Was Bloody Mary Really so Bloody?

It is rumored in folklore that if one were to say “Bloody Mary” thirteen times into a mirror, a screaming ghostly apparition will appear, covered in blood. While there is debate over whether this myth is truly inspired by the Tudor monarch Mary I, it is for certain that Mary is vilified in popular culture, yet was she really as bad as many believe? Jeremiah Puren explains.

Mary I or Bloody Mary in 1554. Painting by Hans Eworth.

The case for a ‘Bloody’ Mary I

To understand why Mary is viewed as a tyrant, a brief context of the Tudor period prior to her coronation must be understood. Mary’s father, Henry VIII had famously (and infamously) broken with Rome in 1534, severing England from the control of the Catholic church, and introducing Protestant ideas from the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin to the English population. Thus, many began to view the Catholic church as a greedy and corrupt institution. Included among those raised on Protestant ideas was Henry’s son, and Mary’s half-brother, Edward VI, who ascended to the throne on February 20, 1547 at the age of nine following Henry VIII’s death. Edward had little control of the nation due to his young age, yet he managed to further the Protestant transformation of England with the help of adamant reformer and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. Edward approved of and legally enforced Cranmer’s new Protestant liturgy, “The Book of Common Prayer”, which allowed traditionally Latin prayers to be read in English and removed much Catholic dogma surrounding marriage and baptism. This was in line with Protestant ideas that everyone should have access to heaven through faith alone, and that everybody should be free to interpret and access the bible, as Latin was not spoken by the common people. Edward unexpectedly died at the age of 15 on July 6 1553, allowing Mary to gain the crown the same year following a brief competition for ascendency with the Protestant Lady Jane Grey.

With this religious timeline of the Tudor period in mind, it is now possible to see how one may believe Mary was truly regressive. Mary had never been convinced by the Protestant ideas sweeping the nation and desperately wished to revert England to what she perceived as the one true faith: Catholicism. One could argue that, by attempting to suddenly undo her predecessor's changes, she was thrusting England into a state of religious instability. In her first year on the throne, Mary passed her first Act of Repeal, undoing all legislation passed under Edward enforcing Protestantism in an attempt to reinstate the Catholic tradition. However, when ideas settle into certain hearts and minds, it is not a simple endeavor to strip them away. Despite Mary’s legal attempts at flushing out Protestantism, Church services continued in English, Books of Common Prayer continued to circulate and notable Protestant figures continued to preach. This led to Mary resorting to harsher measures. During her short reign of five years, over 300 Protestants were executed by being burned at the stake, with large crowds amassing to witness their dying screams. Most notable of all the executions was the aforementioned Thomas Cranmer, the former Archbishop who had been the architect behind the English Reformation, who dramatically announced: “as for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine” before being set alight. It is for this perceived injustice that Mary has been most hated throughout history, and is the justification used for her title of “Bloody Mary”.

Was this truly the case?

Throughout medieval history, executions were far from uncommon. Monarchs tended to execute potential rivals and dissidents upon their ascension to preemptively solve potential issues in their reign, as well as to display power and strength. Mary I especially needed to show such strength, as it is important to note that she was the first female monarch of England in a heavily patriarchal society. Thus, the execution of Protestant dissenters, while seemingly unjust by today's standards, was justified at the time, and Mary's subjects would have been largely indifferent considering public executions were a common affair. For example, over the course of the Tudor period, there were roughly 80,000 executions, with nearly 60,000 being during the reign of Mary’s father, Henry VIII. This puts into perspective the normality of executions in this period and shows us that Mary’s burning of Protestants was relatively tame compared to other Tudor monarchs. Mary was also surprisingly lenient with those she persecuted. She gave those she executed numerous chances for repentance of Protestantism, and many were given the opportunity to leave England for mainland Europe. It was only those who stoically stuck to Protestantism such as Cranmer who faced being burned, yet Mary gave more chances than other Tudors.

While one could argue Mary’s policy was ruining years of religious change, causing disarray among the lower classes who had become accustomed to Protestantism, it is necessary to note that the majority of the population were not theologians. The rapid reversion to Catholicism would not have caused chaos among the peasantry, who were the bulk of churchgoers, as while it is true that the ability to read Latin would not be found among this social class, the ability to read English would be similarly rare. The common weekly attendee of the Church would not care for the theological disputes, and thus would not have cared about Mary’s religious policy. In fact, the Protestant attacks on the church, such as Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries, which had stripped Churches of wealth and deconstructed many places of worship, caused great social discontent, as the Church was the center of local communities in this period. It not only acted as a place of worship but a social space, a charity and school simultaneously. Mary’s refusal to continue the dismantling of this institution would have thus been regarded as positive by commonfolk.

Interpreting history

The question then arises: why do we think of Mary as so Bloody? This is a question with an answer which has a scope expanding beyond Tudor studies. For hundreds of years following the Tudor period, much of British historical study was done under the ‘Whig’ tradition. ‘Whig’ historians viewed history as a story of Protestant progress towards freedom and parliamentary democracy. It makes sense then, that these historians would defile the Catholic Mary, as they looked to clearly biased sources as evidence for Mary’s flaws, such as John Foxe’s work of Protestant propaganda circulated in Mary’s successor Elizabeth I’d reign, the “Book of Martyrs”. Foxe’s work included sensationalist rhetoric and twisted the events to ensure all of those killed were seen as martyrs, being killed by an autocratic and immoral Catholic queen. Such a defamation project by historians is incompatible with the evidence previously mentioned that Mary was no worse than other Tudors, shining light on the common mistake made by historians: letting personal views and hindsight hinder the pursuit of the truth. One would hope this no longer happens, and history is viewed from an objective perspective, yet it begs the question. Is it possible to interpret history without an agenda?

What do you think of Bloody Mary? Let us know below.

References

Hanson, Marilee. "Archbishop Thomas Cranmer Death By Execution" https://englishhistory.net/tudor/thomas-cranmer-death/

Heather Y Wheeler. “How Many People Were Executed by the Tudors?” https://www.tudornation.com/how-many-people-were-executed-by-the-tudors/

How the US Misjudged Fidel Castro: Part 2 - Fidel Takes Power

At the moment of Fidel Castro's triumphant entry into Havana, Cuba on January 9, 1959, the charismatic revolutionary leader was a relatively unknown quantity. Many are surprised to discover that Castro at first enjoyed much popular support in this country. Early reports on the rebel leader featured positive, if sometimes guarded, reactions. Even Ed Sullivan, America’s premier show man, got caught up in the excitement. He journeyed to Cuba himself to interview the victorious rebel leader shortly after the latter’s entry into Havana. He was but one of myriad journalists who descended on Cuba to cover the exciting changes in the island.

In this series, Victor Gamma returns and considers how the US misjudged Fidel Castro. Here, we look at US assessments of Fidel Castro just before he took power, the 1958 Cuban election, and the early days of Castro in power.

If you missed it, read part 1 on Cuba before the revolution here,

Fidel Castro and Camilo Cienfuegos in Havana in January 1959.

Enter Earl Smith. This non-Spanish-speaking businessman with no diplomatic experience took over duties as American ambassador in Havana in June, 1957. On the urging of his staff, Smith did some traveling in Cuba to get a better feel for the country. Based on his experiences and observations, Smith developed firm views on Castro and the anti-Batista movements, which views were not completely in accord with the CIA. The ambassador did not omit to inform Kirkpatrick that in his view, the CIA mission had allowed itself to fall under the sway of the July 26 movement. Smith urged the CIA to stop giving any encouragement to them. He furthermore accused the CIA of greatly underestimating the strength of the Communist party and its influence in Cuba. The CIA official responded by basically denying Smith’s charges with a bland recital of recent CIA operations, which he characterized as above reproach.

The new ambassador decided to conduct his own investigation into Castro’s background and what he found alarmed him. Smith conducted an intensive process of interviews including a multitude of people, many of whom had known Castro since his youth. He was careful to include those who were anti-Batista, representing different segments of Cuban society. According to Smith “No matter how anti-Batista these people were, they believed Castro would be worse for Cuba than Batista.” Among other reasons, those Smith interviewed stated that Castro was “an unstable terrorist.” Smith's ultimate conclusion was “It was becoming more and more obvious to me that the Castro-led 26th of July Movement embraced every element of radical political thought and terrorist inclination in Cuba.” But despite Smith’s position as ambassador, some personnel in the American Embassy continued to support Castro and relay messages to the State Department indicating that the Castro movement was nothing to fear. Not only that,  in early 1958 Radio Moscow broadcast its support of the effort to overthrow Batista. They continued especially supporting the 26th of July Movement. The State Department was informed of this by Ambassador Smith.

It was only when some rebels, under the command of Raul Castro, began kidnapping Americans that the State Department began to direct the CIA to prevent Castro from attaining power. The CIA then attempted to cultivate an alternative leader, without success.

Democratic process

Another possible solution lay in the democratic process. In 1958, after six years of military dictatorship under Batista, Cuba held a free election and began preparing the way for a peaceful transition of power. Three main candidates vied with each other for the presidency; Andrés Rivero Agüero of the Progressive Action Party, Carlos Márquez Sterling of the Partido del Pueblo Libre. The elections represented an opportunity to get rid of Batista but the US remained non-committal about which candidate to support or what official policy to adopt towards the on-going armed rebellion. Castro seemed to be a viable option. In his first speech on Radio Rebelde on April 14, 1958 Castro repeated many of the cherished ideals of classical liberalism; freedom of the press, republicanism and constitutionalism. He went out of his way to deny his association with communism, “These dictators will not tire of repeating the lie that we are "communists." He began the speech, in fact, with a withering attack on government censorship.  “As hateful as tyranny is in all its aspects, none of them is so irritating and crudely cynical as the absolute control that it has imposed on all the media for disseminating printed, radio and television news.”

On July 16 the American embassy passed along to the State Department the views of one of the opposition candidates, Dr. Marquez Sterling. Sterling communicated to the American Embassy that, in his view, the political situation was the most dangerous the Island had ever encountered. He claimed that the insurrectionists, unable to win on their own, were seeking to create conditions of anarchy that would allow them to seize power. He called Castro “mad” - not the first person to do so. Additionally, ambassador Earl T. Smith, vocally opposed any possible support of Castro. He declared openly that Castro was not someone with whom the US could trust or work with. Despite these warnings, the US did not take a firm position on Castro or the election.

The American embassy in Cuba's attitude was crystal clear, in contrast to the vague official American policy. The embassy represented a valuable front-line perspective which should have guided US policy. On October 3, 1958, just weeks before the election, an embassy dispatch entitled: “1958 Elections; Electoral Outlook Six Weeks Prior to Elections” arrived in Washington. After a thorough analysis of the political situation in Cuba, the embassy urged the following course of action:  "Though the coming Cuban elections will not meet all the standards of an ideal democratic election, they are the best that can be had under the circumstances now prevailing. They are in the Embassy’s view infinitely better than a violent overthrow of Batista and far better than no elections at all. It is therefore in the interest of the United States to encourage them." In other words, the embassy opposed any of the armed opposition, which Earl Smith viewed as illegitimate.

Election

Despite such information, ambivalence continued to mark the US official attitude toward the bearded rebel. There were, however, more red flags. First, there was Castro’s attitude toward the election. Although  he repeatedly proclaimed himself as a proponent of democracy, during the 1958 election he issued repeated calls for a general strike and death threats against all candidates for political office as well as Cubans who wished to participate. As a result, in regions under the control of the insurrection, voter turnout was negligible. Insisting that the election was a US/Batista farce, the rebels issued the “Total War Against the Tyranny Manifesto.” In the uncompromising language of the fanatic, the Manifesto simply ignored the elections and declared “war” on the Batista regime.

The elections took place on November 3rd with Progressive Action candidate Andrés Rivero Agüero winning 70% of the vote. Within days of his victory he met with the US ambassador and expressed his commitment to restore legitimacy and constitutional government in Cuba. The US was prepared to support him with military aid against insurgents. He would never get the chance. The Batista government was in the process of disintegration at that moment and would collapse within weeks. Agüero’s ambitions to restore the Cuban government were thwarted when Batista threw in the towel and fled Cuba on January 1, 1959, leaving the Island to anti-Batista forces.

When the rebels took Havana, a wave of euphoria swept Cuba. Most were hopeful that Castro and his fellow revolutionaries would establish a liberal democracy as he had stated many times. Castro and his revolution also captured the attention and hopes of many foreign observers. Although some uttered dark warnings about the bearded militant, others, mainly in the American media, helped to sway much American opinion in Castro’s favor. They denied Castro’s communism and actively promoted him as an acceptable leader of Cuba. After Castro’s arrival in Havana, American companies continued to act as if nothing would change. Investment in Cuba hit a record high of $63 million. One corporate executive remarked that the responsibilities of leadership would force Castro to “become conservative.”

Optimism

Everyone was caught up in the excitement. Immediately after Castro's entry into Havana, Ed Sullivan journeyed to the island and met the enigmatic rebel. Arriving at about two in the morning, Sullivan conducted and filmed an interview with Castro lasting about six minutes. Sullivan introduced the filmed interview with the comment “Somebody has said that ‘Freedom is Everybody’s Business.’ In the interview Castro came across as a soft-spoken, freedom-loving, responsible leader. Sullivan expressed great optimism about his subject and what it meant for the future of his suffering nation as well as Cuban-American relations.

Not long after Sullivan’s encounter with Castro, The popular show Face the Nation journeyed to Havana to expand on the entertainer’s brief conversation. Their purpose was to have a more serious and thorough opportunity to find out what this new Latin American hero was all about, and if indeed, the revolution was something to be worried about. Again, Castro emphasized his democratic ideals and opposition to communism. The main wrinkle in the generally hopeful mood was over the on-going executions. Once the anti-Batista forces took control of Havana, Batista followers were rounded up and hastily tried.  Summary executions took a gruesome toll as the revolutionary government took terrible revenge against Batista followers.for “crimes a./m gainst the people.” By the end of February 500 had been executed. The “trials” fell far short of American or European standards of justice. At one trial, a lawyer asked that the case against his defendant be dismissed due to lack of evidence. The prosecutor replied, “He has to be shot anyway as a measure of social health.” Horrified observers reacted with concern. When questioned about the executions, Castro’s responses betrayed a complete lack of understanding or sympathy for Western concepts of justice guaranteeing a fair trial. His closest associates, in fact, dismissed these ideals as “bourgeois concepts of justice.” Castro was actually surprised at the international outcry over the executions. “These men are assassins,” he declared, “We are executing murderers that deserve to be shot.” He justified denying due process of law to Batista men, declaring that the evidence was obvious and that simple accusations were all that was needed.

Anti-Americanism

The Consulate at Santiago continued to advise the State Department about conditions in the immediate aftermath of Castro’s ascension to power. They described a rising tide of anti-Americanism, encouraged, in part, by “the pronouncements of Fidel Castro.” An attempt to show films from the United States Information Service was shut down when a member of the audience rose and lectured them on “United States oppression of Cuba.” The consulate also took the opportunity to report the increasing influence of the communists. They were now accepted as a legal party, communist newspapers began to be reestablished and individuals with PSP backgrounds had been appointed to public office.

Time magazine also issued a frank assessment. The opening lines of an article of the January 26 issue warned; “The executioner’s rifle cracked across Cuba last week, and around the world voices hopefully cheering for a new democracy fell still. The men who had just won a popular revolution for old ideals—for democracy, justice and honest government—themselves picked up the arrogant tools of dictatorship. As its public urged them on, the Cuban rebel army shot more than 200 men, summarily convicted in drumhead courts, as torturers and mass murderers for the fallen Batista dictatorship. The constitution, a humanitarian document forbidding capital punishment, was overridden.” The article went on to luridly describe the executions, sounding more like descriptions of Einsatzgruppen activity rather than tribunals of real justice.

What do you think about Fidel Castro’s early days in power? Let us know below.

Now read Victor’s series on whether Wernher von Braun was a dangerous Nazi or hero of the space race here.

How Ice Cream Led to Disease in 19th Century London

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

Amy Chandler explains.

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

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

Ice cream and the London streets

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

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

Ice cream and the spread of disease

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875, s6.

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

References

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

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

3 Ibid.,p.207.

4 Ibid.,p.207.

5 Ibid.,p.207.

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

7 Ibid.

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

9 Ibid.

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

11 Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875, s6.

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

The 1952 Great Smog of London

The Great Fog or Great Smog of London in December 1952 caused widespread issues across the British capital for 5 days. It led to practically zero visibility and led to many health problems and events canceled. Chuck Lyons explains.

Nelson's Column, London in the Great Smog of 1952. Source: geograph.org.uk, available here.

For five days in December 1952, the city of London was paralyzed by what has come to be known as the Great Fog, a smog so dense that people were blinded, driving was all but impossible, and aboveground public transport and ambulance services stopped. Concerts and sporting events were cancelled; motion picture theaters closed. At railroad crossings, percussion caps were placed on the tracks so trains running over them caused explosions to warn passersby of their approach. Roads were littered with abandoned cars. Crime increased as burglars took advantage of the unexpected cover. Animals at the annual Smithfield Animal Show had to be given oxygen, others died. Ducks were killed when they flew blindly into the sides of buildings.

People were disoriented clinging to buildings so they wouldn’t lose their way.

And worse.

Government medical reports later estimated the fog had killed 4,000 people, an estimate that more recent investigators have upped to as many as 12,000. Another 100,000 or more were made ill with respiratory ailments, crowding the city’s hospitals or suffering and dying quietly in their homes. City officials only became aware of the deaths and the full extent of the health crisis when they noticed the city’s supply of coffins had come close to being exhausted.

“You had this swirling like somebody had set a load of car tires on fire," mortician’s assistant Stan Cribb recalled. On Friday Dec. 5, Cribb was driving in the lead of a funeral procession as the smog settled in, the sky darkened, and he realized he was losing sight of the curb beside the road. After a few minutes, Cribb’s employer got out of the car and walked in front with a light, but even that did not help much.

"It's like you were blind," says Cribb.

Nightfall

By nightfall visibility had dropped to a few feet, and it got no better on Saturday. It became even thicker Sunday and again on Monday. Visibility had been reduced in places to one foot, and people reported they could not see their own shoes. In the Isle of Dogs section of the city, visibility was officially recorded as “nil.” People carried lanterns and white clothes to make themselves visible on the sidewalks, and some took to wearing makeshift masks of gauze or fabric to aid their breathing. The smog by then had penetrated theaters that were closed when patrons complained they were unable to see the stage, into homes, churches, and hospitals.

“The air was not simply thick and grey. It was yellow, sulfurous, and impenetrable,” an unnamed London resident later wrote. “I heard the footsteps of a person walking toward me and realized that my own hesitant walking also sounded on the pavement. As we approached each other we both almost stopped for we could not see each other. Then, five feet in front of me a man materialized out of the smog with a mask over his nose and mouth. Wordlessly we passed each other.”

At its peak, the Times of London reported, the fog spread about twenty miles in all directions from the center of the city.

The Great Fog

The Great Fog, like most London smog, had been caused by particles from the smoke of the city’s coal-burning furnaces combining in the atmosphere with particles from the area’s natural fog. But in 1952, a third element was added: a weather inversion, a high-pressure system that trapped cold and polluted air underneath warmer air and held it in place where it grew progressively worse. (Historians have also noted that a cold turn in the weather before December 5 had people burning more coal to keep warm while the coal used in the post-war period had a higher sulfur content, both of which added to the already-existing pollution).

It was not until 2016, however, that science discovered what exactly had caused the deaths, In November of that year the results of a study conducted by scientists from the United Kingdom, China, and the United States and headed by Renyi Zhang, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M University, concluded that sulfuric acid particles, formed from the sulfur dioxide in the coal smoke, was the culprit. Breathing them could be—and was—deadly.

By the time the study was published, London residents had been suffering from bad air for eight centuries, since coal was first burned there in the 1200s. Periods of smog, known to the locals as “pea-soupers” had by the 16th century become such a problem that King James I tried unsuccessfully to limit coal burning. By the 19th and 20th centuries these dense, yellowish fogs, made worse by the coal burning factories of the Industrial Revolution, had become regulars on the city’s streets appearing almost as living entities in the London writings of Charles Dickens, swirling around Sherlock Holmes’s Baker Street, and in modern times filling the screens of eerie and suspenseful black-and-white motion pictures.

“Fog everywhere,” Dickens had written in his 1853 novel Bleak House. “Chance people on the bridges peeping over the parapets into a nether sky...as if they were up in a balloon and hanging in the misty clouds.”

The end

By the mid-20th century, though many of the factories had by then moved out of the city, the exhausts of automobiles, trucks, and buses were adding more pollutants to the already polluted air.

Then came December 1952.

The end came to the Great Fog—and at it would turn out to most of London’s fog problem—on Tuesday, Dec. 9, when a fresh wind came in from the west and blew the smog free of the inversion, away from London, and out over the North Sea where it dispersed. But, besides its immediate and disastrous effects, the Great Fog had had another effect. It also made the public aware of the dangers of pollution and led to the Clean Air Act of 1956 that limited the burning of coal in urban areas of the United Kingdom. Some historians have additionally called the public’s reaction to the city’s 1952 fog as the beginning of the environmental movement.

What do you think of the 1952 Great Fog of London? Let us know below.

Spain in the New World: The Early Life of Revolutionary Francisco de Miranda

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

Erick Reddington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at Venezuelan military leader and revolutionary Francisco de Miranda. He starts by considering Caracas in the 1750s and the life of his father, Sebastian de Miranda, before moving on to Francisco’s early life.

If you missed it, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here.

A portrait of Francisco de Miranda in later life. By Martín Tovar y Tovar.

The Caracas of the 1750s was a city of contradictions. In the multi-layered world of the Spanish Empire, this is understandable. Caracas was the capital of the province of Caracas, making it an important city. However, it had always taken second place in New Granada to Bogotá. Located over the mountains, with a differing economy and population, Caracas was treated as an inferior by the colonial administration.

The sense of difference in Caracas was compounded by a racial aspect as well. Although modern conceptions of race did not quite exist in the 1750s, racial differences were not unknown. The elite of Caracas was dominated by descendants of Basque immigrants. For many, the starting point of the history of Spain as a united state began with the marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile. This merging of Castilian and Catalan created the modern concept of Spanish for many. Only later would the territories of the Basque Kingdom of Navarre south of the Pyrenees be brought into the Spanish Kingdom. The Basque language is unrelated to all Indo-European languages. The culture of the people was radically different than that of the rest of Spain. This sense of “otherness” led to many seeking out new lives in the Spanish Empire. Many of those would end up in Caracas.

What feelings of otherness were already felt by Caracas for New Granada were compounded by the otherness of the Basque elites who dominated the cultural, political, and military life of the city and the province. These elites created a society dominated by themselves, something that they could not achieve in fact in their homeland. Through the creation of the Caracas Company in 1728, a royal monopoly on trade in the area was created in exchange for the Basque elite’s help in curbing the endemic piracy and smuggling in the area. It is through this that the Basque elite came to dominate economically as well as culturally.

Sebastian de Miranda

It was into this Caracas that Sebastian de Miranda Ravelo would immigrate. Sebastian had been born, not in the Basque country, but the Canary Islands, a Spanish possession off the coast of Morocco. Sebastian began life in Caracas as a merchant of modest means whose primary business was selling canvas, a product vital in many industries, but primarily important for sailing ships. He would marry Francisca Antonia Rodríguez de Espinosa, a woman from Caracas who was in the class of “shore whites,” whites who did not have the same privileges as the Peninsulares and were considered by many to be only fit to be petty laborers.

Sebastian was a successful businessman. Despite his humble beginnings, and the social marginalization he faced, he was able to amass a sizeable fortune living in Caracas. With the money he made as a merchant, he bought real estate around Caracas, further growing his fortune. His growing wealth and notoriety led him to be appointed as a captain in the Company of White Canary Islanders, a militia unit raised to improve the defense of the region. This led to greater resentment amongst the elite of Caracas.

During all these happenings, Sebastian would have children, among them a son named Sebastian Francisco. Born in 1750, less than a year after his parents married, his father was able to provide him with the best upbringing Caracas could provide. First, there were Jesuit tutors. Once a solid base had been built, his education continued at the Academy of Santa Rosa. At only 12 years old, he was enrolled in The Royal and Pontifical University of Caracas. This was a traditional education based upon Latin, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, grammar, and history. Although valuable to Miranda, he would criticize his early education later in life, wishing that it had included more modern languages and economics. What it did do was instill a lifelong love for the ancient classics and rooted Miranda in stories of ancient Greek democratic and Roman republican politics.

It was during these formative years of Miranda’s life that his father had been rising to fabulous wealth and status. He was also rising to greater heights of resentment amongst the Caracas elite. In 1768, the elite decided to wage an open fight with the parvenu Sebastian. A complaint was filed against him claiming several issues, but most insulting for the time, the accusers claimed Sebastian was a ‘mulatto’. The accusers then approached the town council, which was already stacked against Sebastian, and demanded that he be arrested for misrepresentation and fraud, and forging documents. Sebastian, understanding where this was all coming from, requested military discharge the next day. This was partially to stop the attacks, but also to give him the free time to prove his innocence. His request was granted, however, the Governor granted Sebastian the right to wear his ceremonial uniform and keep his privileges granted as a merchant.

This crusade to prove the “purity” of his bloodline would consume both the older and younger Miranda for the next several years. Sebastian would successfully take his crusade to the king himself. After creating a genealogy proving his bloodline, he was able to obtain a statement by King Charles III that Sebastian’s bloodline was pure and his position in society, as well as all privileges and titles, were confirmed. Sebastian had taken this fight much farther than the elites of Caracas had ever intended it to go. In so doing, Sebastian only garnered greater resentment. Not only was he an interloper and parvenu in their eyes, but he had beaten them, and that was unforgivable.

Francisco Leaves Caracas

Watching and helping his father as much as he could, Miranda could only feel his resentment grow. Once his pure bloodline was proven, he decided to leave Caracas and all the resentments. He used the genealogy and certifications his father had accumulated and used them to apply for permission to join the Spanish Imperial service. He wanted to leave behind the parochial prejudices of the elites of Caracas and become a man of the world. On January 25, 1771, Miranda would board the Swedish ship Prince Frederick and let it take him away.

It is easy to see his motivations for leaving in light of his later life. Miranda’s resentment against elites and desire to bring freedom to people around the world can be drawn from his family’s treatment in Caracas. He believed that people should be able to rise on their own without unnecessary societal shackles. He saw how his father rose with those shackles and could consider how much farther he could have gone if left to his own devices. His idealism was that without what he saw as useless prejudices, people would naturally become harmonious and live together in peace and harmony. Together with his obsession with ancient Greek and Roman classics, molded Miranda into the idealistic Moses of the South American Revolutions.

Arriving in Spain after a six-week journey, Miranda was captivated by what he saw. The grand architecture, the historical sites, and importantly for him, the grand libraries with books unobtainable in what was still a colonial backwater. For two years, Miranda would devote himself to his academic studies as well as attempting to understand the Spain of his time. In 1773, his father would purchase for Miranda a commission in the Princess’s Regiment, granting the young man the chance to win the kind of martial glory he had studied so diligently.

Quest for Military Glory

After seeing initial service performing garrison duty in North Africa, Miranda became bored. Much like other men who believe they are born for greatness, mundane duties grew intolerably boring for him. Military glory cannot be obtained in a small garrison on the fringe of nowhere. He would gain combat experience during a brief war with Morocco, it was not the dashing service that he read about so intently. During the siege of Melilla, he would show some of the traits that would later come to embody his character. A firm belief in his destiny. Physical courage in combat. A desire to be where the action was. But also, a willingness to see the other side. Miranda would purchase a Koran during the siege to try to more fully understand the Muslim Moors opposing him. In his extensive diary, he never once expressed personal hostility or hatred of the Moors. He recognized their bravery and zeal for their cause. This desire to understand even the motivations of his enemies, would drive Miranda throughout his life.

After the fighting in Morocco, Miranda would also show another trait that would mark him - resistance to authority. He would constantly bombard his superiors with letters requesting promotions, transfers, and decorations. He would request in terms that, to modern ears would sound as flowery, but at the time, the tone and volume of correspondence were pushy at best and demanding at worst. Combined with his self-assurance, this was certain to be grating to his superiors. Miranda would even write to the king himself asking for the Order of Santiago. This restlessness and growing self-assurance would place him in jail several times for insubordination. Making enemies of your superior officers is never a good idea, and Miranda’s commander, Colonial Juan Roca, would repeatedly file charges against him.

By 1780, Spain was at war again. It had intervened in the American Revolution on the side of France (though Spain pointedly refused to recognize American independence). Troops were needed in the New World to strike at British positions throughout the hemisphere. Miranda would finally be granted the transfer he was long requesting. To be sure, his superiors would have been happy to be rid of him anyway. Miranda was transferred to the Regiment of Aragon and put on a ship to America. This Spanish plan was to use the American Revolution as a way to strike at the British Empire and avenge the humiliating defeat during the Seven Years’ War. The Spanish wanted to reconquer their lost colony of Florida, which they had been compelled to surrender in 1763. The expedition was led by the brilliant Spanish General Bernardo de Galvez.

On the journey from Spain to Havana, the leader of the naval force carrying the troops was Admiral José Solano y Bote, the former governor of Caracas who had supported his father during the controversy over his genealogy. Solano would immediately recognize Miranda and help out the son of his old friend. Miranda was moved out of his regiment, promoted, and made aide-de-camp to Manuel de Cagigal, the governor of Cuba. With promotion and fantastic references, Miranda was now on his way. He would participate in the Siege of Pensacola in 1781. He would help raise money for the French fleet which would go on to win the Battle of the Chesapeake, leading to the victory at Yorktown. Miranda would now begin to help plan the invasion of Jamaica, the jewel of the British Caribbean Empire.

Problems Follow

All was not well for Miranda, however. The Battle of the Saintes would lead to the end of any thought of invading Jamaica. His problems with authority would return. General de Galvez, the architect of the successful campaign against Pensacola, was an object of derision for Miranda. Along with other officers that Miranda had bumped up against along the way, he was making a powerful list of enemies.

After Pensacola, Miranda was sent to the British to arrange the release of about 900 prisoners of war. A further, unrecorded mission was to act as a spy on what the British were up to in the area. Relying on contacts he had made in the aftermath of Pensacola, he got in touch with the British. Miranda, being the smooth operator that he was, had no difficulty arranging the release of the prisoners. Unfortunately, he also entered into an arrangement with Philip Allwood, a British merchant, to fill the ships transporting the prisoners back to Spanish custody with Allwood’s goods and make a fortune on contraband goods.

When Miranda returned, he was found out almost immediately. In addition to charges of smuggling, he also faced charges that he was a spy for the British. Miranda had always been an avid reader. He purchased books wherever he went. This included English language versions of books that would have been banned in Spain. This was used against him. The Minister of the Indies was José de Galvez, uncle of Bernardo. It seemed the de Galvez family, as well as those who had personal and professional differences with Miranda were all coming together to destroy him. He realized that eventually that his enemies were going to find a way to destroy him. It would be the same as with his father. The attacks would continue, and the charges would pile up, until one day the one charge that stuck would come.

At some point during this personal crisis he was facing, Miranda began to realize that despite professed loyalty to king and country, he would forever be a colonial in the eyes of the Spanish. Of course, all of the issues he was facing were not his fault, the persecution came from a variety of external factors. Miranda began personalizing these issues and began seeing himself as different from other Spaniards. He was an American. Spanish service was no longer for him.

Learning that he was going to be arrested, potentially this time for treason, due to the accusations of being a spy, Miranda resolved to escape. He would write to friends and tell them he was going to go back to Spain personally to clear his name. Then it became going back to Spain through the United States. On June 1, 1783, Miranda boarded an American ship and sailed for the United States. It was only the beginning of his wanderings, but this first step would lead to Miranda taking up a part on the stage of world history. The question was, how big a part would he play?

What do you think of Francisco de Miranda’s early life? Let us know below.

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

Shaka Zulu and Great Man History

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

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

Historical Perspectives: How We Interpret the Past

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

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

Shaka Zulu: a Biography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Example of Great Man History?

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

How the US Misjudged Fidel Castro: Part 1 - Before the Revolution

At the moment of Fidel Castro's triumphant entry into Havana, Cuba on January 9, 1959, the charismatic revolutionary leader was a relatively unknown quantity. Many are surprised to discover that Castro at first enjoyed much popular support in this country. Early reports on the rebel leader featured positive, if sometimes guarded, reactions. Even Ed Sullivan, America’s premier show man, got caught up in the excitement. He journeyed to Cuba himself to interview the victorious rebel leader shortly after the latter’s entry into Havana. He was but one of myriad journalists who descended on Cuba to cover the exciting changes in the island.

In this series, Victor Gamma returns and considers how the US misjudged Fidel Castro. Here, we look at how the US intervened in other places in the 1950s, and its pre-Cuban Revolution attempts to understand Fidel Castro’s beliefs.

Fidel Castro with his in the Sierra Maestra, Cuba. December 1956.

In April 1959, Castro visited the United States itself, where he appeared on popular American TV shows, gave talks at Harvard and was buoyed aloft on the shoulders of an admiring audience. In the US he generally received royal treatment wherever he went. This included children sporting Castro beards and other manifestations of Castro-mania. This is strange considering the fact that his mortal enemy, Batista, enjoyed the full backing of the US but a few months before.

As we all know, this “honeymoon” period did not last. Before the end of that year, relations between the US and Castro deteriorated beyond the point of no return. The point is: if we had a more clear idea of his ideology, if he were a communist or might become one and would become an ally of the Soviet Union, we would have been justified in acting decisively to keep him from power. An operation similar to that carried out in Guatemala in 1954 or Iran in 1952 could have been mounted. In the tense competition with the Soviet Union, it was imperative to prevent a communist government 90 miles from American shores. But without a clear understanding of Castro's ideology and/or future plans no firm policy was formulated. Instead, US policy would evolve in reaction to Castro's moves. The result of that policy was that in less than two years diplomatic ties between the United States and Cuba severed and relations degenerated into clandestine warfare. Subsequently, Cuba under Castro became a disaster for U.S. foreign policy for decades. Why did the US allow such a hostile regime to take hold so close to our shores? Why were US policy makers not clear on what Castro’s motives were or what the nature of his ideology was until too late? How did we miss the warning signs?

The problem began towards the end of the Batista regime. By 1957, after almost two decades of unwavering support of Cuban regimes, the State Department began to have doubts about continued support of Batista. Batista’s efforts to label Castro as a communist and tool of Moscow failed to gain Eisenhower’s continued support. In the corridors of power, criticism of America’s Cuban policy became more vocal. Such sentiments were even becoming a matter of public record. On August, 17, 1958, Henry Wriston, president of the Council on Foreign Relation appeared on the Mike Wallace Interview. He openly uttered such anti-Batista statements as “we don't like Batista'' and “we would be delighted to see Batista and Trujillo (the dictator of Guatemala) overthrown.” The US went beyond mere distaste. In March,1958 Eisenhower stopped sending arms to Batista, “Obviously Castro had won the emotional support of the Cuban people,” he said later in justification. The CIA had even actually begun supporting opposition movements in hopes of getting rid of an increasingly unpopular dictator. 

The US and Castro

The US enjoyed major success in sponsoring overthrows of regimes in places as diverse as Guatemala and Iran. Unlike in those countries, however, the US had no plan about whom to replace Batista with. To complicate matters, the insurrection movements prowling around in the mountains and jungles of eastern Cuba were of uncertain ideology and attitudes toward the US - and time was running out. Castro’s group, called the “26th of July Movement,” which was the most important of the various anti-Batista movements, threatened yet another violent overthrow of a Cuban government. By the summer of 1958 it was becoming clear that his regimes’ days were numbered. What should US policy be? Some feared that if something were not done soon the threat of violent revolution would materialize and replace Batista with an even worse (and leftist) government. Since Castro was likely to be an increasingly dominant force, it was vital to decide whether to support him or keep him from power.

What did the US know of Castro? Much knowledge came not from official government efforts but enterprising journalists. The long struggle by the barbudos (bearded ones) attracted much sympathy from the American press, Chief among these was New York Times reporter Herbert Matthews. Castro had been reported killed by the Batista regime. But Matthews was able to locate him. After some days with Castro, Matthews sent his report to the Times. On February 24, 1957, the world was electrified by the news: “Fidel Castro, the rebel leader of Cuba’s youth, is alive and fighting hard and successfully in the rugged, almost impenetrable fastnesses of the Sierra Maestra, at the southern tip of the island.” Along with the report Matthew provided the rebel leader’s signature as proof. The article gushed with praise, included a description of Castro as an “educated, dedicated fanatic, a man of ideals, of courage and of remarkable qualities of leadership.” He had not only dramatically revealed that Castro was not dead, he successfully portrayed him in a way that garnered widespread interest and sympathy from readers across the country. Even more importantly for US policy, he also denied that Castro was a communist or that communists were a significant force in his movement. Such reporting built a groundswell of support among the American public.

Less supportive of America

But if the US had done a profile on the indefatigable rebel, they would have known that he blamed the US for many of Cuba’s problems. At his trial in 1952 he defended himself and used the courtroom as a platform to promote his views. Included in his diatribe were such statements as “The United Fruit Company owns land the north to the south socast in Orient Province-but two hundred thousand Cuban families there don’t own an inch of land!” His villains were companies and landowners. As it was, the CIA psychological profile on Castro did not appear until December 1961, much too late. 

During this time, the American embassy in Havana was not much help. From the years 1953-57 under Ambassador Arthur Gardner, strict orders to avoid contact with anti-Batista movements were in force, effectively thwarting any chance to learn more about Castro. Not only that, such a policy put the CIA in an awkward position. It could not utilize embassy personnel and interfered with intelligence gathering. To overcome this problem, that spring of 1957 Washington sent an official fact-finding mission to Cuba to find out more about Castro. After obtaining Ambassador Gardner’s cooperation, the mission, led by CIA officer Lyman B. Kirkpatrick, Jr. set out to fill in the gaps of knowledge about the opposition to Batista. The delegation spent most of its time in Santiago de Cuba, the main town of Castro's home province, Oriente. Here they hoped to obtain first-hand information about Castro's character and philosophy. Basically, the mission did not discover anything alarming about Castro. He came from a large, wealthy land-owning family. He had attended parochial schools, gone to college, and enjoyed baseball. His former teachers had nothing but good to say about him, “He was a good Catholic boy,” said one. Others insisted that he could not possibly be a communist. The team felt that the rebel movement simply reflected the desire of Cubans to be rid of dictatorship and restore a functioning democracy. So as of 1958 the fog around Castro’s political leanings had still not cleared. It was known that he had been involved in leftist politics and that his movement included communists but in the words of Kirkpatrick “we were not sure whether he was an avowed Communist.” Castro himself had refused to make common cause with Cuban communists.

What do you think about American intelligence’s attempts to gather information on Fidel Castro in the 1950s? Let us know below.

Now read Victor’s series on whether Wernher von Braun was a dangerous Nazi or hero of the space race here.

Why does Vladimir Putin want to Capture Kyiv?

When the Russian Federation, on the orders of President Putin, invaded the territory of independent Ukraine on February 24, 2022, one of the main goals of the Russian troops was to conquer the capital of Ukraine - Kyiv. This attack failed and the Russian Army withdrew to concentrate on eastern Ukraine. Here, Konstant Teleshov explains why Kyiv remains an important target for Vladimir Putin.

The Baptism of Kievans by Klavdy Lebedev.

Thanks to the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian people and the competent actions of the military-political leadership of Ukraine, the Russian army suffered a humiliating defeat near Kyiv and Chernihiv during the Russo-Ukrainian War, after which it was forced to retreat at the end of March 2022.

Historical meaning

In recent years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has made the country's historical past an important element and pillar of his regime, which some political experts call Putinism. He wrote several articles, one of which is called "On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians." In this article, the Russian autocrat positions himself as a supporter of the concept of the triune Russian people, which for centuries has formed a single cultural and spiritual space of historical Russia - a large ethnocultural region in Eastern Europe, historically inhabited by three peoples - Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians.

One of the most important components of the common historical past of these three peoples is a medieval state called Kievan Rus, which existed from 862 to 1240. During its peak, Kievan Rus occupied the territory from the White Sea in the north to the Black Sea region in the south. It consists of many principalities (provinces). One of the provinces of Kievan Rus was the Grand Duchy of Vladimir, one of the parts of which was the Principality of Moscow - the future center of the Russian Empire. The Moscow principality became an independent state only in the 13th century, becoming one of, but not the only successor of Kievan Rus.

The capital of Kievan Rus, located in the north-east of Europe, was Kyiv. The modern Ukrainian capital from the second half of the 9th century has an interesting name - "the mother of Russian cities." Why did such a paradox arise? The fact is that Kyiv was first called the "mother of Russian cities" by the semi-legendary Varangian prince Oleg, who seized power in this city in 882. This is written in the chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years", which is dated to the 12th century.

Thus, Kyiv was declared the political, cultural, economic and religious center of Kievan Rus. The name "mother of Russian cities" is similar in its meaning to the expression "mother of all cities", which is used to characterize Jerusalem as the religious center of the world. In fact, the “mother of cities” is a calque from the Greek word “metropolis”, which was used to denote a capital city.

It turns out that the real spiritual and cultural center of Russia is located in Kyiv, and not in Moscow, which is about 7 centuries younger than the capital of Ukraine. Thus, the Russian Federation is a unique country that has no control over its spiritual and historical capital. In my opinion, this is fair, since the modern Russian army has nothing to do with the army of Kievan Rus, which was one of the strongest in Europe. Russian soldiers behave like cowardly barbarians, which is also unworthy of the army of the state, which considers itself the successor of Kievan Rus. Whereas the daughters of Yaroslav the Wise (one of the most prominent rulers in the history of Kievan Rus) were more educated than European kings.

Considering all of the above, the desire to capture Kyiv fits into the ideological concept of "gathering Russian lands", which was used by all Russian princes, tsars and emperors to seize new lands since the 13th century. President Putin clearly wants to go down in history as a great ruler of Russia, such as Ivan "The Terrible" IV, Peter I and Catherine II. All of them significantly expanded the territory of Russia, and Putin, using false accusations against Ukraine of Nazism, came up with a pretext for the invasion under the guise of protecting the Russian-speaking population from genocide, also wanting to remain in the history of his country as a brilliant strategist and commander.

However, Russia does not deserve to own Kyiv. This city is used to being the center of one of the most developed European countries, while the Russian Federation is clearly not one of them. Kyiv will never want to be part of the "Russian world", which brings with it only destruction, death and lack of culture.

Strategic importance

The Ukrainian capital is also of great strategic importance. It is located on the banks of the largest river in Ukraine called the Dnieper. During the time of Kievan Rus, it was through Kyiv that the famous trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" passed, which connected the Baltic states and the Byzantine Empire.

Today Kyiv is the most important economic, political and military center of Ukraine. Of course, the capture of the capital of a neighboring state would greatly strengthen Russia's position in negotiations with Ukraine, but this did not happen, because Kyiv has long been a quality fortress. For example, the German Army was able to capture Kyiv only after 3 months of siege, having suffered huge losses in 1941.

Psychological factor

The capture of Kyiv, according to the plan of the Russian military-political leadership, was supposed to psychologically break the spirit of Ukrainian resistance to the invaders. For example, they could start spreading fake news that President Zelensky has fled or been assassinated. However, the Russian military failed to understand the psychology of the Ukrainians. They never understood that the city would be defended to the last Ukrainian soldier.

The fact is that in Russia almost all regions are completely subordinated to the capital Moscow. However, in Ukraine, each region is able to independently make decisions and defend itself. That is why, even if the Russian military managed to temporarily capture Kyiv and kill the military-political leadership of Ukraine, they would not be able to break the spirit of the Ukrainian people.

What do you think about President Putin’s motives for wanting to capture Kyiv? Let us know below.

Now read Konstant’s article on the history of confrontation between Russia and Ukraine here.

World War 2: Would Greater Use of Napalm in 1944 have Helped the Allies?

After the Normandy Invasion in June 1944, the Allied Powers had to move across France to reach Germany. However, the terrain was not always easy to cross. Here, Daniel Boustead returns and considers whether greater use of napalm could have helped the Allies as they crossed French hedgerow country in 1944.

Crowds celebrate the liberation of Paris on August 26, 1944.

The Allied campaigns which occurred after the June 6, 1944, Normandy Invasion are often not as well known to the public. In the hedgerow country in France, the Allies encountered alarming casualties from the Nazi German Army. The Allied solutions to the hedgerows were slightly effective but still had fatal flaws. The use of napalm and other explosives in Operation Cobra and other military operations allowed the Allies to break out of Normandy. Napalm was used effectively as weapon in the military campaign in France and the campaign that occurred after that. The Allies should have used napalm early on in the Normandy Campaign which would have prevented many lives being lost in hedgerow country.

The hedgerow country or Bocage, was west of the French City of Caen.(1) For the Germans, the hedgerows were ideally suited for defense. The effects of how deadly the hedgerows were to become quickly became obvious. On June 6, 1944, when German mobile artillery batteries used the hedges to accomplish their mission of camouflaging themselves.(2) This preventing Allied Aviation from either destroying them or defining their position to allow the Allies to destroy them. The hedgerow fighting lasted from June 7, 1944, until the end of August 1944 when the Allies ended up liberating most of the present-day Basse-Normandie.

Issues with hedgerows

The hedgerows consisted of a patchworks of thousands of small fields enclosed by almost impenetrable hedges. The hedges consisted of dense thickets of hawthorn, brambles, vines and trees ranging up to 15 feet in height, growing out of earthen mounds several feet thick and three or four feet  high. The hedges were equipped with a drainage ditch on either side. The walls and hedges together were so formidable that each field took on the character of a small fort. Defenders dug in at the base of a hedgerow and (hidden by vegetation) were all but impervious to rifle and artillery fire. So dense was the vegetation that infantrymen poking around the hedgerows sometimes found themselves eye to eye startled at the Germans. A single machine gun concealed in a hedgerow could mow down attacking troops as they attempted to advance from one hedge to another.  Snipers, mounted on wooden platforms in the treetops and using flashless gunpowder in order to avoid giving away their positions, were a constant threat.

On July 9, 1944, 3rd Armored Division member Belton Cooper was with most of the tank maintenance mechanics when they received fire from German Tree Snipers.(4) Belton Cooper stated that “The Tall pines of Normandy were festooned with larch bunches of mistletoe, which grew as a natural parasite”. Belton Cooper further recollected “There were so many trees and so many bunches of mistletoe that it was difficult to find the snipers who hid there”. Most of the roads were wagon trails, worn into the sunken lanes by centuries of use and turned into cavern-like mazes by overarching hedges. These gloomy passages were tailor made for ambushes and were terrifying places for men on both sides. The sunken lanes were also lethal to Allied Tanks. Confined to narrow channels, they were easy prey for German Panzerfausts (German Anti-Tank Rocket Launchers) camouflaged in the hedgerows. A tank that ventured off the road and attempted to smash through the thicket, was particularly vulnerable. As the tank climbed the mound at the base of the hedgerow, its guns were pointed helpless skyward, and its underbelly was exposed to fire from antitank guns in the next hedgerow.

Fear

The Germans defense of the hedgerows caused much fear, casualties, and losses for the Allies.  Dennis Bunn of the Scottish 15th Reconnaissance Regiment, described hedgerow fighting while driving through them in a heavy armored car. “Inside the car was intense heat and darkness, outside brilliant sunshine. I sweated and gripped the steering wheel with damp hands as I peered through a small aperture at the ground in front, the high hedge on the right, the ground sloping away to the left, at the trees, the bushes, seeing or suspecting danger in every blade of grass”(1).

From June 29 to July 1, 1944, the American Combat Command A of the 29th American Infantry Division captured the French village of Villiers-Fossard in hedgerow country.(3) However, the American Combat Command A lost 31 tanks, 12 other vehicles, and 151 men while trying to capture this French village (3). The losses which the Americans endured in trying to capture Villiers-Fossard were directly caused by German heavy small arms fire, German mortar, anti-tank fire from a German reinforced infantry battalion, and German Panzerfausts (3).

Solutions

The Allied solutions to the hedgerows were effective but had some fatal flaws. The use of Bulldozer Tanks to remove hedgerows proved faulty because they were easily knocked out by German Anti-Tank weapons. This was brutally demonstrated during the military action of Combat Command A of the 29th American Infantry Division at Villiers-Fossard. In this action the Americans lost two bulldozers early in the action to German Anti-Tank Weapons while trying to capture this village. This only left Combat Command A of the American 29th Infantry Division with only explosives to blow through the hedgerows. The American action to capture the Villiers-Fossard also displayed another faulty American tactic. The use of explosives to blow gaps in the hedgerows resulted in warning the Germans where the Americans were coming from. The Germans then directed their fire at the places where the explosives were which resulted in killing more American troops.

A more effective anti-hedgerow device were the “hedgerow cutters” developed by Sergeant Curtis G. Cutlin Jr. of the U.S. 102nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron.(5) Cutlin Jr. welded pointed steel blades cut from the German beach obstacles onto American tanks. This allowed them to go through the hedgerows during combat. Cutlin’s innovation was so effective and popular that in General Omar Bradley’s First Army, three of every five tanks were equipped with the “hedgerow cutters”. General Dwight David Eisenhower said about the “hedgerow cutters” they “restored the effectiveness of the tank and gave a tremendous boost to morale throughout the Army”(5).  However, the tanks equipped with the “hedgerow cutters” could be knocked out.(6)

Napalm

The use of napalm along with other explosives helped the Allies break out of Normandy. On July 25, 1944, a total of 4,150+ tons of high explosives and napalm were dropped on the Periers-Saint Lo Road.(7) A total of 125,000 rounds of artillery were also fired at the Periers-Saint Lo Road. The end result of this bombardment was that 1,000 men of the German Panzer Lehr Division had perished, and the survivors were left stunned across the Periers-Saint Lo Road. Panzer Lehr Division Commander Fritz Bayerlein said about the bombardment “My front lines looked like the face of the moon, and at least 70 per cent of my troopers were out of action-dead, wounded, crazed, or numbed. All my forward tanks were knocked out, and the roads were practically impassable”(7). Some survivors of the Panzer Lehr division would be deaf for 24 hours. Three German battalion command posts simply vanished, along with a whole German parachute regiment. Only a dozen German tanks remained operable. As Fritz Bayerlien frantically tried to restore a semblance of order by calling up units from the rear, American P-38s, P-47s, and P-51s Fighter planes and British Typhoons continued to blast his troops and tanks. The July 25, 1944, bombardment helped ignite Operation Cobra.

Operation Cobra was developed by General Omar Bradley.(8) Operation Cobra tore a funnel-shaped hole in the German defenses that was 10 miles wide at Avranches, France and narrowed to a single road and a bridge at Pontaubault. The German forces also faced another threat when Allied Forces landed in Southern France on August 15, 1944, as part of Operation Anvil-Dragoon.(11) The French and American forces landed in French Rivera region as part of Operation Anvil-Dragoon. This occurred near the city of Cannes. British Paratroopers participated in this action.(12) Operation Cobra and other such Allied military operations would ultimately liberate the whole of France. The Apex of this liberation was when Allied forces liberated Paris, France on August 25/26, 1944.(9)

There were some effective tactical air uses of napalm by the Allies in France and the military actions that occurred during and after the campaign. In August 1944 American Fighter bombers carrying fire bombs flew frequent missions against the Germans escaping the encirclement at Falaise France.(10) In August, 1944 P-38s and P-47s armed with bombs, rockets, and napalm attacked fleeing concentrations of German trucks and German armor that were retreating from Falaise France. General Dwight David Eisenhower described what he witnessed from the aftermath of the German forces fleeing from Falaise France “As being able to walk hundreds of yards, walking only on dead bodies”.(10)

An example of the effectiveness of napalm was demonstrated on August 25, 1944, on the headquarters of Feldmarschall Guenther Von Kluge, German Army Group commander at Verzy, France(10). On that day, 15 fighter bombers carrying 24 165-gallon napalm bombs and eight 500 lbs. HE bombs attacked Feldmarschall Guenther Von Kluge’s headquarters at Verzy, France. Twenty-two of the napalm tanks made direct hits on the Verzy headquarters buildings completely destroying eight houses. In the Battle of the Bulge from December 1944 to January 1945, the American Army Air Force fighter bombers used fire bombs effectively against the German motor transportation and German armored concentrations in the wooded sections of the battleground.

The Anglo-Americans faced a “meat-grinder” campaign in the hedgerow country of France against their German adversaries. In retrospect the Anglo-American military forces should have used napalm more frequently against the hedgerows in the time before, during, and after the June 6, 1944, Normandy Invasion. This factor would have resulted in less Allied soldiers being killed, wounded, or captured and ultimately brought about a quicker end to the conflict in Europe.

What do you think of the use of napalm in World War 2 Let us know below.

Now, you can read World War II history from Daniel: “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here, “Japanese attacks on the USA in World War II” here, and “Was the Italian Military in World War 2 Really that Bad?” here.

References

1 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia.  Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 17.

2 Laurenceau, Marc. “Hedgerow warfare in Normandy-D-Day Overlord”. Last Modified or Updated 2003 to 2022. Accessed on May 16th, 2022. www.dday-overlord.com  of Encyclopedie du debarquement et de la bataille de Normandie. https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/battle-of-normandy/tactics/hedgerow-warfare.

3 Cooper, Belton Y. Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II. Novato: California. Presidio Press. 1998. 10 to 11.

4 Cooper, Belton Y. Death Traps: The Survival of An American Armored Division in World War II. Novato: California. Presidio Press. 1998. 28.

5 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time Life-Books, Inc. 1978. 21.

6 “Knocked Out M4 Sherman Tank with hedgerow cutters Normandy”. World War Photos. Updated or improved from 2013 -2022. Accessed on May 17th, 2022.  https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/tanks/m4_sherman/knocked-out-m4-sherman-tank-with-hedgerow-cutters-normandy/

7 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time Life-Books, Inc. 1978 . 54 to 56.

8 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 76.

9 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 156 and 162.

10 Wolf, William. U.S. Aerial Armament in World War II: The Ultimate Look Vol. 3: Air-launched  Rockets, Mines, Torpedoes, Guided Missiles, and Secret Weapons. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History Books of Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2010. 70.

11 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 102 and 115.

12 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 107.

Bibliography

Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978.

Cooper, Belton Y. Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division In World War II. Novato: California. Presidio Press. 1998.

“Knocked Out M4 Sherman Tank with hedgerow cutters Normandy”. World War Photos. Updated or Improved from 2013-2022. Accessed on May 17th, 2022. https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/tanks/m4_sherman/knocked-out-m4-sherman-tank-with-hedgerow-cutters-normandy/

Laurenceau, Marc. “Hedgerow warfare in Normandy-D-Day Overlord”. Last Modified or Updated 2003 to 2022. Accessed on May 16th, 2022. www.day-overlord.com. Of Encyclopedie du debarquement et de la bataille de Normandie. https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/battle-of-normandy/tactics/hedgerow-warfare.

Wolf, William. U.S. Aerial Armament in World War II: The Ultimate Look Vol. 3: Air-launched Rockets, Mines, Torpedoes, Guided Missiles, and Secret Weapons. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History Books of Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2010.

Major General Gordon and the Pursuit of Empire in North Africa

Charles George Gordon, known for exhibiting extraordinary courage and fearlessness in battle, would die a hero’s death in 1885. At the time of his death, he had gained international fame for his service in the British army, ability to inspire others, and his staunch commitment to his faith. Here Marvin McCrary looks at Gordon’s role after China, notably in Sudan in the 1870s and 1880s.

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

A depiction of Major General Gordon in Khartoum.

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

To Africa

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

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

Uprising

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

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

Sudan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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