How did the Confederacy Fund its War Effort in the U.S. Civil War?

Following secession and the onset of the American Civil War, the southern Confederate states needed the funds and infrastructure to wage war. This article addresses the “sinews of war” from the Confederacy’s perspective: where did the money needed for weapons and supplies during the Civil War come from? How its needs were determined,  procured, transported and distributed is a complex story. Lloyd W Klein explains.

Above: George Alfred Trenholm, an influential supporter of the Confederacy and the Confederate States Secretary of the Treasury from 1864-65.

With secession, the Confederate States of America (CSA) recognized that war was a likely possible consequence.  After First Manassas, it was clear that a long struggle was ahead, which posed a series of problems for the CSA as to how it would obtain weapons. A rebellion cannot be sustained without armaments, and money is required to purchase them if your country has no manufacturing capacity, and doesn’t have foundries for their production.  Initially, federal forts were seized and weapons taken, but ultimately, a network of war goods supply would need to constructed.

Where did the Confederacy get financial support to purchase weapons and carry out a war with a limited treasury? Moreover, if there was no existing capacity to produce weapons, and must be imported from overseas, how did European armaments make it to the CSA despite a blockade? When the war began, the CSA had no manufacturing capability to produce artillery tubes. Tredegar was the only major iron foundry south of the Mason-Dixon line. There were no large scale rifle manufacturers. The armaments and weapons the Confederacy used were mostly made in Europe at the start of the war, and brought over despite the blockade.

The Blockade

General Winfield Scott predicted that a civil war would be a long affair when everyone else thought it would be over in weeks. He was a top-notch military strategist who was a hero of the Mexican War. He saw long in advance that the weakness of a Southern nation was its absence of manufacturing, supplies, and weapons production. Therefore, he developed what came to be known as the Anaconda Plan, named after the snake that squeezes its victims and suffocates them to death. The idea was that by blockading the southern ocean ports and the Mississippi River, the CSA military would slowly die as its supplies dwindled and the country isolated from its trading partners elsewhere.

Other Union commanders were not sanguine about the idea, preferring a rapid attack strategy to a slow suffocation. Although Anaconda was not implemented fully, President Lincoln proclaimed a blockade in April 1861. This required the monitoring of 3,500 miles of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, including 12 major ports, notably New Orleans and Mobile.

The Union blockade was a powerful weapon that eventually destroyed the Southern economy, at the cost of very few lives, just as General Scott planned it. The river campaigns in the west crushed the CSA and the blockade raised the costs of overseas trade. The measure of the blockade's success was not the ships that slipped through but the thousands that never tried.

At first, the blockade was only partially effective; perhaps only about 10% of freighters attempting to evade the blockade were intercepted. However, the Union Navy gradually became better at the task; by 1864, about one-third of ships attempting to run the blockade were intercepted, and the only ships with a reasonable chance of evading the blockade were blockade runners, which were specifically designed for speed and maneuverability.

Beating the Blockade

Finding a way to deliver supplies and arms despite the blockade was a necessity. The only way its military could be supplied and the economy kept afloat was by international commerce. Therefore, the CSA had to build a fleet of ships to evade the blockade of its ports.

Blockade runners were steam ships built for speed in order to make its way through the Union blockade that extended some 3,500 miles along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastlines and the lower Mississippi River. To get through the blockade, the runners ran at night and if detected, they would attempt to outmaneuver or outrun the ships on blockade patrol. These vessels carried cargoes to and from neutral ports often located in Nassau and Cuba where neutral merchant ships in turn carried these cargoes, usually coming from or destined to England or other points abroad. Inbound ships usually brought badly needed supplies and mail to the Confederacy while outbound ships often exported cotton, tobacco and other goods for trade and for sale.

How did the CSA obtain the money to purchase these ships?

Charles Kuhn Prioleau was the most highly placed and influential supporter of the Confederacy in Britain. He was the sole British partner and representative of Fraser, Trenholm, & Co., the unofficial bankers to the Confederacy in Europe, which helped supply the South with arms throughout the war. He was a South Carolina cotton merchant who was the senior partner of the firm, based in Liverpool, acting as the European banker for the CSA. As such, this firm purchased military armaments, transported them to the US through the blockade, and extended the CSA credit when it couldn’t meet its obligations.

Prioleau was a partner in Fraser, Trenholm. He had moved to Liverpool in the early 1850s to establish a steamship line from England to Charleston. With his connections to Fraser, Trenholm, he became very well respected in Europe. When the war broke out, the CSA deposited large amounts of funds with his firm. Prioleau became the sole CSA agent in England, purchasing armaments and shipping them on blockade runners financed by Fraser, Trenholm.  Prioleau made a huge fortune on these transactions.

Who Made the Arrangements?

James Dunwoody Bulloch was the Confederacy's primary foreign agent in Great Britain. In 1861, almost immediately after the attack on Fort Sumter, he traveled to Liverpool to establish a base of operations. Britain was officially neutral in the conflict between North and South, but private and public sentiment of most of the English people – although not the monarchy -- favored the Confederacy. British firms were eager to purchase cotton smuggled past the Union blockade.  The proceeds provided the South with its only real source of hard currency.

His primary mission was to sell Confederate cotton, then use this currency to purchase arms and ammunition, uniforms, and other supplies for the war effort. Bulloch arranged for the purchase of Confederate cotton by British merchants, paid in cash, then purchased (mostly by credit) and transported armaments and other war supplies to the South.

Bulloch was employed by the shipping firm of Fraser, Trenholm & Company to buy and sell Confederate cotton, using this currency to purchase arms and ammunition. Fraser Trenholm & Co. became, in effect, the Confederacy's international bankers.  He operated blockade runners and commerce raiders. Bulloch arranged for the construction and secret purchase of commerce raiders as well as many of the blockade runners that acted as the Confederacy's commercial lifeline. In essence, Bulloch was the most significant international Confederate operative. His half-sister Martha was the mother of President Theodore Roosevelt and paternal grandmother of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.

Bulloch worked with John Laird Sons & Co. in Birkenhead, across the Mersey River estuary from Liverpool, to build warships for the South. John Laird was the main ship builder in Liverpool. His business built the CSS Alabama and most of the other blockade runners. He was mayor of Birkenhead, across the river from Liverpool.

Warships could not legally be built in Britain for the Confederates as a consequence of its neutrality.  Bulloch circumvented this problem by ensuring that the ships, while clearly designed for battle, were not actually fitted with armaments in Britain. Through this strategy, the ships could be presented as civilian vessels when they left British jurisdiction, but they would then travel to Terceira, a Portuguese island located in the Azores, where they were re-fitted and armed. This blatant subterfuge successfully confused the legal definition of what could be defined a warship in Great Britain.

In 1862, Bulloch arranged for the CSS Florida and the CSS Alabama to cross the Atlantic and join the Confederate Navy. Other British-built ships soon followed. Bulloch's smokescreen, the British Government’s reluctance to become involved, and the complicity of Liverpool's port officials, who were Confederate sympathizers, allowed the CSS Alabama to successfully sail through. Confederates used the CSS Alabama to attack Union merchant and naval ships for two years, before the ship sank in 1864.

Who Did They Work With?

Although the British government remained neutral, the local government and port in Liverpool strongly favored the Confederacy. Businesses in the city tended to be favorable to the Confederate cause and had a long tie with slave trading. Liverpool had been the primary slave trading port and its ships and merchants were strongly associated with the slave trade. These businesses and owners formed what was called The Southern Club. Some were families with historical involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Nearly all had homes located in a single area called Abercromby Square. PM Gladstone also had a home there. There was a business and political conspiracy in Liverpool favoring the CSA, and it’s existence is clear. Prioleau lived at 19 Abercromby Square. The individuals who lived in Abercromby Square designed and built the ships. This included: improved propelling navigable vessels and the construction of metal, wood, and iron ships. sold arms to the Confederacy and built many of the blockade running ships.

The Man Behind the Curtain

George Alfred Trenholm was the principal partner of Fraser, Trenholm, manipulating all of the levers that allowed the building of blockade runners and the purchase of arms.  He was without a doubt the role model Margaret Mitchell used for Rhett Butler.  He was tall, handsome, fearless, crafty, highly intelligent, and very rich. This shipping and banking magnate from Charleston, South Carolina masterminded and made a fortune during the war.

Trenholm’s grandfather was a major slave owner in Haiti before the slave revolution.  Trenholm inherited large holdings of land and slaves. At age 16 he joined a cotton brokerage based in Charleston called John Fraser and Co. In 1853, he rose to partner and became its managing partner when Fraser died. He was one of the wealthiest men in the US, owning ships, hotels, docks, plantations, and cotton.  When secession happened, he moved his firm’s HQ from NYC to the West Indies and built an ironclad and 12 ships for the Confederacy. He owned 60 commercial ships running the blockade and he became even wealthier.  He worked directly with the Confederate government to supply their military needs, including arranging for funding for the building of blockade runners in England.

Fraser, Trenholm & Company was originally a commercial firm based in Charleston, S.C., with offices in New York City, that shipped cotton to Great Britain, among other ventures. When secession was declared, Trenholm saw a substantial business opportunity and moved his firm’s headquarters from to the West Indies.  During the war, the firm served as the overseas banker of the Confederate States of America, financing the supply of weaponry and essential goods in exchange for cotton, tobacco, and turpentine. His firm initially financed an ironclad and 12 ships for the Confederacy. Fraser, Trenholm and Company diversified to become an international bank representing the CSA, eventually owning 60 commercial ships running the blockade and he became even wealthier.

How did Fraser, Trenholm profit? Behind every one of these clandestine transactions for arms, supplies, and blockade running, military or commercial—stood Fraser, Trenholm, & Co. and its overseas director and Abercromby Square resident, Charles Prioleau.  Remember that Prioleau was in Liverpool and he was the one who contracted for building ships using designs for blockade running made by British firms, all of which were members of the Southern Club. A profit was made at every step by the business and its principals. So, on  the outward bound trips, cotton and other products were transported and sold for profit, and on the inbound trips, armaments, and all on ships built and owned by Fraser, Trenholm. The firm collected service fees on every transaction, received credit and cash internationally, and pocketed the proceeds.

Trenholm also served as Secretary of the Treasury of the Confederacy during the last year of the Civil War, an obvious choice since was building the fleet of ships on credit for the South. In essence, this private firm WAS the Confederate Navy, WAS the military supply line, and WAS the main fleet of blockade runners. The CSS Alabama was the most successful of these. Fraser, Trenholm remained highly respected until the end of the war when it went “bankrupt”.

The Supply Network

Prioleau worked directly with the Confederate government to supply their military needs. On board the ships were the weapons and armaments that the CSA needed for the war effort. But how did the agents in Europe know what was needed at any moment on the battlefield on this side of the pond? The answer was Brig Gen Josiah Gorgas, the Chief of Ordnance.  His experience made him the perfect man to serve as the linkage between industry and the military.

Born in Pennsylvania, he graduated from West Point and immediately served in the ordnance department. During the Mexican War, his job was to ensure that the army was supplied appropriately  from arsenals in the US. He routinely sought positions in the South because of his opposition to Republicans and abolitionism. By the time of the Civil War, he had served in almost every arsenal in the country. President Davis immediately hired him and he moved to Richmond. He was responsible for ensuring that artillery tubes and rifles were delivered through the blockade. He established armories to store the materials so when needed, they could be transported easily to the front lines. His job was to create an armaments supply system literally from nothing and without much money.

He interacted directly with Prioleau to assure stockpiling of supplies and timely transport of the needed goods on blockade runners. Fraser, Trenholm arranged for the purchase and transportation of weapons on Gorgas’s order. Gorgas estimated in 1863 that Fraser Trenholm had made $9 million running the blockade. And they imported $4.5 million in cotton to England. The Confederate Army never lacked weapons. It was said that the only two things that worked well in the Confederacy was General Lee’s Army and General Gorgas’s supply lines. By 1863 Gorgas had several factories producing rifles. There was also a small foundry in Selma, AL.

After the War

As the southern economy tanked, Prioleau used his reputation to extend substantial credit to keep the war machine going. When the CSA collapsed and its credit called, Prioleau moved to Belgium.

Trenholm as CSA Treasury Secretary was in charge of the Confederate gold when Richmond fell. So, the part of the movie at the end of the war where the dashing Rhett Butler is in jail and accused of making off with the gold of the Confederacy? Not so far-fetched. Except there was no Scarlett involved; he was married with children and remained so forever (her name was Anna, FYI.) It would not be surprising if whatever Confederate Gold there was found its way into his pockets. Trenholm was captured and arrested escaping from Richmond, and his firm went bankrupt.

Trenholm never faced legal actions to make him responsible for treason, despite the fact that in essence, he bankrolled the Confederate war machine. Unquestionably, he hid his money overseas, in the Caribbean and London, and that his agent Charles Prioleau funneled the money here and there during and probably after the war.

How did Trenholm get out of taking responsibility for these obviously treasonous acts? Trenholm, just like Rhett Butler, was imprisoned for treason. Just like Rhett, he was believed to have possession of the Confederate gold.  Just like Rhett, he used his charm and influence (and surely his money), which extended into the United States Army and the White House, to get out of prison and secure a pardon. The pardon was especially clever since he never officially asked for it, nor did he ever admit that he had done anything wrong to deserve one.

After his release, Trenholm fought the Federal government in lengthy lawsuits. The government claimed Trenholm and his partners had illegally converted today’s equivalent of billions of dollars in Confederate assets. He disingenuously claimed he was bankrupt, saying he had lost everything in the war. And just like Rhett, he was cleared and completely exonerated.  But he reorganized, made another fortune after the war in phosphate mining and railroads, and became a philanthropist funneling money to black education. And then lived a lavish life until his death in 1876. Trenholm died a very wealthy man at age 69. Tomorrow is another day.

Prioleau moved back to London and died in 1887. He is buried in London. He was never held to account for his activities or war time debts.

Who Ultimately Paid for the Confederate War Machine?

In the international admiralty law, a foreign power cannot build a navy for an unrecognized combatant. After the Confederate surrender, the U.S. government filed suit against Great Britain for its conduct during the Civil War. The claim was heard at the Tribunal of Arbitration in Geneva in 1871. The US claimed direct and collateral damage against Britain. The US sued for the covert assistance given to the Confederate cause in the form of construction of commerce raiders and cruisers built or equipped in British ports for the Confederacy. Since the CSS Alabama was the ship that caused the US the most damages, the name given to the case was the "Alabama Claims".

The most serious charge was that the English allowed the Confederate cruisers "Alabama", "Shenandoah", and "Florida" to be armed in British ports. These ships created significant “damage” to the American merchant marine. Early attempts to resolve this dispute were unsuccessful. At one point, US Senator Charles Sumner stated that England was responsible for half of the cost of the war, and that the US would consider Canada as payment made on such a claim. This shocked the British and they realized that they had better come to some agreement.

In the Treaty of Washington, on May 8, 1871, it was agreed that the "Alabama Claims" should be referred to 5 arbitrators: one to be named by the US, one by England and one each by the King of Italy, the emperor of Brazil and the president of Switzerland. A commission was formed and met in Geneva on December 15, 1871.

The decision was given on September 14, 1872. England was held liable for the Alabama (unanimous), Florida (4-1), Shenandoah in part (3-2) and the tenders of both the Alabama and Florida (unanimous). The total amount of damage to be re-paid was $15,500,000, the US being left to settle with private claimants. This was a high reward at that time. In fact, by 1882 only 3/5 had been paid, requiring yet more adjudication. The British also lost their investment of $1,100,000 in Confederate Bonds.

Conclusion

How the Confederacy financed and constructed its blockade running and developed its war supply production network is rarely discussed.  Fraser, Trenholm and Company, working through its agents Charles Prioleau and James Dunwoody Bulloch, created an entire banking and military supply network, including a navy. A single privately held merchant company, a cotton export business, which diversified to become an international bank representing the CSA and then built and operated ships to run the blockade was the central mechanism. Trenholm had direct connections to the CSA Government and military. His business contracted and built the ships, took the orders for arms, arranged and took the risk to transport the cargo in both directions, acted as CSA banking agent in Britain, and represented the CSA government, all for profit. Huge profits were made at every step, in which the business received actual cash but paid in CSA credit. The business represented the CSA in European circles, and had ties to British businesses and its prime minister, Gladstone. None of this money was ever recovered, and the principals were never brought to justice, although many years later the British did have to pay damages.

What do you think of how the Confederacy funded itself during the American Civil War? Let us know below.

References

Abercromby Square and The Southern Club.

https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/liverpools-abercromby-square/abercromby-southern-club

James D. Bulloch: Secret Agent and Mastermind of the Confederate Navy By Walter E. Wilson, Gary L. McKay.

George Alfred Trenholm and The Company That Went to War 1861-1865 By Ethel Trenholm Seabrook Nepveux

Trauma during War: Part 1 - The American Civil War

The US Civil War was the first modern war in which the productive capacities of the industrial state were completely integrated into the war effort. This has significant impacts on the ability to kill and injure the enemy. Here, Richard Bluttal starts a three-part series on the impacts of trauma during wars by looking at the American Civil War.

Clara Barton, a nurse and founder of the American Red Cross, in the 1860s.

In early May 1864, Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant (1822-85) launched his Overland campaign, in which his Army of the Potomac clashed with Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia in a series of battles in Virginia. Lt. J. E. Mallet of the Union army distinctly remembers the sensations experienced upon being hit.” I imagined that a cannonball had struck me on the left hipbone, that it took a downward course, tearing the intestines in its course, and lodged against the marrow of the right thigh bone. I fancied I saw sparks of fire, and curtains of cobwebs wet with dew, sparkling in the sun. I heard a monstrous roar of distant cataracts. I felt my teeth chatter, a rush of blood to my eyes, ears, nose and to the ends of my fingers and toes. I tried to get up, fell, and "became completely insensible” He described his wait on the battlefield (at least a day) and the journey to the hospital transport ship quite matter-of-factly. Men in his regiment on the ards. The heavy soft, unjacketed lead bullet flattened out on impact, which produced severe wounds and carrying pieces of clothing into the wound.

The number of combat engagements during the American Civil War was the largest in history to that time, and exponential increases in the killing power of weapons produced rates of casualties beyond the imagination of military medical planners. In a four-year period, 2,196 combat engagements were fought, in which 620,000 men perished—360,000 in the Union Army and 260,000 in the Confederate Army. Some 67,000 Union soldiers were killed outright, 43,000 died of wounds, and 130,000 were disfigured for life, often with missing limbs; 94,000 Confederate soldiers died of wounds. Twice as many soldiers died of disease during the war than in combat. During the 1860s, doctors had yet to develop bacteriology and were generally ignorant of the causes of disease. Generally, Civil War doctors underwent two years of medical school, though some pursued more education. Medicine in the United States was woefully behind Europe. Harvard Medical School did not even own a single stethoscope or microscope until after the war. Most Civil War surgeons had never treated a gunshot wound and many had never performed surgery. Medical boards admitted many "quacks," with little to no qualification. Yet, for the most part, the Civil War doctor (as understaffed, underqualified, and under-supplied as he was) did the best he could, muddling through the so-called "medical Middle Ages." Some 10,000 surgeons served in the Union army and about 4,000 served in the Confederate. Medicine made significant gains during the war. However, it was the tragedy of the era that medical knowledge of the 1860s had not yet encompassed the use of sterile dressings, antiseptic surgery, and the recognition of the importance of sanitation and hygiene. As a result, thousands died from diseases such as typhoid or dysentery.

Why did so many have to die? The deadliest thing that faced the Civil War soldier was disease. For every soldier who died in battle, two died of disease. In particular, intestinal complaints such as dysentery and diarrhea claimed many lives. In fact, diarrhea and dysentery alone claimed more men than did battle wounds. The Civil War soldier also faced outbreaks of measles, smallpox, malaria, pneumonia, or camp itch. Soldiers were exposed to malaria when camping in damp areas which were conductive to breeding mosquitos, while camp itch was caused by insects or a skin disease. In brief, the high incidence of disease was caused by inadequate physical examination of recruits, ignorance, the rural origin of soldiers, neglect of camp hygiene, insects and vermin, exposure; lack of clothing and shoes; poor food and water.

The Germ Theory, which states that microscopic bacteria and viruses caused disease, was not yet understood (Sohn). These pathogenic microorganisms thrived in filthy environments, and the conditions soldiers lived in were horrendous. Because of water shortages in camps, items were rarely cleaned. This includes all medical tools. If scalpels or forceps were dropped on the ground, they were "only washed in tap water," according to one Civil War surgeon (Ledoux). Between operations, tools were not sterilized. Doctors rarely washed their hands, and even less often were their garments cleaned. No one yet knew why these post-surgery infections took place, nor how to prevent them.

Organization of Battlefield Medical Care

On July 16, 1861, Clara Barton watched more than 30,000 “noble, gallant, [and] handsome” Federal soldiers, “armed to the teeth,” march out of Washington to confront a Confederate army near Manassas Junction, this was the first engagement, Battle of Bull Run, against confederate forces. Many around the country, soldiers and citizens alike, naively expected a short conflict with no need to prepare for large numbers of wounded. In the days before the First Battle of Bull Run, as the US Army neared contact with the enemy, the army’s medical department made no preparation to set up hospital sites until after the battle began. No permanent military hospital sites had been established in the city. Instead, sick soldiers were languishing in abandoned warehouses, churches, schools, and other public buildings. That meant Washington’s “hospitals” were already overflowing when the army left for battle. There was simply no space for more patients in these makeshift facilities. A significant number of Union wounded were left on the battlefield because the medical department didn’t have authority over most of the ambulances. The medical disaster at Bull Run in July 1861 convinced Clara Barton, ordinary citizens, and even the Union medical department to take the medical needs of the US Army in the aftermath of a battle more seriously,

How medical care was delivered on and off the battlefield changed during the war. Early on, stretcher bearers were members of the regimental band, and many fled when the battle started. There was no military ambulance corps in the Union Army until August of 1862. Until that time, civilians drove the ambulances. Initially the ambulance corps was under the Quartermaster corps, which meant that ambulances were often commandeered to deliver supplies and ammunition to the front.

If a soldier was injured during battle, volunteers took the howling victim behind the front lines using a stretcher made from canvas and wooden poles. From there, a horse-and-buggy-type wagon would cart them to the nearest field hospital. The "stretcher-bearers" would assess the condition of the patient, dividing them into three main categories: mortally wounded, slightly wounded, and surgical cases. They would then assist the patient to the best of their ability in the back of the jostling horse-drawn vehicle. This process was called "Letterman's Ambulance," devised by the director of the Army of the Potomac, Jonathan Letterman. His system evacuated the injured more efficiently and paved the way for our modern ambulance system.

Combat Related Injuries

In order to be reported, a soldier had to be either transported to or make it back to a field hospital, and this may have resulted in an underreporting of deaths from cannon fire.  Most injuries resulted from the Minié ball invented by the French officer Claude-Etienne Minié in 1849. The Minié ball is a 0.58-caliber bullet that is slow moving and is made from soft lead. It flattens on impact and creates a wound that grows larger as the bullet moves deeper into tissues. It shatters bone above and below impact and usually does not exit. Because of its relatively slow muzzle velocity, it brought bits of clothing, skin, and bacteria into the wound. The majority of gunshot wounds occurred in the upper and lower extremities, but the fatality rate from these wounds was low. Only 18% of wounds were to the abdomen, but these were more often fatal from intestinal perforation in the preantibiotic era.

Non-Combat Related Death and Illness

A variety of factors contributed to a high rate of noncombat-related illness, including overcrowded and filthy camps. Latrines were often not used or were drained into drinking water supplies or not covered daily. Food quality was poor from several standpoints. It was poorly stored, poorly cooked, and lacked enough vitamin C to prevent scurvy. The Army of the Potomac eventually added a number of rules: camps had be pitched on new ground and drained by ditches 18 inches deep, tents had to be struck twice a week to sun their floors, cooking had to be done only by company cooks, all refuse had to be burned or buried daily, soldiers had to bathe twice a week and change clothing at least once a week, and latrines had to be 8 feet deep and covered by 6 inches of dirt daily.

There were few useful medications at the time, and about two thirds of all drugs were botanicals. In 1860 Oliver Wendell Holmes stated at the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Medical Society, “I firmly believe that if the whole material medica, as now used, could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for mankind,—and all the worse for the fishes”. Medications that were helpful included quinine for malaria, morphine, chloroform, and ether, as well as paregoric. Many others were harmful. Fowler's solution was used to treat fevers and contained arsenic. Calomel (mercurous chloride) was used for diarrhea. Mercury is excreted in high concentration in saliva. This led to excessive salivation, loss of teeth, and gangrene of the mouth and cheeks in some patients.

Battlefield Wounded and Surgery

Battlefield surgery was also at best archaic. Doctors often took over houses, churches, schools, even barns for hospitals. The field hospital was located near the front lines -- sometimes only a mile behind the lines -- and was marked with a yellow flag with a green "H". Anesthesia's first recorded use was in 1846 and was commonly in use during the Civil War. In fact, there are 800,000 recorded cases of its use. Chloroform was the most common anesthetic, used in 75% of operations. In a sample of 8,900 uses of anesthesia, only 43 deaths were attributed to the anesthetic, a remarkable mortality rate of 0.4%. Anesthesia was usually administered by the open-drop technique. The anesthetic was applied to a cloth held over the patient's mouth and nose and was withdrawn after the patient was unconscious. Surgeons worked all night, with piles of limbs reaching four or five feet. Lack of water and time meant they did not wash off their hands or instruments. Bloody fingers often were used as probes. Bloody knives were used as scalpels. Doctors operated in pus-stained coats. Everything about Civil War surgery was septic. The antiseptic era and Lister's pioneering works in medicine were in the future. Blood poisoning, sepsis or Pyemia (Pyemia meaning literally pus in the blood) was common and often very deadly. Surgical fevers and gangrene were constant threats. One witness described surgery as such: "Tables about breast high had been erected upon which the screaming victims were having legs and arms cut off. The surgeons and their assistants, stripped to the waist and bespattered with blood, stood around, some holding the poor fellows while others, armed with long, bloody knives and saws, cut and sawed away with frightful rapidity, throwing the mangled limbs on a pile nearby as soon as removed." If a soldier survived the table, he faced awful surgical fever. However, about 75% of amputees did survive.

Amputation was the most successful method used to halt the spread of deadly infections, like gangrene, caused by battle wounds during the Civil War. Contrary to popular belief, the process was not as barbaric as it seemed. The process was efficient and effective. After a soldier was injured on the battlefield, he was immediately bandaged by medical volunteers. He was shuttled to either the nearest field hospital or medical tent at a camp using the new ambulance system. On the way, the wounded soldier was given whiskey to ease his shock. Once the patient, still in great distress, was set on an "operating table," a chloroform- soaked cloth was held onto the patient's nose and mouth. Tourniquets were tightly secured above the amputation area to prevent the patient from bleeding out. A long, though often dull, blade was used to sever tissue and ligaments, then a serrated saw was used to cut through the bone. One man who witnessed an amputation said this: "Tables about breast high had been erected upon which the screaming victims were having legs and arms cut off. The `surgeons and their assistants, stripped to the waist and bespattered with blood, stood around, some holding the poorfellows while others, armed with long,  bloody knives and saws, cut and sawed away with frightful rapidity, throwing the mangled limbs on a pile nearby as soon as removed.” An experienced field surgeon could perform an amputation in under ten minutes.

Medical advances and improvements leading up to World War 1

The contributions to medical care that developed during the Civil War have not been fully appreciated, probably because the quality of care administered was compared against modern standards rather than the standards of the time. The specific accomplishments that constituted major advances were as follows. 1. Accumulation of adequate records and detailed reports for the first time permitted a complete military medical history. This led to the publication of the Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion, which was identified in Europe as the first major academic accomplishment by US medicine. 2. Development of a system of managing mass casualties, including aid stations, field hospitals, and general hospitals, set the pattern for management of the wounded in World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. 3. The pavilion-style general hospitals, which were well ventilated and clean, were copied in the design of large civilian hospitals over the next 75 years. 4. The importance of immediate, definitive treatment of wounds and fractures was demonstrated, and it was shown that major operative procedures, such as amputation, were optimally carried out in the first 24 hours after wounding. 5. The importance of sanitation and hygiene in preventing infection, disease, and death among the troops in the field was demonstrated. 6. Female nurses were introduced to hospital care and Catholic orders entered the hospital business. 7. The experience and training of thousands of physicians were upgraded, and they were introduced to new ideas and standards of care. These included familiarity with prevention and treatment of infectious disease, with anesthetic agents, and with surgical principles that rapidly advanced the overall quality of American medical practice. 8. The Sanitary Commission was formed, a civilian-organized soldier's relief society that set the pattern for the development of the American Red Cross.

In August of 1862, a physician named Jonathan Letterman set up the first ambulance system in the Union’s Army of the Potomac. With the support of Hammond, he instituted a three-step system for evacuating soldiers from the battlefield and established the Ambulance Corps. Their first stop was a field dressing station, where tourniquets were applied, and wounds were dressed. Then they moved to a field hospital, where doctors performed emergency medical procedures. Finally, ambulances would transport patients to a large hospital far from the battlefield for long-term treatment. The U.S. military uses the same basic system today.

What do you think of trauma during the US Civil War? Let us know below.

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

Superstitions at Sea Throughout History

Throughout history, many people have crossed the seas searching for new lands, a new life, cargo and leisure resulting in millions of journeys undertaken by boat. Life at sea was treacherous and many sailors faced uncertainty as to what their voyage would entail. The many myths and legends of sea monsters, curses and superstitions attempt to offer an explanation for natural events or understand things people couldn’t explain, such as sea creatures. Popular culture has romanticised the idea of sea myths and superstitions that belittle the beliefs that many men and women governed their lives and actions throughout history. Many films and television shows explore plots where crews are cursed for immoral actions at sea, such as Pirates of the Caribbean and The Curse of the black pearl.  Superstitions surrounding sea travel dictated when to sail – not on Fridays – and who could and couldn’t be aboard the ship, such as priests. Some of these beliefs have religious connotations, such as not starting a voyage on a Friday. The idea of good and bad luck is dictated by our actions or decisions like a lucky pair of socks or a ritual before taking an exam. While the ritual itself is not the decider of the future, it makes people feel like they have control in a situation that has many variables.

Here, Amy Chandler explores the types of superstitions that were believed by sailors and why they became popular throughout history.

A depiction of the Mary Celeste in the 1860s (then known as Amazon).

Origins of superstitious beliefs

Superstitious beliefs or behaviours “arise through the incorrect assignment of cause and effect”. (1) In order to explain an event or action that is strange, an individual assigns what they think is a logical reason based on their current knowledge. (1) During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there was a rise in belief in witchcraft and the idea of what a witch was and how they behaved. It is not difficult to understand how this susceptibility to the idea of witchcraft, voodoo and individuals possessing ideas, knowledge and power is beyond humanly possible in small communities. Many sailing families pass down stories and superstitions from generation to generation. These types of beliefs set the scene for other ideas of mermaids, krakens and sea monsters to thrive in the imagination. These stories and beliefs thrive on fear.

The fear of the unknown was common amongst sailors, with vast areas of the world undiscovered and undocumented, so meaning that little was understood. Superstitions when sailors were aboard and before they set sail helped many crewmembers have control in an uncontrollable situation. It is naval tradition to bless the boat and its crew before sailing; for example, in Britain it is customary to bless a ship by breaking a bottle of wine or champagne. (2) Life was difficult with long periods away from land, poor hygiene and sanitary conditions, disease was rife, and diet was inadequate.

Furthermore, boats throughout history have changed dramatically from straight sterns to curved ones. (3) Oak was the most common wood for battleships in the eighteenth century because of its strong structure, while ships are now made of steel and reinforced to ensure a safer voyage, especially with the increase of cruise ships with many floors, guests, facilities and weight. The change in sailing boats and increased knowledge in scientific and technological advancement reduces the risk at sea.  The idea of sea superstitions and myths are still prevalent in popular culture and society.

Influence of literature on myths

Literature like Homer’s The Odyssey mentions Greek mythology like Scylla and Charybdis, Circe and other monsters that commonly lure men to their deaths within myths and popular culture. While these figures featured in Odysseus’ journey are fictional, they suggested an explanation as to why ill-fated events happened through an individual's actions. Similarly, in Samuel Coleridge’s poem, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, the crew shoots down the albatross and dooms their voyage.

A famous example of a ship that was abandoned with no trace of the passengers is the Mary Celeste, discovered on December 5, 1872 abandoned near Azores, Portugal. The boat went through a name change, major structural changes and owners before this voyage. Originally called the Amazon, the boat underwent many damages and mishaps, was sold in 1868 to Richard W Haines who renamed the ship. Once sold again after major refurbishments, the ship set sail on November 7, 1872 from New York City to Genoa, Italy with 1,700 barrels of alcohol. The ship’s log recorded two weeks of bad weather and when the ship was spotted by British ships near Portugal, they realised the boat was abandoned with no crew or captain, but the longboat was missing. (4) On closer inspection, the boat had taken on water, but was still sailable. The crew and captain were never found and what happened is only speculation. This incident is an example of an ‘ill-fated’ voyage where the ships experienced bad weather and the name of the boat was changed. While it is logical to assume the crew left the boat to avoid sinking and used the longboat to escape, it still encouraged superstitious thought. Authors like Arthur Conan Doyle was inspired by the story and anonymously published J. Habakuk Jephson’s Statement in The Cornhill Magazine in January 1884. (5) The story became popular and the press thought this was a real account from a survivor of the Mary Celeste.

In some incidents, the sensation of curses and myths becoming a reality is one that is fuelled by the popular press and thrived on creating reports that caused a stir. During the famous Titanic’s voyage in 1912 the ship was also said to be transporting an ancient Egyptian artefact, the ornate coffin belonging to Princess of Amen-Ra. It was not until after the discovery of King Tutankhamun’s tomb in 1922, that the sensational story of an Egyptian curse was widely commented on. This idea of a curse was then applied in retrospect to Ancient Egyptian artefacts, such as the one aboard of the Titanic.

Popular superstitions at sea

Many weird and wonderful sailing superstitions exist, to bring good luck included having tattoos of lucky animals such as pigs or roosters, stepping on the boat with the right-foot, cats were good omens and having salt in their pockets are just a few. Similarly, it was bad luck to have bananas on board, red-headed women or women in general, whistling at sea, losing a hat overboard and saying goodbye before a voyage. These are just several of the many superstitions sailors believed throughout history.

In the Nottingham Evening Post, February 7, 1931, reported a crew of British trading ship sailing near New Zealand began throwing cargo overboard because they “believed it was bringing them bad luck”. (6) This report is one of few recorded events of maritime superstition that impacted the day-to-day workings of a ship. The reports continues that sailors would usually indulge in their superstitions in private “without advertising it to the outerworld” suggesting that people who aren’t sailors are not exposed to the myths and legends do not understand why sailors behaved in certain manners.

Similarly, a report in the Fleetwood Chronicle in 1911 suggested that many people were aware of sailing superstitions, such as “the ill-luck which is said to belong to the ship whose name has been changed” and was a “belief [that] prevails among seafaring men that the vessel whose name ends in ‘A’ rests, also, under an evil spell”. (7) This report continues to give evidence of incidents where a ship with a name ending in an ‘A’, sinks or has a disaster. This offers a clear reason, albeit incorrect, to why a ship has a disaster, such as HMS Victoria that sunk in the Mediterranean in 1893, killing 358 crewmembers. While this incident has a logical and reasonable explanation of colliding with another ship, it fuels that idea that some names, places or objects are ‘cursed’ or ‘ill-fated’.

Another report in the Westerham Herald in 1917, recounts that while aboard a ship travelling from Massina to Malta a passenger noticed the ship’s Captain, an experienced sailor “standing at the bow, muttering and pointing with his finger”. (8) The captain was supposedly breaking the force of waves by making a ‘cross’ shape with his fingers and speaking a prayer. The account suggests when asked the captain replied that every ninth wave was dangerous and fatal to the ship’s safety, and the passenger said it was “strange to say, every ninth wave was much greater than any of the others, and threatened the ship with immediate destruction”. (8) Interestingly, when the ninth wave approached the ship with a captain who was signing a ‘cross’, the wave began to break and the danger was avoided.  The report continues that “Arab sailors believe[d] that the high seas off the coast of Abyssinia [were] enchanted” and whenever they sailed through these waters would “recite verses which they suppose have a tendency to subdue them”. (8) This report emphasises that superstitions and actions that cause good or bad luck differs around the world and cultural beliefs. Despite this passenger not having a logical reason why the waves were breaking, seeing the captain perform a ritual that coincides with the danger subsiding provides evidence to those who witness it that these superstitions and rituals work. These experiences are told to others and reported that reinforces these actions and continues to support the idea of good and bad luck.

Science and superstition

Scientifically, there is a logical reason for why sailors claim to see floating, ghost ships. Objects that appear to float above the horizon or appear distorted are due to the Fata Morgana, a type of mirage. This mirage was named after the Arthurian legend of Morgan Le Fey that were believed to occur on the Strait of Messina where fairy castles floated in the air and false lands were created by witchcraft to lure sailors to their death. (9)

Scientifically mirages and superior mirages are created by atmospheric refraction where light bends through varying density of temperature or air creating distorted images, where an object in the distance is longer, higher, and ghostly. Whereas a Fata Morgana is a superior mirage that is more complex. The mirage is created below the original object and distorts an object to a point of being unrecognisable. These mirages are not limited to the sea, but are seen on land, polar or desert terrain and use any distant objects, like boats, coasts or islands to create an image. These images also change rapidly and stack on top of each other creating an imposing image of elongated and compressed versions of the original object. Therefore, this change in temperature, light refraction and distortion creates the appearance of ghostly and distorted image that has no resemblance to the original objects. (9) These boats appear to sit in the waves, on top of the water or parallel with the original object in a ghostly image. Sailors did not understand science in the same way we do now and seeing such a phenomenon would prove to many men that the stories and legends were true.

Conclusion

Sailor superstitions are engrained in how the public view the profession historically and many tourist seaside towns play on the idea of pirates in smugglers cove, strange stories of ghost ships and noises that draw visitors into the local history of the area. Real events and fiction become blurred and embellished over time, especially as there are no sailors from history alive to contradict what they may have seen or heard. It is difficult to understand what is fact or fiction when reading historical accounts. Scientifically we can attempt to explain why these stories developed and demystify the myths and legends through studying mirages and weather conditions that alter the senses. However, there is a large majority of the sea that has not been discovered and there is a high possibility that strange creatures that have mutated over time do exist through evolution. One of the many allures and fears of the sea is the unknown and what could be lurking beneath the sea’s surface. This unknown is what fiction and film thrive on and use to create imaginative situations and worlds that have some resemblance to real events caused by nature, such as deep caverns and whirl pools.

What do you think of superstitions at sea? Let us know below.

Now read Amy’s article on the history of medicine at sea here.

References

(1) K.R. Foster. H. Kokko, ‘The evolution of superstitious and superstition-like behaviour’. Proc Biol Sci. vol. 7 (2009) 2009, p.31.

(2) Royal Museums Greenwich, ‘Ship launching ceremonies’, 2023, Royal Museums Greenwich <https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/ship-launching-ceremonies> [accessed 24 April 2023].

(3) Royal Museums Greenwich, ‘Ship building: 800 – 1800’ , 2023, Royal Museums Greenwich <  https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/shipbuilding-800-1800 > [accessed 24 April 2023].

(4) A. Tikkanen. ‘Mary Celeste’. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2023, <https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mary-Celeste > [accessed 20 April 2023].

(5) The Arthur Conan Doyle Encyclopaedia, ‘J. Habakuk Jephson's Statement’, The Arthur Conan Doyle, 2023, < https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/index.php/J._Habakuk_Jephson%27s_Statement >[accessed 19 April 2023].

(6)British Newspaper Archive, ‘Superstition of the sea’, Nottingham Evening Post, (7 Feb 1931).

(7) British Newspaper Archive, ‘Good and Bad luck on the ocean waves’, Fleetwood Chronicle, (11 July 1911)

(8) British Newspaper Archive, ‘Superstitions of the sea’,Westerham Herald,(3 Nov 1917)

(9) SKY brary, ‘Fata Morgana’, SKY Brary, 2023 < https://www.skybrary.aero/articles/fata-morgana >[accessed 15 April 2023].

The Japanese Meiji Restoration: Building a Modern Empire

Imperialism leads to war, bloodshed, and generations suffering from its consequences. It is rare to see imperialism yield positive outcomes. While imperialism was not that favorable in China, the cabinet of Emperor Meiji brought about drastic changes in Japan that laid the foundations of the advanced nation we know today. The advanced military technologies adopted by Japan were a significant factor in its victory in the First Sino-Japanese War. Was modernization the only smart step toward the building of a strong country? What did the Tongzhi Restoration lack in comparison to the Meiji Restoration? Disha Mule explains.

If you missed them, you can read Disha’s article on the First Sino-Japanese War here, and how the war may have led to the collapse of the Qing dynasty here, and Korea in the 19th century here.

An. image of Emperor Meiji in 1873. Photograph by Uchida Kuichi.

The Tokugawa Shogunate

As far back as the twelfth century, Japan was ruled by shoguns or military generals. The emperor did not exercise much power. The shogun did not need the emperor’s permission to run the administration. The country was divided into numerous domains, each ruled by a daimyo. The stability of this system was disturbed during the fifteenth century when Japan found itself in a constant state of war, that continued for about a hundred years. It was in 1603, with the establishment of the Tokugawa shogunate, that the chaos ended. After its victory at Sekigahara, one of the major problems for the new shogunate was impressing its superiority upon the entire country.

The founder of the shogunate, Tokugawa Ieyasu, had a clever way of keeping the daimyos in check. This system was called sankin kotai. The daimyo had to be present in the shogun’s castle in Edo (now Tokyo) from time to time. In his absence, he had to leave his family there. The main purpose behind keeping these hostages was to ensure there was no possibility of any rebellion against the shogun. This system was made more strict during the time of the third shogun, Tokugawa Iemitsu(1).

However, the shogun’s rule was not entirely unquestioned. The daimyos at Choshu and Satsuma were among the strongest of his opponents. He ensured that these tozama (outsiders) daimyos remained far away from the capital of Edo(2).

And so, the Tokugawa rule continued for over two centuries. This period is also called the Edo period and saw many developments in the economic and educational fields.

The Western World Comes Knocking

As many European powers had started establishing colonies worldwide, the constant threat of invasion from the West loomed over kingdoms in Asia. It was inevitable that the kingdoms in the east, that had remained secluded for centuries, had to open up. The isolation policy of Japan (sakoku) prevented the entry of foreigners and prohibited Japanese people from leaving the country. The only Western country that had contact with Japan during this period of seclusion was Holland. This changed with the signing of the Treaty of Kanagawa.

Japan was coerced into signing the Treaty of Kanagawa when Commodore Matthew Perry of the US Navy brought his fleets to Japanese shores. China’s defeat in the First Opium War was an important turning point in Japan’s perception of the West. The Japanese were convinced that the ‘barbarians’ would stop at nothing until they had everything going their way(3). The unequal treaties were calculated plans made by the Western powers to exploit the resources of the other country involved. The Treaty of Nanjing opened up five Chinese ports; the Treaty of Kanagawa was meant to serve a similar purpose. By agreeing to the treaty, the Japanese cleverly appeased the Westerners and at the same time, got a chance to explore Western advancements.

Unlike the Chinese, the Japanese were already educated about the happenings around the world(4). The Dutch traded with Japan through the port of Nagasaki. They were demanded to submit reports to the shogun, detailing everything that they learned about the world from the ships arriving at Nagasaki(5). The Tokugawa regime had also set up a similar outpost at Pusan, in order to maintain diplomatic relations with Korea(6).

It is also noteworthy that during the 1860s, the Qing dynasty in China was trying to bring back its popularity through the Tongzhi Restoration. The chief driving force behind the movement was the emperor’s mother, Empress Dowager Cixi. But it was not an easy task.

China was home to a diverse population. It consisted of the Hans, the Mongols, the Manchus, etc. These communities often had many clashes, making governing them difficult. The improper execution of Confucianism was labeled as the root cause of all the difficulties of the state(7).

The Self-Strengthening Movement in China helped in uplifting the situation to some extent. In 1868, the Burlingame Mission was sent to countries like the US, Britain, France, etc. In the same year, China and the US signed the Burlingame-Seward Treaty which reduced the hostility between the states and made traveling less complicated. Despite its intentions of reforming China, the Burlingame Mission could not make much of an impact due to the reluctance of certain pro-Confucian officials(8).

On the contrary, Japan was a more homogenous society. The sense of solidarity was strong amongst the Japanese youth who spoke the same language and belonged to the same culture. This unity proved to be advantageous for the shogunate as these scholars would later become the leaders of their domains and help in smooth administration(9). Japan had also started sending missions to other countries, even before the famous Iwakura Mission during the Meiji period. Traveling became much easier for Japanese citizens, thanks to the Tariff Convention of 1866 which removed the ban on overseas travel(10). A Chinese writer called Wei Yuan had written a book containing details about Western countries. Ironically, it was more popular among the Japanese than the Chinese(11).

Emperor Meiji

The Choshu and Satsuma domains were not particularly on friendly terms, but they shared a strong dislike for the shogunate. The age-old saying ‘The enemy of an enemy is a friend’ seems apt to describe the formation of the Satcho alliance in 1866.

The shogunate went to war with Choshu in 1866, where it had to accept defeat. The next months were marked with numerous rebellions - as many as 106 peasant protests(12). The daimyo at Tosa, another anti-Tokugawa domain, proposed to make the administration bicameral. The shogun seemed to come to terms with the idea, provided the Tokugawas would be the rightful owners of their land(13). However, the Choshu and Satsuma domains were not pleased with the fact that the shogun’s family would still, within the new system, manage to hold a considerable amount of power with the lands they possessed. They marched to Kyoto and convinced the crown prince Mutsuhito, who had just ascended the throne, to take the power in his hands. This was the start of a massive civil war between the armies of the Tokugawa shogunate and the imperial loyalists, otherwise known as the Boshin War.

The last shogun, Tokugawa Yoshinobu, resigned on November 9, 1867. This formally marked the end of the shogunate. The power was handed over to the emperor. Mutsuhito was now known as Emperor Meiji.

In 1868, in the coronation ceremony of the new emperor, it was proclaimed that decisions would be taken after consulting the public and ‘knowledge would be sought from all around the world’(14). Many Western military traditions like firing a twenty-one-gun salute soon became an eminent part of Japanese military traditions. The emperor himself wore Western clothing but did not entirely give up his Japanese roots(15). It was the Emperor's cabinet that was responsible for the rapid changes in the society (the emperor was just a boy of 15 when he was crowned). But the emperor was sincerely curious about the developments in the nation. He valued education - both traditional and Western(16). He also encouraged the production of Japanese goods. Sakuma Shozan’s ideology of blending Eastern ethics with Western science is said to have influenced Meiji greatly(17). While major changes kept happening, a mission was sent abroad in 1871 to learn about the West with a closer lens. The Iwakura Mission was a milestone in the process of establishing a distinct identity of the imperial state and nullifying the effects of the unequal treaties.

It is quite interesting that both China and Japan faced similar kinds of crises. Japan systematically tackled them by making the necessary changes that the circumstances called for. The rise of imperialism in Japan overlapped with the decline of the Qing dynasty in China. The Qings, undoubtedly, made a blunder by ignoring the telltale signs of their incompetence, resulting in a rather humiliating defeat in the war with Japan in 1894.

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

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

Bibliography

Gordon, Andrew. A Modern History of Japan: From Tokugawa Times to the Present. Oxford University Press, 2003.

Jansen, Marius B. The Making of Modern Japan. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000.

Keene, Donald. Emperor of Japan: Meiji and his World, 1852-1912. Columbia University Press, 2002.

Vogel, Ezra F. China and Japan: Facing History. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2019.

Wilson, Noell H. “Western Whalers in 1860s’ Hakodate: How the Nantucket of the North Pacific Connected Restoration Era Japan to Global Flows.” Chapter. In The Meiji Restoration: Japan as a Global Nation, edited by Robert Hellyer and Harald Fuess, 40–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

References

1 Marius B. Jansen, The Making of Modern Japan, ‘The Tokugawa State’, 56-57.

2 Ezra F. Vogel, China and Japan: Facing History, ‘Trade without Transformative Learning, 838–1862’, 52.

3 Andrew Gordon, A Modern History of Japan: From Tokugawa Times to the Present, ‘The Overthrow of the Tokugawa’, 48-49.

4 Vogel, China and Japan, ‘Responding to Western Challenges and Reopening Relations, 1839–1882’, 67-68.

5 Ibid.

6 Gordon, A Modern History of Japan, ‘The Tokugawa Polity’, 18.

7 Vogel, China and Japan, ‘Responding to Western Challenges and Reopening Relations, 1839-1882’, 69.

8 Ibid, 71.

9 Ibid, 66.

10 Noell H. Wilson, The Meiji Restoration: Japan as a Global Nation, ‘Western Whalers in 1860s’ Hakodate: How the Nantucket of the North Pacific Connected Restoration Era Japan to Global Flows.” 48-49.

11 Vogel, China and Japan, ‘Responding to Western Challenges and Reopening Relations, 1839–1882’, 67-68.

12 Gordon, A Modern History of Japan, ‘The Overthrow of the Tokugawa’, 57-58.

13 Ibid.

14 Vogel, China and Japan: Facing History, ‘Responding to Western Challenges and Reopening Relations, 1839–1882’, 73.

15 Keene, Emperor of Japan, 'Chapter 23', 214-215.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid, ‘Chapter 21’, 193.

Why did the Spain Lag Behind Much of Europe in the Mid-1800s?

The Industrial Revolution, which saw many countries move from predominantly farming economies to industrial ones, began in England in approximately 1840. However, Spain did not experience that movement until at least roughly 1880. Janel Miller explains some of the reasons why.

The group who built a tramline from Barcelona to Mataro in mid-19th century Spain.

Multiple Reasons for the Delay

As late as 1855, only about 20 percent of Spain’s land was considered cultivated. The rest had been “blasted by a ruinous system of exploitation.” Around the same time, criminals and beggars were rampant, formal education was not widespread and free speech was not common.

For those reasons and likely others, very few roads had been built by 1955. Compounding Spain’s ability to transport what goods it did produce and thus grow its economy was that its geography is more mountainous than all but one other European country (Switzerland). Spain also had “virtually no” rivers or canals that ships could sail on smoothly.   

In the limited instances where roads did exist, it appeared that few bridges spanned waterways well into the 1860s, hindering some transportation efforts. In addition, in the 1850s and 1860s, a majority of Spain’s workforce was employed in an agricultural-based business. Spain’s coal, which was being used in large amounts by the United Kingdom (and likely at least several other countries) to support the industrial plants being built on their landscapes, was also apparently inferior to that of some of its neighbors.

As one author put it when describing Spain during some of the years discussed here, “the rest of the world had long since awakened to a life of freedom and joined in the race of modern development; Spain was still asleep, drugged with the fumes of prescribed ignorance and dictated intolerance.”

Spain’s Gross Domestic Product

Spain’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew only about 1.1 percent annually from 1850 until 1935. This increase was better than countries such as Italy and Britain, whose yearly GDP grew 0.7 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively, during that 85-year span.

However, Spain’s GDP was lower than that of France and Germany, each of whose annual GDP increased 1.6 percent each year from 1850 to 1935.

Efforts to Modernize Hit Roadblock

Various regimes in the 1850s and 1860s enacted several laws to try and modernize its economy. Some of these laws are discussed below.

One such law was known as the Disentailment Law in the English language. This law allowed the taking of land and the awarding of lands that once belonged to the church, state and local governments to the highest bidder.

Another such law, whose name in English translated to the General Railway Act, removed many of the “administrative” difficulties in building railways that had previously been in place.

A third law was known as the Credit Company Act in the English language. This law allowed the creation of investment banks that were similar in scope to other countries that had already begun the economic modernization process.

However well-intended these laws may have been, Spain experienced a financial crisis from 1864 to 1866 that at least partially hindered that country’s growth.

In Context

Spain’s economy during the 1850s and 1860s, when looked at how it compared to some of its European neighbors, may remind some of how Haiti’s economy compares with the relatively nearby United States. (Haiti was chosen randomly for the purposes of the comparisons that follow.)

In the United States, the GDP of the United States is more than $20 trillion, placing it first among all countries, while Haiti’s GDP is approximately $21 billion, and the poorest (or almost the poorest) country in the Americas per head of population. In addition, while roughly 10.5 percent of U.S. workers are in the agricultural, food and related businesses, about 66 percent of Haitian workers are employed in farming.   

Determining the appropriate GDP to maintain a decent standard of living and the suitable number of agricultural workers a country should employ is beyond the scope of this blog.

That said, since the 1860s, Spain has gained economic ground against its neighbors, providing hope that in the future, the difference between the lower, middle and upper classes in all countries will become less apparent.

What do you think of Spain’s position in the mid 19th century?

Now read Janel’s article on the role of Brazil in World War 2 here.

References

Brittanica.com Editors. Brittanica.com. “Industrial Revolution.” https://www.britannica.com/event/Industrial-Revolution. Accessed April 2, 2023.

Tapia FJB and Martinez-Galarraga J. “Inequality and Growth in a Developing Economy: Evidence from Regional Data (Spain 1860-1930).” Social Science History. Volume 44, Number 1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-science-history/article/inequality-and-growth-in-a-developing-economy-evidence-from-regional-data-spain-18601930/802599439621953BD012A8797A684DC7. Accessed March 31, 2023.

Delmar A. “The Resources, Production and Social Condition of Spain.” American Philosophical Society. Volume 14, Number 94, Pages 301-343. https://www.jstor.org/stable/981861. Accessed March 21, 2023.

Simpson J. “Economic Development of Spain, 1850-1936.” The Economic History Review. Volume 50, Issue 2, Pages 348-359. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0289.00058. Accessed March 21, 2023.

Delmar A. “The Resources, Production and Social Condition of Spain.” American Philosophical Society. Volume 14, Number 94, Pages 301-343. https://www.jstor.org/stable/981861. Accessed March 21, 2023.

Clark G and Jacks D. “Coal and the Industrial Revolution.” European Review of Economic History. Volume 11, Number 1, Pages 39-72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41378456. Accessed April 18, 2023.

Delmar A. “The Resources, Production and Social Condition of Spain.” American Philosophical Society. Volume 14, Number 94, Pages 301-343. https://www.jstor.org/stable/981861. Accessed March 21, 2023.

Moro A, et al. “A Twin Crisis with Multiple Banks of Issue: Spain in the 1860s.” European Central Bank. No. 1561. Published July 2013. Accessed March 31, 2023.

WorldPopulationReview.com Editors. WorldPopulationReview.com. “GDP Ranked by County 2023.” https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/by-gdp. Accessed April 17, 2023.

USDA.gov Editors. USDA.gov. “Ag and Food Sectors and the Economy.” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/. Accessed April 17, 2023.

NationsEncyclopedia.com Editors. NationsEncyclopedia.com. “Haiti-Agriculture.” https://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Haiti-AGRICULTURE.html. Accessed April 17, 2023.

Simpson J. “Economic Development of Spain, 1850-1936.” The Economic History Review. Volume 50, Issue 2, Pages 348-359. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0289.00058. Accessed March 21, 2023.

Amazing Women in the Wild West

When we think of the Wild West, we usually picture cowboys, rangers, and formidable gangsters who followed their own laws. However, women also left their mark on this piece of American history.

In the 1800s, the way of life in the American West demanded tough character from both men and women. In order to survive and thrive, they had to be cunning, quick-witted, and often merciless. Not to mention skilled at shooting firearms. Men weren’t the only colorful figures of the Wild West. Women proved easily their equal.

It was during this transition period of the Old West that several women established names for themselves, names easily as famous as their male counterparts.  There has been little written about some of these unhearled  women but each one had a major impact in the journey West and formation of our nation.

Richard Bluttal explains.

A picture of Calamity Jane, around the year 1880.

Calamity Jane (1856-1903)

Martha “Calamity” Jane Cannary was a frontierswoman who earned her nickname after rescuing a military Captain involved in a Native American ambush. How did Martha Jane Canary go from an orphaned prostitute to one of the most famous women in the Wild West? In Wyoming, she began to develop the identity that would make her famous as Calamity Jane.

With questionable character, boldness, and the ability to captivate, Calamity Jane was a woman-of-all trades. Following the military from fort to fort on the frontier, Jane was no stranger to the Wild West.

Far from a blushing rose, Jane’s life story is peppered with wild tales that still inspire filmmakers and writers to this day. She was even known to claim children in her company as her own, only to never be seen with them again.

Calamity Jane, one of the rowdiest and adventurous women in the Old west , was a frontierswoman and professional scout, who was known for her being a friend to Wild Bill Hickok and appearing in Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show.

In 1870, she joined General George Armstrong Custer as a scout at Fort Russell, Wyoming, donning the uniform of a soldier. This was the beginning of Calamity Jane’s habit of dressing like a man. Heading south, the campaign traveled to Arizona in their zest to put Native Americans on reservations. In her own words, Calamity would later say of this time, that she was the most reckless and daring rider and one of the best shots in the West.

Some legends say that she disguised herself as a man to accompany soldiers as a scout on expeditions, including the 1875 expedition of General George Crook against the Lakota. She developed a reputation for hanging out with the miners, railroad workers, and soldiers—enjoying heavy drinking with them. She was arrested, frequently, for drunkenness and disturbing the peace.

In 1877 and 1878, Edward L. Wheeler featured Calamity Jane in his popular Western dime novels, adding to her reputation. She became something of a local legend at this time because of her many eccentricities. Calamity Jane gained admiration when she nursed victims of a smallpox epidemic in 1878, also dressed as a man.

How did Jane get the moniker "Calamity Jane"? Many answers have been offered by historians and storytellers. "Calamity," some say, is what Jane would threaten to any man who bothered her. She also claimed the name was given to her because she was good to have around in a calamity, such as the smallpox epidemic of 1878. Maybe the name was a description of a very hard and tough life. Like much in her life, it's simply not certain.

Charley Parkhurst (1812-1879)

Charley Parkhurst was a legendary driver of six-horse stagecoaches during California’s Gold Rush — the “best whip in California,” by one account.

Times were rough for ladies in the Wild West, so this crackerjack stagecoach driver decided to live most of her life as a man. Born in 1812, Parkhurst lived well into her sixties, in spite of being a hard-drinking, tobacco-chewing, fearless, one-eyed brute. She drove stages for Wells Fargo and the California Stage Company, not an easy or particularly safe career. The job was treacherous and not for the faint of heart — pulling cargos of gold over tight mountain passes and open desert, at constant peril from rattlesnakes and desperadoes — but Parkhurst had the makeup for it: “short and stocky,” a whiskey drinker, cigar smoker and tobacco chewer who wore a black eyepatch after being kicked in the left eye by a horse. In California, she quickly became known for her ability to move passengers and gold safely over important routes between gold-mining outposts and major towns like San Francisco or Sacramento. “Only a rare breed of men (and women),” wrote the historian Ed Sams in his 2014 book “The Real Mountain Charley,” “could be depended upon to ignore the gold fever of the 1850s and hold down a steady job of grueling travel over narrow one-way dirt roads that swerved around mountain curves, plummeting into deep canyons and often forded swollen, icy streams.”

The legend really took off after her death, when the coroner learned that Charley was a female, who had been named Charlene and had once given birth. She had pulled off one of the most remarkable hoaxes on record. It was an amazing story and much talked about in California, where her exploits driving four-in-hand or six-in-hand teams was common knowledge and where so many in the livery business had personal recollections of her daring coolness in times of danger.

Using her secret identity, Parkhurst was a registered voter and may have been the first American woman to cast a ballot. She lived out the rest of her life raising cattle and chickens until her death in 1879. It was then that her true identity was revealed, much to the surprise of her friends.

Narcissa Whitman (1808-1847)

Narcissa Whitman was one of the first white women to cross the North American continent overland on her way to become a missionary to the Cayuse Nation in present-day Washington. She, and her husband Marcus, helped facilitate the colonization of the Oregon Country via the Oregon Trail before ultimately being killed during an attack on the mission site in 1847.Pioneer and Missionary in Oregon Country Narcissa Whitman (1808-1847) traveled some 3,000 miles from her home in upstate New York to Oregon Country. She was the first white woman to cross the Rocky Mountains in 1836 on her way to found the Whitman Mission among the Cayuse Indians near modern day Walla Walla, Washington. She became one of the best known figures of the 19th century through her diaries and the many letters she wrote to family and friends in the east.

Narcissa Prentiss married Marcus Whitman on February 18, 1836. She was 27; he, 33. Among the guests was one of two Nez Perce boys that Marcus had brought back with him, in hopes they would learn enough English to serve as translators once the new mission was established. He was the first Native American Narcissa had ever seen.

The Whitmans left for Oregon Country in March 1836 to begin their missionary activities among the Native Americans there. The 3,000-mile journey – made by sleigh, canal barge, wagon, river sternwheeler, on horseback and on foot – took about seven months. As the missionaries traveled in relative comfort on Missouri River steamboats, Narcissa reveled in the luxury of “servants, who stand at our elbows ready to supply every want” (March 28, 1836).

“Can scarcely resist the temptation to stand out to view the shores of the majestic river,” she wrote in her diary as the boat approached St. Louis. “Varied scenes present themselves as we pass up – beautiful landscapes – on the one side high and rugged bluffs, and on the other low plains” (March 28, 1836). She was in good spirits. “I think I shall endure the journey well – perhaps better than any of the rest of us” (April 7, 1836).

Ahead lay some 1,900 miles of prairie, mountain and desert. To cross in safety, the small missionary party joined the American Fur Company’s caravan of 70 or so traders on their way to the annual rendezvous in Green River, Wyoming. The missionaries were late setting out and ended up having to make several forced marches before they caught up with the caravan on May 26, 1836.

The next day, they encountered their first Indian villages. Narcissa and Eliza were the first white women the Indians had ever seen. “We ladies were such a curiosity to them,” Narcissa wrote. “They would come in and stand around our tent, peep in, and grin in their astonishment to see such looking objects” (June 27, 1836).

The caravan’s route followed river valleys westward toward the Rocky Mountains. This part of the journey was long and tedious, covering only fifteen miles or so in a good day. The diet by that point consisted mostly of buffalo meat (supplied by the caravan’s hunters), supplemented with milk from the missionaries’ cows. Narcissa seemed to relish the experience. “I never was so contented and happy before, neither have I enjoyed such health for years,” she wrote (June 4, 1836).

Narcissa died on November 29, 1847, along her husband and eleven other adult men. She was killed in an attack on the mission by a small group of Weyíiletpuu men who were motivated by the raging measles epidemic in their community and Dr. Whitman’s inability to cure their dying people.  

Mary Fields (1835-1914)

Better known as “Stagecoach Mary,” was a force to be reckoned with: a pioneer who made a name for herself as the first African American woman to receive employment as a U.S. postal service star-route mail carrier.

Fields was born into slavery and was freed at the end of the Civil War. She eventually made her way out west to Montana where she worked for St. Peter’s Mission. She received her mail service contract in 1895 and held her contract for 8 years. Fields had the star route contract for the delivery of U.S. mail from Cascade, Montana, to Saint Peter's Mission.

By 1895, at sixty years old, Fields secured a job as a Star Route Carrier which used a stagecoach to deliver mail in the unforgiving weather and rocky terrain of Montana, with the help of nearby Ursuline nuns, who relied on Mary for help at their mission. This made her the first African-American woman to work for the U.S. Postal Service. True to her fearless demeanor, she carried multiple firearms, most notably a .38 Smith & Wesson under her apron to protect herself and the mail from wolves, thieves and bandits, driving the route with horses and a mule named Moses. She never missed a day, and her reliability earned her the nickname "Stagecoach Mary" due to her preferred mode of transportation. If the snow was too deep for her horses, Fields delivered the mail on snowshoes, carrying the sacks on her shoulders.

Mary’s legend grew her death. She was made a hero, a symbol of female black empowerment. Yet how did Montanans truly understand about her during her time in Cascade? Were people capable of understanding the autonomy, persona, and character of a freed, literate African American woman who did not conform to the ideals put on her by society?

Mary drank and wore men’s clothing at times, she smoked and carried guns. Yet in death she has become this powerhouse woman. Mary had the ability to become the first African American woman Star Route Carrier during a time when the West was a predominantly white society, which says something to Mary’s relentless character and larger than life personality

Sacagawea: Translator and Guide (1788-1818/1819)

One of the best-known women of the American West, the native-born Sacagawea gained renown for her crucial role in helping the Lewis & Clark expedition successfully reach the Pacific coast.

President Thomas Jefferson dispatched Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to chart the new land and scout a Northwest Passage to the Pacific coast. After more than a year of planning and initial travel, the expedition reached the Hidatsa-Mandan settlement. Here they met Sacagawea and Charbonneau, whose combined language skills proved invaluable–especially Sacagawea’s ability to speak to the Shoshone.

Sacagawea, along with her newborn baby, was the only woman to accompany the 31 permanent members of the Lewis & Clark expedition to the Western edge of the nation and back.  Her knowledge of the Shoshone and Hidatsa languages was a great help during their journey. She communicated with other tribes and interpreted for Lewis and Clark. She was also skilled at finding edible plants, which proved to be crucial to supplementing their rations along the journey. Further, Sacagawea was valuable to the expedition because her presence signified peace and trustworthiness

Once they reached Idaho, Sacagawea’s knowledge of the landscape and the Shoshone language proved valuable. The expedition was eager to find the Shoshone and trade with them for horses. The success of the journey hinged on finding the tribe: without horses the explorers would be unable to get their supplies over the mountains. Recognizing landmarks in her old neighborhood, Sacagawea reassured the explorers that the Shoshone - and their horses - would soon be found. When the Expedition did meet the Shoshone, Sacagawea helped the Corps communicate, translating along with her husband.

Historians have debated the events of Sacagawea’s life after the journey’s end. Although opinions differ, it is believed that she died at Fort Manuel Lisa near present-day Kenel, South Dakota. At the time of her death she was not yet 30.

Short stories about other women

Mary Walton

Mary Walton was an early environmental pioneer. In 1879, she developed a way to deflect factory smokestack emissions using water tanks. This technology was later adapted for steam engines, which emitted large plumes of soot as they rode the rails.

Cathay Williams

She was the first African-American woman to enlist in the army, and did so by disguising herself as a man. Though she was hospitalized five times, no one ever discovered her secret. She called herself William Cathay and was deemed fit for duty. 

Biddy Mason

She started life as a slave, but after winning her freedom in court in 1856, she moved to Los Angeles and became a nurse and midwife. Ten years later, she bought her own land for $250, making her one of the first Black women to own land in Los Angeles.

Goldy Griffith

Goldie Griffith, often known as the “Rose of the Klondike,” was a well-known character during the late-nineteenth-century Klondike Gold Rush. She was born in Montana in 1871 and became involved in the Alaska gold rush when she was in her twenties.

Goldie soon rose to prominence as a prospector with the ability to hold her own in a male-dominated sector. She was also recognized for her beauty and charm, and she was well-liked by the region’s miners and prospectors.

Goldie staked a claim in the Yukon in 1898, becoming one of the few women to own and run a mine during the gold rush. She was also well-known for her involvement in a number of businesses, including a saloon and a hotel.

What do you think about women in the Wild West? Let us know below.

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

The Mexican War of Independence: Sudden Independence - Part 5

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

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

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

A print of Agustín de Iturbide as Emperor of Mexico.

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

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

Return of Iturbide

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

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

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

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

Seeing Another Way

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

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

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

The Plan of Iguala

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

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

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

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

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

The Treaty of Cordoba

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

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

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

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

The Plans Fall Apart

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

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

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

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

Same Song, Different Words

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

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

The Infighting Begins - and Truly Never Ends

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

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

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

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

Then Santa Anna opened Pandora’s box.

What do you think of the sudden independence of Mexico and the results? Let us know below.

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

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

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

John D. Rockefeller in 1895.

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

Large enterprises

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

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

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

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

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

Cornelius Vanderbilt

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

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

Andrew Carnegie

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

Below are the letters from Frick to Carnegie

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

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

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

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

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

J.P. Morgan

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

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

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

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

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

John D. Rockefeller

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

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

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

The Mexican War of Independence: The Changes of the 1810s - Part 4

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

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at the Mexican War of Independence. Here he looks at what happened during the Mexican War of Independence with the important figure of José Morelos - and how things didn’t turn out quite as the rebels intended.

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

Am portrait of King Fernando VII of Spain. By Vicente López Portaña.

Changes On Both Sides of the Atlantic

The year 1815 brought many changes to the struggle for independence in New Spain. The death of Morelos brought confusion as to who would be the primary leader of the revolution. Morelos had known how to groom younger officers into becoming leaders. The problem was so many, such as Matamoros, were already dead. The rebels needed a leader to rally around. After his victory over Morelos, Viceroy Calleja had offered amnesty to all rebels, and many would take him up on his offer, all seeming lost.

Another change was the conditions in Spain. In 1814, the French were finally driven across the Pyrenees. Napoleon abdicated after the occupation of Paris and his Spanish royal prisoners were freed. The long-awaited King Ferdinand VII was able to return to his capital (literally no one wanted Carlos IV back) and he would lead Spain to a glorious future of freedom and liberal politics. Except…he wouldn’t. Ferdinand was not the man his supporters thought he was.

Ferdinand the Reactionary

The Spain of 1814 was governed by the Constitution of 1812, born in the fires of the Peninsular War. This constitution limited the powers of the monarch, created a legislature that would represent all Spaniards on both sides of the Atlantic, and provided for guarantees of rights to all citizens. After all, this constitution and the person of Ferdinand VII were what the Spanish had just fought a six-year occupation for. In town after town, the people of Spain rapturously turned out to greet their longed-for monarch. All the conflicting classes, groups, juntas, and political factions were united. What possible reason could anyone want to fight against the new Spanish government that offered the colonials everything they could hope for, freedom, a liberal constitution, and the lifting of racial restrictions?

It only took a few weeks after his return to Madrid for Ferdinand to discard the constitution and restore absolute rule. He had proven to be far more reactionary than anyone could have feared. Barely a week after the end of the constitution, liberal leaders in and out of the government were arrested in a wide sweep. Ferdinand had even allowed the Jesuits to return. The united front with which Spain could have faced its fractious colonials was gone. Now Spain would see a continuation of the chaos of the war years.

War Exhaustion Grips Mexico

The situation in New Spain was little better than what was seen in the mother country. The rebels were forced to fight a guerrilla campaign against the forces of the Viceroy. Outnumbered, outgunned, and without any financial resources, the rebels were forced to extract supplies and money from the populations of the areas they operated in. This led to a great deal of economic devastation and needless deaths.

For the royalists, their situation was not much better. The great treasure fleets were a thing of the past. Spain was a chaotic mess led by a man who seemed to combine the fecklessness of his father with the corruption of Godoy. Despite their battlefield victories, the royalists were unable to finish off the rebels, who could retreat into the vastness of the desolate countryside. Lacking money and support from Spain, the royalists were forced to take food and supplies from the local populace. Many royalist commanders, receiving little to no support from Mexico City, set up their own fiefdoms throughout the colony, making themselves answerable to no one.

In many cases, the people of New Spain would be forced to contribute to both sides at the barrels of their guns, leaving nothing left for themselves. New Spain was dying by its own hand. The fight between the rebels and the royalists after the death of Morelos was carried out with a brutality that led many to disregard causes and ideologies and fight simply for hate’s sake.

New Rebel Leaders Arise

For two men, the war was still about the ideals of Hidalgo and Morelos. Vicente Guerrero was the right-hand man of Morelos. He was a man who still believed in freedom and independence for Mexico. A man who showed so much integrity during the war, that when the new Viceroy, Juan Ruiz de Apodaca, wanted to coax Guerrero to surrender he dispatched Guerrero’s own father, who was a royalist, to try to convince him. Guerrero turned down his own father, convinced of the justice of his cause. Guerrero would be made General in Chief of the rebels and fought battle after battle against the royalist forces. While successful time and again, he lacked the men and resources to deal a killing blow.

José Miguel Fernandez also believed in the dream. He came to see himself as the embodiment of the struggle for independence. In time, he would be known more famously as Guadalupe Victoria, taking this name symbolizing the fight for freedom.  Victoria would also gain several victories against the royalists.

From 1815 to 1817, these two leaders would lead a semi-successful partisan war against the royalists. Hitting isolated towns and garrisons hard, they would quickly retreat back into the mountains or the jungle. Despite these victories, the rebels were not capable of driving the Spanish from Mexico. For all the problems the royalists had, they were still better armed, trained, and provisioned. The only advantage the rebels seemed to possess was mobility. Neither side could achieve anything like a decisive victory that could affect the outcome of the war.

The Royalists Hit Back Harder

In 1817, the royalists decided to concentrate on Victoria, operating in the area around Veracruz. Striking hard and fast, the royalists hammered Victoria’s forces, retaking all the cities he had occupied. Victoria’s army was destroyed, and he himself had to hide in the jungle with only a few followers for several years. With one threat defeated, and seemingly out of the war, Apodaca now concentrated on Guerrero. Royalist troops were thrown at Guerrero’s rebels, but they were never able to pin him down. What the royalists were able to do was, through battle and attrition, whittle down Guerrero’s forces and so devastate the countryside in his area of operations that his effectiveness was limited.

By 1819, Apodaca could fairly accurately report to Ferdinand’s government that he did not need any more troops from Spain. From the Viceroy’s seat, the insurgency may still linger on, but the war of independence was over. There was a less than zero chance that Guerrero would be able to victoriously march into the Zocalo with his army and win the war. Events in New Spain, however, would be overtaken by events in Old Spain.

Fire From the Rear for the Royalists

As mentioned earlier, Ferdinand VII restored absolute rule in 1814. By 1820, Spanish liberals were either in prison or in hiding. They groaned under the heavy hand of Ferdinand and his neo-absolutist rule. Dissatisfaction was high, and the constant wars in the colonies were driving discontent even higher. In order to deal with the rebellions in the New World, Ferdinand had ordered a force to gather in Cádiz and sail for the Americas to put down the rebels once and for all. Ferdinand wanted to take no chances. Despite the war in New Spain seemingly being won, he would reinforce his colonies, finish off the rebels, then his troops would move colony by colony destroying rebel armies until the colonials were finally suppressed. On New Year’s Day, 1820, troops in the city led by Colonel Rafael del Riego staged a revolt demanding the return of the Constitution of 1812 and the end of absolutism. Riego’s army began marching into the interior to gather supporters when another uprising took place in Galicia. From these two seeds, the rebellion grew throughout Spain. By March, the liberals approached Madrid and even surrounded the royal palace. Ferdinand saw the writing on the wall and agreed to restore the constitution and surrender many of his own powers.

Back in 1812, the Supreme Junta in Spain had ordered the old Viceroy, Vanegas, to implement the Constitution. Vanegas was a liberal, so he was not necessarily opposed to many of the high ideals contained therein. What he did oppose was independence for New Spain. Vanegas was more far-sighted than the Supreme Junta. He recognized that the implementation of liberal ideas in New Spain would inevitably lead to independence. The Supreme Junta missed this and believed that no one truly informed of the guarantees of the Constitution would oppose it.

Vanegas knew the Constitution of 1812 made his job virtually impossible. He suspended its implementation soon after, using Morelos’ rebellion as justification. By the time news reached Spain about this, the new government of Ferdinand approved heartily. Vanegas was replaced by Calleja, who decreed in August 1815 that the Constitution was dead. This was how the political situation in New Spain sat for several years.

A Time for Questions

When, in 1820, the liberal Constitution came back, many of the royalists were horrified. They were conservative by nature and political outlook. They had spent the better part of a decade fighting against the liberalism that the rebels embodied. Now, they were being told by the government that they had put their lives on the line for, that the liberal ideals were the right ones. This new, liberal Spain was not one they were willing to fight for.

In 1820, the revolution was nearly dead. Guerrero was driven deep into the mountains. Victoria was still eating bugs in the jungles around Veracruz. The people were exhausted. The country was devastated. Most of the true believers were dead or in hiding. It had seemed that all the years of fighting and struggle had been for nothing. Militarily, the rebels had lost.

For the royalists, it had seemed a lost cause too. Sure, they had won on the battlefield. Yes, the rebels were still fighting, but they were disorganized bands not much more organized than outlaws. It was ideologically where they had lost the war. They had fought for the ideals of dios, patria, y rey; God, Fatherland, and King. Now, through no fault of their own, those ideals were thrown out the window by rebels in Madrid who were attempting to undermine everything they had done for almost a decade. What was the point of fighting against the liberalism the rebels were trying to establish in New Spain when their very government, seemingly their very king, they were fighting for was telling them that liberalism was the new order of the day?

It was a time for choosing in New Spain, for all of the combatants. Where did your first loyalty lie? To the king? To Mexico? To New Spain? To liberalism? To conservatism? To republicanism? To monarchism? For everyone fighting in New Spain by the dawn of 1821, the answer to that question would put to the test all of the major players. They would all be held in the balance.

What do you think of the 1810s in Mexico and the impact from changes in Spain? 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.

Korea in the 19th Century - Conflict between China and Japan

During the second half of the 19th century, many political powers - European and Asian alike - had their attention concentrated on a kingdom that was famous for being isolated. Its location and resources were the obvious features that would make it an easy target for invasion. The land of Korea was so secluded from the outside world that it had earned the title of the ‘Hermit Kingdom’. As we focus on the happenings in China and Japan, we can’t leave out the land for which they were fighting. What were the circumstances in Korea while China and Japan had been strategizing to gain authority over her?

If you missed them, you can read Disha’s article on the First Sino-Japanese War here, and how the war may have led to the collapse of the Qing dynasty here.

A depiction of the 1882 Imo Mutiny.

Confucianism and Korean society

The foundations of Korean society were laid over the principles of Confucianism. Violation of any ritual practice was considered a greater offense than breaking a law. It was believed that a ruler who did not carry out the traditional rites in a proper fashion was unfit to rule. (1) Soon, Confucianism gained a societal aspect to it, rather than just a religious one. It came to be regarded as a way of life - a system through which all institutions of society could be run smoothly.

Confucianism idealized a society that was organized into classes. As a result, Korea had been a rigidly hierarchical society since the Koryeo times. The demarcation was done into the yangban and the common people. The yangban were the elite classes at the top. They were scholars of Confucianism and were trained from their childhood to become a part of the government. (2) They were entitled to several liberties that the common folks were not - one of them being tax exemption. (3)

Koreans were pleased with Korea’s identity as ‘little China’ because they believed China was the center of all that was under heaven. (4) China was a cultured land unlike Japan which no longer properly executed the venerable practices of Confucianism. This, along with the adoption of western ways, led Japan to be perceived as an inferior state. Furthermore, the Japanese didn't even conduct civil service examinations, so how could they employ good government officials? (5) In other words, they were no better than the barbarians from the West.

The 1881 Mission to Japan

Korea had remained secluded for centuries, earning the title of ‘Hermit Kingdom’. The Treaty of Kanghwa modified this status, as one of the main conditions of the treaty was allowing free trade to Japanese merchants and opening up three Korean ports. As the kingdom gradually lowered its walls of isolation, Japan’s modernization made an impression on Korea. Although, not all of it was positive.

To study the practices of modernized Japan, King Kojong sent a group of courtiers to Japan in 1881. These courtiers were ardent followers of Confucianism and also from the yangban classes. (6) The kind of Confucianism they witnessed in Japan had them scrunching their noses. No matter how unimpressed they were, they couldn’t help but admire the orderliness and prosperity there. (7)

The older members of the mission were not so keen on having the same reforms made in Korea. Contrary to their thoughts, modernization in Japan had a significant impact on the younger members. Having been exposed to new ideas, the urge to bring about change in the governance of their home state became stronger in these individuals. More than eighty books of reports were made that described various features of Meiji Japan in detail. (8) A special unit was also created under Lieutenant Horimoto Reizo, a Japanese official, to modernize the Korean army. (9)

Imo Mutiny

Around the same time, tensions started rising in the Korean army. The Korean soldiers did not particularly like the new reforms done under the Japanese unit. Moreover, there had been a delay in their payment. Rice was used as currency in those days and they found out that they had been given contaminated rice. As a result, the frustrated soldiers started a revolt against the crown in 1882.

The Imo Mutiny acted as a foothold for the Qing dynasty to reestablish its power in Korea. The incident brought Chinese troops into Korea. The Chinese now exerted their dominance by meddling in Korea’s affairs. The incident led to a visible division of the Korean administration into pro-Japanese and pro-Chinese factions.

The pro-Chinese were the older yangban who valued “Eastern learning” and were mostly from the Min clan. They made up the Sadae party meaning “serving the great”, which in this case was China. Interestingly, the Min clan was partial to the opinion that there was a need to modernize Korea with western weaponry while maintaining its comfort as a Chinese protectorate. On the other hand, the pro-Japanese were led by the younger yangban. These reform-pursuing individuals then formed an organization called the Kaehwa Party (or the Enlightenment Party). (10) Kim Ok-kyun and Hong Yeong-sik were some of the prominent leaders of the Kaehwa party.

The Gapsin Coup

The Treaty of Kanghwa omitted to mention Korea as a Chinese protectorate. To counter this move, the Chinese had begun persuading Korea to sign treaties with the West (11) to prevent any Japanese interference. After the Imo Mutiny, they were fairly certain that it was not so easy to snatch Korea away from them after all. So, when China clashed with the French in 1884, some of the Qing troops stationed in Korea since the mutiny were withdrawn.

The leaders of the Kaehwa Party saw this as an opportunity to liberate Korea from external and internal power plays. Their main objectives were the end of the yangban dominance in the administration and ending Korea’s identity as a Chinese tributary state.

A banquet was organized by Hong Yeong-sik for celebrating the inauguration of the new postal administration. (12) It was held in the presence of King Kojong on December 4, 1884. The event gave way to the king being held captive under the eye of Japanese guards and the killing of many pro-Chinese officials. This was the inception of a three-day coup, called the Gapsin coup, supported by Japan. It was executed under the leadership of Kim Ok-kyun.

Though it was quite ambitious, the coup fell short of fulfilling its purpose. The Chinese troops arrived in Korea at Queen Min’s request and vanquished the Japanese forces. The Li-Ito Convention put a pause to the bloodshed by removing both Chinese and Japanese troops from Joseon territory, albeit temporarily.

The Sino-French War concluded with the Qings having to cede Annam (Vietnam). In addition to the constant anti-dynastic rebellions and an inefficient government, another new problem now posed before the declining Qing dynasty was that of losing tributary states. China had lost Annam to the French and Burma (Myanmar) to the British. (13) It would be an utter disgrace for the Qings to lose suzerainty over another territory as the reputation of the dynasty worsened. This proved to be a grave situation as the focus shifted towards Korea which was still on Japan’s radar.

While the coup was suppressed and China had managed to regain Korea as a tributary, it did not remain so for a long time. The Tonghak Rebellion in 1894 went on to challenge Korean authorities. The situation got so out of hand that as a last resort Korea had to ask for Chinese intervention. The intervention, seen as the violation of the Li-Ito Convention, once again brought China and Japan to the battlefield.

What do you think of Chinese and Japanese conflict over Korea? Let us know below.

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

Bibliography

Chung, Chai-sik. “Changing Korean Perceptions of Japan on the Eve of Modern Transformation: The Case of Neo-Confucian Yangban Intellectuals.” Korean Studies 19 (1995): 39–50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719138.

Hahm, Chaihark. “Ritual and Constitutionalism: Disputing the Ruler’s Legitimacy in a Confucian Polity.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 57, no. 1 (2009): 135–203. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20454666.

Huh, Donghyun, and Vladimir Tikhonov. “The Korean Courtiers’ Observation Mission’s Views on Meiji Japan and Projects of Modern State Building.” Korean Studies 29 (2005): 30–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719526.

Hsu, Immanuel C. Y. “Late Ch'ing Foreign Relations, 1866–1905.” Chapter. In The Cambridge History of China, edited by John K. Fairbank and Kwang-Ching Liu, 11:70–141. The Cambridge History of China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Seth, Michael J. A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.

References

1 Chaihark Hahm, ‘Ritual and Constitutionalism: Disputing the Ruler's Legitimacy in a Confucian Polity’, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20454666.

2 Michael J. Seth, A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, ‘Choso˘n Society’, 176-177.

3 Ibid, 167.

4 Chai-sik Chung, ‘Changing Korean Perceptions of Japan on the Eve of Modern Transformation: The Case of Neo-Confucian Yangban Intellectuals’, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719138.

5 Ibid.

6 Donghyun Huh and Vladimir Tikhonov, ‘The Korean Courtiers’ Observation Mission’s Views on Meiji Japan and Projects of Modern State Building’, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719526.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Michael J. Seth, A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, ‘Korea in the Age of Imperialism, 1876-1910’, 235-236.

10 Ibid, 238.

11 Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, “Late Ch'ing Foreign Relations, 1866–1905”, The Cambridge History of China Vol. 11, 102.

12 Michael J. Seth, A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, ‘Korea in the Age of Imperialism, 1876-1910’, 238-239.

 13 Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, “Late Ch'ing Foreign Relations, 1866–1905”, The Cambridge History of China Vol. 11, 101.