Bernardo O’Higgins and the Resurrection of Chile: To Rise and Fall Like Phaethon

The improbable lives of Ambrosio O’Higgins and his son, Bernardo, would change the history of South America forever. Two men, father and son, both strivers and achievers. Two men who did not take the traditional paths to power and high office. Two men, who through a series of improbable events, would both become, in their own ways, among the founders of the nation of Chile.  The chain of events would begin, of all places, in County Sligo in Ireland.

Erick Redington continues this series on the O’Higgins family by looking at the later life and incredible successes of Bernardo O’Higgins.

If you missed it read part one on Ambrosio O’Higgins’ life here, and part 2 on Bernardo O’Higgins’ early life here.

O'Higgins meeting Jose San Martin at the 1818 Battle of Maipu.

After the disaster at Rancagua, Bernardo, the remnant of his troops, and a core of supporters found themselves exiles over the Andes. He decided to bring his mother and sister along to Buenos Aires, the capital of the United Provinces of La Plata. La Plata had also been in revolt against Spain, but unlike the Chileans, they had been able to hold its own against attempts at reconquest. When it appeared the Spanish were going to attack Buenos Aires, Bernardo immediately volunteered to serve in La Plata’s army. He was sent west to Mendoza to prevent an invasion from royalist controlled Chile. While here, Bernardo would meet José de San Martín.

In North America, the United States had been able to achieve its independence with the mother country still on its northern border. The viewpoint in South America was radically different. Many of the leaders of the government in Buenos Aires and generals in the army like San Martín believed that none of the peoples of the continent could only be truly independent unless Spain was fully driven from South America. For San Martín, Chile and Peru would have to be secured and the Spanish driven out.

While in Mendoza, Bernardo would continue his military schooling. He asked friends to send him modern books on the art of war. He would devise elaborate and bold plans for the liberation of his homeland. One plan presented to San Martín called for a three-pronged offensive relying on a naval invasion as well as recruitment in Chile of local militia and over 6,000 local natives. This was indicative of Bernardo’s military thinking, bold, but overly complicated plans relying on multiple moving parts. San Martín was more practical minded. He wanted one army to cross the Andes and focus on the central region of Chile. Under his plan, San Martín would lead the Army of the Andes with two divisions led by Generals Miguel Soler and Bernardo O’Higgins. On January 9, 1817 the army was mobilized and began crossing the Andes. Events would move very quickly.

Andes crossing

The Andes is the longest above sea level mountain range in the world. The highest mountain is over 22,000 feet (almost 7,000 meters) tall. Even though the army crossed at the start of summer, it was not an easy journey. This journey and the legends attached to it would become one of the great historical epics of the Latin American wars of independence. Napoleon crossing the St. Bernard pass and Hannibal crossing the Alps with his elephants both went over less rough terrain than did the Army of the Andes. This was not an area where the army could live off the land. All supplies had to be carried. If it did not go perfectly, disaster would quickly result. Fortunately, the leadership of the Army of the Andes was superb, and the leadership was able to drive their men to cross this imposing mountain range in only a month, with the army intact. 

On February 4, 1817, forward elements of the army made first contact with the royalists in Chile. This took the royalist administration completely by surprise. They were not expecting an entire army to be able to cross the mountains undetected. San Martín had transported over 3,500 men into Chile. The royalist forces arrayed to meet them only numbered about 1,800 men. This was not a place the royalists were expecting an attack.

Battle of Chacabuco

On February 12, 1817, the Battle of Chacabuco began. The plan was to have Bernardo lead a diversionary attack while having General Soler deliver the main punch and destroy the royalist force. Whether it was from enthusiasm or impetuousness is disputed, but Bernardo led his men into a full-on attack against the royalists. This forced San Martín to speed up his plans and move Soler into battle earlier than anticipated. Although the battle was a resounding victory for the Army of the Andes, and hundreds of prisoners were taken, the royalist force was not destroyed and they were able to escape to the very south of Chile, where they would prove to be an irritant for a while longer.

The Battle of Chacabuco was typical Bernardo. He was a skilled commander and leader of men. He could throw a punch with the troops under his command. Enthusiastic for his men and his cause, he was driven to impetuosity. If he had made his attack only a diversion, as was originally planned, perhaps the remainder of the royalist force would have been eliminated. Many battles are won or lost on decisions made by commanders whether seize the initiative or strictly follow a plan. Although historians would argue over Bernardo’s decisions in this battle, the result was that the people of Chile gave him credit for the victory, and his star now shown brighter than ever. 

After the victory at Chacabuco, the royalists fled Santiago and retreated to their stronghold in Peru. On February 15th, an assembly of notables convened and elected a new governor of Santiago to replace the outgoing royalists. That person was José de San Martín. He, however, did not want the job. He was not Chilean and was loyal to his own country. San Martín sent a note refusing the position. In response, the next day the notables elected him again. Again, he refused. San Martín, and the leadership in Buenos Aires, wanted Bernardo. San Martín had written instructions from Buenos Aires that Bernardo was to be made leader of Chile. It had already been decided before the Army of the Andes even set out. The fact that Bernardo was the hero of Chacabuco only eased a result that was predetermined. The assembly of notables chose Bernardo to be the Supreme Director of Chile. This began what was called the Patria Nueva period of Chilean history. It would last until 1823.

The task facing Bernardo was daunting. The old revolutionary junta was gone. The assembly of notables was just an assembly, elected by no one. An entire government had to be created from scratch. Government ministries had to be built from the ground up. An army and navy had to be patched together out of scattered militias. Only a man of Bernardo’s boundless energy and enervated mind could have tackled this task. The son of the reforming viceroy would now, finally, be the reforming Supreme Director.

Leadership

Nothing happens without money. The new Chilean government needed money badly. To Bernardo, there was an obvious solution, and three days after his appointment, he ordered all royalist property in the country to be confiscated. The money that came from this property allowed for the funding of new government departments. “Battalion number 1 of the Army of Chile” was created, the first organized national army unit. An official government newspaper was created to turn out propaganda for the literate classes. Ever the scholar, Bernardo decreed the founding of a military academy. Bernardo was a reformer, and he was intent on establishing the Chilean state correctly from the start.

In his enthusiasm, there were darker elements. Early on, a government commission was created which would hold tribunal over every Chilean and their role in independence. Everyone in the country would have their patriotic and unpatriotic actions recorded. All Chileans needed to justify to the state, and their fellow citizens, the title of patriot. If you were not a patriot, you could be labeled a royalist and your property would be confiscated. Any Chilean who fled was automatically classified as a royalist. Bernardo’s hammer came down especially hard on the Church. Many priests and friars who preached obedience and loyalty to the Spanish King were exiled and the Church properties they oversaw confiscated. The Bishop of Santiago was even expelled, and Bernardo would appoint a replacement.

Another controversial act of Bernardo’s early reign was his participation in the founding of the Logia lautarina in Santiago. The Logia Lautarina was a shadowy, secret organization dedicated to the independence of South America. By the statutes of the Lautaro, as it became commonly known as, if any member became a government official, that person could take no action without consulting the lodge. Also, no major appointment could be made without lodge approval. Members of the Lautaro filled many government posts and held large numbers of army commissions. Many of these members were Argentines. From August 1817 until San Martín left Chile in August 1820, the public perception was that the Lautaro ran the country. Since perception can be reality for many people, a shadowy secret cabal from another country was the true power behind the Supreme Director, and thus Chile was not truly free. This resentment would only grow.

South

With the government beginning to stabilize, a problem in the south began to materialize. When the Spanish retreated from Chacabuco, they had retired to Talcahuano, about 300 miles (about 500km) from Santiago. While at Talcahuano, the royalist commander, General Ordóñez, had retrained his forces and reinforced to about 1,000 men. The Araucanians were favorably disposed to the royalists since the benevolent treatment they had received from Captain-General O’Higgins all those years before.  It was decided by the government (and the Lautaro) that Bernardo would delegate his office to Colonel Quintana, another member of the Lautaro, and proceed south with the army to defeat the royalists. 

The farther south Bernardo’s army marched, the worse it was. The army set out in April, which is mid-autumn in the southern hemisphere. The area had been stripped due to the constant fighting. The terrain was mountainous, and the threat of ambush was ever-present. The people of this region were predominantly royalist sympathizers, and coldly received the patriot army. The terrain around Talcahuano seemed tailor made for defense. Hills surround the port, which was situated on a jutting point of land. Thirty guns stood ready to shoot down any attackers. Since they were marching in autumn, rains turned the roads into mud tracks. In keeping character, Bernardo developed an elaborate plan which called for a diversionary frontal assault which would cover for an amphibious landing against the town itself. Due to the horrible conditions, the boats prepared for the landing could not be brought into position. Despite this, also keeping to character, Bernardo ordered the frontal assault to commence anyway. Progress was made, including taking southern positions and separating the royalists from their Araucanian allies. The next day, however, the royalists were still in position and Ordóñez still had fight left in him. Faced with worsening conditions and dwindling numbers due to casualties and attrition, Bernardo ordered his army to retreat to Concepción. 

The fight in the south now devolved into guerrilla warfare with burning villages and atrocity causing reprisal causing atrocity and the cycle grew ever bloodier. After another failed attempt to take Talcahuano, Bernardo decided to try a new tactic: diplomacy. As the head of state, he felt that perhaps the benevolent intervention of a third party would convince the Spanish to end their attempts to reconquer their former colony. He wrote to the Prince Regent of Britain, the future George IV. Bernardo offered to open the ports of Chile to British trade and investment. Nothing came of this at the time, but many would see this as part of what they interpreted as Bernardo’s attempt to turn Chile into the England of South America. 

With no response forthcoming from the British, the bad news kept coming. The Carreras, Bernardo’s old rivals for power in Chile, were back. The Lautaro, was becoming more unpopular, and Colonel Quintana, the acting Supreme Director, along with it. Even Bernardo was becoming concerned about the attitude of the country. Worst of all, the royalists were embarking on another expedition from Peru to reconquer Chile. Fortunately for Bernardo, San Martín, who had attempted to go home in retirement, had returned to Chile and was ready to take command once more. To prevent any Chileans from being cut off, the army facing Ordóñez was withdrawn north. 

Independence

It was at this time that Bernardo decided to take the ultimate step in Chile’s relationship with Spain. Officially, the Chileans were fighting for their rights under the Spanish crown. During the retreat, while at the city of Talca, Bernardo signed the Chilean Declaration of Independence, with no ties whatsoever to the Spanish king. To Bernardo, this represented not some mythologized breaking with the past, but as a way of telling all Chileans that there was now no turning back. There would be no return to Spanish rule. 

In order to support this new declaration, San Martín marched south and reinforced Bernardo’s army to a total of 6,600 men. This force gave the Chileans enough to press the royalists back. After some jockeying for position, the royalists decided their only hope of survival was a frontal night attack. As many of the royalist troops were veterans of the Peninsular War, they had much more experience night fighting than their colonial adversaries. Although outnumbered, on March 16, 1818, the royalists achieved a complete victory, killing, wounding, or dispersing almost half of San Martín’s army. When his division was shattered, Bernardo received a wound in the arm which took months to fully heal. Much of the demoralization among the rebel troops came from rumors that both Bernardo and San Martín had been killed. Much of the Argentine artillery train had been captured, and the patriot army had lost significant amounts of supplies. This battle, the Second Battle of Cancha Rayada was the only defeat the patriots would suffer during the campaign, but it was such a shock and so complete a defeat that there was talk amongst the remainder of the army about retreating across the Andes. Even in his wounded state, Bernardo refused. “As long as I remain alive and have a single Chilean to follow me, I shall go on fighting against the enemy in Chile,” he is attributed to have said. 

The rumors of death in the army’s leadership, along with the panic of the populace provided the perfect opportunity for the return of the Carreras, Bernardo’s old nemeses. In order to secure his position, a still wounded and somewhat feverish, Bernardo rode for Santiago. On March 24th, only eight days after the Battle of Cancha Rayada, Bernardo formally took up his office of Supreme Director again. The wounded revolutionary hero cut a dashing figure, and his very presence and authority was enough to prevent any move by the Carrerists. 

Bernardo had no intention of staying away from battle for long. The royalists were advancing toward Valparaíso. Bernardo used his moral and legal authority to organize supplies, weapons, and provisions for every available man who could be made to fight. When the royalists arrived, the Battle of Maipú was fought on April 5th. Though this battle only lasted two hours, it would finally remove the threat from the royalists in the south. While the patriots lost about 1,000 men, the royalist army was annihilated. This victory, so short and decisive, would finally end the royalist military threat to Chile.

The consummation of Chilean independence increased the wrath, and the plotting, of the Carrerists. The younger brothers of José Miguel began plotting to invade Chile and either install the senior Carrera as head of state or begin an insurgency to overthrow Bernardo. When the two younger brothers arrived in Mendoza, they were captured and placed on trial. Although prominent Chileans attempted to intervene, and US Consul William Worthington pled the Carreras’ case, Bernardo was unmoved, as was San Martín. After news arrived of the defeat at Cancha Rayada, the people of Mendoza panicked, and the local administration decided on the execution of the brothers. They were informed of their sentences and that they would die by firing squad. Four hours after the sentence was served, a message arrived from San Martín announcing the victory at Maipú and calling for an end to the prosecution of the Carreras. 

Feuds

Although there is no direct evidence that Bernardo ordered their executions, the people of Chile believed that he had. The Carreras were not very popular throughout the country at large, but that members of the nation’s elite could be executed on the word of the Supreme Director was disturbing to many. Further, many people also blamed the sinister influence of the Lautaro. Protests began in the capital. A mob of angry citizens, stirred up by Carrerists, broke into the courtyard of the Supreme Director’s palace. The leaders of the mob were arrested, but Bernardo’s position as national leader began to feel shaky.

Next was Manuel Rodríguez, a guerilla leader and former secretary to the old junta that both Carrera and Bernardo had been members of. When Rodríguez began to become more dangerous to the nation’s stability, Bernardo offered to pay to send him to either Europe or North America. Rodríguez appeared to accept, but went into hiding, participating in the aborted Carrera brothers’ conspiracy. When Rodríguez was finally captured and placed under arrest, the time-honored excuse of “shot while trying to escape” was used to justify what was an execution in all but name. Whether Bernardo had anything to do with it was immaterial. The people believed that he and the Lautaro orchestrated the murder. 

From his perch in Montevideo, José Miguel was driven by bitter hatred and a desire for revenge not only against Bernardo, but against his Argentine backers as well. Letters and pamphlets were written calling for the overthrow of the government in Santiago. In Buenos Aires, governmental instability led to a change in leadership. The new leaders invited José Miguel to form the Legión Chilena, a force dedicated to overthrowing the Supreme Director and taking power. As would regularly happen, another new government quickly took power in Buenos Aires, and Carrera, along with his Legión, had to take to the countryside. When his troops had plundered their way to Mendoza, the governor there was able to defeat Carrera and capture him. He was expeditiously tried by court martial, convicted and executed. Bernardo should have been able to breath a sigh of relief. After all, his most bitter domestic enemy was gone, and its faction was decapitated. The resentment from the Chilean elite, however, only increased against Bernardo.

Invasion

The struggle with Spain continued without the Carreras. In November 1818, perhaps the most important appointment of Bernardo’s tenure as Supreme Director came when he appointed Lord Cochrane as Vice Admiral and Commander of the Chilean Navy. The strange and mercurial Cochrane would go on to fight with much of the Chilean government, but Bernardo recognized his talents and hoped that an Englishman could build the best navy in South America. Cochrane’s brilliance in blockading the Spanish fleet based in Peru would make Chile free from threat of naval invasion from Spanish royalists.

With the Spanish Navy neutralized, now was time for the final act of liberation, the invasion of Peru. On August 10, 1820, the Army of the Liberation of Peru embarked on ships of the Chilean navy for a seaborne invasion of the final royalist stronghold. Bernardo believed that the army had only to show itself, and the people of Peru would greet them as liberators. Through a series of daring attacks along the Peruvian coast, royalist defenses were weakened. The councils of the royalists were divided. Some called for a life-or-death defense of Lima, the premier city of Spanish America. Others wanted a retreat north into the mountains. In the end, little effective defense was made. On July 2, 1821, the patriots entered Lima without having to fight for the city. Unfortunately, San Martín allowed the defenders to escape to the north to fight another day. 

San Martín would have to pursue the royalists. This protracted the war. He began sending message after message to Bernardo back in Chile requesting supplies. The Chileans were promised the army would live off the country and resented having to pay for another’s liberation, little remembering that their liberation would have been nearly impossible without the help of the Army of the Andes. Resentment grew, and the natural focus for that resentment was the Supreme Director. 

Despite the continuing war, as well as occasional royalist bandits and Araucanian attacks, Bernardo was determined to reform his country and mold it into his image. Criminals and royalist prisoners were tasked with building roads and canals planned since the time of his father’s Captain-Generalcy. Schools were built to educate youth. While the improvements may have been popular, using prisoners was seen as heavy handed, and the funds for them had to be extracted through loans and taxes, already considered too high to begin with. Bernardo’s popularity continued to decrease. Needing to do something to bring stability to the country and improve his position with the citizenry, he issued a proclamation calling for elections for a new national assembly. 

Two years after the invasion of Peru, San Martín and Bolivar met at Guayaquil. Afterward, San Martín finally went into retirement. But the war still went on. The Chilean army was still far from home. Lord Cochrane had, by this time, withdrawn from his fleet to his estate. Taxes were too high. The Carrera faction was still making rumbles against him. On November 19th, an estimated 8.5 magnitude earthquake struck Valparaiso, damaging much of the city.  Many in the country saw the earthquake as a sign that the leadership of Chile, especially the Supreme Director, had lost God’s favor.

Rebels

The man that all opposition looked to was Bernardo’s old friend Ramón Freire. The two had fought together for years against the royalists. Both had been in the Army of the Andes and participated in its greatest triumphs. Bernardo appointed his friend as Intendant of Concepción. Over time, however, the two had a falling out and Freire began to grow frustrated with both his position and with his former friend. He would eventually resign in 1822. When Concepción went into open rebellion against the Supreme Director, Bernardo wrote to him, asking for his help in calming the situation. Instead, Freire voiced his support for the people of Concepción, and denounced Bernardo for acting against the wishes of the people. Other areas began rising in solidarity with Concepción.

Bernardo attempted to placate the rebels. Some economic reforms were repealed. A few unpopular ministers resigned.  Bernardo called on Freire to send delegates to negotiate and end the uprising. By now, the whole country had turned against Bernardo. Led by the Intendant of Santiago, an assembly was called together for January 28, 1823. After a delegation had met with Bernardo and been “roughly treated,” the assembly grew anxious and angry. They were afraid Bernardo would disperse them by force. Once it looked like force would be used by both sides, members of the assembly and Bernardo agreed to meet. The assembly called for him to resign. Bernardo refused. Then a letter was brought to him explaining that no agreement could be had with Freire in the south. After reading the letter, Bernardo resigned as Supreme Director. 

After resigning, Bernardo was placed under house arrest. Many Carreristas were openly calling for his execution. He had a collapse in his health, causing headaches and temporary loss of sight. Six months after his resignation, he was finally allowed out of house arrest and allowed to leave the country. His original destination was to be Ireland. He would live out the rest of his life in his ancestral homeland. But it was not to be. While stopped in Peru, Bolívar asked Bernardo to stay in the country to bolster the new nation’s independence movement. This, to Bernardo’s disappointment, did not include a military command.

Exile

Bernardo would spend 18 years living in Peru as an exile. He would manage his estates with moderate success. These were gifts from Bolivar to help ease the hero’s retirement. He lived long enough to see the political chaos his country had fallen into. Some Chileans would attempt to get him to return and take control again. He would refuse every offer. He would even attempt to mediate during a war between Chile and the Peru-Bolivian Confederation. Several times, he considered writing a biography of his father. “Doing justice to his memory,” he called it. He would never write it.

Over time, Bernardo’s image in Chile improved. Chile needed its heroes. The government gave him his old rank of Captain-General back, although his promised accompanying pension was slow in coming. President Manuel Bulnes of Chile wrote to Bernardo requesting he return to his homeland. Bernardo was, as usual, enthusiastic. Passage to Chile aboard ship was purchased. Upon reaching the port of Callao, Bernardo suffered a heart attack. Recovery was difficult, but two months later, he felt well enough to travel. Once passage was booked a second time, he suffered a second heart attack. He would never see his homeland. On October 23, 1842, Bernardo passed away at the age of 64. His ashes were buried under a monument recounting his greatness.

Bernardo O’Higgins is considered one of the three men primarily responsible for the liberation of Spanish South America, along with Bolívar and San Martín. He led his country through difficult and turbulent times. He was a brave general and a brilliant leader of men. He was a driven reformer whose improvements and modernization laid the foundations for future greatness. After he was exiled, the chaos that he feared engulfed his country. He was a man driven to strive for success in all things. For Bernardo, perhaps his greatest achievement was that all these traits that can be described of him could have easily been ascribed to his father as well. He was truly the heir to his father’s legacy.

What do you think of Bernando O’Higgins’ life? Let us know below.

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

Further Reading

Clissold, Stephen. Bernardo O’Higgins and the Independence of Chile. Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1968.

Kinsbruner, Jay. Bernardo O’Higgins. Twayne Publishers, 1968.

The Mid-Term Contests Americans Should Pay Attention to: Secretaries of State in History

If a poll were taken of Americans asking if they could name their state’s secretary of state, it is doubtful the number who could would eclipse one or two percent. If the poll included the follow up question, “Are you aware your state has a secretary of state,” the number would likely rise only a few percentage points. Voters are preparing to go to the polls in November to provide a referendum on the first two years of the Biden administration. Battleground Senate and House races dominate the country’s attention. Americans though are ignoring at their own peril twenty-seven potentially crucial contests — the twenty-seven states electing a secretary of state. But why should Americans care about a post many don’t even know exists?

Michael J. Trapani explains.

William Pennington, Governor of New Jersey from 1837 to 1843.

The answer to the question of why Americans should care is that secretaries of state are responsible for certifying the results of statewide elections. While their other duties vary from state to state, they share in common the role as their state’s chief election official. As Trump and his team were crafting “the big lie” following Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, phones buzzed in the offices of secretaries of state from closely contested states. Most notably, the defeated president pressured Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to “find 11,780 votes,” to swing the state in his favor and threatened legal repercussions if Raffensperger did not comply.  Raffensperger ultimately stood his ground, informing Trump that the reported result of Biden’s narrow victory was correct.

Trump and his most loyal supporters maintain that Biden’s win was fraudulent and had state election officials, secretaries of state chief among them, acted correctly, the 45th president would be enjoying a second term. Team Trump, although sustaining publicly that their man won, is now scheming to ensure that should a similar scenario arise when the former president presumably runs again in 2024, Trump will emerge victorious, regardless of how the voting shakes out. Their plan is to install as many Trump loyalists as possible into positions that hold authority in state-run elections. Among Trump’s top prizes is the secretary of state of Arizona, for whom the former president’s coveted endorsement has gone to state lawmaker Mark Finchem — a man whose victory, according to a recent article in The Guardian, “should terrify the nation.” As a member of the state legislature, Finchem signed his name to a joint resolution calling on Congress to reject the legally certified electoral vote for Biden and award Arizona’s votes to Trump. Simply put, if Finchem and others like him are elevated to positions to oversee their state’s elections, Trump and Trump acolytes on the losing end of close (or perhaps even lopsided) elections could be declared victorious.

The Broad Seal War

But could a secretary of state actually determine an election? History shows that yes, they can. While the stakes were not as high as those of a presidential election, New Jersey’s 1838 disputed congressional election ended in a hullaballoo that cost the state five-sixths of its congressional representation for over three months. 

New Jersey was politically divided in the late 1830s. The state awarded its eight electoral votes to Whig candidate William Henry Harrison in the 1836 presidential election — a victory secured by a mere 545 votes. The Whigs also narrowly won the state’s six congressional seats, which represented a complete reversal of the 1834 congressional election that sent six Democrats to Washington.  

The 1838 statewide congressional election continued the trend. So close were the results that when the 26th Congress convened in December 1839, two slates of delegates, one Whig and one Democratic, arrived in Washington, D.C. Each contingent came bearing commissions as the duly elected members of Congress. Only the commissions of the Whigs bore the governor’s seal, the legally required certification of victory. The Democrats’ commissions bore the seal of the office of James D. Westcott, the secretary of state. The ensuing debacle would later be dubbed, The Broad Seal War, after the governor’s seal affixed on the Whig delegation’s commissions. 

On the first day of the session, the House clerk began the customary roll call to seat the newly elected members. When he got to New Jersey, he read off the name of Whig Joseph F. Randolph (whose victory was not disputed). He then stopped, claiming that because the remaining five seats were contested, he would be unable to seat the rest of New Jersey’s members. 

The dispute centered on the certification of votes from South Amboy in Middlesex county and Millville in Cumberland county. In the case of South Amboy, it was alleged that the legally chosen official whose duty was to certify the township’s results and submit them to the county was prevented from doing so and that another official was unlawfully substituted in his place. In the case of Millville, the township’s votes were not received by the state in a timely manner according to the law and the town’s election officials made public their intent to accept votes of aliens (to use the term of the day). At this time, New Jersey members of Congress were elected at-large, meaning voters cast up to six votes and the top six vote-getters would be elected. Whig Governor William Pennington decided to throw out the vote of the two townships in question and certify the election without them. Had the discarded votes been included in the final statewide tally, the Democratic slate (minus Joseph Randolph) would have scored a razor-thin victory. The unaltered results, presented by the Democratic delegation, were signed and stamped with the seal of the secretary of state.

The situation paralyzed the House for weeks. Whigs attacked the clerk for unilaterally deciding whose certifications were legitimate and whose were not. The New Jersey Whigs had presented the credentials legally mandated by the state; who was the clerk to do anything but seat those members? If further investigation was warranted, the House would do so once organized. Democrats fired back that had the clerk seated the Whig delegation, he would be effectively deciding on a disputed matter, a weight far beyond his responsibility to bear.

The parties bickered over how to proceed. One solution proposed having the clerk read the rest of the uncontested names so a quorum could be reached at which point, those members present would rule on the members claiming their seats under the governor’s seal. This was met with disproval by those who felt this gave the Whigs an unfair advantage. A counter proposal: Establish a quorum and rule on all those claiming the New Jersey seats. When a vote was called, a fracas broke out over whether the New Jersey delegation should be allowed to vote. Which delegation, Whig or Democratic, would be permitted to vote? Both? Neither? Wouldn’t permitting neither to vote deprive New Jersey of its constitutionally granted representation? Finally, two weeks into the session, members voted along partisan lines to elect a speaker so the House could be properly organized. Following the vote, another two weeks of arguing ensued over whether the full House or the Committee of Elections would decide on the matter. On January 14, the House voted to move the matter to the Committee of Elections, thus allowing the House to move on with its business.

The committee consisted of five Democrats and four Whigs (one of whom was future president Millard Fillmore). The partisan majority report, submitted on March 5, 1840 declared that the votes of South Amboy and Millville should be counted and therefore, the Democrats bearing the seal of the secretary of state, not the governor, were the rightful claimants to the contested seats. On March 16, the House voted 111 to 80 to seat the Democrats, finally giving New Jersey its full representation.

Final Thoughts

In 1838, the power of the office of the New Jersey secretary of state was enough to overturn an election in which votes were discarded due to technicalities. In 2020, secretaries of state refused to employ that same power to overturn the results of lawfully conducted elections. Both cases demonstrate the influence the office could have on the outcome of closely contested elections. And both cases demonstrate why we need to pay attention to the twenty-seven states holding secretary of state elections this November.

What do you think of the role of secretaries of state? Let us know below.

References

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Elections. New Jersey Election (26th    Congress, 1st Session, House Report no. 506, March 11, 1840. U.S.  Serial Set no. 371).

Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., 1st Sess. 1-121 (1839-40).

Ed Pilkington, “’This should terrify the nation’: The Trump ally seeking to run Arizona’s elections,” The Guardian. February 21, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/21/mark-finchem-trump-arizona-elections-secretary-of-state.

From American Reconstruction to the McDonaldization of Society

 American has seen so many changes since the end of the US Civil War in 1865. Here, Daniel L. Smith discusses some key trends that have happened since then, ultimately leading to the so-called ‘McDonaldization’ of Society.

Daniel’s book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

George Ritzer who wrote The McDonaldization of Society in 1993. Source: available here.

Rationality and logic were broken well before the 2000s and even before the 1960s. In fact, it was during the Reconstruction-era after the American Civil War that things fell apart quickly. Specifically, between 1863 and 1877. This was the catalyst for how American society would form as we see it today. During the Reconstruction-era, historical process was coming into play, such as the country adjusting the deconstruction of institutional slavery, as well as the security of our country’s unity as one – both outcomes of the Civil War. If it were not for a pardon from treason that was handed over to the Confederate generals and politicians after Lincoln was assassinated, I observe and stand on conscience that our nation would have looked much different today. I mean that politically and culturally. 

Of course with advancement of society came cooperation with differing minority groups. A differing narrative stayed alive in the black communities. By the 1930s, Southern Democratic politics had been changed. These politicians and business elites began to shift their views to how “interracial cooperation” could bring them success in the 1900s South.[1] Politics at this point and time begin to change rapidly with the introduction of industrialization. Skyscrapers would start to emerge. Entertainment became higher priority. And self-gratification such as at restaurants, movies, food, and alcohol, began to be in excess for all those who hung onto their traditional American roots.

Consumer culture

In the 1930s consumer culture was a tied knot of pestering and arrogance. Many of those at that time would begin to condemn mass-culture, which began to be viewed as fun, with an insistence on freedom for self-expression. Mainstream society began to view it as an antisocial counterculture. Critics of the consumer culture were easily characterized as “Puritan” in their own personal views on this way of life. So, we end up in the 1960s where the societal revolution would really take off. Media and corporate entities would help fast-forward this social revolution in America. The “permissiveness” of 1960s culture would be countered itself by the return of traditional religion in America.

McDonaldization

There has always been a “see-saw” like effect throughout politics and religion in history. If you pay attention to current events, you observe this. From watching the news, to social media, to living your daily lives – everybody sees the fallout from America’s fracture of the founders’ ideals. Most do not know that, but most also see it happening right in front of their own eyes. Think, Skid Row in Los Angeles, California. Tent city. The homeless empire.[2] 

This brings me to how professor and author George Ritzer came up with the clever slogan, “The McDonaldization of Society.” So here we are. We live in a society where a poll of elementary school children in 1986 concluded that 96% of them could identify Ronald McDonald over Santa Claus in name recognition.[3] Mind blowing to think that today it’s even worse. And on many differing levels. Social media, video games, movies. Everything today is on overdrive. But I digress to make the point that the McDonaldization of society, that is, creating an atmosphere of instant gratification, has caused a shift in how Americans live their lives today.

Ultimately, the McDonaldization of society was the turning point in how the entire world would come to learn and live in their daily lives. Someone once said, “The founding fathers would be turning over in their graves right now.” Well, I agree. With education being placed on the backburner by the elites in business and in government, can we pull ourselves into a new way of coping with post-modern America? 

To sum it all up, there has been much change from Reconstruction to our current post-Modern America. Yes. Many historians clarify our current era as post-Modern America. Today, we are living in a new world. Many nations across the globe are facing the same social, economic, and political problems that we face here in the United States. Fate is something that we all face. We are all handed our own cards at birth. With that said, we are all living history. We are all writing and living in history, even if you don’t even know it. 

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here), and an early European expedition to America (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

References

[1] Foner, Eric, and Eric Foner. A Short History of Reconstruction, 1863-1877. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2015., XXV. 

[2] "Skid Row : McSheehy, William. Internet Archive. Accessed February 19, 2022. https://archive.org/details/skidrow0000mcsh/page/n3/mode/2up. 

[3] Greenhouse, Steven. "The Rise and Rise of McDonald's." New York Times (New York, NY), June 8, 1986. 

Women in Flight: 5 Incredible Pioneering Female Pilots

Humans have always wanted to fly. We have looked at the birds in the sky and wanted that ability. Early flying machines were designed and experimented with mostly by men.  Aviation was dangerous and many men and women lost their lives flying in the early days. The first successful plane design was the Wright brothers’, and they also had the first sustained airplane flight in 1903. It wasn’t long after that before women stepped into the world of aviation. Women have always been adventurers, explorers and thrill seekers. They have faced many more obstacles to fulfill their dreams but thankfully there were women who were bold and brave enough to push through despite any obstacles.

Here, Angie Grandstaff looks at five amazing female pilots.

Harriet Quimby around 1911.

Harriet Quimby

Harriet Quimby (1875-1912) was a New York journalist and photographer. As a journalist, she went all over reporting and looking for stories. She became interested in aviation after seeing some early airshows. Harriet met the Moisant family who gave her an intro into the aviation world in 1910. John Moisant was a pilot and Harriet took flying lessons with John’s sister, Matilde. Harriet became the first American woman to obtain a pilot’s license in 1911. She loved the freedom flying gave her and she traveled all over the United States and Mexico. She also joined the Moisant International Aviators exhibition team. Harriet wore a purple satin outfit to fly because she loved standing out. Harriet was the first woman to fly across the English Channel on April 16, 1912. This was a huge feat that was done in extreme fog with a faulty compass and a plane she hadn’t flown before. Unfortunately, her flight took place just after the Titanic sank so her major accomplishment barely made the news. Harriet was flying with the exhibition team at an airshow in Boston in 1912 when her plane went into a nosedive. Harriet and her passenger weren’t wearing seatbelts and they were thrown from the plane into the Boston harbor. They were both killed. Harriet was one of the few female pilots at the time of her death. She lived her life in the moment and was always looking for an adventure setting a bold example for girls and women everywhere.

The Stinson Sisters

Katherine (1891-1977) and Marjorie (1895-1975) Stinson grew up in a family that supported their dreams of flying. Katherine was the oldest and paved the way for little sister Marjorie. In 1912, Katherine was the fourth American woman to obtain a pilot’s license when she was just 19 years old. The Stinson family moved to Texas in 1912 and established a flying business. They offered a mail carrier service for some time and flying lessons. Katherine was known as a daredevil. She became the first woman to perform a loop and her stunt work had her outflying the men. Katherine built her own planes and was the first pilot to use flares to skywrite. She attached the flares to her plane and wrote CAL over the California skies in 1915. She set records for distance and duration plus did a six-month tour in China and Japan where she performed for thousands. Marjorie received her pilot’s license in 1914 at the age of 19 as well and worked with Katherine as a stunt pilot. Marjorie expanded the family flying business when she obtained 500 acres near the San Antonio River. Marjorie was the lead flight instructor at Stinson Field. She trained hundreds of pilots during the early years of World War I.  Katherine and Marjorie had petitioned the U.S. government to allow them to serve as pilots in 1917 but they were denied because of their gender. Katherine joined the war effort as an ambulance driver and served in France while Marjorie continued to train Canadian and American male pilots for war. After the war, both sisters continued working as stunt pilots. Katherine retired from flying in 1920 and Marjorie retired from flying as well in 1928. These sisters broke barriers as pilots and as women. Their spirit of adventure and love for flying made an impact in the field of aviation.  

Bessie Coleman

Bessie Coleman (1892-1926) was born in Texas to African American sharecroppers. Bessie lived during a time where Jim Crow laws and racial discrimination were rampant which made her accomplishments even more amazing. Bessie moved to Chicago in 1915 and joined her brothers who were living there. She became a well-known manicurist. This was one of the jobs that allowed African American women to obtain some financial freedom at that time. Bessie became fascinated with the tales of flying she heard from military men, including her brother, who were returning from World War I. As an African American woman, Bessie faced significant barriers to her dream to fly. She was denied entry into American flying schools, so she looked to France where people of color were able to obtain their pilot’s license. Bessie learned the French language and saved her money to prepare for a trip to France. She also obtained financial support from African American millionaire, Robert Abbott.  Bessie went to France in 1920. She received her pilot’s license and became the first African American woman to do so. When she returned to America, Bessie performed as a stunt pilot and barnstormer in many airshows. She was a popular speaker and encouraged African Americans to pursue aviation. In 1926, Bessie was preparing for an airshow in Florida and took a flight with her mechanic. He lost control of the plane. Bessie wasn’t wearing a seatbelt and fell to her death.  Bessie’s life was short but the impact she had on aviation especially for African Americans was immense. Her legacy is still going strong. Mae Jemison, the first African American woman to go into space, carried a picture of Bessie Coleman with her on that journey.      

Willa Brown

Willa Brown (1906-1992) was born in Kentucky to an African American father and Native American mother. Willa’s parents moved their family to Indiana in hopes of a better education for their children. Willa was a bright student and went on to earn a bachelor’s degree in business and Master’s degree in business administration. She had many jobs and became interested in flying when she lived in Chicago. Willa was interested in the mechanics of flying as well as flying itself. She took flying lessons at Harlem Field in Chicago. In 1935, she became the first African American woman to obtain a pilot’s license in the United States plus obtained a commercial pilot’s license and a master mechanics certificate. Willa’s husband, Cornelius Coffey, opened the first African American owned flight training academy. Willa was an instructor and director at this school.  She wanted to see more African Americans in aviation. Willa was a founding member of the first African American aviator’s group, National Airmen’s Association of American. Willa advocated for the U.S. military to be desegregated and her school became part of the government funded, Civilian Pilot Training Program. They trained African American men who were training at the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. This led to the creation of the Tuskegee Airmen. Willa trained hundreds of these men who became Tuskegee airmen and instructors. She was very politically driven and became the first African American woman to run for Congress. Although she lost, it didn’t stop her from her life’s mission. She continued advocating for the rights of African Americans especially in the military and aviation for the rest of her life.

The Night Witches

The Night Witches were a group of Russian women who flew during World War II. They were dubbed ‘The Night Witches’ by the Germans because they only flew their bombing raids at night and their wooden planes sounded like a sweeping broom. Like in most countries around the world, Russian women were barred from combat. Russia was in a very bad spot militarily when they decided to allow women to pilot their planes. In October 1941, a group of women were recruited by Colonel Marina Raskova to fly combat missions into Germany. Marina was called the Soviet Amelia Earhart. She was the first female navigator in the Soviet Air Force and was well known for her flying abilities. Many Russian women wanted to help with the war effort especially in combat roles and these female regiments gave them that chance. Marina selected 400 women from 2,000 applicants and these became the all-female regiments: the 588th, 587th and 586th. Normally, flight and combat training can take years, but these women were just given an intense few months of training. They faced much skepticism and harassment from the men in the military. No new uniforms or boots for these women, they were given hand-me-downs from male soldiers. Some had to stuff their boots with different material to make them fit. The hand-me-downs didn’t stop there. The planes given to these all-female regiments were old wooden biplanes. These planes offered no weather or bullet protection, no parachutes, no modern instruments, no radio. Each plane carried two crewmembers and two bombs. The weight of the bombs required these planes to travel low which is why these missions were carried out at night. The female pilots had to use maps, compasses and flashlights to help them navigate. Although these women were in planes not fit for battle, there were advantages. Their wooden planes couldn’t be detected on radar, they could outmaneuver the bigger planes and land/take off almost anywhere.  All those advantages plus coming in at night meant these regiments did serious damage. From 1942-1945, the Night Witches dropped 3,000 tons of bombs, 26,000 incendiary shells and much more. Despite their amazing efforts and accomplishments, these women faced serious discrimination from male soldiers. The discrimination made them even more determined to fly and they embraced the German nickname ‘The Night Witches’. Once the war was over, women were once again kept out of combat roles and the feats of the Night Witches faded from memory.   

Let us not forget these women and all women, past and present who are pushing the boundaries to chase dreams and ultimately changing the world for women everywhere. 

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

Now read Angie’s article on 5 Amazing Female Businesses in 19th Century America here.

References

https://www.wai.org/pioneers/100womenscript

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/lieutenant-willa-brown

https://www.fai.org/news/harriet-quimby-america-first-female-pilot-licence

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/flygirls-bessie-coleman/

https://www.nationalaviation.org/our-enshrinees/stinson-katherine/

https://authentictexas.com/marjorie-stinson/

https://www.ctie.monash.edu/hargrave/stinson_bio.html

https://www.wrightmuseum.org/2020/10/01/the-soviet-night-witches/

Bernardo O’Higgins and the Founding of Chile: The Fight for Legitimacy

The improbable lives of Ambrosio O’Higgins and his son, Bernardo, would change the history of South America forever. Two men, father and son, both strivers and achievers. Two men who did not take the traditional paths to power and high office. Two men, who through a series of improbable events, would both become, in their own ways, among the founders of the nation of Chile. The chain of events would begin, of all places, in County Sligo in Ireland.

Erick Redington continues this series on the O’Higgins family by looking at the earlier life and military career of Bernardo O’Higgins.

If you missed it read part one on Ambrosio O’Higgins’ life here.

The charge of O’Higgins at the 1814 Battle of Rancagua.

Bernardo O’Higgins today is seen as one of the founding fathers of Chile and, along with San Martín and Bolivar, is housed in the highest pantheon of South American liberators. Yet from seemingly obscure beginnings, this man who had to fight to be recognized by his own father would fight to make his nation recognized on the world stage.

Bernardo’s story begins with his father Ambrosio O’Higgins. Ambrosio, an unmarried member of the Spanish colonial administration in the Captaincy-General of Chile, had impregnated the daughter of one of his friends, Isabel Riquelme. The young Bernardo would have the last name Riquelme until his father died. This did not mean that Ambrosio refused to recognize his son. As an ennobled Spanish aristocrat, Ambrosio came from a culture that recognized illegitimate children would sometimes arise from liaisons with lower social classes existed and that the father, while not necessarily recognizing the official parentage of the child, could provide for the child in some way without losing too much face. This is what Ambrosio did for Bernardo. 

The Riquelme family was from Chillián, a small city in south-central Chile. During the 18th century, this area was full of rich agricultural land, but was also a backwater of a colonial backwater. Chile was part of the Viceroyalty of Peru, and with little infrastructure and horrific terrain for travel, this was not a place to rise to greatness. Ambrosio recognized this, and decided to fund his son’s education, including paying for Bernardo to leave his hometown, and get a more worldly education. Bernardo would be placed with Juan Albano Pereira, friends of Ambrosio’s in Mendoza (now in Argentina, but then part of Chile) who had mercantile connections with Ambrosio. After some time with the Albanos, Bernardo was sent to a Franciscan Monastery for a short time before going to Lima, the capital of Peru. Although he would make contacts in Lima that would last him a lifetime, Bernardo’s time there was unhappy. Although there are passing reports of the two men meeting, father and son had no confirmed meetings though both were obviously aware of their relationship. An illegitimate child could be supported in this environment but could not be brought too close. After only a year, Bernardo was sent to Europe to both get him out of the way, and to provide him with a better education. 

London

Ironically, Ambrosio chose as the destination for his son Great Britain, the same country he had fled all those years before as a poor, oppressed Irish farmer. London at this time was one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. English radicals, French royalists, embittered revolutionaries, and political dissidents of all stripes crowded the coffee houses and pubs of London. Relative freedom of the press allowed for ideas banned in other nations to be widely disseminated. It was also during the French Revolutionary Wars. The ideals of the French Revolution were sweeping Europe, and for a young and ambitious man like Bernardo, the intellectual atmosphere was exciting. As a man with something to prove, the revolutionary times provided opportunities. 

One of the people who would have the most impact on Bernardo’s life at this time was Francisco Miranda. This Venezuelan revolutionary was a man with infinite plots and schemes in mind to liberate the peoples of South America. Called by some as the Moses of the South American Revolutions, his boundless drive and energy would inspire all the great leaders of Spanish America’s revolutionary generation. Miranda would begin corresponding with Bernardo and would write in a teacher-student style that Bernardo, desperate for a father figure, would take to strongly. 

Due to financial struggles, Bernardo was forced to leave Britain and eventually return to Chile. In 1800, he began his journey which became a small epic of attempts to escape the British blockade (Spain, by this time was allied to France against Britain) and contracting yellow fever, during which Bernardo was so close to death he was read last rites. When he arrived, Bernardo was forced to stay with his old friends, the Albanos, to recover his health. Bernardo was not the only one who was in declining health. His father, Ambrosio, would die only a few months after Bernardo’s return. The man he had so much wanted to impress was now gone forever. Ambrosio did not neglect his son in his will. He left Bernardo a hacienda named Canteras at La Laja in Southern Chile, including 3,000 head of cattle. This was not insignificant for a young man who had to live poor in London only a short time before. It was also at this time that Bernardo Riquelme began adopting his father’s last name O’Higgins. When Bernardo took control of the estate, he settled into the life of a now gentleman farmer. It would be the quietest seven years of his life.  Bringing the latest agricultural science he learned in Europe, the hacienda immediately began to prosper greater than it ever had before. Later in life, Bernardo would reflect on the happiness of this time. The times of peace could not last, however.

King Carlos IV

In the first decade of the 19th century, Spain was governed by King Carlos IV and his prime minister, Manuel Godoy. Spain had been an ally of France since the mid-1790s and had come to be dominated by Napoleon’s French Empire. By the middle of the decade, Napoleon began to worry about the reliability of his ally to the south. Carlos IV and Godoy were both incredibly incompetent and cartoonishly corrupt in their administration of both Spain and the global Spanish Empire. The wealth and resources of the empire were wasted though inefficiency and corruption. Napoleon had created the new law code for France, the Code Napoleon, and had turned France into the preeminent military power of the time. He believed that some Napoleonic efficiency brought to Spanish administration would be more helpful to his cause of dominating Europe than the unexcelled stupidity of the current regime.

In 1808, Carlos IV was forced to abdicate the throne by his son, the future Fernando VII. Carlos then appealed to his ally Napoleon, to restore him to the throne. Napoleon, seeing this as an opportunity to rid himself of this pest, agreed to mediate between father and son, promptly detained both, forced them both to renounce the throne, and placed his own brother King Joseph of Naples on the Spanish throne as King Jose I. 

When word reached the people of Spain of the Abdications of Bayonne (where the mediation had taken place), Spain erupted in revolution. An uprising in Madrid, known to history as Dos de Mayo left hundreds of Spanish civilians dead. Stories of French atrocities began to spread. Civil order broke down in the country and armies appeared to resist French occupation and Napoleon’s puppet king. Revolutionary leaders organized themselves into juntas to fill the gap left in administration. The British began aiding these juntas, and they also decided that independence movements in Spanish America could be used to weaken Napoleon’s ally. A Supreme Junta was established in Seville, ruling in the name of Fernando VII and there were now rival governments vying for the loyalty of Spaniards.

Revolution

Revolutionary thought had already reached Spanish America at this time. Enlightenment philosophies and French revolutionary thought were in vogue throughout Spanish America. Another source of revolutionary attitudes was the dramatic increase in the popularity of Masonic lodges, which would play a significant role in South American independence. Bernardo had been first exposed to many of these ideas while in Britain. Now, divided loyalties among the people led to a situation where everyone had to take sides.

The President of Chile (the acting head of government in the colony) was Brigadier General García Carrasco. He was a military man. By 1809, the situation within Chile had become revolutionary. Support for the Supreme Junta and Fernando VII was seen as a way to safely oppose García Carrasco. On May 25, 1810, the military administration moved against the supporters of Fernando VII and arrested several prominent citizens, who were ordered by the general into exile. After a power struggle with prominent Chileans, the general was forced to resign. With this resignation, the people of Santiago, the capital, began preparations for the creation of a junta for Chile. As many reasoned at the time, the colonies in the Americas belonged to the king, not to Spain. Therefore, if Juntas were being created all over Spain to rule in his name, then it would be only natural for them to be created in the colonies as well. In Buenos Aires, a Junta had taken control the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata. Many in Chile wanted to do the same.

During all this international commotion, Bernardo was civil governor of La Laja. During a previous war scare, he had offered to raise two regiments of cavalry for defense against the British. In 1811, the Junta named him Lieutenant Colonel of the Second Regiment of Cavalry of La Laja. At this time, he was already set on the path that, he believed, a revolution should take. Meeting with other leaders, Bernardo pressed for two immediate objects: the calling of a Congress together and the loosening of restrictions on trade to improve the economy. Freer trade was easily accomplished, and a Congress was called, at this point in the name of Ferdinand VII, to create a new government for Chile. For the new Congress, Bernardo was elected as a member for Los Angeles. With the opening of Congress, many issues came to the forefront. Rivalry between Santiago and Concepción. A failed royalist coup. The most embarrassing for the new Congress was the arrival of HMS Standard, a British warship on a mission for Fernando VII. A message was given to Congress requesting delegates be sent to a new Cortes in Spain. Chile, and the other colonies, were to receive seats in the Spanish legislature. Of course, a large financial contribution was expected to accompany the delegates. The Congress existed and acted explicitly in the name of the king. To accept would be to reaffirm their loyalty to Spain, which not everyone wanted to do. To refuse would be rank hypocrisy. Congress would delay long enough to make the issue moot.

Accompanying the Standard was one José Carrera. Son of a member of the Supreme Junta, he was extremely ambitious, and saw Chile as the perfect field for his ambition. He began conspiring with radicals in Congress, called the Eight Hundred, to remove the moderates to bring forward the cause of independence. On September 1, 1811, the moderates were driven out of Congress, and radicals assumed the positions of power. After the coup, the radicals sidelined Carrera and his family. Now with the precedent set that might, not law, would be the ultimate arbiter of power in Chile, Carrera then arrested men of the Eight Hundred and made himself dictator. Members of Congress then demanded Carrera make an account of himself before them. When he did, Carrera berated Congress and a few hours later disbanded Congress. Chile had had three coups in ten weeks. All Bernardo could do was resign his seat.

The south, and Concepción in particular resisted Carrera. The dictator then turned to Bernardo to help smooth over the situation. Concepción controlled most of the military resources of the country, and Carrera needed this region to solidify his control. Playing on Bernardo’s patriotism, Carrera was able to convince him to go south. After negotiation and a draft agreement which Carrera stalled in implementing, Bernardo realized he was being played and went into open opposition. He placed himself under the orders of the leader of the south, Juan Rozas. When Rozas’ government collapsed, Bernardo returned to his hacienda fed up with the state of affairs. He was an idealistic revolutionary who had run into the wall of practical politics and power struggles. He wanted independence but saw his country falling into infighting. 

Spain returns

This self-imposed retirement did not last very long. In 1813, Spain made its first attempt to reconquer Chile. Invading first in the south, Concepción fell quickly to the Spanish. Of all the colonies in South America, Peru was probably the most royalist. The Viceroy decided now was the time to reestablish control. Carrera called Bernardo to command his cavalry regiment. Bernardo swiftly took command and led a force of troops south to engage the royalists. At Linares, Bernardo’s force encountered the royalists, charged, and drove them out of the town. This was the first battle of the war, and it would bring Bernardo promotion and make his name more well known. 

After Linares, the situation in the south bogged down. Terrain was terrible for the linear warfare of the early 19th century. The three divisions of the reinforced southern army were under different Carrera brothers. The dictator was rapidly losing credibility. After the royalists attacked and defeated the Chilean advanced guard, Carrera was forced to abandon the best defensive positions in front of Santiago. At the Battle of El Roble, Carrera abandoned the field, and a wounded Bernardo rallied the retreating troops and led them to an astounding victory. The junta back in the capital then demanded Carrera give up control of the army. Carrera denounced the junta and his brothers threatened to march on the junta, just as they had Congress previously. The junta was finally able to get enough courage to decree Carrera’s dismissal and made Bernardo the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean army. At first reluctant to take the command as he did not believe in the prudence of changing command in the middle of a war, Bernardo was convinced and accepted. 

Although he had reached the highest position in the Chilean army, it was not to last. Bernardo would only command about 1,800 men who were lacking in almost every supply including weapons and ammunition. A lack of horses meant that artillery was pulled by the soldiers. The royalist army, though no better supplied had morale and initiative on its side.                   When a royalist army was approaching another Chilean force under Juan Mackenna, an old friend and also of Irish extraction, Bernardo took his army to relieve Mackenna. When their armies were joined, Bernardo would lead the army in a race with the royalists to reach Santiago. Both sides, by this point, were tired of campaigning. Both sides were exhausted. Negotiations began between the royalists from Peru and the junta governing Chile. Bernardo and Mackenna negotiated for the Chileans. The result was the Treaty of Lircay. In this treaty, the Chileans restated their loyalty to Fernando VII, under whose name they were fighting anyway. They also agreed to send representatives to the Cortes and money to Spain. Chile was to be integrated into Spain. The major concession the rebels were able to get was recognition of the junta. Both sides seemed to be blaming the whole war on a misunderstanding caused by Carrera. 

War returns

This was nothing more than a temporary truce. The Viceroy in Lima denounced his commander who negotiated the treaty. About 5,000 reinforcements were sent to Chile to suppress the rebels. On the Chilean side, the Carreras were offended by the treaty and acted. On July 23, 1814, Jose Carrera overthrew the government, again, and quickly acted to extend his power over the rebel cause. Bernardo was faced with a dilemma. He was not happy with the treaty and wanted to see Chile freed from Spanish domination. As commander-in-chief, he also knew that the country needed a respite from the fighting. There was also the issue of Carrera himself. This was now the third time he had used force to remove his opponents. Bernardo could not abide this. He would march his troops on Santiago and remove Carrera himself. On August 26, only a month after the signing of the treaty, the forces of Carrera and Bernardo met at the battle of Las Tres Acequias. The two forces met in an engagement among the advanced guards with Carrera’s troops pushed back. Bernardo became confident and ordered an attack with his main force. When the attack failed, his troops began retreating in disorder. When Carrera sent in his cavalry to pursue, it broke what was left of Bernardo’s line and the army began to flee south. 

After the battle, Bernardo learned that the royalists had landed their army from Peru and were marching on Santiago. He reached out to Carrera to put aside their differences and unite to defend the country. Both men, after all, believed in the independence of Chile from the Spanish. It was all for naught. When the Chileans united their forces under Bernardo’s control, they were still outnumbered by the royalists. Infighting had sapped their strength. On October 1, what became known in Chile as the Disaster of Rancagua occurred. The Chilean army was a motley assortment of men ill fed and equipped. The royalist army contained veterans of the Napoleonic Wars from Europe, which were now over. These men had been fighting for six years and knew war on a larger scale than the Chileans did. The Chileans were simply no match for the royalists. Nearly surrounded by the royalists, no reinforcements to be hoped for, and the town he was defending on fire, Bernardo was forced to withdraw from battle. It only took a few days for the royalists to make the distance to Santiago and take the city, the Chilean army was so defeated. 

For Bernardo, there was nothing left. The government had been overthrown. The army, his army, was annihilated. For himself, and the leaders of Chilean independence, their country was lost to them. The leaders began to go into exile, fleeing to other areas not under control of the Spanish. Bernardo would flee across the Andes and into La Plata, not knowing what the future held.

What do you think of Bernando O’Higgins’ earlier life and the war? Let us know below.

Now, read part 3 about the later life of Bernardo O’Higgins and how Chilean independence was earned here.

Further Reading

Clissold, Stephen. Bernardo O’Higgins and the Independence of Chile. Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1968.

Kinsbruner, Jay. Bernardo O’Higgins. Twayne Publishers, 1968.

Hand-washing in Hospitals: Ignaz Semmelweis’ Great Contribution to Medicine

As individuals in society, we live by structure and regimes that are either taught or acquired through our environments. The practice of hand-washing and the sterilization of surgical equipment in hospitals are procedures that we expect and universally accepted as best practices. The recent Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has reminded us of the importance of sanitation and cleanliness to prevent disease and ultimately save lives. However, the importance of hand-washing was not common practice throughout many hospitals before the nineteenth century. Here, Amy Chandler explains Ignaz Semmelweis’ important discovery about hand-washing in the nineteenth century.

An 1860 copper plate picture of Ignaz Semmelweis.

Physician and gynaecologist Ignaz Semmelweis discovered the importance and life-saving impact of hand-washing within maternity wards in the 1850s. Semmelweis’ “discovery exceeded the forces of his genius. It was, perhaps, the root cause of all his misfortunes”, and in an ironic tragedy, Semmelweis died of the same illness that he devoted his career to preventing.[1]This article will explore Semmelweis’ contribution to medical practice in the nineteenth century and analyze how he failed to achieve public and international support for his discovery. Many contributing factors failed to propel Semmelweis into the sphere of revolutionizing and respecting theories in science and medicine, such as failing to publish his hand-washing theory and methodology, fleeing Vienna and the lack of support from his contemporary doctors. How did Ignaz Semmelweis simultaneously revolutionize surgical procedures and fail to convince his contemporary physicians?

17th century

During the seventeenth century, many hospitals in Europe became overwhelmed with cases of childbed fever (also known as 'puerperal fever') that women contracted during childbirth and suffered from days after birth.[2] Symptoms of puerperal fever included severe abdominal pain, fever and debility, and the result was commonly death for many women.[3] By the start of the nineteenth century, puerperal fever was a common and deadly disease that many women feared when entering maternity wards. The cause of this disease was bacteria infecting women during childbirth, but the understanding of how bacteria and disease spread was non-existent until the 1870s. Throughout history, there have been many different attempts to identify the cause of illness and disease, for example, the widely recognized theory of miasma. Miasma was considered “poisonous emanations, from putrefying carcasses, rotting vegetation or molds, and invisible dust particles inside dwellings” that was understood to be within the air that we breathe.[4] Therefore disease and illnesses were thought to be caused by ‘bad air’ or foul smells. By the end of the nineteenth century, the work of Louis Pasteur and his discovery of Germ theory replaced and progressed thinking around the cause of disease. The lack of knowledge around the causation of disease and the spread of infection made Semmelweis’ discovery imperative to progressing medical and scientific ideology. Semmelweis' ideas were often ignored, apart from support from close colleagues, which eventually led to his professional and personal demise.

Semmelweis’ discovery 

In 1846, Semmelweis was appointed as an assistant professor in the maternity ward at Vienna General Hospital. Semmelweis undertook the challenge to understand and answer why mortality rates were so high within the Vienna General Hospital. The high mortality rates in the maternity ward of Vienna General hospital represented a widespread problem across Europe. Therefore, the cause of the disease was a universal substance and not specific to Vienna medical practice but widespread malpractice of the nineteenth century.

During Semmelweis’ employment in Vienna, mortality cases continued to increase, and so did Semmelweis’ concern and desire to discover the causation of illness. The maternal ward offered two divisions of maternity clinics; male physicians controlled one division, and female midwives staffed the other clinic.[5] In 1846 both of these divisions included similar patients demographics, but the statistics present that the male-staffed clinics had 13.10% of maternal deaths from puerperal fever, while the second division only suffered 2.03% of puerperal fever deaths.[6] From these statistics, it is evident that the cause of the illness originated and increased with the medical professionals within the first division that increased mortality rates. Semmelweis undertook a methodological approach to identify and inevitably reduce mortality rates and, as a result, to improve the lives of his patients, professional practice and contribute to disease theory. Semmelweis’ position as a gynaecologist and physician placed him in an advantageous position to discover the root cause of the mortality rates and implement policies to improve practice. Semmelweis had the opportunity to conduct research, medical knowledge and resources to identify the cause of puerperal fever. Historically, midwifery was recognized as a female role that expanded in the eighteenth century, with an increased number of male physicians and surgeons becoming involved within midwifery.[7]

A turning point in Semmelweis’ thinking was when his friend and colleague, Jacob Kolletschka, died from a puerperal fever after wounding himself during a dissection.[8] The autopsy results confirmed that Kolletschka contracted the same illness that many women suffered in the maternity wards. The contemporary theory of miasma formed the foundations of Semmelweis’ theory by speculating that “decaying animal-organic matter” caused the puerperal fever.[9] The causation of infections became evident to Semmelweis after he observed that student physicians worked in the dissection rooms and then directly, without changing their clothes or sanitizing their hands, entered the maternity wards.[10] The correlation between the two clinic divisions and the student's behavior emphasized that the male physicians were the carriers, to a point, of puerperal fever on their unwashed hands and clothes. 

What did Semmelweis do with his newfound knowledge?

During this period, disinfectants that we are familiar with in contemporary society did not exist, nor was the knowledge of using chemicals to remove bacteria from surfaces. The concept of bacteria was not known or explored until many years after Semmelweis’ death. Therefore, methods to combat the unpleasant odors from miasmas included fire, sunlight, strong aromas and chemicals.[11] Semmelweis utilized his knowledge of miasma theory by attempting to eliminate foul odors transferred between the dissection room and the maternity ward by the physicians. For Semmelweis, the most potent smelling chemical available at the Vienna General Hospital was a solution of chlorinated lime. Under the supervision and authority of Semmelweis, physicians were ordered to wash their hands with this solution before entering the maternity wards. Inevitably, mortality rates in the maternity wards began to decrease, which supported Semmelweis’ theory. However, Semmelweis only understood that the solution reduced the number of cases and was unable to explain why hand-washing was so effective.

Semmelweis’ hand-washing policy was unpopular and faced opposition within the hospital, with individuals complaining of the burning sensations on their hands from vigorously washing and exposing their skin to the chlorinated lime solution.[12]Despite declining mortality rates, Semmelweis could not explain why the chlorinated solution was so effective as he did not realize hand-washing removed the bacteria causing disease. Furthermore, Semmelweis did not publish his findings or share his work for many years, which contributed to the lack of support amongst contemporary physicians for adopting the sanitation procedure. For some physicians, Semmelweis’ discovery lacked evidence to be understood fully, and in 1849 Semmelweis’ position within Vienna General Hospital was terminated. The Ministry of Education also declined the proposal to investigate Semmelweis’ theories further and gain evidence to support using chlorinated lime within medical practice.[13]

By 1851, Semmelweis left Vienna and returned to Hungary to continue his work by implementing his chlorinated lime regime and enforcing good ventilation, sterile linen, bandages and surgical equipment for his patients.[14] Eventually, in 1861, Semmelweis published his findings in The Etiology, Concept, and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. However, towards the end of Semmelweis’ career, his mental health began to decline, resulting in a mental breakdown in 1865, and his wife admitted Semmelweis into a mental hospital in Lazarettgasse. Unfortunately, Semmelweis died from blood poisoning after appropriate anti-septic methods were not enforced. 

Conclusion

Semmelweis’ tragic death in some way proved that his theory of using a chlorinated lime solution to avoid puerperal fever was effective in preventing severe infection. Semmelweis’ lack of willingness to share his findings with his contemporaries reduced his hand-washing theory's credibility, while also lack of evidence and widespread enforcement of hand-washing isolated his results to be limited and circumstantial. In some ways, Semmelweis’ courage to challenge popular and pre-established views placed him in a difficult and unfavorable position because he was directly criticizing the work of his contemporaries by insinuating that their practice caused the deaths of many patients. This idea in itself was that doctors who dedicated their professional careers to saving lives and being seen as saviors against diseases were also the cause and carrier of such diseases they treated. Hindsight is a valuable asset we possess after years of scientific discoveries, but we have to praise Semmelweis for his work within the boundaries of knowledge of the time. The knowledge of bacteria was non-existent therefore working within the realms of miasma theory and Semmelweis’ methodologically eliminating factors in his study was to some extent revolutionary given the circumstances and knowledge of the time. Semmelweis’ ideas were brushed aside as unsupported ramblings, which contributed to the decline of his professional career. However, Semmelweis has now gained the status that his work deserves as a pioneer of modern medicine and sanitation procedures within medical environments. Semmelweis' work continues to help save lives today.

What do you think of Ignaz Semmelweis? Let us know below.

1.              D. Pittet and  B. Allegranzi, ‘Preventing sepsis in healthcare - 200 years after the birth of Ignac Semmelweis'. Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, vol .23 (2018), p.2.

[2] J. Simmons, Doctors & Discoveries: Lives that created today’s medicine (New York, Houghton Miffin Company,2002),p.167. 

[3] C. Hallett, ‘The attempt to understand puerperal fever in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries: the influence of inflammation theory’. Med Hist. vol. 49 (2005), p. 1. 

[4] A. Kannadan,’History of the Miasma Theory of Disease’. Essai, vol. 16 (2018),p. 41. 

[5] Simmons, op.cit.,p.166. 

[6] Ibid.,p.166.

[7] Hallett,op.cit.,p.4. 

[8] Simmons, op.cit.,p.166.

[9] Ibid.,p.166. 

[10] Ibid.,p.166.  

[11] G. Risse. ‘Before Germs: Decay, Smell, and Contagion in the Work of Ignaz Semmelweis on Puerperal Fever’,unpublished,(2015),p.3.

[12] Ibid.,p.3.  

[13] Ibid.,pp.3-4. 

[14] Simmons, op.cit.,p.167. 

Bibliography 

Hallett, C, ‘The attempt to understand puerperal fever in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries: the influence of inflammation theory’. Med Hist, vol.49, no.1, January 2005, pp. 1-28.

Kannadan, A, ’History of the Miasma Theory of Disease’. Essai, vol. 16, no. 18, 2018, pp.41-43.

Persson, J, ‘Semmelweis’s methodology from the modern stand-point: intervention studies and causal ontology’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences,vol.40, no.3, 2009, pp.204-209. 

Pittet, D and Allegranzi, B, ‘Preventing sepsis in healthcare - 200 years after the birth of Ignac Semmelweis'. Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, vol. 23, no. 18, May 2018, pp.1-5. 

Risse, G. ‘Before Germs: Decay, Smell, and Contagion in the Work of Ignaz Semmelweis on Puerperal Fever’, unpublished, 2015,pp.1-8. 

Simmons, J. Doctors & Discoveries: Lives that created today’s medicine (New York, Houghton Miffin Company,2002). 

An Introductory History of Women in Cycling

When thinking about the history of cycling, we often remember the glory days of the Tour de France or the Olympics. Unfortunately, this means that too often the history of women's cycling is overlooked. Elisha explains.

Kittie Knox in the 1890s.

Bicycles played an important role in the women's movement of the early 20th century. Bikes gave women a new freedom after being long accustomed to relying solely on men for transport. The innovation of the bicycle gave women more control over where they went and when, bikes were easy to access and relatively inexpensive. What’s more, women soon found that more traditional outfits like corsets, bustlets and long skirts made riding a bicycle a challenge. This prompted a change in women's fashion which included lighter skirts, bloomers and even trousers. Bicycles helped pave the way for women today.

A recognized sport for women

Cycling as a sport (for men) officially began in the summer of 1868 with a 1,200-meter race near Paris between the fountains and entrance of Saint Cloud Park. The first Olympic race took place the following year with a men's individual road race. Women’s road events were not introduced into the Olympics until the summer of 1984 and women’s cycling was barely even considered a sport until the 1990s. Despite this, women were cycling long before then.

The new woman

Bicycles came to symbolize independence amongst women representing the quintessential ‘new woman’ of the late 19th century. In 1895, suffragette leader Elizabeth Candy Stanton said “the bicycle will inspire women with more courage, self respect, self reliance” predicting the power of the bicycle. Echoing Stanton’s claim was Susan B Anthony who played a key role in the suffragette movement. She said ‘’Let me tell you what I think about cycling. I think it has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world.’’

First woman to adopt bloomers

In the 1890s, many women were still not riding bikes, but this didn't stop Kittie Knox, a young seamstress from Boston. Kittie Knox became the first African American to be accepted into the league of American wheelmen. Unfortunately, in the years that followed, Kittie was largely discriminated against, but this didn’t stop her from riding, in fact she became well known for her unique choice of cycling attire. Cycling led to a shift away from the restrictive and modest fashion of the Victorian era and led to a new era of exposed ankles. Kittie was one of the first women to adopt men’s bloomers which is significant because it was the first step in the right direction toward women eventually proudly wearing bicycle shorts in public with no skirt required.

First woman to cycle around the world

The first woman to ride a bicycle is said to be Annie Londonderry around 1896. Annie reportedly completed the cycling challenge in 15 months, whether she made it the whole way around the world via bicycle is debatable though. Apparently Annie was rather liberal with her use of trains and ferries, which made the expedition significantly easier. Interestingly, she made a bit of money through sponsorship where she attached posters and banners to her bike to advertise various companies.

Earliest female cycling journalist 

In 1891, Beatrice Ethel Grimshaw began her career as the first female cycling journalist (on record). She started her writing career after finishing her studies at 21 years old when she ran away to Dublin. In Dublin she began a career as a journalist for R.J. Mecredy’s Irish cyclist where she went on to become an editor. She participated in cycling when she was out of the office, where she reportedly did casual century rides. After a life in the cycling industry, she traded in her bike for a life of travel.

Women in cycling today

Today, despite the efforts of the bicycle industry to get more women into cycling, women only make up just under 25% of riders. Safety is said to be the number one concern that puts women off cycling. One feminist bicycle influencer is the Cycle Maintenance Academy a team of avid cyclists and experienced bicycle repair experts.

Notably, cycling actually demonstrates a clear inequality between men and women as in some countries women are still forbidden from riding bikes due to concerns regarding modesty. In other countries, women were only recently allowed to cycle. It wasn't until 2013 when women were allowed to cycle in Saudi Arabia and reports show that women still cannot cycle in the streets of Iran. Although there may not be specific laws that prohibit women from cycling, there are ‘religious rules’ that must be respected.

What do you think of women cycling in history? Let us know below.

Henry Ford’s Calamitous Rainforest Utopia: Fordlândia

Fordlândia was an idea of the great carmaker Henry Ford in the 1920s. He set-up a base in the Brazilian Amazon with the aim of producing rubber for car tires. In this excellent piece, Felix Debieux looks at what happened at Fordlândia – and how grand ambitions ultimately turned to failure.

Water tower and warehouse building in Fordlândia, Brazil in 2010. Source: Amit Evron, available here.

What do Ford, Firestone and Goodyear have in common? You would be right to say that they are all major players in today’s automotive industry. What is not so well remembered, however, is their shared historical interest in the Amazon rainforest. In the second half of the 1920s, clandestine explorations were conducted by engineers and geologists from Britain and North America who hoped to find oil, precious minerals, and promising locations for rubber plantations. Each sought to tempt the automotive giants to the jungle with land capable of growing the crucial raw material they needed to make their product: tires. 

Following negotiations with Amazonian state governments for concessions, each speculator was convinced that they had secured the rights to exploit the most valuable territory. By 1927, one speculator successfully acquired 2.5 million acres – an area 82% the size of Connecticut - on the Tapajós River in the Amazonian state of Pará. As an indication of the vastness and remoteness of the area, he not only managed to plant half a million rubber seedlings, but also arranged for an armed security force to protect the operation from rival speculators. Later, this land was acquired by American industrial magnate Henry Ford who set out to grow a new supply of rubber. Rubber, however, is only part of the story. Indeed, this marked the beginning of a bizarre socio-economic experiment in the Amazon spearheaded by America’s premier innovator. In his day, Ford’s name was every bit as evocative as the glimmering promise of technological revolution as Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg, and he planned to build an American city smack in the middle of the jungle. Like other empire builders preceding him, he would name the city after himself: Fordlândia. 

Ford’s motivation: an industrialist in the jungle

Henry Ford’s foray into the jungle was, first and foremost, a pragmatic move. In 1922, exports of rubber from Asian plantations were made much more difficult by the Stevenson Plan. Concocted by British and French planters, the Stevenson Plan created an artificial global rubber shortage and succeeded in inflating its price on the international market. As the consumer of 70% of the world’s rubber supply, manufacturers operating in North America were left with little choice but to seek alternative sources. While Firestone decided to invest in Liberian plantations, and Goodyear planted in Sumatra and the Philippines, Ford cast his eye on South America. 

In growing his own supply, Ford believed that he could establish a rubber autarchy: a system of total self-sufficiency from rubber seedling through to tires. For Ford, this must have seemed entirely feasible. After all, the Ford Motor Company during the 1920s controlled nearly every raw material that constituted the manufacture of a motorcar. The glass, the wood, the iron; everything except latex produced by rubber trees. Alongside Ford’s other innovations, anything must have seemed possible. Indeed, this was the man who:

§  Had by 1926 established the Ford Air Transport Service: the first private contractor to deliver mail for the U.S government.

§  Had transformed a bankrupt Michigan railway into a temporarily successful operation.

§  Had developed revolutionary new glassmaking techniques. 

§  Had improved coalmining technology.

How hard could running a rubber plantation be?

Doomed from the start? A legacy of failure in the Amazon

Preceding Henry Ford’s Amazonian enterprise was a catalogue of foreign projects aimed at extracting the region’s wealth. Many of these schemes were highly problematic but did not register in Ford’s planning. Take Lt. Matthew Fontaine Maury as an example. Back in the 1850s, the Director of the U.S. Naval Observatory promoted North American occupation of the Amazon drainage as a dumping group for southern planters and their slaves. At a time when Brazil guarded its northern regions from foreign trade and navigation, Brazilians suspected that Maury’s ideas would mean the forceful opening of the Amazon to U.S. colonialism. 

Suspicions of colonialism continued into the 1860s, when a scientific expedition led by Louis and Elizabeth Agassiz influenced Emperor Dom Pedro II to open up the Brazilian Amazon to international trade and navigation. The threat of foreign exploitation emerged again at the turn of the century, when the Anglo-American ‘Bolivian Syndicate’ put forward an idea to develop a rich rubber territory disputed by Bolivia and Brazil. While Brazilian’s were certainly wary of North American colonialism, there was also a legacy of disappointment rooted in the repeated failure of development projects. At best, foreign projects were over-ambitious and ill-conceived. At worst, they were exploitative.

Ford remained oblivious to the enduring stigma of failure surrounding the region’s development. Indeed, several calamitous infrastructure projects pointed to major geographical and public health obstacles inherent to the Amazon. Perhaps the best example of the difficulties a foreign enterprise might encounter was the 226-mile Madeira-Mamoré Railway. During the construction of what became known as the ‘Devil’s Road’, a combination of malaria, yellow fever and other causes claimed the lives of anywhere between 6,000 and 30,000 men. Of greater relevance to Ford, however, was the bad reputation, which Amazonian rubber production had acquired among Brazilians. Labor exploitation, whether through debt peonage or outright slavery, played a major part in the industry’s notoriety. Again, the region’s history did not bode well for Ford.

Putting the conscience in capitalism

Given the stigma surrounding North American interest in the Amazon, it is not surprising to learn that Brazilians questioned Henry Ford’s motives. Many feared that Ford might use the contractual privileges of his concession to undermine national and state sovereignty. What distinguished Ford from other foreigners, however, were his reputation as a reformer of industry and his enlightened social and economic ideas. Indeed, his biography My Life and Work (published in Portuguese in 1926) went a long way to reassure literate Brazilians that Ford represented capitalism with a conscience. 

Emphasizing Ford’s benevolent intentions for the region were his allies in the Brazilian government and the press, who helped to cultivate the image of Ford as a reformer. It was claimed that Ford would transform the Amazon and bring about unprecedented benefits for its impoverished workers. Ford packaged his offer with a promise to develop the region and to manufacture tires and other rubber articles in Brazil. A little showmanship, too, was considered. Reportedly, Ford toyed with the idea of journeying to Pará with Charles Lindberg, who at the time was planning a 9,000-mile tour of Latin America aboard his famous plane: The Spirit of St. Louis. Ultimately, a combination of lobbying and a careful public relations campaign helped to convince Brazilians of Ford’s honest intentions. 

A sign of things to come

In December 1928, Henry Ford’s freighters – the Lake Ormac and the Lake Farge – arrived at the site of what would become Fordlândia to begin construction. On board the ships were an entire railway, a disassembled warehouse, a tugboat, and an arsenal of equipment needed to build a self-sufficient rubber plantation. It was not long before the first signs of trouble appeared. When the plantation manager quit his post and returned home to the U.S., the project was left in the hands of Danish sea captain Einard Oxholm who knew nothing about growing rubber. Ford, who wholeheartedly believed that any man could quickly master a field outside of his own expertise, decided that the Dane was the right person for the job. Unfortunately for Oxholm, his reputation for integrity gave Brazilian and European entrepreneurs all the encouragement they needed to overcharge the plantation for key supplies and services. 

Just one month later, Ford had already spent more than $1.5 million and had virtually nothing to show for it. What is more, 95% of the rubber tree seedlings planted by the end of 1929 were either dying or dead. These were huge problems which defied a solution. Indeed, even the very land on which Fordlândia was constructed was a poor choice. The site, again chosen by a man with zero agricultural experience, was hilly, prone to erosion, and miles away from any settlement. Instead of kitting his plantation with managers and every piece of available technology, Ford would have been better served had he employed biologists who understood the rainforest. Not a single one was consulted in the planning process.

During this period of waste and incompetent management, Brazilian officials struggled to reconcile Ford’s reputation for efficiency with the chaos on show at Fordlândia. How was Ford, an industrial genius, making such a hash of this project? One observer reported that:

“There is a complete lack of organisation at the property. No one knows what the whole picture should be. Waste is terrible… I can well understand the Minister of Agriculture in Rio should think we are crazy… At present, it is like dropping money into a sewer”.

While the physical plantation reached impressive proportions, this was in reality a façade for a failing operation.

Experimenting with an agro-industrial utopia

While the rubber plantation continued to stutter, Henry Ford pushed for a diversification of activities at Fordlândia. Seeking to deliver his promised social and economic benefits, Ford’s plantation would boast comfortable employee housing, a school, a well-equipped modern hospital, a power plant, a sanitary water supply, thirty miles of road and reportedly the largest sawmill in Brazil. Plans were made to export lumber, to produce wooden auto parts for export, and to manufacture tiles and bricks. In addition, there were also plans for both a tire factory and a city with the capacity for 10,000 Brazilians. By the end of 1930, Fordlândia’s landmark structure was complete: a water tower, which stood as a beacon of Ford’s ‘civilizing’ project. This increased breadth of operations represented key pillars of Ford’s personal philosophy: small-town America, and the marriage of agriculture and industry. 

Ford’s nostalgia for an agrarian, small-town America was a prevalent feature of Fordlândia. While he certainly did promise to develop the Amazon, the improved life he envisioned for his workers was very specific and closely resembled the Midwestern towns of his childhood. Having grown up on a farm, the industrialist believed that there was a symbiotic relationship between agriculture and industry. Mechanization, he thought, would not only reduce the waste and drudgery of antiquated farming, but it would also free up the farmer to work in the factory and provide spare time for agricultural pursuits. Fordlândia presented an opportunity to make his unique vision of an agro-industrial utopia a reality. As Ford himself put it in his Ford Evening Hour Sermonettes, this would be a world in which workers had “one foot in industry and one foot on the land”. However, he would eventually learn that the culture he longed for could not so easily be transplanted into the jungle.

Rumble in the jungle: a clash of cultures

For all their suspicions of U.S colonialism, Brazilians and their dependents living at Fordlândia did receive the amenities and provisions promised to them. Indeed, Fordlândia was always about much more than rubber, with Henry Ford seeking to recreate an idyllic American society founded on his own morals and values. Amazonians employed by Ford received a free home, free medical and dental care, recreational facilities, and a wage ranging from the equivalent of thirty-three to sixty-six cents per day. This was at least twice the wages paid elsewhere in the region. Furthermore, workers were able to buy food and other supplies at prices subsidized by Ford. Other free provisions included pasteurized baby milk and burials at the company cemetery. From cradle to grave, workers could expect to live comfortably under Ford’s paternalism.

On the face of it, Fordlândia represented a capitalist’s paradise. However, Ford never succeeding in imposing his alien philosophy on the Amazon; the region’s ingrained cultural and economic traditions were not so easily replaced. Indeed, Brazilians simply did not understand Ford’s idealized vision of small-town America. One example is Ford’s attempt to supplant the traditional role of patrão, which in Brazilian society served as both boss and indulgent parent to the workers. The patrão not only held workers in debt servitude, but he also supported as a godfather and protector figure. The position certainly did not fit the Ford mold of efficiency, and was not suited to the modern employer-employee relationships which Fordlândia hoped to instill. 

Brazilian work culture remained an enigma to Ford. His obsession with timesaving and efficiency served only to annoy his workers who would not accept a rigid work regime. Most disliked the way they were treated - being required to wear ID badges and work through the afternoon under the sweltering sun - and refused to work. Unfamiliar food, such as canned goods and hamburgers, caused further discontent. The tipping point came in 1930 when the plantation dining hall shifted from waited service to cafeteria-style self-service. This change, intended to reduce lunch breaks, would quickly backfire. Workers queuing in line with their trays complained that they were not waiters. Foremen were equally furious, realizing that the new system meant eating in the same manner as their workers. Anger descended into rioting. Workers, armed with shotguns and machetes, and proceeded to rampage through the plantation and chase Fordlândia’s managers (and the town’s cook) into the jungle for a few days until the Brazilian Army arrived to quash the revolt. 

Not understanding Brazilian dining preferences was one thing, but there were other facets of the local culture which persistently baffled Ford. High wages, for instance, failed to ensure that workers would stick around because there was no consumer society in the Amazon on which to spend hard-earned cash. Workers might commit for a few weeks but would then disappear back into the rainforest to work on their own land. While this infuriated Fordlândia’s managers, the cultural disconnect was just as glaring outside of the workplace. Indeed, Ford had very specific ideas about how a society should function, and the sorts of activities people should enjoy. One example was square dancing. Having met his wife at a square dance, Ford decided it would be a good idea to build a large dance hall at the plantation. Although this proved to be unpopular, it was not as unpopular as Ford’s decision to prohibit alcohol. Even though drinking was perfectly legal in Brazil, Ford was a teetotaller and did not see a place for alcohol in his utopia. Like many cultural impositions in Fordlândia, prohibition failed too. Workers continued to drink their customary cachaça, and many travelled down river to a nearby bar and brothel on the aptly named ‘Island of Innocence’.

A predictable end

What became of Fordlândia? After the riot, Fordlândia experienced somewhat of a change in fortune. At long last a successful manager was found in Archibald Johnston, who pushed forward with the construction of housing, and the roads needed to link Fordlândia to the huge territory Ford had acquired inland from the river. Johnston even managed to implement some of Ford’s social ideas, including an emphasis on gardening and strict diets. None of this, however, could compensate for the elephant in the room: Fordlândia was not producing any rubber. Acre after acre of jungle was cleared to make room for rubber trees, but this yielded very poor results. Even when did trees did take root they quickly succumbed to disease. 

Still, Ford did not give up on his vision of rubber self-sufficiency. He hired James Weir, an expert botanist, whose insistence on extravagant planting methods left Johnston exasperated. The biggest demand on Johnston’s list was the construction of a second plantation within Fordlândia, which meant relocating much of the project downstream to Belterra where better growing conditions could be found. Despite the attempt to inject new life into Fordlândia, Weir abandoned the project without notice just a year later. Around the same time, industry advances in the production of synthetic rubber reduced the global demand for natural rubber. 

The close of the Second World War represented a clear turning point for Fordlândia. By then, Ford himself was in poor health and so management of the company fell to his grandson. Henry Ford II, seeking to rein in the company’s spiraling costs, decided to amputate any underperforming assets. This included Fordlândia, which was sold back to Brazil for just a fraction of the purchase price. Perplexed Brazilian residents looked on as their neighbors quickly packed up and headed back home. In stark contrast to the publicity and excitement surrounding Fordlândia’s creation, the project ultimately died a very quiet death. 

While no man better exemplified American ingenuity and industry, Ford’s planned utopia proved to be a colossal error.  It is unfortunate that it took Ford nearly two decades to recognize the error and cut his losses. Left to vandals and to rust in the humid Amazon air were the generator, the sawmill and much of the equipment. The landmark water tower still stands today, although the Ford logo which once represented ‘civilization’ has long since faded. While there has in recent years been a surge in Fordlândia’s population (in 2017 a population of approximately 3,000 people was recorded), the city today is arguably more useful as a parable. As historian Greg Grandin puts it: 

“It’s a parable of arrogance, but the arrogance isn’t that Ford thought he could tame and conquer the Amazon. He had his sights on something actually much bigger. He thought he could tame and conquer capitalism, industrial capitalism. That didn’t happen”.

What do you think of Fordlândia? Let us know below.

References

Industrialist in the Wilderness: Henry Ford's Amazon Venture, John Galey, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 2, May 1979, pp. 261-289.

Ever Heard of Henry Ford's Colossal Failed City in the Jungle?, Entrepreneur Europe, 16 January 2019.

Episode 298 Fordlândia, 99% Invisible.

Henry Ford built 'Fordlândia’, a utopian city inside Brazil's Amazon rainforest that's now abandoned — take a look around, Business Insider, 10 February 2020.

Lost cities #10: Fordlândia – the failure of Henry Ford's utopian city in the Amazon, The Guardian, 19 August 2016.

Fordlândia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford's Forgotten Jungle City, Metropolitan Books, Greg Grandin, June 2009. 

Beyond Fordlândia: An Environmental Account of Henry Ford’s Adventure in the Amazon, Claremont McKenna College, Marcos Colón, 27 April 2021.

Deep in Brazil’s Amazon, Exploring the Ruins of Ford’s Fantasyland, Exploring the Ruins of Ford's Fantasyland, New York Times, 21 February 2017.

Ford Rubber Plantations in Brazil - The Henry Ford, The Henry Ford.

The Amazon Awakens, produced by Walt Disney for the U.S. Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, 29 May 1944. 

Fordlândia is a reminder of how the Amazon rainforest resists business interests, Financial Times, 3 November 2021.

Fordlândia and Belterra, Rubber Plantations on the Tapajos River, Brazil, Joseph A. Russell, Economic Geography, Vol. 18, No. 2, April 1942, pp. 125-145.

The Modern Greek State: 1898–1913 – Glory Days

On March 25, 2021, the Modern Greek State celebrated the 200th anniversary of the War of Independence, which ultimately led to its establishment. It is thus an excellent opportunity to reconsider some of the main events of Greek history over these 200 years and how they shaped the character of modern Greece. This article covers the period from 1898 and 1913 and looks at what happed in Crete, the Greek political, and scene, the Balkan Wars, and how ultimately it was a positive period for Greece. Thomas Papageorgiou explains.

You can read part 1 on ‘a bad start’ 1827-1862 here and part 2 on ‘bankruptcy and defeat’ 1863-1897 here.

A lithograph of the Battle of Yenidje/Giannitsa in the First Balkan War.

The story narrated so far for Greece is not unique. (Papageorgiou, History Is Now Magazine, 2021) (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2021) By the turn of the 20th century, all modern Balkan countries (Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria) had suffered indebtedness and political instability, and the maneuvering of the great powers restricted their foreign policy options. The governments of all three were committed to schemes of territorial expansion, but the restraining influences of disorganized armies, chaotic public finances and great power pressure inhibited them. Only through cooperation with one another could they realize their expansionist dreams.  The cooperation process culminated to the inferno of the first and second Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913. For the Greeks, these were good wars. (Glenny, 2012)

I. Introduction

Cooperation between the Balkan States was not easy. Under the guiding hand of Bismarck, the Congress of Berlin in 1878 subordinated all interests and demands of the Balkan States to three expanding spheres of interest – Austro-Hungarian, Russian and British. This created confusion and resentment in many parts of the Balkans. Especially Bulgaria was reduced from 176,000 square kilometers, after the Treaty of San Stefano, to just 96,000 square kilometers. Serbia’s westwards expansion was also blocked. Thus, they both turned their expansionist ambitions south to Macedonia, claimed also by Greece.

Things became more complicated when in 1885 Bulgaria, violating the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin, annexed Eastern Rumelia, an integral part of the Ottoman Empire and the Powers accepted the outcome of the Bulgarian intervention. The Serbian king Milan Obrenović knew that the annexation gave Bulgaria an important strategic advantage in the impending struggle for Macedonia. He saw the treaty violation as an opportunity to test his new standing army and attacked Bulgaria but was thoroughly defeated. 

With the annexation of Eastern Rumelia, the victory over the Serbs and with Greece bankrupt, distracted by the Cretan Revolt and finally defeated by the Ottomans in 1897, Bulgaria had indeed an important strategic advantage in Macedonia at the eve of the 20th century. Nevertheless, the realization of the Bulgarian threat by the Ottomans and internal divisions among the Bulgarian parastatal organizations which, like in Greece, were coordinating foreign policy led to a significant decrease of the Slavic influence in Macedonia immediately after the suppression of the Ilinden uprising in 1903. (wikipedia, 2021)

Indeed, Greek guerrillas, under the leadership of officers secretly sent by the government in Athens, used the opportunity and swept through western Macedonia restoring the Greek influence in the region. This renewed activity and the retreat of Bulgarian aspirations hastened a change in Serbian policy, too. Serbia would now be fighting for territorial influence not just against the Greeks and Bulgarians, but also against the Ottomans and Albanians. The situation was so complicated that, at various times, the struggle for Macedonia pitted Slav against Slav (Bulgarians against Serbs); Slav against Hellene (Bulgarians against Greeks); Slav against Muslim (Serbs or Bulgarians against Ottomans or Albanians); Hellene against Muslim (Greeks against Turks or Albanians); and Muslim against Muslim (Ottomans against Albanians). The situation calmed after the Young Turks revolution of 1908, which, in its early stages at least, rejected the path of nationalism and created hope for peaceful coexistence among the different ethnicities in Macedonia. (Glenny, 2012)

The successes in Macedonia restored the confidence of the Greek officer’s corps after the debacle in the 1897 war. The army blamed the Crown Prince Constantine for the defeat against the Turks and the politicians for Greece’s chronic lack of preparedness for war. In August 1909 an army conspiracy, the Military League, launched a successful coup d’etat. This did not aim at the overthrow of the monarchy or the establishment of a junta. The officers involved exercised pressure on the new government from behind the scenes to provide for the necessary restructuring of the army and the obliteration of the influence of the palace on it. They also invited Eleftherios Venizelos, a Cretan rebel politician outside the old political establishment to lead the effort. (Glenny, 2012) (Malesis, 2018)

II Eleftherios Venizelos

In Crete

Venizelos was born in Mournies, a part of the city of Chania, in Crete in 1864, the year of the first territorial expansion of modern Greece to the Ionian Islands. His father Kiriakos, a merchant, was involved in the local social and political developments and was often prosecuted by the Turkish authorities during the frequent Cretan revolts. Thus, Venizelos spent part of his early life in exile. 

His father was granted amnesty in 1872 and returned to Chania, where he successfully set up his business and provided for the best preparation of Eleftherios as merchant. The latter complied at first, but later managed to convince his father to study law in Athens, where he developed his interest for politics. He also became involved with chieftains and veterans of the island’s revolutions and exiles because of them, who, together with his compatriot students, constituted the core of the Cretan irredentism in the Greek capital. He develops intense activity and soon becomes a leading figure among them.

By the time that Venizelos returned to Chania to practise law in 1887, apart from the respect of the Cretans in Athens, he had the good fame of his father, who died four years earlier, and the help of Kostas Mitsotakis, a local politician and husband of one of his sisters (he had four as well as a younger brother) to rely on for the advancement of his political carrier. He also proved to be an excellent lawyer, which added to his fame and financial comfort.

Thus, it came to no-one’s surprise, when in 1889, he was elected to the Cretan Assembly, a representation body of the semi-autonomous state granted to the island by the Pact of Chalepa in 1878. (wikipedia, 2020) This first tenure did not last long though. A few days after the elections, the old political establishment, proposed the declaration of unification with Greece. Venizelos, as well as the Greek government, immediately realized the dangers of yet another premature revolt and worked to establish a climate of appeasement and moderation. To no avail. The Turks crushed the new revolt and declared martial law. The Pact of Chalepa was no more and Venizelos found himself in Athens once more, this time as an exile.   

His exile does not last long. In April 1890 he returns to Chania, after general amnesty was granted, and in December 1891 he marries his wife, Maria. His happiness does not last long though. After the birth of his second son, in November 1894, his wife died. At the same time Crete was going through one of the worst periods of its history. The martial law and Turkish terror were casting a dark shadow over the island. The Cretan reaction comes with another revolt in May 1896. Venizelos feared a repetition of the harsh measures of 1889 and was against it. The international condemnation of the Hamidian massacres (wikipedia, 2021) though and the pressure exercised by the Great Powers to the Sultan did not allow for a similar reaction. Thus, the movement was successful in forcing the sultan to commit himself for the restoration of the privileges of the Pact of Chalepa.  

Venizelos was not hesitant to get involved in another revolt though, when the sultan did not honour his commitment. Not only as a politician but also as front-line fighter. This is the crisis that culminated to the Greco-Turkish war of 1897. Although Venizelos was in line with Trikoupis’ approach that foreign policy should be dictated by the national centre and supported unification with Greece, he did not hesitate to disagree with the Greek government after the Greek defeat and opt for the more realistic solution of Cretan autonomy under the condition that the Turkish army withdrew from the island. His insistency and the clumsy handling of the situation by the Turks, with irregulars attacking British forces, resulted not only to Crete’s autonomy, but also to the appointment of the Greek king’s second born prince George as high commissioner. 

In December 1898 prince George arrived in Chania. He claimed excessive powers for himself, and Venizelos supported him as a strong executive authority was necessary for the rebuilt of the devastated island. He also served for two years as minister of justice in the cabinet of the prince demonstrating significant legislative work. Cooperation did not last long though. Venizelos believed that the main aim should be full Cretan autonomy and the withdrawal of the Great Powers’ armies from the island, which, in effect, occupied it. Prince George on the other hand was unsuccessfully trying to convince the Powers to accept the unification of the island with the Greek kingdom. When the commissioner used suppressive measures to settle the differences with the politician, Venizelos revolted. 

The centre of the revolt was at Therisos, near Chania, where Venizelos and his supporters declared the unification of Crete with Greece on the 11th of March 1905. This was an attempt to turn the tables as any reaction from the prince would be an act against his own diplomacy that far. In any case, it was the reaction of the foreign armies on the island that would decide the outcome of the revolt. Eventually, Venizelos found himself in a tough spot, but, preferring a realistic approach instead of a fight to the end, he managed to exploit the differences between the Great Powers and by mid-summer managed to achieve: amnesty for himself and his supporters, the establishment of Cretan militia and withdrawal of the Powers’ armies from the island, a loan for the Cretan autonomous state, provisions for the settlement of important pending issues with the Turks, revision of the Cretan constitution. The Greek king would have the right to nominate the high commissioner, but his suggestion was subject to the approval of the Powers. King George decided to withdraw his son and substitute him with former prime minister Alexandros Zaimis. The Powers accepted. (Papadakis (Papadis), 2017)

Thus, by 1905 Venizelos had two revolts on his account and a major clash with the royal dynasty and the political establishment supporting it in mainland Greece. No wonder that the officers of the Military League considered him the ideal candidate for the premiership a few years later.

In the Greek political scene

In the elections of the 8th of August 1910 Venizelos was voted member of the Greek parliament for the first time in his career. Contrary to might be expected of him, he did not accept the premiership offered by the Military League. He pointed out that the army officers had committed a serious political mistake: They revolted against the old political establishment and the crown and after gaining control of the situation they trusted the same establishment with the reorganization of the state. Instead, he proposed a compromise: A revision of the constitution of 1864 to introduce the necessary reforms, after which the Military League would dissolve itself. Nevertheless, material provisions of the constitution and especially that concerning the form of government would remain untouched. The crown was safe. Venizelos’ stance served for an improvement of his relations with the palace, especially with king George.

After the king’s invitation to implement the compromise he suggested, Venizelos formed his first government on the 6th of October 1910. But, although the parliament elected in August included 122 independent members, the majority was still with the old parties and Venizelos was not willing to become ‘prisoner’ of this majority. Thus, he convinced the king to dissolve the parliament and call for new elections on the 28th of November. The leaders of the old parties considered this a constitutional coup and decided to abstain from the upcoming elections. As a result, Venizelos’ newly formed Liberal Party won an overwhelming majority of 307 out of 362 seats. 87% of the new MPs were elected for the first time. 

The revision of the constitution introduced important novelties such as a new regime for the expropriation of land, the establishment permanence for the civil servants, compulsory and free elementary education and a ban on the election of army officers as members of parliament. The goal was to address chronic problems of the state like the oppression of the landless, clientism and army interventions in politics. Venizelos actually retained the ministry of the army for himself, and significant compromises were made here. He took as his adjutant the pro-royal captain Ioannis Metaxas, the later dictator during the interwar period in the 1930s, and most importantly restored the crown prince Constantine at the head of the army in June 1911. The reason behind these compromises was the avoidance of an internal front as Venizelos’ concern during this period was the country’s foreign policy. (Papadakis (Papadis), 2017) (Mavrogordatos, 2015) Nevertheless, he ensured public support with the elections of March 1912 by winning again with an overwhelming majority against the united opposition this time.

Preparation for war

In February 1912 Bulgaria and Serbia signed a defence agreement and two months later a military pact for common action against the Turks regarding their claims in Macedonia. Venizelos actively pursued Greece’s participation to the alliance but was at first met with reservation from the Bulgarian side. (Malesis, 2018) Nevertheless, the Slavs had no navy and Greece was necessary to restrict the capacity of the Turkish fleet to move freely in the Aegean. (Papadakis (Papadis), 2017) As far as the Greek army was concerned though, after Greece’s defeat in 1897 and considering its financial problems, it was estimated that it counted far below those of the other Balkan States. (Glenny, 2012) Knowing this, Venizelos did not insist on any settlement of the division of the potential territorial gains in Macedonia during the negotiations. Thus, finally Bulgaria felt comfortable to accept Greece in the alliance in May 1912. (Papadakis (Papadis), 2017)

Bulgaria completely underestimated the capacity of the Greek army. The international financial control after 1897 helped tiding up the country’s finances and the surpluses of 1910 and 1911 together with loan take outs in the same period created an abundance of cash for the Greek state at the eve of the war. (Kostis, The Wealth of Greece, The Greek economy from the Balkan Wars till this day, 2018) Actually, the reorganization effort started in 1904 already with the establishment of the National Defence Fund by the government of George Theotokis. From 1904 till 1912 214 million drachmas were spent on armaments of which 50% during the last two years, when Venizelos came to power. For comparison, the national GDP in 1910-11 was 282.28 drachmas per capita (Kostis, History’s Spoiled Children, The Formation of the Modern Greek State, 2018) , whereas the legendary armoured cruiser Averof (Carr, 2014) cost 24 million drachmas. Venizelos also materialized the decision of Stefanos Dragoumis’ government in 1910 to invite, following a demand of the Military League, French and British officers to undertake the training of the army and navy. The French mission under general Eydoux arrived in January and the English mission under admiral Tufnell in May 1911.

During this preparation period Venizelos faced the opposition’s criticism that once again preferred the old ‘wait and see’ tactic determined by public opinion and possible political cost. The palace and general staff were also not pleased with the invitation of the Anglo-French military missions as the crown prince and his officers were trained in Germany and admired the Prussian military tradition. Nevertheless, Venizelos was determined to pursue an active participation to the upcoming war and did not hesitate, against the public opinion, to refuse the admission of Cretan representatives to the Greek parliament in May 1912 that might have triggered a reaction form the Great Powers (and the Turks) that at this point were split regarding their policies in the region and could not undertake coordinated action to prevent the war. (Papadakis (Papadis), 2017) (Mavrogordatos, 2015)

The Balkan Wars

The Balkan Wars commenced on the 8th of October 1912, when tiny Montenegro, the fourth member of the Balkan alliance, declared war on the Ottoman Empire. Five days later an ultimatum issued by Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia was delivered to the Turks, demanding such an extensive number of reforms in favour of the Christian populations of the empire that could not be accepted. Their declaration of war followed on the 17th of October. (Papadakis (Papadis), 2017) Military operations lasted only 10 weeks, but the numbers of combatants involved were huge. The Bulgarians mobilized a full 25% of their male population, just under 500,000 men. (Glenny, 2012) The Greeks and Serbs fielded about 200,000 men each and this at a time when their population was less than 3 million. (Malesis, 2018) The Turks were about 350,000. 200,000 combatants, excluding civilians, were killed. The vast massacres of the soon to come First World War relegated the social and economic impact of the Balkan Wars to the penny place. But those who witnessed or participated in them were given a unique insight into what the 20thcentury had in store for the world. (Glenny, 2012)

During the first phase of the war (First Balkan War) the Turks had just come out of a war with Italy and were obliged to fight in four different fronts: against the Bulgarians in Thrace; against the Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks in Macedonia; against the Serbs and Montenegrins in northern Albania (I refer to modern Albania, as this state did not exist at the time of the Balkan Wars) and Kosovo; and against the Greeks in Epirus. (Glenny, 2012) The Greek army made significant gains in southern Epirus, setting the city of Ioannina under siege, and in western and central Macedonia, taking Thessaloniki, after winning the race to the city over the Bulgarians. The Greek navy was proved predominant in the Aegean by blocking the naval transport of Turkish troops from Asia Minor to the different fronts and freed all occupied islands. At the same time the rest of the Balkan Allies neutralized almost every pocket of resistance in Europe stopping only 40 km from Constantinople. Thus, soon the Turks reached for an armistice which was signed with the Bulgarians, Serbs and Montenegrins in December. The Greeks retained a state of war as Ioannina was still under siege and they also needed to continue controlling the movements of the Turkish fleet in the Aegean. (Klapsis, 2019)   

At the conference of London, in December 1912, the Great Powers tried to regain the initiative in the Balkans with their ambassadors discussing separately from those of the war parts. Nevertheless, Sofia, Athens and Belgrade were no longer prepared to bow to the strategic requirements of the Great Powers. (Glenny, 2012) Furthermore, the Treaty of London, signed in May 1913, although it confirmed the drastic reduction of the Turkish possessions in Europe, contained no specific provisions for the definition of the new borders in the Balkans, especially in Macedonia. The incorporation of a new Albanian state complicated things even more.(Klapsis, 2019) It was time for the Balkan states to settle the differences among themselves. 

Meanwhile, Greece, still in a state of war with the Turks, had taken Ioannina and advanced into northern Epirus, before the Treaty of London was signed. Bulgaria, overemphasizing the contribution of its army during the hostilities, was by no means willing to accept any conventional ratification of the status quo after the First Balkan War. (Klapsis, 2019) Realizing the danger, Venizelos turned to Serbia for the formation of a common front against their former ally. The Serbs accepted but demanded that the Greco - Serbian Defensive Treaty includes also mutual support in the case of an Austrian attack against Serbia now that the latter’s ambition on the Adriatic were restricted by the Italo – Austrian push for an Albanian state in the region. Although the Germanophile crown prince Constantine was against this development, later to play a crucial role for the Greek participation to the First World War, the Treaty was signed on the 1st of June 1913. (Papadakis (Papadis), 2017)

The Second Balkan War commenced in mid-June with a sudden Bulgarian attack against Greece and Serbia. After few initial successes, the Bulgarian army was thoroughly defeated by the combined armies of Greece and Serbia (supported also by the Montenegrins). Taking advantage of the situation Romania also entered the war occupying Dobruja in northern Bulgaria. The Turks also retook Adrianople from the Bulgarians. The final settlement took place on Balkan ground with the Peace Treaty of Bucharest in August 1913. For Greece the result was astonishing. The gains in Epirus, west and central Macedonia were supplemented by eastern Macedonia till the port city Kavala. In Bucharest, Crete was also finally ceded to Greece that occupied also the islands of north - eastern Aegean, although their fate was to be decided by the Powers at a later point. Within a year the frightened and despised Greece of the past doubled its territory (from 63,211 to 120,308 square kilometres) whereas its population increased by 80% (from 2.6 to 4.7 million people). (Papadakis (Papadis), 2017)

III Conclusion

Greece’s expansion before 1912 was rather coincidental. The Ionian islands came as a ‘dowry’ to the new king George in 1864. The annexation of Thessaly was also the result of serendipitous international relations in 1881. It was actually lost to Turkey after the defeat of 1897 and was luckily granted back to Greece, together with the right to appoint the high commissioner in Crete, because of the power play between the Great Powers that the Greek government could barely influence. 

At the beginning of the 20th century things were different. Greece was actively pursuing international alliances. It did not hesitate to change sides when the national interest and not have public opinion dictating it. It capitalized on the painful cumulative growth it had experienced since its establishment and combining military action with diplomacy achieved its greatest triumph to this day. As it was noted ‘For the first time since the fall of Constantinople in 1453 Greece was fighting and winning without patrons’. (Kostis, History’s Spoiled Children, The Formation of the Modern Greek State, 2018) (Mavrogordatos, 2015) (Papadakis (Papadis), 2017)

Nevertheless, despite Venizelos’ criticism to the Military League that it tried to push reform using the old establishment, he worked with the same establishment. It was probably necessary in view of the imminent developments and the need for internal peace. By restoring the crown prince at the head of the army and pro-royal officers at the general staff though, he revived a power system that the Military League meant to neutralize. Already during the Balkan wars there was significant friction between the politician and the commander in chief regarding the appropriate strategy. The disagreement for the race to Thessaloniki in 1912 (supported by Venizelos) against an advance to Monastir (supported by Constantine) or that on signing the agreement with the Serbs, before the Second Balkan War, are typical examples. King George, who, within a few months, tasted all the joy that was deprived of him during the humiliations of the past, was able to mediate successfully between the two. But in March 1913 he was murdered in Thessaloniki by a paranoid person, according to the official version. It has been commented though that the murder came in handy for the ‘German factor’. (Papadakis (Papadis), 2017) Constantine was now not only at the head of the army but at the head of the state, too.

In short, this was undoubtedly a triumphant period for Greece. But the seeds for another catastrophe to come had also been planted.

What do you think of these years in the Modern Greek State? Let us know below.

References                                                                                                     

Carr, J. (2014). R.H.N.S. Averof, Thunder in the Aegean. Barnsley South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Maritime.

Glenny, M. (2012). The Balkans 1804-2012, Nationalism, War and the Great Powers. New York: Penguin Books.

Klapsis, A. (2019). Politics and Diplomacy of the Greek National Completion 1821-1923. Athens: Pedio (in Greek).

Kostis, K. (2018). History’s Spoiled Children, The Formation of the Modern Greek State. London: Hurst & Company.

Kostis, K. (2018). The Wealth of Greece, The Greek economy from the Balkan Wars till this day. Athens: Patakis (in Greek).

Malesis, D. (2018). '... let the Revolution Begin' Great Idea & the Army in the 19th Century. Athens: Asinis (in Greek).

Mavrogordatos, G. (2015). 1915 The National Schism. Athens: Patakis (in Greek).

Papadakis (Papadis), N. E. (2017). Eleftherios Venizelos. Chania - Athens: National Research Foundation ''Eleftherios Venizelos'' - Estia Bookstore (in Greek).

Papageorgiou, T. P. (2021, September 5). History is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2021/9/5/the-modern-greek-state-18631897-bankruptcy-amp-defeat#.YVH7FX1RVPY

Papageorgiou, T. P. (2021, May 16). History Is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2021/5/16/the-modern-greek-state-1827-1862-a-bad-start#.YLe-yqFRVPY

Wikipedia. (2020). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Halepa

Wikipedia. (2021). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilinden%E2%80%93Preobrazhenie_Uprising

Wikipedia. (2021). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres

The Paraguayan President who Brought his Country to Military Catastrophe – Part 4: How the War Ended

Francisco Solano Lopez was president of Paraguay from 1862 to 1870. He led the country during one of the most devastating defeats in all history – the War of the Triple Alliance. Here, Erick Redington concludes this fascinating series by looking at how a Brazilian leader managed to take Humaita and the capital, Asuncion – and how Marshall Lopez continued to resist even after these captures.

If you missed it you can read part 1 on the early life of Francisco Solano Lopez here, part 2 on the start of the War of the Triple Alliance here, and part 3 on devastating battles for both sides here.

The 1868 Battle of Avay.

Marshal Lopez knew about all the changes in the Allied high command. He was kept informed through an intelligence network of spies and sympathizers. The changes could only have been encouraging. With Mitre gone, and Argentina facing internal dissention and rebellion, their contribution to the war would be diminished at worst, and eliminated at best. Flores' term ending, and then assassination, meant that Uruguay would have another round of internal problems, which could only work to the Marshal's favor. Then the elephant in the room, Brazil. The new commander was probably just some other decadent Brazilian noble with a fancy title, but no match for the Marshal's military genius. 

There were reasons for the Marshal to be confident. Sure his armies were ill equipped, ill fed, and his country was significantly outweighed. But these facts had been true from the start. Yet, despite all this, he had survived. Paraguay had survived. The strategy of making the Allies pay for every step, letting the terrain and disease take their tolls, seemed to be working. The Allies were barely into Paraguay. Tens of thousands had been killed or invalided out. The Argentines and Uruguayans were seemingly withdrawing from the war. There had been no uprising against his rule. The nascent Paraguayan Legion, full of his opponents, was stymied. For the Marshal, all that seemed necessary was just a little more exertion, if the Paraguayan people could give just a little more, then a peace he could live with could finally be achieved.

For Lopez, the seeming successes (or non-failure depending on your perspective) were further convincing him of his own correctness, and the baseness of his opponents. He had done this himself. The American minister to Paraguay once wrote that the Marshal had many flatterers, but no advisors. The Marshal had stymied the Allies, and this led to a further inflated ego. Other issues began to rear their heads. Lopez did not share in the privations of his soldiers. He was a known gourmand, and would eat enormous amounts of food, even specialty cakes that would have been unthinkable for anyone not in the Marshal's immediate family. Worse, Lopez would drink large amounts of alcohol. Prior to modern sanitary methods, drinking alcohol did not carry the risks of disease, such as dysentery, that drinking unclean water did. However, Lopez's consumption of alcohol grew over the years of the war, and when he drank too much, he was known to lash out at those around him angrily. These scenes of anger would not bode well for the future.

When the Marquis de Caxias took command, he trained, organized and equipped his forces. As a veteran of every war of the Empire, he knew the importance of morale and logistics, and was determined to avoid the mistakes of his predecessors. Whereas the Marshal had assumed that Caxias was going to be another dull Brazilian nobleman, it was Caxias who would rebuild the Brazilian forces, and use the newfound unity of command to wield the Allied army and navy as one instrument for the destruction of Marshal Lopez.

Humaitá Falls      

By July 1867, Caxias was ready to move the Allied Army. President Mitre had made some rumblings about wanting to return to the army to reassume command, and Caxias had to move fast to maintain his operational control. The goal was Humaitá. The Marshal had used the months of inactivity to strengthen the Gibraltar of South America. One element that the Marshal had not counted on was the advancements in naval technology of the previous decade. When Humaitá was originally built by Carlos Antonio Lopez, naval vessels were still primarily made of wood, and steam propulsion was new. The bend in the river would slow ships and the guns of the fort would bring their destruction. With ironclad warships becoming more common, even in South America, the position Humaitá was in was not as impregnable as it had been.   

Utilizing terrain and slowing down the Allies, the Marshal wanted to make his enemies bleed for every foot of Paraguayan ground they stepped on. Caxias was willing to accept casualties in order to encircle the Paraguayan fortress. Being outnumbered almost 2-1, however, limited the Marshal's options and he could not afford a pitched battle. For the Marquis, a pitched battle was what he wanted. He was simply unable to achieve it at this stage. Lopez knew his numbers were low, and he had limited prospects of getting more men. Pre-teen boys and old men were being conscripted into the Paraguayan army. These young men would prove some of the Marshal's most devoted followers. The use of child soldiers would be one of the biggest stains on the Marshal's record and is one of the greatest controversies of the war. For the Paraguayans, they felt they had no alternative. According to the Marshal's propaganda, the Allies were going to partition the country and the Brazilians were going to enslave them. These were motivations to get families to freely give up their children for service. And besides, these children would be under the command of the brilliant Marshal Lopez, who would ensure their safety.

The Marquis would order a wide flanking maneuver to surround the fortress, then when close positions were attained, begin land and naval bombardments. If the Paraguayans would not evacuate, Humaitá would be besieged and the Paraguayan army trapped inside, hopefully with the Marshal as well. Mostly, this is what happened. However, due to the terrain, it was impossible to completely surround Humaitá as closely as the Marquis would have liked. Despite this the Allied army was able to take up positions facing Humaitá, and the siege was on. The defense of this place had been built up in the minds of both sides that immediate evacuation by the Marshal was impossible. For both sides, it was the focus of the war. As long as it held out, there was still hope for the Paraguayans. If it fell, the Allies hoped they would have an open road to Asunción.  

As has been seen, Marshal Lopez was not one to sit and wait for anything to happen to him. He would make attacks during the siege, and at times put the Allies back on their heels. Active defense seemed to be the tactic Marshal Lopez excelled at. But his army was also starving. A larger proportion of his solders everyday was made up of children and old men. Weapons were outdated. Ammunition and powder were short. It was amazing the Paraguayans held on as long as they did. But the Marshal could feel the squeeze he was being put under. Slowly, steadily, month after month, the Allies strangled the Paraguayans. The Brazilians showed early in the siege that their ironclads were able to run the guns of the fortress and make it up river, virtually defeating the purpose of the fortress at that location. With the fleet now able to go upriver and shell Paraguayan positions, Humaitá slowly became untenable. Small-scale counter attacks would not be enough. The Allies inexorably closed in. But no matter how many counter attacks, ambushes, and disruptions to the Allied supply line the Marshal made, he could not shake the grip that Caxias had on Humaitá. It became a matter of time. 

Marshal Lopez was not a man to sacrifice himself in the last ditch defense of the fortress. Nor would he allow himself to be captured by his enemies while there were still Paraguayan soldiers left to carry on. Leaving a small force to man the fort and maintain a semblance of their presence, the Marshal ordered his troops to retreat further north. The Marquis was prepared to assault the fortress that for so long had frustrated Allied designs. When the Allies were prepared for the final assault, negotiations began for surrender. Over 1,200 Paraguayan troops surrendered. These men were starving and sick. Their commander, Colonel Martinez, was so starved, by one report his skin had begun to turn yellow. Despite this, surrender by the Paraguayans up until this moment had been unthinkable. To the Allies, the Paraguayans were unthinking automatons in the service of a brutal dictator. Seeing the walking corpses come out of the fort that day reinforced their belief.

Things Fall Apart

For the Marshal, surrender had been unthinkable. He had only left orders for the evacuation of the sick and wounded, not understanding this meant the whole garrison. Although he had held out for longer than anyone had the right to expect, with the fortress gone, he now began to worry about the safety of his capital. Retreat north was a necessity. The Marquis, however, was not willing to rest on his laurels and savor the triumph. Further naval probes were ordered. The advance would continue.

Before confronting his enemies in front of him, Lopez confronted his perceived enemies behind him. This would be the start of one of the greatest black marks against the Marshal’s character. Paraguay was an authoritarian state, and the Marshal was used to instant obedience. It seems that when his orders had been disobeyed and Humaitá surrendered, Lopez began to delude himself with the idea that there was a massive conspiracy against him personally. Massive numbers of arrests were made. Everyone from foreign travelers to government officials were arrested and subject to extreme forms of torture to extract confessions. Priests were used as informants and the confessional was no longer sacred. Families would inform on each other. Even the Marshal’s family was not immune. His brother would be arrested, and his mother would be tortured for the sin of telling him that he was born out of wedlock. Plots to overthrow the Marshal or to surrender to the Allies were allegedly everywhere. Historians have debated whether any of this conspiracy mongering was based in fact, but there is very little evidence. One result did come about. If no one was willing to challenge the Marshal before, now there was no one left in government or the inner circle who would even think of telling the Marshal the truth about the situation again.

Lopez looked for a defensible position from which to stymie the Allied advance. He settled on the banks of the Piquissiri River south of Asunción. It was here the Marquis would show himself a superior general to the Marshal. Caxias would cross the river, enter the terrible terrain of the Gran Chaco and flank the Paraguayan army. Then he could take the Marshal from behind and destroy him before he could retreat further north. This is exactly what happened. At the Battle of Avay, much of the remaining Paraguayan army was destroyed. With this, there was nothing stopping the Marquis from taking the Paraguayan capital, which was done on New Year’s Day 1869.

The Fall                   

Although the Allies hoped that taking the Paraguayan capital would end the war, that would not be signaled until the Marshal was removed from the board. Ever the survivor, Lopez fled north into the wilderness and the mountains. He would take whatever boys and old men were left, form a new army, and fight a guerilla war against the Allies and their newest ally, the Paraguayan Provisional government. This group was set up by the Allies to govern the country. For Lopez, this group of men was even worse than Brazilians, they were traitors. Many Paraguayans would see them the same way. The war would continue.

For over a year, the Marshal would fight his guerilla war. The Marquis de Caxias would leave the war zone, to be replaced by the Emperor’s son-in-law, the Comte d’Eu. There were more battles, but the primary result was more needless suffering by the Paraguayan people. The battles of the last year of the war would see whole villages burned to the ground and brutal reprisals and counter reprisals by both sides. D’Eu was determined to destroy the support system that sustained the Marshal’s armies and would brutally punish any area that gave the Marshal support. The Marshal would launch deadly attacks on anyone who aided the Allies or would not actively support him. Unlike many dictators who can allow passive acceptance, the Marshal required active participation in his activities by his people. The Marshal had no hope of victory, yet he would order the instant death of Paraguayans who even spoke of surrender. The Paraguayan people probably knew they were doomed, but what else could they do? The habituation of obedience had been with them since the days of Dr. Francia. There was nothing left for the Paraguayan people to do but to fight and die. 

The Comte d’Eu would order continuous campaigns to root out the Marshal. Finally, after all these years of war, Marshal Lopez was cornered. The Allies launched an attack on his camp and cut down his aides and camp followers. The Marshal, believing in his own importance to his cause, jumped on his horse and attempted to ride away. Due to the muck, getting away was not possible. Through the entire war, the Marshal had pointedly not exposed himself to danger. His supporters would say that due to his role as commander in chief and president, it would be irresponsible to expose himself. His detractors would call him a coward. At this moment, when all was lost, and escape was impossible, the Marshal found the courage to face his enemies. He was called upon to surrender by the Brazilians. He not only refused but insulted and swore at his attackers. He would curse and damn them for what they had done to Paraguay. The Brazilian commander, General Câmara, would order his men to capture the Marshal alive. No order could save the Marshal. Not only did the Brazilian troops have their blood up and adrenaline pumping, but the Emperor had offered a reward of £110 sterling for the man who would take the Marshal down. The Marshal, covered in wounds was shot in the chest and fell in the swamps of Northern Paraguay on March 1, 1870. His last words, spat with his last breath, were “I die with my country.”

Legacy

The memory of Marshal Francisco Solano Lopez Carrillo is complicated. To the Paraguayan people who he ruled over with an iron fist for most of a decade, he is a hero, a symbol of national resistance against overwhelming odds. He had defied the superpowers of South America, and though he lost, it was through his sacrifice that Paraguay was able to survive the worst war the continent had ever seen. Supporters say that the fact that Paraguay earned the respect of its’ enemies through its heroism and were moved to allow the country to survive is a testament to the Marshal. To detractors, he was a brutal dictator who launched a war that no sane person could have imagined for one moment he had a chance to win. This view is reinforced by the casualty figures. Of a prewar population of approximately 525,000, over 300,000 died. It is estimated that 90% of men in Paraguay died. This casualty figure surpasses the most brutal of wars, even the Eastern Front of World War II. 

Insane brutal dictator, or enlightened leader who was suppressed by his neighbor. These two positions polarize historians to this day. One thing the Marshal achieved, which he would have enjoyed, was eternal fame. The fame of leading one of the most epic campaigns in military history, fighting against impossible odds, and enacting a true Götterdämmerung will make his name live forever.

What do you think of how he War of the Triple Alliance ended? Let us know below.

Now, read about General Juan Peron , The Famous Argentine President who had 18 years between his two Presidencies here.

References

Saeger, James Schofield. 2007. Francisco Solano Lopez and the Ruination of Paraguay: Honor and Egocentrism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Whigham, Thomas L. 2002. The Paraguayan War, Volume 1: Causes and Early Conduct. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

———. 2005. I Die with My Country: Perspectives on the Paraguayan War, 1864-1870. Edited by Hendrick Kraay. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

———. 2017. The Road to Armageddon: Paraguay versus the Triple Alliance, 1866-70. University of Calgary Press.