The Differences in Christian Ideology that led to Major Differences Between the North and South of the USA

Christianity has had a major influence in America since the early European settlers moved there. Here, Daniel Smith considers how different Christian ideologies predominated in different parts of America – ultimately leading to differences between the North and South that lingered for a long time.

You can read Daniel’s past articles on California in the US Civil War (here), Medieval Jesters (here), How American Colonial Law Justified the Settlement of Native American Territories (here), and Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here).

Benjamin Franklin Drawing Electricity from the Sky: Painting by Benjamin West, circa 1816. Founding Fathers such as Benjamin Franklin often cited Scripture.

To understand the differing ideology behind the split regions of America, from North to South, you need to understand first that the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. In the early 1600s, when the first Europeans landed, they established settlements. Within every settlement was a Charter. This document solidified the legal framework for the colony to be run by. Within each colony’s Charter, you would have found reference to the Bible in one mention or another. Now let us fast forward a little bit in time to bring you into the know on – why,the colonies civil governments were run in the manner that they were… it’s called religion.

In the 1600s there were three American regions that had settlements in place. These three regions consisted of the Northern, Middle, and Southern colonies. Each colony had a separate form of Christian doctrine it followed, all depending on the region that you lived. Three distinct Christian movements came out of these regions, in major geographical areas. This was important because their views of church government determined their colonial form of civil government. This gets complex, but it is important to understand that with all sects of religion come subtle and major differences in how laws and morals are navigated. 

The Southern colonies were the stronghold of Episcopalians’, who emphasize strong apostolic leadership. Southern government was well known for their aristocratic monarchial form of government. The effects of this form of church government would be apparent when the first representative assembly in America began in 1607 at the church in Jamestown, Virginia with Reverend Bucke leading the Burgess in prayer. The Burgess were considered the “plantation elite” at that time. The Reverend would be known to ask God to guide and sanctify their proceedings to his own glory and the good of the plantation. Jamestown would go on to issue laws requiring church attendance. In doing so, the thought process behind the decree was believing that men’s affairs cannot prosper where God’s service is neglected.

The Northern colonies were dominated by Congregationalists. A decade or two later, the Middle colonies dominated by the Presbyterian, and Reformed Catholic faiths merged with the Northern colonies. New England had the first American settlement settled in 1620. After decades of trying to expose the corruption in the Church of England, and showing little effect, they left for the New World. Puritans at Boston (1630) were known for their fundamental, or strict legalistic ways of Christianity that was dominated by the hierarchal Catholic denomination; whereas the Separatists (or Protestants) at Plymouth Bay colony emphasized the personal relationship and accountability to God without the strict adherence to the legalistic and ritualistic aspects of Catholicism. 

It is important to note the major Puritan drawback was that they were still holding onto the idea of a State church. They saw nothing wrong with that, and compelled religion (as in Europe). The disapproval of issue in England was that Church and State were corrupt and unbiblical in many aspects. Eventually Protestant and Puritan ministers would work together with their theology to allow for more freedom of conscience and individual liberty.

FAST FORWARD

A Christian Nation is molded by its formof government, not whoformed it. If the form of a nation’s government is molded by Biblical ideas, then the nation isa Christian nation. Now let us fast forward a little bit in time. In 1867 The North American Reviewstated that “The American government and Constitution is the … political expression of Christian ideas.”[1]Our founders were all collectively convinced of this truth. Even unconventional believers such as Benjamin Franklin often cited Scripture. 

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin said: 

“We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it’ [psalm 1237:1]. I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builder of Babel [Genesis 11].”[2]

The ideas embodied in the U.S. Constitution stem primarily from the Bible. The Founders reasoned from the Bible far more than any other source. This was once taken for granted by Americans until modern revisionist historians began to promote the view that nationalistic enlightenment thinkers were the major influence behind the Constitution. 

How can we know for sure? Dr. Donald Lutz, a professor of political science from the University of Houston, conducted an exhaustive ten-year research of about 15,000 political documents of the Founders’ era (1760-1805), and recorded every quote or reference to another written source. This list of the 3,154 citations of the Founders was analyzed and published in Volume #78 of the American Political Science Review in 1983. The results would give quite an accurate measure of the influence of various sources of thought on the Constitution. The results were surprisingly contradictory to modern scholarship. By far, the most often quoted source of their political ideas was the Bible.

This would account for over one-third (34%) of all their citations. Another 50% of all references can be attributed to authors who themselves derived their ideas from the Bible. Therefore, it can be said that 84% of the ideas in our Constitution are based directly or indirectly on the Bible.[3]The Bible and civil liberty are inseparable. Even Newsweek, on December 26, 1982, acknowledged after a major analysis of the Bible’s influence in America, that, “Now historians are discovering that the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution is our Founding document.”[4]

Some historians recognize that Franklin’s reference to “the Sacred Writings” (Scripture) and to “the builders of Babel” (Israel) in the Convention’s search for “political truth” (Christ’s teachings) was not a strange coincidental fluke. There was absolute meaning. So now that you understand a little more on how important religion and the colonial governments were so closely knitted together, it’s also important to note that even though not all Colonial Americans were Christians (although most were), all of them understood the importance and adherence of living by Christian principles. Simply put, they all ultimately believed that Scriptures “guidelines” were the right way of doing life.

CHRISTIANS DIVIDED

There is a paradox to Christianity, and from a non-denominational standpoint, that paradox is the fundamental ideology of Old Testament Scripture. This should be considered a true error of Christian tradition. Well, how is that so? With every sect of Christianity, there is a molded tradition made out of how the Holy Bible is transliterated to Christian leaders and individuals alike. With the division of Christianity as a religion comes an inevitable vacuum, and that is the molding of Scripture to fit mankind’s agenda. This is of course part of the doctrinal fallacy that Scripture warns Christians about falling into belief over.[5]

There always seemed to be a struggle between morality, temperance, education, and slavery. When these struggles become so heavy that they bleed out from the individual and into the churches – these internal struggles then bleed into politics and society. This is where the formation of civil government becomes very complex. Especially when it comes down to moral and spiritual beliefs. It becomes even more complex when you attempt to figure out how to codify laws for society to live by. This is where Christian principles come into play. The Colonists had already been living by a codified system, laid out through history based upon Christian values and laws.

Through a typically organic process called “gradualism”, Colonial America began to grow and adjust their laws (and morals) accordingly to their ways of doing life. With this societal gradualism occurring subtly since the early 1600s, it’s easy to see how certain aspectsof life’s principles can get twisted to fit people’s personal agendas. One man in particular, was a Northerner by the name of John Brown. He was a devout Calvinist. Mr. Brown was very much a “fire and brimstone” style of believer. 

Calvinists’ doctrine of salvation by election; the belief that worldly success was a sign of God’s favor; the concept of the “calling,” according to which all people are called by God to vocations that, no matter how great or humble, are equal in his sight and whose diligent performance is a sacred duty; and the injunction against a waste, according to which wealth must be used for the glory of God through stewardship to mankind rather than squandered off in consumption and easy living. 

With that, he also thought that because he was in a place of political positioning, that it was God’s will that he must have undertook a mission to help ignite the firestorm that ultimately freed the slaves. God does not grant permission to do Hiswill, however he did providentially use Mr. Brown as one of the dozen catalysts to actually advance the opening salvos of the Civil War. We will get to Mr. Brown’s story later. Christianity was the base foundation of how society was written for the North American colonies. It is always unfortunate when a few misled leaders push these personal twists that ultimately expand into their local communities, thus the Northern and Southern regions of the United States. Regardless of doctrinal belief of Christianity, national sins are what collapses a nations successes and longevity. Two national sin examples would be slavery and greed.

COMPROMISING MORALS & ETHICS         

Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance Act in 1787 and 1789, which prohibited slavery in the new states. Congress also banned the exportation or transfer of slaves from anystate in 1794. It is evidence enough that all intentions of that generation were united in an effort to abolish slavery. England banned slavery in 1834 by the stroke of a pen. As new generations of Americans rose up to take the reins, they had seemingly less convictions on the matters of greed and slavery than their fathers before them. 

They began to compromise their morals and ethics. This was due to greed. The trend towards emancipation came to a halt in the South, and even churches began to justify slavery for the first time around 1810. By that date, all slave trading had been made illegal; however slave owning itself became more firmly entrenched in the South. Between 1810 and 1820, America experienced not only growth but also its share of social problems associated with its polarization of “cultures.” 

It was truly the first time America began to see morality wane and ethics bending to make ends meet. Specifically, the morals and ethics that were a big social issue for Yankee and Antebellum societies were drunkenness, prostitution, ignorance, and above all, slavery.[6]Of course with every issue in America there is always an argument to the story. Protestantism experienced a modernization of ethics during the industrial-era of America. In fact, the temperance movement coincided at the exact same time as the industrial revolution.

It was the temperance movement in America that gave way to the reforming movements throughout the entire country, regardless of blue or grey ideology. These movements grew out of the Second Great Awakening. A Christian revival nationwide, with a refocus on man’s accountability to Jesus Christ, instead of only being held accountable to themselves. It was through the temperance movement that soberness, education, woman’s rights, and anti-slaveryfinally became front-and-center social issues for both the American North andSouth. 

What do you think of the author’s arguments? Let us know below.

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

[1]Hall, Verna M. 1980. The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America (CHOC).San Francisco. p. 198.

[2]Madison, James. 1987. Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787.NY: W.W. Norton & Co.

[3]Lutz, Donald. 1984. "The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late 18th Century American Political Thought." American Political Science Review189-197.

[4]Newsweek. Dec. 26, 1982. "Historians Acknowledge American Biblical Link." Newsweek

[5]Read: Book of Matthew. TheHoly Bible.

[6]J. C. Furnas, The Americans: A Social History(New York, 1969) p. 505

Why did World War Two happen? How the Fascists Hitler, Mussolini, and Horthy Led to the Outbreak of World War Two

The causes of World War Two are varied, but some factors are more important than others. Here, Seth Eislund explains that fascism was the primary factor that led to World War Two. He considers Mussolini’s fascist Italy, Hitler’s Nazi Germany, and Horthy’s fascistic Hungary.

Seth has previously written an article on whether the Nazis achieved their domestic aims – here.

Miklos Horthy and Adolf Hitler in 1938.

From November 1918 to September 1939, Europe existed in a fragile state of peace known as the interwar period. Political frustration and economic woes plagued European countries, especially Germany and Hungary, both of which endured a crippling defeat at the hands of the Allies. Germany and Hungary lost large swathes of territory to the Allies and faced grave economic depression and inflation. Even Italy, which had been on the winning side at the end of the First World War, endured “an inconclusive but costly victory.”[i]Hoping to return their countries to greatness, many Italians, Germans, and Hungarians eagerly adopted an ideology called “fascism,” which was promulgated by a former syndicalist named Benito Mussolini. Fascism emphasized expansionism, extreme nationalism, anti-Marxism, and anti-liberalism.[ii]Ultimately, due to its nationalist, expansionist, and warlike tendencies, fascism was the primary factor that shattered the fragile peace of the interwar period and incited the Second World War.

Italian Fascism

Benito Mussolini’s fascism promoted a love of warfare, nationalism, and expansionism, values which were implemented in Italian foreign policy and helped instigate World War II. In 1932, Mussolini wrote that fascism “believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace… War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it.”[iii]Mussolini stated that fascism was inherently violent, and that violence unleashed peak human potential. Peace, on the other hand, neutered human potential and was therefore detrimental to humanity as a whole. Thus, in Mussolini’s worldview, war was a moral good that must be constantly waged to further human progress. Mussolini linked this line of reasoning with imperialist rhetoric, saying that “the expansion of a nation… is an essential manifestation of vitality.”[iv]To Mussolini, fascism was centered around a “nation,” or a “people,” which needed to expand their territory through any means necessary. Unsurprisingly, Mussolini’s fascism saw the Italian people as destined to expand throughout the world. These expansionist and nationalist motives explain why he invaded Ethiopia in 1935 and ultimately sided with Hitler in his conquest of Europe. Hence, Italian fascism aimed to foment conflict, and, as such, it exacerbated the tensions that ignited World War II.

German Nazism

Similar to Italian fascism, German Nazism combined a policy of nationalism, expansionism, and racism that aimed to start another war on European soil. Like Mussolini’s fascism, Adolf Hitler’s Nazism was a nationalist and expansionist ideology. Nazism claimed that Germans needed to conquer new territory and supplant the people who lived there. This was because Germans were members of the Aryan race, which was superior to all other races.[v]Days before he invaded Poland, Hitler articulated his desire to obtain more “living space,” or lebensraum, for the German people. He emphasized that war was necessary to obtain land for the survival of the Aryan race, and only by exterminating the Poles “shall [Germans] gain the living space which [they] need.”[vi]Hitler’s words show that the invasion of Poland, and consequently World War II, were inextricably linked to his Nazism. Waging war enabled the Aryan race to take the land it so desperately needed, purge “inferior races,” and achieve hegemony over the world.

Hungarian Fascistic Ideology

While not as fascist as Italy or Germany, Hungary adopted a fascistic ideology that contributed to the outbreak of World War II. Suffering tremendous territorial losses following World War I, Hungary became “barely one-third of its prewar size.”[vii]Consequently, many Hungarians were enraged at the punitive peace imposed upon them by the Allies, vowing to restore Hungary’s territorial and political status. Fascistic ideas gained traction, and under the auspices of Admiral Miklós Horthy and Captain Gyula Gömbös, Hungary became increasingly authoritarian during the interwar period. Gömbös allied Hungary with Italy and Nazi Germany, since he wanted to restore the territory Hungary lost after 1918.[viii]As a result, Hungary participated in the German annexation of Czechoslovakia by annexing regions with Hungarian nationals, which drew international outrage and panic.[ix]Ultimately, by abetting Germany’s dissolution of Czechoslovakia for its own gain, Hungary helped destabilize the already fragile peace in Europe and initiate World War II.

In Conclusion

Fascism was primarily responsible for causing the Second World War, as its emphasis on nationalism, expansionism, and warfare escalated tensions in interwar Europe. Mussolini’s fascism saw war as a moral good and proclaimed that the Italian people needed to expand their territory, which led Italy to invade Ethiopia in 1935. Similarly, Nazism viewed Germans as members of the “master race” which needed “living space” to survive, a belief that led Adolf Hitler to invade Poland in 1939 and start World War II. Lastly, Hungary aligned itself with Italy and Nazi Germany, annexing parts of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Therefore, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and fascistic Hungary plunged the continent into the most devastating war in history.

What do you think was the primary cause for World War Two? Let us know below.

[i]Robert O. Paxton and Julie Hessler, Europe in the Twentieth Century, 5th ed (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth - Cengage Learning, 2012), 180.

[ii]Paxton and Hessler, 179.

[iii]Benito Mussolini, “Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932,” Internet Modern History Sourcebook, edited by Paul Halsall (New York, NY: Fordham University, 2019), accessed May 5, 2019, https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp.

[iv]Ibid.

[v]Paxton and Hessler, 284.

[vi]Louis P.  Lochner, What About Germany?(New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1942), 1-4.

[vii]Paxton and Hessler, 191.

[viii]Paxton and Hessler, 302.

[ix]Paxton and Hessler, 345.

Bibliography

Lochner, Louis P. What About Germany?New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1942.

Mussolini, Benito. “Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932.” Internet Modern History Sourcebook, edited by Paul Halsall. New York, NY: Fordham University, 2019. Accessed May 5, 2019. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp.

Paxton, Robert O., and Julie Hessler. Europe in the Twentieth Century. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth - Cengage Learning, 2012.

The Shocking Reality of Nuclear War Brought to life at Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker

Museums are important in helping us connect with the past and with historical events – but not all museums are equal. Here, Shannon Bent explains why she thinks Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker in the UK plays a chilling but important role in teaching and reminding us about the Cold War – and the power of nuclear weapons.

This follows Shannon’s articles on Berlin’s Checkpoint Charlie (here) and Topography of Terror (here).

Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker. Source: Espresso Addict available here.

I’ve been studying history for quite a while now. I am only 22, yes, but if you count school and the years I spent doing exams, plus my nerdy extra-curricular research and reading, I’m fairly well versed in the general history of the world. I studied war specifically for three years and like to think I am continuing to each day with my work and personal reading. There isn’t much about war that scares me anymore, besides perhaps a gas mask which I do not wish my eyes to linger on for long; a fear born out of an episode of TV show Doctor Whoback in 2006. But aside from irrational fears made from fiction and exacerbated like a child’s head does, there aren’t exactly many elements of war left that give leave that sick, anxious feeling in my stomach. Many would call it desensitisation, and I am inclined to agree to an extent. Being exposed to images of the trenches, the Blitz, the Holocaust, time and time again, I guess I would have to agree the actual images start to lose an impact. Never the meaning though, and what it represents. The day I no longer find the thought of these events appalling is the day I want someone to fire me from the sector, because from that moment on I would consider myself useless.

Changing Warfare

However, in defence of the desensitisation argument, I would also argue that these elements of war perhaps do not scare me because I am aware they will never be repeated on a major scale. Never again will a world war be fought on soil, with soldiers dug in shelling each other across an empty space of land that belongs to no man. Never again will two countries bomb civilians in a tit for tat fashion to break morale. War doesn’t work like this anymore. The next major war won’t be fought with boots on the ground, with an occupying force in a country, or with the movements of heavy weaponry. The world faces a far worse fate than that. Total war has been replaced by the potential for total annihilation. Nuclear war is now the only warfare left on the cards, and the only element of conflict that terrifies me to my core. Why? It will be the most catastrophic thing the world has ever seen. Correction; the world won’t see it. Because there won’t be a world left, just by sheer nature of the implement.  

Now this may all seem very dramatic and like I am scare-mongering. And I’ll admit, to an extent I am. Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD theory, is the best thing to come from nuclear weapons and makes me 90% sure the world is safe for a little longer. This concept states that while two opposing countries both hold nuclear weaponry, they will never fire upon the other, for the second they do, they will also be fired upon themselves, therefore destroying themselves. The fear of what it will do to them and their own people prevents them from inflicting it upon others. Kind of scary, kind of neat. I suppose if the world must have nuclear weaponry then let us kept this mind set flowing amongst as many countries as possible. It will keep us safe for now. But there are constant reminders of how close we have already come to utter decimation.

Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker

There is a bunker, mostly in the middle of nowhere, near a town called Nantwich in the UK. This bunker is known as Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker. And yeah, not so secret. But that’s the beauty of it. This bunker was to be one of a network across the UK that would have taken politicians and other groups of vital and important people into them upon the event of a nuclear attack. The bunker is mostly in the state it was left in; room after room of technical equipment, radios, med bays, shelters. It really is the perfect step into the past, specifically back to around 1962 and the event of the Cuban Missile Crisis; the moment the world held its breath and nuclear war was an inch away from actually happening. This event, in comparison to many parts of major warfare, is fairly recent history. My dad was five at the time. That isn’t all too long ago! My grandfather was part of the Royal Observer Corps, and his job was to effectively be waiting and looking out for the nuclear missiles that could come the way of Great Britain. Not that my dad knew it at the time, but the days of October 16thto October 28th1962 must have been some of the most stressful days of my granddad’s life. For him and hundreds of thousands of other people across the world, of course. 

The Cuban Missile Crisis began when Soviet Russia placed armed nuclear missiles onto the island of Cuba, then run by Fidel Castro. America’s answer to this was to blockade Cuba and demand for them to be removed. What followed was probably the most tense 13 days of President Kennedy’s life as he tried to negotiate these missiles off the island.

The range of the missiles covered nearly the entirety of America. And let’s face it, with the way nuclear weaponry works, even areas outside of range weren’t exactly safe! This was the closest that the world has ever been to full out nuclear war. If the US had been fired upon, it would have retaliated, and chances are the UK, due to treaties and agreements, would have followed suit. We would’ve been looking at full world destruction in seventeen minutes. That is the closest the world has come to full destruction. That we know of at least. I won’t go into all the conspiracy theories on the number of times something similar has happened since and we have never been told about it, because we would be here all day. But that’s exactly my point. The reason this topic and this type of warfare still has the ability to scare me so much is because it could still happen. We have some pretty mad and unpredictable leaders out there at the moment. Trump, Kim Jong-un, Putin. They’re erratic and power crazy; I feel like if they were bought the wrong type of eggs for their breakfast in the morning, by 11:30 they would’ve decided to launch a nuclear weapon at the country their chef was from, providing it wasn’t their own of course.

The Realities of Nuclear War

And this is what Hack Green so chillingly brings to life. From this museum you can begin to understand the conditions that people worked in - underground for days on end without seeing daylight. You squint when you walk out at first, after having spent at least four hours in a concrete box with no windows. This museum also provides a fantastic element of fear to the proceedings, without being ‘cheesy’ or ‘crude’. They have ghost walks, and these are rather popular, but sometimes you can’t blame a site for capitalising on its theme. The element of fear it brings to the everyday visitor, however, is far more subtle. In the background there are multiple warning alarms and sirens going off. Occasionally an announcement will sound for everyone to take shelter. The control rooms house radar and machines that ominously bleep. Geiger counters crackle threateningly in the distance. This exceedingly clever atmospherics is something that many museums are now beginning to adopt; adding in those noises that people would’ve heard every day they were there, bringing their world to yours. One room in the bunker is a sort of cinema room, and in here they show the BBC’s Threadsfrom 1984. This is the definition of chilling; a film set during the nuclear apocalypse of Great Britain and details what would happen to the population. I would highly recommend checking it out (Amazon US| Amazon UK)

Witnessing the implications of what these people were working on through visuals only adds to the tension of the place. Perhaps one of the key aspects of the bunker is the bomb shelter, a room with the full sirens and noises of lighter bombing. However, every few minutes they simulate the noise of the nuclear bomb falling. This near as damn stops your heart. Obviously, the noise level is replicated to a safe point, (no ear drums are hurt in the duration of the simulation) but that only makes you more aware of the earth-shattering noise that would have been experienced. It really gives you a jolt. You then step back out, and in perfect curation style, you continue your journey around the museum to discover what would have happened post-bomb. This genius way of subtly taking the visitor around a timeline as if you were a member of the workforce in the bunker having to combat the issues faced gives a fantastic immersive experience. The museum is everything a museum should be; giving you a reality check about your own life as you experience, just for a moment, someone else’s. 

Conclusion

I have to admit, I left with a rather sick feeling in my stomach. It was a hot day and the light was blinding as we walked out. I got in the car and looked back at the imposing yet unassuming structure of the bunker and thought ‘one day everything I’ve just seen from history could be a reality’. Einstein once said, in the perfect eloquence he always had; ‘I do not know with what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones.’ Hack Green beautifully (perhaps a bad choice of adjective, but you follow my point) presents what will happen before those sticks and stones. It gives a brilliantly immersive reality to those that wish to understand just how much of a knife edge we once sat on, and continue to, in my opinion. Take a deep breath as you enter though; the inspired curation and presentation of this museum serves as a stark reminder of the power we hold against each other. Hack Green in essence masters what science has still failed to achieve; time travel. But perhaps not just the past, maybe the future too.

What do you think of the article? Have you visited any nuclear bunkers? Let us know below.

King Henry VII of England: His Life and Reign of Suspicion

King Henry VII of England (reign from August 1485 to April 1509) was the first King of England of the Tudor Dynasty. He had a difficult reign at times – he had to fight to gain the English throne and fight to keep it, meaning that he was often suspicious of others. Juliana Cummings explains.

A young Henry Vii.

Birth of a Monarch

History tells us so much about King Henry Vlll; he had six wives, he was terribly fat etc. But we often don’t hear enough about his father, the Lancastrian Henry Tudor. While Henry Vlll feared illness, his father seemed afraid of something deeper. Despite being an admirable  warrior who earned his crown, Henry Vll lived much of his reign in fear.

On the 28th of January 1457, Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond, gave birth to  a son. She was only thirteen years old and the delivery almost killed her.  That son, was Henry Tudor, the future King of England. Henry’s father, Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond had been dead for three months.

Henry Tudor was placed under the protection of his Uncle Jasper Tudor at Pembroke Castle until trouble began again between the Houses of Lancaster and York. Pembroke was seized, Jasper Tudor escaped, and four year old Henry Tudor was taken into custody by Yorkist Sir William Hebert. While Henry’s time with Herbert could be looked at as a time of imprisonment, he was treated like anything but a prisoner. He was well cared for and brought up quite honorably by William Hebert’s wife. Henry would stay with the Hebert family for roughly eleven years until Hebert was killed in battle and Henry was reunited with his Uncle Jasper. 

In 1470, the Lancastrian King, Henry VI was back on the throne but in 1471, Yorkist Edward lV reclaimed the throne once again and Henry Vl, along with his heir, were murdered. There now remained one Lancastrian with a claim to the throne; Henry Tudor. It was Henry’s mother Margaret, who provided the royal bloodline that gave him that claim.  And, albeit small, it was a claim. Margaret was the great granddaughter of John Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and son of Edward lll. This gave her confirmation that her son had every right to seek the crown. But Richard lll, Edward lV’s brother, felt he had a right to the crown as well. And when Edward died on April 9, 1483, it was Richard who declared himself King.

A New King

Jasper Tudor would take the teenage Henry under his protection for the next fourteen or so years. With his mother’s financial support, and the help of the French and the Scottish, Henry Tudor would set sail for the Welsh shore. On the seventh of August, 1485, Henry Tudor and his men landed at Mill Bay in Pembrokeshire. He was twenty eight years. He dropped to his knees and asked God to favor his cause. And because Wales was a Lancastrian stronghold, Henry had their support as well. His army, although a bit muddled, would grow to nearly 5,000.

Despite the fact that King Richard lll had a bigger army, it was Henry Tudor who would prevail at Bosworth Field on August 22, 1485. With the support of his step father, Lord Thomas Stanley, Henry and his army pulled Richard from his horse and pummeled him to death. And it was Stanley who would then place Richard’s bloody crown on Henry’s head. At Westminster Abbey, on October 13, 1485, Henry Tudor was crowned King of England.

Henry’s reign would prove to be one of great fear for the new king. He knew that what had happened to Richard lll could happen to him and he was continuously reminded that his throne wasn’t far from being in jeopardy. His first action in securing his reign was to marry. During his time as King, Richard was believed to have locked up his two nephews, the sons of his brother Edward, in the Tower of London in fear that they would try to usurp his throne when they were of age.  The detainment of the two boys divided much of Yorkist England and the supporters of the nephews needed somewhere to turn. They turned to Henry Tudor. They also pledged to give him their support if he married Edward lV’s Yorkist daughter, Elizabeth. Henry’s mother Margaret along with Elizabeth’s mother, Elizabeth Woodville, greatly supported the union between their children. Henry’s marriage to Elizabeth York would not only strengthen his position as King but it would become a time of great love for them both. Elizabeth was intelligent and beautiful and Henry adored his new bride. And more importantly, she provided him with a male heir soon after their marriage.

Increasing Threats

While Henry Tudor continued to try to convince his people that he was the rightful King, many of them didn’t believe it.  One of them was the de la Pole family, specifically John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln. His claim was that Richard lll had already named him as the successor. In the year 1487, de la Pole would show to be a real threat to Henry Tudor. He was able to gather financial and military support from German and Swiss Mercenaries as well English rebels who were most likely supporters of Richard lll. But at the Battle of Stoke Field in June 1487, Henry Tudor and his battle hardened army would crush de la Pole’s men. And luckily for Henry, John de la Pole was  also killed in that battle. 

In 1493, Henry Tudor faced another very real dilemma.  Yorkist exiles began to devise a plot to throw Henry from his throne.  A man named Perkin Warbeck, considered a pretender, claimed to be Richard of York, the younger of the two Yorkist brothers who had been locked away in The Tower over ten years ago.  Warbeck claimed that he escaped The Tower long ago and at nineteen years old would fight to take the crown back. The Yorkist exiles didn’t hesitate to use Warbeck as their scapegoat. And for those that believed the two cousins to be dead, Perkin Warbeck would test their loyalty to King Henry. 

This uprising would send Henry Tudor into a downward spiral of paranoia and fear. He began to place spies everywhere; in people’s private homes, in the confessionals, even in his own palaces.  By having this collaboration, The King was able to trace one of his enemies right to his Chamberlain, William Stanley. Stanley, who had fought alongside him at Bosworth, was found with Yorkist jewelry and enough money to raise his own army.  Henry Tudor chose not to use clemency and William Stanley was beheaded in February of 1495. Realizing that support for the Yorkist imposter was growing, Henry grew even more vigilant.  He kept to his apartments when at court and seemed to go into a lockdown in his privy chamber. Only a small group of his most trusted advisors were permitted in his company. He began obsessing over how the court’s money was spent and resorted to micro managing everything, even down to what to pay the servants. He continued to build his network of spies to track Warbeck’s every move. Warbeck, who been staying in what he believed was the safety of Ireland and Scotland had made a few failed attempts at invading England. His last attempt was on September 12, 1497, with only 120 men.  But Warbeck was captured and sent to the Tower. He was hung for treason in November of that same year.

The Changing of a Kingdom

With the threats of Warbeck and de la Pole no longer there, King Henry Vll was able to feel enough confidence that his Kingdom was at peace. While he still kept an ever watchful eye on any known enemies, he was able to focus his attention on other matters.  By the year 1500, his wife Elizabeth had already delivered him another son. Little Henry, or Harry,  as they called him, was now nine years old. And the King and Queen’s daughter, Mary, was three years old. In 1501, Princess Katherine of Aragon would arrive in England as the betrothed of Henry’s oldest son, Arthur. Katherine came from powerful parents, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain. Her marriage to Arthur would strength England as it would now have the allegiance of Spain. The wedding was a splendid one and there was much celebration in the county over the union of the Prince and Princess.

Sadly though, Prince Arthur’s marriage would be a short one. On April 15, 1502, Arthur succumbed to the sweating sickness and died.  Henry was absolutely devastated. Not only because of the loss of his son but because the death of the heir to the English throne would have a huge political impact on the country.  The future of England now fell on eleven year old Harry. 

Things would only get worse for Henry Tudor. On February 11 that next year, Henry’s beloved wife, Queen Elizabeth, died in childbirth. The King was beside himself. His marriage to Elizabeth had been one of happiness and love and her death not only threatened to tear him apart, but England as well. Many of England’s Yorkist supporters had only chosen to recognize Henry as King because of his union to Elizabeth. With her being gone, it left these people open to consideration about where their loyalties now lay.  This caused the King to become paranoid once again and he was convinced he spotted  treason everywhere he turned. 

Henry got desperate and decided that if he couldn’t make his people like him, then he would make them fear him. He did this by giving people fines for the smallest things, which in turn indebted them to The King. Henry devised a new council called the The Council Learned in the Law, which answered only to The King and would overlook all other legal laws. Edward Dudley, one of the nation’s most prominent lawyers, went to work for The King’s new council.  His expertise alone allowed him to enforce and stretch laws which would ultimately lead to charges on the townspeople.

The Aging King Henry Vll was in a constant state of fear and resentment towards his people.  And he not only worried about his own health, he began to obsess over the fear of his son and heir, Harry. He was terrified that Harry would catch an illness or get seriously injured and so he kept him away from people as much as possible and refused to let him participate in jousts.  But these restrictions would be hard for Henry to carry out.  Harry was now a grown teenager, who towered over his father at more than six feet. Harry was handsome and athletic and had been building his loyalties with the common people as well as in the tiltyard. He was charismatic and had a way with people.  More and more people came to really like Harry and began to form alliances with the soon to be new King.

Death

When Henry Vll lay on his deathbed, perhaps his biggest threat was his own son. Young Harry had promised to be a different kind of king. One of fairness and goodwill. When Henry Tudor died on April 21, 1509 at Richmond Palace, less than fifteen people knew that he had died. His death was kept a secret for two days. While arrangements were made, the new King, Henry Vlll, wanted the people of England to understand that he was different. He ordered the much resented Edmund Dudley executed for treason.  Thomas More, who would become one of Henry Vlll’s closest advisors, said that the new king was like the Spring. He was new and refreshing and offered a time of rebirth. However, if Henry Vlll was the Spring then his father had to have been the Winter; a time of darkness and solitude. 

But despite the sometimes tyrannical reign of Henry Vll, he was a man who fought for what he believed was his. With what seems like the odds being against him for most of his life, he came out of exile and battled his way to the top. He was successful in putting his heir on the throne and succeeded in building possibly the most famous dynasty in England’s history.

What do you think of King Henry VII? Let us know below.

Finally, you can find out more about Juliana on The Savage Revolt site here.

References 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/House-of-Tudor

https://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2017/09/henry-tudor-at-raglan-castle.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stoke_Field

https://www.historytoday.com/archive/execution-perkin-warbeck

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

Selling Americans on America after World War Two: The Freedom Train

The Freedom Train was a bold concept – a patriotic museum on the tracks aimed at unifying a fractured United States after World War Two. It offered needed moments of genuine patriotic respite in a post-war time of divisive challenges and solutions. Gerry and Janet Souter, authors of a book on the freedom train (Amazon US | Amazon UK), explain.

A locomotive built especially for the freedom train.

Ten years of the Great Depression plus four years of World War II had left Americans battered. Every facet of life seemed challenged; the United States had inherited world leadership by default.Sixyears of wartime production brought the country outof the Great Depression, but with the conflict ended, unions demanded higher wages and were at war with the government. In 1945-46, five million workers went out on strike.Manufacturershad barely crept back intocreatingconsumer products. Soldiers returned from the war zones to the protection of the GI Bill of Rights that promised education, cheap housing and a new start, but not a job. Adding to shifting labor force problems were boatloads of refugees streaming into the country from war-ravaged Europe. Many of these “Displaced Persons” were highly skilled and educated, affecting labor and housing issues at various levels. Black GIs sought recognition in the segregated South and fearful North. 

It was time to re-ignite the republic’s exhausted engine, to re-establish the core that had sustained the nation through those past years of sacrifice. The American people needed the cavalry to arrive in the nick of time, the winning touchdown to score, and the long shot horse to win the race— something to cheer.

No one could have imagined that Adolf Hitler would provide a bold embrace of America’s freedoms, patriotism, civic responsibility and pride in her hard-won liberties.

Selling the Freedom Train Idea

One of the greatest selling jobs ever attempted began in1946. William Coblenz, an assistant director with the Public Information Division of the Department of Justice often spent his lunch hour at the National Archives. There he discovered an exhibit of captured German government and military documents, including an original copy of Hitler’s last will and testament to the German people. Staring at the Fuhrer’s signature on that yellowed document, the frightful power of those final wretched thoughts of a mad man made Coblenz wish more Americans could look on the face of tyranny and appreciate the freedoms they inherit as a birthright. The Archives also displayed America’s legacy of documents from the conception of the independent republic to iconic objects brought back from the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific that would touch hearts and drive home our sacrifices for those freedoms. They were all there—and in the Library of Congress and private collections—all sealed behind glass. How could this treasure be brought to whole country?

Virtually every city and town had a railroad station. Understanding the government’s cash-strapped post-war situation, Coblenz proposed a passenger car be turned into a traveling museum featuring the contrast between Nazi Fascism and American Freedoms. It would be coupled to freight trains and dropped off at cities and towns in all the 48 states to be opened for the public’s inspection of copies of the actual documents. He called it the “Liberty Train” with a budget of $20,000 and presented his idea to his boss, Thomas C. Clark, the U.S. Attorney General. Clark loved the idea and understood the sad condition of the country’s coffers. “Might as well be two million,” as far as Congress was concerned. Realizing that opening the concept to private funding might sully the simple patriotic message, he still saw no other option and made a few calls.

The Liberty Train idea caught fire among movie and corporate moguls. Bank and Stock Market presidents signed on along with labor unions and entrepreneurs. In December 1946, they gathered for a meeting in Washington, D.C. Also included at this plan meeting was the Advertising Council, a conglomeration of advertising shops who furnished Allied propaganda and civilian wartime motivation during the war. They’d honed their patriotic idea-selling to a fine edge and joined the board of directors to the brand-new American Heritage Foundation, led by Ad Council president, Thomas Brophy.  The Council created the patriotic infrastructure that drove the selection and presentation of the collected artifacts. Under Brophy’s leadership, all public utterances flowed from, and all private funds were collected by this foundation.

The freedom train in Los Angeles.

Creating the Train and Its Irreplaceable Cargo

With expert historians combing the National Archives, Library of Congress and private collections, the train grew from one orphan passenger car to a train of seven passenger cars hauled by their own locomotive. The selection of documents and iconic objects eventually booted out Hitler and the Nazis for a more positive All-American collection in passenger cars converted into rolling steel vaults forming one long aisle for visitors. The Pennsylvania and Santa Fe railroads furnished the coaches to be gutted and lined with custom bronze and Lucite cases containing the actual documents, notcopies. Heading the train was a brand-new ALCO diesel-electric locomotive, and, like the rest of the train, painted white with red and blue stripes and gold eagles.   

The value of the new cargo aboard the “Freedom Train,” its final name, required extreme security. Thomas Clark penned the Secretary of the Navy for the loan of 27 United States Marines in dress blue uniforms. From more than 200 applicants, the result was a detail of combat Marines led by Lt. Colonel Robert L. Scott.  Three deluxe passenger coaches were set aside for their traveling quarters plus three pullman porters. With the marines were housed curator experts, train managers, and a Navy medical officer.

Packaging the Freedom Message

To build a bigger tent for the national audience, the Advertising Council provided a pre-train arrival package to each of 300 cities and towns consisting of collateral material to produce a week of “rededication” to American values. To facilitate these “Rededication Weeks” the Advertising council would unlimber a campaign for each locality on radio, in newspapers, comic books and movies. Collateral printed material, posters, event suggestions and camera-ready boiler plate logos would spread the message. Advance planners were to visit each community’s designated planning group to help create the necessary buzz and enthusiasm.

Extracting further commitment from Freedom Train visitors, a “Good Citizen” booklet was passed out listing the “Rights and Duties of an American” and the “Nine Promises of a Good Citizen.” (vowing to vote, pay taxes, serve on a jury, etc.) At the conclusion of a visit, a “Freedom Pledge” headed a scroll to be signed by the visitor. This Freedom Pledge was also recited in schools, churches, civic meetings and patriotic events during Rededication Weeks. 

Following a nationally broadcast celebrity and champagne send-off from Philadelphia, the Advertising Council’s publicity campaign had already produced an advance notice to the nation that this train would be on its way. The Twin Falls (Idaho) Times News, which was not even on the list of Freedom Train stops—but close enough for a half day auto trip to visit the train at Boise further northwest—was still impressed. Its editorial for August 26, 1947 read:

“it must be admitted that Americans have developed the technique of the publicity build-up to a remarkable degree…The purpose of all this is to make every one of us conscious of the responsibilities as well as the privileges which are ours as Inheritors of the legacy of American freedom. This country's high tradition of democracy has been seriously challenged in the past six years, and is still challenged today. Every failure to live up to that tradition provides a little more ammunition for those who would discount or destroy it. There is a real need for most of us to try more actively and consciously to be good citizens and alert guardians of our heritage.

And on the train went, giving an average head-count of 9,000 Americans a day the opportunity to see:Abraham Lincoln’s reading copy of the Gettysburg Address, the Bill of Rights, Jefferson’s first draft of the Declaration of Independence, one of Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers, the Emancipation Proclamation, the NATO Charter, the flag flown from the summit of Mount Suribachi by the marines on Iwo Jima during World War II, the German Surrender document, Victory War bonds sold to Americans to help finance the war…130 priceless pieces of our freedom heritage.

Ahead of the train and after it passed, the air waves were filled with patriotic programing. New York promised listeners,  

“Two hours of star-studded programs saluting the Freedom Train are scheduled on WNEW tonight from 9 to 11 p.m. 

“The station has cancelled all regular programs in order to present this special feature which will include ‘The Lonesome Train’ by Norman Corwin, ‘Patrick Henry and the Frigate's Keel’ with Clifton Fadiman, Orson Welles performing readings from ‘The American Condition,’ Bing Crosby as narrator and singer in ‘The Man Without a Country,’ and ‘Ballad for Americans’ sung by Paul Robeson and chorus. Arthur Godfrey will take a CBS microphone aboard the Freedom Train at Grand Central Station on Wednesday at 5:45 p m. to give listeners a word picture of the unique train which is carrying historic documents to all parts of the country.” 1

On the Rails through the Nation

While the Freedom Train inspired Americans’ pride in their country, there were still undercurrents of resentment against those who didn’t quite fit the mold  As one Arkansas newspaper editorial noted, regarding the influx of European refugees:

“In these troublesome times…it may sound a bit brutal to those who have not given sufficient thought to the subject.We consider the time ripe to stop thinking with our hearts and start thinking with our heads on the matter of admitting 400,000 displaced foreigners to the United States.” 2

However, as one Baptist minister in Syracuse, New York remarked, “We must get rid of the idea that displaced persons are the scum of the earth. They are industrious, skilled workers, and religious people." 3

In the Deep South, racism was still rampant. The American Heritage Foundation established a rule: “Any city that plans to segregate visitors to the Freedom Train will be bypassed.”Birmingham and Memphis both refused to desegregate their lines of visitors and both, despite pleadings, were bypassed by the Freedom Train.

Whatever the Freedom Train’s reception, the experience of passing down the hushed aisle was, as one newspaper reporter noted, “one has the feeling he is in church.” 4

Journey’s End—Freedom’s Rededication Takes Root

From September, 1947 to January, 1949, the Freedom Train crisscrossed the entire United States to finally end its odyssey in time for Harry S. Truman’s presidential inauguration in Washington D.C. He had sent the train off in Philadelphia and was there at the end. He had won re-election aboard his own train, traveling across the country gathering in grass-roots voters to the trackside cry of “Give ‘em hell, Harry!” Another inspired train shared the rails—the “Friendship Train”—brought tons of donated food to war ravaged Europe and received boxcars of gifts from the Europeans called, the “Merci (Thank you) Train.” 

The Freedom Train was a bold concept, aimed at unifying a fractured United States. Despite the ballyhoo and hoopla pushing its conservative consumerism message, it offered needed moments of genuine patriotic respite in a post-war time of divisive challenges and solutions. 

One of the Freedom Train’s traveling staff members summed up their experiences that spanned the journey. 

“After a while you get up in the morning and start feeling for your Uncle Sam beard. When you see what this country and these documents mean to people—how they stand out there all day to see the things that make the nation great—you get a lump in your throat.”5

The Freedom Train was a rock star and a creature of a jumbled post-war world, striving to bring a measure of unity and order out of chaos to Americans lining the tracks, waiting for the shout, 

“Here she comes!” 

The Souters’ book,Selling American’s on America—Journey into a Troubled Nation is available from Barnes & Noble and Amazon US | Amazon UK

References

1.     Bridgeport (Connecticut) Telegram of September 22, 1947

2.     Camden (Arkansas) News September 13, 1947

3.     Syracuse Herald Journal, January 11, 1948)

4.    Gilbert Bailey, "Why They Throng to the Freedom Train," New York Times Magazine, January 25, 1948.

5.    Ibid., Bailey

How could the Confederate South have won the US Civil War?

Over 150 years after its end, the American Civil War continues to provoke debate and controversy. One of the longest running debates is whether and how the South could have won the war. Here, we explain some theories on this ever-topical subject.

The Confederate Cabinet from Harper’s Weekly, June 1861, including Confederate President Jefferson Davis in the center-right of the picture.

The Civil War was the bloodiest war ever fought on American soil. While both the armies of the Union and the Confederacy sustained devastating casualties, the American South bore the brunt of this carnage economically for years postbellum. Forty percent of the South’s livestock was killed. Over two-thirds of the South’s rails and bridges were destroyed. The direct costs to the Confederacy in human capital, government expenses, and physical destruction from the war totaled $3.3 billion. Over a quarter of Southern white men of military age died during the war, which left alarming numbers of families destitute. The end of the Civil War saw a large migration of former slaves to the cities whose dislocations caused a severe negative impact on the black population, with large numbers of sick and dead. 

With Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865 the American Civil War had finally reached its conclusion. In just four years, the newly formed Confederate States of America that had so confidently entered the war in defense of what they viewed as state sovereignty had dissolved back into the Union. Debates among historians continue today on what the South could have done differently to achieve victory in a war in which time was on the side of the much more industrialized North. To better understand how the South could have possibly achieved its goal of a lasting secession it is important to first consider the in some ways overwhelming strengths of the Union.

The Power of the Union

General Lee himself recorded after his surrender, “The Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources…” There were 20 wholly Union/Northern states with 5 border “slave” states fighting against 11 Southern states. The passage of time on incomplete or lost records has made it difficult to estimate the exact number of soldiers on either side of the war. At best guess, the Confederate Army likely consisted of between 600,000 and 1,000,000 men. The Union was estimated to have 1,550,000 to 2,400,000 soldiers, clear numerical advantage. In addition to this, new conscripts were readily available for the North in the form of immigrants who faced such dire circumstances in their homelands that joining the Union Army seemed a better alternative. Immigration to the South was however limited due to the extensive blockade of its ports.

With industrial superiority, the Union states possessed a much greater capacity to produce armaments and the infrastructure necessary to move supplies efficiently. Financially the North also possessed a great advantage as the South’s primarily export based economy was also greatly hampered by the Union blockade.

Theories from the South and North

Many Southerners however, were convinced that they possessed superior soldiers and leadership and were fighting in defense of their homeland. Yet, some modern historians attribute the Confederacy’s loss to Lee’s aggression in offensive tactics rather than the more successful strategies of defensive approaches or even guerilla warfare after Appomattox, one of the last battles of the American Civil War. Historians hypothesize that Lee should have held the North at bay until it got tired of the clash and instead sought the route to a negotiation. Others are certain that the Confederates could have won if Atlanta, Georgia and Mobile, Alabama as well as the Shenandoah Valley, were held by them beyond the 1864 election. The Shenandoah was a strategy favored by the Confederates for its terrain that was west of the Blue Ridge Mountains, stretching from the southwest to the northeast. This route conveniently funneled troops for deployment.

Early in the war, the Confederacy had the upper hand following repeated victories. While not a complete victory like the Union later on achieved, the Confederates wanted to negotiate rather than conquer the North. By 1863, President Lincoln and his cabinet were reduced to three strategies for winning the war. First, a massive area of the Confederate States needed to be conquered and occupied, preferably the size of the whole of Western Europe. Second, the South’s infrastructure had to be demolished. Third and possibly most difficult to achieve was annihilating the South’s armies as an effective fighting force. The Union may have possessed superior manpower and material resources, being industrial while the South was mainly agricultural, but the South still had at least four well-established advantages from the start of the war that counteracted the North’s manpower and material resources.

The South’s 4 Advantages

First, a psychological benefit was associated with the Confederacy’s need to protect their family, homes, and lifestyles. It can be observed that the South possessed a more determined fighting spirit than the North on many occasions. Second, the South was filled with rivers, mountains, and swamps that acted as fortresses combined with successful deployments of armies. Third, and surprisingly, the South’s resources in life’s necessities such as livestock and corn were greater than that of the North. Fourth and most well-known, the Confederacy was abounding with cotton. Cotton would have been considered an economic or diplomatic factor as the cotton was in the hands of the Confederacy as a cash crop of substantial value. However, as the war carried on, planting was reduced and bales prepared for shipments were burned, thereby discouraging overseas exports. 

Military leadership and experience, specifically those in their respective Commander-in-Chief, was starkly contrasting between Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Union President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was lacking in military experience when elected president in 1860. During the Black Hawk War of 1832, he shortly served as an officer in the Illinois state militia, but saw no combat. During the Mexican-American War, Lincoln fiercely criticized President James K. Polk for hounding Mexico and engaging in western land grabs that only benefited slaveholders. During the Fort Sumter crisis, Lincoln issued conflicting orders to the navy, resulting in confusion. A humiliating Union loss at the First Battle of Bull Run took place when he put pressure on the army to mount an immediate assault on Richmond in the summer of 1861 against advice. Despite his inexperience, Lincoln was a hands-on commander-in-chief, studiously learning the business of war, testing new weapons on the White House lawn, and reading books on military strategy from the Library of Congress. 

Davis, on the other hand, had a decorated political and military career. He was a West Point graduate with seven years of service in the frontier army, a Mexican-American War veteran (wounded in battle), and Secretary of War under President Franklin Pierce. Even during his time as the Confederacy’s first president, his hunger for war never left him. During the first major battle of the war at Bull Run in July 1961, Davis fled his office in Richmond and sprinted towards the sound of the fighting, some believe with the intent of assuming the command of the troops and leading them into battle. Despite his habit of micromanaging more than Lincoln, Jefferson Davis proved an effective administrator and motivator of men. He operated under a similar command structure as Lincoln in constitutional terms. Under the Confederacy’s constitution, Davis would serve a six-year term and was forbidden from running again after that term was up.

How the South could have won

With the backgrounds of respective leaders and war advantages and motivations established, it is time to overview options the Confederacy could have taken that may have well guaranteed victory over the Union, ending the American Civil War. 

If the Confederates exported cotton as much as possible to Europe, most notably Great Britain before it sought cotton elsewhere in India or Egypt for a cheaper price, before the Union’s blockade of Confederate ports, then the Confederacy could have established lines of credit to buy war material. This could have been utilized to construct and repair the broken-down railway system to move troops and goods to critical positions. This was possible before the failed alliance with European nations was realized and trade nations like Britain conducted with the Union far outweighed the value of Southern cotton. 

Jefferson Davis had less consolidated power than his enemy and given his lack of men and resources, Davis was argued to have better served the cause by writing off large portions of the Confederacy’s scattered territory which would enable him to focus his armies around a few key areas important to the South’s survival. It has even been suggested conventional warfare should have been replaced with guerrilla warfare on Union occupation forces. Davis was never comfortable with guerrilla warfare and pursued this option to only a limited extent. For example, after the Union seized control of the Mississippi River in the summer of 1863, he permitted states west of the river to fend for themselves in the war and let “irregular” Confederate guerilla units operate without much intervention from his administration. 

The question of how the Confederacy could have won the Civil War has been debated and questioned endlessly by historians and scholars, professional and amateur. It should be recognized such a topic deserves far more discussion and study than noted in this article. Ultimately, the Union and its president won the Civil War. The Confederacy and its president lost the war and it is not difficult to foresee that a self-proclaimed nation with limited resources was bound to lose such a catastrophic war.

What do you think of this article? How could the Confederate South have won the US Civil War?

Unknown Heroes of World War Two: People who Saved those in Great Danger from the Nazis

World War Two created a whole host of heroes in the battle to beat the Fascist Powers in Europe. But many of the heroes remain unknown. Here, Brian Fleming, author of a recently published book on unsung heroes of World War Two (Amazon US| Amazon UK), explains some stories of amazing people whose actions saved the lives of people in great danger from the Nazis.

Aristides de Sousa Mendes, who helped save the lives of many people from the Nazis.

Introduction

For some reason, I have always been particularly intrigued by the doings of unsung heroes. Perhaps it is as a result of their invariably modest attitudes towards their achievements or maybe the fundamental unfairness that sometimes permeates accounts of events is the cause. My curiosity prompted me to write The Vatican Pimpernel: The Wartime Exploits of Monsignor Hugh O’Flaherty (Amazon US| Amazon UK).[i] A fellow Irishman, who while working as a priest working in the Vatican during World War 2 established what became known as the Rome Escape Line. O’Flaherty and his colleagues rescued many Allied servicemen and others who were on the run from the Nazis and Italian Fascists. My interest in this case was that his story was relatively unknown in Ireland despite the fact that at least 6,500 individuals were saved by the organization. There were reasons for this to be the case, most particularly because his own modesty. Researching The Vatican Pimpernelbrought me in contact with stories of other escape lines and I have realized an ambition to explore some of these in Heroes in the Shadows: Humanitarian Action and Courage in the Second World War (Amazon US| Amazon UK).[ii]

On this occasion rather than give an extensive account of one escape line, I have provided a chapter on each of four escape lines which allows for a fairly comprehensive outline of the activities of each one. The first chapter, however, is not about an escape line strictly speaking. In it, I recount the activities of diplomats in various parts of Europe who used their positions to save thousands of individuals. Of these, Raoul Wallenberg is by far the most famous but there were others whose heroic deeds need to be better known 

Aristides de Sousa Mendes

One interesting example is that of the Portuguese diplomat Aristides de Sousa Mendes. Under the dictator Salazar, Portugal, like its neighbor Spain, was determined not to become involved in WW2. Sousa Mendes, a lawyer by profession, served in his country’s diplomatic service and took up duty as Consul General in Bordeaux in 1938. The following year, Salazar, anxious not just to remain neutral but to be seen to be so, issued an instruction to his nation’s diplomats that visas were not to be issued to various categories of people. Essentially this covered all refugees who might be seeking access to Portugal. Exemptions could only be granted with sanction from the Foreign Ministry in Lisbon. It is clear that from the very start that Sousa Mendes was uncomfortable with this restrictive approach. He began to make exceptions without prior clearance and put forward, to the authorities, retrospective justification for his actions. The numbers involved were quite small but the situation changed radically in 1940 as French resistance to the Nazi invasion began to collapse. Millions fled south, many to avoid conflict but others, notably the Jews, had far more specific reasons to leave France. Hundreds approached the consulate in Bordeaux seeking assistance.

Sousa Mendes became indisposed in mid-June with what he described subsequently as a breakdown. Clearly he was in a very difficult situation caught between his instructions from Lisbon and his humanitarian instincts. Happily the latter proved decisive and he emerged from his illness with an emphatic decision. ‘From now on I’m giving everyone visas. There will be no more nationalities, races or religions.’[iii]For the next few weeks this is precisely what he did. Obviously Salazar’s government could not tolerate such defiance and he was recalled, an instruction he complied with but not in any great hurry. Estimating the numbers he saved is difficult as visas often covered more than the individual holder but included family members such as children. Some have suggested that between him and his colleague Emile Gissot in Toulouse, 20,000 were saved. Certainly a figure of 10,000 would constitute a conservative estimate. The noted Holocaust scholar, Professor Yehuda Bauer has described the role played by Sousa Mendes as perhaps the largest rescue operation by a single individual during that period. Subsequently the career of Aristides de Sousa Mendes was destroyed on the direct instructions of Salazar. Sadly he lived in relative poverty for the remainder of his life and his actions were airbrushed from history. Eventually the truth began to emerge and a campaign in the US by a group including the diplomat’s son, John Paul, bore fruit in 1986 when 70 members of congress wrote to the then Portuguese Prime Minister asking that the good name of Aristides de Sousa Mendes be restored. Two years later the Portuguese parliament unanimously adopted a motion striking out all charges against Sousa Mendes and marked the decision with a standing ovation. Further recognition has followed in Portugal and in Bordeaux where he made his wonderfully courageous decision.

The Belgian

Escape lines during WW2 tended to specialize in particular target groups. Some focused on ensuring the safe return home of members of the Allied Forces so that they could re-join their regiments, whereas others prioritized the needs of civilians who were seeking to evade capture by the Nazis and Fascists. 

Pat O’Leary was the name used by the leader of a prominent escape line centered in the South of France. In reality, he was a Belgian doctor whose real name was Albert Marie Guérisse.  When his native country was invaded, he made his way to Britain and enlisted in the Armed services. In early1941, he arrived in Marseille and made contact with Ian Garrow, a member of the Seaforth Highlanders who had been unable to reach Dunkirk in time to evacuate. Making his way south, he had begun to establish an escape line with a Scottish-born clergyman called Donald Caskie amongst others. The arrival of O’Leary was a major step forward as he brought new skills to the endeavor, including an ability to speak French fluently and the training he received in undercover work whilst in Britain. Indeed, he became the central figure in the organization and it became known as the ‘Pat Line’. He immediately set about expanding the line in terms of the number of ‘safe houses’ that were available in which to lodge escapees while ways of getting them out of France were organized. 

There were about 50,000 personnel who, like Garrow, failed to make the evacuation at Dunkirk. Many remained at large and others, whilst captured initially, managed to escape. The main objective of the line was to locate and repatriate these so that they could return to active service. In order to do this, the organization had to extend its presence throughout France as far as possible and to set up a route through Spain so that evacuees could be brought to Gibraltar and home from there. Establishing a large organization throughout war-time France was a risky operation. There were Nazi spies both in that part under the control of the German authorities and Vichy France, the so-called un-occupied region. Recruiting helpers was always difficult as the authorities were constantly seeking to penetrate organizations favorable to the Allied cause. Despite this, an extensive escape line stretching from north of Paris to Gibraltar was soon in place. 

Getting escapees over the Pyrenees and through Spain was difficult. Spain, under the control of General Franco, while nominally neutral, was favorably disposed towards the Nazis especially when they had the upper hand in the conflict. As a result, there were plenty of Nazi undercover agents in the country and the authorities turned a blind eye. Donald Darling was appointed by the British authorities to facilitate evacuees heading for Gibraltar and he soon had a fairly efficient operation in place. In this, he was helped by a diplomat stationed in the UK embassy in Berlin and a number of favorably-disposed locals. 

Of course, ensuring the safe passage of escapees through France was even more difficult. Operating over such a distance and involving so many volunteers led inevitably to failures. The line was penetrated by Paul Cole, an Englishman and former soldier. He had a number of early successes in bringing people down to the South of France and eventual freedom. This was a typical tactic by the Nazi authorities to allow an agent acting on their behalf build a positive image. In late November 1941, Cole’s real role became clear and he was confronted but escaped. He betrayed some of the lines leading supporters in the North of France, costing approximately fifty to be arrested, tortured and executed.

Despite this very serious setback, O’Leary and his team re-built the organization and evacuations to Gibraltar continued. In the main, these were by way of the Pyrenees but, for a period, sea evacuations were carried out successfully. They also managed to organize jail breaks including some spectacular ones, so that particular vital personnel could return home to resume their duties. On 2March 1943, O’Leary himself was betrayed by a volunteer named Roger le Neveu. He suffered serious torture in prison but survived. For obvious reasons an organization such as the ‘Pat Line’ kept no detailed records so estimating how many were assisted is not straightforward. It is likely, however, that about 2,000 individuals were helped by O’Leary and his colleagues.

The Franciscan

Assisi has been a focus of pilgrimage and religious practice for Christians over the centuries. As such, for those seeking sanctuary from the effects of the war it was an obvious destination to seek out. Indeed the local bishop had set up a committee to care for refugees at an early stage. Padre Rufino Niccacci was, at the time, Father Guardian of the local Franciscan seminary. In June 1944 the Allies, after protracted battles, eventually reached Rome. A few hours later, Padre Rufino was woken by a colleague close to midnight with a message to call to see the bishop immediately, which he did. As he had no involvement with the committee for the welfare of refugees, he was surprised to be asked to bring a group of them to Cardinal Della Costa in Florence, who would arrange for them to leave Italy via the port of Genoa. His surprise became astonishment when it was explained that this was a group of Jews, including a Rabbi. Rufino had never met a Jew and indeed, it was believed that no one of that faith had ever been in Assisi. The task was successfully completed and Rufino was destined to learn a lot in the next few months as he looked after increasing numbers of Jews arriving in the area to seek sanctuary. As escape via Genoa became unavailable, he hid them in the many religious houses in Assisi, supplemented by many locals who were willing to accommodate some in their private homes. A dangerous game of cat and mouse ensued between him and the local Nazi forces and, despite many near misses, he ensured that all in his care survived the war. Given the nature of these events it is likely that many locals were aware of what was going on but he and his charges were never betrayed. Interestingly, it is probable that the Nazi commander in the area during the final months of the occupation had some inkling of what was afoot and chose to turn a blind eye.

These are just three of the cases detailed in Heroes in the Shadows. There are others recorded there and elsewhere and, indeed, many individual heroic acts that are long forgotten.  War invariably provides ample evidence of humankind’s capacity for appalling brutality. It is important not to forget that many possess the necessary moral courage to resist such examples of man’s inhumanity to man and a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice in doing so.

Heroes in the Shadows: Humanitarian Action and Courage in the Second World Warby Brian Fleming is available here: Amazon US| Amazon UK

[i]Fleming, Brian The Vatican Pimpernel: The Wartime Exploits of Monsignor Hugh O’Flaherty(the Collins Press, 2008 & 2014, Skyhorse Publishing, 2012).

[ii] Fleming, Brian Heroes in the Shadows: Humanitarian Action and Courage in the Second World War (Amberley Publishing,2019).

[iii]Paldiel, Mordecai Diplomat Heroes of the Holocaust (KTAV Publishing, 2007) p. 74.

Introduction to History: What Were the Reasons for the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962?

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a period of thirteen days of high tension between the US and NATO on one side and the USSR and Cuba on the other. The crisis began when the US found out that the Soviets had moved missiles capable of reaching the mainland United States into Cuba, some 100 miles from the US shore. This led to days of diplomatic activity, military preparations, and high-level, high-risk correspondence between senior leaders in the USSR and USA - and nearly led to nuclear war.

However, the underlying reasons for the crisis were complex: these included that the USSR wanted to threaten and compete more effectively with the USA, the involvement of the USSR and the US in the Korean War and Vietnam War, strategic imbalance between the two sides, and the division of Berlin.

Nicky Quinton explains.

A picture of the US Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missile, which were partly responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Background

The political relationship between the United States and the USSR after World War II was filled with tension. Two geographical giants were competing for economic, technical, and military superiority all over the world. Government policies were aimed at improving performance in various fields to tip the balance of power in their favor, even to the detriment of their citizens. The space race, nuclear arms race, and even the Olympic Games were proof that the US and the Soviet Union did not want to give an inch in the battle.

After World War II, the world was largely divided into two camps: those who supported capitalism and those who supported communism. The United States and the Soviet Union were the leaders of these two groups. Unfortunately, this confrontation was not limited to an informational and ideological war. Instead, the two states got involved in wars to support their ideological allies.

This was because neither the USA nor the USSR truly wanted to fight each other directly – the desire to avoid another World War and the risks from nuclear weapons helped prevent that. However, their armies fought indirectly in conflicts, notably the Korean War and Vietnam War. 

Korean War and Vietnam War as examples of indirect war

The split of Korea after World War II into two independent states was driven by the Cold War. A socialist regime was established in the northern state, and a capitalist regime was established in the southern state. The Soviet Union (and China) supported the communist leader Kim Il-sung, and the US supported the anti-communist leader Syngman Rhee. The war began in 1950 and ended up with the Korean Armistice Agreement in 1953.

The Vietnam War is another example of a proxy war. Although the official conflict took place between North Vietnam and South Vietnam, the real state of affairs was similar to the Korean War. The USSR and China supported communist North Vietnam, and the United States and other anti-communist countries more actively supported South Vietnam. Therefore, indirect conflicts increased the tension between the USA and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Cuban Missile Crisis

The Cuban Missile Crisis was different to those wars – it was partly about strengthening the Soviet position and giving it a more credible nuclear threat.

It could happen at all because in the years before 1962 the Cuban Revolution led communist leader Fidel Castro to take control of Cuba in 1959. The Soviets were more than happy with an ally some 100 miles from the US coast and used it to their advantage.

The Soviet initiative to place missiles in Cuba was the result of the Soviet’s perceived strategic imbalance, since the United States had nuclear weapon bases in Turkey, close to the Soviet Union (Nathan, 58). In 1961, US President John F. Kennedy agreed to put 15 nuclear-tipped Jupiter missiles near the Turkish border. While the US military was deemed capable of delivering a first strike on the USSR (launching a nuclear attack before the enemy could do the same), the Soviets had few ballistic missiles deemed capable of reaching the continental US from the USSR at the time. Furthermore, these were considered to be both inaccurate and unreliable (Allison and Zelikow, 92). Therefore, the USSR wanted to solve this problem by placing mid-range missiles in Cuba, thus restoring the strategic balance.

One more crucial reason for the Crisis was Berlin. During the Cold War, Germany was effectively split into two: East Germany (GDR) and West Germany (FRG). The border went straight through Berlin. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev believed that by having missiles in Cuba, the Soviet Union could try and strike a deal with the West into relinquishing its control over the western portion of Berlin (Allison and Zelikow, 105).

In short, some of the key reasons for the Cuban Missile Crisis were:

·      The Cuban Revolution that led communists to take charge of Cuba

·      Political competition between the USA and the Soviet Union.

·      Growing tensions throughout the 1950s, partly driven by the Korean War and the (early days) of the Vietnam War

·      To put pressure on the United States to remove its nuclear arms from Turkey

·      Control over Berlin

Conclusion

Crisis was averted in Cuba and the US did in fact secretly later remove the nuclear-tipped missiles from Turkey (Nathan 134). Fortunately the Cold War didn’t turn into a “hot war.”

Works Cited

Allison, Graham T., and Philip Zelikow. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. TPB, 2000.

“Cuban Missile Crisis.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 8 May 2019, www.history.com/topics/cold-war/cuban-missile-crisis.

Nathan, James A. The Cuban Missile Crisis Revisited. St. Martin’s Press, 1992. 

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

This article was provided by Nicky Quinton of WriteMyEssayOnline.

Editor’s note: That external link is not affiliated in any way with this website. Please see the link herefor more information about external links.

The Importance of Locations in Britain for the 1944 D-Day Invasion

The 75th anniversary of D-Day took place a few days ago, on June 6th. In honor of that, today we have a contribution from an author of a recently published book about D-Day - D-Day UK: 100 Locations in Britain (Amazon US| Amazon UK). Here Simon Forty explains the background to World War Two’s D-Day and his book.

US troops approaching Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944.

In June 1944 Allied forces invaded France to liberate Europe and destroy Nazism.

Immortalised in film and book, D-Day is, rightly, seen as a turning point in 20thcentury

history and opened a land campaign that finished less than a year later in the

unconditional surrender of the enemy. 

The speed, means and method of this victory have been discussed and debated

ever since. Most of the discussion has concentrated on the landings and the battles

that followed: the bravery of the soldiers, sailors and airmen; the effectiveness and

personality of the commanders; the efficiency and abilities of the respective tactics,

weapons and armies.

The locations are written indelibly in our memories: Omaha and Juno, Pegasus

Bridge, Arromanches, Pointe du Hoc, Sainte-Mère-Église. Understandably, much of the

military remembrance – the cemeteries and memorials – are on the French side of the

English Channel, as are most of the remnants of war – bunkers, vehicles, scarred buildings.

However, like the tip of an iceberg, the D-Day landings and the battle of Normandy

– about two months’ fighting from 6 June until the end of August – were the result of

years of preparation that took place to a great extent in Britain. It was in Britain that

the plans were developed, the logistics organised and the weapons prepared. It was in

Britain that the soldiers boarded the ships to take them to France, from Britain that

the air forces provided aerial cover and the armada set sail. It was in Britain that large

numbers of young American, Canadian, Polish, and French men and women spent so

much time that they became part of the everyday life of the country. And it wasn’t all

work: the influx of that many young men and women – including more than 100,000

black troops – had a striking affect on Britain’s social scene. After the war, 60,000 war

brides left Britain for a future in North America. British and American culture hadn’t

become one entity, but it had certainly joined at the hip.

Americans start to arrive

The first Americans arrived in Northern Ireland in January 1942 – although

‘Special Observers’ had been there since spring 1941. By May 1944 their ranks had

swelled to around 750,000, a figure that doubled before 1944 was out. Some of these

soldiers spent a short time in Britain before heading to the Mediterranean theatre;

others spent as much as 20 months training for action.

This invasion – often dubbed the ‘friendly invasion’ – affected most people

in Britain in one way or another. The Americans had to be housed and fed; they

had to have places to train and trainers to tell them what to do. They had to have

equipment and places to practise using it. The supplies for the battles to come had

to be stored somewhere. The details of the invasion had to include secure locations

for final preparation, places to board ships and receive final orders. And then there

were the naval facilities, and those needed for the US Air Forces: airfields, runways,

hangars. This was no mere temporary posting. This was the creation of an American

infrastructure in a way that hadn’t been done before. The rulebook had to be created.

Over the next two years the preparations for the invasion of France took form.

It wasn’t a linear progression: political considerations, fighting in Africa and the

Mediterranean, the strength of the opposition – all these things interrupted progress

until late 1943. From then on the countdown had begun and while the actual end date

changed slightly, it wasn’t a question of if, but when.

D-Day UK, published to mark the 75th anniversary of D-Day, chooses 100

locations in Britain to tell the story of how the invasion of France came about. It covers

the practicalities of the planning process, the main people and the major organisations

involved. It looks at the specialist training the troops needed and the major exercises;

gives an insight into some of the logistical issues, covers the movement of troops from

marshalling camp to embarkation – for delivery to France by landing craft or aircraft;

examines the range of air assets over the battlefield, from fighters through medium

bombers to the heavies; and touches on the naval side of the landings, particularly the

minesweepers and landing craft.

Choosing 100 locations

Choosing 100 locations proved to be a difficult job and I’m sure that many would

disagree with my choices: too much air and not enough naval; too much in Hampshire

and not enough in Essex; too much American and not enough British or Canadian; too

much that can’t be seen today. In the end it’s impossible to please everyone.

Finally, I decided early on not to include museums in the listings: there could

have been 100 of them alone, including the Imperial War Museum, National Army

Museum, RAC Tank Museum, D-Day Museum, Royal Signals Museum, Fleet Air

Arm Museum, the excellent Portsmouth naval museums (the Submarine Museum,

Naval Museum and Explosion Museum of Naval Firepower), Bletchley Park, Cobbaton

Combat Collection, museums at airfields (Tangmere, Shoreham, Dunkeswell), up to

and including the Commando display in the Fort William Museum. All these and many

more have material related to D-Day and are worth a visit.

D-Day UK: 100 Locations in Britainby Simon Forty is available here:Amazon US| Amazon UK

Iran after the 1953 Coup: The contributions of John Mowlem & Co. Ltd and Iran National to Iranian soft power diplomacy, 1954-66

The Shah of Iran led a coup d’état in Iran in 1953, with the help of the UK and US. This article considers what happened after the coup, in particular how the awarding of a road-building contract to a British company ultimately led to resistance to awarding major contracts to some foreign companies. Guan Kiong Teh explains.

The Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza, with his wife and son in 1967.

I wrote this article on the road building and vehicle industry in the late Pahlavi state to respond to two aspects of Iranian historiography. The first is the lack of scholarship on the technique of science and technology within Iranian modernization. Many scholars mention science and technology within Iranian political discourse. However, I focus upon scientific technique - defined as the legal, political and societal context and consequences of the application of technology. This only started gathering force recently, with for instance, Katayoun Shafiee’s focus on ‘sociotechnical’ processes in Machineries of Oil(2018).

The second is the thin analysis of the social impacts of consumerism during the years between the 1953 coup and the announcement of the Peykan car in 1966 through an integrated system of the private market and public infrastructure. Drawing upon British governmental and personal sources, and documents produced by the Iranian Government, Mowlems, and Chrysler, I examine how road building and the related vehicle industry contributed to Iranian political practice and discourse between the spring of 1954 and the announcement of the Peykan car in 1966, particularly towards the concept of independent foreign policy and an Iranian state for the Iranian people. The Mowlems contract was a blessing and a curse. While it demonstrated to the Iranian government that they had the sophistication to turn perfidious Albion on its heads, its costliness contributed to the pro-business spirit of the 1960s and the mythical White Revolution.

Iranian Vehicle Industry

The vehicle industry represented a fertile opportunity to win over the Iranian people and execute leverage against countries such as Britain, America, and Germany, particularly given the lessons of the Mowlem’s affair from 1954-57. Commercial development projects grew in geopolitical significance during the Cold War. Iran shared a border with the Soviet Union. The increasing burden of aid, military and nuclear expenditure in Iran in the 1950s compelled Mohammad Reza Shah to pursue a more independent foreign policy, most notably through the ‘soft’ weapon of the trade of goods and services within Iran. The logic: to reap the benefits of aid and expenditure without furthering the impression and consequences of Anglo-American political puppetry. Between 1954 and 1959, the PO sought to consolidate its uniquely ‘educated’ and powerful role in government through these formative exercises, refining its technique of portraying British firms as undeserving of their prestigious commercial reputation. The diplomatic successes and economic costs, however, led the government to pursue diplomatic success through economic profit, as evidenced in the birth of Iran’s automotive industry, culminating in the Iran N Peykan.

John Mowlem & Co Ltd. were British construction agents. By the 1950s they were established names in Britain, supervising Thames drainage projects at the turn of the century. In April 1954, Glossop was approached by Ebtehaj, Fazlollah Zahedi and the Shah to negotiate for a road-building contract, with vocal support from Roger Stevens, the British Ambassador to Iran. Mowlem’s first problem was demonstrating hostility towards the Iranian Government’s demands for accountability in technical expertise, exacerbated by the British Embassy’s lack of technical knowledge. A July 27 telegram states the position of the Iranian Government as interpreted by Ambassador Roger Stevens. Mowlems was expected to seek a contract to acquire the road plant material from a preferably non-British firm. The Iranian Government did not, as a matter of practice, enter multiple contracts in its pursuit of development projects. The Embassy advised that this was a clear warning that Mowlems’ would be held to the highest technical scrutiny. Since the previous month, Ebtehaj repeatedly expressed that he was under pressure from American firms to ensure that plant contracts were not exclusively awarded to British firms. Finally on May 10, 1955, Richard Glossop, the Managing Director of John Mowlem & Co. Ltd, exchanged contracts with Abdolhassan Ebtehaj. These were the roads to be constructed.Mowlems committed, as ‘managing agents’, to supervise the construction of 6,000 kilometers of roads in Iran over eight years. This was, according to the British Embassy, ‘the most important contract we have secured in Persia since the resumption of diplomatic relations. For years past foreign contractors have tried and failed to get it.’ Yet Mowlems’ shortcomings in its mastery of technical information served as a wake-up call for the Iranian government. When this contract was terminated in December 1957, barely 300 kilometers of roads had been refurbished in small stretches, with no new roads built. The contract was formally annulled on September 10, 1958. Further road building contracts until the mid 1960s never rivaled the Mowlems’ contract on scale, and were overwhelmingly awarded to Iranian firms or, at most, a minor supervisory role was awarded to Belgian, South African or Danish firms notably Kampsax - never Anglo American again.

How the Agreement Ended

The Plan and Budget Organization enacted political leverage against Britain by purporting that Mowlems failed to deliver the technical excellence necessary to justify maintaining the contract. The experience demonstrated that Iran had the strategic sophistication to manipulate perceived British commercial opportunism. Yet this was executed at the expense of contributing towards a balance of payments crisis between 1958-60 and presenting unfinished roads to the public, instilling further ambivalence about the merits of the incorporation of ‘Western’ development and Iranian nationalism advocated by the Shah. 

While the extraordinary expenditure of the Mowlems’ contract makes it difficult to argue that money was judicially used, the Plan Organization took some steps towards independent foreign policy by challenging Mowlems not on explicitly financial or political but technical grounds. The PO presented limitations upon British commercial advantage as a moral and financial obligation to find the most technologically competitive route to infrastructure development. The contract negotiation period between April 1954 and May 1955 was formative for the PO in coming to terms with manipulating technical expertise of road building. 

Relations were warmest where British and Iranian interests in road building and foreign policy clashed. During the second half of 1956, Mowlems’ dedication towards technical competitiveness improved. In November, a 36 kilometer stretch of road between Qazvin and Takestan was successfully refurbished, of which General Ansari gave a tour to Majlismembers at the end of the year. By December 1956, Ebtehaj grew more praiseful of Mowlems, announcing early in January 1957 to commit to fund a new flagship project: a road from Qazvin to the Turkish border at Jolfa, via Tabriz, and a direct route between Isfahan and Shiraz[1]. The route to the Turkish border provided easy access to a ‘friendly’ missile base, and would also serve Iranian interests in regional links.

However, Mowlems’ astonishing cost-saving by refusing to study soil composition exasperated the Iranian government. By mid-1957, only 240 kilometers of roads had been refurbished with no new roads built. Early batches were cracking and potholed, the result of importing a road plant mixture designed for British weather and soil. The Shah summoned Stevens, decrying it as ‘the worst piece of propaganda I’d ever seen’. Once he said this, Ebtehaj went for the pincer. The Shah had promised Mowlems’ reputation to the Majlis in 1955. If Mowlems’ did not improve or concede incompetence, the Iranian state was headed for a crisis of confidence that could rival what happened 1953. Eventually, Ebtehaj wrote to Mowlems to annul the contract on 23 December 1957. 450 million rials had been wasted over two and a half years.

The Consequences for Iran

This experience primed commercial instinct during the White Revolution. It gave the Iranian Government an obsession with ensuring Iranian - particularly Persian,Pahlavicharacter was evident in national ‘modernization’ and ‘development’, as evidenced in the automotive industry, particularly the Iran National Peykan, announced 1966, and the Pars Khodro Shahin, announced 1967. Cars were a uniquely potent symbol of the West and a unique absorption point for discontent therewith. Unlike Western lecturers or artists, ‘ordinary’ Iranians interacted with the benefits of the car on a practical (as opposed to abstract) level. Unlike refrigerators, hydroelectricity or the sewage system, ‘ordinary’ Iranians interacted with the car for extended periods of time. Unlike radios or TV sets, the value of the car as a tool and means of earning income were more obvious. Further, in an experience common around the world, the car was often the most expensive product and second-most expensive that a family bought, after their house. The passenger car has political capital. Note the situation that Volkswagen found themselves in during 2018, when they faced criticism that they withdrew from the Iranian market due to lobbying by the American ambassador in Germany.

To begin, the Government ostensibly took steps to secure Iranian national input; ostensibly committed to Import Substitution Industrialization as defined in the Third Development Plan (1963-68). A June 1963 news broadcast announced that the Government was planning initiatives to boost car battery production within Iran. The Government favored entrepreneurs to the detriment of the consumer’s pockets by enforcing considerable economic incentive to encourage importers and distributors to seek tenders for nationalized Complete Knock-Down Kits. For instance, 126 ‘saloon cars’ were imported between 27 September and 2 October 1965. These cars were worth 9,500,000 rials to their importer and subject to governmental duties of 92%, at 8,740,000 rials. High tariffs were imposed upon cars that were supposed to be relatively affordable. While the exact make and model of the 126 saloons are unknown, they were all the same model, giving a market price of 75,397 rials and a tariff of 69,360 rials per vehicle, costing the importer 144,757 rials per vehicle in total. As sold to consumers, the vehicle would have cost slightly more than the 150,000 rial Peykan and was a likely competitor. Yet the pressure upon importers was clear: one could be subject to heavy tariffs, or one could try hard to persuade car brands to license cars for CKD production. These were not technologically advanced cars: the Volkswagen Beetle’s air cooled engine was far more appropriate for Iran’s arid climate. Overall, the impetus to produce the national car came from an interest in profit and symbolism of adopting a British and American car; symbol that the Iranian government could actually reign in foreign powers and, to quote British politician Nigel Farage, ‘make a titanic success out of it’. 

Conclusion

The Peykan divided urban and rural more than it united. The Hillman Hunter GT was rebranded the Peykan Javanan, heralding the prominence of youths in the country and the role of youth in Iranian politics. Few in the countryside, however, could afford to maintain cars. In villages, those who drove taxis were respected as ‘chauffeurs’, their ability to drive singled out by hopeful mothers trying to matchmake sons. In 1969, 4 million - 15% of Iran’s population - lived in cities. Yet 80% of the passenger car market was urban. 

The Pahlavi state made genuine efforts to ensure that ‘development’ initiatives from the United States, Britain and their Cold War allies were practical for those outside Tehran and Iran’s major cities. The road building experience was good. However, the Pahlavi state focused on the wrong aspect of the lessons, valuing money over expertise. This was the main takeaway: without subscribing to determinist narratives on the inevitability of the White Revolution leading to a Black instead of Red Revolution, Iran’s determination to make sense of the point of scientific and technical control meant that following a clear path of ‘development’, as suggested by Huntington or Moore, was never going to be likely.

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

[1]Tehran to FO, 16 February 1957, FO 371/127117