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

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

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

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

Qing China and Meiji Japan

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

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

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

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

Korea

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

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

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

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

The Tonghak Rebellion

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

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

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

Japanese Victory

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

2 Ibid., 26

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

4 Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Szczepanski, "The First Sino-Japanese War"

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Revolution

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

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

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

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

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

Spain in the New World: The Revolutionary Abdications of Bayonne

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

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

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

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

Napoleon Shackled to a Corpse

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

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

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

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

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

Godoy

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

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

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

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

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

Ferdinand vs. Carlos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tumult of Aranjuez

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dos de Mayo Uprising

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

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

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

Napoleonic Maneuvers

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

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

Spain Rises Up

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

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

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

Creation of the Supreme Central Junta

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

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

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

Spread to the Americas

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

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

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

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

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

President Buchanan’s Blunder Before Battle

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

Lillian Jiang explains.

President Buchanan (center) and his cabinet.

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

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

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

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

Inauguration

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

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

Bleeding Kansas

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

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

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

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

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

Poor judgments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miranda’s Widening Net

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

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

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

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

The Leander Expedition

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

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

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

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

If at first you don’t succeed…

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

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

Back to Britain, Again

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

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

Napoleon Provides the Opportunity of a Lifetime

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

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

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

Miranda Goes Home

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

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

Back in Command

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

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

Generalissimo Miranda

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

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

Betrayal and Arrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tchaikovsky and Nadezhda von Meck – An Unusual Friendship

The name Nadezhda von Meck may not be familiar to many but without this wealthy widow’s generosity some of the finest classical music of all time may never have been written. Here, Caroline Baker explains Nadezhda von Meck and Tchaikovsky’s relationship.

Nadezhda von Meck.

Following the death of her rich and successful husband in 1876, forty-five year old businesswoman Nadezhda van Meck became a social recluse and even refused to attend her own children’s weddings. Her passionate love of music was her only source of joy. Although she had, in essence, removed herself from society, she continued to clandestinely attend her beloved concerts, ensuring that she sat far apart from the rest of the audience.

Finding herself with a surplus of income, and keen to put it to good use, Nadezhda offered ongoing financial support to a composer named Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky whose music she greatly admired.  This annual allowance enabled him to resign from his day job to focus full-time on his beloved music.

Pyotr, an incredibly talented young musician, was a lonely and troubled soul. His parents had forced him to attend boarding school at the age of ten; an experience that he found traumatic and never fully recovered from. He found it painfully hard to be separated from his mother, and her death when he was only fourteen years old devastated him.

Oddly, Nadezhda stipulated that her role as benefactor was conditional on them never meeting. They did, however, correspond by letter and this relationship provided great emotional support and encouragement to Pyotr. Over a thousand letters were exchanged between them over a thirteen-year period. Pyotr even described her as “his best friend”.  Although they never officially met one another, they did catch sight of each other on occasion and it is reported that they even physically bumped into each other one day during a walk. Even then they did not interact with each other.

When her son Nikolai married Pyotr’s niece Anna, Nadezhda did not attend the wedding; adamant that they should not alter the status of their friendship.

End of the friendship

The relationship came to an abrupt end in 1890 when Nadezhda regretfully informed the composer that she would no longer be able to support him. She paid him a year’s allowance in advance with the understanding that there would be no more payments and no more contact. The true reasons for this were not disclosed to Pyotr, but by this time he was a successful composer and no longer needed the financial support that his patron had provided him with.  The sudden loss of the emotional support, however, upset him greatly and he persisted in writing to her. Regrettably the letters were returned to him unopened.

Historians suggest that Nadezhda’s children had long been unhappy about the increasingly intense relationship that had developed between their mother and the composer, not least due to the rumors of Pyotr’s homosexuality. Squabbles within the family regarding money were also identified as a possible reason for the sudden cessation of the patronage. There were also reports that Nadezhda was suffering from atrophy of her arm which would have made writing letters difficult. Due to the intimate nature of their correspondence, it is unlikely that she would have felt comfortable dictating them to another person.

Death

Pyotr sadly died only three years after the relationship ended. His official cause of death was listed as cholera but there were rumours at the time that it may have been a suicide.  He was only fifty-three. Nadezhda died only a few months later from tuberculosis at the age of sixty-two.

Thanks to Nadezhda von Meck’s financial and emotional support, Pyotr’s outstanding musical accomplishments of 169 pieces including ballets, symphonies, operas and concertos, have resulted in him becoming one of the world’s most famous composers of all time. Some of his greatest works, including Swan Lake, The Nutcracker Suite and the 1812 Overture are recognised and loved all over the world.

In Pyotr Tchaikovsky’s final letter to Nadezhda he wrote:

“..you probably yourself do not suspect the full immensity of your good deed!”

What do you think of the relationship between Tchaikovsky and Nadezhda von Meck? Let us know below.

Sources

https://www.californiasymphony.org/composer/tchaikovsky/the-woman-behind-tchaikovsky/

Holden, A (1995) Tchaikovsky: A Biography. New York: Random House. ISBN 978-0-679-420064

https://www.mfiles.co.uk/composers/Peter-Ilyich-Tchaikovsky.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/oct/21/tchaikovsky-where-to-start-with-his-music

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

Spain in the New World: Francisco de Miranda’s Travels in America and Europe

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

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at Venezuelan military leader and revolutionary Francisco de Miranda. Here he looks at Francisco de Miranda’s travels across America and Europe, including his time in revolutionary France.

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

A painting of a young Francisco de Miranda. By Georges Rouget.

Having played a small part in the triumph of the American colonies in their revolution, Miranda wanted to see the society that the Americans were building. It was a natural choice for him. He already seemed to be developing his ideas for the independence of the Western Hemisphere from Europe. A society built upon liberal, enlightenment principles fit into his worldview. Being a highly literate man, Miranda would keep a diary during his travels. This record of his impressions and observations of the early United States is invaluable to any researcher and is one of Miranda’s best historical legacies.

On June 10, 1783, Miranda landed at New Berne, North Carolina. He would travel throughout the United States, seeking to meet not only the biggest players in the revolutionary saga but also the common folk as well. He was impressed that the lower-class whites and the wealthy would mix at common events (he did not mention what the views of the slaves at the events were). From the south, Miranda would journey north to visit the American capital Philadelphia. While in the city, he would insist on staying at the Indian Queen Inn, the same inn where Jefferson supposedly wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Armed with letters of introduction from those he met in the south, Miranda would put his natural charm and wit to work to ingratiate himself into Philadelphia high society. Since word of his status with the Spanish government had not caught up with him yet, he was wined and dined by members of the American government as well as foreign ambassadors and prominent citizens looking for Spanish contacts. Encountering George Washington, Miranda would say that he could not make a firm judgment on the man, due to his “taciturn” disposition. Lafayette, Miranda would find to be overrated. Leaving Philadelphia, Miranda would go to New York and meet two people who would influence his later life: Thomas Paine and Alexander Hamilton. Paine will become important later. Hamilton and Miranda were very much alike. Both men were bursting with energy and ideas. Both men believed that they had a destiny to lead their respective peoples. Both were highly intelligent and literate. Until Hamilton’s death, Miranda would continue to think of Hamilton as a friend.

After touring upstate New York and New England, Miranda’s past was beginning to catch up to him. Word from Spain had begun to filter into the United States. Instead of being an innocent victim of slander that Miranda had passed himself off as, he was in fact a deserter who was sentenced to lose his commission, pay a fine, and face exile. Miranda could no longer pass himself off as a lieutenant colonel of the Spanish Army. This change of status proved to be liberating in a way. When Miranda arrived in Boston, he used his letters of introduction to meet General Henry Knox, the future first Secretary of War under the Constitution. Miranda, Knox, Samuel Adams, and other men of the Boston merchant community would become intimate friends and form a discussion group. Over brandy, Miranda would spellbind these men with his ideas for the liberation of South America from the Spanish. Once Miranda saw all he thought he could see, as well as met all who were worth meeting, it was time to leave. While Miranda wanted to see the great experiment in action, he knew that at the present time, the United States was utterly incapable of furthering his plans for an independent South America. For this, he had to go to Europe.

Miranda Tours Europe

The Grand Tour was a trip around Europe that many upper-class people took as something like a right of passage after their schooling had been completed. It gave the young person a sense of worldliness and provided exposure to the cosmopolitan nature of 18th and 19th-century European upper-class society. Miranda, being a colonial, had not had the chance to go on the Grand Tour. He would rectify his missed chance. After reaching London, he would set out for the Netherlands and see the Continent.

As a man with command of many languages and being extremely well read, Miranda was able to ingratiate himself with the high society of each country he went to. His good looks and high wit were also helpful. He seemingly met everyone from Frederick the Great to Catherine the Great. He toured seemingly every city and historical location from Stockholm to Constantinople. Composers, philosophers, writers, and princes were all enthralled by him. He even allegedly had an affair with Catherine the Great, although this was never confirmed.

These contacts were not merely social for Miranda. It was a learning experience, yes, but he was also searching for support for his cause, the independence of Spanish America. Needing money, he would take financial support from them, then commonly called “patronage.” When he would inevitably (in his mind) strike for that independence, he wanted a network of supporters in Europe with their hands on the levers of power and money to give him their support when the time came. He was not simply playing the part of the international playboy gallivanting across the courts of Europe. There was a political dimension to this as well.

During his travels, Miranda would have to keep one eye always open. The Spanish government was still plotting to have him arrested. Through the Spanish intelligence network in Europe run through their national embassies and consulates, the Spanish would constantly attempt to arrest Miranda and bring him back to Spain. They knew what Miranda was doing, undermining their rule in the New World. In the end, the Spanish would fail to capture him due to a series of fortunate escapes as well as the influence of powerful friends. To protect Miranda, Catherine the Great would even make him a member of the Russian diplomatic service, thereby extending him diplomatic immunity.

For five years, Miranda would travel Europe. His travels would leave an indelible mark on those he met. In 1789, he traveled to France. Seeing the country, he despised what he saw as the backwardness of the peasantry. He wrote about visiting Versailles and feeling humiliated as he was forced to kneel upon seeing King Louis XVI. Miranda was not a fan of the French governmental system, and seeing it firsthand only made him despise it even more. He would leave France and return to London to begin lobbying the British government to support him.

Revolutionary Times

Miranda had a great deal of admiration for the British people and the balanced constitution of Great Britain. Although Miranda would remain a committed republican throughout his life, he would always recognize the inherent genius of the British governing system. Much of his admiration of the system itself would be tempered by seeing that system operate up close in his dealings with British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger.

Miranda would bombard Pitt with plan after plan and scheme after scheme to liberate South America from Spanish rule. All he would need, he would tell Pitt, was money…and men…and arms…and ships, etc. Miranda was the ideas man, the brains of the operation. All of the material support would have to come from elsewhere, and where better than the richest government on the planet, the British. Pitt would always keep Miranda close enough to use him. Occasionally throwing out hope to Miranda would keep him around just in case war with Spain would break out and he might in some way be useful. For over a year, Miranda would act out the same song and dance with the British government until he could bear it no longer. He decided he would go back to France.

Why go back to France, a country Miranda held in little esteem? Because, during his time in London, the French Revolution had broken out. The people had limited the powers of the King and were overthrowing society through the National Convention. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, authored by his friend Thomas Paine, captivated him. Here was a revolution, freeing the people and ushering in the glorious millennium of human freedom.

Arriving in 1791, Miranda would find France at war with almost all of its neighbors. The powers of Europe found the prospect of a revolutionary and trending radical republican France upending hundreds of years of tradition, as well as the balance of power on the continent, terrifying. The revolutionaries needed anyone with military experience to help secure the revolution from foreign powers whose stated goal was to overthrow the Convention and restore the powers of the king. Miranda had military experience and was made a general and ordered to take command of troops as part of the Army of the North.

With the Allies coming over the Rhine and looking to take Paris, the French needed victory. The Battle of Valmy, while being little more than an artillery duel, led to an Allied retreat. This victory was blown up in republican propaganda and was the victory that saved the Revolution. All the men involved became heroes and were declared military geniuses, and this included Miranda.

With his military reputation sky-high, Miranda was given command of a wing of the Army of the North. He was ordered by the commander, General Dumouriez, to invade the Austrian Netherlands (roughly modern Belgium) and the Netherlands. He would take Antwerp and exact a £300,000 “loan” on the city. With Dumouriez in Paris, Miranda was ordered to occupy Maastricht by the National Convention. An Allied counterattack would lead to a rout on the part of Miranda’s army. Dumouriez would return to try to salvage the situation, but it was beyond saving. Miranda had suffered a humiliating defeat. Dumouriez, however, believed the situation could be turned around. He would reorganize his forces and counterattack. At the Battle of Neerwinden, Miranda was in command of the left wing of the army. He was ordered by Dumouriez to attack the Austrian right wing. The Austrian commander, the Prince of Coburg, reinforced his position and the battle went back and forth for several hours. When the cavalry of Archduke Charles was sent in to press the attacks home, Miranda’s command was broken, and the men began to flee. Despite all of his best efforts, Miranda was unable to rally his men. Dumouriez, learning of the shattering of his left wing, ordered the army to retreat.

The Radicals Turn on Miranda

For Miranda, the defeat at Neerwinden was very ill-timed. The Revolution was taking a dark turn. The siege mentality of the National Convention was turning into political paranoia as the different factions were turning on each other. The faction he was associated with, the Girondins, was in decline, while their rivals, the Jacobins, were ascendant. In April 1793, Miranda was arrested. His old commander, Dumouriez, recognizing the cut-throat nature of revolutionary politics, denounced Miranda and stated that the blame for the defeat in the north could be laid almost entirely in Miranda’s lap. Miranda was accused of criminal incompetence and cowardice in the face of the enemy.

Then the situation became even more confused. Dumouriez, seeing the way the Revolution was turning, decided to try to overthrow the Convention and restore a previously discarded constitution. Counting on the loyalty of his troops to himself personally, Dumouriez negotiated with the Austrians to stop their advance in order to free up the Army of the North to march on Paris and suppress the Convention. As it turned out, the troops were not loyal to Dumouriez personally, and he was forced to flee across enemy lines and defect to the Coalition. Back in Paris, the first reaction amongst the radicals was that of course, Miranda had supported his old commander Dumouriez in his treason. This flew in the face of all logic since it was Dumouriez who was trying to destroy Miranda’s reputation. Despite this, the paranoia of the Jacobins, and their leader Robespierre, knew no bounds. Miranda would be brought to trial for both sabotaging Dumouriez’s chances at victory as well as allegedly supporting the same man’s treason.

On April 8, 1793, Miranda was interrogated by the Convention’s War Committee. The questioning of Miranda and his fitness for command as well as his actions gave him the opportunity to address the committee and state his case. All of the learning, literary training, and military studies that Miranda had focused on his entire life led to this moment. Against all odds, he was able to defend himself so well before the War Committee that he was able to escape the guillotine. He showed the logic of his actions, proved the accusations of cowardice to be false, and attacked the judgment of Dumouriez. He even commented on Dumouriez’s negative opinions of the members of the Convention, just for good measure.

In May 1793, Miranda appeared before a Revolutionary Criminal Tribunal, which again investigated the charges against him. Witness after witness would appear before the tribunal to support Miranda. Even Thomas Paine would take the stand in Miranda’s defense. The defense attorney, Chaveau-Lagarde, would point out to the jury all that Miranda had sacrificed for the freedom of the French people. He showed that Miranda was a man with an international reputation for integrity and was known as a lover of mankind and a freedom fighter. The letters of introduction from men such as George Washington, Joseph Priestly, and Benjamin Franklin were introduced to prove Miranda’s devotion to republicanism. Although the process would take too long in the judgment of Miranda, he was acquitted on all charges and released. The jury had unanimously returned a verdict of not guilty.

In Revolutionary France, no one was truly safe. In July 1793, the most radical leaders of the revolution began to consolidate their power in the lead-up to the Great Terror. On July 5, Miranda was arrested again, this time at the order of the Committee of Public Safety. The Jacobins were determined to destroy their Girondin opponents, and Miranda was one of the most prominent. This time, imprisonment would not be the same. Whereas before, Miranda had been incarcerated for only a few weeks, this time, he would sit in prison for much longer. Even after the fall of the Committee of Public Safety and the defeat of the Jacobins, Miranda was still not released. Only after a year and a half, in January 1795, would Miranda finally be let out of his dungeon.

During his time in prison, Miranda had begun to lose faith in the Revolution. He would begin to write and speak to his contacts about how the Revolution had lost its initial ideals. He opposed “spreading the revolution” through military conquest and expressed his skepticism of the French government. He would write a pamphlet calling for the reformation of government to create more checks and balances to prevent dictatorship and tyranny. Given Miranda’s international connections and reputation, it could not escape the French government that he had to be taken seriously. On October 21, 1795, the Convention ordered Miranda to be arrested yet again. Although this order would be rescinded, the French government was growing very tired of Miranda.

Returning to His Roots

In 1797, the French government was prepared to deport Miranda to Guiana. He knew his time in France was up. Before he would leave, however, he would take the opportunity that being around other revolutionary exiles afforded and held what was later called the “Paris Convention.” This meeting between Miranda, José del Pozo y Sucre, and Manuel de Salas drafted an Act of Paris which set out points that would guide the South American independence movements. Independence and friendship with Great Britain and the United States, repayment to Britain for services rendered to the revolution, commercial concessions to Britain, and recognition of Miranda’s leading role in the military aspect of the revolution. These men knew that the South Americans would have a hard time freeing themselves. They needed British support.

With the Act of Paris complete, Miranda prepared to leave France. He came to the country and was filled with disgust for the absolutist French. Seeing the Revolution, Miranda became a convert to the French cause and put his life on the line to defend it. The repayment he received was accusations and imprisonment. Coming full circle, Miranda would leave France bitter against both the country and its people. He had always favored British and American models, but his experiences had only reinforced his early views.

In January 1798, Miranda would leave France and arrive in Britain. Now, at 47 years old, having seen much of the Western world, met many of its leading lights, and had his star rise, fall, rise, fall, and rise again, Miranda would now turn back to the primary thought driving his life, the freedom of Spanish America from colonial rule. No more diversions, it would now be all-encompassing.

What do you think of Francisco de Miranda’s time in America and Europe? Let us know below.

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

How Ice Cream Led to Disease in 19th Century London

In the summer heat, having an ice cream is a popular tasty and refreshing treat, and our love for ice cream, whether it’s to enjoy at the seaside or home, is not so different from the intrigue that the Victorians had with the sweet treat. Ice cream was a phenomenon that at first confused many people when served by London street vendors, especially on how to eat such a product and the coldness of the ice cream also caused some alarm as one man described ice cream as a toothache inside their mouth. This article will explore how ice cream became a concern causing transmissions of disease in the late nineteenth century and how the edible wafer cone saved lives on London’s streets.

Amy Chandler explains.

An early 19th century depiction of French noblewomen eating ice cream.

The use of ‘ice cream’ was not strictly groundbreaking in the nineteenth century, as forms of sweet iced products were available as early as the seventeenth century. During the Georgian period, many ice-cream parlours were established and sold a variety of flavours such as “chocolate, pistachio, pineapple, jasmine, artichoke, candied pumpkin, pine nuts, pear and chestnuts”.(1) These parlours were aimed at the wealthy upper and middle classes who had the finances to purchase and frequent these establishments. Ice cream became more widespread and accessible with Agnes Marshall’s recipe book entitled The book of ices, published in 1885. Ice cream became largely accessible through the second half of the nineteenth century with the boom in the ice trade, which made access and prices affordable for the general public.

Ice cream and the London streets

Ice cream soon became a popular item on the streets of Victorian London, with many street vendors selling a wide variety of flavours costing one penny or half a penny, giving the name ‘penny licks’. The glass containers were small, and customers would lick the bowls clean instead of using a spoon. These glass containers were small and could not hold much ice cream and therefore would only take a few mouthfuls before the glass was empty. The penny lick was a small glass bowl with a thick glass stem that gave the illusion that the bowl was deep and filled with much more ice cream than in reality. For some, it may have been disappointing when they realised how little dessert they were given while the ice cream vendor earned more money. The literary phrase ‘penny for your thoughts’ denotes the idea of discussing what is on one’s mind or offering to discuss a troubling subject. In the nineteenth century, the average Victorian would get more than thoughts for a penny when buying these penny lick ice creams as these glass vessels were carriers of disease. These penny licks were also on the thoughts of medical professionals who were outspoken on the unsanitary nature of selling ice cream that caused the transmission of diseases. These bowls were licked clean by the customer and ‘rinsed’ in a bowl of stagnant water full of sewage from the River Thames, and then the vendor would reuse the bowl for the next customer. This process meant that while the glass was sustainable and reusable, it was becoming the cause of disease from the customer’s use to the water used to ‘clean’ the penny lick.

Henry Mayhew, an investigative journalist, interviewed the labourers and working class in a variety of occupations to gain a record and overall image of the working class in the 1840 to 1860s. In one interview, Mayhew spoke to an ice cream vendor where he explained the “many difficulties attending the introduction of ices into street traffic” as the customers had a “confused notion” on how the “ices was to be swallowed”.(2) Due to the confusing way of enjoying an ice cream, the popularity was gradual, and some “enterprising sellers purchased stale ices from the confectioners” to sell on and make a profit.(3) Therefore, even when ice cream caused a stir and confusion, some entrepreneurs saw a way to make a profit. Mayhew’s interview also emphasised the lack of knowledge and skill vendors had with dealing and making ice cream, and some vendors “could only supply water” when offering ice cream”.(4) One vendor was sceptical whether ice cream would take off in the streets because he’d “seen people splutter when they’ve tasted them for the first time” and described the feeling of eating ice cream for the first time as it “got among the teeth and make you feel as if you got tooth-ached all over”.(5) The general public’s reaction to ice cream was mixed with confusion and delight but was slow to take off, but over time became popular with the recipe accessibility and affordable prices.

Ice cream and the spread of disease

Many medical professionals were sceptical about the selling of ice cream due to its risk of disease transmission, for example, an article written by Dr Andrew Wilson published in the Illustrated London News in 1898, highlighted concern for the general public’s health. Wilson notes that “in the interest of public health, we enact laws for the prosecution of the grocer who sells adulterated foods”, but there are no measures in place to control the “power of spreading disease broadcast which the unlicensed and irresponsible ice cream man possess[es]”.(6) Wilson continued to list the reasons why the ice cream vendors should be controlled including that these vendors lived in the “poorest and dirtiest parts of our cities”, ingredients such as milk were “kept in premises the reverse of sanitary” and finally stating that the glasses used to serve ice cream were “licked by every child” and are the “media for conveying disease of serious nature”.(7)

Furthermore, an article published in the Bristol Times and Mirror in 1894 suggested the health risks that ice cream posed, but suggested it was not because of the way it was consumed and sold but the way the product was made and stored. The press suggested that “when flour, eggs, milk, sugar and flavourings essences are stored in foul and close, evil-smelling sleeping rooms, the innocuousness of the delicious compound is open to grave suspicion”. The foul smells of the room suggest the lack of cleanliness that the product was manufactured in, which causes the health risk. The press continued to highlight several deaths resulting in the consumption of ice cream, suggesting that the way ice cream was made, through the way “eggs are pierced at each end and then blown by the mouth” to empty the contents, contributed to the deaths. The intact eggshell was sold to shooting galleries for upper-class gentlemen to practice shooting.(8) This article in the newspaper pleads that “all street vendors shall be registered” and the standard and purity of ice cream to be assured as the “poor British public goes on quietly submitting to be[ing] poisoned”.(9) This statement emphasises the lack of knowledge and understanding the general public had about the transmission of disease and how their everyday lives were impacting their health without their knowledge.

During a Parliamentary debate regarding the sale of ice cream in the streets and how the consumption of ice cream caused deaths, several samples of water and ice cream were taken from a vendor for investigation. Dr Klein, in 1894, examined these samples and concluded that the samples had traces of sewage matter and other organisms that contributed to illness and death. Due to this revelation, attention was brought to Parliament to the “danger of mouth-to-mouth infection to children sucking ices successively out of the same glass”, while also suggesting whether the measures enforced by the Public Health Acts and the Sale of Food and Drugs acts are inefficient in the “control or prohibit the sale of poisonous compounds such as theses ices”.(10) The investigation concluded that the current public health acts passed to improve sanitary conditions were not sufficient enough to prevent further illness from occurring. While the Sale of Food and Drugs Act of 1875 prohibited the sale of products such as food and drugs that were not of the “proper nature, substance, and quality”.(11)  However, this act was not extending far enough to regulate how food was served.

Furthermore, a solution was needed to resolve the growing number of cholera and tuberculosis outbreaks and other communicable diseases relating to the sale of penny licks. The solution was an edible cone made of a wafer, which is the familiar serving of ice cream we have now and the penny lick became illegal in 1926. Agnes Marshall’s recipe book included an edible cone recipe but it was not until 1902 that Antonio Valvona patented a machine for making wafer cones.(12)

Conclusion

In conclusion, the accessibility of ice cream to the general public on the Victorian streets of London became a curiosity but also a danger as the general public was unaware that they were getting a lot more than they paid for in the form of disease. Italian influence and culture of ice cream making from Italian immigrants after the 1848 revolutions in Europe introduced flavours and processes that were not seen before in Britain. The Italian influence created a solution that reduced cholera outbreaks and improved the sanitary conditions amongst ice cream vendors.

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

Bristol Times and Mirror, ‘Notes of the day’, Bristol Times and Mirror (12 Oct 1894).

HC Deb 23 June 1898, vol 59, cols 1223.

Marks, T. ‘Ice cream: the inside scoop’, 9 July 2020, The British Museum blog < https://blog.britishmuseum.org/ice-cream-the-inside-scoop/ >.

Mayhew, H. London labour and the London poor: Volume 1. (London, Griffin, Bohn, and Company, 1861).

Moss, R. ‘The complete history of ice cream cones’, 13 May 2020, Serious Eats < https://www.seriouseats.com/ice-cream-cone-history >.

Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875, s6.

Wilson, A. ‘Science Jottings’, Illustrated London News (16 July 1898).

References

1 T.Marks, ‘Ice cream: the inside scoop’, 9 July 2020, The British Museum blog < https://blog.britishmuseum.org/ice-cream-the-inside-scoop/ >[accessed 20 June  2022].

2 H. Mayhew. London labour and the London poor: Volume 1. (London, Griffin, Bohn, and Company, 1861),p.207.

3 Ibid.,p.207.

4 Ibid.,p.207.

5 Ibid.,p.207.

6 A. Wilson, ‘Science Jottings’, Illustrated London News (16 July 1898).

7 Ibid.

8 Bristol Times and Mirror, ‘Notes of the day’, Bristol Times and Mirror (12 Oct 1894).

9 Ibid.

10 HC Deb 23 June 1898, vol 59, cols 1223.

11 Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875, s6.

12 R. Moss, ‘The complete history of ice cream cones’, 13 May 2020, Serious Eats < https://www.seriouseats.com/ice-cream-cone-history >[accessed 21 June 2022].

Shaka Zulu and Great Man History

Shaka kaSenzangakhona, or Shaka Zulu, came to rule a sizeable part of southeast Africa in the first half of the 19th century. But was he an example of Thomas Carlyle’s Great Man Theory of History? Cale Gressman considers this question.

A depiction of King Shaka Zulu in the 1820s. He is holding an assegai and heavy shield.

Historical Perspectives: How We Interpret the Past

How do historians craft history? There is no simple or easy way to answer this question, as there is a near-infinite number of ways to interpret events in our past. However, there are a multitude of different historical perspectives that can be incredibly useful in framing how a historian views the past. One of these comes from the 19th-century historian Thomas Carlyle. Carlyle is famous (and infamous) for a number of his ideas, however, he is probably most famous for his theory of history. This is the Great Man Theory of History. This theory of history holds that most of history can be explained by the influence of great men or heroes as he terms them. They, with their cunning, superior intelligence, etc… shape the world around them to move history forward.

Needless to say, this theory of history has largely been discredited, with historians instead focusing on other theories less focused on individual rulers and thinkers, but instead on groups and systems as a whole. This seems reasonable. It does not matter how mighty or brilliant a ruler is, if the system they work in does not work or the people under them refuse to comply, then that’s all she wrote. However, there are some individuals in history that give one pause, because they seem to be the archetype for the Great Man Theory. One of these is Shaka Zulu.

Shaka Zulu: a Biography

Born in 1787, Shaka Zulu rose from obscurity to become the overlord of his little piece of the world. This little piece of the world was the southeast of Africa, which at this point in time was composed of hundreds of different African kingdoms, clans, and tribes. Born into the rather insignificant Zulu kingdom, Shaka would soon make the name Zulu synonymous with power and resistance to colonialism.

Shaka’s real name was Sigidi kaSenzangakhona, so it should be obvious why we know him as Shaka. He was born of an apparently illicit love affair between his father Senzangakhona, chief of the Zulu, and his mother Nandi, a daughter of a Langeni chief. This affair went over like a lead balloon and after a brief sojourn in Senzangakhon’s court, Nandi was driven out. She, fortunately, found refuge with her people, the Langeni. However, Shaka would later be given to the Mthethwa chiefdom and became part of the court of their chief Dingiswayo, who welcomed this foreign boy into his court.

Shaka would make a name for himself on the battlefield in his early adulthood when he was drafted into the military of the Mthethwa tribe. Herein he discovered his latent talent for war and tactics and quickly rose up the ranks of the Mthethwa to become one of Dingiswayo’s commanders. After the death of his father, Shaka would receive permission and aid from Dingiswayo to seize the Zulu throne from his senior brother Sigujana. Shaka would achieve this goal and even carve up some more surrounding territory to add to the Zulu domain, including that of the Langeni. While his skill as a commander was proven, it still remained that Shaka was still the vassal of Dingiswayo.

This all changed around 1818 when the Mthethwa and the Ndwandwe went to war. Herein, Dingiswayo was captured by the Ndwandwe’s leader Zwide and later killed. According to some accounts, this might have been a bid on Shaka’s part to obtain the Mthethwa throne, but this is unconfirmed. What did occur is that Shaka immediately assumed control of the collapsing Mthethwa state after the death of their chief. Desiring to be rid of yet another rival, Zwide and his forces that same year invaded Shaka’s realm, but were subsequently routed, and the Ndwandwe was ultimately absorbed into the Zulu kingdom. There were no major rivals left in the area, so Shaka did what I guess a Shaka does and continued to conquer.

The result of these conquests is that the Zulu would now rule most of Natal and KwaZulu. With no major rivals, Shaka and his apparently unstoppable army would demand the submission of all of the surrounding chiefdoms. If they agreed, they were allowed to maintain local administrative control. If they did not, they were either annihilated wholesale or driven off their land. This resulted in a series of mass migrations from the region that resulted in perhaps as many as one million deaths, as entire people groups were forced from their homes and collided with other groups. The effects of these migrations were felt as far as the Zambezi River in modern-day Zimbabwe.

The Zulu Kingdom under Shaka would quickly morph into a Spartan-like military state. All young men would reside in military settlements completely separate from women until such a time as they had earned the right to marry. Unmarried women would receive much the same treatment. The cattle that the Kingdom’s economy was reliant upon were largely centralized by Shaka and his subordinates. In 1824, the British of the Cape Colony in the western part of South Africa would come into contact with the Zulu. Sensing an opportunity for trade and the potential of more and greater weapons Shaka allowed them to build Port Natal to conduct said trade.

Shaka was a cruel leader. Killing at the slightest provocation, his actions did not engender him to those around him. It is no wonder then that in 1828, a mere ten years after taking the Zulu throne, he would be assassinated by his half-brothers and bodyguard. The system that Shaka had built was a rigid militaristic society so formidable that it would in later years go head to head with the might of the British Empire. While they would ultimately lose this engagement, the Zulu and their founder would go down in history as a symbol of African military prowess and strength.

An Example of Great Man History?

The case of Shaka Zulu does give one pause. Here is a relative nobody (yes he was technically nobility, but that did not exactly benefit him due to his mixed blood and illegitimacy) who managed to create a military system that defeated the British for a time, who were at the height of their colonial power. Here was a guy so ruthless that he managed to transform the entirety of southeast Africa, displacing and eliminating entire people groups, all without the intervention of colonial powers. This set of events is not a common event. Yes, you will have great leaders within every group and population, but rarely one that is so transformative and deadly.

The reason for the mention of the lack of colonial intervention is that throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the power balance globally was affected dramatically by the presence of either Europeans themselves or by their technology, particularly weapons. New Zealand exploded in violence during the so-called Musket Wars (1807-37) between the various groups of Maori. As the name would belie, the introduction of firearms was a big component. The Comanche stampeded through most of West Texas during the late 18th century creating what some have referred to as Comanchura or the Comanche Empire. This was the result of them adopting the horse and becoming what could be quite reasonably argued the best light cavalrymen in the world at the time. Horses were not indigenous to the Americas.

Shaka did not rely on colonial intervention or really any of their technology, unlike the other examples listed. He modified existing weapons, tactics, and social structures to meet his ends. He was the revolution; revolution did not come to him. Perhaps it is time to reexamine the Great Man Theory of History. Not entirely, but it at least should not be sold down the river wholesale. Individuals can make a significant impact on the world around them. Perhaps it is better to try to look at history in such a way as to measure the impact individuals, no matter their status, have on history and the world around them.

What do you think of Shaka Zulu? Let us know below.

Sources

Cockshut , A.O.J. “Thomas Carlyle.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 1 Feb. 2022, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Carlyle.

“The Great Man Theory of Leadership Explained.” Villanovau.com, Villanova University , 10 Sept. 2021, https://www.villanovau.com/resources/leadership/great-man-theory/#:~:text=The%20Great%20Man%20Theory%20was,biographies%20belonging%20to%20great%20men.

“The Musket Wars.” New Zealand History, Ministry of Culture and Heritage , 11 Sept. 2015, https://nzhistory.govt.nz/war/new-zealands-19th-century-wars/the-musket-wars.

Ricks, Thomas E. “'The Comanche Empire': A Book That Changed How I Understand Our History.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, 18 July 2016, https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/18/the-comanche-empire-a-book-that-changed-how-i-understand-our-history-2/.

“Shaka Zulu.” South African History Online, SAHO , 9 Nov. 2020, https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/shaka-zulu.

Major General Gordon and the Pursuit of Empire in North Africa

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. Here Marvin McCrary looks at Gordon’s role after China, notably in Sudan in the 1870s and 1880s.

If you missed it, read part one on Major General Gordon in China here.

A depiction of Major General Gordon in Khartoum.

Upon his return to England the question in the minds of everyone was what was next for Charles George Gordon. Gordon was posted to Gravesend in October 1865, as the Commandant of Engineers in charge of renovating the Lower Thames in Gravesend and Tilbury. Shortly after his arrival, Gordon received news that his father was dying. Taking a leave of absence, Gordon hurried to father's bedside and nursed him until he died. This personal tragedy, coupled with the death of one of his brothers, would have a profound effect on Gordon and the development of his stance towards religion. What had been at one time a more superficial approach to faith, Gordon became resolute in his determination to emulate Christian charity in thought as well as deed, and he returned to Gravesend a different person. Gordon's official duties occupied him from morning until the afternoon, after which he threw himself into charity. He visited the sick and dying, gave money to the poor, and taught at the local school. The street urchins were special objects of his concern–he bought them clothes, fed them, nursed them when they were ill, and found them meaningful employment around town. He went on to found, and partly finance, a charitable society aimed at alleviating the plight of itinerant workers. Given his official status in Gravesend, Gordon had many opportunities to enjoy a busy social life, but it would appear that he chose to shun these in favour of what he saw as a higher calling. Reflecting on his time in Gravesend, Gordon would later record in his journal that the years he spent there were the best of his life.

To Africa

Unfortunately, such idyllic times were not meant to last, as circumstances beyond his control would find Gordon having to take up yet another task in the far reaches of the British Empire. In 1882, British forces occupied Egypt to safeguard their investment in the Suez Canal; the canal considerably shortened the trade routes to India and the East. The British set up a colonial administration under Khedive, similar to a viceroy, Isma’il Pasha. The Khedive was known for his lavish spending, as well as his desire to turn Egypt into an extension of Europe. This caused outrage among large numbers of Egyptians, who blanched under what they saw as unwarranted foreign interference in Egypt’s affairs. In occupying Egypt, this led to British involvement in neighboring Sudan, which had been occupied in turn by the Egyptians. Cut off from the civilized world, Sudan was a poverty-stricken land of disease, slavery, and corruption. Although Egypt was committed to the abolition of slavery, the revenue which slavery generated was too tempting for officials to ignore.

In 1871, Gordon had been promoted to full colonel and became the British commissioner on the Danube Commission. In the hopes of diverting foreign eyes, Isma’il  asked for the British to appoint Gordon to the position of governor of Equatoria province in 1873, which was then comprised much of what is today South Sudan and northern Uganda. When offered the same salary as the previous governor, Gordon surprised the Khedive when he asked for a more modest salary of £2,000 per annum. Gordon swept like a whirlwind throughout the province, weeding out corruption, combating injustice, and exposing oppression, ultimately upsetting the slave trade. Through his efforts to ban slavery, Gordon had come into conflict with an Egyptian official. Having thoroughly exhausted himself, Gordon informed the Khedive that he did not wish to return to the Sudan, and he chose instead to return to Europe. The departure of Gordon left a power vacuum the likes of which his successor did not have the capacity to fill, as the officials settled old scores upon the inhabitants of the towns and villages along the Nile. The people withered under the yoke of corruption, providing kindling for the fires of rebellion.

Uprising

In 1882, the year of the British invasion of Egypt, the Mahdi, a messianic Muslim leader, dedicated to a Jihad, or holy war, to cleanse Islam of its impurities, had united various groupings in the Sudan and threatened the whole basis of the Egyptian overlordship there. As more and more Egyptian forces fell back upon Khartoum, at the junction of the Blue and White Niles, the British government came under considerable pressure to solve the crisis. The rise of Mohammed Ahmed, a former boat-builder’s apprentice, who believed himself to be the long-awaited Mahdi, was born of the latent fanaticism within Islam. Like Hong Xiuquan a few decades earlier, Ahmed was able to take advantage of the poverty and hopelessness amongst the people, striking a cord in the minds of those who would listen to him, driving them to action and self-sacrifice with the promise of salvation.

In London, the uprising became a matter of intense political debate, but there was no clear-cut solution as to the best course of action. On one side, there were those who advocated for the abandonment of the Sudan and the withdrawal of British forces from Egypt. The opposition argued against a withdrawal from Egypt, as they saw Sudan as a strategic safeguard to allow Britain to protect her interests along the Canal. Ultimately, the government needed someone to conduct an orderly withdrawal of British and Egyptian troops down the Nile. In Britain, everyone except the Government saw Gordon, a major general by this time, as the natural choice to go to the Sudan as Governor General. Amongst Gordon’s supporters were army officers, evangelical clergymen, Egyptologists, philanthropists and businessmen. Even Queen Victoria and her cousin, the Duke of Cambridge, Commander-in-Chief of the Army, counted themselves among Gordon's ardent admirers. As John Waller writes, Prime Minister William Gladstone was reluctant to call upon Gordon, but in the hopes of placating the public clamor, Gladstone asked Evelyn Baring, British Agent-General in Egypt, whether Gordon would be of any use. Baring had a few days earlier recommended to the British Government that the Sudan be evacuated; any usefulness that Gordon might have would clearly be linked to the supervision of such a withdrawal.

Sudan

At the beginning of 1884, Gordon had no interest in the Sudan, having been approached by King Leopold of Belgium to serve as governor of the Congo. Gordon was prepared to accept and resign his pension, but was later convinced otherwise. Gordon’s good friend, Adjutant General, Sir Garnet Wolseley, was instrumental in changing Gordon’s mind. Wolseley was opposed the Gladstone’s policy in Sudan, and after meeting with Wolseley at the War Office, Gordon left convinced that he had to go to Sudan. Hoping to disentangle himself from the agreement he had made with Leopold, Gordon would subsequently go to Brussels to settle the issue, which left the latter furious. Gordon set out for and arrived in Khartoum in February of 1884 with orders to begin an evacuation of troops. Baring was known to have had his reservations about Gordon, considering his reputation for unpredictability and an inclination for disregarding the rules. Since his earliest days as a student, Gordon possessed an impetuous, headstrong nature which often drew him into conflict with authority figures.

Gordon may have considered his prior experience in help to suppress the Taiping Rebellion beneficial in his struggle against the Mahdi. Coupled with his belief that he was in Sudan as an instrument of God’s will, led to Gordon taking the initiative. Gordon did not obey his orders, because, his journals reveal, he believed that a shortage of suitable boats made evacuation too dangerous. It could be argued that the agreed upon instructions were both overly optimistic and woefully vague. Gordon would perhaps have been better served if he had made withdrawal his foremost concern, but his attempts to somehow reconstruct alternative Sudanese rule as an obstacle to the Mahdi, meant that he delayed withdrawal, and also precipitated a determined and full-scale Mahdist assault upon Khartoum. Altogether, he seemed to confirm the misgivings of those who did not have much faith in him to begin with. Indeed, it seemed as though the government which had appointed him with much trepidation now became exasperated with Gordon’s perceived self-righteousness.

When the Mahdi besieged Gordon in Khartoum in 1884, the government was implored by everyone, including Queen Victoria, to send a relief mission. They refused until October 1884. Gladstone, the prime minister, was furious at Gordon for, apparently, disobeying his orders. The relief column reached Khartoum 2 days after it fell to the Mahdi in late January of 1885. How exactly General Gordon met his end, no one is quite sure. Some think he was killed along with the rest of the garrison; others think he was captured and executed in the camp of the Mahdi. Official records suggest he was captured and a ransom was asked for, and when it was refused, Gordon was killed. In either case, the death of Gordon was met with public mourning. Whether he was desirous of a martyr’s death or not, Gordon’s heroic death ironically provided him with the stardom he had so actively tried to evade during his lifetime. Statues were erected and schools named after him. Copies of his journals, personal reminiscences about him, and biographies sold in their millions right up until the First World War.

What do you think of Major General Gordon’s life? Let us know below.

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

Author’s Note: When I originally outlined what I would like to write about Gordon, I did not intend to examine his life after China, but throughout my research, I found his story to be compelling. It was his personality and character which I found most interesting, and it is hoped that this will serve as inspiration for future study about a great hero. For a more comprehensive and thorough examination, I highly recommend John Waller’s biography.

Sources

Barthrop, Micheal. War on the Nile: Britain, Egypt and the Sudan 1882-1898. New York: Sterling Publishing, 1986.

James, Lawrence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 1997.

Waller, John H. Gordon of Khartoum: The Saga of a Victorian Hero. New York: Atheneum, 1988.