The Netherlands in South Africa: Dutch Colonization in the 17th Century

Modern day South Africa has had contact with Europeans for centuries, and the first group to settle there were the Dutch. Here, Matt Lowe looks at the history of Dutch settlement in South Africa in the 17thcentury and considers how this played a part in later South African history.

A painting depicting the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck, first Commander of the Cape, to Table Bay in April 1652. Painting by Charles Davidson Bell.

At the far southern end of the Old World, the land that is now known as South Africa has been inhabited by humans for thousands of years. Nowadays, in the West, South Africa is remembered as the land of Apartheid with continued racial tensions between the black majority and white minority, the legacy of the country’s complicated colonial past. European-descended South Africans are relatively new arrivals to the region, but just how long they have been present in the country may not be evident. Permanent European settlements were first founded by the Dutch in 1652, unintentionally leading to the creation of a new ethnic group in South Africa with its own language, history, and ideology, and, perhaps most notably from a modern perspective, its own unique sins.

The Dutch East Indies Company and the Founding of Cape Colony

Beginning in the early 1400s, the Age of Discovery saw ships from several European nations set out with the explicit purpose of finding new lands and trade routes. As a small country with maritime prowess, the Portuguese were among the most prolific explorers during this period. A Portuguese expedition led by Bartolomeu Dias was the first to locate the Cape of Good Hope at the southwestern tip of South Africa. Ten years later, Vasco da Gama would follow the same route and push further on to be the first to sail from Europe to India. During this voyage, da Gama briefly landed north of the Cape and made contact with the Khoikhoi natives for the first time. For over one hundred years, no other European nations would spend any considerable amount of time or effort in the region.

Like Portugal, the Netherlands was a small country dependent on sea trade. The Dutch wanted to gain a foothold in the immensely lucrative spice trade and sent its fleets to India and the Far East. The Dutch government decided that a chartered company would be useful to profitably govern the growing colonies in India and Indonesia. Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC) or Dutch East Indies Company was founded in 1602 and was given almost total political and economic authority over the Dutch possessions in the East. It soon became official protocol for outgoing and returning VOC ships to anchor at the natural harbor of Table Bay at the Cape of Good Hope as a convenient place to rest the crews on the long voyages.

In 1651, the Council made the decision to send a small fleet to the Cape to establish a permanent supply base. Jan van Riebeeck, who had been a competent and loyal employee of the VOC since 1639, was chosen to command the expedition and directly oversee the development of the colony. His orders were simple. He was to find ways to provide food and clean water to the visiting ships and to construct a fort to defend the settlement. Of course, these objectives proved rather difficult to achieve. The expedition, made up of Dutch (and some German) VOC employees and their families and soldiers, departed the Netherlands on December 24, 1651 and arrived in Table Bay on April 6, 1652. Van Riebeeck could not have known it at the time, but the arrival of his fleet would define South African history for the next three and a half centuries.

Early Development

The first priorities were to find food sources, make contact with the native population, and begin construction of the fort. All these efforts progressed simultaneously. Some settlers were put to work experimenting with growing various kinds of European crops, while others were sent to explore the coast and further inland for meat and fish. Prior to the expedition’s arrival, the region had been sparsely populated by the Khoikhoi (or Khoi) and San tribes. The Dutch made initial contact with the Khoi and began trading European goods for local cattle. This relationship benefitted both parties and continued for several decades. There were periods of conflict between the Khoi and the settlers, of course, but the Dutch tried to stay on good terms with them when possible. The San group, however, were not interested in dealing with the Dutch. With food sources established and a fort under construction, Cape Town, the first settlement, was established.

Ships began arriving at Cape Town within a year of its founding, bringing supplies to help the colony grow and consolidate. Van Riebeeck and his settlers were diligent, and the viability of the colony soon became evident. The climate at the Cape proved well suited to growing European crops and trees as well as plants from India and the Far East. Sufficient numbers of cattle were purchased from the Khoikhoi that there were eventually enough for Dutch farmers to raise their own herds. Additionally, the first wine grapes were planted, which began the long tradition of South African wine. Establishing law and order was a priority as well. Early on, Robben Island in Table Bay, where Nelson Mandela was held prisoner for 18 years, was used as a prison and place of exile. Criminal settlers, slaves that attempted to run away, and Khoikhoi and San people that tried to steal from or cheat the Dutch farmers were sent there to live in isolation from the main colony. However, similar to the contemporary European colonies in North America, disease killed many early settlers before adequate housing had been built to protect them from the elements. Population growth in the colony was slow in the early years due to these factors as well as the low numbers of new colonists that arrived from Europe. Over time, however, the colony would become more robust and fresh settlers would steadily arrive for centuries to come.

From the start, the VOC shipped slaves from India, the East Indies, and West Africa to Cape Colony. Since there were only a few hundred European settlers, the colonists alone could not make the farms and ranches functional. Life for the slaves was difficult, although the settlers were prohibited from harming them, as they were considered VOC property. Initially, there were too few settlers to keep watch of the slaves, and many were able to escape into the interior, although there was no hope for them to ever return to their homelands. The natives of the region were not enslaved, however, since the Dutch needed to do business with them in order to survive. In fact, interracial marriages between Dutch men and Khoi or slave women were condoned by the VOC under the proper circumstances. The first mixed marriage occurred between a Dutchman and a freed Indian slave girl in 1658, and the first official Protestant wedding between a European and Khoi woman in 1664. The descendants from these relationships and the colony’s slaves would, in time, create a separate ethnic community known as the ‘Cape Coloureds’ that number in the millions in modern South Africa.

Consolidation of Cape Colony

Legally and practically, the VOC had a monopoly on all the economic activity of Cape Colony. This did not mean, however, that every settler was a company employee per se. Independent citizens, or free burghers, were allowed to own their own farms, ranches, mills, and other businesses, provided, of course, that they sell most of their goods to the company for fixed prices. This arrangement allowed for the VOC to make Cape Colony profitable while, ideally, giving enough freedom to its residents to live how they wanted. Most of the burghers were former VOC employees that had already served the company abroad. The free burghers gradually developed a distinct identity as a community, one that valued individualism and distrusted formal authority. Some burghers would become “trekboers”, or semi-nomadic ranchers. The trekboer lifestyle was an early manifestation of the individualism that would become a prominent feature of Afrikaner culture in later centuries. 

Van Riebeeck was relieved of his command in 1662. The Cape Colony commanders that followed van Riebeeck would primarily continue the policies and projects that he had begun. The fort would eventually be replaced by the much larger and more complex Castle of Good Hope, which still stands today in Cape Town. It was not until Simon van der Stel assumed the governorship in 1679 that the colony began to mature economically and expand further inland. Starting with van der Stel, the role of commander was upgraded to governor, with all the civil administrative connotations it entailed. Under his leadership, new towns were founded, agricultural production increased to surplus levels, and the colony started to transform into more than just a supply station for VOC ships.

During van der Stel’s tenure, the first French Huguenots arrived in Cape Colony. While most Huguenots fleeing religious persecution in France went to England and the Netherlands, the VOC paid for around two hundred men, women, and children to emigrate to South Africa starting in 1688. France had been an enemy of the Dutch many times prior, but the Huguenots were broadly welcomed at the Cape, due mostly to their Protestant faith which they shared with the Dutch and German colonists. As the colony continued to grow, the Huguenots worked in farming and ranching and contributed greatly to the quality of South African wine. The French settlers assimilated into the Dutch culture of the region, although French surnames are still present among the modern Afrikaner population.

Simon van der Stel retired in 1699 and was succeeded by his son Willem. Unfortunately for the colonists and the VOC leadership, Willem van der Stel was deeply corrupt. For over seven years, van der Stel built a massive estate with company funds and deliberately took steps to monopolize the colony’s farms and ranches under his and his associates’ control. Company employees and free burghers viewed this with great concern and began to organize against van der Stel’s rule. With much trouble and the wrongful imprisonment of prominent burghers, a petition detailing the governor’s abuses and signed by dozens of colonists was shipped back to the Netherlands in 1706. The VOC leadership, wary of discontent in one of their most important colonies, sent orders back that called for peace to be restored at the Cape, dismissed van der Stel, and ordered him to return to Amsterdam. Willem van der Stel left the colony in 1708 and would never return. With his departure, the early period of modern South African history had ended.

Conclusion

During this first half decade of development, the southwestern point of the continent had been permanently altered. The embryonic European population had grown to around two thousand persons, while there were two to three times as many slaves. The land had been tamed and the colonists had learned to utilize the good weather of the region to grow crops, raise livestock, and make high quality wine. It had transformed into a place for permanent settlement rather than merely a VOC outpost. Notably, the fierce independent nature that Afrikaners would become known for in later centuries began to coalesce. Physical distance from the authorities and the need for self-sufficiency in a new land combined to make the colonists distrustful of outside interference in their affairs. Importantly, they began to view themselves as a separate, unique community rather than just a European oasis in Africa. The mass exodus of “Boers” from the Cape in the 1830s and their subsequent wars with the British were the direct results of this independent streak that began in the 1600s. For better or worse, the Europeans were in South Africa for the long haul, and the settlers, slaves, natives, and their descendants would have to reckon with this fact for centuries to come.

How do you think early Dutch settlement impacted later South African history? Let us know below.

References

“History of Slavery and Early Colonisation in South Africa.” South African History Online.
https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-slavery-and-early-colonisation-south-africa.

Hunt, John. “Dutch South Africa: Early Settlers at the Cape 1652-1708.” Leicester, United Kingdom: Troubador Publishing, 2005.

Theal, George McCall. “History of South Africa Before 1795: Foundation of the Cape Colony by the Dutch.” London, United Kingdom: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1907.

The Tower of Babel & The Hadron Collider: Civilization’s Final Attempt To Play God?

There have been many attempts by humanity to ‘play God’ over history. Here, Daniel L. Smith explains the Hadron Collider project in the context of the Tower of Babel narrative from the Bible, Genesis 11:1-9.

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

Tower of Babel by Lucas van Valckenborch, 1594. In the Louvre Museum.

When we consider lessons being taught and learned throughout our lives, we don’t necessarily think of these lessons starting at the very beginning of time. These lessons include the ethical and moral principles in which Christianity itself is based upon. Even further though, we never pull back far enough to see how lessons affect society and humankind as a whole unit. From the beginning mankind has chosen to take the path, seemingly today more frequently traveled, in poor decision making for achieving scientific greatness—all starting with Adam and Eve—with their choice to eat the apple from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge. Humanity didn’t learn its lesson from The Fall, which shows us that humanity can’t do it their own way. Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. This ultimate expulsion sealed the fall of mankind.

The world was a wicked place in the days of Noah. The disgraceful, disgusting, violent, immoral and unethical societies in those days were something horrific. Dr. David Leston wrote that “archaeologists have unearthed bodies of people who lived in Mesopotamia, they have found evidence that cannibalism was practiced. In short, this was a very brutal era, in which humanity showed little to no regard for one another.”[1]He goes on to mention that in “January 1996 National Geographic did a comparison between rodeo riders and their injuries, and skeletons uncovered from the time of Noah. They found striking similarities between the injuries of the two groups, suggesting that this was a very violent society. When people reject God and the boundaries and purposes that He has created for them, they become a law unto themselves, and society becomes more weaker and dangerous.”[2]The net result? The same as always, extreme anarchy and a violent world. So, God flooded the world and spared the only honest and Godly man alive at the time. It was Noah who God gave the task of rebuilding civilization.

Man’s Rebellion

It was right after the Flood that people would repopulate the Fertile Crescent (the Middle East). This was a very fertile and agriculturally productive area which was quick to develop, and fought over heavily. One of humankind’s early technological developments was the ability to design and manipulate materials and so to make structures such as buildings. It was mankind’s obligation from God to subdue the earth. He ultimately gave mankind all the faculties necessary to create great constructions. However, in man’s rebellion against God, this gift was used in ways to honor men and not Him—such as The Tower of Babel. This attempt at building a ziggurat megastructure was humankind’s next attempt at playing God. Just a note here—it will blow your mind to look at the similarities in the Mesopotamian ziggurat of biblical days and a typical ziggurat from South America.

In Genesis 11, the tower planners said “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”[3]The planners of course were referring to making a name for mankind above God’s name. God saw this ability of man’s to centralize power effectively for the purposes of glorifying themselves. He then—in an instant—created world languages to confuse the masses and dispersed them globally. This effectively explains human migration in the ice age, world language and similarities in technology worldwide. Today, humankind over time has once again gathered to challenge God once again.

The Parallel?

On January 15, 2019, CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) unveiled plans for an even larger Large Hadron Collider, with a 100km (62-mile) circumference - about four times longer than the current machine. The Future Circular Collider (FCC) will be almost 10 times more powerful than the current machine too. CERN said the FCC, which should be in use by 2040, would "significantly expand our knowledge of matter and the universe".[4] It was built by CERN between 1998 and 2008 in collaboration with over 10,000 scientists and hundreds of universities and laboratories, as well as more than 100 countries.[5]The final end-game to this complex science experiment is the specific knowledge of this “God-particle” that adheres all of the atoms of physical matter together—which is where we get our physical reality from. This is arguably a tongue-in-cheek observation of humanities last parallel to the ancient Tower of Babel. 

This time, however, God is not going to come down to the Land of Shinar (the Fertile Crescent) to shake His head in humankinds disappointing direction. No. This should only serve humanity as a reminder. A sign of the times that we live in today. In the Biblical sense, humanity did not learn its lesson from The Fall. Nor did mankind learn its lesson from The Flood. Nor did mankind learn from the freedom of slavery that Moses gave the Israelites from the Pharaoh in Egypt. Nor did mankind learn from Sodom and Gomorrah. Finally, mankind didn’t learn either from the Tower of Babel. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Europe’s Large Hadron Collider is civilization’s last whole combined scientific effort to become God before humanity’s final Tribulation. 

Daniel is giving a talk about his book on mid-19thcentury northern California. Find out more here.

You can read Daniel’s past articles on California in the US Civil War (here), Medieval Jesters (here), How American Colonial Law Justified the Settlement of Native American Territories (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), Christian ideology in history (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), and how Ulysses S. Grant saved Native Peoples in 1850s California (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

[1]Dr. Leston, Stephen, and Christopher D. Hudson. "From Creation to the Tower of Babel | The Age of Noah." In The Bible in World History: How History and Scripture Intersect, 31. Uhrichsville: Barbour Pub, 2011.

[2]Ibid. p. 32.

[3]The Holy Bible (NKJV) | Genesis 11:4.

[4]"CERN Plans Even Larger Large Hadron Collider to Find More 'God Particles'." Worthy Christian News. Last modified January 16, 2019. https://www.worthynews.com/38497-cern-plans-even-larger-large-hadron-collider-to-find-more-god-particles.

[5]"Large Hadron Collider." The Telegraph. Accessed December 27, 2019. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/3351899/Large-Hadron-Collider-thirteen-ways-to-change-the-world.html.

The Creation of a Modern Tsar: How Vladimir Putin Established Political Domination in Russia

Vladimir Putin has presided over Russia for more than twenty years. Here, Brenden Woldman returns to the site (a previous article from him on why the USSR collapsed is here) and in this extensive and thought-provoking piece, considers how Vladimir Putin came to dominate Russian politics. He considers how Putin has exploited terrorism, destabilized democracy, controlled the media, and arrested and even killed opposition.

Vladimir Putin in 1998, when he was Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) Director. Source: RIA Novosti archive, image #100306, http://visualrian.ru/ru/site/gallery/#100306 Digital / Цифра, available here.

Who decides the leaders of a country? The answer, according to those who live in the west, is simple: the people. Citizens have the inalienable right to decide who will lead their country through a fair, legal, and democratic process. This western belief in the voting process for representative government is a pillar for a successful democratic society. But what if a country falsely claims to be democratic? Who decides, then, the leaders of a country that pretends to be a country that is founded on democratic and republican principles? In the case of modern Russia, it is current President Vladimir Putin. 

In Russia, President Putin has an iron clasp grip on all aspects of Russian society, including the country’s political institutions. Director General of NTV media company Yevgeniy Kiselyev gives the most succinct way of understanding Putin’s control of Russia. Kiselyev believes that, “The president has different ideas to ours about what the state is and what its interests are. I think Putin is trying to imitate Louis XIV, who said ‘the state is me.’ Putin... made it clear that what he means by strengthening the state is strengthening his personal power.”[1]In short, Putin is the state and the state is Putin. This firm ideology that the former KGB agent has is a vital reason why he has undisputed power in Russia. However, it must be known that Putin’s current anaconda-like suffocation of Russia did not occur over night. 

When Boris Yeltsin became the first President of the Russian Federation and the face of the post-Soviet era after the fall of the U.S.S.R., he was greeted with much enthusiasm and support throughout Russia. Though beloved, the honeymoon phase between Yeltsin and the Russian people would not last. As the 1990s progressed, Yeltsin’s popularity would falter due to his inability to establish the new democratic Russian state as a major economic or political power. Also, the President’s warm, welcoming, and almost subservient attitude toward the west caused many Russians to view Yeltsin as a weak embarrassment. With Yeltsin’s influence slipping and his days numbered, a group of governors that made up nearly a quarter of the entire Russian Federation in the fall of 1999 wrote a letter to Yeltsin, pleading that to sustain power it was necessary to resign from the Presidency and transfer power over to newly appointed Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.[2]Yeltsin followed up on this idea, and on December 31, 1999 Vladimir Putin became the acting President of the Russian Federation. Yet it was far from guaranteed that Putin would be able to keep power for decades to come. 

As the new millennium came into fruition and the Yeltsin-led 1990s faded into the past, the newly crowned President-Tsar of Russia needed to secure his power fast. To do this, Vladimir Putin subsequently had to achieve four goals: exploit the fears of Chechen terrorism, control the media, strip away any democratic power or institution that could curb his ambitions, and imprison or kill oligarchs, journalists, political rivals, and any person that may be a threat to his reign. Putin has achieved supremacy in Russia. However, it did not occur overnight, as these four aspects were successfully executed over the course of a decade.

Exploiting Terrorism

Before Putin was President, the conflict in Chechnya was becoming more and more prevalent. The Second Chechen War began in August of 1999 when Yeltsin was still President. Between September 4thand 16th, unidentified terrorists bombed four apartment complexes in multiple Russian cities, including Moscow. The attacks led to the deaths of 293 people and injured 1,000 more.[3]The immediate, and initially the most logical, group to blame were Chechen rebels. 

However, upon further investigation of the bombings it became increasingly plausible that Chechnya was not responsible for the attacks. In fact, Chechnya did not take claim for the attacks, something that all terrorist groups usually do after a successful attack. Even more peculiar was that there was no solid evidence that connected the Chechen rebels to the attacks.[4]Moreover, a military operation on this scale was out of the realm of possibility from a logistical or strategic point of view even if Chechen terrorists wanted to attack. What evidence that wasfound did not connect the bombings to Chechnya. Instead, the evidence connected them to the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, or FSB. Only Yeltsin and his cronies, which included Putin, were able to have the FSB coordinate the bombings. But why would Yeltsin and Putin support the killing of Russians? The Yeltsin administration believed that Russia could be unified in its hatred of Chechnya and terrorism while also boosting the appeal of Yeltsin’s successor Vladimir Putin.[5]This was not a far-fetched assumption either, as it became increasingly likely that Yeltsin, who had been in the pockets of oligarchs and gangsters, would do something so terrifyingly unethical to keep his inner circle in power.[6]   

Upon hearing the news of the bombings, newly appointed Prime Minister Putin had a firm response to the attacks stating that, “[Russia] will pursue the terrorists everywhere.”[7]Putin’s desire for violent revenge rang in the ears of the Russian citizenry. As a result, the second invasion of Chechnya was carried out more methodically and was seemingly more successful when comparing it to the first Chechen invasion on New Year’s Night in 1994-95, and Putin was given much of the credit for the initial victory. Due to this, the young Prime Minister’s popularity soared.[8]

With Yeltsin’s term coming to an end and a new President on the horizon, Putin was initially seen as a weak candidate to succeed Yeltsin. Shortly after his appointment as Prime Minister in August 1999, polls revealed that only 2 percent of the Russian populace favored Putin for the position of President.[9]However, after the “terrorist” attacks and Putin’s strong response to them coinciding with the patriotic enthusiasm that came from a new war, support for Putin rose to 21 percent in October and then 45 percent in November, which was far higher than any other candidate at that point.[10]This rise in popularity because of the attacks made Yeltsin’s decision all the easier and, on December 31, 1999, Boris Yeltsin resigned from office, allowing Putin to become President due to Russian law which permits the prime minister to become acting president, after the president resigns, for the rest of the term. 

By being one of the planners of the FSB terrorist bombings and blaming Chechnya for it, Vladimir Putin was able to manipulate the Russian populace into supporting him, as he portrayed himself as the strong, vengeful leader Russia needed in those troubling times, even though evidence shows that Putin was one of the people who helped plan and execute the attacks. Nevertheless, it is important to note that Putin was not the mastermind of the attacks. Instead, he was an important cog in the Yeltsin regime. This would not always be the case, as from this point forward everything that Putin does will come directly from him to solidify his place as supreme ruler of Russia.

With the terrorist attacks catapulting him into the spotlight and Yeltsin’s resignation, by the year 2000 Putin had become the second President of the Russian Federation and was popular for it. However, Putin never wanted to give up this power once achieving it. This leads to a major theme that will be seen throughout Russia in the twenty-first century, as Putin will begin to strip major democratic principles that are vital to a healthy democracy all for the purpose to keep him in power.

Destabilizing Democracy

Yeltsin was such a laughing stock by the time he resigned that Russians and westerners alike saw Putin with rose-colored glasses. Many began to believe that it was impossible for the new president to be any more embarrassing than Yeltsin. They were right in a way. Though Putin was not as prone to the frequent political gaffes that Yeltsin faced, the idealistic vision of Putin that many had quickly evaporated when the 2000 election saw Putin use dirty and illegal tactics to assure his victory. 

By the time of the election in March, Putin had been acting president for almost three months. A week before the election the Russian newspaper Kommersantpublished a leaked government document entitled ‘Reform of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation‘ that advocated the FSB to do Putin’s bidding, with the goal of allowing Putin to “control the political process” in Russia.[11]There was little debate against Kommersant’saccusations. Putin was using the FSB as his own “Praetorian Guard,” as the new President used the FSB to manipulate the Russian state and presidential process by making it more authoritarian. The document most damningly noted that Putin had a dream of “replacing the ‘self-regulating’ nature of a democratic, market-driven, and rule-by-law system with manual control from the top.”[12]Putin’s dream would quickly come to fruition.

Six days after he was inaugurated, Putin proposed a set of bills with aims of “strengthening vertical power”, which served as the beginning of his dismantlement of the Russian democratic government and the establishment of a Putin led autocracy.[13]By claiming that the autocratic tendencies were necessary for reinvigorating Russia as a global leader, bills were passed that replaced elected members of parliament with ones that were Putin approved, allowing elected governors to be removed from office by pseudo suspicions of misdoings without a trial, and permitting envoys that were appointed by the President to supervise elected legislatures and governors.[14]Autocratic bills like this were quickly passed through the Russian Duma without protest and the dismantlement of the Russian constitution began in an almost unrecognized fashion by the outside world. However, this would not be the only time that Putin would force through legislation that centralized his political power.

With reelection approaching in March 2004, President Putin had five opponents running to usurp him. To curb their intentions, Putin passed laws to hinder his opponent’s campaigns and break the spirit of the election process. The president passed a law that required campaigns to have a notary certify the presence and signatures of every person present at meetings where presidential candidates were nominated with a minimum of five hundred signatures needed, followed by the candidate needing two million signatures from the public a few weeks after to have the campaign be legal or risk disqualification. This was a tough enough task that was made more difficult, as signatures could be disqualified for spelling errors.[15]Those able to successfully qualify to run found it difficult to find companies to print their campaign material, air their commercials, or rent areas for campaign events, as it became increasingly clear that Putin and his inner circle had threatened any and all who would support opposition campaigns. One candidate, Sergei Glazyev, found it nearly impossible to find a printing company to take his campaign’s legal funds to print his flyers.[16]When he did find someone who was willing to let him hold a campaign event, the building where Glazyev was going to speak was suddenly raided by police due to a “bomb threat,” giving the police justification to kick everyone out of the building and evacuate the premises. Moreover, physical violence was either threatened or executed, as Glazyev’s campaign manager Yana Dubeykovskaya was once beaten, robbed, and had the brake lines to her car cut.[17]

Making the campaign process difficult for candidates was not enough for the ambitious Putin. To truly disrupt the spirit of democracy, Putin wanted to make the voting process difficult. International observers and independent Russian organizations outside of government control listed a plethora of voting violations that the Putin administration promoted. These transgressions included the deletion of over a million elderly people and others unlikely to vote from the record, effectively voiding their vote, the delivery of ballots that were prefilled to psychiatric wards, the allowance of precinct staff to go door to door in elderly homes with a mobile ballot box to collect votes for Putin and disregard ones for other candidates, and managers and school officials were blackmailing staff and parents to vote for Putin or risk termination.[18]These neo-Soviet style tactics of maintaining the “democratic” process of Putin’s Russia was like an iceberg. On the surface there was no obvious or violent form of voter suppression, but below the surface was a widespread conspiracy of democratic repression. Legal or not, the 2004 election came and went, and with 71% of the vote, Putin won the presidency.

Soon after he began his second term, Putin announced that governors and the mayor of Moscow were no longer able to be elected by the people. Instead, Putin would appoint them personally. As well, the lower house of the Duma would no longer be decided by a direct election, with Russian citizens being given the right to vote for a party and Putin filling in the vacated seats with members that were a part of that party. This ruling forced all political parties to re-register, and many would be eliminated in the process. Moreover, all legislation proposed by the lower house of the Duma would be vetted by a public chamber that was appointed by Putin. All these changes became law rather quickly, and by the end of 2004 the only federal-level public official who was directly elected was Putin himself.[19]

When his second term ended in 2008, Putin found a simple but effective way to go around the Russian Constitution to keep himself in power. Due to the Russian Constitution forbidding the President to rule for more than two consecutive terms, Putin relinquished his power to his hand-picked successor Dmitry Medvedev (with Putin using illegal election tactics to get Medvedev elected), followed by Medvedev appointing Putin as prime minister, allowing the former president to become “the puppet master of Russia.” Following the whims of his overlord, Medvedev introduced a measure that would extend presidential terms from four to six years.[20]If executed correctly, Putin planned for Medvedev to be a “manchurian president,” all the while allowing himself to pull the strings behind the scenes like a mafia Godfather. This plan worked to perfection. After one term in office Medvedev did not seek to run for a second term, instead endorsing Putin to return to the presidency in 2012. This act subsequently established a trend that not only could legally keep Putin in power for the rest of his life, but also effectively dismantle any remnants of a democratic system that were left in Russia.

Controlling the Media

It is almost cliché to say that a free press is the most dangerous opponent to an autocratic system, as the institution can inform the public on the misdeeds of the government. However, what happens when the leader of an autocracy establishes a monopoly on media outlets? In Putin’s Russia, it allows the free press to transform into a state-run institution. 

In the days leading to the 2000 election, a key component to Putin’s ‘Reform of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation’ was for the FSB to not only “control the political process” but specifically silence opposition media by “driving them to financial crisis.”[21]Putin knew the importance of controlling media and the television market since the medium helped create the positive image that many within Russia had of him after Yeltsin resigned. Putin knew the medium could turn on him and quickly end his political career if the industry was left unchecked.

To create a state-run monopoly of media Putin used personal vendettas against those who opposed him to drive his actions. Putin summoned Boris Berezovsky, the would-be “kingmaker” of Russian politics and head of one of Russia’s largest news and television networks Channel One, and tried to persuade him to handover his majority shares to the Russian government.[22]If Berezovsky did not willingly give up his shares, Putin implied that he would blackmail Berezovsky into giving him the control of Channel One and subsequently would be imprisoned for his refusal to comply.[23]The oligarch refused, knowing that crossing Putin in this manner would lead to his arrest. Days after his meeting with the President, Berezovsky fled to Great Britain. Soon enough, a warrant was out for Berezovsky’s arrest in Russia, forcing him to surrender his shares in Channel One.[24]

This kind of “thuggish” behavior to acquire media shares was not unique to Berezovsky and Channel One. The first attack was aimed at anti-Putin media mogul and owner of news channel NTV and newspaper Sevodnya Vladimir Gusinskiy. Gusinskiy and his company had a history of producing anti-Putin rhetoric, including the airing of a documentary about the apartment building explosions two days prior in the 2000 election.[25]This negative portrayal of Putin would not go unnoticed. On May 11, 2000, Gusinsky’s Media-Most company headquarters were raided by government officials and Gusinskiy was arrested a month later.[26]From prison, Gusinskiy made the dramatic declaration that Putin had, “begun the move toward the creation of a totalitarian regime.”[27]Nonetheless, in a deal that would drop all criminal charges and let him flee the country unharmed, Gusinskiy agreed to sell his shares in NTV and renounce all statements or information that would be considered to undermine the Putin government and the Russian Federation. Though Gusinskiy was given his freedom, by April 2001 the Russian state had majority control of Gusinskiy’s media assets, as the old staff of NTV and Media-Most were replaced with Putin and state approved journalists and commentators.[28]

In quick and decisive actions, Putin was able to force two of Russia’s wealthiest men, and his biggest threats, into self-exile while also stripping any wealth and influence that Gusinskiy and Berezovsky had within Russia. This took all of three months to achieve after he was inaugurated. Alas, the Putin led government was able to gain complete control of the three largest federal television networks.[29]Without any opposition networks that could reach the masses, Putin was now able to manipulate the media to unanimously presenting him and his policies in a positive light.

Arresting and Killing Opposition

What is most famous, and heinous, of Putin’s tactics to solidify his power is his tendency to imprison or murder those who oppose him. Putin got this reputation of being a thug by his own doing, as he preferred to be portrayed as a brute above all else.[30]A part of his thuggish reputation comes from his relationship with oligarchs. However, Putin is not a crusader against oligarchs for moral reasons. For the most part, Putin continues to maintain a relatively warm relationship with oligarchs due to his plan to transform the traditional oligarchic independent system into one that is more accustomed to a corporate structure, with the oligarchs and their industries serving the state.[31]In short, the president wants the oligarchs to be under him, allowing the former laissez-faire style of capitalist industry to be under the control of Putin. However, those oligarchs who do not comply will face devastating consequences.

As previously noted, oligarchs like Gusinsky and Berezovsky were forced to flee Russia or face imprisonment. However, they were not the only ones to be treated to this fate. For example, Mikhail Khodorkovsky was the richest man in Russia in the early 2000s. Yet when he fell out of favor with Putin due to his independent and vocal spirit, he was quickly arrested on charges of tax evasion. This may have been the official reason for the arrest but, as economic advisor to Putin Andrei Illarionov believes, Khodorkovsky, “was-and remains-an independent human being. Because he refused to bend. Because he remained a free man. This state punishes people for being independent.”[32]Russians, however, saw this act as Putin breaking the oligarchic system for the good of the people. In truth, Putin did not want to break the oligarchic system, but tame it. Khodorkovsky got out of line and, as a result, was imprisoned for it. To make matters worse for Khodorkovsky, Putin froze all of his assets and the state took control of his oil company Yukos, one of the largest and most successful companies in Russia. Other oligarchs took note: if they wanted to keep their wealth and assets, they had to unabashedly follow Putin’s demands. 

However, there have been cases where threats of imprisonment were not sufficient enough. Putin’s reputation as a “mafia president” comes less from psychological intimidation but through the killing of oppositional forces. Most famous, was the case of Alexander Litvinenko. Litvinenko, a former FSB officer who fled to England, was one of Putin’s most vocal critics. He was considered the “most prominent and ebullient” of Putin’s critics, as his “denunciations were fierce.”[33]The culmination of his discontent toward Putin came from the publication of his book ‘Blowing Up Russia‘ which claimed that Putin was one of the planners of the 1999 apartment bombings and that Chechnya was falsely blamed.[34]Not pleased by such vocal opposition, Putin approved the assassination of Litvinenko. On November 23, 2006 Alexander Litvinenko died mysteriously from radiation poisoning in London.[35]

Litvinenko, unfortunately, was not the only one to be murdered due to their opposition to Putin. Sergei Yushenkov, a politician who identified as a liberal and who campaigned for a free market economy, democratic reforms, and higher standards of human rights in Russia, was one of Putin’s most persistent and popular objectors. On April 17, 2003, mere hours after registering his political party to participate in the December 2003 parliamentary elections, Yushenkov was shot four times in the chest and died.[36]A few years prior, Anatoly Sobchak, the first democratically elected mayor of St. Petersburg and co-author of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, was a popular critic of the president, going so far as to call him “the new Stalin.”[37]He mysteriously died in a private hotel on February 20, 2000. As recently as 2015 there was the assassination of Boris Nemstov, a liberal politician and outspoken critic of Putin’s, who was shot four times in the back and died on the Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge in Moscow. Those brave politicians who were willing to oppose Putin put their life at risk, as Putin is all too willing to kill political opponents.

The only group that are at greater risk of being murdered by Putin then politicians are journalists. Publishing and producing critical material against Putin is an unwritten high crime that could lead the author to the same fate of Alexander Litvinenko. Anna Politkovskaya tragically found this to be the case. Politkovskaya, a human rights activist and writer who authored several books criticizing Putin, was shot in the elevator of her apartment building in 2006. As well, Yuri Shchekochikhin, an investigative journalist who made his name by writing and campaigning against organized crime and corruption in Russia, found the same fate three years prior. In July 2003 he mysteriously and suddenly died in Moscow, with claims (and evidence) that he was poisoned. Finally, there is Marina Litvinovich, a journalist and aid to Putin’s political rival Garry Kasparov, who regularly condemned the president. Leaving her Moscow office in March 2006, Litvinovich was savagely attacked. She was hit several times in the head with a blunt object and was left for dead. After spending several hours in intensive care, Litvinovich miraculously survived. But Putin’s strategy for state terror scared off many opposition journalists who wanted to write against Putin. It was better to play along with Putin then die.[38]

The politicians, journalists, and oligarchs that are discussed here are only some of those who were affected by Putin’s reign, as many more have been influenced in how they operate within their occupation due to the president’s use of state terror. Freedom of speech has effectively been censored unofficially, as the Sword of Damocles lays right above the heads of people of influence. Whether a person is a rich oligarch, opposition political opponent, or a critical journalist, one thing was for certain. If someone wanted to succeed in their field they had to work for Putin. If they opposed the former KGB agent, they risked imprisonment or even death.

Conclusion

When the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991 there was much optimism in the air. The opportunity for a better, freer Russia was on the horizon. However, these dreams would remain only that, a dream. A decade after the collapse of the Soviet empire, Vladimir Putin became president. Ever since he was granted the presidency by Yeltsin, Putin has done everything possible to keep his power from slipping from his grasp. To do this Putin had to go against the optimistic, democratic ideals that were found in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. From murdering opponents and imprisoning oligarchs to taking their assets and controlling media enterprises, dismantling any remnants of a democratic state, and going so far to commit tragedies on his people to further his gains, one thing about Putin is clear: he will stop at nothing to keep his control on Russia. Unfortunately, there is no end of the Putin regime in sight. In January 2020, Putin’s liquidation of the Russian Duma and the subsequent resignation of current Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, has left the control of Russia squarely in the hands of Vladimir Putin.  By using all of these different strategies to keep power, Putin has undisputed rule over his country, and has successfully became the “neo-Tsar” of Russia.     

What do you think of Vladimir Putin? Let us know below.

You can also read Brenden’s past articles on Russian history for the site: Why did the USSR collapse? (here) and Peter the Great’s visit to England (here).

[1]Karen Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia? (Simon & Schuster, 2015), 276.

[2]Masha Gessen, The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin (New York, NY: Riverhead Books, 2014), 26.

[3]David Satter, The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep: Russia’s Road to Terror and Dictatorship Under Yeltsin and Putin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017), 8.

[4]Satter, The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep, 9.

[5]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 42.

[6]Satter, The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep, 19.

[7]Ibid., 8.

[8]Ibid., 19.

[9]Ibid., 20.

[10]Ibid., 20.

[11]Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy, 273.

[12]Ibid., 324.

[13]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 181.

[14]Ibid., 181.

[15]Ibid., 183-184.

[16]Ibid., 185.

[17]Ibid., 185-186.

[18]Ibid., 184-185.

[19]Ibid., 190.

[20]Ibid., 265.

[21]Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy, 273.

[22]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 173.

[23]Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy, 289.

[24]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 174.

[25]Ibid., 161.

[26]Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy, 274.

[27]Ibid., 274.

[28]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 164. 

[29]Ibid., 174.

[30]Ibid., 145.

[31]Ibid., 324.

[32]Ibid., 243.

[33]Robert Owen, The Litvinenko Inquiry: Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, House of Commons, 2016, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/493860/The-Litvinenko-Inquiry-H-C-695-web.pdf, 56.

[34]Ibid., 57.

[35]Ibid., 244.

[36]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 129.

[37]Ibid.,142.

[38]Ibid.,218-226. 

Bibliography

Dawisha, Karen. Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia? Simon & Schuster, 2015.

Gessen, Masha. The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin. New York, NY: Riverhead Books, 2014.

Owen, Robert. The Litvinenko Inquiry: Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, January 2016, 

Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 26 of the Inquiries Act 2005. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 21 January 2016. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/493860/The-Litvinenko-Inquiry-H-C-695-web.pdf

Satter, David. The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep: Russia’s Road to Terror and Dictatorship Under Yeltsin and Putting. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017.

What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 2 - The Many Sons of George III

Queen Victoria is one of the most famous monarchs in history. Her reign of 63 years was the longest in the history of the United Kingdom until Queen Elizabeth II surpassed her, reigning 68 years and counting. Her name is synonymous with an entire time period. Surely there was never an individual that made such an impact on a country, if not the world.

But what if that had never happened? What if she never came to the throne? What if the original heir presumptive had lived to take the throne? And most importantly, how would the world have been different? This is an examination of those scenarios and how one death changed the entire world.

In part one (here) we discussed the tragic death of Charlotte, Princess of Wales, and her stillborn son. Her death had major ramifications on the royal succession. In part two we look at the sons of George III who all found themselves suddenly in need of wives in order to continue the Hanover line.

Denise Tubbs explains.

George III in the 1770s. Painting by Johann Zoffany.

Great Britain has had its share to succession crises over the centuries. The legitimacy of Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and their subsequent children has been debated for over 500 years. During the reign of Elizabeth I, succession was a huge topic since she refused to marry. Even spanning back to 1066, the Battle of Hastings between William of Normandy and Harold Godwinson started as a result of a succession crisis. So, what is it about this crisis that separates it from the rest? Well, no other royal house had more effect on world events for the next 100 years. 

George III had a lot of kids. A total of 15 children - nine sons and six girls. Of his daughters, two never had children, two were never married, one died in childhood, and the last had no surviving children. The continuation of the house of Hanover lied solely with his sons. His son the future George IV and Ernest Augustus both had only one child. Ernest Augustus had a son days apart from Victoria, missing the title of heir by a mere three days (Victoria was born on May 24, 1819 and George was born on May 27, 1819). The future William IV had a total of 10 children. Unfortunately, none of those 10 were legitimate. Prince Augustus Frederick had three children from his marriage; however, because he got married in secret and without the permission of his father, all were deemed illegitimate. Prince Frederick married, but had no children. Prince Adolphus has children but not until after the births of Victoria and Prince George. Lastly, Prince Edward had one child with Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg Saalfeld (she was the sister of Prince Leopold, Charlotte’s husband) before dying at the age of 52. This child was Victoria.

The line of succession

Since George IV was the oldest son and heir apparent to his father’s throne, that made his heir Charlotte. But when she died in 1817, the new heir apparent would have been the second oldest son of George III, Prince Fredrick. He would die in 1827, so the heir became the third oldest son of George III, William. At the time of Charlotte’s death William, Edward and Adolphus were not married. Ernest Augustus had married two years prior. All three unmarried princes were pressured by the public to do away with their bachelor life, marry and have a child before the line had no one left. The three of them would get married in rapid succession of each other - all getting married in 1818.  

So, let us recap since this was a lot of information. By 1817, George lost his only child and heir in childbirth, Charlotte. At the time of her death, William, Edward, and Adolphus were not married nor had any legitimate children. Ernest Augustus was married but had no children yet. Frederick was married but with no children. Augustus had children but they were ruled illegitimate. If William became king after George IV, and none of the remaining sons got married, William’s heir would be Ernest Augustus (Edward would be dead by 1820, so he and Frederick will be out of contention). Ernest Augustus had a son in 1819, so the throne would have passed to him next. If his son had no heir and the remaining sons were still alive the succession would have passed to Augustus and Adolphus. The line would die after Adolphus. 

This meant that the first son to have a child would be the father of the future of the country. The game is set, and as mentioned above, Victoria is born three days before her first Cousin George of Hanover in 1819. If Charlotte had not died in childbirth, there would have been no need for those three sons to make their rush to the altar. Victoria, as a result, would not have been born and her direct descendants who had a major effect on world history as we know it today would be drastically altered. Furthermore, even with Charlotte’s, if Victoria was born after George of Hanover she also would not have been in direct line to the throne. There are then two what if possibilities: of Victoria never being born or born after her cousin.

Next up we will look at the children of Victoria and the effect they would have on world events. 

Now, read part 3, the final part, here: What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 3 – The Impact of Queen Victoria on Europe

What do you think of this royal succession? Let us know below.

Sources

Wikipedia

PBS drama Victoria

Harriet Tubman: A Black US Civil War Heroine who Led a Spy RIng

The American Civil War created all manner of heroines. One such person was Harriet Tubman, a courageous African-American lady who led a spy ring and fought slavery during the US Civil War. Melissa Havran explains her courageous life.

Harriet Tubman in the 1860s.

Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is feeling that fear, insecurity, and doubt, but deciding that something else is more important. It's a quality that separates the ordinary from the extraordinary. Harriet Tubman, I believe, epitomized what it meant to be courageous. She believed in what she was doing, and continued to do it, regardless of the dangers involved.  As I began to research her role as a spy, I couldn't help but to question my own courage. If faced with the same dilemma, would I have been able to make the same choices Harriet made, even if those choices were a threat to my own wellbeing? Her story continues to amaze me. 

They called her “Moses” for leading enslaved people in the South to freedom up North. But Harriet Tubman fought slavery well beyond her role as a conductor for the Underground Railroad. As a soldier and spy for the Union Army during the Civil War, Tubman became the first woman to lead an armed military operation in the United States in what is known as the Combahee Ferry Raid.

By January 1, 1863, when the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect, Tubman had been in South Carolina as a volunteer for the Union Army. With her family behind in Auburn, New York, and having established herself as a prominent abolitionist in Boston circles, Tubman, at the request of Massachusetts Governor John Andrew, had gone to Hilton Head, South Carolina, which had fallen to the Union Army early in the war.

Spy ring

For months, Harriet Tubman worked as a laundress, opening a washhouse, and serving as a nurse, until she was given orders to form a spy ring. Her orders came as a result of her role gathering clandestine information, forming allies and avoiding capture, as she led the Underground Railroad. In her new role, Tubman assumed leadership of a secret military mission in South Carolina’s low country.

Tubman partnered with Colonel James Montgomery, an abolitionist who commanded the Second South Carolina Volunteers, a black regiment. Together, the two planned a raid along the Combahee River, to rescue slaves, recruit freed men into the Union Army, and obliterate some of the wealthiest rice plantations in the region. 

Montgomery already had 300 men and, combined with the 8 scouts Tubman had recruited, the two were able to map the area and send word to slaves when a raid would take place.

One characteristic that made Tubman a successful spy ringleader, was that she could get black people to trust her when the Union officers knew that they were not trusted by the local people.  Perhaps the most interesting piece of this story is that Tubman was indeed, illiterate, yet she had great success as a spy leader. Since she couldn't read or write, she also couldn't write down any intelligence she gathered. Instead, she committed everything to memory, guiding the ships towards strategic points near the shore where fleeing slaves were waiting and Confederate property could be destroyed.

While it seemed Tubman, for the most part, was able to compartmentalize her role as spy, some of her missions seemed to have more of an effect on her than others.

On one particular raid, where Tubman and Montgomery were working together to bring gunboats up river, Tubman vividly recalled the horrific scene that day with running slaves, women, babies and crying children being chased down by rebels and killed.

Legacy

After researching Tubman’s life as a Union spy, what stands out most is that she was recognized a hero, but never paid - largely because she was a black woman. Often, Tubman’s brave work was documented by local newspapers. She was never referred to by name, but instead as "She Moses", because just like Moses, she led an enslaved people to freedom. Perhaps writing that a black woman was leading Montgomery’s band of 300 men was unfortunately a little too much for the 1860s.

But Tubman’s anonymity came to an end in July 1863 when Franklin Sanborn, the editor of Boston’s Commonwealthnewspaper, picked up the story and named Harriet Tubman, a friend of his, as the heroine.

In the end, Tubman petitioned the government several times to be paid for her duties as a soldier and was denied because she was a woman.

Tubman would eventually get a pension, but only as the widow of a black Union soldier she married after the war, not for her courageous service as a soldier.  To think of the lives saved because of the courage of another is truly what makes Tubman’s story stand out as one of the greatest in American history. If we all possessed this incredible characteristic of courage, I often wonder how our world would be different.

What do you think of Harriet Tubman? Let us know below.

Kobe Bryant quote source: https://www.goalcast.com/2018/12/28/kobe-bryant-quotes/

General Henry Knox in the US Revolutionary War: The Noble Train of Artillery at the Siege of Boston

General Henry Knox (1750-1806, US Secretary of State for War from 1789 to 1794) played a key role in the American Revolutionary War. During the 1776 Siege of Boston he had a brilliant idea that manifested into the perilous journey of his noble train of artillery. Elizabeth Jones explains.

A portrait of Henry Knox from the 1780s. Painting by Charles Willson Peale.

Henry Knox was larger than life. Clocking in at over six feet and weighing more than 300 pounds, he was a giant during his lifetime and remains a giant in Revolutionary War history over 200 years after his death. And not only was he big, but in November 1775, he also had big problems. He had to find a way to move over 60 tons of artillery and munitions across the frozen 300 miles between Fort Ticonderoga and the city of Boston, which was under siege by the Americans due to the occupation of Boston by British forces.

Needless to say, the outcome looked grim. Without the firepower provided by the cannons and howitzers captured at Ticonderoga by Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys in 1775, the revolutionaries stood little chance of freeing Boston from her shackles. But Henry Knox wasn’t going to stand idly by while the British Army occupied his hometown.

Henry Knox, patriot and bookseller

Henry Knox was a first-generation American born in Boston in 1750. His formal education ended at age twelve when his father abandoned the family, and to support his mother he went to work as a clerk in a bookstore. As a result of his early and constant exposure to books, he became a voracious reader and educated himself on topics ranging from military strategy to advanced forms of mathematics.

Knox continued working in the bookstore, but he also made time for mischief, running with some of Boston’s notorious street gangs. At 18, Knox joined an artillery company presciently named The Train. He served in the company for several years, and once injured himself by shooting off two of his own fingers.

Knox opened his own bookstore in 1771 at the age of 21 and operated it until tensions between the British and their unruly American colonies reached a boiling point at Lexington and Concord on April 15 and 16, 1775.

Siege of Boston

The British forces took control of the city following the “shot heard ‘round the world” and Knox and his wife Lucy were forced to flee Boston, leaving the bookstore to be looted and vandalized. Knox immediately enlisted in the militia that was laying siege to the occupied city and served as an engineer, building fortifications.

Following the Battle of Bunker Hill, Knox was recognized for his work by the new Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, General George Washington, but he still remained without a commission into the Army proper. Still, he continued to serve valiantly, even though the siege seemed to be going nowhere fast.

Besides, he had an idea. One that just might be crazy enough to work.

The noble train of artillery

On May 10, 1775, not one month after the fighting between the British and the Americans began in earnest, Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys (including then-Colonel Benedict Arnold) captured Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York from the British, and with it an arsenal of heavy artillery. Ticonderoga was then largely managed from afar by Arnold and used intermittently by other American forces. But one man remembered.

Henry Knox, still without his commission, approached General Washington with the idea of ending the siege of Boston by using the 60-ton arsenal that remained at Fort Ticonderoga. The only problem was that the feat was a logistical nightmare, especially considering the level of sophistication of the transportation available at the time. But Washington believed in the still-green Knox and gave his plan the green light. So Knox set out from Boston with a team of men, animals, and vehicles to bring the guns of Ticonderoga to the city under siege in a convoy.

The recovery operations began in earnest on November 17, 1775, when the company left Boston. It arrived at Fort Ticonderoga on December 5th, and the team promptly began loading the nearly 60 guns and accompanying munitions and stockpiles. The easiest part completed, the company set back for Boston with the guns in tow in the midst of an 18th-century winter.

The elements were unforgiving, but the terrain was even more so. Bodies of water and mountain ranges stood between Knox and his destination, but Knox refused to be deterred. They reached the northern tip of Lake George on the cusp of it freezing, which would have made the crossing impossible. The guns were loaded onto the ships, with many of them being loaded onto a ship called a gundalow.

The challenges begin

The gundalow sank near the lake’s southern shore. Nearly 120,000 pounds of desperately-needed munitions lay on a ship near the bottom of a rapidly-freezing lake. Most people would have been disheartened and abandoned the entire endeavor, but Henry Knox wasn’t most people. The determined man worked with his team to bale out the sunken gundalow and recover the guns from Lake George.

The company reached the outpost of Fort George, and Knox found time to pen a quick letter to General Washington, stating that he hoped “to be able to present your Excellency a noble train of artillery”. The name stuck. Henceforth the expedition to bring the guns of Ticonderoga to Boston came to be known as the noble train of artillery.

Upon leaving the fort, the noble train of artillery had to cross a river, upon which sleds holding the guns were dragged. Suddenly the strong ice began to crack, and guns fell through the ice to the bottom of the river. Once again, Knox refused to abandon even a few pieces of artillery, and once again the guns were raised from the bottom of a body of water.

It would seem as if the worst was behind Knox and the noble train, but they still had to cross the Berkshires, an unforgiving mountain range that was covered in ice and snow. The crossing was difficult and the elements worked against them at every turn, but the noble train of artillery persevered, and they reached the other side of the mountain range, and on January 25, 1776, the company reached Boston, much to Washington’s relief.

Lifting the Siege

The guns gave the Americans a much-needed edge, but there was still work to be done. Artillery relentlessly pounded the city, until, in the dead of night, Washington ordered the guns to be positioned upon the twin peaks of Dorchester Heights in present-day South Boston. This strategy, along with Knox’s perseverance, led to the departure of the British from the city on March 17, 1776. To this day, March 17 is celebrated in South Boston as Evacuation Day.

Knox finally received his commission into the Continental Army and was eventually promoted to the rank of major general, becoming the youngest in the army. He served the majority of his Revolutionary War career as the American chief of artillery and was appointed by President Washington to become the first Secretary of War. Knox died on October 25, 1806.

Conclusion

General Henry Knox was more than just a trusted right-hand to General Washington and an able artillery chief for the Revolutionary Army. He was a visionary whose forward-thinking and willingness to take risks ended the Siege of Boston, ultimately moving the needle of independence forward.

What are your thoughts on General Knox? Was he brilliant or a mad-man, or both? Comment below to let us know what you think about the fabled bookseller-turned-general.

References

https://www.masshist.org/database/viewer.php?item_id=463&pid=15

1776 by David McCullough

Henry Knox: Visionary General of the American Revolutionby Mike Puls

The Role of the Baptists in the Pursuit of Religious Liberty in America: Part 2 – Roger Williams and Religious Freedom

When thinking about the Constitution of the United States, names like James Madison usually come to mind. But a friend of the great "architect of the Constitution," John Leland, a Baptist minister, had much to do with Madison's giant accomplishments. In fact, without Mr. Leland's influence the establishment clause in the First Amendment may not exist as we know it. In this series of articles we will explore the critical but little-known role played by the Baptists in helping to secure America’s cherished religious freedoms. In the second article we look at the important and lasting influence of Roger Williams, a 17th century religious thinker who argued for religious freedom. 

Victor Gamma explains. You can read part 1 on the persecution suffered by Baptists in 17th century America here.

Return of Roger Williams from England with the First Charter, 1644. From a painting by C.R. Grant.

Last time we looked at some early examples of how Baptists resisted state control of religion and some of their motives and the reasons for conflict with the established church. In this next article we will examine the impact and career of one of the most famous early colonists: Roger Williams. Not only is he credited with establishing the first Baptist church in America, he was an early champion of quintessential American liberal ideals such as separation of church and state, fairness in dealings with Native Americans and the abolition of slavery. In holding these convictions, Williams was far in advance of most contemporaries. Naturally, such sentiments did not sit well with the austere Puritans, especially when expounded by someone like Williams, who was one of those people who insist on loudly proclaiming all the vagaries of their conscience regardless of the consequence. 

Williams was not the first nonconformist to set foot in the New England wilderness. Massachusetts would be the scene of the first confrontation in the long Baptist contest for freedom of conscience. In 1620 the first dissenters from England arrived when 102 settlers came to Plymouth. Many were members of a separatist group under the leadership of John Robinson. Soon the settlement attracted a variety of those seeking religious freedom. However, in the Great Migration of the 1630s, large numbers of non-separating Puritans began settling in the colony. These Puritans believed that, for all its faults, the Church of England was still a true church. 

The early clashes with the Puritan establishment represent the first phase of the Baptist quest for liberty: the right to simply exist and gather together as a body. This goal was achieved by the end of the seventeenth century. Leading this early effort was the brilliant, idealistic and combative visionary Roger Williams. In England the harsh treatment of dissenters by Archbishop Laud, led Williams, who had become a Puritan, to immigrate to Massachusetts in 1631. Soon after arriving, Williams broke with the Church of England entirely and, after offending the authorities at Boston with his nonconformist views, moved to Salem where he worked with a separatist congregation for a time before moving to Plymouth. It did not take long for the outspoken Williams to clash with the establishment again. 

An Exile Founds a Colony

The Massachusetts government found it impossible to ignore this charismatic and persuasive man in their young colony who would not back down nor be silenced. He was also a threat due to his intelligence. A precocious youth, Sir Edward Coke had discovered him as a mere lad recording Star Chamber speeches and sermons in shorthand. For his part, Williams forced the issue by the bold and perhaps intemperate manner of his proclamation on the doctrine of tolerance and by sternly questioning the right of the king and the colonial government to appropriate lands from Native Americans without recompense. The state, Williams confidently asserted, has power only over “the Bodies and Goods, and outward state of men.” He argued that civil magistracy has no legitimate right to persecute citizens for their beliefs. He also refused to acknowledge the legality of a church-state alliance such as existed in Massachusetts. Massachusetts in turn condemned Williams, linking him with John Smyth, the founder of the Baptist Church. The official charges against Williams stated that he “hath broached and divulged divers new and dangerous opinions against the authority of magistrates, as also writ letters of defamation both of the magistrates and churches here.” The ‘letters of defamation’ consisted of an appeal to the charter Williams had written and a letter he wrote to his congregation regarding the separation of church and state. The sentence of banishment read, “It is therefore ordered that the said Mr. Williams shall depart out of this jurisdiction within six weeks now next ensuing, which, if he neglect to perform, it shall be lawful for the governor and two of the magistrates to send him to some place out of this jurisdiction, not to return any more without license from the court.”

The ruling caused such an uproar in Salem, that the Magistrates began to reconsider their decision and extended the time of his required leaving into the spring. Williams regarded this as a sign of leniency and began to proclaim his radical views all the more loudly, to which he now added that he was an Anabaptist, denying the validity of infant baptism. This outburst ended any sympathy Williams had preserved among the majority of settlers and led Governor Haynes to resolve to remove this thorn in the side of the colony and deposit him back to England immediately. Having learned that Williams’ refused a summons to appear at court in Boston, a vessel was dispatched to Salem for his arrest. Warned by former Governor Winthrop, Williams and some followers, in the midst of a New England winter, escaped and made their way with the help of local tribes to Narraganset Bay in what is now Rhode Island.

Of his new colony Williams wrote, “I desired it might be for a shelter for persons distressed of conscience...” and he worked hard to make that statement a reality. In 1640 the Providence township articles of government announced: “We agree, as formerly been the liberties of the Town, so still to hold forth Liberty of Conscience.” After some years of hosting church meetings in his home, Williams established the first Baptist Church in America in 1638. Settlers and refugees of a similar mind, including Anne Hutchinson and her family, soon formed communities nearby. These settlements maintained a loose association until threats against their independence led them in 1643 to seek to become an English Colony. Accordingly Roger Williams set out for England in 1644 to secure a charter. 

The tolerant reputation of Rhode Island quickly spread and soon non-conformists such as Quakers were making Rhode Island their home. True to his word, Williams, although opposed to the Society of Friends, allowed them to live in the colony, freely holding their meetings and discussing their beliefs. Soon Rhode Island became an example to other colonies. Rhode Island’s religious pluralism also drew criticism. It led Cotton Mather to write, “There never was held such a variety of religious together on so small a spot of ground . . . Antinomians, Familists, Anabaptists, Antisabbatarians, Arminians, Socinians, Quakers, Ranters—everything in the world but Roman Catholics and real Christians.”

A "Bloudy" Controversy

Restless as ever, Williams did not remain with the Baptists for long, but nonetheless, his example and writings had a powerful influence on the future of the Baptist Church as well as the cause of religious liberty. Many of Williams’ most influential writings appeared in a series of treatises written as part of a long-standing debate with Cotton Mather, who defended the Standing Order. Mather issued statements and correspondence which argued for state support of religious uniformity. Williams first took aim at the Puritan Divine in 1644 with The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed. In this treatise, Williams attacked religious and political intolerance. Cotton Mather returned fire with The Bloudy Tenant, Washed, and Made White in the Bloud of the Lamb, in 1647. After returning from England in 1652, Williams' answered with The Bloudy Tenent, yet more Bloudy: by Mr. Cotton’s Endeavor to Wash it White in the Bloud of the Lambe. In these works, Williams laid out his beliefs on religious liberty, namely; that God alone can judge the conscience, the use of force by the civil authority in matters of religion is entirely ineffective and in fact an evil against God’s design and contrary to Christ’s methods, and non-Christians could be good citizens. Williams limited the role of government to non-religious matters such as maintaining order and justice. The Bloudy Tenantmade full use of the Williams skills at argumentation and was written in the form of a dialogue between Truth and Peace. Williams has both Peace and Truth plead movingly against religious persecution:

Peace: Dear Truth I have two sad complaints. First, the most sober of your witnesses that dare to plead your cause, how are they charged to be mine enemies—contentions, turbulent, seditious! Secondly, your enemies, though they speak and rail against you, though they outrageously pursue, imprison, banish, kill your faithful witnesses, yet how is all need over for justice against the heretics! 

The words and deeds of Roger Williams gave a powerful impulse to the cause of religious freedom. Williams’ impact went well beyond a controversy with the Massachusetts religious establishment, his writings would be cited as philosophical support for John Locke, The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the writings of Thomas Jefferson on religious liberty. 

In part 3 (here), How the Baptists Ensured Religious Freedom, you can read about another heroic defender of religious liberty (there seems to be no end of them!), the early Rhode Island colony and the early Baptists in Massachusetts.

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

The Importance of the Telegraph in the US Civil War: Part 3 - The Union’s Use of the Telegraph

The American Civil War (1861-65) saw a breakthrough in various technologies. One of particular importance was the telegraph, a communication technology that had grown greatly in significance in the years before the US Civil War broke out. Here, K.R.T. Quirion concludes his three-part series on the importance of the telegraph in the US Civil War by looking at the role of the telegraph in the later years of the Civil War and its importance in the Union’s victory.

You can read part 1 in the series on the history of the telegraph in the 19th century here and part 2 on the telegraph in the early years of the US Civil War here.

Wagons and men of the U.S. Military Telegraph Construction Corps. Brandy Station, Virginia, 1864.

President Lincoln in the Telegraph Office

As an early adopter of the telegraph, Lincoln realized the importance of building a strong telegraphic infrastructure within the government and the military. With the Union facing the prospect of a 1,000-mile battle front, the telegraph gave Lincoln an unprecedented ability to “converse with his military leaders in the field as though he were in the tent with them” and power to “assume the role of commander-in-chief in a more titular sense.”[1]

Before Lincoln could exercise any degree of control over the nation’s dispersed military forces, it was necessary to organize the telegraphic capabilities of the Union. At the start of the Civil War all government telegraphs passed through one central communications hub, not even the War Department had its own separate line. [2]The organization of the USMTC soon remedied that deficiency when its headquarters were established inside of the War Department. By March of 1862, the telegraph had become so vital to the prosecution of the war that Secretary Stanton moved the USMTC telegraph office into to the “old library room, on the second floor front…adjoining his own quarters.”[3]In short order, the telegraph office of the War Department became Lincoln’s “Situation Room, where the president not only monitored events through incoming messages but also initiated communications directly to the field.” Lincoln spent more time in the telegraph office than in any other location during his presidency.[4]

Lincoln Takes Command

At first, Lincoln’s telegraphs were few. In the last six months of 1861, Lincoln sent only thirteen telegrams.[5]Despite this infrequency, the President exhibited no qualms about using the telegraph to “issue instructions regarding the disposition of troops.”[6]In these early telegraphs, Lincoln began exercising the authority of the commander-in-chief in a direct way. In one telegraph to John C. Fremont, the President ordered the General to begin deploying his troops in Kentucky. [7]Lincoln even went so far as to countermand Fremont’s own dispensation of his troops. [8]These first forays in taking direct command of Union troops were on a “glimmer of what was to happen.” [9]By 1862, the president had begun using the telegraph as means of directly communicating with commanders in the field without the filter of their commanding general. [10]Part of this direct action by Lincoln was brought about by has frustration with General George B. McClellan’s hesitancy to engage the enemy.

In May, the President traveled to the front lines of McClellan’s Peninsular campaign to see the work first hand. Upon arrival, Lincoln discovered that although the Union occupied Fort Monroe, the General had done nothing to silence the Confederate ironclad the Merrimac, or its base of operations at Norfolk, both of which resided just across the waters of Hampton Roads. Furious with McClellan’s complacency, the President took it upon himself to capture Norfolk and began “directing the movements” from his mobile White House at Fort Monroe. [11]

Having taken action and tasted the fruits of his decisiveness, Lincoln thereafter began issuing “explicit and direct command to his generals” through the telegraph network. [12]His deepening involvement with the intricacies of the war led Lincoln to practically live in the telegraph office, going so far as to request a cot be set up in that room so that he could remain in proximity to the wires rather than return to the White House. [13]The cipher and telegraph officers of the War Department on whom Lincoln relied said of the President that the “Commander-in-Chief…possessed an almost intuitive perception of the practical requirements of that….office, and…was performing the duties of that position in the most intelligent and effective manner.” [14]All of the “intuitive perception” in the world would have been useless however, had it not been for the amazing power of the telegraph.

Union Military Commanders Use the Telegraph

Lincoln was not the only Union commander who learned to use the telegraph to project himself across the vast lengths of the battlefront. It was in fact the “Young Napoleon” George McClellan himself that first grasped the great potential of this new technology. Later, General Ulysses S. Grant would perfect the use of the telegraph giving him a precision of control over the movements and actions of his troops unheard of before in the history of warfare.

McClellan had experience with commanding through the telegraph before he was appointed to lead the Union army. Fresh out of West Point, the Army sent McClellan to Europe as an official observer of the Crimean War. There he witnessed the first application of the telegraph in battle. Following that, he resigned his commission to become a railroad executive, where he became intimately acquainted with the telegraph. Thus, when he rejoined the army at the start of the Civil War, there was perhaps no military commander better suited to make use of this new technology.

Within the first few months of the war, McClellan enlisted the services of a Western Union Executive, Anton Stager, to organize a military field telegraph. It was soon after this that Stager was assigned to oversee the operations of the USMTC. In short order, McClellan, because of the telegraph, was able to exert unprecedented tactical communication with his command which allowed him to rapidly change battle plans. [15]He brought his experience with using the telegraph network with him once he was appointed to lead the Union’s forces. Once in Washington, McClellan’s headquarters were quickly “festooned with wires connecting him to all the fronts and making [him] the hub of military information.” [16]

Unfortunately for the President, all the information in the world could not get McClellan to move. The commander who would most effectively employ the telegraph was Ulysses S. Grant. Greely writes that:

From the opening of Grant’s campaign in the Wilderness to the close of the war, an aggregate of over two hundred miles of wire was put up and taken down from day to day; yet its efficiency as a constant means of communication between the several commands was not interfered with. [17]

The lines of the USMTC bound the corps of the Army of the Potomac together like “a perfect nervous system, and kept the great controlling head in touch with all its parts.” [18]Never after crossing the Rapidan did a single corps lose direct communication with the commanding general. 

Grant, more than any commander before him, employed the telegraph for both “grand tactics and for strategy in its broadest sense.” [19]From his headquarters in Virginia, Grant daily issued orders and read reports on the operations of his commanders who were dispersed across the vast battlefront of the Confederacy. With Meade in Virginia, Sherman in Georgia, Sigel in West Virginia, and Butler on the James River, Grant commanded a military force exceed half a million soldiers and conducted operations over eight hundred thousand square miles. [20]In his memoirs, General William Tecumseh Sherman said that, “[t]he value of the telegraph cannot be exaggerated, as illustrated by the perfect accord of action of the armies of Virginia and Georgia.” [21]

Conclusion

The successful application of the telegraph by the Union was the result of the concerted effort of Lincoln, his military commanders, and thousands of skilled USMTC operators. By the end of the Civil War, the USMTC had constructed 15,000 miles of dedicated military telegraph lines. [22]These lines were operated in addition to the thousands of commercial lines which were taken over by the federal government. Together this vast telecommunications network brought the President, the War Department, and the commanding generals “within seconds of each other”, though enemy fortifications or even thousands of miles of wilderness might have intervened. [23]

This intricately organized network allowed Grant to utilize the full potential of the telegraph. Grant more than any other commander besides Lincoln, learned to project himself using this new technology. In this way, Grant was able to strategically maneuver his forces across the battlefields of Virginia, Georgia, West Virginia and elsewhere with rapidity and precision. As Plum writes, the telegraph was of “infinite importance to the Commander, who, from his tent in Virginia, was to move his men upon the great continental chess-board of war understandingly.” [24]Grant acquired a precision and speed with this powerful new technology that allowed him to out maneuver his opponents. He used this power to command his army in ways that were unthinkable to previous generations of military leadership. With a clear picture of the immense theater of war and a powerful means of mobilizing his units Grant was able to cut off reinforcements to General Lee and shorten the conflict. [25]

 

How important do you think the telegraph was in the Union’s victory in the US Civil War? Let us know below.

Remember, you can read part 1 in the series on the history of the telegraph in the 19th century here and part 2 on the telegraph in the early years of the US Civil War here.

[1]Tom Wheeler, Mr. Lincoln’s T-Mails: How Abraham Lincoln Used the Telegraph to Win the Civil War, (New York, NY: Harper Business, 2007), 65. 

[2]Ibid., 1.

[3]Bates, Lincoln in the Telegraph Office: Recollections of the United States Military Telegraph Corps during the Civil War, 38.

[4]Wheeler, Mr. Lincoln’s T-Mails: How Abraham Lincoln Used the Telegraph to Win the Civil War, 10. 

[5]Ibid., 40.

[6]Ibid., 42.

[7]The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed., Roy Basler, (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), vol. IV, 485. 

[8]Ibid., 499.

[9]Wheeler, 41.

[10]Ibid., 44.

[11]Bates, 117.

[12]Wheeler., 54

[13]Ibid., 77.

[14]Bates, 122.

[15]Edward Hagerman, The American Civil War and the Origins of Modern Warfare: Ideas, Organization, and Field Command, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988), 37.

[16]Wheeler, 40.

[17]Greely, “The Military-Telegraph Service.”

[18]Ibid.

[19]Ibid.

[20]Ibid.

[21]Plum, Vol. II, 140.

[22]Greely.

[23]Ibid.

[24]Plum, Vol. II, 128.

[25]Greely.

The Battle that Turned the War of 1812?

The War of 1812 took place between the US and the UK from 1812 to 1815. There were many twists and turns in the war, and here Chuck Lyons tells us about the naval encounter at the Battle of Plattsburgh/Battle of Lake Champlain. This battle may have turned the course of the war.

The US Sloop Saratoga (left center) and the U.S. Brig Eagle (right) engaging the British flagship Confiance (center) off Plattsburg, New York, 11 September 1814. By Edward Tufnell.

In September 1814, twenty-seven months into the War of 1812, four British warships and a dozen gunboats sailed into Plattsburgh Bay at the northern end of Lake Champlain between New York State and Vermont. They were there to support an 11,000-strong army under General Sir George Prevost, an army that has been called “the strongest…that had ever been sent to North America,” and an army that intended to sever the new United States with a march on New York City.

In the battle that followed broadsides were fired at point blank range and gunboats exchanged fire within pistol shot of each other.

It would be a turning point of the War of 1812.

The opposing sides

The American ships were under the command of Lt. Thomas Macdonough, who was 28-years-old but had been in the Navy since he was sixteen, had fought with Stephen Decatur in the First Barbary War, and had been in command of Lake Champlain naval operations since October of 1812. The British force was under the command of newly-arrived Capt. George Downie, a twenty-year veteran of the British Navy.

Capt. Downie commanded the Confiance, a 1,200-ton frigate carrying thirty-seven guns, that was nearly double the size of the 734-ton American flagship Saratoga.  She was accompanied by the sloops Linnet, Chubb, and Finch, as well as twelve gunboats, each carrying one or two guns. In all, the British had sixteen vessels. Opposing them would be America’s fourteen vessels.  

Lt. Macdonough had retired to Plattsburg Bay to nullify the British superiority in long guns and was waiting in a north-south line when at about 9 a.m. Sept. 11, the British vessels rounded Cumberland Head on the eastern side of the bay firing blank charges to notify Prevost of their arrival 

The battle was quickly on.

The battle

“The firing was terrific, fairly shaking the ground, and so rapid that it seemed to be one continuous roar, intermingling with spiteful flashing from the mouths of guns, and dense clouds of smoke soon hung over the two fleets,” wrote Julius Hubbell, who watched the battle from Cumberland Hill on the east side of the Bay.

Capt. Downie was killed in the first fifteen minutes of the fighting.  

About 10:30 a.m. Lt. Robert Henley, commanding the American ship Eaglecut her cable and allowed his ship to drift south to the rear of Saratoga, which was now receiving fire from theLinnet and theConfiance. There he joined in firing on the latter with his undamaged port side guns.

By now nearly all the Saratoga’s starboard guns had been knocked out, and the ship had been set afire twice by hot shot from the Confiance. Finally, the single cannon left on the Saratoga’sstarboard side broke free and fell down the main hatch. Confiance by this time had only four port guns still operational. At this point, Lt. Macdonough let go his stern anchor, passed the hawser from one of the ship’s kedge anchors, which had been laid off Saratoga’s bow, under the bow and hauled to “wind ship” and bring the Saratoga’s thirteen undamaged port guns to bear on Confiance. Trying the same maneuver, but too badly damaged to execute it, the Confiancegot stuck halfway around leaving her stern open to the Saratoga’s guns.

Helpless,Confiancesurrendered at 11 a.m.

Lt. Macdonough then hauled again on the Saratoga’sanchor cable and turned her fury on the isolated Linnet. With water rising to as much as a foot above her lower deck, and the wounded in danger of drowning, the British brig struck her colors at 11:20 while USS Ticonderoga was finishing up its engagement with the British gunboats.Those gunboats that had not already dropped out of the fighting fled the scene.

None of the large vessels of either side had a mast left that would bear a sail.

The British had lost five officers, including Capt. Downie, forty-nine enlisted men killed and 116 wounded, a casualty rate of eighteen percent. The Americans suffered a casualty rate of thirteen percent with four officers and forty-eight men killed and another fifty-eight wounded. 

Meanwhile on land the British and American forces had engaged in an artillery duel until word reached Gen. Prevost of the defeat of his naval support in the bay.  Realizing there was no longer any reason for his assault and that Plattsburgh itself was no longer an objective, Provost called off the action and retreated north. 

Five months later the war was over.

What do you think the impact of the Battle of Plattsburgh/Battle of Lake Champlain was on the War of 1812? Let us know below.

The Importance of the Telegraph in the US Civil War: Part 2 - The Telegraph in the Early Years of the War

The American Civil War (1861-65) saw a breakthrough in various technologies. One of particular importance was the telegraph, a communication technology that had grown greatly in significance in the years before the US Civil War broke out. Here, K.R.T. Quirion continues his three-part series on the importance of the telegraph in the US Civil War by looking at the role of the telegraph in the early years of the US Civil War and how the Union made use of it.

You can read part 1 in the series on the history of the telegraph in the 19th century here.

US Military Telegraph Service battery wagon, Army of the Potomac headquarters. In Petersburg, Virginia, June 1864.

The Telegraph Demonstrates its Usefulness 

In 1861, journalists flooded into Washington, D.C. and would remain through the course of the Civil War to disseminate information across the country. The news of the attack on Fort Sumter on April 12 spread like wildfire and was immediately followed by President Lincoln’s call for 75,000 militia volunteers. [1]Because of the telegraph, Americans would read about war as the events unfolded. This speed in communications precipitated a speed in events as well.

Having read Lincoln’s call for the organization of a military, secessionists in Virginia and Maryland mobilized, hoping to capture Washington off guard and end the war before it began. The Confederacy’s secretary of war predicted that his new nation’s flag would “fly over the U.S. Capitol by May 1.” [2]Governor John Andrew of Massachusetts however, had already mobilized his state’s militia for action. 

When news of the secessionist’s plan reached the capitol on April 17, the Massachusetts militia was called by the War Department. Andrews telegraphed back that, “Two…regiments will start this afternoon.” [3]These forces however, were held up by secessionists in Baltimore en routeto intercepting the forces headed to Washington, D.C. [4]Luckily, five Pennsylvanian companies had been contact by telegraph and ordered to hasten to the Capital before the arrival of the Massachusetts soldiers, thereby cutting off the secessionist coup d’état.[5]Without the near instant communication of the telegraph, Union forces would have arrived too late to secure the capitol.

The Union Organizes its Telegraph System

As the events of April 17 demonstrated, the telegraph was destined to play a significant role in the course of the Civil War. Anticipating this, Myer hoped toexpand the role of the Signal Corps by creating an officer core. In 1861, he submitted a draft of legislation to Secretary of War Simon Cameron, “for the organization of a signal corps to serve during the present war, and to have the charge of all the telegraphic duty of the Army.”[6]Despite various appropriations of money to buy equipment, Congress did not approve the creation of a dedicated officer corps for the Signal Corp until March 1863. In the interim, Myer had to rely on field commanders to detail officers and men to duty in the “acting signal corps.” [7]

Concurrent with Myer’s efforts to grow the Signal Corps was the creation of a rival organization, the U.S. Military Telegraph Service (USMTC). The secessionist uprising in the North and Upper South during 1861 caused the “seizure of the commercial [telegraph] systems around Washington.” [8]A young, ambitious Superintendent of the Pennsylvania Railroad was tasked with rebuilding, reinforcing, and extending the telegraph and railway infrastructure from Washington south toward the heart of the Confederacy. [9]The Superintendent’s name was Andrew Carnegie. Completing this, Carnegie and his task force enlarged the network to connect important stations such as “the navy yard and the arsenal, with the War Department, and to run lines to Arlington, Chain Bridge,” and other outposts.” [10]

Anson Stager, the general superintendent of the Western Union Telegraph Company was appointed captain and assistant-quartermaster of the USMTC on November 11, 1861, and was “assigned in Special Order 313 to duty as general manager of military telegraph lines.”[11]Stager and the entire USMTC reported directly to Secretary of War Stanton. By an act of Congress in 1862, the civilian operated USMTC, through the oversight of the War Department, took control of all commercial telegraph lines in the Union.

Battle for Supremacy

In an effort to outflank the USMTC, Myer proposed the creation of a “Telegraphic or Signal Train to accompany the Army on the march.”[12]These “trains” consisted of two wagons equipped with five miles of telegraphic wire and telegraph equipment. Raines, explains that, “[i]n battle, one wagon remained at the starting point as a receiving station, while the other traveled into the field with the sending instrument.” [13]The first field operations of the telegraph train were during the Peninsula campaign in May 1862. General McClellan witnessed “the great usefulness of this system” but perceived it as a supplement to the work already being done by the USMTC. [14]

The telegraph trains of the Signal Corps were again deployed during the battle of Fredericksburg. Maj. Gen. Ambrose E. Burnside was connected with his division commanders Maj. Gen. Edwin Sumner and Maj. Gen. William Franklin, as well as the Union supply base at Belle Plain throughout the course of the combat. The success of the trains enabled Myer to appropriate additional funds so that “by late 1863 thirty [telegraph trains] were in service throughout the Army.” [15]This success however, exacerbated the tension between the Signal Corps and the USMTC both of which were actively operating lines throughout the battlefront.

This inter-governmental conflict reached its peak following the failure of the Chancellorsville campaign in 1863. At the battle of Chancellorsville in the spring of 1863, both the Signal Corps and the USMTC were once again deployed side by side. The Signal Corps however, was forced to relinquish some of its lines to the USMTC as a result of the “technical limitations” of the Beardslee telegraph machine which the Signal Corps employed.[16]

The problem was that the Beardslee, which was powered by revolving magnets rather than by batteries, was only capable of generating enough electricity to transmit message in the five to eight mile range. [17]Maj. Gen Joseph Hooker was on the South side of the Rappahannock while his chief of staff Gen. Butterfield was ten miles on the North side of the river. The Signal Corps required three hours to transmit messages between the two commanders using a combination of electrical and visual signals. [18]Butterfield and Hooker soon overloaded the capacity of the Signal Corps lines which were staffed with many new operators and badly in need of repair after months of use. The system eventually collapsed entirely and the USMTC took over complete control of communication duties for the remainder of the campaign.

The USMTC Takes Over

In the wake of the Chancellorsville disaster, Myer decided to convert the Signal Corps to the superior Morse machine. This action however, put the Signal Corps in direct competition with the USMTC for trained operators. Without gaining the approval of Secretary Stanton, Myer placed a series of advertisements in the Army and Navy Official Gazette “calling for expert telegraphers to apply for commissions in the Signal Corps.” [19]Myer’s action was promptly chastised as “irregular and improper” by Assistant Secretary of War W. A. Nichols. [20]

Colonel Stager reacted to Myer’s action by recommending to Secretary Stanton that “management of all field and military electric telegraphs be confined to the...[USMTC], or, that that Department be abolished, and the whole business placed under the control of the Signal Corps.” [21]On November 10, 1893, Myer was recalled to the War Department where he was relieved of command. Stanton promptly issued Special Order 499 requiring “all magneto-electric field signal trains and apparatus” of the U.S. Signal Corps to be turned over to the USMTC as well as all Signal Corps personnel. [22]

In the aftermath of the Civil War the USMTC would be disbanded and the Signal Corps would by the sole department tasked with maintaining military communications. From 1863 until the end of the war however, all military telegraph communications would be carried out by the War Department through its civilian apparatus the USMTC. With this consolidation, the Union would finally be able to realize the potential of the telegraph.

What do you think about the importance of the telegraph in the US Civil War? Let us know below.

Now, you can read part 3 on The Union’s Use of the Telegraph in the US Civil War here.

[1]Paul Farhi, “How the Civil War gave birth to modern journalism in the nation’s capital,” Washington Post, (March 2, 2012). 

[2]Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative, Vol. 1 Fort Sumter to Perryville, (New York, NY: Random House, 1958), 53.

[3]James M. McPherson, Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction, (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2001), 164.

[4]John E.O’Brien,Telegraphing in Battle: Reminiscences of the Civil War, (Scranton, PA: The Reader Press, 1910), 5.

[5]Plum, Vol. I, 64.

[6]Plum, Vol. I,9.

[7]Raines, Getting the Message Through: A Branch History of the U.S. Army Signal Corps, 8.

[8]A.W. Greely, “The Military-Telegraph Service,” Signal Corp Association.

[9]David Nasaw, Andrew Carnegie, (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2007), 73.

[10]J. Emmet O’Brien, “Telegraphing in Battle.” The Century, Vol. 38, Is. 5 (Sep., 1889).

[11]David H. Bates, Lincoln in the Telegraph Office: Recollections of the United States Military Telegraph Corps during the Civil War, (New York, NY: D. Appleton-Century Company Inc., 1907), 31.

[12]Raines, 17.

[13]Ibid., 18.

[14]U.S. War Department, War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, 128 Vols. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1880–1901), Ser. 1, Vol. 5, 31.

[15]Raines, 20.

[16]Ibid.

[17]Paul J. Scheips, “Union Signal Communications: Innovation and Conflict,” Civil War History, Vol. IX, No. 4 (Dec. 1963), 11.

[18]Raines, 20.

[19]Scheips, “Union Signal Communications: Innovation and Conflict,” 11.

[20]Raines, 21.

[21]Plum, Vol. II, 101.

[22]Ibid., 102.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources:

Bates, David H. Lincoln in the Telegraph Office: Recollections of the United States Military Telegraph Corps during the Civil War. New York, NY: D. Appleton-Century Company Inc. (1907).

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Ed. Roy Basler. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. (1953).

Greely, A.W. “The Military-Telegraph Service.” Signal Corp Association. Accessed May 3, 2016. 

http://www.civilwarsignals.org/pages/tele/telegreely/telegreely.html

Morse, Samuel F.B. “Improvement in the Mode of Communicating Information by Signals by the Application of Electro-Magnetism.” Patent No. 1,647. United Stets Patent Office. (June 20, 1840).

O’Brien, John E. Telegraphing in Battle: Reminiscences of the Civil War. Scranton, PA: The Reader Press. (1910).

Plum, William R. The Military Telegraph During the Civil War in the United States, Vol. I & II. New York, NY: Arno Press. (1974).

“War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, 128 Vols.” U.S. War Department. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. (1880–1901).

Secondary Sources:

Cambou, Don. Civil War Tech in Modern Marvels. New York, NY: A&E Television Network. (2006).

“Civil War and Industrial Expansion, 1860–1897 (Overview).”  Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History. 1999. Encyclopedia.com. Accessed February 28, 2016. 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406400169.html

Clark, John E. Railroads in the Civil War: The Impact of Management on Victory and Defeat. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. (2001).

Foote, Shelby. The Civil War: A Narrative, Vol. 1 Fort Sumter to Perryville. New York, NY: Random House. (1958).

“First transatlantic telegraph cable completed.” History.com. Accessed March 01, 2016. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/first-transatlantic-telegraph-cable-completed.

Hagerman, Edward. The American Civil War and the Origins of Modern Warfare: Ideas, Organization, and Field Command. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. (1988).

McPherson, James M. Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. (2001).

Nasaw, David. Andrew Carnegie. New York, NY: Penguin Books. (2007).

Peters, Arthur K. Seven Trails West. New York, NY: Abbeville Press. (1996).

Raines, Rebecca R. Getting the Message Through: A Branch History of the U.S. Army Signal Corps. Washington D.C.: Center of Military History. (1996).

Wheeler, Tom. Mr. Lincoln’s T-Mails: How Abraham Lincoln Used the Telegraph to Win the Civil War. New York, NY: Harper Business. (2007). 

Journal Articles:

Farhi, Paul. “How the Civil War gave birth to modern journalism in the nation’s capital.” Washington Post.(March 2, 2012). 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-the-civil-war-gave-birth-to-modern-journalism-in-the-nations-capital/2012/02/24/gIQAIMFpmR_story.html.

O’Brien, J. Emmet. “Telegraphing in Battle.” The Century, Vol. 38, Is. 5 (Sep., 1889). http://www.civilwarsignals.org/pages/tele/teleinbat/teleinbat.html.

Scheips, Paul J. “Union Signal Communications: Innovation and Conflict.” Civil War History, Vol. IX, No. 4 (Dec. 1963).

Trotter, William R. “The Music of War.” HistoryNet. http://www.historynet.com/the-music-of-war.htm.