Irish hero Michael Collins: Merely an ambitious man?

S M Sigerson, author of "The Assassination of Michael Collins: What Happened at Béal na mBláth?" continues to re-examine a number of myths which have distorted the facts about Collins.  Some have argued that he was merely one of several ambitious men, vying for power at the time.  But does that adequately explain his role in Irish history, his legendary stature, or his undying fascination?

The previous articles in this series are here on four myths related to Collins’ death and here on another myth.

Michael Collins giving a speech. Source: Cork Film Archive, site here.

One argument that has been put forward to explain away the phenomenon of Michael Collins is the contention that he was merely one of several ambitious men of the time.  Some suggest that he was distinguished only by his failure to survive, by being less successful than others. 

History always involves debate.  In Collins' case, the controversy which ended his life is not altogether a thing of the past, but rages on in Ireland today.  Therefore writers on this topic are particularly liable to favour either himself or his political opponents.

This and other trivializations of Collins is often found in the mouths of DeValera eulogists.  If translated from subliminal nuance into the plainest language possible, perhaps it might read something like: "Collins' death didn't matter. Nothing would have been better had he lived.  Collins just wasn't as successful as others. Collins was a loser."

Is there a political agenda detectable, in thus waving aside the achievements of the only leader to see the British Army off Irish soil, in seven centuries of trying?

If Mr. DeValera can by reason and argument induce the people of Ireland to entrust the Nation's fortunes to him and his party ... in that event the duty of the Army, no matter what were their individual views, would be to support Mr DeValera's government, and I would exhort the people to support that government, as a government, even if I were in political opposition...

Progressive campaigning often turns on convincing people that (1) change is possible and (2) the candidate / party is different from the establishment, and will make change happen.  For the same reason, these two principles are often targeted by entrenched political establishments. It becomes, in a sense, their job (if they want to keep their jobs) to convince the public that change is not going to happen. It is in their interests to encourage a general disbelief that any politician is going to be different. A general hopelessness that anything can change is advantageous to the status quo. Such inertia keeps people away from the polls: they don't bother to vote. This is good for entrenched establishments. The fewer people that vote, the more likely that the usual suspects will keep their seats. Large voter turn-outs are often good news for progressives and bad news for conservatives. When the public perceives a chance for positive improvements, when a candidate stands out as offering something genuinely valuable and innovative, when the public imagination is fired: then they stand up to be counted. It is therefore definitely in the interests of some political elements to discourage this sort of thing.

Assassination

Government by assassination is the most extreme form of that strategy. It is one very destructive and dangerous way to make sure that there will be only one kind of candidate.

Obviously, if this were a mere question of struggle between two equally selfish and unethical men, it is not Michael Collins who would have been assassinated. If he could wipe out virtually the entire British secret service in Dublin in one day, there was no one in Ireland likely to outdo him in that department.

... while it was perfectly justifiable for any body of Irishmen, no matter how small, to rise up and make a stand against their country's enemy, it is not justifiable for a minority to oppose the wishes of the majority of their own countrymen, except by constitutional means. 

Collins never said it was “necessary to shoot men like" Liam Lynch or Rory O'Connor.  Nor did he ever call on the public to wade through the blood of anti-Treaty leaders. He never advocated firing on comrades as a solution to the Dáil / Army split. On the contrary, he resisted doing so longer than anyone else in a comparably responsible position (although no one's position at the time can really be compared with his).

The solution he consistently sought was a just and amicable reunification of all factions. The analysis he repeatedly emphasized was the danger of dividing the country's strength, in the presence of their traditional foe at this volatile juncture. History has justified him. 

Collins clearly declared that, while he had no problem with assassination as a weapon of war against a violent foreign occupation force, he did not believe in it as a form of government. That, apparently, is how he differed from his opponents. Tragically for us, he paid the supreme price for that difference.

Did you find this article interesting? If so, tell the world! Tweet about it, like it or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

Portions of this article are excerpted from "The Assassination of Michael Collins: What Happened At Béal na mBláth?" by S M Sigerson. Available online at www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714 or www.smashwords.com/books/view/433954. Alternatively, ask at your local bookstore.

What if Napoleon Bonaparte had won the Battle of Waterloo?

Napoleon Bonaparte was famously defeated at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 by British and Prussian forces. But what if that never happened? How would European history have changed if Napoleon had won? Here, Nick Tingley explores why history may have ended up repeating itself…

A picture of Napoleon Bonaparte.

The battle between France and Prussia in 1870 was all but decided at the Battle of Sedan on September 1. As Napoleon III was led through the French countryside for the nearest port, he knew that this battle would spell the end of the Empire. As he was sailed across to England for exile, a unified Germany was created off the back of French territory - and the landscape of Europe would be forever changed.

Had he been more like his uncle, Napoleon Bonaparte, the fall of Napoleon III’s government might never have happened. Bonaparte had known when to give up. Even as the British troops of Wellington and Blucher’s Prussians fled from the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, Bonaparte had known that he had to pursue peace in order to survive. Bonaparte had even offered clemency to the British troops by aiding their evacuation from France after the battle, essentially bringing about a new era of peace in Europe championed by the two enemy nations. Bonaparte had developed so much since 1813 when he had refused a favorable settlement in defeat that he was able to bring about the longest lasting peace that Europe had seen in centuries…

But Napoleon III had not learnt from his uncle’s mistakes and the horrendous defeat at the Battle of Sedan would haunt him until his death in 1873…

When ‘What If’ Collides with History

Ironically, for a ‘What If?’ scenario, this version of history is not remarkably unlike our own. Whilst Napoleon Bonaparte did not win the Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815, his nephew did eventually become Emperor of France as a result of the 1848 revolutions that sprung up around Europe. His last act as Emperor was to lead French forces against Prussia in the War of 1870. He was captured at the Battle of Sedan and forced into exile in Britain, where he was forever haunted by the destruction of his Empire. His actions that year effectively allowed the creation of Germany that was, in no small part, responsible for much of the tension between the two countries over the next seventy-five years.

And yet, this event in history may well have occurred regardless of whether Bonaparte had won the Battle of Waterloo. If we suppose, for a moment, that Napoleon had managed to defeat the British and Prussian forces at the battle and maintain control of France thereafter, it is not beyond reason to suppose that, as Bonaparte’s nephew and heir, Napoleon III would have inherited the Empire anyway. Had that happened, the Battle of Sedan would almost certainly have occurred in the same way, leading to his downfall and the beginning of the tensions that would contribute to the outbreak of the First World War.

But what scenario would allow such a divergence from historical fact and yet still arrive at the same point fifty-five years later? Rather than looking to Napoleon III, our attention must be drawn to Bonaparte, the man whose decisions would ultimately determine the future of France and the rest of Europe.

Bonaparte the Warrior

At first we must address Bonaparte’s character. The Bonaparte of 1796, the year that he began his conquest of Europe, was a war leader to the greatest degree. Had he managed to defeat Wellington and Blucher at Waterloo, he would almost certainly have urged his officers to press after Wellington and Blucher’s scattered armies until every last one of them had been captured or killed. He would have then have turned his attention to the armies of Russia and Austria who, whilst not involved in Waterloo, were slowly advancing across Europe to address this resurgence of power.

This would have presented Bonaparte with a serious problem. In the first instance, Austria and Russia had armies of approximately 200,000 men working their way across Europe. In the second, Alexander I, the Tsar of Russia, was particularly keen to eliminate Bonaparte, as he believed that Europe would never remain at peace with him alive. Finally, French conscription, from which Bonaparte had been gathering troops during his previous campaigns, was not currently a policy in France. This meant that he didn’t have access to the same amount of reserves that he had previously.

In this scenario, Bonaparte would probably not have enjoyed any significant success for more than a week or two. With the arrival of the Austrians and Russians, Bonaparte’s armies would have stood little chance at all, and history would have certainly continued down the path that we are most familiar with.

Bonaparte the Stubborn

The Bonaparte of 1813 may have lasted even less time. In 1813, Bonaparte had refused any kind of settlement at all, even though he had been completely defeated at the Battle of Leipzig that year. In that battle, Bonaparte’s armies were effectively expelled from the rest of Europe and forced to retreat back in to France. Had Bonaparte sued for a peace at that time, he might well have retained his title and control over France. The result of his failure to do so was the invasion of France by the Coalition of Russia, Austria and Prussia and his own removal from the throne.

Had he treated his victory at Waterloo with the same refusal to negotiate, Bonaparte would have probably attempted to retake parts of Central Europe immediately following the Battle of Waterloo. Once again, Bonaparte’s failing would have been signaled by the arrival of Russian and Austrian troops which would have led to yet another disastrous retreat back in to France, if not the destruction of his entire army.

Bonaparte the Diplomat

There is, however, one scenario by which Bonaparte may have been able to win at Waterloo and still maintain control of France. If Bonaparte had granted clemency to the retreating British forces of Wellington, history could have taken a completely different turn. The British forces had granted something similar seven years previously at Sintra, where French forces had been allowed to evacuate from Portugal after several disastrous battles. Such an act of honor, whilst completely removed from Bonaparte’s character, may well have been enough to convince the British that there might be a peaceful solution to the French problem.

In the event that Bonaparte had sued for some sort of peace, before the arrival of the Russian and Austrian armies, they may well have found a new ally in the form of Britain. With the two former enemies working together to bring about a new era of peace, it is not beyond reason to suggest that the rest of Europe might have been tempted to follow suit. The Congress system that was prevalent in Europe for the years following Bonaparte’s downfall may well have still existed but with a stronger leader speaking on behalf of France.

However, all of this would rely heavily on Bonaparte being able to disregard all the previous behaviors that had come to define his reign. In order for this scenario to work, Bonaparte would have had to cease behaving like some sort of power-hungry megalomaniac and become a reasonable diplomatic presence in Europe. One can even imagine that, had Bonaparte become the diplomat that Europe needed him to be, the rise of Germany might have been significantly delayed.

The revolutions of 1848 might have been a significantly smaller affair as there would have been no antagonism towards a French monarchy, which would have disbanded with Bonaparte’s renewed rise to power, and therefore no revolution in France. The French revolution, which was one of the larger and more explosive of the 1848 revolutions, would not have existed to encourage the others across Europe. Without the discontent across Europe, we can easily see a scenario in which a united Germany never comes in to being, effectively removing the threat of World War One in 1914 and, therefore, the subsequent World War twenty-five years later.

The Likely Scenario

Unfortunately, Bonaparte’s actions were, by and large, a result of his psychological compulsions and the environment in which he came to power. He was very much a child of the French Revolution; his rise to power had been as a result of one of the bloodiest events in French history. The idea that a man, who owed so much of his power to man’s compulsion towards war, would be content at sitting around a conference table with the other leaders of Europe is improbable at best.

Had he been given the opportunity to make this decision, it is unlikely that he would have taken it, opting instead for the allure of battle. In the event that he had sued for peace, it would almost have certainly been a blind to allow himself time to build up his armies before making another attempt at conquering the continent. In all likelihood, rather than delaying the onset of a World War in Europe, he would almost have certainly caused one in his own right.

However, Bonaparte would not have had long to enact his plans. Barely six years after his victory at Waterloo, he would have succumbed to the pain of stomach cancer and his throne would have been left to his then thirteen-year old heir and nephew, Napoleon III. What chaos would have gripped France as a result of his death is almost unfathomable and not within the remit of this discussion. However, two scenarios present themselves. Either, under the influence of the rest of Europe, France would have returned to a monarchy-led government and once again would have continued down the course that we already know from history, or else the young Napoleon III would have taken to the throne, probably starting a civil war in the process. If Napoleon III were to survive such a period of unrest in France, he could have reigned for nearly fifty years, never having the opportunity to learn from his uncle that the best direction for Europe was towards peace…

Did you enjoy this article? If so, tell the world! Tweet about it, like it or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

You can also read Nick’s previous articles on what if D-Day did not happen in 1944 here, what if Hitler had been assassinated in July 1944 here, and what if the Nazis had not invaded Crete in World War Two here.

Sources

• Blucher: Scourge of Napoleon - Michael V. Leggiere (2014)
• If Napoleon had won the Batter of Waterloo - G. Macaulay Trevelyan (1907)
• Napoleon: The Last Phase - Lord Rosebery (1900)
• Napoleon Wins at Waterloo - Caleb Carr (1999)
• The Face of Battle: A Study of Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme - John Keegan (2004)
• Trafalgar and Waterloo: The Two Most Important Battles of the Napoleonic Wars - Charles River Editors (2014)

The Roots of the American Red Cross

Clara Barton was a pioneer of the nineteenth century. But who was this amazing lady? Well, she played a key role to wounded soldiers in the US Civil War and was instrumental in the formation of the American Red Cross. C.A. Newberry explains.

Clara Barton, circa 1897. By Charles E. Smith.

Where would we be without the Red Cross today? Since the International establishment of the organization in 1864 it has been a consistent lifeline for people in need. Vital in aiding during disaster relief efforts, supporting military families, and providing essential health and safety training. Yet, how did this incredible organization begin?

Born on Christmas Day in the year 1821 in the town of Oxford, Massachusetts, Clara Harlowe Barton was the youngest of five children. As a young girl Clara was painfully shy. Nonetheless, her passion to serve others and help people started at an early age. When her brother David suffered an accident, she stayed home from school to tend to his needs, administering medications and even learning the art of “leeching” after the family doctor suggested it may help.

During her teenage years she was encouraged to pursue a career in teaching, potentially helping her to overcome her shyness. Years later she opened a free public school in New Jersey where anyone rich or poor could attend. During the mid 1850s, after a successful career, Clara made the move to Washington, D.C. It was here that she worked in the US Patent Office, granting permits for inventions.

Civil War

However, it was the US Civil War that proved to be a defining period of Clara’s life.  When war broke out in 1861, Clara, sensing an immediate need, swiftly volunteered. She tended to wounded soldiers and then began to bring supplies to the troops and the medical teams who were exhausted and over-worked.  At one point supplies were so scarce that they were trying to make bandages out of corn husks.

Clara did her best to organize supplies but also to gather volunteers. She led the training to prepare them so they could perform first-aid, carry water, and prepare food for the wounded. Barton continued with her quest to deliver supplies, utilizing some help funded through the army quartermaster in Washington, D.C., but many were purchased with donations that Clara was able to secure. However, if those choices were unavailable she would use her own funds, most of which were later refunded to her through Congress. Through all of this tireless and selfless volunteering, she earned the nickname, “The Angel of the Battlefield”.

After years of serving through the war, she followed up by embarking on a brutal travel schedule where she spoke to countless groups recalling her time in the field. Soon Clara became ill and was encouraged by her doctors to travel to Europe. The hope was that she would have a certain amount of anonymity while there, allowing her to rest and recuperate.

Meanwhile, in Europe, Henry Dunant, founder and creator of the global Red Cross network, had the idea that there should be international agreements to protect the sick and wounded during wartime. There should also be the formation of national societies to give aid voluntarily, but on a neutral basis. The first treaty to encompass Dunant’s ideas was negotiated in Geneva during 1864. It was then ratified by twelve different European nations. This treaty is known by several titles, including the Geneva Treaty, the Red Cross Treaty, and the Geneva Convention.

During her lecture tour and the vivid recreations of her war experiences, Barton had become incredibly well known, and was brought to the attention of Dunant. And during 1869, while in Geneva, Clara met both Dunant and another supporter Dr. Louis Appia. Being familiar with Clara’s work in the states they wanted to share the vision of the International Red Cross, hoping to gain Clara’s support and further encouraging her to get the United States on board.

Bring the Red Cross to the US

During Clara’s stay in Europe the Franco-Prussian War started.  She was asked to serve with the International Red Cross providing assistance and, after seeing the benefits, Clara was determined to return to the United States and establish the Red Cross at home. When Clara first approached President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877 she was met with resistance, as he feared a possible “entangling alliance” with the other European nations. However, his successor, President James Garfield, saw the value in the program and was supportive. Sadly, before it could become official, President Garfield was assassinated.

Frustrated, Clara, with the help of friends and neighbors in New York, funded and established the first local society of the American Red Cross in 1881.  Just a short month later they had their first call to action. Responding to a disastrous forest fire in Michigan, they collected $300 for the victims.

Clara continued to seek government support and, after years of passionate pleas, the Geneva Treaty (the International Red Cross) was signed in the US in 1882. Within a few days the Senate was able to ratify it. Not surprisingly, Clara Barton was named president.

While the mission of the International and now American Red Cross were important, Clara truly believed that the assistance needed to be expanded beyond wartime needs.  She was also passionate about helping with disaster relief, peacetime emergencies and directing charitable support. So during its first twenty years the American Red Cross was largely devoted to disaster relief. Even though Henry Dunant had originally suggested that the Red Cross provide disaster relief, it hadn’t been widely embraced until Clara Barton advocated it. In fact, during the Third International Red Cross conference in 1884, the American Red Cross suggested an amendment to the original Geneva Treaty, asking for an expansion to include relief for victims of natural disasters. The resolution was passed and became known as the “American Amendment” to the Geneva Treaty of 1864.

Clara Barton served as president until 1904. After her retirement she continued with her philanthropy until she passed away in 1912, at the age of 91. She will be forever remembered as a pioneer, passionate about the Red Cross and one of the most celebrated figures of her time.

Did you enjoy this article? If so, tell the world! Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

References

• History’s Favorite Nurses, Maryville University, February 9 2015
• Founder, Clara Barton, The Red Cross, February 9 2015
• Clara Barton, The Civil War Trust, February 9 2015

History Books – Episode 7 – A War in the American Southwest

In episode 7 of our podcast series History Books, we look at how a great war broke out in the American south-west

rss feed | iTunes | History Books page | Other listening options

 The podcast is on a book called The Wrath of Cochise by David Mort.

The book is about the disputes that led the outbreak of the Apache Wars. The Apache Wars were a series of conflicts between the United States and a number of Apache nations fought in the American Southwest from the mid-nineteenth century until the 1880s.

And as we shall soon see, a key factor in their starting was that in February 1861, the twelve-year-old son of Arizona rancher John Ward was kidnapped by Apaches. Ward followed their trail and reported the incident to patrols at Fort Buchanan, blaming a band of Chiricahuas led by the infamous warrior Cochise.

The book then tells the story of how events dramatically escalated, leading to the death of many and the destruction of parts of the states of Arizona and New Mexico. As well as the devastation of a way of life.

rss feed | iTunes | History Books page | Other listening options

If you enjoy the podcast, you can purchase the book here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Take care,

George Levrier-Jones

email: info@itshistorypodcasts.com

web: www.itshistorypodcasts.com

facebook: click here

twitter: click here

History Books – Episode 6 – A Crime in Victorian London

In episode 6 of our podcast series History Books, we look at a terrible crime in 1850s London.

rss feed | iTunes | History Books page | Other listening options

 The podcast is on a book called The Secret Life of Celestina Sommer – Victorian Child Killer by David J. Vaughan.

Celestina Sommer had a tragic upbringing. Pregnant at seventeen, with no support and little more compassion, she relinquished her infant to the baby-farmers. Eleven years on and married, she endured not only vilification but domestic abuse - the man she trusted turning on her with misogynistic cruelty endorsed by a society turning its blind, masculine eye.

The book tells the story about the awful truth of Celestina’s short, tragic life and reveals exactly why she avoided the hangman's noose. Her heart-rending story follows the world's reaction to her crime: parliamentary debates, press outrage, allegations of royal collusion, garishly explicit reports of her trials at the Old Bailey and, finally, her collapse into madness as she struggles through a harsh Victorian penal system and, at the very end, Britain's foremost criminal lunatic asylum of the age.

rss feed | iTunes | History Books page | Other listening options

If you enjoy the podcast, you can purchase the book here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Take care,

George Levrier-Jones

PS – just to inform you, this podcast is of a darker nature than many of our other podcasts.

email: info@itshistorypodcasts.com

web: www.itshistorypodcasts.com

facebook: click here

twitter: click here

Biography as not quite Destiny - The William Henry Harrison Story

William Henry Harrison has the shortest presidency on record.  The oldest elected president at the time, he died after one month in office.  But was he an unlikely president or destined for the greatest office? Here, William Bodkin explains the story of this fascinating president…

A William Henry Harrison campaign poster.

Part Andrew Jackson and part Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison was a successful general who had lusted after higher office for decades, only to have death take him from his greatest achievement.  For the United States, it may have been fortunate.  Harrison’s pre-presidential career showed that while he may have had Jackson’s military talent, he lacked Van Buren’s political talent. Harrison fell upward into the presidency, almost by accident.

Harrison was the first “Dark Horse” candidate for president.  His 1836 candidacy seemed to come from nowhere.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Harrison’s father, Benjamin, signed the Declaration of Independence and served three terms as Governor of Virginia.  The Harrisons were close to the Washingtons.  For his career in the army, Harrison used his Washington connection to secure an officer’s commission.  Harrison was sent to Fort Washington in the Northwest Territory and showed real ability as a fighter against Native Americans.  He was given command of the Fort and steadily promoted by a succession of presidents: Adams, Jefferson and Madison.  As his administrative duties increased, Harrison continued leading men into battle, mostly against the Indian leader Tecumseh.  Tecumseh sought to rally the Middle West’s native tribes into a force that would resist Americans.  One such battle, in November 1811 at the confluence of the Tippecanoe and Wabash rivers in Indiana, was against Tecumseh’s brother.  When Harrison’s forces won, Harrison proclaimed “The Battle of Tippecanoe” a great victory.  It was, at first, little noted. But by December 1811, newspapers were reporting the story along with accusations by Andrew Jackson that the British were stirring up the tribes to rebel against the America.  As the controversy raged, Tippecanoe became the powder keg that eventually ignited the War of 1812.

Harrison and the War of 1812

The War of 1812 gave Harrison his greatest pre-presidential fame. Harrison led the army that recaptured Detroit and then hotly pursued the Native Americans, led by Tecumseh, and the British into Canada.  In the Battle of Thames River, Harrison’s forces, aided by a corps of Kentucky marksman, bested the tribes and killed Tecumseh.  Harrison then retired from the army and went on a victory tour to New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., soaking in the adulation of the crowds as the great general who killed Tecumseh. 

Upon his return to Ohio, Harrison became a professional office-seeker.  He ran and won election to Congress, serving from 1817-1819.  As Congressman, he spent much of his time seeking more prestigious posts, trying and failing to become James Monroe’s Secretary of War and Ambassador to Russia.  After this term in Congress ended, he was elected to Ohio’s State Senate.  Harrison then tried and failed to become Governor of Ohio, and twice to become a Senator.  Finally, in 1824, he won election to the U.S. Senate from Ohio.  On his return to D.C., Harrison began lobbying immediately for a better position.  With the help of Henry Clay, Harrison was named John Quincy Adams’ Ambassador to Colombia, despite Adams’ discomfort with what he described as Harrison’s “rabid thirst for lucrative office.” But ambassador was no role for Harrison.  He embroiled himself in controversy by choosing sides in Colombia’s internal politics against the ruling government.  When Andrew Jackson won the presidency, Harrison was recalled.  He went back to Ohio, where he took a job as recorder of deeds in his home county just to make ends meet.

While Harrison was in Colombia, another man took on the role of the great slayer of Tecumseh.  Richard Mentor Johnson was a Congressman from Kentucky and a former member of the team of Kentucky marksman who had fought alongside Harrison’s men.  Johnson won election to Congress and became famous throughout the West by claiming that he had fired the bullet that killed Tecumseh.  Johnson’s supporters decided that if Andrew Jackson could catapult himself to the presidency on the strength of War of 1812 success, perhaps Johnson could too. 

The surprise president?

By 1834, a movement coalesced around Johnson, with engravings, pamphlets, songs, and a five-act play based on the Battle of the Thames.  Reenactments of the battle were staged around the country, with Johnson’s legend growing from expert marksman to mastermind of victory, usurping the role of one William Henry Harrison.  Harrison was invited to one of these celebrations and was so offended by the antics that he issued a firm public rebuke of Johnson.  The statement reminded many of the old General.  Many of his fellow Ohioans decided to push Harrison for the presidency in 1836.  One newspaper editor declared that the fact that Harrison’s name ended in “-on” was of great importance.  The nation had had Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson, why not Harrison?  It was just the right name.  No one was perhaps more surprised than Harrison himself, who had planned to retire.  But the Harrison boom was off and running.  Engravings of the battle of Tippecanoe were struck, reenactments were staged, and a big commemorative celebration was held on the battle site.  Harrison, hero of Tippecanoe and the general who beat Tecumseh became a candidate for president.

Martin Van Buren, never one to miss a political movement and running for the presidency himself, made Richard Mentor Johnson his vice-president.  Ultimately, in 1836, the Anti-Jackson, or, in this case, the anti-Van Buren votes were split among too many regional Whig party candidates.  Van Buren eked out the presidency, only to face a tumultuous four years and William Henry Harrison again in 1840.

Ignoring Harrison’s aristocratic Virginia roots, the Whigs adopted as their symbol a log cabin.  Harrison had briefly lived in one in Ohio, but quickly remodeled it into a more stately home.  The image had started as a joke.  One newspaper printed that Harrison would drop out of the presidential contest for a modest pension and a barrel of hard cider, so he could spend his days at home in his log cabin.  The Whigs by this point had learned a thing or two from observing Van Buren, and leveraged Harrison’s war hero status and this remark to give Harrison a rough hewn image, making him the Whig’s answer to Andrew Jackson.  The “Log Cabin and Hard Cider” campaign worked, helped by a weariness of the Democratic Party.  Harrison swept to the presidency.  For his inauguration, perhaps believing his own hype, Harrison marched in his inaugural parade on a wet, freezing day with neither hat, nor coat, nor gloves.  He also delivered what stands to this day as the longest inaugural address in presidential history at 8,445 words.  

A month later, Harrison was dead.

Did you find this article interesting? If so, tell the world! Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

William's previous pieces have been on George Washington (link here), John Adams (link here), Thomas Jefferson (link here), James Madison (link here), James Monroe (link here), John Quincy Adams (link here), Andrew Jackson (link here), and Martin Van Buren (link here).

References

Feller, Daniel.  “1836” Running for President, the Candidates and their images.  Arthur M. Schlesinger, Editor.  Simon and Schuster, 1994.

Wilentz, Sean. “1840”  ” Running for President, the Candidates and their images.  Arthur M. Schlesinger, Editor.  Simon and Schuster, 1994.

“William Henry Harrison” Miller Center of the University of Virginia (http://millercenter.org/president/harrison).

History Books – Episode 5 – A Captive Life

In episode 5 of our series History Books, we look at a fascinating tale of history and fiction.

rss feed | iTunes | History Books page | Other listening options

Benito Mussolini, Italian leader during part of World War II.

This podcast is on a book called A Captive Life by Helen Saker-Parsons.

This is a historical fiction book set in Italy during World War 2. The book’s main protagonist is Richard Bartlett, a British soldier who had lived a sheltered existence under the protection of his mother until war broke out. Then he went to war after World War 2 broke out; alas though, he was soon to be captured in Italy and taken prisoner.

He goes on to take charge of troops in a prisoner of war camp and then has to manage as change envelops them at every turn. First Italy starts to weaken, then Mussolini is deposed, but German troops are moved to Italy in order to combat Allied Forces. Amid all this change Bartlett has to manage himself and others. But the real challenge starts when the Italians finally surrender.

rss feed | iTunes | History Books page | Other listening options

If you enjoy the podcast, you can purchase the book here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Take care,

George Levrier-Jones

 email: info@itshistorypodcasts.com

web: www.itshistorypodcasts.com

facebook: click here

twitter: click here

History Books – Episode 4 – A Female KGB Spy from the West

In episode 4 of our series History Books, we look at the story of a very different type of KGB spy in the Cold War.

rss feed | iTunes | History Books page | Other listening options

In a previous episode in this series we looked at Stalin’s Gulags; this time we are back with the Soviets in Cold War Radio: The Dangerous History of American Broadcasting in Europe, 1950 – 1989 by Richard H. Cummings.

Cold War Radio refers to Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. These are radio stations that still exist and are funded by the US Congress. They seek to provide information to those parts of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East where there is not a free flow of information. That is, in those countries with more limited freedom of speech and press.

Any why is this story different? Well, because it involves a rather uncommon type of spy. A female. And there’s more. She was from the West and hardly supportive of Soviet aims.

rss feed | iTunes | History Books page | Other listening options

If you enjoy the podcast, you can purchase the book here: Amazon

Finally, tell us what you think of the podcast below! We'd love to hear your opinions...

Take care,

George Levrier-Jones

email: info@itshistorypodcasts.com

web: www.itshistorypodcasts.com

facebook: click here

twitter: click here

History Books – Episode 3 – Reaction, Revolution and the Birth of Nazism

In episode 3 of our series History Books, we look at instability in inter-war Germany and how the Nazis began their ascent to power. 

rss feed | iTunes | History Books page | Other listening options

In the last episode we looked at Stalin’s Gulags; this time we consider his arch-enemy in the book Reaction, Revolution and the Birth of Nazism: Germany 1918-1923 by Nick Shepley.

The book tells the story of events in Germany in the years after World War I. These were years of great strife and change in the country. There was gross political instability following the German defeat in the war, with groups on both the political left and right trying to stake their claim to power. Indeed, the book argues that Germany at the time was involved in a three-way fight. Firstly, there were left-leaning groups. Secondly, there were traditional conservative elements, the old elite. And thirdly, there were radical right-wing groups.

This episode picks up the rise of the Nazis in the early 1920s, and the extreme lengths that Adolf Hitler went to in order to gain power.

Now, I hope that you enjoy the audio.

rss feed | iTunes | History Books page | Other listening options

And if you enjoy the podcast, you can purchase the book here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Take care,

George Levrier-Jones

email: info@itshistorypodcasts.com

web: www.itshistorypodcasts.com

facebook: click here

twitter: click here

A Life of Adventure! How General Robert Rollo Gillespie met his match…

Robert Gillespie was one of the legends of his age. During his life (1766-1814), the Northern Irishman fought in all manner of arenas and participated in some amazing events. He stared death in the face many times - and came out on top much more frequently than his enemies.

In the final part of our look at Gillespie’s life, we pick up the story after he had put down a mutiny in India. Frank Jastrzembski explains. Part one of the story is available here.

A statue of Robert Rollo Gillespie in Comber, Northern Ireland. Photo taken in 2007. Source: Albert Bridge, available here.

After being stationed in India for a number of years, Gillespie then became involved in action further south - on the Indonesian island of Java.

With the planned British invasion of the French controlled island of Java in 1811, Gillespie was given command of a division of the 12,000 strong invasion force. The force was tasked with defeating a combined force of roughly 17,000 French, Dutch, and local troops under General Janssens. The British invasion force successfully managed to land, but was plagued by the spread of disease from the tropical climate, something that led to the loss of a quarter of the force before any fighting began.

Colonel Gillespie distinguished himself with rapid tactics and extreme boldness in all the subsequent actions he became engaged in Java. In the attack on the impregnable lines at Cornelis in August, he personally led the surprise attack, and in the process killed a French colonel in hand-to-hand combat. After being wounded in the breakthrough, he collapsed from complete exhaustion amid the momentum of the French retreat. His staff officers came to his relief, but Gillespie wanted no part of it. With indomitable will, he regained consciousness and cut a horse loose from a captured gun limber. He then spurred his horse toward the retreating enemy soldiers and relentlessly gave chase.[1]

After the British occupation of Java, Gillespie again grew restless with the monotony of garrison duty. He voiced his differences toward Stamford Raffles, the Lieutenant Governor of Java, over the policies put into place in occupied Java. Gillespie requested transfer from Java and returned to service in India.

Gorkha Kingdom

Promoted to major general, Gillespie was in command of the 2nd Division when the East India Company found itself at war with the growing power of the Gorkha Kingdom in 1814. The East India Company, tired of the “nibbling encroachments and conquests” against the British protected Indian states and trans-Himalayan trade, chose to act.[2]

The initial British strategy was devised by the Commander-in-Chief and Governor-General in India, Francis Edward Rawdon-Hastings, veteran of the Battle of Bunker Hill. Hastings ordered 21,000 British and Indian troops to penetrate the 600-mile border of the Gorkha Kingdom that stretched across the Himalayas and bordered northern India and capture the capital of Kathmandu. Two of the four columns, under David Ochterlony and Rollo Gillespie, were ordered to penetrate the far western hills and cooperate to destroy the main Gurkha army, under Amar Singh Thapa, commonly referred to as the ‘Living lion of Nepal’.

The approximately 4,500 British and Indian infantrymen of the Gillespie column needed to first dislodge the defenders at the fortress of Kalunga, located five miles from the town of Dehra. A force of approximately 600 Gurkha men, women, and children garrisoned the small fortress. What these defenders lacked in experience they compensated for in courage. The stockade was under the command of Balbuhadur Sigh, a man specially selected for his intrepidness and valor.[3] Gillespie wrote on October 28, “Here I am, with as stiff and strong a position as ever I saw, garrisoned by men who are fighting pro aris et focis in my front, and who have decidedly formed the resolution to dispute the fort as long as a man is alive.”[4]

The landscape the Gillespie column encountered surrounding the fortress was daunting. The fortress was strategically posted on a detached hill rising approximately 600 feet. The approach was hindered by a stream that ran through a deep ravine to its front, with the flanks and rear protected by a clutter of hills and surrounding jungle.[5] The fortress had a small stone wall enclosure that was enveloped and strengthened with wooden stockades approximately twelve feet tall.[6]

Gillespie sent Lieutenant Colonel Mawbey with a small detachment to eliminate the fortress. Mawbey moved his guns within range on October 24 in an attempt to bombard the fortress, but withdrew due to the lack of damage the guns caused. Mawbey subsequently withdrew his detachment to await further orders from Gillespie.

Attack!

When Gillespie arrived in person with the remainder of the force in front of Kalunga, he knew that time was of the essence. Gillespie had pledged to unite with the column under General Ochterlony westwards on November 1 and assume overall command of both columns in order to crush the Gurkha army under Amar Thapa.[7] He could not conduct this union until Kalunga was removed from his flank. The option of bombarding the fortress with heavy artillery was out of the question since it would take at least four to five weeks to arrive from Delhi.[8]

Similar to the bold tactics he used at Vellore and Cornelis, Gillespie gave the direct order on October 29 to take the fortress by assault. He ordered the use of only the bayonet and to refrain from stopping to fire until within the fortress walls.[9] He intended to make a simultaneous assault by four separate detachments. The discharge of five guns was to be the signal to advance, three at intervals of a minute, followed by two in rapid sequence.[10] On October 30, Lieutenant Carpenter and Major Ludlow constructed a forward position of batteries within 600 yards of the fortress. At 2AM on October 31, Major Kelly moved toward the village of Kusulle, Captain Fast moved toward the village of Luckhand, and Captain Campbell moved toward Ustall. By 7AM all units were in position. Two hour later the guns were fired to signal the start of the attack.

Problems ensued with the planned attack as the columns under Captain Fast and Major Kelly did not hear the signal or receive communications to begin the assault. Gillespie unwisely ordered an early advance to follow up on an ambitious Gurkha party that attempted to outflank the forces arrayed on their front. All his life Gillespie had acted on the principle of bold action. On this day it proved his undoing.

The British infantrymen met stiff resistance from the defenders armed predominately with arrows, stones, outdated matchlocks, and the feared kukris. At 10.30AM three companies of the 53rd Regiment arrived, and Gillespie promptly led them into the hottest point of action in an attempt to salvage the deteriorating situation. Gillespie personally led the men of the 53rd within twenty-five yards of the fortress under the sweeping fire of arrows, matchlocks and grape shot. He turned to Charles Pratt Kennedy, a horse gunner and fellow Ulsterman, and roared, “Now Charles. Now for the honour of Down.”[11] A Gurkha sharpshooter took advantage of the exposed Gillespie frantically wielding his sword in the air and fired an aimed shot that penetrated his heart, instantly killing him. It was 12 noon.

The death of General Gillespie caused the assault to decay into complete chaos. A retreat was immediately called as the soldiers streamed to the rear in the face of the bold Gurkha defenders. The column suffered heavily with the loss of 35 killed and 228 wounded.[12]

The campaign itself would drag on for eighteen long months, finally ending in March of 1816, and requiring the biggest army that the British had yet fielded in India.[13] The victory at Kalunga in 1814 has been engrained in Gurkha legend to this day.

The body of Gillespie was retrieved by his men and preserved in alcohol until it arrived in Meerut on November 1.[14] A simple obelisk was erected to mark his burial spot in Meerut, with his name and battle honors inscribed. They can still be found there today.

Did you find this article interesting? If so, tell the world! Tweet about it, share it, or like it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

Further Reading

• Kanchanmoy, Mojumdar. Anglo-Nepalese Relations in the Nineteenth Century. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1973.
• Pemble, John. Britain's Gurkha War: The Invasion of Nepal, 1814-16. London: Frontline Books, 2009.
• Pemble, John. “Forgetting and Remembering Britain's Gurkha War.” Asian Affairs 40, no. 3 (2009): 361–376.
• Thorn, William. A Memoir of Major-General R. R. Gillespie. London: T. Edgerton, 1816.
• Thornton, Leslie Heber. Campaigners Grave & Gay: Studies of Four Soldiers of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925.
• Wakeman, Eric. The Bravest Soldier, Sir Rollo Gillespie, 1766-1814, A Historical Military Sketch. London: William Blackwood and & Sons Ltd., 1937.

1. Wakeman, The Bravest Soldier, 162-175.

2. Mojumdar Kanchanmoy, Anglo-Nepalese Relations in the Nineteenth Century (Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1973), 20.

3. Wakeman, The Bravest Soldier, 251-252. 

4. Wakeman, The Bravest Soldier, 253-254.

5. Wakeman, The Bravest Soldier, 252.

6. John Pemble, Britain's Gurkha War: The Invasion of Nepal, 1814-16 (London: Frontline Books, 2009), 142.

7. Pemble, Britain's Gurkha War, 126.

8. Wakeman, The Bravest Soldier, 254. Thornton, Campaigners Grave & Gay, 139.

9. Wakeman, The Bravest Soldier, 222.

10. Pemble, Britain's Gurkha War, 146.

11. Wakeman, The Bravest Soldier, 260.

12. Pemble, Britain's Gurkha War, 152.

13. John Pemble, “Forgetting and Remembering Britain's Gurkha War,” Asian Affairs 40, no. 3 (2009): 362.

14. Pemble, Britain's Gurkha War, 152.