Major General Gordon in China and the Taiping Rebellion

Charles George Gordon, known for exhibiting extraordinary courage and fearlessness in battle, would die a hero’s death in 1885. At the time of his death, he had gained international fame for his service in the British army, ability to inspire others, and his staunch commitment to his faith. When Gordon volunteered to serve in China, he was faced with an insurrection the likes of which remains one of the bloodiest rebellions in world history. Marvin McCrary explains.

Gordon shortly after the Crimean War.

Charles Gordon was born in Woolwich, a district in southeast London, England, in 1833. He was the son of a Royal Artillery officer — one of a fairly large brood of children — but the family was closely-knit, and very happy. The young Gordon was especially fond of his sister Emily, but her death at age 16, was a great blow to him. In 1848, Gordon entered the Royal Military Academy (in Woolwich) as a Gentleman Cadet, intending to follow his father into the Royal Artillery. However, a lack of discipline prevented this, and he graduated in 1852 as a second lieutenant in the Corps of Royal Engineers. The corps considered themselves the professional elite of the British army, and were posted all over the world to build bridges, railways, quays for ships, design buildings, and undertook siege work. This would prove to be the ideal environment for Gordon, who had shown himself to be brave, impetuous and restless while at the academy. It was agreed that the role of the military engineer would make good use of these traits.

Crimea

In 1853 Gordon was converted to faith in Christ through the efforts of a fellow officer who would become one of his closest friends. His faith would become an integral part of his character throughout the rest of his life. That same year, the Crimean War broke out. The conflict pitted Britain, France, Turkey and Sardinia against Russia, whose ruler sought to expand Russian influence over the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. Gordon managed to persuade the War Office to give him a post to the Crimea, despite his parents' insistence that it would be best for him to remain in England. Although aware of the dangers, Gordon knew that engineers were badly needed at the front, where the ill-equipped soldiers were making due in shockingly primitive circumstances. Adequate shelter was nonexistent and supply services hopelessly snarled. Gordon was put in charge of collecting and shipping wooden huts, which he would erect in the Crimea.

According to author John H. Waller, Gordon was in his element in the Crimea. His first task involved building huts which would serve as winter quarters for Allied troops. Gordon took the hardships of winter in his stead. He compared the British soldiers to children who, unlike the French, did not look after themselves. Officers froze to death in the night, while others were smothered by the smoke from the charcoal fires which had been started for warmth. There was palpable need, Gordon recognized, to put the huts up in a hurry. Once he completed this task, he managed to get the dangerous and unenviable job of mapping the Russian trenches along the frontlines. Many young, promising officers were killed during this operation. In a pensive letter written in 1883, Gordon would later reflect upon his surprise and disappoint  that he was spared an early death. One could say that Gordon’s remarks carried with them the sobriety of one who had become wearied by the unrelenting din of war.

China

Gordon’s fierce determination would see him decorated for bravery by the French, and mentioned in dispatches by the British. However, at the conclusion of the conflict, Gordon found himself restless. Gordon would write in his journal that he found the gentility of English society unsuitable to a man of action such as himself. The British press covered the conflicts faced by the British Empire thoughout Asia, and the Sepoy Rebellion in India was on the front page. The crisis faced by the Qing in China, was secondary, although increasing anxiety from the government in regards to British trade interests would soon warrant direct intervention. Gordon once again put forward a request at the War Office to be sent to China, hoping to satisfy his thirst for adventure. As Gordon prepared for his departure, his heart racing at the prospect of a new challenge, he had not yet fully comprehended the depth of the crisis he would soon face.

After coming to power in 1644, following the collapse of the Ming Dynasty, the Qing dynasty was ruled by a series of individuals who deftly handled domestic and foreign affairs. However, by the latter half of the nineteenth century, China experienced a series of famines, natural disasters, and economic difficulties. Farmers were heavily overtaxed, rents rose dramatically, and peasants started to desert their lands in droves. The countryside was rife with banditry, all the while, the government had become increasingly corrupt. The influence of government was especially weak in the south, where local clans dominated and anti-Manchu sentiment was strongest. These factors provided fertile ground for the seeds of rebellion.

Gordon arrived at Tianjin in September of 1860. The China which he would have seen was a remnant of its former self—a once mighty empire teetering on the edge of collapse, as rebels ravaged the countryside. Originating in Guangxi, the Taiping were led by Hong Xiuquan, a former village schoolmaster. Decades earlier, in 1843, after carefully reading a pamphlet he had received from a Protestant Christian missionary, Hong would declare that he had a divine mission to rid China of evil, including the Qing government and Confucianism. This was a crucial aspect which would set the Taiping apart from previous rebellions, as they sought not only to replace the ruling dynasty, but desired a fundamental change to traditional Chinese society itself. In a wider context, Hong’s aspirations to the divinity of Christ could imply a claim of equality between white and non-white peoples.

Events in China

Gordon shared the belief held by many European foreigners, that the Taipings were confessed Christians with good in them. Gordon, a devoted Christian himself, would later dispense with this notion after witnessing the atrocities which the Taiping committed in the name of God, as well as the Taiping leadership’s perversion of Christian teachings. As Gordon moved throughout the countryside, where the dead served as a grim testament to the Taipings brutality, he felt sympathy for the peasants, and could understand why they blamed the missionaries for instigating the Taiping rebels.

Gordon was present in 1860, during the occupation of Beijing and destruction of the Summer Palace, or Yuanmingyuan, which had been built by the Qianlong Emperor. The destruction of the palace was ordered by James Bruce, the 8th Earl of Elgin, and the British High Commissioner to China. Elgin said that this measure was undertaken in response to the torture and killing of several British envoys and their escorts. The British forces would occupy northern China until April 1862, then withdraw to Shanghai to protect European interests from the encroaching Taiping army.

Shanghai merchants had been far from comfortable over the course of the Taiping Rebellion. They found they could not rely on the imperial troops, and there was still a degree of mistrust for the “foreign devils”. It was amongst this atmosphere of uncertainty that the prominent merchants and imperial officials sought to raise a mercenary force for the defense of the city. A militia of Europeans and Asians was raised for the defense of the city and placed under the command of an American, Frederick Townsend Ward. Initially a militia which lacked much in the way of formal training, Ward would later reorganize the force, calling it the Ever Victorious Army. Upon their arrival, General Charles Staveley, commander of the British forces in northern China, decided to clear the rebels within 30 miles of Shanghai in cooperation with Ward, and the area was fairly cleared of rebels by the end of 1862.

Ward would suffer a fatal injury when he was shot by a deserter. He had served his Chinese masters with valor, which endeared him to the Chinese, who praised his bravery. Ward’s successor was another American named H. A. Burgevine. The British army had already expressed reservations about cooperating with unregulated militia. Under Burgevine, these concerns were throughly justified, as the mercenaries looted with abandon, revealing a serious lack of discipline. The governor of the Jiangsu province, where Shanghai is located, requested that Staveley appoint a British officer to command the contingent, believing that a British commander would set higher standards. A certain Captain Holland was placed in command, but unsuited to his position, as 16 officers and 450 men were killed or wounded in a subsequent engagement, leading to one of their greatest defeats for the Ever Victorious Army. In response, the troops were clamoring for the reinstatement of Burgevine.

Leadership

Holland’s failure would be Gordon’s opportunity. Staveley would select Gordon, at the behest of the Chinese officials, who had been promoted to Major General in December of 1862. Gordon had once again impressed his superiors with his performance in the field and his demonstrated ability to get along with the Chinese. Gordon’s family was not especially enthusiastic about his new command. His father did not like the idea of an Englishmen leading a foreign army to benefit a non-western, non-democratic government, and his mother was fearful of his life. Gordon, to allay the concerns of his family, promised he would not be rash. Despite his reluctance, Gordon became commander of the 3,500-man peasant force. Gordon injected discipline and steel into the force. The EVA became a feared force and was instrumental in ending the rebellion. Gordon led the EVA into battle from the front carrying only a walking stick. Gordon refused to allow the EVA to loot captured cities as they had under their American commanders. The EVA mutinied, but Gordon suppressed it by shooting dead one of the ringleaders, and then threatening to shoot one of the mutineers an hour until the mutiny was over.

During the next 18 months Gordon's troops played an important role in suppressing the Taiping uprising. Suzhou was captured by the EVA in 1863 after the Taipings surrendered to Gordon when he offered them a safe passage. Unfortunately, Gordon was away on business when the Manchus had the leaders of the Taipings executed. This action was offensive to Gordon, who believed in the chivalric code to remain good to one’s word. Gordon was furious and promptly resigned his command. He only returned after being implored to by the British and being promoted to the rank of Mandarin in the Chinese army, a rare privilege.

Although given a nearly impossible job, he executed it with great courage, faith, and extreme integrity. He had refused the 100,000 gold pieces offered to him by the Tongzhi Emperor, which thus served to reinforce Gordon's reputation as being incorruptible. Gordon's involvement was critical to the Qing government’s ability to successfully drove the Taipings out of all of their major strongholds, quelling the uprising in 1864. Gordon would return to England in January 1865, where an enthusiastic public had already dubbed him 'Chinese Gordon'. The heroism which Gordon displayed during his lifetime would solidify his position as one of the greatest soldiers of the nineteenth century.

What do you think of Major General Gordon in China? Let us know below.

Now you can read Marvin’s series on the origins of the Mormon Battalion here.

Sources

Micheal, Franz and Chung-li Chang. The Taiping Rebellion - History and Documents Volume 1 : History. Seattle: University of Washington, 1966

Waller, John H. Gordon of Khartoum. New York: Atheneum, 1988.

A History of Beer in America: Five of the Oldest Breweries in the USA

Beer has been made for thousands of years around the world. Many cultures, nations and people contributed to the beer we drink today. America’s history with beer began with Native Americans. Their beer was made from maize. It was a recipe they shared with the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. Coincidentally, the Pilgrims only stopped at Plymouth Rock because they ran out of beer.

Beer was a necessary staple because water was just too dangerous to drink. Most households made their own beer well into the 1800s and it was a drink for all ages. Wealthy early Americans built their own brew houses on their land. There were many different recipes depending on the ingredients a family had on hand. Fruits, vegetables, herbs and spices might make it into the mix of grains, hops, water and yeast. Of course, these beers taste different now, but the basic recipe is the same.  

Angie Grandstaff tells us about beer in the 19th century and five of the oldest breweries in the USA.

Anheuser-Busch brewery in St Louis, Missouri in the late 19th century.

Beer in the 1800s

Since most early Americans made their own beer the need for commercial breweries wasn’t big. Brewing beer was a local affair because beer did not travel well. Beer was stored and served in wooden casks. By 1810, there were 140 breweries in America. The 1800s brought many changes to American life.

The Industrial Revolution led many families to urban areas and away from their farms. German, Irish and British immigrants flooded into America. Their homelands had very strong beer cultures so the demand for beer was high in the mid 1800s. Advances in science and technology after the Civil War allowed breweries to mass produce beer. 

Transformation and Prohibition

Immigrants had a profound effect on beer. The original American beer was a heavy, British style ale. German influence led beer to become a lighter lager. This beer became the beer of choice for many Americans. There were 1,800 breweries in America in 1900. Business was booming.

Prohibition of alcohol in America changed everything. Prohibition was law from 1920 to 1933. It put many breweries out of business for good. The ones that survived had to get creative during those years to stay afloat. Breweries sold near beer, soft drinks, malted milk, fruit juices and more. After Prohibition, big breweries like Budweiser, Miller, Coors and Pabst dominated beer sales. It wasn’t until the 1970’s that breweries truly started to rise again.

Brewing in America has evolved with the influence of many different people, innovations and laws. Here are the five oldest breweries still in operation today who had a big impact on beer and brewing in America.

The Oldest Brewery in America: Yuengling

Most of the early American breweries are gone except Yuengling. Yuengling Brewery was founded by a German immigrant, David G. Yuengling. He landed in Pottsville, Pennsylvania in 1823 and changed his name from Jüngling to Yuengling. He started his brewery in 1829. It was originally named the Eagle Brewery and its label still bears the image of the original eagle today. Yuengling wanted to embrace his adoptive home by using the eagle in the name for his brewery.

Yuengling Brewery faced a devastating fire in 1831 but they rebuilt and prospered. David G. Yuengling had two sons. The eldest went to Virginia to start his own brewery and the second oldest didn’t join the Yuengling brewing business until 1873. That is when Eagle Brewery officially became Yuengling Brewery. Yuengling opened other breweries in the northeast during the late 1800s. Their production stayed steady but limited. Therefore, even today you can’t buy Yuengling everywhere. The original beer recipe has remained the same since its beginnings. While many breweries have changed owners many times, Yuengling Brewery is still a Yuengling family business.

Milwaukee Beer Giant: Pabst Brewing Company

The Pabst Brewing Company started as a family business in 1844 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The brewery was started by Jacob Best Sr. who retired in 1853 and left the brewery in the hands of two of his sons, Jacob Jr and Phillip. Their partnership didn’t last long because of financial difficulties. Phillip was left in charge of the brewery and he brought in his own reinforcements, his son-in-law Frederick Pabst and Emil Schandein. They became partners and brought a fresh perspective to the brewery which was now called the Phillip Best and Company.

Pabst and Schandein helped the struggling brewery thrive through changes with transportation, the science of the brewing and most significantly marketing. The name changed again when Phillip retired and Schandein passed away to Pabst Brewing Company. The innovative marketing strategies kept this brewery successful. Pabst’s ads were in everything from newspapers, magazines, theater programs and train schedules. They put the Pabst name on calendars, cigar cases, matchboxes and notepads. Pabst became Pabst Blue Ribbon after they won a gold medal at the 1893 Chicago Columbian Exposition.

Pabst faced much competition from Schlitz, Miller and Anheuser-Busch in particular. They stayed in the game with their marketing and new brewing innovations like selling canned beer in 1935. Pabst purchased other breweries around the country to help them expand production. Today Pabst is using contract brewing with MillerCoors instead of doing their own brewing. Their willingness to change and use new innovations helped Pabst beer survive.

Many names, many families but still brewing: Minhas Brewing

The Minhas Brewing company began as Monroe Brewery in 1845. The brewery was started by Mr. Bissinger in Monroe, Wisconsin. It was a small operation which originally produced only a few hundred barrels per year. The brewery changed hands in 1850 with the new owner, John Knipschield, expanding enough to hire two men to do the brewing. 

In 1857 the brewery was taken over by George Esser and John Hermann. Hermann lived in the brewery during this time. They expanded by building an underground beer storage cellar and adding a lager to the beer brewed. Prior to this, the brewery only brewed ales. Esser and Hermann dissolved their partnership when Esser became upset over Hermann’s fiancee visiting him at night. Esser’s memoirs state that they threw lots over who would keep the brewery. Hermann won. In an attempt to expand production, Hermann started using a horse to help power the brewery.

The brewery changed hands twice more between 1861 and 1885. The owner in 1885 was Jacob Hefty who took on his brother-in-law, Albert Blumer Sr. as his partner. Blumer became the sole owner in 1892. He took the one-horse brewery and rebuilt the plant, equipping it with modern machinery. Albert’s sons took over in 1918 and boosted production from 1,500 barrels a year to 12,000.

The brewery was bought by Carl O. Marty in 1938 because he wanted the storage space for his cheese manufacturing company. He sold the beer operation to Joseph Huber who worked as a brewer worker for Blumer. He changed the brewery name to Huber Brewing. Huber and his son Fred kept the brewery going when so many breweries were going out of business. Fred sold the brewery in 1985 only to buy it back in 1989 and sell it again in 1994 to Dan Weinstein. Weinstein and his family expanded the brewery until they sold it in 2006 to Canadian business mogul, Manjit Minhas. This brewery has had a very interesting history but despite all the twists and turns, it has been brewing at the same location since 1845.

American Icon: Anheuser-Busch

Eberhard Anheuser bought a struggling St. Louis brewery in 1860. His daughter married Adolphus Busch, a German immigrant, a year later. Adolphus joined his father-in-law in the beer brewing business. So begins the story of an American beer icon. Adolphus had big dreams of taking his beer nationwide and looked to the innovations of the day to expand the brewery. He used refrigerated railcars to transport his beer plus incorporated pasteurization in the brewing process.

Most beer being brewed were ales, but some breweries were branching into lagers, which were lighter beers. Anheuser-Busch introduced their lager, Budweiser in 1876. This beer became the king of beers and a national beer due to Busch’s efforts. Advertisement helped Anheuser-Busch dominate beer sales. The famous Budweiser Clydesdale horses, which are still seen in advertisements today, were introduced in 1933. The horses were a gift from Adolphus III to his son to celebrate the end of Prohibition. They also sent wagons led by the Clydesdales around New York to deliver beer to the governor, Alfred Smith and former President Theodore Roosevelt to further celebrate the end of Prohibition.

Prohibition and World War II affected Anheuser-Busch’s production but following the war the company entered a significant era of progress. August A. Busch was president during this time. His nine national brewing networks increased production from 3 million barrels to 34 million barrels a year. Anheuser-Busch became America’s number one brewer and it still is today.

High Life: Miller Brewing Company

Frederick Miller was born in Germany and spent his formative years in France studying. He had a reputation of acting and dressing like a Frenchman but eventually won over Milwaukee with his beer. Miller came to America in 1854 with his family to escape unrest in Germany. He traveled to Milwaukee and bought Plank Road Brewery from one of the Best brothers of Pabst Brewing. Miller opened his brewery in 1855. There was heavy brewing competition in Milwaukee, but Miller held his own. He opened saloons and beer gardens plus expanded sales to other towns like Chicago.

The family continued to expand through the late 1800s. In 1903, they introduced their flagship beer, Miller High Life. Like Pabst and Anheuser-Busch, Miller Brewing excelled at using advertising to boost sales. Miller High Life was called ‘the Champagne of Bottle Beer’ in advertisements. The Girl in the Moon was put on the bottle in 1907 and is still there today. Miller Brewing sponsored sports broadcasts, radio and television shows to help get their beer in the public eye. They were also instrumental in bringing a major league baseball team to Milwaukee. In 1953, the Braves moved from Boston to Milwaukee and Miller Brewing paid for the scoreboard and advertising rights in the stadium.

The 1950s and 1960s saw much expansion and growth for Miller Brewing. Frederick C. Miller and his son were killed in a plane crash in 1954. This would eventually lead to the company moving out of the hands of the Miller family. In 1970, the tobacco giant, Phillip Morris bought Miller Brewing. Their advertising prowess led to the very popular advertising campaigns - “If you got the time, we got the beer”. Plus, the Miller Lite campaign of “Taste great…less filling”, that had celebrities debating over what is best about Miller’s Lite Beer.

Miller Brewing has expanded and remained the number two brewery in America by diversifying their brand and acquiring other breweries. Miller owns Lowenbräu, Molson’s, Foster’s, Kronenbourg, Beamish, Stroh’s and Leinenkugel. As mentioned in the history of Pabst, Miller is also the contract brewer for Pabst beers. The company merged with Coors Brewing in 2008. Miller Brewing is now MillerCoors as they head into their next chapter.

Back to our roots

Beer in America started in homes and small local breweries. Today, we have come full circle. An estimated 1 million Americans are brewing beer at home. Millions more are heading down to their local brewery for a pint. This is the golden age of beer with more than 9,000 breweries in America. The variety available today would astound those early brewers. Beer has been a staple in American life since the country’s beginnings. It continues to be consumed by millions and its future looks bright.   

What do you think of beer in America? Let us know below.

Now read Angie’s article on 5 incredible pioneering female pilots here.

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

References

https://www.beerinstitute.org/news-media/additional-beer-resources/beer-american-history/

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/a-concise-history-of-americas-brewing-industry/

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/07/03/532250762/how-the-story-of-beer-is-the-story-of-america

https://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/literary-cultural-heritage-map-pa/feature-articles/yuengling-american-tradition

https://emke.uwm.edu/entry/pabst-brewing-company/

https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Article/CS538

http://minhasbrewery.com/our-history

https://www.anheuser-busch.com/about/heritage/

https://www.moaf.org/publications-collections/financial-history-magazine/77/_res/id=Attachments/index=0/Article_77.pdf

https://beerhistory.com/library/holdings/millerhistory.shtml

https://emke.uwm.edu/entry/miller-brewing-company/

Life of a West End Seamstress in 19th Century London

The concern with workplace health and safety and workers' rights has been discussed for decades. Throughout British history, there have been many attempts by workers, to create unofficial trade unions to improve their working situation. During the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), the question of whether our working environments are safe, necessary and improve an individual’s productivity has been asked. The pandemic saw many people begin the transition into the work from home (WFH) structure as many offices and buildings could not cater to social distancing measures, efficient ventilation or isolate the spread of disease. Of course, many were unable to transition to a WFH strategy and had to continue to travel to their place of work. Organisations were faced with the challenge of managing the spread of disease, protecting workers from illness, and work productivity.

Health and safety in the workplace is not a new phenomenon brought about by the pandemic but one that is rooted in British history. Workers endured gruelling labour and toil with poor living and working conditions, with a lack of government reform to protect workers and their families from injury or even death. It was not until the Health and Safety at Work act of 1974 that was introduced to protect workers and their rights. Although throughout the nineteenth century, there was a gradual progression towards improving the working lives of many Victorians, for example, the Factory Act in 1833. This article explores how the living and working conditions of seamstresses in nineteenth-century west end London became pushed into public discussion and Parliament's reluctance to pass reforms to ease the lives of seamstresses.

Amy Chandler explains.

Seamstresses in 19th century France.

The distressed seamstress

The industrial revolution took place between 1760 – 1840 and transformed the UK in many ways from the increased number of factories, trade, pollution, and a decline in living conditions. The industrial revolution also increased the chances of developing new illnesses from poor living conditions and lack of sanitation policies. London expanded rapidly and offered a new life for people in the city to find opportunities and employment, however the reality was bleak. Many found it hard to find work and earn enough money to stay in accommodation. Options were bleak, and many women resorted to prostitution or ended up in workhouses; some women were forced into prostitution to earn money on top of their daily employment. During the Victorian period, sewing was seen as a feminine quality and a skill taken up by women of all classes. The occupation of a seamstress was taken up mostly by working-class women and some upper-class women who were unable to become governesses, to support themselves and their families.

The image of the distressed seamstress became a cause celebre, which meant a controversial figure that attracted public attention and interest. The image of the distressed seamstress frequented art and literature in the nineteenth century with Thomas Hood’s famous poem Songs of the shirt 1843, depicting the plight of seamstresses as “fingers weary and worn, With eyelids heavy and red. A woman sat in unwomanly rags, plying her needle and thread”.(1) Hood’s poem continues throughout twelve stanzas revealing the plight of the living and working conditions of the life of a seamstress. Other literary figures attempted to shed light on the lives and hardships of the seamstress, such as Richard Redgrave. Hood’s poem inspired Redgrave to illustrate the figure of the seamstress as a pitiful and lonely figure with no escape to a better life or improved living and working conditions.

The death of seamstress Mary Walkley

In 1863 the course of how seamstresses were viewed changed forever after the death of a seamstress named Mary Walkley, “a workwoman in the employment of Madame Elise, described as Court Dressmaker, of 170, Regent Street”.(2) Women worked all day and night to complete orders, especially during London’s busy social season between April to June, when young women, often called debutantes, would attend social events in hopes of securing a marriage with a wealthy suitor.(3) After investigation, Walkley’s death was caused by “long hours of work and insufficient ventilation” and urgent calls for government officials to “establish by law regulation that might prevent the occurrence of such evils as this case brought to life”.(4)

Walkley's death in 1863 highlights the poor living and working conditions for seamstresses and is an example of what conditions women endured to survive in Victorian London. This particular case caused public outcry and awareness of the shocking conditions in the sweat industry, and there was no parliamentary legislation to change the situation, but public awareness and concern became apparent. Walkley’s case had a public inquest where Dr Lankester assessed the working and living environments. Lankester concluded the overcrowding and lack of ventilation for the number of workers in the space “open[s] up the whole question of the interior conditions of the workshops, workrooms, and sleeping rooms of the metropolitan workpeople”.(5) This situation also raised many questions regarding the “number of hours that persons may be employed in sedentary occupations in ill-ventilated rooms”.(6) Lankester’s report suggested the urgent need for parliamentary legislation to enforce sufficient ventilation and regulation of working hours, as “establishments like those of Madame Elise” were not uncommon throughout London.(7)

The death of Walkley and worker's rights for seamstresses were debated in great depth in the Houses of Commons, for example, Mr Dawson raised the humanitarian concern regarding their work. Dawson asked Parliament to consider if government officials “would give their support to a Bill for defining and limiting the hours of labor, and regulating and inspecting workrooms, alike in the interests of humanity as for the sake of sanitary precaution?”.(8) The debate of Thursday, 25 June 1863 also questioned: “why these establishments should not be placed under proper regulations” such as hours, registration and inspection that were mandatory law for places of employment such as factories, mines, and bakehouses.(9) This case never caused a change in legislation despite public outcry and dress shop owners who desired Parliamentary legislation to reform and recognise the hardship that many endured. Owners of dressmaker shops, like Madame Elise, did have some authority to make changes for their workers, but these were down to personal discretion. Many owners could not afford to regulate working hours as they could lose business to their competitors.

The working class had limited options in terms of choice of occupations due to socio-economic factors. Many workers ended up in the workhouse or following a life of prostitution to survive. Therefore, for working conditions to improve, the authority for change was in the hands of a handful of individuals who were hesitant to pass reforms. Despite there being no official legislation passed, the case of Walkley and the public debates surrounding her death did cause a shift in the public perception of seamstresses. Parliamentary transcripts are evidence of government officials' awareness of the significant difference in workers' rights, such as in factories. Parliament passed reforms to improve the health and safety of workers in factories, such as the Factory Acts of 1833, 1847 and 1850.

After Walkley’s death hit the press, there were questions from the public asking whether Madame Elise, as the owner, should be punished for her ill treatment of workers that contributed to Walkley’s death. This case highlighted a moral dilemma for many employers, as demonstrated by Parliament questions. Sir George Grey emphasised that “masters and mistresses, who are liable to provide for their apprentices food, clothing, and lodging, and have wilfully omitted to do so, are subject, upon conviction, in cases where there has been danger to life or permanent injury to health, to very severe punishment.”(10) Grey shifts the blame from the employee onto the employer for their negligence and ill-treatment of their workers.”(11)

Furthermore, the press reported the general public’s disgust of the working and living conditions.(12) One publication stated that the blame for Walkley’s death was Madame Elise and her debtors, such as duchesses and countesses, where workers were “overworked and poisoned” in Madame Elise’s establishment.(13) The report suggested that these debtors were “often answerable for moral privation and misery” by their “heedlessness and carelessness [… had] often been the cause of many weary hours night work to these poor girls”.(14) The blame was focused directly on the employers and the upper-class customers who placed the social season above public health. Arguably, the upper classes should have gained a conscience and concern for the establishments that they frequented. Madame Elise was unpunished for her negligence, but this situation questioned how workers were badly treated and unprotected by legislation that could ensure workers were protected from injury and death in a place of employment.

Calls for change

Public awareness of the seamstress industry continued to surge in 1906 with The Sweated Industries Exhibition organised by the Daily News. The exhibition aimed to “highlight ‘the evils of sweating’ ” and the public response and attendance were “unprecedented”.(15) The exhibition attempted to create awareness about the poor working and living conditions of seamstresses, whether they worked in a dressmaker’s shop or at home. This exhibition took place over forty years after the Walkley case and illustrates how slow progress for workers' rights, health and safety and reforms were during the nineteenth century. Much Parliamentary legislation and employment rights we are familiar with today took decades to reach the standard that protects workers from exploitation. Therefore, it took over forty years after the Walkley case for the plight of seamstresses to be taken seriously by Parliament and the general public with legislation achieved in 1909 with the establishment of the Trade Board Act that “introduced a legally enforceable minimum wage”.(16)

The Trade Board Act (later renamed the Wages Council in 1945) aimed to regulate the wages for workers in sweated industries such as seamstresses. Board members were representatives of the workers, such as trade unionists, representatives of the employers and government-appointed members. The council had an equal number of representatives from workers and employers and the government-appointed members were fewer.(17) The board proposed the minimum living wage and regularly adjusted the wage based on the state of trade and the cost of living.(18) However, there were ways for employers to avoid having to pay minimum wages through persuading the board that a worker was incapable of performing their expected work through gaining permits for workers with physical or psychological disabilities.(19) During a debate of the Trades Board Act 1909, the extent to which sweated industries suffered was revealed to Parliament. The debate highlighted that workers endured “excessive hours of labour and insanitary state of houses” and that “the earnings of the lowest classes of workers are barely sufficient to sustain existence”, resulting in “ceaseless toil, hard and often unhealthy” work.(20) The legislation proposed in this debate attempted to change working conditions and emphasise that the current wages were insufficient to sustain a healthy lifestyle. Despite this evidence exposing the exploitation of seamstresses, Parliament still were reluctant to pass bills that would even marginally improve the life of seamstresses.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the life of a seamstress was slow to change, and legislation was well overdue, in comparison, to progressive change in working conditions for other occupations such as factories. The seamstress was integral to London’s social season and everyday life but was neglected by Parliamentary reform. The image of the distressed seamstress was not confined to the shadows in Victorian London but dragged into the public sphere where the general public attempted to change working and living conditions. In contemporary society, we have an ever-growing issue with the rise of fast fashion that exploits their workers in order to manufacture at a fast pace to ‘cash-in’ on popular catwalk trends.(21) In the same way that London’s social season exploited seamstresses to produce dresses to wear once and never again. Dress shop owners like Madame Elise used the social season as a way to ‘cash in’ on the hysteria of London’s social events and high demand for custom made gowns. The exploitation and high demand of popular trends mirrors the similar problems experienced in the Victorian era. Today, public awareness and the development of social consciousness have caused a shift in products becoming sustainable and ethically sourced to reduce the exploitation of workers overseas.

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

Now read Amy’s article on the Great Stench in 19th century London here.

Bibliography

Crumbie, A. ‘What is fast fashion and why is it a problem?’, Ethical Consumer, 5 Oct 2021 < https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/fashion-clothing/what-fast-fashion-why-it-problem >.

Fleming, R. S. ‘ “Coming out” During the Early Victorian Era: about debutantes’, 9 May 2012, Kate Tattersall Adventures < http://www.katetattersall.com/coming-out-during-the-early-victorian-era-debutantes/ >.

Harris, B. ‘Gender Matters’, The Victorian Web, 10 Dec 2014 <https://victorianweb.org/gender/ugoretz1.html >.

HC Deb 23 June 1863, vol 171, cols 1316.

HC Deb 25 June 1863, vol 171, cols 1433.

HC Deb 25 June 1863, vol 171, cols 1434.

HC Deb 28 April 1909, vol 4, cols 343.

Hood, T. ‘Song of the shirt’, The Victorian Web, 16 December 1843 <https://victorianweb.org/authors/hood/shirt.html > .

Matthews, M. ‘Death at the Needle: The Tragedy of Victorian Seamstress Mary Walkley’, Mimi Matthews, 20 Sept 2016 <https://www.mimimatthews.com/2016/09/20/death-at-the-needle-the-tragedy-of-victorian-seamstress-mary-walkley/ >.

Sun. The Case of Mary Anne Walkley. The British Newspaper Archive (26 June 1863).

Warwick Library, ‘The Sweated Industries Exhibition, 1906’, Modern Records Centre, 15 Feb 2022 <https://warwick.ac.uk/services/library/mrc/archives_online/digital/tradeboard/1906/>.

Warwick Library, ‘What were trade boards?’, Modern Records Centre, 15 Feb 2022 < https://warwick.ac.uk/services/library/mrc/archives_online/digital/tradeboard/boards/ >.

Yorkshire Gazette, ‘The London Seamstress’, The British Newspaper Archive (27 June 1863).

Bibliography

1 T, Hood, ‘Song of the shirt’, The Victorian Web, 16 December 1843 <https://victorianweb.org/authors/hood/shirt.html > [accessed 26 April 2022].

2 HC Deb 23 June 1863, vol 171, cols 1316.

3 R. S, Fleming, ‘ “Coming out” During the Early Victorian Era: about debutantes’, 9 May 2012, Kate Tattersall Adventures < http://www.katetattersall.com/coming-out-during-the-early-victorian-era-debutantes/ > [accessed 2 May 2022].

4 Sun. The Case of Mary Anne Walkley. The British Newspaper Archive (26 June 1863).

5 Sun. The Case of Mary Anne Walkley. The British Newspaper Archive (26 June 1863).

6 Sun. The Case of Mary Anne Walkley. The British Newspaper Archive (26 June 1863).

7 Sun. The Case of Mary Anne Walkley. The British Newspaper Archive (26 June 1863).

8 HC Deb 25 June 1863, vol 171, cols 1433.

9 Ibid.

10 HC Deb 25 June 1863, vol 171, cols 1434.

11 Ibid

12 Yorkshire Gazette, ‘The London Seamstress’, The British Newspaper Archive (27 June 1863).

13 Ibid

14 Ibid

15 Warwick Library, ‘The Sweated Industries Exhibition, 1906’, Modern Records Centre, 15 Feb 2022 < https://warwick.ac.uk/services/library/mrc/archives_online/digital/tradeboard/1906/>[ accessed 25 April 2022].

16 Ibid.

17 Warwick Library, ‘What were trade boards?’, Modern Records Centre, 15 Feb 2022 < https://warwick.ac.uk/services/library/mrc/archives_online/digital/tradeboard/boards/ >[accessed 2 May 2022].

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 HC Deb 28 April 1909, vol 4, cols 343.

21 A, Crumbie. ‘What is fast fashion and why is it a problem?’, Ethical Consumer, 5 Oct 2021 < https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/fashion-clothing/what-fast-fashion-why-it-problem >[accessed 3 May 2021].

The Mormon Battalion’s Movement to Western America - Part 3: Mexican-American War

The story of the Mormon Battalion remains an enduring legend. Recruited by the U.S. government from among those heading to Utah to gather with Brigham Young, this group of some 500 men plus women and children undertook a trek across the American Southwest during the Mexican-American War. The battalion is usually consigned to a footnote in the story, but it is a story which looms large in the settlement of California. In that context, the legend of the battalion and how it has found a truly revered place in the history of the Mormon faithful is significant. In part 3, Marvin McCrary looks at how the battalion fought in the war and how it reached San Diego.

You can read part 1 on the origins of the Mormon Battalion here, and part 2 on the battalion’s movement across the western US here.

Philip St. George Cooke.

When John Charles Frémont was tasked with leading expeditions to the west in 1842, his wife, Jessie Benton Frémont, became intensely interested in the details of his travels. Jessie became his recorder, making notes as he described his experiences. Eventually, she wrote and edited the reports into best-selling stories. The stories captured the national imagination as Frémont’s dashing heroism was met with great enthusiasm. The account of the Great Basin was so vivid, that it has been alleged that Brigham Young was convinced that he had found the land long-envisioned by the Saints after reading about it.

The Saints suffered from disease, hunger, and cold while at Winter Quarters in the waning months of 1846, but the unfriendly circumstances merely served to strengthen their resolve. Throughout the spring, the Saints conferred with traders, mountain men, and travelers who were familiar with the Far West. It was decided that a forward expedition would be organized to go to the Great Basin and determine the best place in which to settle. Brigham Young deliberated over the matter, and received inspiration in regards to how the Saints should organize themselves for the journey. The company would be divided into small groups, each with an assigned leader, with special attention given to the poor, the widowed, and to those families which were bereft of a father. Famous frontiersmen such as Jim Bridger and “Black” Moses Harris, who were among those whom church leaders had consulted, noted that the trials the Saints had previously faced would prepare them for greater difficulties which lay ahead.

Exhaustion

In September of 1846, the men of the battalion were facing exhaustion on the long march to Santa Fe. For 3 days, the battalion marched in the unrelenting heat without any water at all, and when water was available, it was often brackish and unsanitary. Complicating the situation were the frequent threats and abuse inflicted upon them by Lieutenant Smith and Dr. Sanderson. The Santa Fe Trail was proving to be perilous, filled with wolves, hostile natives, and the occasional downpour. General Stephen Watts Kearney had met with no resistance from the Mexican forces on his march to Santa Fe, and he ultimately occupied it on August 18, 1846. Kearney had sent word to the Mormon Battalion, asking them to take a faster, more direct route, although it would prove to be more difficult. Despite the  harsh and unyielding conditions in which they found themselves, the men continued their march towards Santa Fe. Eventually, the circumstances would prove too much for some, and Smith ordered a group of fifteen sick families he believed could not make the trek to remain at Pueblo in Colorado. There was already a group of Mormons at Pueblo who had chosen to settle there, hoping to wait out the winter under the leadership of John Brown, who had led a group from the South to the Mountain West. Having to leave family behind was hard on those who would have to endure separation, Smith informed the men that Kearney had ordered that the battalion would be discharged unless they reached Santa Fe in a timely manner.

On October 9th, the weary soldiers were met with salutations of cannon and gunfire as they entered the town. Smith ordered that those who were too feeble would enter the town three days later. The tribute had been organized by General Alexander Doniphan who had assisted the Mormons at a crucial time when they were suffering persecutions eight years earlier in Missouri. The battalion was probably relieved when Lieutenant Smith and Dr. Sanderson departed their company at Santa Fe. It would be Lieutenant Colonel Philip St. George Cooke, another graduate of the military academy,  who would become their new commander. Unfortunately, Cooke was not too much of a departure from Smith, as he was also disappointed at having to lead a group of inexperienced volunteers. In one of his surviving journal entries, Cooke observes that there were too many families, women, and the number of supplies available was meager. General Kearney had already departed the town for California before the arrival of the battalion, with Cooke being given orders by the general to forge a wagon trail from Santa Fe to California. The rigorous pace wore heavily on battalion members, and in November another group of weak and tired soldiers turned back for Pueblo. While Cooke grew increasingly doubtful about the battalion’s capabilities, historian Dwight L. Clarke writes that it was felt that the Mormons still had a hidden, greater potential that had yet to be seen.

After his departure from Santa Fe, half of Kearney's army fought their way through the Mexican province of Chihuahua, and marched three thousand miles to link up with Zachary Taylor's army at Monterrey. Taylor was already beginning to enjoy rising popularity, and had earned his nickname of “Old Rough and Ready” for his significant victories over larger forces. On September 16, 1846, at the Battle of Monterrey, Taylor overcame a substantial Mexican force and declared an armistice, much to President James K. Polk’s consternation. Polk, a Democrat, was growing increasingly anxious about Taylor’s popularity amongst the Whigs. Taylor would go to engage General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna's fifteen-thousand-man army at Buena Vista on February 22, 1847. When the smoke finally cleared, Taylor's five thousand men had dealt Santa Anna's army a crushing blow. When news of Taylor's victory reached the capital, his popularity soared even higher, and the Whigs began to publicly discuss his name as a possible candidate for the presidency.

Great Basin

In the meantime, things did not get easier for the pioneer company which had decided to set out for the Great Basin. The passes had become increasingly treacherous, and Brigham Young became sick with mountain fever. When the group of long-suffering pioneers arrived at the Salt Lake River Valley in July of 1847, Young asked to have his carriage turned so he could see the whole of the valley. Young rose from his sickbed and deemed that they were in the right place, according to Wilford Woodruff, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Upon Brigham Young’s return to Winter Quarters in the fall of 1847 from his expedition to the Great Basin, he found the remaining Saints had built a thriving settlement. However, Young anticipated the need to abandon it, as the lease on the tribal land would expire in a few months. The Saints then began moving east across the river, and back into Iowa, eventually naming their new headquarters Kanesville in honor of Thomas L. Kane. The emigration of the Saints to the Utah Territory would continue over the course of the next several years.

When the battalion finally arrived at San Diego on 24 January, 1847, the men recorded their joy at sighting the Pacific Ocean, knowing their travail would finally be at an end. The original plan had been for the Battalion to follow Kearney’s route as closely as possible, however Kearney later advised Cooke that it would behoove them to make their way along a southern route. The battalion had covered nearly 2,000 miles, making the march one of the longest in United States military history. The men had walked so much their shoes were worn out.  They had been forced to resort to burlap, pieces of wagon covers, and animal hides to wrap around their feet for protection from the rocks and cold.  The sun was hot in the day and cold at night through the desert, difficult for people with little to no covering. It was described that at times, the ground was so soft and deep that when they lay down to sleep, half of their bodies sank into the cold mud.

Despite having been tasked with the capture the city of Tucson, and being asked to protect Pauma natives in Temecula, the battalion did not see conflict, exactly as Bringham Young had said. The worst incident came when a herd of wild bulls charged the soldiers while they stopped for water at the San Pedro River in the Rio Grande Valley. Aside from a few injuries and loss of some mules, the soldiers walked away intact.

California

The war in California having effectively ended by the time of their arrival, the battalion soldiers were assigned to garrison duty in San Diego, San Luis Rey, and Los Angeles. The town residents were initially against the idea because of the false information which they had heard about them. The men of the battalion built houses and dug wells, using the knowledge about irrigation they had acquired. Previously, the people had to travel a long way for water from a well only 1 foot in depth. The new wells were 30 feet deep and were lined with bricks to keep them in place. When the time came for the Battalion to move on, the town people went to the Army and asked for more "Mormonitos" to come help them.  Most of the soldiers would reach Utah Territory–where Brigham Young and the main body of the Saints had settled–in the late 1840s and early 1850s. Historian Leonard L. Richards estimates that roughly 80 stayed and worked at Sutter’s Mill.  Sutter found the Mormons to be amongst the best laborers, although more expensive than the natives whom he had rented from Maidu tribal leaders. In 1848, gold was discovered by Sutter’s foreman, John W. Marshall. Henry Bigler, a veteran of the battalion, was at Sutter’s Mill at the time and recorded the date of the gold discovery in his journal. There had been a great deal of exaggeration surrounding gold discovery previously, and thus the excitement was met with an understandable degree of skepticism, even amongst the workers themselves. The Mormons tested the minerals, even biting it to check if it was real.  Word reached outgoing President Polk who endorsed the discovery, and thus the Gold Rush would begin in earnest.

The Mexican-American War served as a proving ground for issues which would later come to the fore during the Civil War. Slavery remained an enduring specter which would prove difficult to exorcise, especially as those on both sides of the debate become further entrenched in their views. Zachary Taylor would win the election in 1848, becoming the second of two Whigs (the first being William Henry Harrison) to become president. Unfortunately, just like his predecessor, Taylor died during his term. Brigham Young would become the second President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1847, and served until 1877. It would be under his steady leadership that the Mormons are to be credited as one of the single most important agencies in the settlement of the American West. The march of the Mormon Battalion serves as a vital page to the historical expansion of the United States. They opened roads of great value to the nation, and made influential friends for the Saints. Their determined self-sacrifice demonstrated an unsurpassed loyalty to their country, their people, and their faith.

Let us know what you think of Mormon Battalion below.

Now read about when Mormon founder Joseph Smith met the president here.

Author’s Note: I would like to dedicate this article series to Sterling and Judy Hill, dear friends who continue to embody the pioneer spirit. My sources have been  journal entries written by those who traveled with the battalion, but I am also thankful to friends who graciously shared their family histories with me. The utilization of secondary sources was meant to provide a greater context to the events surrounding the march of the battalion. It should be stated that this was not meant to be an exhaustive study of the Mormon Battalion, and it is more than conventionally necessary to apologize for any shortcomings. It is hoped, however, that this will serve as inspiration for future study.

Sources

Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. New York: Knopf, 1985.

Clarke, Dwight L. Stephen Watts Kearny: Soldier of the West. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961.

Cowan, Richard, and William E. Homer. California Saints. Utah: Bookcraft Publishing, 1996.

Richards, Leonard L. The California Gold Rush and the Coming of the Civil War. New York: Vintage, 2008.

Ricketts, Norma Baldwin. The Mormon Battalion. Utah: Utah State University, 1996.

London’s Great Stench in the 19th Century - Part 2: Bazalgette, Sewers and Stench

Millions of tourists visit London each year to take in the city's iconic architectural sites and attractions. It is hard to imagine that the iconic River Thames was once a site of unbearable stench and disease that choked Londoners. The summer of 1858 was labelled as the Great Stink by the British press and was a result of many years of poor living conditions, sanitation and a lack of public health reforms. The Great Stink was the tipping point that encouraged a change of attitude towards public health from a laissez-faire attitude, where the government did not interfere with public health, to a desire to improve living conditions. A laissez-faire attitude meant that government officials took a step back from interfering with social welfare and let issues take their own shape naturally.

In part 2, Amy Chandler explains how throughout history, the “Thames was effectively the city’s sewer for centuries” as the banks became “dominated by factories, furnaces and mills, all dispensing their foul waste and chemical pollutants into the river”.(1) This article explores how Joseph Bazalgette constructed the London sewer system to clean up the River Thames from sewage. 

If you missed it, part 1 on what caused the Great Stench is here.

An 1828 cartoon: Monster Soup commonly called Thames Water.

What to do about the Great Stink?

The perseverance to improve public health culminated in the Great Stink of 1858 from June to August. The heat wave in the summer of 1858 made the River Thames a bubbling vat of stench and raw sewage that contributed to outbreaks of disease, such as cholera, across London. Throughout that summer, the Thames water levels fell leaving piles of sewage and waste to visibly build up in public view. The build-up of waste was now staring Londoners and government officials in the face. The laissez-faire attitude of avoiding public health problems was no longer an option for Parliament.

In July 1858, Parliament discussed the “purification of the River Thames” and what course of action to take to solve the problem of sewage flowing into the river. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Benjamin Disraeli, described the river as an “unexpected calamity” for many but that there was always “an observant minority in the community which has expected the catastrophe” for some time. (2) For some members of the public and Parliament, it may have been a shock that London’s population was suffering from cholera and other diseases. But for a select few like Sir Edwin Chadwick and Dr John Snow, concerns of public health and welfare was an imperative thought. The problems of the Great stink was, to a point, inevitable as living conditions were continuing to decline as London’s population expanded and the government continued to avoid passing any bills to improve public health in poverty and disease-stricken areas. It was not until Members of Parliament became affected by the smell of sewage and waste from the river that they felt it was time to take charge of London’s public health. If the Houses of Parliament were not built directly next to the River Thames, it may have been unlikely that public health would have taken a dramatic change in the way that it did in 1858. The smell became so unbearable that it “severely affected [Parliamentary] business” with strong consideration of moving Parliamentary business to Oxford or St. Albans as well as the “curtains were soaked in chloride to attempt to mask the smell”. (3) The Times reported Members of Parliament were frequently seen with handkerchiefs pressed against their noses as their offices overlooked the Thames and became surrounded by the stench. (4)

Many satirical cartoons at the time, such as Punch, illustrated the dire reality of London’s public health. These cartoons often personified the River Thames as ‘Father Thames’ as ill and in poor health because of the pollution and tonnes of sewage forced and filtered into the Thames and drinking supplies were killing the life force of London. In many ways, the personification of the dying River Thames mirrors the deterioration and ill health of the inhabitants in poverty-stricken areas of London. The British government was reluctant to take responsibility for allowing London’s “noble river” to become a “stygian pool, reeking with ineffable and intolerable horrors” but Disraeli commented that “this House, in pursuit of health” passed the bill to pump raw sewage into the waters of the River Thames, they ignored the voices of “persons of great authority on such matters” who could predict that such a health calamity was imminent. (5) Disraeli insinuated that this laissez-faire attitude of not interfering with the spread of disease and poor living conditions was the government's fault for not taking more control of the situation.

One method the government attempted in July 1858 was to pour lime chloride into the Thames to remove the smell of sewage and waste. In some ways this was a logical solution given the current scientific miasma theory that disease and illness were caused by bad smells. In nineteenth-century logic, overpowering the smell of the Thames not only stop disease but also removed the horrible smell. However, this was not effective and calls for a sewer system and reforms to purify the Thames was growing amongst Parliament and notable public figures.

On 2 June 1858, the Metropolitan Board of Works made a decision regarding London’s sewage problem and announced that they planned to “defer all consideration of it [the sewers] until the middle of October” and leave the summer period undisturbed with no changes. (6) In response, Sir Benjamin Hall commented on the selfishness of the Board of Works for using the city’s discomfort as a bargaining tool to pressure Parliament to resolve “the engineering and financial arguments in its favour”. (7) The Board of Works previously proposed to build a sewer system but was unsuccessful in receiving enough funds from the government to complete their project. As the city's health deteriorated, and Members of Parliament became increasingly afraid of becoming unwell through bad air, the need to find a solution became heightened. By 15 July 1858, Disraeli passed the Metropolitan Local Management Act that amended the 1855 Metropolis Local Management Act to “extend the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purification of the Thames and the main drainage of the Metropolis”. (8) By 2 August 1858, this act was officially passed after eighteen days and allowed the Board of Works full authority on the project and borrow £3,000,000 to carry out the project and deodorise the Thames in the meantime before work started. (9)

Bazalgette’s construction of the London sewer systems

The Metropolitan Board of Works was given full authority and enough money to start work on tackling London’s waste problem. Joseph Bazalgette was in charge of constructing London’s new sewer system with the plan to create a network of main sewers that was parallel to the River Thames and filter waste and surface water away from the city. (10) The project was overseen by Bazalgette, who took great care and consideration into every aspect of the construction, from personally measuring the lead and cement contents for each brick used within the tunnels. Much of Bazalgette’s work “involved substantial bank extension and infill, reducing the width of the river in the central part of the city.” (11) Bazalgette used a new type of cement called Portland cement that was strong and water-resistant to support the tunnels from collapse and sewage wearing down the interiors. The project required 318 million bricks, 670,000 cubic metres of concrete, and over a thousand labourers to excavate the tunnels. This increase in labour saw brick layers wages increase by 20%. (12)

Aside from building interconnecting pipes and sewer systems from east to west across London that collected waste and rainwater, Bazalgette also built four pumping stations, and two treatment works to manage, treat sewage and pump out the purified liquid into the River Thames. (13) The Abbey Mills Crossness pump station is still operational today and open for public visits. The pumping station is decorated with ornate Byzantine-style architecture and described as The Cathedral of Sewage because of its ostentatious designs that are out-of-place for the nature of the building. Many wealthy Victorians enjoyed ornate architectural designs therefore something as unappealing as a sewage house was designed in an ornate and extravagant style. Furthermore, Bazalgette’s construction of the London sewer system transformed London from below ground and above by building the Victoria, Albert and Chelsea Embankments that narrowed the Thames by 52 acres causing water to flow faster. (14)

The construction of the sewer system transformed London’s landscape, shape and improved the health of the city’s population. Many visitors to London may notice the decadent and intricately designed benches and Dolphin lamp-posts that line London’s popular Thames Embankment. The Metropolitan Board of Works decided to illuminate the new Embankment with electric lights and asked for design submissions. The ornate fish-shaped lamps were designed by George John Vulliamy in the late 1860s. The Board of Works received many designs, one designed by Bazalgette is situated on the Chelsea Embankment. The ornate lamp designs are a visible legacy of the transformation of London from a dirty and disease-ridden city to a cleaner and more sophisticated river where many walk and enjoy the sights London has to offer.

The sewer system is still in use in London today, and it was because of Bazalgette’s forethought that London’s population was expanding rapidly and would continue to grow over time. He, therefore, created the sewer pipes to be larger than necessary to accommodate an increased amount of waste in the future. This forethought has allowed the sewer system to last for over 150 years and is only now undergoing repairs to the tunnels to ensure London’s sewers continue to function efficiently. London’s sewer system today faces something unimaginable to Bazalgette, the fatbergs that block the tunnels of the sewers forcing sewage to pile up within the tunnels. For example, the 2017 fatberg was removed from Whitechapel. There is a certain irony that our modern obsession with cleanliness and the use of products, such as wet wipes and other items of personal hygiene, are now discarded by modern Londoners in a similar way to how the Victorians were keen to dump their waste in the Thames. Both of course are equally disruptive and likely to cause a stink!

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

Now read Amy’s articles on Ignaz Semmelweis’ key contribution to medicine - hand-washing in hospitals here.

Bibliography 

Bibby, M. ‘London’s Great Stink’, undated, Historic UK < https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Londons-Great-Stink/ >. 

Collinson, A. ‘How Bazalgette built London’s first super-sewer’, 26 March 2019, Museum of London < https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/how-bazalgette-built-londons-first-super-sewer >.     

Crossness Engines, ‘Visit Us’, 2022, Crossness Engines <https://www.crossness.org.uk/visit.html >. 

Curtis, S. ‘The River Thames: London’s Riparian Highway’ in: A. Smith and A. Graham, eds., Destination London (London: University of Westminster Press,2019).  

Halliday, S. ‘Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Great Stink’, April 2012, London Historians < https://www.londonhistorians.org/?s=articles >.

Halliday, S. The Great Stink of London: Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Cleansing of the Victorian Metropolis, The History Press, Gloustershire, 2013, ebook, p.1781.

HC Deb, 15 July 1858, vol 151,cols 1509W.  

Patowary, K. ‘The ‘Great Stink’ of London’, 14 July 2017, Amusing Planet < https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/07/the-great-stink-of-london.html >. 

UK Parliament, ‘Estimate of expense River Thames Purification Bill 1866’, undated, Uk Parliament < https://www.parliament.uk/es-test-gallery-page-dnp/living-heritage2/building/palace/estatehistory/from-the-parliamentary-collections/thames/estimatethamespurification/ >.  

1 S. Curtis, ‘The River Thames: London’s Riparian Highway’ in: A. Smith and A. Graham, eds., Destination London (London: University of Westminster Press,2019)p.168. 

2  HC Deb, 15 July 1858, vol 151,cols 1509W.  

3  UK Parliament, ‘Estimate of expense River Thames Purification Bill 1866’, undated, Uk Parliament < https://www.parliament.uk/es-test-gallery-page-dnp/living-heritage2/building/palace/estatehistory/from-the-parliamentary-collections/thames/estimatethamespurification/ > [accessed 22 March 2022]. 

4  M, Bibby, ‘London’s Great Stink’, undated, Historic UK < https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Londons-Great-Stink/ >[accessed 18 March 2022].

5  HC Deb, 15 July 1858, vol 151,cols 1509W.  

6  S.Halliday, The Great Stink of London: Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Cleansing of the Victorian Metropolis, The History Press, Gloustershire, 2013, ebook, p.1781.

7  Ibid., p.1789. 

8  Ibid.,p.1798. 

9  Ibid.,p.1853.

10 Ibid.,pp.1880-88.

11 Curtis,op.cit.,p.168. 

12  A, Collinson, ‘How Bazalgette built London’s first super-sewer’, 26 March 2019, Museum of London < https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/how-bazalgette-built-londons-first-super-sewer> [accessed 10 March 2022]. 

13  S.Halliday, ‘Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Great Stink’, April 2012, London Historians < https://www.londonhistorians.org/?s=articles >[accessed 18 March 2022]. 

14  Ibid. 

Controversial Heritage: An Approach to Racism from the Land of Black Pete

In the eyes of foreigners, the Netherlands has a controversial tradition. Every autumn an old man named Sinterklaas (a figure based on Saint Nicholas, patron saint of children and one of the sources of the popular Christmas icon of Santa Claus) with a staff, a miter and a long beard arrives in the Netherlands on a steamboat accompanied by dozens of servants, called zwarte pieten (Black Petes). These Petes have traditionally been painted black, have bright red lips, gold earrings, and curly hair. Black Pete hands out sweets and presents to children. To outsiders this whole tradition has an obvious stereotypical racist character, but for many Dutch people it is an innocent tradition: they say this has nothing to do with racism. In the last ten years in particular there has been increasing criticism of the racist character of Black Pete, both from minority groups within the country and from abroad. This is a very delicate situation in the generally liberal and tolerant Netherlands. Fierce discussions and demonstrations by supporters and opponents characterize the past ten years. Why is this tradition so highly valued and how should it continue?

Bram Peters explains.

Illustration from Jan Schenkman's book Sint Nikolaas en zijn Knecht (Saint Nicholas and his Servant).

Although Sinterklaas is a tradition for children, it’s always the adults who say Black Pete must stay black, not the children. This has to do with the fact that adults have an image from their youth of what Black Pete should look like. Children don’t have those memories. And that’s why it’s so sensitive. Adults feel that a tradition they have only fond childhood memories of may not be passed onto the next generation. Their tradition is under pressure to change and that hurts. Every survey shows that it is mainly older Dutch people who want to stick to the traditional appearance of Black Pete. Younger generations are more open to change.

Over the past ten years you can see that the annual recurring discussion is starting to influence public opinion. The number of Dutch people who are in favor of the traditional Black Pete decreases a little every year, but it is going slowly. International events also influence this shift, for example UN researcher Verene Sheperd’s criticism of the Dutch tradition in 2013 and the worldwide Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd in 2020. Slowly the tradition is changing: every year more Black Petes appear with only some soot smudges on the face rather than full blackface. Other Petes are painted in all kinds of colors.

When something is part of your own culture and tradition, it can be very difficult to understand that it can be hurtful to others. Something that is perceived as racist by others cannot be easily understood for people for whom it is part of their identity. There seems to be a blind spot. In addition, we live in a time when the world is changing rapidly. Globalization, migration and the rise of the internet and social media mean everyone is connected to everyone and old habits and customs are constantly under discussion. Many people experience a loss of identity and tend to cling to the old. Polarization is the result. It is more important than ever to keep in touch with each other and really understand why one wants change and why that change takes time for the other.

Global discussions

Similar discussions about racist heritage are also present in other countries. Take for example the situation in the United States, where statues of so-called Civil War “heroes” such as General Robert Lee are removed and the use of the Confederate flag on government buildings and other locations has become highly controversial. The statues and flag are widely seen by minority groups as symbols of slavery and oppression. And they find the majority of historians on their side. For white residents of the southern states, the situation is sometimes more nuanced. They see these symbols as part of their past and heritage and do not necessarily associate them with racism. The aforementioned blind spot seems to be present here too because most of these people aren’t white power supremacists. It is essential that this group enters the dialogue with the group that do find these symbols racist, even if one may not be used to talk with the other. This will help to get a better mutual understanding and hopefully accomplish a re-evaluation of the controversial heritage that simply exists, even if it will take time. And to make a stand together against the white power movement that is not only openly racist but is even proud of it and cannot be reasoned with.

What do you think about re-evaluating controversial heritage? Let us know below.

About the author: Bram Peters is an historian from the Netherlands. He has a MA in political history from one of the major Dutch universities, and specialized in national identity and traditions, as well as parliamentary history, the second world war and war propaganda. He worked for years as a curator at one of the largest war museums in the Netherlands. He likes to get involved in public debate by writing articles for national and regional newspapers and websites.

The Mormon Battalion’s Movement to Western America - Part 2: The Journey West

The story of the Mormon Battalion remains an enduring legend. Recruited by the U.S. government from among those heading to Utah to gather with Brigham Young, this group of some 500 men plus women and children undertook a trek across the American Southwest during the Mexican-American War. The battalion is usually consigned to a footnote in the story, but it is a story which looms large in the settlement of California. In that context, the legend of the battalion and how it has found a truly revered place in the history of the Mormon faithful is significant. In part 2 below, Marvin McCrary explains the progress of the battalion as they made their way across the west.

You can read part 1 on the origins of the Mormon Battalion here.

Mormon Battalion Monument in Presidio Park, San Diego, California, available here.

In the decades before the Civil War, the concept of Manifest Destiny energized the nation. It would be President James K. Polk, upon his election in 1844, who would take it upon himself to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy than his predecessors, including war with Mexico in 1846. At the height of this fervor, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had begun their exodus from Nauvoo, Illinois. Persecution and mob violence had made it impossible for them to stay. Under the direction of Brigham Young, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, they would leave their homes and most of their belongings behind. Colonel Thomas L. Kane, who was friendly to the Saints and sympathetic to their plight, advocated on their behalf with the national government. President Polk authorized U.S. Army officials to recruit Saints to enlist and join the Army of the West to conquer California.

Colonel Kane accompanied Elder Little as far as St. Louis, carrying Polk’s orders to Colonel Stephen W. Kearney, who commanded the troops at Fort Leavenworth. At the time, the Saints were building temporary settlements in the Missouri River Valley when an army expedition under Captain James Allen met up with them. Allen worked with Brigham Young to recruit the necessary volunteers. The battalion would consist of five companies, each with approximately 100 men. Upon the arrival of Colonel Kearney at Council Bluffs, the battalion was enrolled into service, and Allen became Lt. Colonel of Infantry. Allen mustered them into the service of the United States Army for the period of one year. The first four companies left July 21, 1846, and the fifth left two days later. Thirty-five women and forty-two children, most of whom were families of the soldiers, would accompany the battalion on their journey.

As the volunteers readied for their departure, Church leaders met privately with the men. Those whose families would not be joining them in the march were promised that their families would be cared for by the Church. In what was likely to have been of reassurance and comfort to the men, Brigham Young told them that if they were faithful and kept to the commandments, they would not face any battles. Furthermore, Young prophesied that the actions taken by the Saints would leave an indelible mark upon military history. Each man in the battalion received forty-two dollars in clothing allowance, as well as wages for service. The women were also paid for doing laundry for the group. Members of the battalion donated a portion of their clothing allowance to the Church, and thereby provided essential funds for the planned trek to the Rocky Mountain West. This contribution on behalf of the battalion would prove to be of great value, and President Young said they were the "present and temporal salvation" of the Saints. A farewell ball was held,  and although they had  no proper floor on which to dance, Lt. Colonel Allen observed the mirth and merriment of the occasion.

Go West

The prior hardships faced by the Saints would have prepared them for the difficulties they would inevitably face in the journey ahead. When Horace Greely wrote “Go West, young man,” the west he was referring to was wild and untamed, and held a fascination for the adventurous soul. There was fertile farmland available for those who possessed a strong arm, a stout heart, and the willingness to work hard for the opportunity. This was especially attractive to those who hoped to escape the rampant poverty and unemployment which plagued the big cities of the East. However, settlement would prove to be a mixed blessing. While many would find new opportunities in the West, this would displace other groups including Native American tribes and Mexicans. Brigham Young hoped that the participation of the Saints in the war would not only grant free transportation to the West, but that it  would also “let the Mormons be the first [United States soldiers] to set their feet on the soil of California.”

The battalion took a ferry across the river, and then marched to Fort Leavenworth, arriving on August 1, 1846. They were given munitions and arms, and every soldier was able to sign his own name on the payroll, much to the surprise of the paymaster, as only a third of the previous recruits who had enlisted had been able to do so. The battalion would quarter at Fort Leavenworth for two weeks, during which time Colonel Kearney’s regiment had already embarked for Santa Fe to conquer New Mexico for the United States. The men of the battalion continued to hold religious services and strict moral conduct, unusual for soldiers. The days were extremely hot, and Colonel Allen himself became gravely ill. Allen did not recover by the time the Saints left Leavenworth on their way to Santa Fe, and thus was the battalion placed under the command of Captain Samuel Hunt. The road was not easy, and Wiliam Coray remarks that the heat and close quarters lended itself to further discomfort. He observed that “the suffering of the sick [was] intolerable…The cause of sickness I attributed mostly to the plums and green corn which we used [to eat] so freely at the Fort.”

Allen’s death

On August 26th, the men received news that Colonel Allen had succumbed to his illness. Allen’s death struck the men hard; William Hyde wrote that it “struck a damper to our feelings. We considered him a worthy man and looked upon him as a friend.” It was assumed that Captain Hunt would be appointed officially, however it was not to be. In his place, Lieutenant Andrew Jackson Smith, a 1838 graduate of the military academy, was appointed by Polk. This was met with dismay, as Polk had issued a direct order that the battalion could nominate their own officers, and Hunt had endeared himself to the men. In addition to Smith, the battalion was joined by Dr. Sanderson, a surgeon from Fort Leavenworth. In the nineteenth century there were two disciplines, the surgeon and the physician. The surgeon used tools for amputation and lancing, and the physician used herbs, plant material, and minerals to treat disease. Balancing the humors was still in practice by 1846, with puking, purging, or bleeding being the prescribed standard treatment for illness. Sanderson, who was highly-regarded for his progressive methods, practiced purging, and this brought him in conflict with the men of the battalion. 

In September, as the battalion entered Comanche territory where the native were hostile, many of the men took ill. Dr. Sanderson treated the men with calomel, a mercury chloride mineral which was widely known to effectively purge the system. The men had been told by Church leaders that they were to keep to their strict dietary observance, and to not take the medicine.  The system used in Nauvoo favored the usage of herbs, and gentler methods. Lieutenant Smith believed that the men were being disrespectful, and would even pull the sick and ailing out of their tents if they did not report to the doctor for treatment. While harsh, there was a limited supply and the journey was long, and Sanderson could not afford to waste anything. Complicating matters was the fact that Sanderson was a Missiourian, and the men were wary of his intentions, due to the anti-Mormon violence which occurred in Missouri in 1833. These were merely a few of the difficulties the battalion would have to endure the march to California.

Winter Quarters

In the summer of 1846, President Young had hoped the rest of the Saints would make it all the way to the Great Basin, but mud and sickness had taken its toll, and he determined that they must procure temporary settlement in anticipation of the coming winter. The Ote and Osage natives had agreed to let the pioneers use some of the lands across the river from Council Bluffs. In September, they began building a town which would be called Winter Quarters. Young divided the town into wards, and he appointed worthy men to be bishops over each of these wards, with the responsibility of caring for the townsfolk. While the Saints were in Winter Quarters, Brigham Young received inspiration concerning their journey to the West.

Let us know what you think of Mormon Battalion below.

Now read part 3 about the Mexican-American War and the end of the journey here.

Bibliography

Arrigton, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. New York: Knopf, 1985.

Brands, H.W. Dreams of El Dorado: A History of the American West. New York: Basic Books, 2019.

Cowan, Richard, and William E. Homer. California Saints. Utah: Bookcraft Publishing, 1996.

LDS Church. Saints Volume 2: No Unhallowed Hand. Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2020.

Ricketts, Norma Baldwin. The Mormon Battalion. Utah: Utah State University, 1996.

London’s Great Stench in the 19th Century - Part 1: What Caused the Great Stench?

Millions of tourists visit London each year to take in the city's iconic architectural sites and attractions. It is hard to imagine that the iconic River Thames was once a site of unbearable stench and disease that choked Londoners. The summer of 1858 was labelled as the Great Stink by the British press and was a result of many years of poor living conditions, sanitation and a lack of public health reforms. The Great Stink was the tipping point that encouraged a change of attitude towards public health from a laissez-faire attitude, where the government did not interfere with public health, to a desire to improve living conditions. A laissez-faire attitude meant that government officials took a step back from interfering with social welfare and let issues take their own shape naturally.

Amy Chandler explains.

A dirty Father Thames in 1n 1848 edition of Punch magazine.

This article will explore public health during 1842 to 1865 by focusing on the work of Dr John Snow and the cholera outbreaks, Sir Edwin Chadwick's contribution to the Public Health Act, and Joseph Bazalgette's construction of the London sewer system. Part one will explore the factors that contributed to the Great Stink, such as overcrowding, the introduction of flushing toilets, cholera outbreaks and a call for public health reforms. Part two will analyse how Parliament handled the situation of the noxious smells from the River Thames through Bazalgette’s construction of the sewer systems. 

Investigations by Sir Edwin Chadwick 1842-1848

In 1842, social reformer Edwin Chadwick published a report for the Poor Law Commissioner entitled Report on the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Poor. This report provided statistical evidence that outlined the stark contrast in life expectancy determined by class and residency. Chadwick highlighted how life expectancy in large cities, like London, was dramatically lower than in rural areas.(1) Laborer occupations were the most at risk of early death compared to professional trades.(2) Chadwick’s report is now seen as a “monumental step toward accepting and dealing with social costs of economic progress”, but not at the time of publication.(3) However, in 1842 Chadwick discovered that disease and infection spread throughout all classes of society. The poor suffered the most because of their unsanitary living conditions. Chadwick’s finding caused unrest with politicians. His report opposed the popular view that an individual was poor because it was their fault. This attitude meant that change was slow throughout the nineteenth century.

Furthermore, Chadwick’s report highlighted that social welfare concerns could only be resolved through financial improvements and changes approved by government. Chadwick suggested that the financial implications for tenants and owners to ensure good drainage and clean water supply to their inhabitants would be “offset by the reduced cost of tending to the ill” in the future.(4) Other measures included improved drainage, removal of refuse from houses, streets and roads and placed in “moveable vessels”.(5) The idea here was to spend money to improve the living conditions to save money in the future, as the population would be healthier and less likely to need medical assistance. Chadwick suggested taxing households to contribute to the cleaning programmes but he misunderstood that many people struggled to afford necessities in everyday life.

Chadwick’s theory does have some credibility that by improving the living conditions in densely populated areas would reduce the spread of disease. At this point in history, the theory of miasmas was still widely believed and accepted as diseases caused by bad smells rather than bacteria and viruses. Despite medical and scientific beliefs as largely inaccurate to what caused disease, the measures that Chadwick was describing were credible ideas. For example, providing clean water supplies reduced the risk of contracting an illness, and removing rotten household food and other waste from the streets, housing and roads deterred the presence of rats and mice infiltrating densely populated areas.

Chadwick encountered much opposition from Parliament as the poor working-class created the wealth that many of the upper class experienced the benefits from exploited labor. Change in attitudes towards creating the first Public Health Act was not until 1848 after London suffered another deadly cholera outbreak, although this act did not require local medical officers to enforce or design cleaning programs to improve sanitation conditions.(6) Parliament passed the 1846 and 1848 Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Act, including “filthy and unwholesome” buildings and houses, “foul and offensive ditch, gutter, privy, cesspool or ash pit”, and removal of refuse and waste.(7) This act closed old cesspits, which caused all new waste to flow into the River Thames, with open cesspits unable to handle the growth in population and new flushing toilets leaked sewage into water supplies into the river.

The 1848 Public Health Act enforced appropriate drainage and sewer systems that distributed waste into the River Thames. Many believed that sewage in the river would magically disappear. In reality, waste stagnated within the water, and Londoners continued to use this water to wash and drink. Many did not understand that the River Thames is a tidal river, where water levels are influenced by the tide, resulting in circulating waste.(8) In 1851 The Great Exhibition in London, showcased the newest and high-tech inventions on an international stage that illustrated Britain’s power and wealth.(9) One invention that proved popular was the flushing toilet and it was made available to the public after 1851. Like many of the inventions displayed at The Great Exhibition, the flushing toilet was only affordable by the wealthy upper classes. Many toilets flushed into old cesspits that were incapable of containing the amount of waste pumping through, causing overflowing waste into the Thames and drinking water.(10) Despite technological advances of the flushing toilet, London did not have a sewer system capable of handling this new technology. 

The cholera epidemic and Dr John Snow’s breakthrough

Another cholera outbreak, in 1854, erupted throughout London and raised concern around the living conditions in London’s most densely populated areas. Dr John Snow investigated the cause of the disease by analysing the water supplied from the River Thames and water supplied by wells and natural springs. London suffered three major cholera outbreaks, but in 1854 the outbreak was different in the poverty-stricken area of Broad Street, Soho near Golden Square. Snow decided to investigate the deaths from cholera by using a grid system and map of the local area to plot the radius of infections by contacting the residents and workers in the local area. Snow’s findings revealed that those who drank from the Broad Street pump, which filtered water directly from the River Thames, became severely ill with cholera. Snow documented his investigation noting, “all the deaths had taken place within a short distance of the pump” and suspected “some contamination of the water of the much-frequented pump in Broad Street”.(11) Snow examined the water from Broad Street and compared water samples from the river and wells. The results emphasized that water from the Thames had physical specks floating in the water that supported Snow’s thinking.(12)

Snow concluded that the water from the River Thames was contaminated and caused cholera outbreaks. In light of this discovery, Snow ordered officials to stop public use of the Broad Street pump. In doing so, Snow discovered that infection and mortality rates reduced rapidly and proved his theory. In October 1854, Snow investigated the water quality supplied by companies in Southwark and Vauxhall that pumped drinking water from the Thames and compared this to water provided by Lambeth water company, who pumped their water from a less polluted area in the Thames; Lambeth had a lower mortality rate in comparison to the Southwark and Vauxhall areas.(13) Of course, Snow’s understanding of science and disease was founded on the miasma theory, but his investigations disproved the miasma theory but he was unsure why or how as Germ theory was not discovered until 1861. Despite Snow’s investigation, many politicians were still adamant in their belief of bad smells as the cause of disease, and this attitude halted progress in improving public health.  

Solved one problem to cause another

The work of Snow and Chadwick progressed attitudes towards public health and improved living conditions for Londoners. But they could only do so much as many government officials were resistant to believing anything other than bad smells causing disease. The Public Health Act aimed to improve life in poverty-stricken areas but in reality, created overfilled cesspools that contaminated water supplies, turning London's iconic river into a vat of stench and disease. All these factors became culminated into the 1858 Great Stink and became a turning point in changing government policies towards public health and sanitation by constructing a sewer system that is still in use today. 

Part two will explore how the Great stink forced government officials to tackle London’s sewage and waste problem by commissioning Joseph Bazalgette to flush the River Thames and clean up London’s act.

Now read party 2 on the Great Stench and its aftermath here.

 1. The National Archives, Victorian Britain, The National Archives: Find Out More, undated <https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/victorianbritain/healthy/fom1.htm> [accessed 4 March 2022].

2. Ibid.

 3. I. Morley, ‘City chaos, contagion, Chadwick, and social justice’, Yale J Biol Med, vol. 80, (2007),p.61.  

 4. M. Williams, ‘Kingsley, Millar, Chadwick on Poverty and Epidemics’, 26 May 2020, The Victorian Web < https://victorianweb.org/science/health/williams1.html > [accessed 4 March 2022].

 5. Ibid. 

 6. Ibid.

  7. UK Parliament, ’Nuisances’, 2022, Uk Parliament <https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/towncountry/towns/tyne-and-wear-case-study/about-the-group/nuisances/nuisances/ > [accessed 4 March 2022]. 

 8. D.G, Hewitt, ’18 facts about the 1858 Great Stink of London’, History Collection, 3 June 2019 < https://historycollection.com/18-facts-about-the-1858-great-stink-of-london/ >[accessed 4 March 2022].  

 9. L. Picard, ‘The Great Exhibition’, The British Library, 14 Oct 2009 <https://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/articles/the-great-exhibition> [accessed 4 March 2022].

 10. Hewitt, op.cit. 

 11. T.H. Tulchinsky, ‘John Snow, Cholera, the Broad Street Pump; Waterborne Diseases Then and Now’, Case Studies in Public Health, (2018), p.81.

 12. K, Tuthill, ‘John Snow and the Broad Street Pump’, UCLA, 2003 <https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/snowcricketarticle.html >[accessed 8  March 2022]. 

 13. Tulchinsky,op.cit,p.82.

Bibliography

Authority., ‘Cholera epidemics in Victorian London’, The Gazette, 2016 <https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/100519 >. 

BAUS.,‘A Brief History of The Flush Toilet: From Neolithic to modern times’, The British Association of Urological Surgeons, undated <https://www.baus.org.uk/museum/164/a_brief_history_of_the_flush_toilet >.

Bibby, M., ‘London’s Great Stink’, Historic UK, 2022 <https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Londons-Great-Stink/ >.

Hewitt, D.G.,’18 facts about the 1858 Great Stink of London’, History Collection, 3 June 2019 < https://historycollection.com/18-facts-about-the-1858-great-stink-of-london/ >. 

LSHTM., ‘Sir Edwin Chadwick 1800 – 1890’,  London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 2022 < https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/aboutus/introducing/history/frieze/sir-edwin-chadwick >.

Morley, I., ‘City chaos, contagion, Chadwick, and social justice’, Yale J Biol Med, vol. 80, no. 2, June, 2007,pp. 61-72. 

Picard, L., ‘The Great Exhibition’, The British Library, 14 Oct 2009 <https://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/articles/the-great-exhibition>. 

Porter, D.H., ‘From Inconvenience to Pollution -- Redefining Sewage in The Victorian Age’, The Victorian Web, 1999 <https://victorianweb.org/technology/porter9.html >. 

The National Archives, Victorian Britain, The National Archives: Find Out More, undated <https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/victorianbritain/healthy/fom1.htm>.

Tulchinsky, T.H., ‘John Snow, Cholera, the Broad Street Pump; Waterborne Diseases Then and Now’, Case Studies in Public Health, 2018, pp. 77-99. 

Tuthill, K., ‘John Snow and the Broad Street Pump’, UCLA, 2003 <https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/snowcricketarticle.html >. 

Uk Parliament, ’Nuisances’, 2022, Uk Parliament <https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/towncountry/towns/tyne-and-wear-case-study/about-the-group/nuisances/nuisances/ >.

Williams, M., ‘Kingsley, Millar, Chadwick on Poverty and Epidemics’, 26 May 2020, The Victorian Web < https://victorianweb.org/science/health/williams1.html >. 

Modern American Gun Culture and the American Frontier

With the most citizen-owned firearms of any nation in the world and a higher-than-average rate of gun-related deaths, America stands out from every other developed Western nation. Here, Greg Hickey argues that this American gun culture exists because American history is unique - no other nation has experienced such rapid expansion or enjoyed so large a frontier as the United States did shortly after its independence. Stemming from the American frontier of the nineteenth century, guns have become enmeshed with America in a relationship that persists through the new frontiers of the twenty-first century.

1890s painting of cowboys: The Herd Quitter by C.M. Russell.

Guns in America

United States citizens own a total of 393,347,000 firearms. India—a country with four times as many people as the U.S—is a distant second with 71,101,000 civilian-owned firearms. Americans own 120.5 firearms per 100 people, meaning that, on average, every American owns more than one gun. The tiny Falkland Islands ranks second with 62.1 firearms per 100 people, just over half the rate in the United States.

Gun safety advocates cite high gun ownership as a significant factor in the above-average rate of gun deaths in America. In 2019, this figure stood at 3.96 deaths per 100,000 people, more than eight times higher than the rate in Canada and almost 100 times higher than in the United Kingdom. The question is how and why modern gun culture became so pervasive in America compared to other developed Western nations.

The Right to Bear Arms

There are three countries in the world with the right to own firearms enshrined in their constitutions: the United States, Guatemala, and Mexico. All three are relatively new nations. The U.S. gained its independence from Great Britain in 1783; Guatemala and Mexico got theirs from Spain in 1821.

Of course, firearms were present in the Americas from the moment the first European settlers arrived in the fifteenth century. These weapons played a major role in the wars of colonization and independence fought on the continent. In contrast, Europeans did not use guns to conquer Europe. Nations fought wars against each other, yet the European nations we know today are descendants of ancient Europeans: Romans, Gauls, Franks, Normans, Slavs. But Europeans did use guns to conquer the Americas.

Thus, the post-indigenous histories of the United States, Guatemala, and Mexico are comprised entirely by the history of firearms. The Europeans who settled in these regions brought guns. Their descendants who severed ties with the colonial powers fought with guns. And their descendants living in newly independent nations inherited those guns and acquired new ones. Yet despite the historical and legislative parallels, gun ownership in the United States far exceeds that of Guatemala and Mexico.

Independence and Its Aftermath

When the Mexican War of Independence began in 1810, the Spanish viceroyalty of New Spain stretched from modern-day California to the isthmus of Panama (including Guatemala) and covered what would become the southwestern United States. The Spanish had conquered most of southern Mexico by 1525. By 1536, they had overtaken Jalisco and other regions on the Pacific coast. By the eighteenth century, they had established colonies in present-day Louisiana, Texas, and California. In other words, Spaniards had thoroughly permeated the land that would become Mexico and Guatemala by those nations gained independence.

By contrast, the United States in 1783 consisted of the original thirteen colonies on the Atlantic Ocean plus territory stretching west to the Mississippi River and north to the Great Lakes. In 1803, the U.S. nearly doubled in size with the completion of the Louisiana Purchase. In 1845, the U.S. annexed Texas. One year later, Americans agreed to divide the Oregon Country with the British along the border of present-day Canada. And in 1848, following the Mexican-American War, Mexico ceded territory that would become the southwestern United States. In the 65 years since it became a nation, the territory owned by the United States effectively tripled in size.

No other nation in the world faced a comparable situation. Mexico, thanks to the aforementioned Mexican-American War, lost a considerable amount of territory shortly after its independence.

Canada became a nation in 1867 with the union of the British colonies of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Canada. Three years later, Canada acquired Rupert’s Land, a northern wilderness territory that made up most of present-day Canada, from the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC). The HBC had acquired the land, which stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the Rocky Mountains and north to the Arctic Circle, under a charter from England in 1670, and had exclusive rights to colonize and trade in the territory. Unlike America, the vast majority of Canadian land was under British control when Canada became a nation.

Likewise, the British had colonized practically all of Australia by 1832, well before Australian independence in 1901. In another contrast to America, neither Canada nor Australia fought a war to gain independence. Instead, Britain willingly ceded control of these overseas territories to local governance.

The American Frontier

Consequently, the early history of the United States proved unique in comparison to other nations in the world. And this early history has directly influenced modern gun culture. Americans fought a war with guns to gain their independence. They subsequently acquired territories that tripled the nation in size, some of which involved more fighting with guns. The eastern Americans then pushed west into new territories, hunting and protecting themselves and driving away understandably hostile Native Americans with guns. From Lewis and Clark to the Oregon Trail to the Wild West, westward expansion claimed a defining chapter in American history, and this expansion was made possible by individual citizens with guns.

Whether as a cause or effect, the American firearms industry took off in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In 1776, George Washington ordered the establishment of the Springfield Armory in Springfield Massachusetts. In 1816, the U.S. government hired Eliphalet Remington’s Remington Arms Company to produce flintlock rifles. And in 1836, Samuel Colt patented his Single Action Army Revolver, also known as the Colt 45 or “the gun that won the west.” Americans needed guns, and gunmakers provided new models to fit their needs.

The Second Amendment

In 1791, the existing state legislatures ratified the U.S. Bill of Rights containing ten amendments to the Constitution. In particular, Amendment II states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This Second Amendment has provided legal support for private gun ownership in the 230 years since ratification.

Yet the Second Amendment does not capture the spirit in which early Americans used their guns. Guns did not rise to cultural prominence in the hands of New England militiamen sitting at home and protecting their farmland. Rather, guns captivated the American imagination on the frontier, in the hands of pioneers and explorers and cowboys and outlaws.

By the 1870s, guns were so prevalent in the American West that some towns started cracking down on armed citizens. The first law passed in Dodge City, Kansas was an 1878 ban on carrying guns in town. The infamous 1881 shootout at the O.K. Corral occurred when a group of cowboys defied the Earp brothers’ orders to turn over their weapons in accordance with a Tombstone, Arizona law requiring all town visitors to disarm upon arrival. American gun culture and the American gun control movement both began on the American frontier.

The New American Frontier

Not every American frontier town followed the examples of Dodge City and Tombstone. In many places, the American West remained a lawless territory governed by individualism and determination. In the words of Matt Jancer in his Smithsonian article “Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West”:

“As the West developed, towns pushed this mythos of the West as their founding ideology. Lax gun laws were just a part of an individualistic streak that manifested itself with the explosion in popularity of concealed carry licenses and the broader acceptance of openly carrying firearms (open-carry laws) that require no permit.”

This individualistic frontier mythos remained well after Americans settled all the nation’s territories. It spawned an entire genre of film and literature. John F. Kennedy invoked the frontier ideal when he accepted the Democratic presidential nomination in 1960, stating, “We stand today on the edge of a New Frontier,” beyond which were “the uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus.” Six years later, the television series Star Trek echoed Kennedy with an opening monologue that began, “Space… the final frontier.”

In short, the American ideal is inextricably linked with determined, productive individuals pushing boundaries and exploring new frontiers in science, technology, space, society and human rights. This ideal extends from the time when American settlers set out into the physical frontier of a new nation. And this historical frontier is inextricably linked with guns. Modern American gun culture and American ideals of liberty, individualism and self-determination derive from the same historical events—events that were unique to the formation of America. The eighteenth-century pioneer, the Old West outlaw and sheriff, and the ambitious tech entrepreneur are all operating on the same fundamental principle.

The True Origin of Modern American Gun Culture

Thus, American gun culture is not an outgrowth of the Second Amendment or the mark of a particularly warlike nation. Instead, America’s fascination with guns stems from the circumstances surrounding the country’s early history—circumstances that set the United States apart. No other country matches America in firearms ownership because no other country began with its citizens venturing out into a massive frontier in the same way - armed with their ambition and wits and firearms. American gun culture is so widespread because guns played an essential role in the events that defined America.

Author Biography

Greg Hickey is a forensic firearms examiner and the author of Parabellum, a novel about American gun culture and a fictional mass shooting at a beach in Chicago.

Find more of his work at greghickeywrites.com.

American Civil War Line Tactics: Brilliant, Stupid, or the only Option?

Infantry line tactics in the American Civil War can perplex the mind. Hundreds of years of line infantry tactics seem to be perfected to horrifying effect. Casualties from the outbreak of the war shocked the American public. Dead and wounded amounting to greater than all the previous conflicts combined, would fall in a single day. Many have often pondered the question, maybe they should have changed their tactics? Austin Duran explains.

Battle of Shiloh by Thure de Thulstrup.

The Minie ball surely would have caused the need for a change right?

Invented by Claude-Etienne Minie in 1846, the Minie ball changed the battlespace in 19th century warfare. The Minie ball was a hollowed out conical shape, with multiple grooves near the rear. The hollow portion in the rear of the round caused the round to expand. This expansion would press the bullet grooves into the sides of the barrel, catching the rifling and inducing a spin. A spinning round is far more accurate than a non-spinning round. Think of it as a spiraling football versus a shotput. Not only is it more accurate, it will travel much farther, and faster. Additionally, the conical shape was far more aerodynamic further adding to its lethality.

This Minie ball could kill out to 800m while the round ball of decades past could only be lethal to 200m. Even though no soldier could intentionally hit anything at that range, the range of battlefield lethality nevertheless increased 400%. As anything within the 800m was within lethal range. A three thousand man brigade, firing just 2 rounds a minute, could empty its 40-60 round allotment in just 20-30 minutes, putting 120k-180k rounds out in the process. While these numbers would have been the same prior to the invention of the Minie ball, the increased lethal range added significantly to the lethality on the battlefield – especially with continued use of compressed line infantry tactics. 

If not the Minie ball, maybe the mass casualties?

From the very outset of the war the casualties were aggressive. The first major battle, the Battle of Bull Run with around 5,000 casualties, was the single bloodiest day in American history up to that point. A horrid record that would be surpassed at Shiloh and Antietam with around 23,000 casualties each. Despite the mounting losses on both sides, little in way of tactical change would happen until Robert E Lee adopted defensive trench tactics as manpower began to dwindle.

The primary reason for the aggregation of manpower in line formation was to consolidate firepower. Concentration of effort has always been a military tenet. However, the increased range of the Minie ball should have allowed for some dispersion of effort given some assumptions. First, the user of the rifle would have to be trained. Despite the increased accuracy of the Minie ball, the soldier would still need to be precise with their shots as they could no longer rely on massed volleys. This required training which was often not given. Notably at the Battle of Shiloh, many troops on both sides fired their weapons for the first time in combat. The levy style recruitment often left training to wayside in effort to amass sheer numbers. 

Murderous technological advancements and massive causalities, beg the question: maybe we should do things differently? Fire and maneuver in smaller squads of men? Perhaps moving from cover to cover, as opposed to massing ranks in front of one another? But I submit to you there is one thing that prevented the modern light infantry tactics that we know today from being used: smoke.

Smoke

Black powder was invented by the Chinese and first used in combat in the 900s AD. And from its inception it produced a tremendous amount of smoke. There are many reasons why small unit tactics would not work in the American Civil War, but the primary was gunpowder smoke.

Even if training was given, the problem of smoke from black powder arises. First, it’s rather difficult to do anything covert, or quickly without being seen when giant puffs of smoke rise from your position. If you have ever seen a reenactment or decide to look one up on YouTube after this article, note that re-enactors often use one-quarter charges when firing. The amount of smoke produced was enormous. Second, assuming you have a trained rifleman, they will only be able to get a few shots off before their vision is likely clouded due to the smoke present. Also, with their smoke signal advertising their position it would be likely only a matter of time before massed volleys could be directed their way. This would render them either dead or hopelessly stuck behind cover.

Another example of how smoke affected the battlefield lay with Picket’s Charge. Prior to the assault by the confederates on the third day of Gettysburg, General Lee ordered a massive artillery bombardment. It is well known that the majority of the rounds sailed over the intended target by several hundred yards, rendering the bombardment ineffective. This shelling lasted over an hour yet no adjustments to fire were made; why? Smoke. They couldn’t see that they were missing their targets.

The burnside carbine, and other repeating rifles were available early in the war, why not invest solely in these sorts of firearms? While the increased fire rate of this sorts of carbines would certainly have unleashed devastation on the battlefield (and did when in properly trained hands—cavalry typically), in the arms of untrained, massed infantry, the smoke would have rendered the commanders blind in record time. This would squelch all hope of command and control in an age of limited command and control as is.

Smokeless powder would not be invented until decades after the American Civil War. With the blinding presence of black powder, commanders continued to use line formations and massed volleys. The drawbacks of smoke outweighed, even nullified, the benefits of new tactics. This led to murderous effects on the battlefield despite technological advancements.

What do you think of the importance of smoke in the American Civil War? Let us know below.