How effective was the 1815 Congress of Vienna?

The Congress of Vienna took place in 1814-15 in the light of the ending of the Napoleonic Wars. It had the aim of creating a revised European political order in the post-war period. Here, Bilal Junejo considers how effective the Congress was.

Klemens von Metternich. 1815 portrait by Thomas Lawrence.

Whenever it is the effectiveness of something which has to be determined, it invariably helps to be clear at the outset about the criteria in light of which such determination is to be made. In the case of the Congress of Vienna, how effective was it in doing what? What was it supposed to do when it convened? And what did it then go on to actually do? Was it able, by dint of the settlement which it drew up on 9 June 1815, to accomplish all that it had set out to? Or did subsequent events prove by their very occurrence that the Treaty of Vienna had been “ineffective” (because it could do nothing to forestall them)? To learn the answers, we must begin our analysis by examining the principal characteristics of a peace conference in the abstract — before turning to consider the extent to which those characteristics may be said to have been borne by the Congress of Vienna.

Ordinarily, a peace conference opens in the wake of an armistice. That is because the foremost purpose of such a conference is to determine what the postwar settlement will look like, and there is no point in discussing such a settlement until hostilities have at least provisionally ceased, for any such discussion presupposes knowledge of the international environment in which any settlement drawn up will have to operate, and no ascertainment of that environment can take place until fighting has stopped, not least because the lineaments of that environment will themselves be determined by the timing of the truce. What necessitates such a conference, though, is not the nature of the losing side’s surrender (which may be conditional or unconditional), but the fact that the winning side comprises not one participant but several. The victors’ initial lack of consensus as to the principal characteristics of the postwar settlement, coupled with the inability of each of them to settle things unilaterally in their own favor, makes them hold a conference in the hope of finding (some) common ground. As it is a peace conference, any acceptable settlement (for what is not acceptable will not be workable either) in which its deliberations eventuate has to ensure, if the conference itself is to be called “effective”, three things at all costs — the minimization of the losing side’s ability (and, if the victors are sufficiently wise, incentive) to resume hostilities; the material satisfaction of each victor in proportion to their losses during the war; and finally, if the first two requirements have been fulfilled, an overall arrangement of affairs that is calculated to maximize the life of the new peace. Given how the views of each victor are bound to be colored by considerations of their national security, none of the three things mentioned above can ever admit of an easy solution; but what occasionally complicates matters for everyone is the awkward situation where some members of the winning side turn out to have been able to have accomplished all or most of their wartime goals before the armistice was concluded, whilst the rest expect to be able to accomplish theirs as a direct result of the postwar settlement. The former, whom one might call the possessive, will consequently find their bargaining power at the conference to be much greater than that of the latter, whom one might call the acquisitive. Under such circumstances, the acquisitive will normally make their gains only if they first accord recognition to the wartime gains of the possessive. However, it should also be remembered that the possessive will have, in spite of their superior bargaining position, a vested interest in satisfying as many demands of the acquisitive as they possibly can, since any alienation of the latter will only result in potential allies for the side that has lost the war, presaging a regrouping of forces and a consequent undermining of the new settlement even before it officially comes into being.

Effectiveness

Having ascertained the raison d’être of a peace conference, as well as the three cumulative requirements for making it “effective”, it should not be too difficult now for us to determine just how well the Congress of Vienna’s chosen means conduced to its own ends. Beginning with the first requirement, namely minimizing the losing side’s ability and incentive to resume hostilities, the Congress performed quite well. Unlike most peace conferences, it had the advantage of having opened (in September 1814) only after a proper treaty of peace (as opposed to a mere armistice) had been concluded with the loser (on 30 May). The Treaty of Paris had confirmed not only the Allies’ recognition of the return of legitimate (i.e. internationally acceptable) Bourbon rule to France, but also the terms upon which France (or at least her new, de facto representatives) had agreed that she should thenceforth peacefully coexist with the rest of Europe. The early advent of this congenial development ensured that the Congress, when it subsequently convened, would remain conscious of the need to draw up no settlement of which the provisions in relation to France would be such as to humiliate the French people, subvert the Bourbons’ shaky hold, incite the return of Bonapartism, and plunge Europe into war anew. And given the decision to exile Napoleon to an island as close to France as Elba, it is likely that nobody foresaw the One Hundred Days in May 1814, as nobody could have known then how quickly the Bourbons, notwithstanding the Charter of Ghent, would resume their traditional misrule (ranging from economic inefficiency to humiliating political opponents) after returning to power (Roberts, 2015: 726-8). But that misrule had nothing to do with the Congress. It could, of course, be argued that since the Bourbons owed their return to Allied military support, the Congress could have ordered them to govern less provocatively than they were doing, but that begs the question of how exactly it was supposed to have realized the provocation prior to Napoleon’s smoothest of returns to power in March 1815. As late as February, Lord Castlereagh’s deputy at the Foreign Office was telling Campbell (the British commissioner guarding Napoleon on Elba) when he met him in Florence that “[w]hen you return to Elba, you may tell Bonaparte that he is quite forgotten in Europe: no one thinks of him now (Roberts, 2015: 730).” This cannot be dismissed as mere hyperbole to dampen Napoleon’s spirits, for the aforementioned proximity of Elba to France and the Allies’ indifference to both that and Bourbon misrule (in spite of Allied forces still being present upon French soil) strongly suggest that such a view was genuinely held at the ongoing Congress. But because Napoleon was soon defeated at Waterloo and exiled to faraway St Helena, the Congress never had to atone for its indifference to Bourbon misgovernment. The Second Treaty of Paris (20 November 1815) — which established a Quadruple Alliance of Great Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia to function principally as a system of collective security for nipping any kind of French aggression in the bud — declared that France was to return to her pre-Revolutionary borders, pay an indemnity of 700 million francs, and have the greater part of her territory occupied by Allied forces for five years. But the French people, notwithstanding the Bourbons’ return, complied; and by 1818, at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, reparations had been settled, the occupation was ended after only three years, and the Quadruple Alliance became the Quintuple with the addition of France, which finally restored her to full great power status in Europe. The speed with which France was able to regain equality of status in Europe after 1815 shows how the Congress of Vienna, supplemented by the Second Treaty of Paris, had left her neither desirous of overturning the new settlement nor in a position to do so even if she wanted to.

Material satisfaction

Vis-à-vis the second requirement — the victors’ material satisfaction — the Congress also did well. Indeed, it must have done so, if “it is possible to say [that the Vienna settlement] contained in none of its provisions the seeds of a future war between the great powers, and must thus be rated a better peace than either Utrecht or Versailles (Seaman, 2003: 8).” A complete list of the powers’ individual territorial gains is not necessary, for all that concerns us is the realization that because no power felt cheated or resentful, the third requirement — ensuring the peace’s longevity — may be considered in conjunction with the second, as any durable postwar peace presupposes the victors’ general satisfaction. It should be remembered that since the Congress had opened only after the Bourbons’ restoration, its task was not to achieve peace, but to ensure that it would continue. But because that peace was going to be principally between hereditary autocrats, the lack of domestic accountability had to be compensated for by an international equilibrium of forces, which necessitated not only the erosion of revolutionary ideas, but also the remedying of those weaknesses in the Continental structure which had tempted and enabled French aggression in the first place. Unsurprisingly, the best antidote to revolution was perceived to lie in the concept of legitimacy, which meant that the established monarchies of Europe alone had the right to rule over their respective people(s) merelybecause they were established. It was a return to the status quo ante, as

“After the two World Wars of the twentieth century there was no question of recreating the situation that had existed before the outbreak of hostilities; the statesmen of 1814, on the other hand, were definitely seeking some sort of return to the eighteenth-century system. It was not merely that their pride had been bruised by the impact of Napoleon's armies; the whole basis of the ancien régime had been challenged by the extension of revolutionary principles in the lands adjoining France, and for the Allies the purpose of victory was to restore the political and social framework that had been so roughly shaken since 1789 (Wood, 1964: 6).”

Weak Legitimacy?

The weakness inherent in choosing legitimacy as the basis of the Vienna settlement was that it was based upon the memory of the French Revolution and Napoleon (Kissinger, 1994: 88). Inevitably, as that memory faded with the passage of time, respect for legitimacy (which had only grown as a result of that memory) would diminish, and conflict erupt anew. But in 1815, there existed no other belief upon which to base a consensus. For the settlement to work, every power had not only to make the territorial gains for which she had fought the protracted Napoleonic Wars (and which would constitute her price for acceding to the settlement), but also to rest assured that those gains would not be subsequently snatched from her by a jealous rival. After decades of war, the decision to uphold legitimacy would mean that the incentive for one autocrat not to encroach upon the territory of another could easily lie in the understanding that the latter would reciprocate such forbearance in kind. Indeed, Russia, Prussia, and Austria went a step further, and developed between themselves what would come to be known as the Holy Alliance, which obliged its members to assist one another in the suppression of insurrectionary activity in each other’s dominions. But if legitimacy could keep the powers from exploiting their respective geopolitical opportunities merely for the sake of reciprocity, it did not eliminate the existence of those opportunities. They would be exploited as soon as anyone felt strong enough to do so (as eventually happened in the Crimean War). The principal achievement of the Treaty of Vienna — or rather of its foremost defender, Metternich, who remained Austrian foreign minister until 1848 — was to keep Prussia and Russia, the foremost Continental powers, convinced for over thirty years that their best interests lay in peace rather than war. It helped, of course, that these countries were autocracies, where Metternich only had to convince the monarch and no one else. But throughout his tenure, Metternich’s task had been to keep them from acting, rather than from reacting. One wonders, therefore, whether even Metternich, had he remained in office, would have been able to stave off conflict after the advent of the ‘illegitimate’ and provocatively domineering Napoleon III in 1852. It was Metternich’s luck that no meaningful challenge to the peace arose until after 1848 — and his accomplishment that he kept both Prussia and Russia from challenging it throughout his time in office. Navarino had not challenged the peace because Russia had fought it in concert with the ‘legitimate’ Bourbons and London — and against a non-Christian power, assisting whom was in no way stipulated by the Holy Alliance. Consequently,

“After the Congress of Vienna, Europe experienced the longest period of peace it had ever known. No war at all took place among the Great Powers for forty years, and after the Crimean War in 1854, no general war for another sixty (Kissinger, 1994: 79).”

Good luck

It was the spirit of Vienna’s good luck that it did not die (in 1856) until the rejuvenation of France under Napoleon III (which was shortly eclipsed by German unification under Bismarck) had taken place, restoring something of a military balance on the Continent to counter the end of legitimacy (which was crucial in postponing the outbreak of a general war until 1914). It had taken the combined forces of Great Britain, France, and eventually Piedmont-Sardinia (plus the decisive ultimatum from Austria) to bring Russia to the negotiating table in 1856!

But for the forty years that it lasted, the post-1815 peace also owed something to the Continental restructuring that had taken place at Vienna, and which the precepts of legitimacy subsequently preserved from unilateral change. In the first place, British determination to prevent the recrudescence of Continental subservience to one state had resulted in the creation of a united kingdom of Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg to keep the Low Countries’ ports, which were perilously close to Dover, from falling into a Continental power’s hands. Catholic Belgium was united with Protestant Holland not from lack of foresight, but because it was impossible then to confirm future French docility (Seaman, 2003: 4) — not least because Napoleon had yet to be defeated when the Treaty of Vienna was signed on 9 June. Even after Belgium’s secession from the union in 1830, Great Britain was able to have Belgian sovereignty guaranteed by all the great powers under Article 7 of the Treaty of London of 1839 — with the result that thenceforth, until 1914, she could remain comfortably aloof from all disputes in western Europe (particularly at the time of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870), resulting in their automatic reduction to manageable proportions and preventing the outbreak of a Continental conflagration.

German Confederation & Russia

Another (Austro-) British achievement was the establishment of the German Confederation. An association of thirty-nine German states (including parts of both Prussia and Austria) in the center of Europe with no central administration but under the nominal presidency of Vienna would prove to be too strong to be attacked by a neighboring power, but too weak to attack anyone itself (Kissinger, 1994: 81). Checking both French and Russian expansion, as well as maintaining an equilibrium between Prussia and Austria in central Europe, the Confederation promised to be the cornerstone of the Continental equilibrium for which Lord Castlereagh had been straining every nerve.

The cause of peace was also helped by appeasement of the foremost Continental power in 1815 — Russia (Kissinger, 1994: 140). By acknowledging Russian suzerainty over Poland — which the Tsar had captured from Napoleon in the war’s final stages, making Russia a possessive power in the Polish context — the Allies, and especially acquisitive Austria, won Russia’s crucial support for legitimate rule across the Continent. It was the Congress of Vienna because, among the great powers, Austria’s desire for one had been the greatest (Roberts, 2015: 726). Her military weakness meant that her European wishes could only be fulfilled if they also became international decisions. Winning indispensable Russian support at that decisive hour preserved the peace for nearly forty years.

Conclusion

To conclude, the Congress of Vienna was considerably effective because it ushered in an unprecedentedly long era of (general) peace. But because that peace had been inspired by a common fear, it was bound to be lost once that fear had evaporated. Even so, legitimacy’s survival until 1856 allowed the Continent to regain something of a military balance — which helped to postpone the next European war until 1914.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Bibliography

Kissinger, H. (1994) Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

Roberts, A. (2015) Napoleon the Great. Penguin Books.

Seaman, L. (2003) From Vienna to Versailles. Taylor & Francis e-Library.

Wood, A. (1964) Europe 1815-1945. Longmans, Green and Co Ltd.

The Humanitarian Dimension of the 1898 American Occupation of Cuba

The United States went to war against Spain in 1898 to end Spanish colonial rule in Cuba. The United States remained as an occupying power after the expulsion of the Spanish. However, Paul Parobek discovered during his research that there was a humanitarian dimension to the American occupation of Cuba that is often overlooked in the scholarship.

An 1897 cartoon showing how the American people want help Cubans, but the US government not wanting to. Judge Magazine on February 2, 1897.

The United States has a long history of providing humanitarian relief to foreigners suffering from disasters. However, the humanitarian relief provided by the United States to Cuba following the War against Spain in 1898 is often overlooked even though Americans were well-aware of the suffering of the Cubans. American media regularly reported on the Spanish atrocities being committed in Cuba by the Spanish General Weyler who was given the name ‘The Butcher’ by American newspapers. William McKinley made the humanitarian situation in Cuba a prominent cornerstone of his campaign in 1896 and according to Irwin, President McKinley sought to avoid a war with Spain, but he also wanted to alleviate the suffering of the Cubans and “turned to humanitarian assistance” (Irwin, 2013, p. 26).The Spanish-Cuban conflict killed between 200,000 and 400,000 Cubans over the course of the two years from McKinley’s election in 1896 until the War against Spain in 1898 which President McKinley referred to in genocidal terms. Deaths were not just limited to the combatants. The elderly, disabled, women, and children were also affected which Senator Lodge referred to in a Senate speech as being “medieval and barbaric”. American troops immediately began an assessment of the situation in Cuba once the Spanish had been expelled. The devastation varied across the island. Provinces such as Havana were not as devastated while the rural provinces in the eastern part of Cuba were the most devastated. The provinces of Matanzas, Santa Clara, Santiago, and Puerto Principe were particularly devastated as that is where General Weyler initiated the reconcentrado policies. In one province, the United States had only four to six weeks’ worth of food to supply the inhabitants. In another province, the humanitarian plight was so severe that the United States had to prioritize the recipients with the elderly, disabled, women, and children receiving priority status.

Distribution

The American Army expedited the distribution of emergency food rations to the Cubans. Adjutant General H. C. Corbin first ordered the distribution of food rations in General Order Number 110 on 1 August 1898 by orders of the Secretary of War Elihu Root. This order primarily dealt with the commissary of the American troops, however, sections seven and eight specifically called for the distribution of food “to troops of the Cuban army, to Cuban destitutes, and to the prisoners of war” ('General Orders and Circulars: Adjudent General's Office,' 1898, p. 312). Food rations were distributed and their effects were documented in various reports. In one report by General Wilson, the period from 1 January to 30 June 1899 in the provinces of Santa Clara and Matanzas saw “I,930,130 Cuban rations were issued… (and) The number of destitute greatly diminished since last January, and now the distribution of rations is principally confined to hospitals and orphan asylums” (Wilson, 1899, p. 8 in report). In Havana when the orders were made, between 20,000 and 25,000 people, but these were reduced by degree” (Ludlow, 1899, p. 17 in report).

Food rations would later be provided by allocation of funds from the Bureau of Insular Affairs. A report from the Chief Commissary Officer Major A. l. Smith on 12 August 1899, from 11 April and 30 June 1899 saw a total of “1,081,870 pounds of food were transferred to the Cubans” (Smith, 1899, p. 12 in report). The total cost of these food supplies totalled $49,013.37. Males and the able-bodied were given the lowest priority. Those males who were given rations and regained their strength were then required to work to aid in the rebuilding of Cuba. The relief had to be rationed to make it last until. The relief that was provided did not substantially reduce the suffering. It was apparent that the United States military could not handle the humanitarian relief by itself in addition to its other responsibilities including restoring law and order, rebuilding the island’s infrastructure, and creating civil authorities.

Partnership

The United States partnered with various relief societies and Church groups in the private sector including the American Red Cross, The Central Cuban Relief Committee, The Women's National Relief Association, and the Hijas de Cuba (the Daughters of Cuba) were other prominent organizations that appealed to the American public for money, food, clothing, and medicine ('Relief for Starving Cubans,' 8 January 1898, p. 1). They were initially placed under the State Department to help provide relief to Cuba. These relief societies were highly successful as the American Consulate-General Fitzhugh Lee stated in a letter to William Day in Havana on 23 November 1897, about their success, writing “under charitable committees, a large number of them (mainly women and children former reconcenrados) have been gathered together in houses, and are now being fed and cared for by private subscriptions” (Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Relative to Affairs in Cuba, Ordered to be Printed April 13, 1898, 1898, p. 552). Leaders of the various relief societies such as Clara Barton made personal visits to Cuba to personally “distribute food and medical supplies to civilians and established orphan asylums” (Irwin, 2013, p. 26). In addition to prominent businessmen including Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Chase, and Sheeran often organized social gatherings with prominent organizations including  the Chamber of Commerce of New York City to raise money for relief efforts ('Relief for Cuban Sufferers,' 11 January 1898, p. 7).

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

What Happened During the Assassination of President Abraham Lincoln?

Abraham Lincoln’s assassination on April 14, 1865 had significant consequences, particularly coming as it did shortly before the end of the U.S. Civil War. Here, Lloyd W Klein looks at the assassination and Lincoln’s killer, John Wilkes Booth.

A depiction of John Wilkes Booth when he was about to shoot President Abraham Lincoln.

The Assassination

The assassin silently opened the first door to the President’s theater box, fully aware that the bodyguard was not around. He barricaded the door behind him, using a stick that he wedged in between the door and the wall. He then looked through a small peephole he’d previously carved in the second door. The time was shortly after 10 PM. He waited for the particular line in the play he knew was received by the audience with loud laughing and noise, to be spoken by actor Harry Hawk (playing Asa Trenchard). When he heard the line, “Don’t know the manners of good society, eh? Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old gal; you sockdologizing old man-trap!” and heard the expected audience response, he opened the second door.  He silently moved forward and took one shot at the back of the President’s head, who was laughing. He dropped his derringer, then pulled a knife to fight off the officer accompanying Lincoln that night, who had grabbed his coat to restrain him.

Well aware of the layout of Ford’s Theater, having acted there numerous times, his escape route was to jump from the balcony where the box was located to the stage. When he jumped to the stage, Booth broke the fibula, the small bone in the bottom of his left leg. In his diary, Booth wrote that he said, “Sic semper” although eyewitnesses thought he said “Sic semper tyrannis” and others “The South is avenged”. Only the screams of the ladies from the box suggested this wasn’t a part of the play; the audience began to realize what had happened when the officer yelled, “Stop that man”.

Booth ran out to the alley from backstage, pursued by audience members, where his groom Joseph “Peanuts”  Burroughs was waiting outside, holding Booth’s horse. Booth struck Peanuts in the head with his knife, jumped onto his horse, and rode off.

Booth had gained entrance to the President’s box at the theater without any problem because the assigned bodyguard, John Parker, a Metropolitan Washington DC officer, was not where he was supposed to be: seated just outside in a passageway by the door. From where he sat, the bodyguard couldn’t see the stage, so after Lincoln and his guests settled in, he moved to the first gallery to enjoy the play. Later, he committed an even greater folly: at intermission, he joined the footman and coachman of Lincoln’s carriage for drinks in the Star Saloon next door to Ford’s Theatre. Booth was seated in the Star Saloon, drinking quite heavily. When Booth crept up to the door to Lincoln’s box, he knew there was no one on duty because he saw Parker drinking in the saloon.

Major Henry Rathbone attended the play at Ford’s Theater with the Lincolns and his fiancée, Clara Harris. He was invited only because General and Mrs. Grant turned down the invitation at a late hour. The general’s wife, however, had recently been the victim of Mary Todd Lincoln’s acid tongue and wanted no part of a night on the town with the First Lady. Grant had backed out citing the couple’s desire to travel to New Jersey to see their children. He attempted to stop the assassin but was seriously wounded by Booth, who slashed Rathbone’s left arm from his elbow to his shoulder.

All four of the people in that box would become tragic victims of that night. Major Rathbone married Clara—who also happened to be his stepsister—in 1867, but then he grew increasingly erratic and perhaps suffered from post-traumatic stress. Although they had 3 children, he was mentally anguished forever after by thoughts that he had not done enough to prevent the murder. Although appointed by President Arthur to be the Consul to Hanover, his mental health continued to decline. He threatened divorce frequently. He ultimately fatally shot and stabbed his wife and then stabbed himself five times. He was charged with murder but instead was declared insane and committed to a mental asylum for the remainder of his life. Mary Todd Lincoln, the fourth person present, was herself institutionalized in 1875.

The president had been mortally wounded; He was carried to a lodging house across the street from the theater. At about 7:22 the next morning, he died—the first U.S. president to be assassinated.

Seward

Another segment of the plot was to assassinate William Seward, the Secretary of State. Lewis Powell, a co-conspirator with John Wilkes Booth, forced his way into Seward’s house. Seward had been in a carriage accident 9 days previously, breaking his jaw. He was recuperating from a painful wound that prevented him from eating normally. The accident and Seward’s injuries were widely reported. Powell came to the door dressed well and claimed to be bringing pain medication that Seward’s doctor had prescribed. The servant answering the door was happy to take the medication but would not give the “messenger” entrance to the house. Powell pushed open the door and raced up the stairs to the bedroom, where he stabbed Seward several times before fleeing the scene. Seward was wearing a brace for his jaw injury that deflected the knife slashes. He also rolled over away from the killer and was only minimally injured in the chest and neck.  Besides Seward, 8 people were stabbed and one hit in the head; these included four of Seward's children, a bodyguard, and a messenger. His son Frederick was hit in the head by a pistol when the gun malfunctioned; he spent 2 months in a coma. That night and the next morning, Seward deduced that Lincoln had been murdered. Seward heard church bells tolling; although the people around him tried to deny it, fearing the effect of inflicting emotional pain, Seward said, “Lincoln is dead because if he were alive he would have been the first to come to see me.”

Who was Booth? What was he planning?

John Wilkes Booth was a famous actor, from a very prominent theatrical family. Many considered Booth’s father, Junius Brutus Booth, to be the finest Shakespearean actor of his generation, and Booth’s older brother, Edwin is commonly named among the greatest American actors of all time,  Booth grew up in Baltimore. He was called “the handsomest man in America” by at least one critic.

His interest in politics, and particularly his partiality to slavery, developed at a young age. The rest of his family could not abide his politics, as they were all Union men. Booth became involved with the Knights of the Golden Circle in Baltimore. During the war, he chose to remain in the North despite his political persuasions as there were more options for actors in northern cities.

His anti-Union sentiments were fully displayed on an October 1864 trip to Montreal, a city noted for its southern sympathy and a notorious outpost of Confederate agents. On October 18th he checked into St. Lawrence Hall, an old Hotel known as the Confederacy’s Canadian center. Witnesses would later claim to have seen Booth talking with known agents and openly expressing contempt for Lincoln.

There, money from some source changed hands; a bankbook with $ 455 and three certificates of exchange from The Ontario Bank dated October 27th was found in his possession when he was killed. It is believed that he had already developed a general plan for the kidnapping of Abraham Lincoln at that point. Booth was known to have been in Montreal that day. The origin of these funds remains uncertain, especially regarding whether someone high up in the Confederate government had financed the assassination (Klein).

A witness at the 1865 trial of Booth’s accomplices testified that Patrick C. Martin accompanied Booth to the Montreal branch of the Ontario Bank, where Booth made a deposit and took bills of exchange. Martin was a Baltimore liquor dealer who had established a Confederate Secret Service base in Montreal in the summer of 1862. He had arranged blockade running and financial services benefitting Confederate interests. It is known that Booth tried to arrange the transfer of his theatrical costumes to Jamaica by Martin

Martin gave Booth letters of introduction to two southern Maryland physicians, Dr. William Queen and Dr. Samuel Mudd. These operatives were to assist him in escaping. In November, 1864. Booth deposited $1,500 in the Cooke Bank in Washington. He spent these funds between January 7 and March 16, 1865, to assemble his team.

The Plot

Booth had visited Bryantown MD  in November and December 1864, allegedly to search for real estate investments. Bryantown is located 25 miles from Washington and about 5 miles from Dr. Mudd's farm. Of course, the real estate alibi was a cover; Booth's true purpose was to plan an escape route as part of the plan to kidnap Lincoln. Booth’s original idea was that the federal government would ransom Lincoln by releasing a large number of Confederate prisoners of war.

There, he met with Dr Mudd, an active participant in a confederate spy network. Booth met Mudd at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Bryantown during one of those visits, probably in November. Booth visited Mudd at his farm the next day and stayed there overnight. The following day, Booth purchased a horse from Mudd's neighbor and returned to Washington.

On December 23, 1864, Mudd traveled to Washington. There he met Booth again, where the two men, as well as John Surratt, Jr., and Louis J. Weichmann, had a conversation and drinks. They met first at Booth's hotel and later at Mudd's. According to a statement made by George Atzerodt taken while he was in federal custody on May 1, 1865, Mudd knew in advance about Booth's plans; Atzerodt was sure the doctor knew  because Booth had "sent (as he told me) liquors & provisions... about two weeks before the murder to Dr. Mudd's."

It has been suggested that Booth heard Lincoln speak at his second inaugural address. Some photos appear to show him in the crowd wearing a top hat but perhaps also without. No one knows for certain if this individual is Booth, or even if Booth was present that day.

On March 17, Booth and a group composed of  George Atzerodt, David Herold, and Lewis Powell, met in a Washington bar to plot the abduction of the president three days later. However, the president changed his plans, and the scheme was scuttled. General Robert E. Lee surrendered to the Union on April 9th at Appomattox Court House and the war was essentially over.

On the evening of April 11, the president stood on the White House balcony and delivered a speech outlining some of his ideas about reconstruction and bringing the defeated Confederate states back into the Union. Lincoln indicated a desire to give voting rights to some African Americans, such as those who had fought in the Union ranks during the war. He expressed a desire that the southern states would extend the vote to literate blacks, as well. Booth was in the small audience on the White House lawn listening. , “That means n____ citizenship,” he told Lewis Powell. “Now, by God, I’ll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.” Booth’s plot changed to murder at that moment. The conspirators altered their plan; the new plot was to kill Lincoln, Vice President Andrew Johnson, and Secretary of State William Seward on the same evening.

While visiting Ford's Theatre around noon to pick up his mail on April 14th, Booth learned that Lincoln and Grant were to visit the theater that evening for a performance of Our American Cousin. Booth had performed there several times, so he knew the theater's layout and was familiar to its staff. Recognizing this was a golden opportunity, Booth went to Mary Surratt's boarding house and asked her to deliver a package to her tavern in Surrattsville, Maryland. He also asked her to tell her tenant Louis J. Weichmann to ready the guns and ammunition that Booth had previously stored at the tavern.

The conspirators met for the final time at 8:45 pm. Booth assigned Powell to kill Secretary of State William H. Seward at his home, Atzerodt to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson at the Kirkwood Hotel, and Herold to guide Powell (who was unfamiliar with Washington) to the Seward house and then to a rendezvous with Booth in Maryland. Atzerodt backed out of his part to kill Johnson.

The Fibula Fracture

Many people believed that Booth broke his leg as a result of jumping from the presidential box onto the theatre stage from the impact of the jump to the stage, where he landed somewhat off balance. Some historians speculate that Booth may have broken his leg when the horse that he was riding, galloping away from the murder scene at a high rate of speed, tripped and fell on its left side. Perhaps his left leg was entangled in the flag that was draped in front.

Fibular fractures can be due to falls when landing incorrectly, but can also occur from a severely twisted ankle.The distance from the theatre box balcony to the stage floor today is approximately 12 feet. Some eyewitness accounts suggested that the original height was closer to 9 feet, and a sketch done soon after the assassination suggests the distance was 10 feet, 7 inches. The distance Booth jumped may never be accurately known since the theatre was renovated in 1866. The original box was completely demolished.

Fibular fractures are painful and often accompanied by ligament or tendon injuries. Swelling, tenderness, inability to bear weight, and numbness are common. This injury would be a serious impediment to one’s ability to walk without a limp or run normally.

Escape Route & Capture

After the assassination, Booth rode to Maryland with David Herold. The first place was Popes Creek on the Potomac River in southern Maryland, and then to the Surratt Tavern to pick up the weapons he had asked to be delivered there earlier. Finally, he went to the home of Dr. Mudd, who placed splints on Booth’s leg. It would have been impossible, as Mudd claimed, that he did not know this man, whom he had met on several occasions. Moreover, while Mudd may not have known about the assassination that night, he certainly did the next morning when he went into town; yet he told no one about his guests. Booth then left and they stayed at the home of Samuel Cox, and then in some woods on the north bank of the Potomac. There, Booth had access to newspapers and food. On April 22nd, they rowed across the river to Virginia, on the south side. They hid in a barn on Richard Garrett’s farm, as thousands of Union troops combed the area looking for them.

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln initiated a massive search to find the killers Secretary of War Stanton sent a telegram to his man, Lafayette Curry Baker, head of the federal intelligence service, called the US Secret Service. Curry was in New York City when Stanton ordered him to come to DC immediately and help find the murderer. The identity of the assassin was well established, but he remained at large. Despite being In a city with thousands of troops at the war’s end, and hundreds of police, Stanton sent out the signal for this particular man to help find him. “Come here immediately and see if you can find the murderer of the President,” Stanton telegraphed him. He took the train the next day.

Within two days he had arrested Mary Surratt, Lewis Paine, George Atzerodt, and Edman Spangler. He also had the names of the fellow conspirators, John Wilkes Booth and David Herold. His investigation method wasn’t to search for anyone. Instead, he planted moles in the ranks of the investigators. From them, he learned that the prime suspects were traveling south through the eastern Maryland counties of Prince George and Charles. Thousands of troops and uncounted civilians were involved in the manhunt. Stanton had put out a reward of $100,000 (about $1.8 million in today’s dollars). Every motivated civilian, detective, policeman, and Union officer hoped to strike it rich.

He happened to be in the offices of the War Department when he learned that two men identified as the fugitives had been seen making the Potomac crossing into Virginia near Mathias Point on April 22nd. He knew a great deal about the routes used by Confederate couriers and spies that operated in the Northern Neck and made an educated guess as to where Booth and Herold might be. He summoned two assistants in his office spread out a map on a small table and pointed to Mathias Point on the Virginia side of the Potomac. “He’s right in there,” pointing to a circle he drew on the map. “I want you to go to this place, search the country thoroughly, and get Booth.”

He sent Lieutenant Edward P. Doherty and twenty-five men from the Sixteenth New York Cavalry to capture Booth in Virginia, accompanied by Lieutenant Colonel Everton Conger, an intelligence officer.  Several of his men knocked on doors, and asked about two men, one with a broken leg, for 12 hours. Finally, an ex-Confederate soldier named William S Jett was interrogated roughly. The man guided them and a cavalry squad to Richard H Garrett’s farm, where the cavalrymen discovered the fugitives in a tobacco barn on the morning of Wednesday, April 26, 1865.

Around 2:00 am the soldiers surrounded the barn, which was located about 60 miles south of Ford's Theatre near Port Royal, Virginia. Lieutenant Luther Baker yelled, "Surrender, or we'll fire the barn and smoke you out like rats! We'll give you five minutes more to make up your minds." Booth asked for time to decide. Finally, after some more give and take with the soldiers, Booth yelled, "Well, my brave boys, you can prepare a stretcher for me! I will never surrender!" After a short time, Booth said, "Oh, Captain, there's a man in here who wants to surrender awful bad." The barn door rattled, and David Herold's voice was heard saying he wanted to give up. Herold slowly came out and was slammed to the ground by the soldiers. He was hauled to a nearby tree and tied up with rope.

Still, Booth would not come out. Using straw and brush, Conger set the barn on fire. Booth was visible to the soldiers because the barn was full of cracks and knotholes. They could see him moving about the burning barn holding his carbine and crutch. At this moment, Corporal Boston Corbett shot Booth through the neck. Booth was paralyzed and barely alive. With difficulty, Booth was able to speak. He said, "Tell Mother I died for my country." A local doctor, Dr. Charles Urquhart, Jr., who had been a physician in nearby Port Royal since 1821, arrived on the scene and indicated the wound that had punctured Booth's spinal cord was fatal. Sometime around 7:00 A.M. Booth looked at his hands and moaned, "Useless! Useless!" Those were probably the last words Booth spoke before dying.

Booth was pronounced dead at 7:15 A.M. A search of his body turned up a pair of revolvers, a belt and holster, two knives, some cartridges, a file, a war map of the Southern States, a spur, a pipe, the Canadian bills of exchange, a compass with a leather case, a signal whistle, an almost burned up candle, pictures of five women - four actresses (Alice Grey, Helen Western, Effie Germon, and Fanny Brown) and his fiancée, Lucy Hale (the daughter of ex-Senator John P. Hale from New Hampshire), and an 1864 date book kept as a diary. These items found on his person still exist. They are owned by the National Park Service and held at the Ford’s Theater Museum. They have a long history in themselves.

Lt Col Conger brought Booth’s possessions back to Curry, who turned them over to Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who used them as trial evidence for the assassins' accomplices. Except for one thing: Booth’s diary. When it reappeared in 1867, it was missing 18 pages. No one knows who cut those out of the book, or why. Stanton claimed it was given to him like that. It might be that the missing pages in Booth’s diary told who Booth was working for, and the whole story of the plot; and may have incriminated very prominent people, such as Andrew Johnson, as part of the kidnapping scheme. Some have speculated that Stanton destroyed the pages because his own name appeared in it. Yet another theory is that the missing pages included the names of people who had financed the conspiracy; it later emerged that  Booth had received a large amount of money from a New York-based firm to which Stanton had connections.

The other conspirators were captured the day after the assassination outside Surratt’s boarding house, except for John Surratt, who fled to Canada. Powell was caught purely by accident, as he approached the boarding house not knowing Union troops were inside; he was missing his hat (found in the Seward home) and had blood stains on his clothes. On July 7, after a military court trial. George Atzerodt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, and John Surratt’s mother, Mary, were hanged in Washington. The execution of Mary Surratt is believed by some to have been a miscarriage of justice. Although there was proof of her involvement in the original abduction conspiracy, it is clear that her deeds were minor compared to those of the others who were executed. John was eventually tracked down in Egypt and brought back to trial, but with the help of clever lawyers, he won an acquittal in a civilian court.

On June 29, 1865, Mudd was found guilty with the others. The testimony of Louis J. Weichmann was crucial in obtaining the convictions. Mudd escaped the death penalty by one vote and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was later pardoned by President Andrew Johnson in 1869.

Some contemporary historians make a case that Dr Mudd should be exonerated. There is no definitive evidence to support that he knew that Lincoln was assassinated nor that Booth had committed a crime. There is evidence that he was involved in the kidnapping plot though. The key issue is that he lied about knowing Booth, and how much he knew about the plot, and delayed reporting Booth's presence. That made him guilty of conspiracy and being an accomplice, but saved him from the death penalty. Interestingly, others also knew about the kidnapping plot who weren't convicted of the murder. Legally his lack of planned involvement in the assassination mitigates any participation after the fact. Then there is his Hippocratic oath, which obligated him to treat Booth's leg, although not to maintain his anonymity. Moreover, although Weichmann tied the acquaintance of Booth to Mudd, he did not claim to know what they discussed.

Baker was promoted to Brigadier General and received all the publicity and the reward for the capture. But several years later he died under mysterious circumstances, further suggesting a conspiracy of profound intrigue.

Was the Booth capture a hoax?

Booth's remains were sewn up in a horse blanket and placed on a wide plank. An old market wagon was obtained nearby, and the body was placed in the wagon. The body was taken to Belle Plain. There it was hoisted up the side and swung upon the deck of a steamer named the John S. Ide and transported up the Potomac River to Alexandria where it was transferred to a government tugboat. The tugboat carried the remains to the Washington Navy Yard, and the corpse was placed aboard the monitor Montauk at 1:45 A.M. on Thursday, April 27. Once aboard the Montauk, Booth's remains were laid out on a rough carpenter's bench. The horse blanket was removed, and a tarpaulin was placed over the body.

Several witnesses were called to identify the body. A sketch that appeared in Harper's Weekly on May 13, 1865, shows the process. Several people who knew Booth personally are known to have identified the body. One of these people was Dr. John Frederick May. Sometime before the assassination, Dr. May had removed a large fibroid tumor from Booth's neck. Dr. May found a scar from his operation on the corpse's neck exactly where it should have been. Charles Dawson, the clerk at the National Hotel where Booth was staying, identified the initials "J.W.B" pricked in India ink on the corpse's hand. As a boy, Booth had his initials indelibly tattooed on the back of his left hand between his thumb and forefinger. Alexander Gardner, the well-known Washington photographer, was also among those who positively identified the remains, as were his assistant Timothy O’Sullivan, and Seaton Munroe, a prominent Washington attorney.

There were five witnesses to the post-mortem: Charles M. Collins, Charles Dawson, Seaton Munroe, John Frederick May, and William Wallach Crowninshield, Surgeon General Joseph K. Barnes, Dr. Joseph Janvier Woodward, and Dr. George Brainard Todd performed the autopsy aboard the Montauk. Booth’s third, fourth, and fifth cervical vertebrae, which were removed during his autopsy, are housed (not on public display) at the National Museum of Health and Medicine at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. An additional fragment from Booth's autopsy (tissue possibly cleaned off the cervical vertebrae) is in a bottle in the Mütter Medical Museum of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia.

******************************************************************************

Dr. Barnes wrote the following account of the autopsy to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton:

“Sir,

I have the honor to report that in compliance with your orders, assisted by Dr. Woodward, USA, I made at 2 PM this day, a postmortem examination of the body of J. Wilkes Booth, lying on board the Monitor Montauk off the Navy Yard.

The left leg and foot were encased in an appliance of splints and bandages, upon the removal of which, a fracture of the fibula (small bone of the leg) 3 inches above the ankle joint, accompanied by considerable ecchymosis, was discovered.”

The cause of death was a gunshot wound in the neck - the ball entering just behind the sterno-cleido muscle - 2 1/2 inches above the clavicle - passing through the bony bridge of fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae - severing the spinal chord (sic) and passing out through the body of the sterno-cleido of right side, 3 inches above the clavicle.

Paralysis of the entire body was immediate, and all the horrors of consciousness of suffering and death must have been present to the assassin during the two hours he lingered.”

****************************************************************************

Some have suggested that Booth actually was never captured and escaped to Texas, where many years later his “corpse” was a great sideshow hit. This photograph is searchable online, but it is complete nonsense: the Booth autopsy was well attended and documented.

The corpse was again positively identified in February of 1869 when Booth's remains were exhumed and released by the government to the Booth family. At that time an inquest was held at Harvey and Marr's Parlor in Washington. Booth's corpse was taken to Baltimore for burial and was positively identified by many people including John T. Ford, He ry Clay Ford, and Joseph Booth, John's brother.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/01/18/46415/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lincolns-missing-bodyguard-12932069/

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/john-wilkes-booth-shoots-abraham-lincoln

https://www.historynet.com/dr-samuel-a-mudd/

https://globalnews.ca/news/1611968/lincoln-assassin-john-wilkes-booths-canadian-connection/

https://lincolnconspirators.com/picture-galleries/found-on-booth/

https://lincolnconspirators.com/2012/05/31/booth-at-lincolns-second-inauguration/

https://www.onthisday.com/photos/john-wilkes-booth-at-lincolns-inauguration,

https://www.nps.gov/foth/learn/historyculture/faq-the-assassin.htm#:~:text=Many%20people%20believed%20that%20John%20Wilkes%20broke%20his,on%20something%20and%20fell%20on%20its%20left%20side.

https://www.fords.org/visit/historic-site/museum/

https://www.militaryimagesmagazine-digital.com/2022/06/05/scoundrel-the-rise-and-fall-of-union-spy-chief-lafayette-curry-baker/

American Brutus by Michael Kauffman On page 348 (first edition hardcover)

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/john-wilkes-booth-shoots-abraham-lincoln

https://columbialawreview.org/.../the-law-of-the-lincoln.../

https://www.rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln83.html

Further Reading

·      https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln40.html

·      Michael W Kauffman, American Brutus: John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln Conspiracies. Random House, 2004

The Hellfire Club Scare in 18th Century England

The story of the Hellfire club that we read of today is a colourful yet mostly fictional account of illicit sexual acts, drunken revelry, black masses, murders, alleged disappearances, satanic rites, and devil worship. This was all supposedly perpetrated by this secretive society which gathered deep within a series of caves cut deep into the Chiltern Hills, England in the mid to late 1700s. This exclusive club was made up of the political elite and some of the upper classes of society.

Steve Prout explains.

A portrait of Francis Dashwood. By William Hogarth, late 1750s.

During its time, various scandals would create a public outcry and its effects on morality in English society. It resulted in a governmental enquiry and call for Parliament at best to outlaw these organisations or at least severely curtail their actions. The story of the Hellfire Club continues in popular culture such as films and fictional literature. A close study of the club’s true history paints a different picture to one that most are familiar with today. The story of the use of hidden caves, licentious immoral men and dark practices are all myths, and we will see a more diluted and less sensational account of what really happened in a typical Gentleman’s club of the time.

What was the Hellfire Club?

The Hellfire Club was one of the many gentleman’s type clubs that existed in England between 1750 and 1774. It was typical of the other clubs that flourished which were an indulgence of the wealthy and privileged now that the influence of religion on society loosened. The socially well connected, powerful and wealthy individuals used their membership for both social networking and to indulge in all kinds of illicit activities in a safe, secluded environment. There were numerous clubs that used the Hellfire name. One of the most famous clubs was the Hellfire Club and its founder, Francis Dashwood.

The Truth about Francis Dashwood

The Politician

Francis Dashwood (1708-1781) was from a wealthy family in West Wycombe, England. He was a politician who for a brief period, served as Chancellor of the Exchequer for Prime Minister John Stuart, the Third Earl of Bute between 1762 and 1763. In this period Dashwood’s competence would be brought into question on several occasions. Two examples were the issues over the Government’s handling of the Seven Years War and an unpopular Cider Tax. John Wilkes was an MP for near Aylesbury, journalist and more interestingly a fellow club member who unkindly commented that Dashwood “could not settle a tavern bill without trouble” when referring to his competence as a Chancellor. Wilkes also was the main critic of Dashwood’s cider tax that was deeply unpopular among all classes in rural and urban England. Dashwood was not entirely incompetent and any output from Wilkes was far from impartial when it concerned Dashwood and some of his other fellow members. He would be soon become a major annoyance to both the club and Francis Dashwood. It is the Hellfire club however that would earn Dashwood his notoriety not his political career.

The Reveller

Dashwood was a regular on the Gentlemen’s Club scene during the eighteenth-century and he also was no stranger to its excesses.  Prior to the Hellfire Club Dashwood undertook a period of lengthy travel during a Grand Tour of Europe in 1726 where he displayed his extravagant and over-indulged behaviour. Separate to this he was also a member and co-founder (the other being John Montagu, Earl of Sandwich) of the Société of The Dilettantes and the Divan Club - both influenced by these travels to Italy and later onto Turkey. All without exception involved heavy drinking, indulgence, and sexual gratification. When he returned to England his travels furnished him with ideas for specific themes and decoration for his estate and his for his own clubs of his own design.

In fairness to Dashwood and to provide a sense of balance he was not solely preoccupied with the hedonistic lifestyle and nor was he the nefarious or pernicious character some claim he was. This is important when we assess the true character of the club. He was by some accounts a devoted husband who nursed his wife through her illness and whom he maintained cordial relations with throughout. He was also an active politician and did many works to benefit the community, the most notable being the labour he employed in the excavation of the caves to ease local unemployment. He was also an advocate of similar public works elsewhere and used his own money to refurbish the church of St Lawrence on Wycombe Hill.  Hardly the actions of a devoted, nefarious reveller.

The Eccentric

Dashwood was an eccentric although he was one among many in that era. Such eccentricity and political hostility encouraged writers to create the distorted and sometimes sinister pictures of Dashwood’s activities about Hellfire Club matters. Horace Walpole (1717-1797), a writer and historian was one example of somebody who did just this. His accounts are full of sensationalism and inaccuracies. He had in fact encountered Dashwood infrequently during the Grand Tour of Italy and was certainly no authority on Dashwood’s affairs. Much of Walpole’s accounts are a product of fertile imagination and gossip. The distorted tales that persist more than likely relate to an earlier Hellfire Club which was founded and led by the Duke of Wharton which Dashwood was alleged to have been a member. The Duke of Wharton’s dubious business deals and accumulated debts from these failed ventures together with his lewd public behaviour created public scandal in the 1720s. It is highly likely that later writers may have mistakenly attached Wharton’s dubious reputation to Francis Dashwood and created the embellished accounts of the club’s history that we know of today.

The Location of The Hellfire Club

West Wycombe today now serves a tourist attraction famous for those Hellfire Club caves and other related attractions and structures. The stories of the caves have been exaggerated over the years but make a good story, and it is attractive for tourists. West Wycombe is a quiet and picturesque town in Buckinghamshire England and is placed on an ancient pathway, known as the Icknield Way that runs along the Chiltern Hills, but this town was not the main location where the Club met and carried out its activities. In the beginning, with the absence of any suitable venue, the clubs’ activities were carried out in members’ private residences within London and in nearby taverns such as the George and Vulture.  In fact, most of the meetings were at held at nearby Medmenham Abbey which Dashwood leased and refurbished.

Wycombe House remains the home of the Dashwood family, but it is now owned by the National Trust site and is also a tourist attraction. It has been in recent times used as a setting in some period dramas and films. The eerie locality and one time presence of the Hellfire Club has made this town unique and had acquired itself a particular atmosphere. The surrounding landscape is quite peculiar and for miles around is full of curious features. It all adds to the mystery of the Hellfire Club.

On top of Wycombe hill opposite Wycombe House is a large open-air mausoleum that Dashwood constructed with funds left to him by fellow associate Bubb Doddington. This structure immediately catches the eye as the town is approached. Underneath the mausoleum at a depth of approximately three hundred feet are the famous Hellfire Caves accessed by an ominous looking archway entrance which leads to a series of suggestive tunnels.

Behind the mausoleum is where St Lawrence’s Church can be found, which is quietly placed and is partially hidden by trees. Dashwood had the church renovated at his own expense. On top of this church spire is an incongruous looking golden globe which can be seen even from a distance just over the top of these trees. It is a unique feature for a church in England to possess such a decoration and this item alone has attracted occult related speculation. These ideas for the architecture and landscaping were inspired by his travels and not by any occult origins as many fertile imaginations suggest.  All this is a suggestion and not factual.

About The Hellfire Club

The Hellfire Club’s heyday lasted from 1750 to 1764 and then it began to decline. By 1774 it had practically disbanded and their famous residency at Medmenham had already been abandoned with the decorations and other traces removed. As an interesting aside there exists a convincing argument that Dashwood’s club was not actually a Hellfire Club, and that this name was incorrectly applied much later after the club disbanded. Its continued association with Dashwood may be incorrect. In fact, during the club’s lifetime Dashwood’s clubs used a multitude of alternative names such as the Order of the Friars of St. Francis of Wycombe, Order of the Knights of St Francis, Brotherhood of St. Francis of Wy, Order of Knights of West Wycombe, and The Order of the Friars of St Francis of Wycombe. He never referenced the Hellfire Club name they referred to themselves as the Medmenham Friars.

The members were alleged to have worn mock religious costumes and called themselves brother or friar to heavily indulge in dining, excessive drinking, and sex. They would wear mock religious attire, perform mock religious rituals and the evening dinner would be punctuated with “ribald poems and songs.” Various letters from and between members such as a John Armstrong and William Stanhope refer to female attendees during the club gatherings whom they called “sisters” and were entertained (I will leave to the readers imagination) in Monk-styled cells within the Abbey. It would have been deemed scandalous at the time but not so by more permissive modern perspectives. From what we know there was little more to the clubs’ gatherings than overindulged gratification and nothing criminal or occult appeared to have occurred. The risk of public vilification to the reputation of influential public figures would have been too great and costly.

Dashwood’s activities did not at least initially give the Hellfire Club its notoriety. The Duke of Wharton’s antics had already created a “Hellfire Club scare” from a combination of his uninhibited behaviour, which onlookers viewed as a corrupting, and his poor business decisions that left him heavily in debt and which attracted a greater stigma in those times than today. A combination of Government, Church, and other interest groups (such as the Society for the Reformation of Manners) gathered to demand that legislation should be passed and enforced to restrain these types of clubs. Lord Willoughby championed this cause in Parliament, but its campaign petered out.

By the time Wharton’s Hellfire club ended in 1721 its notoriety had been earned. It was subject of numerous damning publications which included one titled “the Diabolical Masquerade”, another “A Further and Particular Account of the Hellfire Sulphur Club and one by a Thomas Smith of Shaw House who cited in his outraged demeanour “such blasphemies and impieties never been heard and are not fit to be committed to paper”.  These articles appear tame to a modern reader being expressed in the language of the time; however the scandal perturbed some people living in the eighteenth century who were less permissive and accepting.

The Hellfire Club Members

The make-up of the membership remains a partial mystery.  We are also not able to gather much insight relating to the activities that occurred within the clubs’ gatherings, particularly within Medmenham Abbey. We know for certain of a Paul Whitehead who was the appointed club steward (and little-known poet of his time) who incidentally destroyed most of the records just prior to his death in 1774 as the club neared its end leaving a void for fertile imaginations, various writers, and researchers to produce all manner of wild accounts. The manner of his passing even added a macabre twist to the Hellfire Club tales. Upon his death he requested that his heart be surgically removed, placed in an urn, and kept in the mausoleum on West Wycombe Hill.

From the limited information we know the club was comprised of powerful and influential individuals. Although the membership is unconfirmed it is recorded that Benjamin Franklin visited West Wycombe on two occasions by his recorded compliments of Dashwood’s opulent Medmenham Abbey and Dashwood’s house in West Wycombe. A political and publicized dispute exposed other members for example the 4th Earl of Sandwich (who also was First Lord of the Admiralty) and John Wilkes, who was a journalist and MP. Hogarth the painter was also among those connected to the club, but it is uncertain if he was a member.

There are references to three members of the Vansittart family being associated also, Robert was a juror and former hell raising rake, Henry was a colonial administrator and Governor of Bengal and finally Arthur was a member of parliament. The membership had an impressive array of talent, with poets, painters, and antiquarians and several other politicians such as William Stanhope, John Norris, John Tucker, and Thomas Potter. Although impressive these political affiliations would sour relationships and bring about the downfall of the club.

The Inner Circle of the Hellfire Club

There is a mixture of scattered surviving documents, diaries, and other correspondence that remain to give some limited insight into the club’s activities. These sources indicate that the Club operated no differently to the many other guarded gentlemen’s clubs. The absence of any comprehensive accounts also does not imply that anything sinister occurred such as the accusations of devil worship or satanic rites, as later writers suggest.

The surviving accounts are mainly unsubstantiated and outlandish ones of devil worship, satanic masses, orgies perpetrated by powerful, influential men, many of whom were members of government.  Other stories pursue the more outlandish tales about the Devil attending and participating in activities. This obviously makes most written accounts unreliable, and we find some of these stories do not in fact relate to Dashwood’s club, and some, in the case of the Devil’s “visit” can be traced to a Hellfire Club that existed in Ireland that was completely unrelated.

Other dubious revelations originate in a book called Nocturnal Revels that was written in 1779 by a club member who so far has remained unidentified. The book comprises of two volumes that attest to the prostitution and other associated immorality that pervaded the clubs’ meetings and life. The book also contains a few contradictions, and its wording is composed in the language of the time in which the expression is tempered by the less permissive tolerances of the time (modern readers may consider it tame), so this source needs to be approached with caution and not overthought or over interpreted.

Regardless of who the author was the book does discuss some details about the gatherings. That description does not depict a debauched environment but instead references courtesies and restraints that were applied to the participating female company or the “sisters”. It also alludes to specific etiquettes that had to be observed by its members. The belief that the club followed a “do as you wish” in all its activities has been distorted over time. There is no mention of any satanic activity.

Other sources come from scattered quotes and pieces of private correspondence but thanks to Paul Whitehead’s destruction of his papers we will never know fully what transpired but myth and fantasy should not be allowed to fill the void. One publication written in the twentieth century focuses very heavily on the esoteric aspects and meanders off from fact and contains copious references to the arcane and the occult which offers little help about the real history of the club.

Without doubt the club exercised a certain liberal sexual licence at Medmenham but otherwise the activities of this club were no different to that of other clubs. Dashwood’s deeds in the community did not give any indications otherwise. There is certainly no evidence of satanic rituals. We are aware of mock religious rites but that is something entirely different. This is evidenced from surviving portraits displayed in Wycombe House and from the admissions from Francis Dashwood’s admission that mock religious acts were played out alongside drinking, bawdy discourse, and dining. There is a portrait by Nathaniel Dance of Dashwood in eastern attire such as a turban and headwear. There is also one of him by Hogarth depicted as a Friar. The members adopted such as Brother and Friar within their chapter but again all clubs had their unique rituals.

Dashwood’s excavation of the caves for example offered much needed work for the local community and his renovations of St Lawrence Church would certainly not depict a man who has satanic inclinations. A few writers accept that sexual licence, drinking, and excessive feasting took place, but Dashwood’s activities were within the law.

Religion certainly played a restricting role in society, but the times were changing, and Dashwood was said to be just enjoying an “artistic release “as many were in the myriad of clubs that existed. There was no suggestion of anything more sinister. Interestingly the same allegations were made against the Hellfire Club of Dublin, Ireland. With stories of visits by the devil these outlandish stories were muddled and attributed to Dashwood.

The Myth of the Caves and the Real location of the Club’s activities

The West Wycombe caves form a fascinating part of the Hellfire Club story despite their infrequent use. Ironically, the caves play a bigger part of the club’s story today mainly to fuel the tourist trade. There are various tales which meander down fanciful avenues that include murder, sexual licence and even takes of the paranormal. Two examples of resident ghosts are of a maid called Sukie who was supposed to have been accidentally killed following a prank unrelated to the Club and the Hellfire Clubs very own steward Paul Whitehead who still visits the cave in his spectral form, but the truth is that the caves played little part in the actual Hellfire Club gatherings.  They were more likely used and only occasionally when the availability of Medmenham Abbey had ended.

The excavation of the caves began in the late 1740s to extract the chalk from the hillside to renew the roads around West Wycombe. It would alleviate the effect of three consecutive failed harvests in 1748, 1749 and 1750 by providing those effected with employment. This project is often overlooked in favour of the more ridiculous and sinister stories. The excavation of the caves even after their completion in 1754 would not have been suitable for the clubs’ activities. The processions from Wycombe House to the caves were too public and would not have provided the privacy and exclusivity required by club members.

There is a quote from a Ms Lybbe Pwoys who, when referencing the caves, simply states that it was a place where the Hellfire Club only “occasionally held its meetings.” A hook for a lamp was discovered in the ceiling of one of the inner chambers which when cross referencing other specious accounts show that the caves were on occasion used. The current Francis Dashwood also confirms this when he reveals that the caves were not excavated until 1748 and continued until 1754. By then the activities were carried out at Medmenham Abbey during the club’s height. In any event, the caves would not have been suitable for regular lavish gatherings.

In fact, the early days meeting s were hosted in public houses such George and Vulture, in the City of London which were close to the residences and places of business of the members. Later the club gatherings would be relocated the more lavishly renovated Medmenham Abbey in Wycombe close to Dashwood’s home in relative exclusion. Dashwood leased the Abbey and funded the renovations at his own expense as he would also do the same with the mausoleum, the local Church of St Lawrence, and his own home. Luxury and appearances of opulence was all important for such a high society membership.

Political differences, John Wilkes, and decline

By 1774 the Club was only a shadow of its former glory. There was nothing sinister or remarkable that caused the club’s demise. It was a simple matter of advancing age and personal political fallouts, particularly the singular actions of troublesome member John Wilkes. His actions brought about the cessation of the gatherings at Medmenham Abbey and unwanted attention to the Hellfire Club.

Wilkes was a constant thorn in the side of Dashwood, and it was also his work outside of the club as a writer that indirectly brought unwanted attention to the activities of the Hellfire Club. In 1763 he wrote a lurid and pornographic piece of work called Essay on Women which almost immediately attracted outrage and his expulsion from serving as a Member of Parliament. Before that he faced prosecution from publishing an anti-government article in a long defunct publication called the North Briton that condemned and damaged the Bute government who Dashwood served with. All this publicity brought attention in Dashwood’s direction and unwanted visitors to the exclusive Medmenham Abbey, so much so it meant that he had to abandon the Abbey and bring the clubs activities there to a close. Wilkes would also be a destabilizing factor with the members.

Wilkes and Sandwich personal dislike for each other did not help the deteriorating relationships between the members, and Wilkes’ written exchanges with Sandwich were particularly venomous although some are claimed to be fabrications or embellishments of a much later date. Wilkes would attempt to derail Sandwich’s political efforts on dockyard reform whilst the latter served as First Lord of The Admiralty in 1762. In retaliation Sandwich was publicly supportive of punitive actions against his fellow member Wilkes and took advantage of the scandals that would fall upon Wilkes. Thomas Potter, another member, brought further ire on the members due his contribution with Wilkes in the infamous Essay on Women.

There would be other altercations. Charles Churchill and John Wilkes (once again) would launch joint written attacks on fellow alleged member William Hogarth in retaliation for publishing unflattering cartoons of them. The feud between Wilkes and Sandwich brought Dashwood to such exasperation that he, the founder, would not attend his own chapters. The animosity between members spread quickly as Churchill would also turn on Whitehead, the club Steward, by publicly humiliating him, calling him a “kept bard”, and accusing him of being indulged at Dashwood’s expense. The club would limp along but only as mere shadow of its former self.

Other factors also contributed to the club’s diminishing prominence. By the mid 1760s most of the original members were either approaching old age, dead or were in poor health. Their respective careers and influence would have also waned as the years wore on meaning that there was little use for the networking opportunities the club offered. For some of the members now there was little desire to continue the excessive dining and alcoholic indulgence. Dashwood himself died in 1781 following a lingering illness that must have been present during the closing years of the club: Churchill in 1759, Thomas Stapleton 1781, Whitehead in 1774, Robert Vansittart in 1789, Henry Vansittart in 1767.

Political infighting took a personal slant that hastened the club’s demise, and it started between John Wilkes and the Earl of Sandwich. The source of this antipathy arose from some articles Wilkes published that alluded to the inner workings of the club that ridiculed Sandwich over a prank carried out on him, and it also exposed the club to the wider public. The club did not come to a sudden end at this point following its infighting as it limped along. Benjamin Franklin referenced his visits to Dashwood and the caves in 1772 in his diaries; however its best days were certainly over by 1774 as Whitehead passed away.

Between 1762 and 1763 Dashwood’s post in Bute’s government brought its fair share of criticism. There would be the inevitable personal differences of opinion that would further fracture the club’s relationships as political allegiances conflicted with their personal loyalties to their fellow club members. Suddenly political divisions arose over particular policies of the Lord Bute administration (according to a 1925 Parish Record Bute may have been a member but it is unconfirmed) over unpopular decisions ending the Seven Years War with the Treaty of Paris and the blow to British prestige that was perceived to come with that. The membership began to morph from a cordial and hellraising gentleman’s club to a politically toxic mix of opposing individuals which spilled out into unwelcome publications that brought the club to a wider view.

The Hellfire Club today and in perspective

In many ways, the Hellfire Club still survives today. It survives and pops up in works of fiction such as the Marvel Comics Franchise. In fact, an X-Men film belonging to that franchise was part recorded on site in West Wycombe Park in 2010 which features a fictitious version of a Hellfire Club.

Other versions have existed but in a remote form since Dashwood’s time. In a more permissive age, its activities seem tame and blend in unnoticed with everyday life. A Phoenix Society existed which was an attempted resurgence of the Hellfire Club by Dashwood’s nephew in 1781 who was keen to continue the tradition. There are references to meetings of this club as recent as 1954 in Brasenose College Oxford. In addition, there were reports of a Phoenix Next Group that formed in the 1940s which took on deeper esoteric themes.

Had it not been for the Duke of Wharton’s behaviour and then the later toxic fallout out from the infighting among Dashwood’s fellow members the Hellfire Club may just have blended in, became just another generic club, and consequently not have stood out as it did. Gentlemen’s clubs in this era had a reputation for extreme revelry and their peculiar ways and the Hellfire Club was no more boisterous that any of the many other clubs, for example the Scottish Beggars Benison or the Society of the Beefsteaks. In Wilkes’ own words a “set of worthy fellows, happy disciples of Venus and Bacchus, got occasionally together to celebrate women in wine and to give more zest to the festive meeting they plucked every luxurious idea from the ancients and enriched their own modern pleasures.” There was no hint of anything sinister, criminal nor seditious to the morals or fabric of society. How such a thing would have even been conceived possible by a group of drunken men in a mock religious role-playing setting is quite another question

The Hellfire Club’s story has endured long after the club’s actual demise thanks to its fictional associations. This is of no surprise because tales of secret societies and conspiracy theories will always find a willing and gullible audience, and this is very much true in current times. We only need to look at more recent examples such as Q-Anon, The New World Order, and Hilary Clinton and the Pizza-gate connection to prove that the fascination with such things will continue. The study of history is a perfect counter to this by seeking facts to challenge the outlandish, embellished, and untrue. Whatever is myth or fact, the story of the Hellfire Club will continue to be an interesting one.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Sources

The Buildings of England – Buckinghamshire Penguin 1960 – Nikolaus Pevsner and Elizabeth Williamson

The Hellfire Clubs: Sex, Satanism and Secret Societies by Lord, Evelyn (2010) – Yale University Press

Secret Symbols of the Hellfire Club by Eamonn Loughran

The Hellfire Caves Tour Guide – Bt Francis Dashwood

Site visit to the above location

Impact of the industrial Revolution on Education: From Factories to Classrooms

The Industrial Revolution marked a period of technological advancements and social-economic change that reshaped almost every aspect of human life. This brought about the growth of education as factories sprung up and manufacturing techniques began to shift from traditional methods to more structured systems. In this article, Audrey Davis delves into the progress of education during the Industrial Revolution and how schools meet the demands of the evolving world today.

The 1830 opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.

The modern world was not born with the computer or moving objects. It all began with the steam engine and the industrial revolution that grew around it. Looking at the world today, the advent of technologies, education, growing innovations, and many more were all connected to the industrial revolution.

The Industrial Revolution not only catalyzed technological advancements but also spurred the demand for education to meet the evolving needs of society. It can even be said that research paper services play a crucial role in exploring the educational developments of this transformative era.

Now, let’s take a closer look at the history of the Industrial Revolution.

History of the Industrial Revolution

Many years back, arguably the first human work revolution was the agricultural revolution then children learned trades such as weaving, carpentry leather work, while some also learned how to plant and care for animals. Later the Industrial Revolution came, and everything changed.

The first industrial revolution began in Britain in the 18th century, particularly from about 1760 to 1840 and then spread to other places in the world. The steam engine was the most relevant invention in this era and was needed to spark stronger steel, inspire iron production, and make trains. And all this is powered by coal to transport it.

Our society gradually became industrialized and urban as innovations developed. France started emerging as an industrial power in the mid-19th century. Germany grew rapidly in industrial production after national unity was reached in 1870 and produced more steel than Britain, becoming the world leader in chemical industries. And Japan too later joined the race with striking success.

Moreover, China and India began their first industrial revolutions in the 20th century; whereas the United States and Western Europe in some ways underwent their Second Industrial Revolution in the late 19th century. During this era there was the innovation of transportation, steamship communication, automobile, radio, telegraph and even the famous Edison light bulb.

Likewise, renewable energy, the internet and advancement in technology also began in the third industrial revolution in the 20th century. The fourth industrial revolution is the digital revolution including the emergence of Artificial Intelligence, 3D printing, the internet of things, robotics and many more innovations that are reshaping the world.

Early impacts of education

Education plays a vital role in economic growth and development; it also changes society. Before the Industrial Revolution, education was very shallow, meaning most of the people in society were illiterate, focusing more on farming and daily survival. There was little or no interest in knowledge because schools weren't yet free for poor children. But with the creation of factories and companies, there was increasing demand for technical skills, hence people migrated from rural to urban cities in search of these skills because factories paid higher wages than agriculture. As a result, more products were produced, more industries innovated, and more workers were needed. The standard of living began to increase as more goods were created.

However, during the industrial revolution, the government saw a great need for training.  Companies needed workers and there were more job opportunities. Education was made accessible by empowering children and youths in the pursuit of knowledge. Citizens were trained in different professions, which allowed specialization. And this made the government believe that for a nation to be powerful there is a need for significant intellectual development.

As a result of this, many progressive improvements were acquired.

Education in the Industrial Revolution

As the economy evolved more industries were developed, factories were created, and more human labor was needed. In the 1800s, formal education became accessible even to the poorest people. Children were taught basic literacy and numeracy skills.

During the period, the governments of many developed countries were more focused on educational development. The British government implemented the Elementary Education Act which clearly stated that children between the ages of 5 to 13 must attend school. With the allocation of funds to improving the educational system, furnishing existing schools, and providing free education, government was determined to improve the knowledge of children.

The act was passed because of political considerations such as the need for a stronger economy. Great Britain formulated this policy due to certain imposed risks on an inefficient education system and the need to curb the situation.

Major criticisms of education in the early ages

Unarguably, education is a great achievement as it leads to economic growth and development. However, there are certain objections to the outbreak of global education in the early ages.

Limited access: Education was only accessible for rich people while girls and children from low-income families find it difficult to attend better schools.

Poor quality of education: Schools during this period were overcrowded and lacked proper facilities which led to poor teaching and learning environment.

Lack of relevance to daily life: The education system then centered on the Bible with no knowledge and practical skills related to schooling and reality.

 

Impact of the Industrial Revolution on the educational system

Economic growth: True, the Industrial Revolution brought so many changes, changes which affected business profits, national development, individuals, and growing economies. It brought about changes in many aspects of life both negatively and positively.

The emergence of factories: The increasing rate of industries due to innovations caused a wide demand for the labor force specialized in different areas. In addition, new technologies were introduced, and there was a major increase in the use of machines.

Government interest in education: To improve their economies and create strong political factors, the government embarked on training citizens by providing infrastructural development in schools. Trained staff were employed to train citizens in various specialized areas.

The primary importance of education: During the Industrial Revolution, citizens saw the importance of education in the system. Various Acts such as the Education Act created in 1902, the Public School Act in 1868, and many more were created.

Conclusion

The Industrial Revolution and education have shaped the economy we see today. There were different factories with different production such as agriculture, metals, synthetic products and so much more. So, it is important to show the past and the striving future where education remains a powerful force in meeting the evolving needs of society.

What if President John F. Kennedy had not been assassinated?

What if? In this case, (what if?), refers to John F Kennedy. As we ask this  question; what if John F Kennedy had not been assassinated? This intriguing question suggests an immense train of thought.

Terry Bailey considers the question.

President John F. Kennedy just before being assassinated.

Certain events in history stand out as key periods in time, especially for those individuals who lived through those times when particular events actually took place. The assassination of John F Kennedy is one such moment in time. It is said that many individuals can tell you where and what they were doing when the news broken.

The assassination of John F. Kennedy, the charismatic leader of the United States of America, (USA), on that fateful day in 1963, remains etched in collective memory. Yet, what if the tragic event had never occurred? What if Kennedy had continued to guide America through the tumultuous decade that followed?

In this speculative exploration we take a journey into a possible alternate scenario where Kennedy's leadership endured, thus able to ponder the potential ramifications and the enduring legacy of a leader untouched by an assassin's bullet.

To envision a world where John F. Kennedy survives, we must first grasp the landscape of his presidency. Kennedy, renowned for his eloquence, charisma, and vision, steered the USA, through a period marked by Cold War tensions, economic upheaval, and social transformation. His presidency was defined by initiatives aimed at fostering international cooperation, advancing civil rights, and navigating the intricacies of global politics.

Had Kennedy not fallen victim to assassination, his continued leadership would have undoubtedly left an indelible mark not only on American society but also the world stage.

His commitment to diplomacy and dialogue might have ushered in a new era of détente, easing tensions between East and West and laying the groundwork for more peaceful coexistence. Moreover, his advocacy for civil rights could have spurred further progress in addressing systemic injustices and promoting equality both at home and abroad.

Global influence

Economic policies under Kennedy's stewardship might have focused on bolstering infrastructure, investing in education, and fostering innovation, thereby fueling economic growth and prosperity. His ambitious vision for space exploration, exemplified by the lunar landing mission, could have inspired renewed scientific and technological advancements, shaping the future of humanity's exploration of the cosmos, which has only been realized today.

The ripple effects of Kennedy's continued leadership would have reverberated far beyond America’s borders, influencing geopolitical dynamics and reshaping international relations. His emphasis on diplomacy and multilateralism might have led to greater cooperation among nations, averting conflicts and forging alliances based on shared interests and mutual respect.

In the realm of nuclear disarmament, Kennedy's unwavering commitment to arms control agreements could have hastened progress towards a safer, more secure world, reducing the specter of nuclear annihilation that loomed large during the Cold War era. His adept handling of national and International dilemmas, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, could have set a precedent for defusing tensions and resolving conflicts through dialogue and negotiation.

Moreover, Kennedy's advocacy for human rights and democracy may have inspired movements for freedom and self-determination around the globe, challenging authoritarian regimes and promoting the spread of democratic ideals. His leadership would have provided a beacon of hope for those striving for liberty and justice, amplifying the voices of the oppressed and marginalized.

Conclusion

In contemplating the hypothetical continuation of Kennedy's presidency, one cannot overlook the enduring legacy he would have left behind. His vision, courage, and charisma captured the imagination of millions, inspiring future generations to pursue noble ideals and strive for a better world. His tragic and early death robbed the world of a leader whose potential remained largely untapped, leaving behind a legacy tinged with unfulfilled promises and lingering questions of what might have been.

Yet, even in the realm of conjecture, Kennedy's legacy endures as a testament to the power of leadership in shaping the course of history. His words still resonate, his deeds still inspire, and his vision still beckons us forward towards a brighter future. In the end, whether in reality or in speculation, John F. Kennedy stands as a towering figure in the pantheon of great leaders, reminding us of the boundless possibilities that await those who dare to dream and strive for greatness.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Two Forgotten Aspects of the U.S. Civil War

In the historical novel Rebel Falls, author Tim Wendel focuses on two often forgotten aspects of the US Civil War - how widespread the conflict actually was and the way women played an integral role. He explains more in this piece.

Tim’s book is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Sarah Emma Edmonds (married name Seelye), a woman who who fought as a man during the US Civil War.

In schools and class textbooks, the Civil War is usually taught as strictly a southern struggle. Certainly, major battles like Vicksburg, Bull Run, the siege of Petersburg and others occurred below the Mason-Dixon line. But we forget that when major conflicts erupt, the struggle and damage can extend well beyond borders and the lines on a map.

Widespread

Few realize that the Civil War nearly ignited an international conflict because of the keen interest of Great Britain and other European powers. In the last months of the war, the South was desperate to ignite an incident that would draw England and other countries into the fray.

The Confederacy sent spies to the northern border with British Canada, from Halifax to Detroit. The most audacious of such plans was to seize the U.S.S. Michigan, the lone Union warship left on the Great Lakes in 1864. (Similar vessels were utilized to blockade the South.)

An unlikely pair – John Yates Beall and Bennet Burley – headed the rebel effort to capture the Michigan. Born in Jefferson County, West Virginia, Beall was a loyal Southerner and had studied law at the University of Virginia. Along the way, he appears to have crossed paths with John Wilkes Booth, who, of course, would later assassinate President Abraham Lincoln.

Burley was Beall’s partner in the so-called Northwest Conspiracy. From Glasgow, Scotland, Burley was a soldier of fortune -- joining the fight for the thrill of it. Unlike Beall, he would survive the war, escaping back to the United Kingdom and become a celebrated foreign correspondent for The Daily Telegraph in London.

(Beall and Burley are mentioned briefly in Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals and Carl Sandburg’s Abraham Lincoln: The War Years.)

And what would have happened if Beall and Burley had seized the iron-hulled Michigan, with its 30-pounder parrot rifle, half-dozen howitzers and additional firepower? They first planned to free Confederate prisoners on Johnson’s Island near Sandusky, Ohio. These POWs included more than 20 rebel generals.

From there, with no opposing warships in the region, it would have been easy to bombard Cleveland, Buffalo, and other targets along the southern shore of Lake Erie. All of this was planned to unfold shortly before the presidential election. Even though Lincoln handily regained office (212-21 in the electoral college), in the weeks before the vote a Republican victory was far from a foregone conclusion. The nation had been at war since spring of 1861, and many were tired of the long struggle. Lincoln and members of his cabinet feared that he might lose to challenger George McClellan due to war fatigue. This result could have led to the formation of a separate nation, the Confederate States of America.

The role of women

Though often overlooked, women played important roles on both sides of the Civil War, especially when it came to espionage. Elizabeth Van Lew was a member of Richmond high society and appeared to be a loyal Confederate. Yet she gathered information from the rebel capital and sent it across the lines to Ulysses Grant and the Union command by using her servants as couriers.

Actress Pauline Cushman was a Union spy and was in uniform by the end of the war. She was buried with full military honors at the Presidio National Cemetery in San Francisco in 1893. “Union Spy,” reads her simple gravestone.

In function and treachery, Rose O’Neal Greenhow was the mirror image of Richmond’s Van Lew. A longtime fixture in Washington, she was a staunch supporter of the Confederacy and stayed in D.C. when the war broke out, sending valuable information to the rebels. Confederate President Jefferson Davis credited information she supplied for the South winning the first Battle of Bull Run.

Then there’s Belle Boyd, nicknamed the “Cleopatra of the Secession.” She was arrested a half-dozen times for sending military secrets to the south. Eventually, Boyd was banished to Canada and became a well-known actress after the war.

While both sides forbade women from serving in the combat units, that didn’t stop many on both sides from joining combat units in disguise. According to the National Archives, for example, Sarah Edmonds Seelye (originally Sarah Emma Edmonds) served two years in the Second Michigan Infantry under the pseudonym Franklin Thompson. She eventually earned a military pension.

When we reach the fringes of public record, novels can sometimes lead us to a better understanding of what happened and what was at stake. When I began Rebel Falls, I decided I wanted my protagonist, the one who would seek to outwit the rebel spies Beall and Burley, to be a woman. This was partly because I needed a strong connection with the Seward Family. During the Civil War, Secretary of State William Seward was the most powerful man in the North after President Lincoln. Seward’s daughter, Fanny, was one of his closest confidants. So how to move inside that family circle? How about with a character named Rory Chase, a childhood friend of Fanny’s?

Rory is a composite of women who knew Fanny in Auburn, New York, where the family home still stands, as well as in Washington, where the Sewards were center stage during the war years.

Here again, the historical record can be a great starting point. After the war, Fanny Seward died of tuberculosis and was buried with other family members at Auburn’s Fort Hill Cemetery. Soon afterward family friend Olive Risley began to accompany Secretary Seward on his travels. To quell gossip (there was a 43-year difference in their ages), the politician eventually adopted her. A statue of Olive Risley Seward was erected near Capitol Hill in Washington in 1971. My goal with Rebel Falls was to have Rory Chase be emblematic of the resourceful, ambitious women who fought and spied for both sides during the Civil War.

Conclusion

Place and participants. Even with a conflict that has been written about as much as the war between the North and South, such important factors and characters can be overlooked. No wonder Ken Burns calls this clash “our most complicated of wars.”

In focusing upon what took place along our northern border and how women played a key role, I’ve not only tried to tell a forgotten story, but deliver a bit more clarity as well. Only by considering more factors of our nation’s history, hearing about all the factors of the Civil War, can we better understand what occurred and determine how best to move forward.

Tim Wendel is the author 16 books, most recently the novel ‘Rebel Falls’ (Three Hills/Cornell University Press):

Official press release

Amazon US

Amazon UK

How did the US Cope with Empire After the Spanish-American War?

The 1898 Spanish-American War led the loss of the last significant remnants of Spain’s empire, with the transfer of Cuba, cedes Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines to the United States. Here, Peter Deane considers the impact of the war and whether America was ready for an empire.

The last stand of the Spanish forces in Cuba. An 1898 depiction by Murat Halstead.

Four years ago we stood on the brink of war without the people knowing it and without preparation or effort at preparation…. I did all that could be done with honor to avert the war, but without avail…. It came. The result was signally favorable to American arms and in the highest degree honorable to the Government. It imposed upon us obligations from which we cannot escape and from which it would be dishonorable to seek escape.

--William McKinley, Second Inaugural Address (1901)

May 1, 1898, Manila Bay

“You may fire when ready, Gridley.” Commodore George Dewey said to firing officer Charles Gridley, quietly. In moments, nothing was quiet as the American fleet’s guns fired to devastating effect. The Spanish fleet was destroyed without a single American death. This would be widely celebrated back home–it was the first American fleet naval battle and had ended victoriously. The United States now had strategic, but by no means complete, control of the Philippines. Dewey ordered his men to seize Cavite, the port for Manila. Dewey had cut the cable from Hong Kong to Manila to isolate further the Spanish garrison in the city of Manila. He sent news of his victory back to Washington, which would take days to arrive formally. He also asked for 5,000 Army troops, enough to defeat the Spanish garrison and occupy the area. Then he settled down to wait. He had no instructions on what to do if he won.

Now what? 

The American Republic ante bellum

The United States in early 1898 was a large, prosperous nation. Its economy was growing rapidly and the nation was confident and optimistic. For the most part it was content to keep to itself. The only “overseas” possession of the U. S. was Alaska, on the same continent. The last foreign war had been fifty years before.

But for several years now, a group of influential men had formed a loose affiliation of those seeking to expand the U. S. beyond its continental boundaries. Their leader came to be Theodore Roosevelt. Manifest Destiny need not stop at the West coast. The U. S. could span the Pacific; trade and greater prosperity would follow. The U. S. could expand into the Caribbean too.

Their first goal was the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands. Grover Cleveland, in line with popular opinion, would have none of this and refused to pursue it. He did commit to expansion of the U. S. Navy, such that it became comparable to Germany’s. When Republican William McKinley came to power in 1897, Roosevelt became Assistant Secretary of the Navy. From this position he acted to increase the size and readiness of the Navy. He later drafted secret orders that, in the event of war with Spain, Dewey and the Asiatic Squadron should proceed directly to the Philippines to engage the Spanish fleet. To satisfy the growing and influential expansionist wing of his party, McKinley signed the long-delayed treaty of annexation of the Hawaiian Islands, but the Senate would not consider it—in 1897–and he knew this.

McKinley liked to keep his options open. He has often been seen as unintelligent and indecisive. He listened more than he spoke. But when he decided, he was committed to it. As one aide said, “The President had his way as usual.” This applied in Congress too.

If the U. S. Navy was in fighting shape, the Army was in no state of readiness for war or expansion. (When the war began, Roosevelt would remark, “If the Army were one tenth as ready as the Navy, we would fix that whole business in six weeks.”) The U. S. Army consisted of 25,000 regulars scattered mostly in the interior of the country. With the Indian Wars over, it was underfunded and below what the Army Chief calculated to be the needed number, at least 38,000 regulars.

The War

The Spanish-American War, when it commenced in April 1898, was felt in Congress and by the public to be about the liberation of Cuba from Spanish tyranny. People North and South rallied to the flag; the nation was united behind the liberation of Cuba. McKinley had hoped a foreign war would bind the nation together. The Congress was united behind appropriation for the war. The Army hoped for 60,000 volunteers with two-year enlistments; McKinley called for and received funding for 125,000 plus 62,527 total regulars for the duration of the war. In May, to prepare for any eventuality, he called for and had funded 75,000 more volunteers. Now the U. S. had a Great Power-size army.

The tenfold increase in size overwhelmed the Army. Scandals about the amount and quality of food and supplies blossomed after the War. In April, the Army Chief complained he had not enough munitions “to last an army of 70,000 men in one hour’s serious battle.” The Army had essentially no infrastructure along the Eastern or Gulf coasts. Tampa, Florida was chosen as the staging area. Tens of thousands of new recruits converged there. Roosevelt: “...a welter of confusion…an almost inextricable tangle.” But by Summer they had enough trained and supplied soldiers for the Cuban campaign.

The Army created the Department of the Pacific, in which to put Pacific Ocean possessions. The Army gathered the first of 15,000 (thrice Dewey’s request) troops with much disorganization at the Presidio in San Francisco for transport to the Philippines. Thousands more were to come over the next few years.

Neither the Army nor the Navy had any ships to transport troops overseas. Suitable ships were therefore mostly purchased–103–and a few chartered, in a matter of weeks. These were added to the Navy. Munitions and supplies were shipped as well.

When the first contingent of troops sailed for Manila, they detoured along the way to seize Guam. This was done without casualty. The other Ladrones islands were left to Spain. Then they sailed on.

It was in June that the Hawaiian Islands were annexed. The treaty was suddenly approved–by acclamation. One reason this finally passed is that the Japanese Empire had indicated strong interest in acquiring the Islands, which had a large Japanese population.

Also that Summer, the Russian Empire upgraded its representative from minister to ambassador, the same rank as other Great Powers.

The Fate of the Philippines

In May, Dewey’s fleet in Manila Bay was visited by naval contingents from a number of Great Powers, to congratulate him on his victory. With the status of the Islands unclear and not under American control, others were interested. It was known that the Japanese Empire was interested in acquiring the islands. The German admiral went so far as to indicate that if the U. S. did not want the Philippines for a colony, then Germany would gladly step in. This infuriated Dewey and influenced McKinley toward annexation in his indecision about the future of the islands.

Hawaii, Guam and Puerto Rico were widely seen as strategic necessities. There was no real debate over their future status. McKinley said that the status of the Philippines would be decided by the peace treaty conference, in neutral Paris, France. But peace commissioners rely on their instructions for guidance. At first he issued no clear instructions. But as the months wore on, he sensed that popular opinion favored not only Cuban independence, but also American annexation of the entire Philippines. He instructed his commissioners accordingly and Spain had to acquiesce.

The peace treaty signed late that year aroused tremendous national debate. Was it right or even constitutional for the U. S. to have colonies? Men such as Grover Cleveland, Mark Twain and Charles Francis Adams Jr. opposed annexation. (“Men of a bygone era,” Roosevelt called them.) Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge were among those in favor. The debate, in public society and in Congress, was sometimes acrimonious. A narrow majority of senators approved the treaty in February 1899.

The one group without a voice in this debate were the Filipinos. They for years had staged an insurrection against Spanish rule with the goal of independence. Filipino insurgents and the U. S. Army were allied during the siege of Manila in August, but it quickly became apparent to the Filipinos that the U. S. had no intention of supporting full independence. The insurrection turned against the Americans. This quickly became a full-scale colonial war with upwards of 30,000 American troops involved at any given time at its peak. A total of 125,000 Americans would fight in the war over its course. It lasted officially until July 1902, but some hostilities continued for years after. The American public quickly grew tired of this war, and war in general (the first occasion in what became a pattern of popular response to war) but McKinley had chosen his course of action. However, the U. S. never again waged war for territorial empire.

In December 1898, McKinley issued a proclamation that America’s goal in the Philippines was “benevolent assimilation”. This did nothing to satisfy the insurrectos who wanted no part of it. The policy was sometimes carried out at gunpoint. The American combination of benevolent ideals supported by military force, as a tenet of American foreign policy, appeared for the first time in the Spanish-American and Philippine wars, but not the last. 

The Constitution and the Flag

The Philippines all this time were under military rule, i.e., martial law. Was this constitutional? McKinley felt it was. The Constitution did not apply to a conquered colony, he felt.

Other new territories had to be governed as well. Puerto Rico easily accepted American suzerainty. One of the island’s economic mainstays was sugar cane. McKinley felt, logically (if the Constitution does follow the flag) that the tariff walls against Puerto Rican sugar should be lifted. (Never mind that this was a contradiction to his Philippine policies.) America had no tariffs against itself. The sugar lobby disagreed, and in the ensuing debate it would be decided by Congress that the Constitution does not follow the flag. Puerto Rican Sugar duties were reduced by 75%, so McKinley substantially won the immediate question.

In 1901, the Constitutional question would come to the U. S. Supreme Court. The verdict: The Constitution need not follow the flag.

McKinley’s second Annual Message (State of the Union) in December 1898 was to great extent a catalog of American accomplishments–and adaptations to empire and global power. He called for the standing, regular army to be increased to 100,000 regulars “will be none too many to meet the necessities” of the U. S. now. This shocked many, to confront the fact of America’s new role in the world. In early 1899 he called for a mainland-Hawaii-Guam-Manila cable. As usual, on both questions, he got his way.

1900

The Chinese Empire was disintegrating. Great Powers swooped in to claim coastal cities and inland spheres of influence as their own. This process not only made a mockery of China’s territorial integrity but also threatened to shut out American goods from the Chinese market.

In March, Secretary of State John Hay addressed correspondence to each of the relevant powers regarding an “open door” policy towards China. Nations seeking trade and opportunities in China were to be treated equally by all others; Chinese sovereignty was to be respected (at least in name). Some of the responses were vague, but Hay proclaimed the triumph of his policy, and the other powers played along. Thus was born the famous “Open Door” policy.

Even three years before, the U. S. would have had no say in how the Great Powers dealt with China. Now that the U. S. was a Pacific power, it had a seat at the big power table.

The Open Door was severely tested a few months later. During the Boxer Rebellion, the great power (U. S. included) diplomatic enclave in Beijing was besieged. To lift the siege and fight the Boxers, the Eight Power Alliance—all the great powers—was formed and their combined force marched on Beijing. The main force consisted of 18,000 troops under one central command. The U. S. contributed 3,400 troops from the Philippines. All eight nations participated in successfully lifting the siege.

Three years before, the U. S. would again have been a spectator, with no troops to send and no way to send them. Having troops in the nearby Philippines made U. S. participation possible. American unilateral action was not always going to be adequate to address global issues, they learned. So for the first time since George Washington’s Farewell Address, with its warnings against foreign alliances, the U. S. was acting in concert—in an Alliance—with other Great Powers. All saw the U. S. for the power it was. Afterwards, the Open Door survived as the other powers sought reparations from China, but not annexed territory.

McKinley realized the global and political significance of events. He was now responsible for Americans globally. And so he acted by joining the Alliance and committing troops. McKinley considered seeking Congressional approval for this, but was assured by his Secretaries of War and the Navy that this was not necessary, legally or militarily. He had adequate troops in Asia already. This was the first time a President had committed American troops to battle outside the contiguous U. S. without the permission of Congress. Some in Congress objected but it was done. This set the powerful precedent Presidents to come would use.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

What if Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria had not been Assassinated?

Few events in history have had such far-reaching consequences as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria on June 28, 1914, in Sarajevo. This single act of violence set off a chain reaction that led to the First World War, reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the world. However, what if Franz Ferdinand had not been assassinated? What alternate course might history have taken? Delving into the speculative realm of "what ifs" we can consider the potential ramifications of a world where the Archduke either was not assassinated or survived the assassination attempt.

Terry Bailey considers this question.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

The first and most immediate consequence of Franz Ferdinand's survival would have been the avoidance or delay of the First World War. His assassination served as the catalyst for the conflict, prompting Austria-Hungary to issue an ultimatum to Serbia, which in turn led to a series of alliances being invoked, drawing Europe into a devastating war. Without this trigger, the delicate balance of power that existed among the European nations might have persisted, potentially averting the catastrophic conflict that claimed millions of lives.

With the potential avoidance of the First World War, the geopolitical landscape of Europe would have remained vastly different than we understand it today. The collapse of empires such as the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian, and German would not have occurred in the same manner, altering the course of history for countless nations and peoples. The rise of communism in Russia, the Treaty of Versailles, and the subsequent economic turmoil that paved the way for the Second World War, all these pivotal events might have been drastically different or potentially avoided altogether.

One of the key factors in Franz Ferdinand's assassination was the simmering ethnic tensions within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Archduke, who was heir to the throne, advocated for a federalist solution that would grant greater autonomy to the empire's various ethnic groups. Had he lived, Franz Ferdinand may have pursued these reforms more aggressively, seeking to defuse the ethnic tensions that ultimately led to his assassination. His vision of a more inclusive and decentralized empire could have laid the groundwork for greater stability and harmony within Austria-Hungary.

Diplomacy

Furthermore, Franz Ferdinand was known for his pragmatism and skepticism towards war. Unlike some of his more hawkish counterparts within the Austrian government, he favored diplomatic solutions over military intervention. His survival could have shifted the course of Austrian foreign policy towards a more conciliatory stance, reducing the likelihood of conflicts that could escalate into global wars.

Beyond Europe, the survival of Franz Ferdinand could have had significant implications for the fate of the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. With Austria-Hungary's focus redirected towards internal reforms and diplomatic solutions, the empire might have been less inclined to support the Central Powers during the First World War. This could have weakened the Ottoman Empire's position and altered the outcome of events such as the Armenian Genocide and the subsequent partitioning of the Middle East by European powers.

Moreover, the survival of Franz Ferdinand could have influenced the trajectory of the United States' involvement in global affairs. Without the impetus of the First World War, the United States might have remained more isolationist, avoiding the entanglements that ultimately drew it into the international arena. The absence of American intervention could have altered the balance of power during the war and shaped the subsequent peace negotiations in unforeseen ways.

Technology and culture

In the realm of technology and culture, the avoidance of a World War could have led to different innovations and artistic movements. The war,  as all wars do, spurred advancements in military technology and medicine, but it also brought about immense human suffering and destruction. In a world where the First World War never occurred, resources that were diverted towards military efforts could have been invested in other areas, potentially accelerating scientific progress for peaceful means, in addition to, cultural developments.

Naturally, it is impossible to predict with certainty how history would have unfolded if Archduke Franz Ferdinand had not been assassinated. The interconnectedness of events and the myriad factors at play make any speculation inherently hypothetical. However, by examining the potential consequences of a non-assassination or his survival, we gain insight into the pivotal role that individuals can play in shaping the course of history and the profound impact that seemingly small events can have on the world stage.

In conclusion, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria set off a chain reaction that led to the First World War and its far-reaching consequences. However, by considering the hypothetical scenario where Franz Ferdinand survived, we glimpse a different path, one where war and upheaval might have been averted, and the course of history irrevocably altered. While we can only speculate on the details of such an alternate reality, the exercise serves as a reminder of the fragility and complexity of human history.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The Zulu Victory Against the British at the Battle of Isandlwana

It’s been 145 years since Sir Lord Chelmsford’s Army began a three-phase invasion of the South African nation of Zululand in January 1879. Chelmsford and Sir Bartle Frere had instigated the war, and felt that they could bring the Zulu people to capitulation in a short period of time with the goal of bringing another portion of South Africa under British control. What they found, would go down in the annals of military history forever.

Here, Michael Leibrandt explains the story of the Battle of Isandlwana in the Anglo-Zulu War.

The 1879 Battle of Isandhlwana. By Charles Edwin Fripp, 1885.

The Centre Column of the invasion — led by Lord Chelmsford himself — would cross the Buffalo River from Rorke’s Drift and setup camp at the foot of Isandlwana Hill on January 20th. The name Isandlwana is meant to mean abomasum — named as its shape resembles part of the digestive track of the cow. The British would note the sphinx-like shape of the Hill.

Receiving a multitude of intelligence during the overnight hours and feeling that the Zulu Army would not engage the British forces directly, Chelmsford divided his forces. 

Splitting his force, Chelmsford marched out of the camp at 4:00 A.M., and left Lt. Colonel Pulleine with approximately 600 men of the 24th Regiment of Foot, 700 soldiers from the Natal Native Contingent, and 70 members of the Royal Artillery with two cannons.

To reinforce the camp, Chelmsford ordered Colonel Anthony Durnford to march from Rorke’s Drift to reinforce Isandlwana. Not long after 10:00 A.M., Durnford arrived with 250 Natal Native Contingent troops and a rocket battery. To this day, historians are still divided on whether or not this was a deliberate Zulu maneuver to further divide the British troops or transpired out of happenstance. 

While scouting the area around the heights overlooking the nearby Ngwebeni Valley, the British found to their horror the entire Zulu Army hidden in the valley below. Immediately realizing that they had been discovered, the Zulu Army rose up and headed towards Isandlwana. After assembling, the Zulu Impi charged the camp utilizing the “horns of the buffalo” attack that was first employed by King Shaka decades earlier to encircle Isandlwana Hill.

Repelling the attack

Although initially being able to repel the Zulu attack with rank fire, the British and Natal forces were ultimately too extended in front of the camp and vulnerable to the closing Zulu flanks. In less than five hours — almost all of the British and Natal Native Contingent — nearly 1,700 men were wiped out. A few did manage to escape down Fugitives Trail and were able to warn the garrison at Rorke’s Drift before the horns closed to cutoff any retreat.

Colonel Durnford was killed in the dry donga. Zulu accounts indicate that Major Russell’s Rocket Batteries were overwhelmed early in the fight. The Royal Artillery attempted to save the two cannons, but were also overwhelmed. After the Battle, the Zulus disassembled the cannons and one was found on the road back to Ulundi. Colonel Pulleine was killed in the camp.

Lieutenants Melvill and Coghill desperately grabbed the Queen’s Colour and galloped out of the camp at in the latter stages of the battle. They made it to the banks of the Buffalo River before exhaustion overtook them and they were caught and killed. The Queen’s Colour was later found floating in the river.

Eclipse

For some time, historians debated as to whether or not an annual solar eclipse which covered South Africa in the path of totality on January 22nd 1879 actually had an impact. Only the Zulu accounts of the Battle even seem to mention it that day, with other engagements in Zululand on that day do not. The survivors of Rourke’s Drift also did not mention it in their accounts.

The Zulus did mention it in accounts of the Battle, detailing that they took a sudden darkness over the battlefield as a sign from the gods with increased inspiration.

According to Zulu Accounts, one lone soldier made it up the side of Isandlwana Hill and took cover in a cave. He was killed when his ammunition ran out and is depicted in the famous Richard Thomas Moynan painting, The Last of the 24th.

In the late afternoon, Commandant Lonsdale had received permission to return to the camp at Isandlwana to recover in his tent from some heatstroke. Allowing his horse to wander towards Isandlwana, when he roused from his stupor to find the camp in possession of the Zulus and was barely able to spur his horse to escape.

When Chelmsford returned to the camp at dusk, he and the remaining British forces saw a horrific site on the battlefield. In the distance, night sky was lit up with fire burning in the direction of Rourke’s Drift. His troops overheard him say, “But I left 1,000 men to guard the camp.”

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt lives and works in Abington Township, Pennsylvania.