Electability in 1912

• Jan 25, 2012
• Michael Streich

Bob La Follette entered the 1912 campaign expecting the Progressive leadership, but was deceived by Teddy Roosevelt who wanted the nomination for himself.

By the time the first presidential preference primary was held in North Dakota on March 19, 1912, the Progressive Party was already split between Wisconsin’s Bob La Follette and Theodore Roosevelt. Both men concluded that the Taft administration was too closely aligned to the so-called establishment elements of the party, unconcerned with the progressive reform movement that championed, among other things, the Referendum, Initiative, and the Judicial Recall.

La Follette viewed himself as the only viable Republican with Progressive credentials strong enough to be considered for the presidency: “I had campaigned only for supporters willing to make the fight for principle, ready to win, or to lose, if need be, in the interest of a cause.” “Fighting Bob” handily defeated Roosevelt in North Dakota, impacting TR’s support in other contests still to come.

Progressivism in the Farm States

North Dakota was a farm state which had bitterly opposed the 1911 Reciprocity Treaty with Canada. William Howard Taft, Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor, supported the treaty. Despite documentation demonstrating that former President Roosevelt supported the treaty and advised Taft to support it as well, TR entered the contest denying his past support. It didn’t help his efforts.

Farm states and Progressive havens had their own prerequisites. In North Dakota it was La Follette. In Iowa it was Albert B. Cummins. In California Governor Hiram Johnson had been seduced by the Roosevelt folks with the promise of the vice presidency. La Follette brought thirty-six delegates to the Republican National Convention on June 18, 1912 as a bargaining chip.

Big Business Funds Roosevelt’s Campaign: the First Super-Pac

In his “true” account of the 1912 campaign, La Follette intimates that Roosevelt’s poor showing in North Dakota resulted in a reappraisal of his candidacy. $300,000 would never be enough to secure the nomination. Both La Follette and Taft’s “political machine” blamed Roosevelt’s vast increase in campaign contributions on the pockets of big business (“Why Big Business is Attacking Taft,” New York Times, January 17, 1912).

Roosevelt’s largesse was due to the efforts of men like George W. Perkins who was on the board of the Steel Trust and managed a large New York insurance firm. The Taft administration had sought to abrogate an 1832 Treaty with Russia that would have been disadvantageous to Perkin’s corporate interests which included International Harvester, headquartered in Illinois. At the same time, La Follette was advocating stringent federal policies tied to business regulations. Little wonder that an unscientific January 28, 1912 Kansas City Poll gave Roosevelt 1,152 votes, followed by 197 for La Follette and 157 for Taft. People still saw TR as a "trust buster," although the facts gave a different conclusion.

The Roosevelt Myth

Roosevelt, for many Americans, was larger than life. During his two terms he had fought the evil trusts, gained global respect for American expansion, and secured the Panama Canal. His stewardship view of the presidency allowed him to take proactive steps not necessarily forbidden by the Constitution but not explicitly expressed either.

Roosevelt, acting through loyal cohorts like the Pinchot brothers, played a coy political game until the spring of 1912, hiding behind what his closest advisors viewed as a “dummy campaign” by Bob La Follette. La Follette, however, maintained until the end that he was a viable candidate, in it until the bitter end. As such he repudiated Roosevelt’s Progressive pedigree, claiming that Roosevelt had allowed himself to be used by the “interests” in order to ultimately divide the progressives.

The Most Electable Republican

Who was the most electable Republican? In hindsight, La Follette demonstrated that Roosevelt, even in the best circumstances, never had enough delegates to win the nomination. Part of the excuse used by close supporters hinged on early Southern presidential contests where Roosevelt’s team was still unorganized but Taft had a major organizing lead.

Roosevelt’s supporters claimed “theft” and vowed to set up an alternative party, in effect dooming the Republicans in 1912 and ensuring the election of New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson. Taft would go on to teach at Yale and end his days as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a position he always craved.

La Follette’s Philadelphia Speech

Some historians point to Bob La Follette’s February 2, 1912 Periodical Publishers’ Association Speech in Philadelphia as the crucial moment of decision concerning the candidate. La Follette spoke last and was exhausted. His daughter was scheduled for a surgical procedure the following morning. “Sensational accounts of this speech” have him drinking before the address; La Follette admits only to his physical condition.

Splitting the Republican Party gave victory to Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats; such was the animosity between Taft and Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s Progressives were viewed as too out of touch (La Follette, though remaining in the Republican Party, even advocated that the Recall be applied to Supreme Court Justices). La Follette would ultimately lead the charge against U.S. entry into World War I while TR deplored Wilson’s vacillation, demanding U.S. reaction to the European conflict. Wilson waited until 1917 to ask for a war declaration. His idealistic Fourteen Points evaporated, vindicating La Follette when they went down in the flames of European balance of power arguments by European leaders that knew how to divert Wilson.

For Republicans, 1912 was a year of electability. Three strong Republicans vied for the nomination. Had Roosevelt not bolted, Taft would have won reelection. As it was, some historians believe that the most unelectable man, Woodrow Wilson, entered the White House at the wrong time in order to involve the United States in the wrong war. Between Wilson and Roosevelt, La Follette’s priorities would have been America first, something not understood by the new Anglophile President who saw himself more as a Prime Minister rather than a chief executive.

References:

• “Why Big Business is Attacking Taft,” New York Times, January 17, 1912
• James Chase, 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft & Debs – The Election that Changed the Country (Simon & Schuster, 2004)
• Robert M. La Follette, La Follette’s Autobiography: A Personal Narrative of Political Experiences (Madison, WIS: The Robert M. La Follette Co., 1913)
• Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, Fifth Edition, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development (W.W. Norton & Company, 1976)
• Frank K. Kelly, The Fight for the White House: The Story of 1912 (NY: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1961)
• “Roosevelt Leads in the Polls,” New York Times, January 28, 1912
• Page Smith, America Enters the World: A People’s History of the Progressive Era and World War I, Volume Seven (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1985)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Home Grown Terrorism: Norway 2011

Michael Streich

Published in Suite101 July 24, 2011

 Oslo is a quiet and clean city, the kind of place visitors consider as an ideal retirement option if not for the cost of living. The waterfront is dotted with cafes, pubs, and unique shops. Norwegians are still proud to have hosted the 1952 Winter Olympics and visitors to Oslo are taken to the ski jump overlooking the city. But on a beautiful July 22, 2011 day, 32-year old Anders B. Breivik broke the tranquility of this Scandinavian capital by murdering ninety-two people, most of them teens attending a youth camp on a nearby island.

 

The Ideology of Anders Behring Breivik

 

How the assassin in the Oslo massacres views himself is a matter of interpretation. A CNN reporter referred to him as a “rightwing Christian fundamentalist.” Oyvind Power, writing in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten (July 23, 2011) called him a neo-Nazi. In an interview with the German Bild newspaper (July 23, 2011), Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich identifies Breivik with “the right.” Breivik himself, on his Facebook page and in other writings, thought of himself as a pioneer and a “cultural conservative.”

 

Most initial reports argue that Breivik’s conservatism focused on a xenophobic hatred of Islam and of those groups, notably political parties like the Labor and Socialist Left parties that supported immigration and asylum laws increasing the European Islamic presence. Power writes that Breivik was, “Inspired by an internet environment that calls itself ‘counter-jihadist’…” These internet connections have “links to European neo-fascism.”

 

According to James S. Robbins, who analyzed Breivik’s writings (The Washington Times, July 23, 2011), “Mr. Breivik believed that an impending economic crisis would be the trigger for action against the perceived Islamic threat.” News writers familiar with Breivik’s beliefs comment on his actions in Oslo as part of a “conflagration.” In this regard, Breivik may be more of a neo-anarchist ala Bakunin whose actions were designed to arouse the apathetic into similar action.

 

Growing European Extremism and the Neo Nazi Phenomenon

 

Anti-Muslim feelings in Europe have been on the rise. A 2011 Pew Research Center poll (Pew Global Attitudes Project) notes that concerns over Islamic extremism are well above 50% in most of the developed world. In Germany, for example, 73% of those polled demonstrated concern. Concern about Islam is tied, however, to the growth of neo-Nazi activities in Europe and may help to explain the actions of Anders Breivik.

 

Khaled Diab, writing in the Guardian (July 10, 2010), contends that, “Hitler’s ideological descendants, who have become increasingly emboldened in recent years, constitute a growing…threat that largely goes unnoticed and under-reported.” Citing several examples, Diab states that, “More attention needs to be paid to the fact that it is a growing menace.”

 

Right-wing extremism has been on the rise in several European countries. A Wall Street Journal item (February 16, 2010) notes that, “demand for far-right extremism in Hungary more than doubled between 2003 and 2009…” The percentage of pro-right-wing support was second to Bulgaria and just ahead of Greece. This is significant given the impact of current austerity measures imposed upon Greece as part of the EU Euro-bailout package of July 2011.

 

Neo Fascism in Germany

 

Neo-Nazis in Germany are attempting to mainstream into society as they sense growing dissatisfaction within the overall population with the slow pace of Muslim acceptance into German society. Spiegel magazine observes that, “For some time now, these families have no longer belonged to subcultures on the fringe of society. Instead, most of them now lead their lives right in the middle of society.” (July 21, 2011) In 2009, the German government banned a neo-Nazi youth camp that was indoctrinating young people.

 

According to Spiegel, children of neo-Nazis are taught that democracy will fail and that an ideal world is based on a “pure racial community.” Such ideological beliefs parallel those of Anders Breivik. The German-Foreign-Policy newsletter (September 17, 2008) observes that several right-wing political groups “…maintain a tradition of Nazi collaboration.” This includes groups in France, Austria, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

 

Breivik May Force Changes in European Security

 

As the smoke dissipated from the massive explosion in the heart of Oslo, commentators already made analogies to America’s Oklahoma City bombing and the 9/11 tragedy. To what extent will life ever be the same in Norway? Norway’s King Harald told his people that, “This act is an attack on the Norwegian society and on the core of democracy…”

 

Perhaps the greater fear will come from the threat of copy-cat attempts. This will require the kind of on-going vigilance German Interior Minister Friedrich referred to in the Bild interview. Breivik, in his writings, saw himself as part of a vanguard, destined to cleanse Europe of the unfit. This is the growing face of right wing extremism, even in a peaceful country like Norway.

 

Sources:

 

Michael Backhaus, “Muessen wir Deutschen mit rechtem Amoklauf rechnen?” Bild, July 23, 2011

Khaled Diab, “Neo-nazism is Europe’s hidden terrorist menace,” Guardian, July 11, 2010

“Freedom is stronger than fear,” Norway Post, July 23, 2011

“Europe of Right-Wing Extremists,” German Foreign Policy Newsletter, September 17, 2009

“Growing-Up Neo Nazi: Family Life Among Germany’s Far-Right Extremists,” Spiegel, July 21, 2011

William Maclean, “Norway Attack: Right-wing extremism emerging?” Reuters, July 22, 2011

Pew Global Attitudes Project, Pew Research Center, July 2011

Oyvind Power, “Who’s the Terrorist?” Aftenpost, July 23, 2011

“Right-Wing Extremism? Yes, Please, One-Fifth of Hungarians Say,” The Wall Street Journal, February 16, 2010

James S. Robbins, “The Oslo Terrorist in His Own Words: Bomber Predicted ‘Europe soon will burn once again,’” The Washington Times, July 23, 2011

[Copyright owned by Michael Streich. No reprints of any kind without written permission from author]

French Revolution's Anti-Christian Message

Michael Streich

 It was Voltaire, whose writings in part contributed to the coming of the French Revolution, when asked what to do about the Church stated, “crush the infamous thing.” When the Revolution came in 1789, the Church was inevitably targeted as part of the old feudal regime that needed to be replaced. By 1792, the September Massacres saw the murders of hundreds of prisoners, many of whom were seminarians and clerics, including Church leaders like the Archbishop of Arles. The French Revolution was, in many ways, anti-Catholic.

 

The Catholic Church on the eve of the French Revolution

 

The French Catholic Church comprised the First Estate, 130,000 out of a population of twenty-three million. The clergy were exempt from state taxation, ran their own courts, collected a tithe, and held a monopoly on education. Immensely wealthy, the Church paid a yearly “free donation” to the state out of borrowed money. Owning one-tenth of the realm, the Church had full control over all official records.

 

At the outbreak of the Revolution in 1789, only one bishop out of the 135 in France came from a non-noble background. All of the other bishops had ties to the nobility, many of them coming out of the finest, oldest aristocratic families in France. The Church guarded its privileges jealously and was unassailable. Most of the local parish priests and the regular clergy, however, identified with the peasants and were frequently looked down upon by the Church hierarchy.

 

The Revolution Dissolves the Established Church

 

Immediately after the disbanding of the Estates General, the newly formed National Assembly, which included members of the First Estate that had crossed over, began to eliminate the feudal rights of the Church. Henceforth, clerics would be paid by the state and Church lands confiscated. Monasteries not involved in the public good were closed. In many ways, the actions of the Assembly paralleled those taken earlier by Austria’s Emperor Joseph II.

 

Ecclesiastical tithes were abolished and some religious ordered disbanded. Because of the Church’s long identity with the nobility and absolute rule in France, the institution itself was attacked. Perceived as an extension of the aristocracy, the Church found itself in a vulnerable position. Offering to limit and give up some of its privileges, the Church was seen as attempting to avoid the same fate that inevitably awaited the monarchy and the Second Estate.

 

The Revolution Moves into the Reign of Terror

 

Under the leadership of Robespierre during the height of the Reign of Terror, Notre Dame Cathedral was turned into the Temple of Reason. The dechristianization of France was underway. Robespierre introduced the “Cult of the Supreme Being” that attempted to infuse a new moral universe based solely on the values of the revolution.

 

Although Robespierre was eventually executed and France moved to a new government under the Directory, the Church never regained its power or control. Even after signing a Concordat with Rome, Napoleon Bonaparte, during his coronation in Notre Dame in 1804, took the crown from the Pope Pius VII and placed it on his head himself, symbolic of the independence from papal control.

 

Sources:

 

Olivier Bernier, Words of Fire, Deeds of Blood: The Mob, the Monarchy, and the French Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1989).

Michael Burleigh, Earthly Powers: The Clash of Religion and Politics in Europe, from the French Revolution to the Great War (HarperCollins, 2005).

Isser Woloch, The New Regime: Transformations of the French Civic Order, 1789-1820s (W.W. Norton & Company, 1994).

[First published in Suite101 2009. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. All republishing with written permission only]

Reign of Terror: French Revolution Devolves into Lawless Blood-letting 

Michael Streich

 The September Massacres of 1792 changed the direction of the French Revolution. Within the next two years, a Reign of Terror would engulf France as thousands of royalists, political moderates, revolutionaries, and members of the bourgeoisie were beheaded. The excesses of the Revolution at the hands of Maximilien Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety gave impetus to counterrevolutionary forces in France as well as the prospect of foreign intervention.

 

The Terror Begins in 1793

 

King Louis XVI was beheaded January 21, 1793. Over the next months, radical Jacobins began to target the Girondists, moderate leaders that opposed the program of the Jacobin leadership. Toward that end, the Jacobins used crowd action, the violence of the sans-culottes, average French workers. Many of these Parisian workers had been effectively used during the September Massacres.

 

At the same time, revolts broke out in the countryside, most notably in the Vendee region where Girondist support was strong. Rural areas loyal to Catholicism also saw an increase in opposition to what historian Simon Schama called the “dictatorship of Paris.”

 

France was already at war with Great Britain, Holland, and Spain. The threat of foreign intervention as well as the realities of internal opposition led to mass conscription and a concerted effort to root out counterrevolution. These measures were particularly brutal in Vendee. At Nantes, hundreds of men, women, and children were chained to barges in the Loire and drowned when the vessels were sunk.

 

On October 16^th, Marie Antoinette was beheaded, following a shameless trial that accused her, among other things, of incest and participating in orgies with Swiss Guards. Above all, however, the former queen represented monarchy, a hated institution incompatible with the new revolutionary order. It was this general mentality that, when applied to all former royalists, enabled mass executions of all associated with the Old Regime.

 

The Final Year of Terror

 

As 1794 progressed, the Committee of Public Safety had turned on its own. Jacques Danton, the force behind the September Massacres, was denounced and, along with his friends, beheaded. Fear gripped members of the Committee itself, each deputy afraid to make eye contact with Robespierre, the messianic force behind the “republic of virtue” and the Cult of the Supreme Being, for fear of being the next victim.

 

Everyday workers could be denounced for any careless criticism or for invoking the royalist past. The Reign of Terror, contrary to perception, resulted in the deaths of more non-aristocrats than those with blue blood. Some scholars estimate that only 30% of those sent to the guillotine were aristocrats.

 

Even the leaders of the sans-culottes had been executed earlier in the year. Historians speculate that Robespierre’s greatest weakness was his lack of a base of support. He had no lieutenants and many of his former radical colleagues had been denounced and executed. This made it possible for the Committee to band together in July and send Robespierre to the guillotine, ending the Terror.

 

The Lessons of the Reign of Terror

 

Within a two year period, a relatively small handful of revolutionary leaders commandeered the Revolution. They did so by eliminating opposition groups, often using mob violence while appealing to the ideal that the Revolution demanded the sacrifice of individualism for the good of society. Once the mob had served its purpose, its leaders too were executed.

 

Finally, the strongest radicals to emerge turned on their colleagues, eliminating further opposition and branding it as counterrevolutionary. Similar patterns would be seen in the 20^th Century after the 1917 Russian Revolution as well as the Spanish Civil War. In Nazi Germany, Hitler also employed similar tactics to consolidate power. In many ways, the Reign of Terror is a case study in obtaining and maintaining absolute power.

 

Sources:

 

Olivier Bernier, Words of Fire, Deeds of Blood: The Mob, the Monarchy, and the French Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1989)

Albert Goodwin, The French Revolution (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962)

Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989)

[First published in Suite101; copyright owned by Michael Streich. Republishing requires written permission]

Storming the Bastille July 1789: Paris Mob Sets into Motion French Revolution

Michael Streich

 At nine o’clock in the evening on July 14, 1789, King Louis XVI received word at Versailles that the Bastille had fallen in Paris to a mob that included both citizens and soldiers. “It is a revolt?” he asked the duc de la Rochefoucauld-Liancourt. “No, Sire,” la Rochefoucauld replied, “it is a revolution.” More than just symbol, the fall of the Bastille ended one chapter of French history and began another; it was the start of the French Revolution, a movement that would reverberate through every European capital and begin the process of gutting absolutism.

 

The Bastille as the Symbol of Royal Despotism

 

Historian Olivier Bernier referred to the Bastille as a “symbol of royal despotism,” and in July 1789 it was simply that, a symbol. In the process of being “phased out” by the government, the Bastille held only seven men, none of them political prisoners. British historian Simon Schama, in his book Citizens, analyzes the many mythologies associated with the Bastille, perpetuated by romanticist literature and art.

 

The fortress, built in the late 14^th Century, was garrisoned by 114 men, mostly veterans, under the command of the marquis de Launay, described as “stupid, weak, and indecisive.” The prison held no noteworthy inmates; the marquis de Sade had been held there until a week before the Bastille fell. The seven prisoners included four forgers, two madmen (one of whom thought that he was God), and an accomplice in an assassination plot against King Louis XV.

 

The Paris Mob in 1789

 

The men and women that converged on the Bastille on the morning of July 14^th were the bourgeoisie, shopkeepers, merchants, and artisans. Masters and journeymen were eventually joined by soldiers. These were the “popular emotions” Princeton historian Robert Darnton writes about, the mob driven by frenzy to blood lust, seen later in 1792 during the infamous September Massacres.

 

No effort was made to restrain the mob in the days before the attack on the Bastille. They had acquired arms but lacked ammunition. The Bastille magazine, however, contained cartridges. This was the object of the mob. All other considerations were secondary.

 

Two deputations of the people met with de Launay who treated them civilly, removed the cannon facing the faubourg St. Antoine, a section of Paris inhabited by hundreds of the mob waiting outside, but politely declined to surrender the fortress.

 

The mob managed to break through the main gate and stormed into the outer courtyard. Nervous defenders opened fire on the mob below. Thinking they had been lured into a massacre, the mob, now joined by soldiers that had brought cannon, began an all-out assault. By 5:00 de Launay surrendered. The battle had taken two hours.

 

De Laurnay was taken to the city hall of Paris but torn apart by an angry mob outside of the building. His head severed, it was placed on a pike and paraded through the city.

 

Immediate Results of the Fall of the Bastille

 

British historian Albert Goodwin writes that, “No other single event in the revolution had so many-sided or far-reaching results as the fall of the Bastille.” The power of the king was diminished; indeed, Louis XVI went to the Assembly to enlist their support in healing the nation. In all official matters, absolutism – what was left of it, capitulated.

 

Military forces, notably foreign regiments, were withdrawn from the area of Paris. A National Guard was authorized, commanded by the marquis de Lafayette. Finally, the National Assembly was left unmolested to craft a constitution and transform a society identified with the Ancient Regime into a powerful modern society.

 

Sources:

 

Olivier Bernier, Words of Fire, Deeds of Blood: The Mob, the Monarchy, and the French Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1989)

Albert Goodwin, The French Revolution New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962)

Robert Darnton, The Kiss of Lamourette: Reflections in Cultural History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990)

Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989)

(First published in Suite101. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. All republishing subject to written approval)

 

The Ugly American Still a Real Possibility When Tourist Travel Resumes

Michael Streich

Anti-American March in Australia in 2006. Photo: M.Streich

The Ugly American is still a part of global appearance, but the numbers have fallen dramatically off the global travel path.This is due, of course, to the ravages of the pandemic, political extremes stretched to the limit, and a redefinition of American exceptionalism and dominionism. Americans haven’t changed in terms of their own culture or the myriads of cultures that form a truly global society. In the name of a higher order, call it a divine plan, various American groups for reasons all their own are determined to fulfill the Biblical prophecies needed to usher in the Second Coming of Christ.

 As a happy by-product, Communism or any form of socialism will be finally defeated. Never mind that Jesus’ Kingdom of God is Christian Socialism. Rich Jews at the time of Christ found it difficult to cast aside their wealth (think of the rich young ruler). Many parables illustrate this decision of conscience. For all we know, today they may live in Southern Florida.

The on-going meddling of Christians determined to hasten the return of Christ may, ironically, help spread the pandemic as the plague mentioned in St. John’s Revelation. They may, through powerful political leaders, reinvent the chessboard over the Middle East deserts in an effort to position Israel and “the Arabs.” But where is the temple, destroyed several times in history? And where is the Ark of the Covenant, that ultimate symbol of God’s promises to His people on earth?

Toward these ends, political propaganda is employed on a daily basis. This is not new. There was a time in this great nation when the majority of citizens read The Bible and Pilgrim’s Progress (Teddy Roosevelt’s favorite read after scripture). Americans sang robustly in the many churches, “We’ve a story to tell to the nations” and God was sending us out to “rescue the perishing.” But we will emerge as the Ugly American again, self-serving and oblivious to the peoples and cultures we visit both as tourists and, too often, occupiers.

The so-named Ugly American has not changed, has not learned any new lessons in respect, and will continue to pursue an agenda designed to turn client nations into vassal states. It is the way of all empires.

Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Republishing requires written permission.

British Hero, "Chinese" Gordon, Defeated at Khartoum as Relief Arrives too Late

Michael Streich

July 28, 2009

 

In the early 1880s, a Muslim uprising began in the Sudan, threatening Egypt and British colonial interests. The leader of the revolt was Muhammad Ahmad who called himself the “Mahdi” or expected one. His object was to restore Muslim practices and eradicate foreign influences. Through awe and fear, the Mahdi managed to gather thousands of loyal followers. Ultimately, Great Britain was obliged to address the situation, and did so by sending a national hero to Khartoum, General Charles Gordon, known as “Chinese” Gordon for his leadership in suppressing the Taiping Uprising in China some years earlier.

 

Early Attempts to Restore Peace

 

The liberal government of Prime Minister William Gladstone was discussing down-sizing imperial military commitments and rejected any initial appeals to significantly take on the Sudanese uprising. Sudan was a province of Egypt, which was, ostensibly, part of the Ottoman Empire but “advised” by the British through their proconsul, Lord Cromer.

 

The Egyptian khedive hired a British colonel and tasked him with leading an army into the Sudan to destroy the Mahdi. Given the rank of general in the Egyptian army, William Hicks led a force of 10,000 men (some estimates are lower) into the one million square miles of desert. Ambushed, Hicks and his entire command were annihilated virtually to the last man. Although subsequent forays led by Valentine Baker and Lt. General Gerald Graham were slightly more successful, public outcry in Britain forced the government to react.

 

Chinese Gordon is sent to Evacuate Khartoum

 

Charles Gordon was seen as a “Christian soldier,” who, as previous Governor General of Equatoria and then the full Sudan, ended slavery. He knew the Bible well and had even managed to locate the site of the Genesis “Garden of Eden.” As a soldier, Gordon was a sapper – a military engineer. This would serve him well when forced to fortify Khartoum.

 

Yet Gordon was also fiercely independent and whose personal view of justice conflicted with political prerogatives. Stubborn, insubordinate, and frequently arrogant, he traveled up the Nile River to evacuate the Europeans and Egyptians despite having publicly criticized this policy in the British press on weeks before the assignment was given. Gordon had his own agenda. He would defend Khartoum against the Mahdi.

 

The Relief of Gordon

 

By 1884 it became apparent that Gordon was not leaving Khartoum. The prospect of his death and the loss of the Sudan prompted national outcry in Britain, including Queen Victoria who pressured Prime Minister Gladstone into sending a relief force. On March 25^th, the Queen wrote the Secretary of War, Lord Hartington (a hawk in the Cabinet), “Gordon is in danger: you are bound to try to save him.”

 

Gordon was a living symbol of all that Britons saw of their empire and their values. In death, he became, according to Karl Meyer, “a devout martyr who died bravely while on an impossible mission for an ingrate government.” In Parliament, Gladstone’s government narrowly averted a vote of censure.

 

Ultimately, General, Sir Garnet Wolseley was sent to Cairo to command a relief force of 10,000 British soldiers. Wolseley was a friend of Charles Gordon and a bitter critic of Gladstone, whom he blamed for Gordon’s death. Through brilliantly improvised tactics, including the construction of hundreds of specially designed boats that could navigate the Nile cataracts, the relief expedition moved up the Nile.

 

“Too Late”

 

The forces of the Mahdi breached Khartoum’s defenses in January 1885, slaughtering the inhabitants and murdering Governor-General Charles Gordon. His severed head was paraded before the Mahdi on a pike. Referring to Prime Minister Gladstone, General Wolseley wrote in his journal, “He is responsible for Gordon’s death and all the bloodshed and horrors attendant upon the fall of Khartoum.” (Tuesday, 17^th February, 1885)

 

Sources:

 

Byron Farwell, Queen Victoria’s Little Wars (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1972)

Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac, Kingmakers: The Invention of the Modern Middle East (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008)

Lytton Strachey, Eminent Victorians New York: Harvest Books/Harcourt Brace & Company, 1969)

Lord Garnet Wolseley, In Relief of Gordon: Lord Wolseley’s Campaign Journal of the Khartoum Relief Expedition 1884-1885, edited by Adrian Preston (London: Hutchinson Press, 1967)

First Published in Suite101. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Republishing of this article by written permission only.

General Charles Gordon Avenged at Omdurman:

Kitchener Defeats Large Sudanese Force 

Michael Streich

July 3, 2011

 In early September 1898, General H.H. Kitchener, commanding at Omdurman in the African Sudan, informed his government that, “The remnant of the Khalifa’s forces has surrendered, and I have now a very large number of prisoners on my hands.” Omdurman was located up the Nile River, across from Khartoum where Major-General Charles Gordon had been killed by the Mahdist forces fourteen years earlier. Kitchener, at that time, was part of the relief operation led by Viscount Garnett Wolsey. The expedition arrived too late; Omdurman was to be the long awaited act of revenge. Yet Omdurman was also a transitional object lesson perpetuating the belief of European superiority.

 

Avenging Governor-General Charles Gordon of Khartoum

 

General Gordon had returned to the Sudan to confront the Mahdi, whose personal ambitions rested on Islamic mysticism and posed a serious threat to Egyptian hegemony over the vast expanse of desert. It would not be until Kitchener’s victory at Omdurman in 1898, however, that, as the London Times postulated, the territory would be re-opened, “to the benefits of peace, civilization, and good government.”

 

Following the death of Gordon and the destruction of Khartoum, the Mahdi himself died, succeeded by the Khalifa Abdullahi, who turned the fort at Omdurman into a citadel housing his palace and the tomb of the Mahdi. According to writer Philip Ziegler, Omdurman was “Africa’s largest slum.” Kitchener’s army, composed of a well-trained Egyptian contingent as well as the British Brigade, began the long and arduous march up the Nile to Omdurman, vastly outnumbered by the dervishes. But, as Ziegler writes, “…arithmetic counted for nothing in the fierce joy of battle.”

 

Omdurman Victory Attributed to Several Factors

 

As a transitional event, Omdurman would witness a heroic cavalry charge by the 21^st Lancers, as well as the use of heavily armed gunboats and a significant advantage in artillery. As the London Times correspondent pointed out, the siege of Khartoum several years earlier lasted 317 days; the siege of Sevastopol during the Crimean conflict took slightly over 300 days. Omdurman fell after five hours.

 

Kitchener’s success was due to excellent planning as well as moments of good luck. The Khalifa, for example, was frequently guided by dreams. These dreams caused him to withdraw his troops from points along the Nile such as Berber, concentrating his men at Omdurman. Further, the battle would be fought on the Kerreri plain rather than a house-to-house battle within the city.

 

A notable exception was Atbara. 20,000 dervishes took part in the battle of Atbara under Emir Mahmoud. It was a foolish move. Sandhurst military historian Philip Warner argues that had those 20,000 men been available at Omdurman, “the outcome of that critical battle might well have been different.”

 

Role of the Forces under Kitchener’s Command

 

Both Egyptian and British forces were eager to fight. According to the London Times, the lesson of Omdurman showed that British soldiers “will go anywhere and do anything.” Lt. General Francis Grenfell, commander of the British troops, wrote that, “…never, in the course of my service, have I seen a finer body of troops than the British contingent…as regards physique, smartness, and soldier like bearing.” (The London Gazette, September 30, 1898) To this must be added the contributions of loyalist Sudanese units.

 

Detractors like the young Lt. Winston Churchill, involved in his first conflict, showed their arrogance with criticism of Kitchener and fellow officers. Churchill became a life-long critic of Kitchener, attempting to blame the later Field Marshall in 1915 for Churchill’s own debacle at Gallipoli in Turkey. Kitchener had been selected to command over much older and seasoned officers, but had the confidence of Sir Evelyn Baring, Britain’s proconsul in Cairo.

 

Kitchener’s Success at Omdurman Assisted by Modern Technology

 

Victory at Omdurman was achieved by daring and bravery, but not without the presence of gunboats. This firepower saved the Camel Corps from almost sure annihilation, an action that could have altered the battle outcome. To this must be added the actions of Lt. Colonel H.A. Macdonald, whose native brigade managed to hold the line against an unforeseen mass of dervishes, as well as the charge of the 17^th Lancers. By the afternoon of that fateful day, the Khalifa’s power was broken as he fled in disguise to the south.

 

Omdurman had all of the elements of a modern battle: the use of railroads, superior firepower, artillery placement, and gunboats specifically designed for the conflict. Unlike Islawanda or the much earlier devastation of Hicks Pasha in the Sudan desert, few British lives were lost but thousands of dervishes lay before the Khalifa’s capital in great bleeding piles. The British euphoria reinforced the notion of western superiority, a belief still held today in the technological war against Middle East extremists.

 

Gordon is Memorialized

 

Gordon was avenged with the fall of Omdurman. A memorial service was conducted in Khartoum with the 11^th Sudanese band playing Gordon’s favorite hymn, “Abide with Me.” It was the same hymn played at the memorial service for Kitchener in 1916 after he died aboard the HMS Hampshire. With Omdurman achieved, Kitchener turned his attention southward to confront French incursions into British-claimed territory. Carving up Africa would continue as European powers used their technology to expand empires.

 

Sources:

 

Byron Farwell, Queen Victoria’s Little Wars (W.W. Norton & Co., 1985)

London Gazette, September 30, 1898

London Times, various articles, September 1898

John Pollock, Kitchener: Architect of Victory, Artisan of Peace (Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1998)

Philip Warner, Dervish (Mackays, 2000)

Philip Warner, Kitchener: The Man Behind The Legend (Atheneum, 1986)

Philip Ziegler, Omdurman (Dorsett Press, 1973)

First Published in Suite101. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. All republications subject to written permission.

The American Revolution Ends the War at Yorktown

Cornwallis Trapped as Americans and French Allies Defeat British Forces

Michael Streich

June 27, 2009

By 1781 the patriot cause was summarized by George Washington as “gloomy.” Under-equipped and fragmented, colonial forces had been weakened by desertions and mutinies. Yet key events in 1781 resulting from spectacular British blunders changed the outlook, leading to the victory at Yorktown late in the year. British defeat at Yorktown paved the way toward an end to the war and the 1783 peace treaty that recognized American independence.

 

Cornwallis moves north into Virginia

 

In March 1781 the British army under the command of Charles, Lord Cornwallis had been severely weakened when nearly one quarter of his force had been incapacitated by a patriot force under General Nathaniel Greene at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, just south of the Virginia border.

 

Cornwallis continued to march his men into Virginia, however, expecting reinforcement from Sir Henry Clinton in New York and hoping to link with separate British forces commanded by Benedict Arnold and Colonel Tarleton. Clinton, however, who commanded 11,000 men in New York, ordered Cornwallis to send part of his force north to reinforce his own position, an order Cornwallis refused.

 

George Washington’s forces and a 4,500 man French army under General Rochambeau were north of New York, poised to begin a siege of the well-fortified city. It was at this point that the news of the imminent arrival of a French fleet at the Chesapeake offered an opportunity to possibly end the war.

 

Cornwallis Encircled at Yorktown

 

Prior to his withdrawal to Yorktown, Cornwallis had been successful in harassing patriot forces in Virginia. British troops captured Richmond and came within minutes of capturing Governor Thomas Jefferson. So successful was Cornwallis that Nathanial Greene referred to him as a “modern Hannibal.”

 

Retiring to Yorktown, Cornwallis anticipated reinforcements and fresh supplies, not realizing that French Admiral de Grasse had sailed from Santo Domingo with 28 warships and 3,300 French troops. In New York, Sir Henry Clinton reacted to the news of de Grasse with typical vacillation. Ironically, a British naval force under Sir Samuel Hood had actually arrived at the Chesapeake before de Grasse from the Caribbean but concluded that the French had sailed to New York instead. Departing north, Hood left the Chesapeake open for the French fleet.

 

Cutting off all Hope for Cornwallis

 

Cornwallis began fortifying Yorktown but abandoned the outer defenses. His troops were weary and sick. Smallpox began to take its toll among the men and Yorktown’s inhabitants. At the same time, Washington and Rochambeau, sensing a great opportunity, force-marched their men south into Virginia, linking with General Lafayette’s force of 3,000.

 

By the time Clinton realized what had happened (Washington had left enough men behind to confuse the British), it was too late. Admiral Sir Thomas Graves, perhaps the most criminally ineffectual British commander, arrived at the Chesapeake, briefly engaged the French fleet after dispersing his own ships in such a manner as to render them useless, and retreated back to New York.

 

Admiral de Grasse had been reinforced by a smaller French force commanded by Admiral de Barra. It was this smaller fleet that anchored in the Chesapeake while de Grasse fought the British in the open sea.

 

Believing until the last that reinforcements would arrive, Cornwallis made no attempt to break out of Yorktown or ferry his men across the York River, both actions still feasible before the arrival of Washington and Rochambeau. The end came after French forces, in the stealth of darkness, overran Redoubt 9 and American forces took Redoubt 10, two strategically important defensive fortifications.

 

Cornwallis Maligned in History

 

Lord Cornwallis has often been the scapegoat for British defeat, even as recently as the popular film The Patriot. Yet the evidence suggests that he was a capable commander. The loss at Yorktown can best be blamed on the incompetence of Admiral Graves and the jealous indecision of Sir Henry Clinton.

 

Sources:

 

Walter Edgar, Partisans and Redcoats (HarperCollins,2001)

Robert Harvey, A Few Bloody Noses: The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution (Overlook Press, 2002)

Henry Wiencek, An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001)

First published in Suite101. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. No reprints of any kind without written permission from Michael Streich.

 

 Climate Changes Affect Ancient Civilizations

The Role of Weather Patterns in the Near East, Greece, and Rome

© Michael Streich

 Apr 5, 2009

Drought more than politics and war may have undermined several ancient civilizations , leaving them vulnerable to internal stability and external conquest.

As contemporary societies grapple with climate change that may dramatically affect the ebb and flow of civilizations, historians of various specialties look back at ancient civilizations, postulating that historical climate changes may have played a more significant part in the rise and fall of early empires. While some of these changes may have been catastrophic, such as the Greek Dark Ages, c 1200-800 BCE, others were part of drawn out patterns like the affects of climate change during second and third century Imperial Rome. Drought and subsequent famine may have played a larger role in power shifts in the ancient world then previously noted.

The Ancient Near East

Akkad, the first great empire in Ancient Mesopotamia, was founded by Sargon the Great, described as “one of the outstanding figures of the ancient world.” His empire fell after 200 years with the invasion of the Gutians, barbarians that descended upon the Tigris and Euphrates region from the northern highlands. Elizabeth Kolbert, who has written a book on climate change, states that “scholars blamed the empire’s fall on politics.” According to Kolbert, however, a more plausible direct reason for the Akkadian collapse “was caused by a devastating drought.”

Kolbert gives similar examples of how “shifts in rainfall” destabilized other civilizations such as the Egyptian Old Kingdom and, in the Americas, the Maya and the Tiwanacu in Peru. In the Genesis account describing how the Israelites migrated to Egypt (chapter 42ff), famine had gripped Canaan and Jacob sent his sons to buy grain in Egypt. The uncorroborated story does highlight the fact that, for the most part, Egyptians could predict the flow of the Nile and were thus able to prepare for the expected periods of famine.

Some scholars speculate that the famine mentioned in Genesis coincided with Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period that included the Hyksos invasion across the Sinai, perhaps prompted more by the lure of grain than other riches. Famines often precipitated population shifts, affecting longer, established civilizations. The Hyksos changed the direction of Egyptian history, resulting in the New Kingdom and Egyptian imperialism.

The Mediterranean

The Greeks always possessed a fragile agricultural economy reflecting irregular rainfall. Yet around 1200 BCE, catastrophic events destroyed the Mycenaean civilization. Widespread famine engulfed the land, desperate inhabitants took to the sea in search of better conditions, and much of Greece returned to a primitive culture. The event may have been sparked by significant volcanic activity in the Aegean Sea that blocked the sun, affecting an already weak agricultural base.

Trade and commerce was disrupted, affecting also the Hittites and the Minoans. Within this calamity, barbarians entered Greece from the north. Like the Gutians, the Dorians benefited from internal instability and weakness attributed, in part, to severe climate changes.

Much later, beginning in the mid-second century AD, climate change again affected a great empire – the Romans. Soil erosion, deforestation, and changes in rainfall patterns disrupted grain shipments to Rome and affected other provincial agrarian enterprises. This is often one of several reasons advanced for the so-called “fall of Rome.”

The importance of water in the Ancient Near East, much as it is today, played a dominant role in the survival of civilizations. The evolution of siege warfare, for example, greatly perfected by the Assyrians, included the elimination of any water source into the city under siege. Herodotus recounts that when Sennacherib attacked Jerusalem, he dried up the river, an action that might have backfired because his actions increased the rodent population which proceeded to destroy his soldier’s weapons.

Climate and Civilization

As scholars delve into the past to assess the impact of climate on ancient civilizations, they may produce models that can be used today. Contemporary climate changes may also precipitate major population shifts and affect national economies, particularly those heavily dependent upon agriculture and herding, much as happened centuries ago.

Sources:

C. E. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament Vol. I, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, no date given).

Elizabeth Kolbert, “Outlook: Extreme,” National Geographic, April, 2009, pp 60-61. See also Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change (Bloomsbury, 2006).

Samuel Noah Kramer, Cradle of Civilization (Time Incorporated, 1967).

The copyright of the article Climate Changes Affect Ancient Civilizations in Ancient History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Climate Changes Affect Ancient Civilizations in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Climate Affects Good Harvests

See all posts for Aspects of the War of 1812 and applications to current history published in early November.

Yesterday, January 6, 2021, a mob of thousands, incited by President Donald Trump, marched to the Capitol and viciously invaded the hallowed rooms, forcing Representatives and Senators to flee and shelter in place. The last time the heart of Democracy and cradle of the Constitution was besmirched  in such a manner was over 200 years ago, when, during the war of 1812, the British burned Washington City and the President's house. 

Here is a brief article to go along with the other already posted in early November.

 

 

 

While crucial maritime issues formed the bulk of American grievances against Great Britain in 1812, and these are copiously detailed by President Madison in his war message to the Congress, the ancillary issue of expansionism, particularly with the view of taking Canada, cannot be discounted. Historian Paul Johnson, identifying this cause, [1] states, that the  “South and the burgeoning West favored war for imperial reasons…they thought of appropriating…British Canada.” Albert Weinberg [2] writes that, “It has been plausibly argued by Professor Pratt [1925] that this war, long explained by reference to impressments and commercial restrictions, was caused fundamentally by the desire of Western States for the annexation of Canada.”

 

From Their Own Words

 

Samuel Taggart’s June 24, 1812 speech opposing the war was never given during the closed-session vote, but it was published in the Annals of Congress. Taggart, a representative from Massachusetts, devotes his final paragraphs to the issue of Canada. “For whose benefit is the capture of Canada,” he asks. “What advantages are we likely to reap from the conquest?” That Canada was to be an indemnity for maritime grievances is addressed earlier when Taggart says, “Canada must be ours; and this is to be the sovereign balm, the universal panacea, which is to heal all the wounds we have received either in our honor, interest, or reputation.”

 

Donald Hickey, whose causes for the war focus on maritime issues, allows that, “advocates of war also hoped to put an end to British influence over American Indians by conquering Canada…” [3] and begins his third chapter with a speech by John Randolph [December 16, 1811] in which Randolph says, “Agrarian cupidity not maritime right, urges war. Ever since the report of the Committee of Foreign Relations came into the House, we have heard but one word…Canada! Canada! Canada!” That certain members of Congress harbored thoughts of acquiring Canada seems indisputable.

 

Weinberg applies the term “geographic predestination” to the expansionist elements present at the start of the War of 1812. He cites Representative John Harper (NH) as stating, “it appears that the Author of Nature has marked our limits in the south, by the Gulf of Mexico; and on the north, by the regions of eternal frost.” [4] Taking Canada served several purposes. Canada would be an appropriate reparation for the economic ills suffered because of British policies such as the Orders in Council, but would also fall within the natural and inevitable expansionist mode that, as Weinberg argues, had been a part of American land lust since the first days of colonization. Additionally, the British, through Canada, were thought to be behind incessant Indian raids along the frontier. Walter R. Borneman writes that, “ Thoughts of quelling Indian influence for good and ousting Great Britain from Canada became the rallying cry for Henry Clay and…the ‘war hawks.’” [5] This feeling was boosted by Tecumseh’s attempt to rally disparate tribes against frontier settlements.

 

Expansionism may have been a powerful underlying reason some political leaders supported war with Britain in 1812. Notwithstanding years of impressments, trade disruptions, losses of cargoes, and commercial strangulation, the lure of Florida and Canada cannot be discounted, if nothing else than a fitting remuneration for years of turmoil and loss. Expansionist motive was often cloaked by public and patriotic reasons that the citizenry can more readily accept and react to. More than just a theory, enough evidence exists that Canadian annexation figured into the overall strategy of war in 1812.

 

Sources:

 

[1] Paul Johnson, The Birth of the Modern: World Society 1815-1830 (New York: HarperCollins, 1991) p. 10.

[2] Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansion in American History (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1958) p.52ff.

[3] Donald R. Hickey, The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1989) p.47.

[4] Annals of Congress, 12^th Congress, 1^st Session, col. 657.

[5] Walter R. Borneman, 1812: The War That Forged A Nation (New York: HarperCollins, 2004) p. 28.