Raymond attacked Commodore for pursuing a “competition for competition’s sake, competition which crowds out legitimate enterprises.

Large enterprises

Starting in the middle of the nineteenth century the first true enterprises began to emerge. After the Civil War, geography and the idea of entrepreneurship influenced the growth and expansion of the United States. As the United States transformed into an industrial society with little regulation of business, it was possible for small numbers of men to dominate crucial industries. The five keys to America’s industrial success were; superabundance of land and precious resources, excellent natural and manmade systems of transportation, invention and technology, a growing supply of labor, and superb industrial organization. Its soil, forests, wildlife and minerals provided the basis for economic activity for its early peoples. Tribes followed buffalo on the Great Plains, others developed economics based on woodland game, marine animals or fish from its many rivers and two oceans. In the 1800’s settlers found cooper, lead, gold, silver nickel and zinc far below beneath the soil, the country was rich in these minerals and had immense deposits of high quality ore, great resources of petroleum and in the West a natural treasury of gold, silver and cooper. As to our natural resources, there were huge amounts of fossil fuels, coal and natural gas reserves. The internal natural waterways became the fastest way to transport goods, cities sprang up such as New Orleans on the Mississippi river and Chicago on Lake Michigan. Cities like Boston and Philadelphia developed as trading centers at transportation crossroads. Moving west, cities developed across the landscape. Physical features influenced growth of cities- St. Louis at the juncture of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. In the late 1800s better means of transportation encouraged concentration of industries in cities, all fueled by the abundance of natural resources. One major influence that drove America’s technological development was the spectacular expansion of the nation’s boundaries, population, and economy. The territorial size of the United States quadrupled from 1800 to 1900, a nation spanning the continent from Atlantic to Pacific. Within these decades we acquired Florida from Spain and the Oregon Territory from Great Britain. In 1869 we purchased Alaska from Russia and then the Hawaiian Islands. The census of 1800 recorded a total population of 5.3 million people; by 1900, the United States was home to more than 75 million. The need to connect and supply this expansive nation encouraged the development of innovations in transportation, communication, and manufacturing.

Over the course of the late 1800s, entrepreneurs like Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan helped to shape the growth of American industry. Some people saw them as Captains of Industry because they were inventive, hardworking and led the way in the rise of American business. Others saw them as Robber Barons because they were ruthless and self-centered entrepreneurs whose aggressive business practices destroyed the smaller competitors and drove many companies out of business. The men who were called robber barons were often portrayed in a positive light, as “self-made men” who had helped build the nation and in the process created many jobs for American workers. However, the public mood turned against them in the late 19th century. Criticism from newspapers and social critics began to find an audience. And American workers began to organize in great numbers as the labor movement accelerated.

Events in labor history, such as the Homestead Strike and the Pullman Strike, intensified public resentment toward the wealthy. The conditions of workers, when contrasted with the lavish lifestyles of millionaire industrialists, created widespread resentment.

Even other businessmen felt exploited by monopolistic practices as it was virtually impossible to compete in some fields. Common citizens became aware that monopolists could more easily exploit workers.

There was a public backlash against the lavish displays of wealth often exhibited by the very wealthy of the age. Critics noted the concentration of wealth as evil or weakness of society, and satirists, such as Mark Twain, derided the showiness of the robber barons as “the Gilded Age.”

Cornelius Vanderbilt

As a boy, the younger Vanderbilt worked with his father on the water and attended school briefly. When Vanderbilt was a teen, he transported cargo around the New York harbor in his own periauger. Eventually, he acquired a fleet of small boats and learned about ship design. Cornelius Vanderbilt initially made his money in the steamships business before investing in railroads. In 1817, Vanderbilt went to work as a ferry captain for a wealthy businessman, Thomas Gibbons, who owned a commercial steamboat service that operated between New Jersey and New York. The job provided Vanderbilt the opportunity to learn about the burgeoning steamship industry. In the late 1820s, he went into business on his own, building steamships and operating ferry lines around the New York region. Shrewd and aggressive, he became a dominant force in the industry by engaging in fierce fare wars with his rivals. In some cases, his competitors paid him hefty sums not to compete with them. (Throughout his life, Vanderbilt’s ruthless approach to business would earn him numerous enemies.)

Vanderbilt fervently believed in laissez-faire economics, using it to great advantage in crushing his rivals. After a lifetime on the sea, he shifted all focus to railroads in 1863. Cornelius Vanderbilt gained control of most of the railroad industry. He offered rebates to customers and refused service for people traveling on competing railroad lines. He lowered the rates on his railroad in order to gain more business. He drove competing railroad companies out of business and bought up their railroad lines. Small railroads were swallowed up by Vanderbilt’s massive corporation. Vanderbilt led the drive for consolidation and gained control of most of the railroad business. Vanderbilt also tried to “corner”, or completely control, the stock in the Erie Railroad Company, leading to a dispute between railroad millionaires. He encouraged these battles because he usually won and benefitted. His control of the New York railroad system led to the development of what is now Grand Central Station, and one of the nation’s first giant corporations, N.Y. Central & Hudson River Railroad. Vanderbilt also used his money to help others. He donated money to colleges and universities and helped to develop churches. He lived modestly, but his children built a number of mansions (many on Long Island), which came to symbolize what was known as the “Gilded Age.”

Andrew Carnegie

In 1892 Andrew Carnegie’s steel mill in Homestead, PA was threatened to grind to a halt over a worker’s strike. Workers wanted to unionize over incredibly unsafe working conditions, and Carnegie didn't want this because it meant shorter hours for the workers, which would result in less steel being produced, and would cost him money. As a result he sent his most trusted assistant to Homestead to deal with the situation. Mr. Frick decided to hire Pinkertons to protect the plant from any strikers who may destroy the factory. Pinkertons were armed guards who were mostly former soldiers, and were viewed as a paid military force. They were known to be tough for anyone who hired them.

Below are the letters from Frick to Carnegie

My Dear Mr. Carnegie, I have arrived in Homestead in investigate the labor strike, and things are as good as they could be right now. I have hired 300 Pinkerton to protect the plant against any striking workers who may damage it. They will arrive on Tuesday, and should quell any unrest. The local newspaper is not reporting the current labor situation favorably, and seem shocked that we would attempt to guard and protect our property! In response I had an article published in all of this evenings papers alerting them of our response to the strike, and I think that our position within the community is well defined. We shall, of course, keep within the law, and do nothing that is not entirely legal. Yours truly, Mr.Frick

Frick, Cable just received. All anxiety gone since know you stand firm. Never employ one of these rioters. Let grass grow over work. Must not fail now. You will win easily. Next trial only stand firm. Law and order work. I could support you in any form. (Western Union Cable Message from Scotland.

With the arrival of the Pinkertons on July 6, violence immediately broke out. Strikers were throwing rocks at the armed Pinkertons, and they fired back into the crowd with their guns. In response 5,000 men from a neighboring mill arrived at Homestead to help defend the fallen workers. This event turned so chaotic that the state militia had to be called the following day to try to end the violence. By July 18 the entire town was placed under martial law. In the end 12 were killed, 23 wounded, and the Homestead plant remained without a union. Carnegie’s reputation was permanently damaged by the Homestead events.

Andrew Carnegie helped build the formidable American steel industry, a process that turned a poor young man into the richest man in the world. In 1865, Carnegie helped form the Keystone Bridge Company, a company that replaced wooden railroad bridges with steel. After meeting Henry Bessemer, the inventor of a new iron-to-steel converter, on a trip to England in 1873, he became convinced that the future of American industry was in the manufacture and use of steel. On his return to Pittsburgh, he built the J. Edgar Thomson Steel Mill near Pittsburgh using the ideas being developed by Bessemer in England. The "Carnegie Empire" was born. In 1899, Carnegie consolidated all of his holdings into the Carnegie Steel Company, making it the largest steel company in the world. In 1901, he sold the company to J.P. Morgan's United States Steel Company for $250 million, and from that point on, Carnegie devoted himself full-time to his various philanthropic projects.

At a time when America struggled -- often violently -- to sort out the competing claims of democracy and individual gain, Carnegie championed both. He saw himself as a hero of working people, yet he crushed their unions. One of the most successful entrepreneurs of his age, he railed against privilege. A generous philanthropist, he slashed the wages of the workers who made him rich.

J.P. Morgan

One of the most controversial figures of the 19th century was J.P. Morgan, a banker and financier who was instrumental in the formation of several major corporations. While Morgan was incredibly wealthy and influential, there is debate over whether he should be classified as a robber baron or a captain of industry. Those who view Morgan as a robber baron point to his involvement in the creation of monopolies, his manipulation of the stock market, and his ruthless business practices. However, others argue that Morgan was simply a product of his time and that he helped to fuel America’s economic boom in the late 19th century. Ultimately, the debate over whether Morgan was a robber baron or a captain of industry is a complex one. However, there is no denying that he was one of the most important and controversial figures of his time.

His millionaire father, Junius, made his fortune by investing other people’s money and helped found modern investment banking. When John Pierpont, or JP, was a child, Junius had him handle a million dollars in cash, however, there is no denying that he was one of the most important and controversial figures of his time.

JP Morgan wastaught early to avoid risk. Morgan escaped military service during the Civil War by paying $300 to a substitute to fight for him. During the war he bought five thousand rifles at $3.50 each and sold them on at $22 apiece. The rifles were `defective and some shoot off the thumbs of the soldiers, firing at them. Later, a congressional committee noted this but a federal judge upholds the deal and Morgan is exonerated.

At face value, Morgan contributed greatly to American industry. He invested in Thomas Edison and the Edison Electricity Company; helped to create General Electric and International Harvester; formed J.P. Morgan & Company; and gained control of half of the country’s railroad mileage. He also created the first billion-dollar company, U.S. Steel. At one point in his life, he was a board member of as many as 48 corporations. However, Morgan engaged in some unethical and anticompetitive practices to ward off competition. For example, he was believed to head a money trust that controlled the banking industry and was commonly considered a figurehead of Wall Street. He also created a monopoly by slashing the workforce and their pay to maximize profits while eliminating the competition. Workers’ wages were often as low as a dollar a day or less, and conditions for employees were poor, with increased fatalities even as wages grew.

Despite the numerous negatives associated with how Morgan built his wealth, some of his actions did benefit the United States and society. For example, his wealth was so vast that he was able to help bail out the federal government twice during an economic crisis, first in 1895 and again in 1907.

John D. Rockefeller

Industry during this time could not have expanded so quickly in the United States without the nation’s rich supply of natural resources. In 1859, Americans discovered oil as a valuable new resource. Titusville, Pennsylvania, where the first oil strike occurred, brought hundreds of prospectors to western Pennsylvania in search of oil. Among those was John D. Rockefeller. He did not choose to drill for oil, but instead built an oil refinery to purify the oil so that it can be used. Rockefeller believed competition was wasteful and used his profits to buy up other refineries, creating Standard Oil Company of Ohio. He was a brilliant entrepreneur yet shrewd businessman. He did whatever he could to get rid of his competition, including slashing his prices to drive out rival oil companies. He forced railroad companies, who wanted his business, to give him secret rebates and lower his shipping costs. He had an advantage over his competitors. Rockefellers Standard Oil Trust created a monopoly over the oil industry, controlling almost 95% of oil refineries. Although criticized by journalists for his corrupt business practices, he was able to improve his public image throughout his life by philanthropy or giving his money away to charitable causes. He funded organizations and churches that assisted freedmen in the south. He also created colleges and universities for African-Americans. He also provided money to medical institutions.

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

Now read Richard’s piece on the history of slavery in New York here.