The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 was a very complex operation that required precise information about the movement and disposition of the US Pacific Fleet, based at Hawaii. This information was gathered on the ground by a spy named Takeo Yoshikawa, who cabled regular reports to Tokyo. These reports proved to be invaluable to the success of the Japanese attack. However, this constant supply of information almost gave the game away.

Here, Alan Bardos, author of a related novel: Amazon US | Amazon UK, considers whether the attack on Pearl Harbor could have been avoided.

During the attack on Pearl Harbor, the West Virginia was sunk by six torpedoes and two bombs.

Our Man in Hawaii

The US Pacific Fleet moved from its bases on the West Coast of America to Pearl Harbor in 1940, so the Japanese consequently had very little information about it. The sailing of their fleet over 3,500 miles from home waters to Hawaii was a massive undertaking that required their ships to be refueled numerous times en route. Before taking such a risk they therefore needed to know what was waiting for them when they arrived and the best time to attack.

Bureau 3 (Intelligence) of the Imperial Japanese Navy’s General Staff attached Takeo Yoshikawa to the Japanese Consulate-General in Honolulu. His mission was to gather news about Pearl Harbor. His orders were vague and were constantly refined by further instructions from his superiors in Tokyo.

Yoshikawa meticulously gathered vital intelligence on the movements of the US Pacific Fleet and Hawaii’s defenses. He spent his days travelling between various observation points around Hawaii, reconnoitering airfields and the US Fleet. Changing his clothes several times through the course of the day, he would blend in as anyone from a tourist to a Filipino-American laborer. Yoshikawa even took geisha girls as cover on sightseeing flights over Pearl Harbor. Postcards he supplied were found in the cockpits of Japanese aircraft shot down over Pearl Harbor. Crucially, Yoshikawa was said to have discovered that Sunday mornings were the best time to attack, when the Fleet was home from maneuvers.

Yoshikawa communicated this information regularly to Tokyo through commercial American telegraph companies. In the run up to the attack Tokyo’s need for information increased steadily, to the extent that Yoshikawa was reporting the US Fleet’s movements on a daily basis, leaving a large paper trail of his activities.

The number of cables sent by the Japanese Consulate hadn’t gone unnoticed and Robert L. Shivers, the FBI’s Special Agent In Charge in Hawaii tried to persuade the cable companies to share the coded messages with him but they refused, not wishing to break Federal Law.

 

Magic intercepts

American Intelligence had broken the Japanese diplomatic codes and were regularly intercepting and decrypting Japanese diplomatic traffic, as part of a program code named Magic. This used a machine code named Purple to decode these messages, which were then translated manually. The Americans were therefore aware that war was coming in the Pacific, but only knew as much as Japan’s diplomats, who were not informed in any detail of their Military’s plans. The US Army and Navy Departments in Washington did issue war warnings to their Pacific commanders, but the warnings were consequently vague and did not suggest that Hawaii would be a target.

Faced with an overwhelming amount of decrypted information, American Intelligence focused their efforts on translating the high level communications between Tokyo and the Japanese Embassy in Washington, which was conducting peace talks with the American government. This did eventually provide a warning of a coming attack, but it did not say where it would be.

 

Dorothy Edgers and the deferred intercepts

Yoshikawa’s telegram’s to Tokyo gave precisely this information, but as Hawaii was considered a diplomatic backwater, they were left untranslated in the “deferred” pile until one bored newbie in the Naval Cryptographic Section decided to look at them.

Mrs. Dorothy Edgers, a former school teacher in Japan, had been working as a translator for two weeks when she found herself in the office on a Saturday morning. She had nothing to do, but was eager to be involved in this strange new world of signals intelligence and started to translate the Hawaii decrypts.

She struck gold immediately realizing the importance of the correspondence between Yoshikawa and Tokyo. Enwrapped, Mrs. Edgers translated telegram after telegram that gave away the military secrets of her country, from real time movements of its battleships, to the lack of torpedo nets protecting them, to the position of the airfields tasked with defending them. This was clearly more than the routine reports of a sidelined diplomat in a backwater, but information for a full-scale attack.

Mrs. Edgers reported her findings to her immediate supervisor Chief Ship’s Clerk Bryant. He saw their significance, but it was Saturday and they were finishing at 12:00pm so he told her it would wait until next week.

Not put off, Dorothy Edgers continued to translate the decrypted messages, waiting in the office for the return of the Translation Branch chief, Captain Alvin Kramer, who had been making his rounds delivering the latest high priority Magic Intercepts. Mrs. Edgers briefed Kramer on what she’d found and was reprimanded for her trouble.

Tired and with a number of other conflicting priorities, Kramer was annoyed that she worked late after the office had closed and was unhappy about the quality of her translation. He dismissed her in no uncertain terms and she was told once again that it would wait until next week.

Ordinarily, Bryant and Kramer would have been right, but on this occasion it was the day before the Pearl Harbor attack.

 

December 7th 1941 - A date that will live in infamy

The next day, on reviewing the priority daily intercepts between Tokyo and their Embassy in Washington, Kramer saw things were clearly coming to a head. Tokyo had instructed its delegation to end their negotiations at 1pm precisely.

Kramer had been stationed in Hawaii and knew that 1pm in Washington was dawn in Hawaii, and worked out what time 1pm would be at all the US bases in the Pacific, with it being a few hours before dawn in the Philippines.

He passed his findings onto Commander McCollum and Captain Wilkinson, his superiors in the Office of Naval Intelligence. They took them to Admiral Stark the Chief of Naval Operations, who was not overly impressed, but after further discussion and consulting with General Marshall, his opposite number in the Army, Stark agreed to issue an alert to his bases in the Pacific. However, due to atmospheric conditions, they were unable to send the warning to Hawaii and it was sent as a low priority telegram and arrived just after the attack had finished.

They believed that the main threat they were facing was an amphibious landing in the Philippines, where it would be the optimum time for that type of attack and there were also reports of Japanese ships moving in that direction. Had Yoshikawa’s reports been more widely distributed, a very different conclusion might have been reached.

Admiral Kimmel, the Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet and the man blamed for the attack categorically argued that had he been aware of the Hawaiian decrypts, he would have been better prepared to counter the surprise attack. That was certainly the findings of a subsequent congressional investigation.

 

Many of the events depicted in this article inspired my novel ‘Rising Tide’, which can be purchased here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Book full name: Rising Tide (Daniel Nichols Spy Thrillers Book 1) eBook : Bardos, Alan : Kindle Store

 

 

References

Japan's Spy at Pearl Harbor: Memoir of an Imperial Navy Secret Agent, Takeo Yoshikawa, McFarland (2 Mar. 2020).

The Broken Seal: "Operation Magic" and the Secret Road to Pearl Harbor, Ladislas Farago, Westholme Publishing; Reprint edition (25 Oct. 2012).

A Matter of Honor: Pearl Harbor: Betrayal, Blame, and a Family's Quest for Justice, by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, Harper; Reprint edition (15 Nov. 2016).

Countdown to Pearl Harbor: The Twelve Days to the Attack, by Steve Twomey, Simon & Schuster; Illustrated edition (1 Nov. 2016).

Pearl Harbor: From Infamy to Greatness, by Craig Nelson, Weidenfeld & Nicolson; 1st Edition (10 Nov. 2016).

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1960/december/top-secret-assignment

When the fighting ended on the evening of July 1, Gen. Robert E. Lee was uncertain of the position of the Army of the Potomac. It was ambiguous how far south along Cemetery Ridge the Union line extended. Brig. Gen. William N. Pendleton had conducted a reconnaissance on the evening of July 1 to locate artillery positions on the northern part of Seminary Ridge but did not observe infantry positions. Meanwhile, General George Meade arrived at midnight, received reports, and agreed to defend the position the next day rather than retreat.

Here, Lloyd W Klein explains what happened on day 2.

If you missed it, part 1 on General Lee’s advance to Pennsylvania is here, and part 2 on day 1 of the battle is here.

A depiction of Jubal Early's attack on East Cemetery Hill on July 2, 1863. From The Century Magazine, 1884.

The Reconnaissance Mission

In the early hours of July 2nd, General Lee determined that before he could devise a battle strategy for the day, he needed accurate intelligence as to the left flank of the Union line. Longstreet’s Chief Engineer, Maj. John C. Clarke joined Captain Samuel R. Johnston, one of Lee’s aides, on a nighttime mission. They set out at 4 am to locate the Union left. Johnston claimed he took a route very close to Longstreet’s countermarch later that day and made it to the top of Little Round Top (LRT), and saw no Union troops there at all.

Although the exact route taken by Johnston remains a matter of speculation, determining it precisely holds significant importance in comprehending the events that unfolded during the battle on July 2. It is likely that he departed from Lee's headquarters near the Lutheran Theological Seminary and proceeded south along the western slope of Seminary Ridge, eventually entering the Willoughby Run valley. Along this path, he would have passed by the Samuel Pitzer farm and the Pitzer Schoolhouse. Subsequently, he probably turned east, ascending the western slope of Warfield Ridge, near the location where McLaws later positioned his troops that afternoon. Johnston himself mentioned that he continued along the ridge towards the round top, crossing the Emmitsburg road, until he reached the slope of LRT, providing him with a commanding view. This sequence of movements would have placed him on LRT around 5:30 a.m.

Following his reconnaissance, Johnston reported to General Lee that there existed a concealed route that could not be detected from the Union lines. Crucially, he noted that the large hill in the distance, “with a commanding view”, which was LRT, was unoccupied. General Lee formulated his attack plan for July 2 based on the intelligence provided by Johnston's mission.

The problem with his information is that historical records indicate the presence of numerous Union troops on the hill that night. Buford's cavalry and Geary's division were encamped in front of LRT, with two regiments stationed there along with skirmishers. At 7 a.m., Major General David B. Birney of the Third Corps relieved General Geary, who had spent the entire night at that location. It has been estimated that approximately 18,000 Union troops were positioned between the Emmitsburg Road and the Taneytown Road, as well as between LRT and the George Weikert Farm, precisely when Johnston claimed to have been on Little Roundtop. Given these circumstances, it seems highly unlikely that Johnston could have conducted his scouting mission without being detected. Additionally, Captain Lemuel B. Norton, the Chief Signal Officer of the Army of the Potomac, reported the establishment of a signal station on Little Roundtop by 11 P.M. on July 1.

So what could have transpired? One possibility is that Johnston may have been on Big Round Top, as during that period, there was no clear distinction between the two peaks. Another hypothesis put forth by Wittenberg suggests that Johnston might have been disoriented in the darkness and mistakenly believed he was on Bushman's Hill. Others have suggested that he got as far as Houck’s Ridge. Johnston had previously carried out similar successful services at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, so the reason behind the inaccurate information he provided to General Lee before 8 a.m. remains unresolved. Nevertheless, based on this intelligence, General Lee formulated a plan.

 

Lee’s Plan

Lee initiated preparations assuming that the Union left was positioned on Cemetery Ridge, and he instructed Longstreet to make the necessary arrangements. Lee desired this assault to catch the enemy off guard, so Longstreet was tasked with taking a concealed route along Seminary Ridge, descending to the Emmitsburg Pike without attracting attention, and then launching the attack. However, the First Corps had not yet fully arrived. They had been delayed during their movement behind South Mountain, and to reach the battlefield, they had to pass through Cashtown and cover a distance of 10 miles to Gettysburg. Longstreet insisted on having all his men present for the attack. Unfortunately, when they finally set off, they were led on a roundabout path that exposed their presence, resulting in a significant delay to their assault, which occurred well into the afternoon.

 

The Myth of the Sunrise Attack

July 2, 1863, was the true High Water Mark of the Confederacy. The narrative that Longstreet could have launched an attack that morning, altering the course of history, was a notion perpetuated by Jubal Early in the post-war era. General Pendleton's insistence on this theory only added to the tension between him and Longstreet.

Glenn Tucker's thorough examination in the 1960s discredited the myth of the sunrise attack, further supported by Longstreet's memoirs. The reality was that only a fraction of Longstreet's forces were in position at 7 am, with the majority still miles away. The impracticality of organizing such an attack, coupled with the overwhelming Union presence, makes it clear that Longstreet's alleged failure to act at that specific time did not determine the outcome of the battle or the war. Only McLaws, the artillery, and a part of Hood’s division were even up at 7 am, about 10,000 men, and that was after an all-night march. Had they attacked, they might have been met by 60,000 Union troops. The rest of the Corps were at Chambersburg and south of Cashtown. He moved up as quickly as possible, but most of his men were miles from Seminary Ridge at 7 am.

Even an 11 am start was not feasible due to various delays faced by his corps reaching the battlefield, resulting in a later arrival time. Alexander and his artillery didn’t even arrive until 9 am. Lee's vision of simultaneous flank offensives was hindered by Longstreet's need to wait for Law's brigade to arrive; the delay in Law's arrival further postponed the attack, with three brigades still in march columns when Longstreet finally began his movement at noon. Witness reports of Lee's frustration at 11 am that the attack had not started highlight the challenges faced in coordinating the attack, with delays caused by traffic jams. But Longstreet's attack was delayed because he first had to wait for his final brigade (Evander M. Law's & Hood's division) to arrive, and then he was forced to march on a long, circuitous route that could not be seen by Union Army Signal Corps observers on LRT. Longstreet received permission from Lee to wait for Law's brigade to reach the field before advancing. Law marched his men quickly, covering 28 miles in 11 hours, but did not arrive until noon. Three of Longstreet's brigades were still in march columns when he set off. In retrospect, Lee & Longstreet should have kept these men closer to the front, not at the tail end of the order of march.

Longstreet intended to place his men across from the Emmitsburg Pike facing east, toward the enemy lines directly facing them. Lee's strategic vision called for a different approach - he wanted the troops to face north and advance towards Cemetery Ridge and Hill. This shift in direction was crucial, as Lee aimed for a concentrated attack on the Union center on both Day 2 and Day 3 of the battle.

As Longstreet's men approached the area near Blackhorse Tavern, the presence of Union signalmen on LRT posed a risk of detection. In response, the decision was made to countermarch back to the starting point, to keep the lines in the correct order for the attack. This resulted in a delay of at least one hour, and Longstreet did not reach the appropriate zone until 4 pm.  Whether the countermarch was necessary or not is a matter of contention. However, the countermarch took longer than expected, and by the time Longstreet's troops were ready to launch their attack, valuable time had been lost. The delay allowed the Union Army to reinforce their position, and for additional troops to march toward the battlefield.

 

Maj Gen Daniel Sickles and III Corps

At this moment, arguably the most crucial hour of the entire war, an unauthorized troop movement changed the course of the battle and history. Ordered to hold the line on the ground between LRT and Cemetery Ridge, Maj Gen Sickles instead, on his own initiative, decided that this was a poor position for his III Corps, and instead moved them forward (west) about a half mile to the Sherfy Peach Orchard, on the Emmitsburg Pike. The consequences of this unauthorized movement reverberate through the ages

Sickles perceived, correctly, that the ground in his front was about 10 to 15 feet higher than the ground he was supposed to defend. He believed therefore that his line was in a vulnerable position for enemy artillery to destroy him. A very similar situation had happened at Chancellorsville when he was ordered by General Hooker to give up Hazel Crest, which then became the key to Confederate artillery destroying the army on day 2 of that battle. Sickles hadn’t forgotten that experience, so he asked Meade for permission to move up at least twice. Meade thought that the area was not in a good position and was in a no-man’s land. Famously when General Meade saw this right before the battle opened, he told Sickles that he was out of position and knew a disaster was in store. Hancock made a similar famous observation.

General Sickles decided at 11 AM to not defend the line General Meade assigned him between   Top and Cemetery Ridge but rather to advance to the Peach Orchard. This unauthorized move must count as one of the most fateful decisions of the entire war. Certainly, it led to the destruction of his III Corps, and it threatened the entire left flank of the Union defense, but paradoxically, it might have saved the battle. By leaving uncovered both of his flanks, leaving   (LRT) Top uncovered, and not telling anyone what he was up to, he put Meade at a serious disadvantage.

The decision to defend the Sherfy Peach Orchard, adjacent to the Emmitsburg Pike, rather than the assigned position on the descending limb of LRT attached to Cemetery Ridge, not only resulted in a vulnerable and easily attacked position but also left the flanks exposed. The left flank, consisting of LRT, Devil’s Den, and the Wheatfield, had to be hastily covered as troops entered the battle. As units arrived on the field, they were immediately dispatched to critical locations to save Sickles' III Corps and the entire front. The success of Day 2 of Gettysburg relied heavily on the bravery and valor displayed by numerous men and their regiments, who are now remembered as heroes. It is important to acknowledge that Sickles' unconventional decision does not absolve him of the fact that he acted without proper knowledge, displayed insubordination, endangered the Union line, and caused the loss of many lives. However, it should also be noted that he was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions and was regarded as a great hero during his time.

 

Longstreet Attacks

At 4 pm, Longstreet finally prepared to launch his attack, only to realize that circumstances had changed in the interim. His original battle plan involved a left wheel followed by an en echelon attack. However, it became immediately apparent that this plan was no longer feasible due to the III Corps' position at the eastern edge of the Emmitsburg Pike, specifically at the Peach Orchard. Upon seeing Sickles' chosen position, it became clear that Lee's intended plan was no longer viable. Attacking northwards while the Peach Orchard remained under Union control was no longer an option. Instead, Longstreet's attack had to be redirected eastward, crossing the turnpike and landing further south than initially intended by Lee. The original objective of attacking the Union center had now shifted to targeting its left flank.

Hood repeatedly questioned Longstreet about whether the attack should be called off or if the plan needed to be altered due to the changed position of the Union line. Despite these inquiries, Longstreet insisted on proceeding with the attack as ordered. When told to attack as ordered, he reportedly told the colonel of a TX regiment something along the lines of "When we get under fire, I will have a digression." We don’t know if he said this, but the digression is often assumed to be the attack on LRT. His pep talk to the troops before the attack stepped off included a reference to taking those heights, also widely assumed to refer to LRT.

The assault on LRT occurred due to General Law's movement eastward, leading his 15th and 47th Alabama regiments to pursue US Sharpshooters up Big Round Top. As the Sharpshooters retreated down the slope, the Alabama regiments found themselves without a clear target, prompting them to be directed northward until they eventually reached LRT.

Following this, a crucial period unfolded where the fate of the battle, and potentially the entire war, teetered on the edge for several hours. Major General John Bell Hood launched an attack on LRT and Devil's Den, while Major General Lafayette McLaws attacked the Wheatfield and the Peach Orchard. Although neither side emerged victorious, the Union III Corps suffered significant losses.

The echelon attack strategy employed that day is often misconstrued, necessitating clarification on which plan is being referenced: the original strategy where McLaws' division would have taken the lead, or the revised plan and actual sequence of events after Union troops were spotted on Sickles' advanced line, resulting in Hood's division leading the charge. Under the initial plan, McLaws would have advanced alongside the Emmitsburg Road towards a Union flank presumed to be further north, with Hood's division providing support, likely by advancing to his rear or right rear. The ultimate goal was for the attack, with support from AP Hill’s Corps, to culminate on Cemetery Ridge and potentially Cemetery Hill.

Under the original plan, McLaws would have advanced astride the Emmitsburg Road, across the Peach Orchard, toward a Union flank believed to be located further north.  Hood's division would have supported McLaws.  Exactly how is unclear, but probably advancing to his rear or right rear.  At some point, McLaws would have probably shifted entirely east of the road, because continuing to advance astride it would have missed most of the Union position.  With support from AP Hill’s Corps, the idea was that ultimately the attack would end up on Cemetery Ridge and hopefully Cemetery Hill.

In the actual unfolding of events, Hood's division took the lead, but it underwent significant revisions on the spot. The plan was for the division to advance "up the Emmitsburg Road," but not directly on it. It's important to note that this was not meant to be an en echelon attack, where units are arranged diagonally. Instead, the division would advance in a column formation, with two brigades side by side in the first line (Law and Robertson), followed by Benning and Anderson in the same manner. The en echelon aspect would come later, but it never actually materialized. The plan was for Robertson to align his left flank with the Emmitsburg Road and his right flank with Law's position. However, Law veered to the east, making it impossible for Robertson to maintain both alignments. He chose to hold on to Law's left flank instead. As a result, Lee's original concept of advancing "up the Emmitsburg Road" was abandoned once the Peach Orchard and the Wheatfield turned into deadly battlegrounds.

The phrase "en echelon attack" often carries a sense of awe, as if it is an unstoppable and overwhelming force. An en echelon formation is a diagonal arrangement of units, with each unit positioned at an oblique angle to a specific direction. The name of this formation comes from the French word "échelon," which means a rung of a ladder, describing the ladder-like shape when viewed from above or below. This formation is favored due to the enhanced visibility it provides to each unit.

However, as the events of July 2 demonstrated, an en echelon attack can also become disjointed and ineffective. By launching attacks in a sequential manner, the initial attack draws the enemy's attention, potentially leaving subsequent parts of the formation under-defended. Timing is crucial, and any delay at the start can significantly impact the later stages. On the second day of the battle, Hood and McLaws deviated from their intended northward direction and instead moved east, as the enemy had shifted in that direction. This created a weak point at the top of the formation. Despite this setback, the attack almost succeeded due to Sickles' exposed position, but the change in direction ultimately diminished the impact of the latter stages, falling short of Lee's expectations.

Unlike Hood's division, McLaws division did attack en echelon in two lines, with Kershaw and Barksdale in the front line, followed by Semmes and Wofford in the second line. While Barksdale attempted to drive north along the road into Humphreys' left flank, most of McLaws' efforts were directed east, towards Wheatfield Road and Plum Run Swale. Wofford's brigade, for instance, ended up moving down Wheatfield Road instead of supporting Barksdale.

The idea of Hood turning right to flank the Union left was not a straightforward option due to various factors. No suitable roads were running east/west for Hood to take his division on a flanking attack. Additionally, the presence of the Union VI Corps in the area would have made any movement slow and risky. Lee already had an extended front line, making it challenging to shift the whole army to support Hood's potential maneuver. Without proper intelligence on the terrain and Federal positions, Hood's division would have been vulnerable without infantry or artillery support. The lack of such information is directly attributable to the reality that Stuart was nowhere to be seen. Finally, once Anderson's division is committed. any movement in that direction would have been too small to make a difference.

Laws made a tactical decision of immense consequence. Hood organized his division into two lines, with Jerome B. Robertson’s Brigade and Evander M. Law’s Brigade forming the first attacking line, followed by George T. Anderson’s Brigade and Henry L. Benning’s Brigade in support. Law’s Brigade held a significant position as the right brigade not only in Hood’s Division but also in the entire Army of Northern Virginia. As Law’s Brigade advanced, it faced artillery fire from Captain James Smith’s battery near Devil’s Den.

Law had several options to consider as his brigade moved forward: continue moving eastward; incline his entire brigade toward Devil’s Den; or send part of his brigade to attack Smith’s guns and continue forward with the remainder of his force. Law decided to direct the right two regiments, the 44th Alabama and the 48th Alabama, to flank left and attack north towards the Union battery. The 15th Alabama, which had been in the center, now found itself on the far right of the brigade, moving towards the valley between Big Round Top and LRT, with the 47th Alabama on its left. This decision led to unexpected fighting near LRT and Devil’s Den, deviating from Lee’s original plan, with Benning’s Brigade ultimately ending up in Devil’s Den instead of advancing north on Emmitsburg Road.

 

The Defense of LRT

There was a scarcity of Union troops along LRT during that period. Conversely, there was a significant presence of Union troops and artillery positioned on Houck's Ridge. The left flank of the Union forces was not situated on LRT by 4 pm, but rather at Devil's Den. The outcome of Day 2 at Gettysburg hinged upon the valor and bravery displayed by numerous men, who are now revered as heroes alongside their regiments. Additionally, credit must be attributed to Meade for effectively mobilizing over 20,000 reinforcements to secure the salient that had not been part of his initial plan.

The chief engineer of the Army of the Potomac, Brig. Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren was considered the "Savior of Little Round Top" for his quick reaction to get troops to the summit before the approaching Confederates arrived on the afternoon of July 2.  His statue on what is now known as Warren Rock immortalizes the moment that he saw the long line of Rebel soldiers approaching from the south. It depicts the moment when he looked out with binoculars, saw the Rebels moving his way, and realized that he needed to get troops and batteries up there as soon as he could. General Warren recognized that LRT dominated the Union position and had been left undefended, and the tactical importance of the hill. He urgently sought Union troops to occupy it before the Confederates could,  but where would these troops come from? A New Yorker who had taught mathematics at West Point, he had no time to get authorization: he immediately, on his own initiative, constructed a defense of the Union left flank.

Warren encountered Strong Vincent's brigade nearby and asked for immediate assistance. Vincent, without consulting his superior officers, decided, "I will take the responsibility to take my brigade there." Vincent ordered one of his regiments to face southwards, positioned on the left flank of the brigade, while he handled the right flank, facing west. The regiment he so ordered was the 20th Maine and its commander was Colonel Joshua Chamberlain, who would become one of the greatest heroes of the war and governor of Maine. Vincent made it clear to Chamberlain that he was the far left flank regiment of the entire Union line, and that he must hold it no matter what. Vincent went back to his right flank, where the 16th Michigan was beginning to falter; at that moment he was mortally wounded. He would receive a battlefield promotion to general from Meade; that portion of LRT is called Vincent’s Spur.

Colonel Strong Vincent's brigade was discovered by a staff officer nearby. Recognizing the strategic advantage of his brigade's position, Vincent took it upon himself to deploy them where they would be most effective. Disregarding the need for approval from his superiors, he made the decision independently. Pvt. Oliver Willcox Norton, Vincent's brigade standard bearer and bugler, together with Vincent, made a reconnaissance of the Confederate forces as the brigade was moving into position, "While our line was forming on the hill at Gettysburg I came out with him in full view of the rebel lines. They opened two batteries on us instantly, firing at the colors. Colonel Vincent looked to see what was drawing the fire and yelled at me, "Down with the flag, Norton! Damn it, go behind the rocks with it."

Standing atop a large boulder, he brandished a riding crop and shouted for his troops to hold their ground. Tragically, he was struck by a bullet and fell. However, the resolute efforts of his brigades and the individual regiments within it, such as the 20th Maine, the 44th New York, the 83rd Pennsylvania, and the 16th Michigan Infantry, ultimately secured the position. Vincent was transported from the hill to a nearby farm, where he succumbed to his injuries five days later. Vincent received a promotion to brigadier general by General Meade before he died. LRT could not have been held without his leadership.

Vincent's 20th Maine regiment, under the command of Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, gained significant renown for their defense of LRT. Upon their arrival in the late afternoon of July 2, Chamberlain's regiment was directed by Colonel Vincent to secure the far left position of the Union lines and to hold it at any cost. Recognizing the crucial importance of this position, Vincent emphasized its significance to Chamberlain while he attended to the right flank of the brigade. Chamberlain's regiment stood as the final line of defense on the left flank, understanding that if they were to falter, the entire Union position could collapse.

The 15th Regiment Alabama Infantry, commanded by Col. William C. Oates, charged up the hill multiple times attempting to flank the Union position. The line of the 20th Maine was doubled back upon itself, with a squad well off to the left. Despite multiple casualties and ammunition almost gone, Chamberlain recognized the dire circumstance and ordered his left wing to initiate a bayonet charge. The resulting action, with the left wing wheeling to make the charging line swing like a hinge, created a simultaneous frontal assault and flanking maneuver. Chamberlain's decisive action against Oates' Alabama brigade, risking their lives in a suicidal bayonet charge when they were nearly overwhelmed, successfully safeguarded the flank of the army on LRT.  101 of the Confederate soldiers were captured and the charge saved the flank. Chamberlain sustained one slight wound in the battle when a shot hit his sword scabbard and bruised his thigh. After initiating the maneuver, a Confederate officer wielding a revolver fired, narrowly missing his face. Chamberlain put his saber at the officer's throat and accepted the man's surrender. He received the Medal of Honor for this action.

Warren encountered Patrick “Paddy” O’Rorke, a former student and fellow New Yorker. Despite being ordered to follow his brigade commander, Steven Weed.. Warren knew O’Rorke from West Point, having been his Mathematics instructor.  Warren rode up to O’Rorke and ordered him to reinforce Little Round Top; “Never mind (your Brigade Orders), Paddy. Bring them up on the double-quick and don’t stop for aligning. I’ll take the responsibility.”

O’Rorke did not hesitate.  Warren’s aide was George Washington Roebling, who would later build the Brooklyn Bridge.  He guided O’Rorke and his men to the correct position on the hill. Reaching the top, O’Rorke saw the line of 16th Michigan holding tentatively. O’Rorke drew his sword shouting: “Down this way, boys!” The 140th “advanced, following their Colonel.  Despite a devastating volley in which men fell the men exhausted from their march nevertheless moved up. O’Rorke retrieved the regimental flag and urged his men forward.   Then a bullet hit him in the neck and he fell mortally wounded. This courageous action led to O’Rorke being killed, but he is remembered as one of the bravest American military figures, with his likeness being the focal point of the 140th NY monument on LRT today.

Weed then followed, and brought up his artillery commanded by Lt Charles Hazlett. Both were killed in a memorable moment, and the rock they were killed on remains a huge attraction.

General Sykes in his report on the action stated: “Vincent, Weed, and Hazlett, chiefs lamented throughout the corps and army, sealed with their lives the spot intrusted to their keeping, and on which so much depended.... General Weed and Colonel Vincent, officers of rare promise, gave their lives to their country.”

 

The Attack Continues

The unsuccessful assault by the Third Corps division of Maj. Gen. Richard H. Anderson against the Union center on Cemetery Ridge was the final chapter. Anderson's brigades attacked en echelon, or at least, most of them.  But unlike Hood and McLaws, Anderson's division had no support line.  It had not been intended to make a main effort.  Instead, its brigades were to advance in sequence, as McLaws moved north into its sector.  It would have supported what was already a success. Instead, with Hood's and McLaws' attacks going elsewhere, Anderson was essentially forced to make a primary effort, which his deployment was not suited to.  With no secondary lines, his brigades couldn't exploit any success they might attain.  Once they encountered resistance, they had to withdraw.

The fighting continued into the looming dusk. The sun was sinking, and with it, Confederate hopes of a breakthrough. Intense fighting raged on Culps Hill, Devil’s Den, the Wheatfield, and Cemetery Ridge. The killing fields were covered with soldiers, and horses, and burned and destroyed farms and artillery. The “lines” at this point were hypothetical in some places, as the enemy approached at unexpected angles and from above and below. The scenes were those of almost complete chaos. The bodies of the dead were everywhere.

 

Devil’s Den:

Devil's Den, located at the extreme left of the III Corps salient under Birney's Division, holds significant geological importance as it is a southern extension of Houck's Ridge and is characterized by its massive boulders. This area proved to be a strategic position for Confederate sharpshooters who took cover behind these boulders and engaged in long-range firing. The Union left flank faced a threat from two regiments of Law's brigade, followed by an attack from Benning and Anderson's brigades of Hood's Division, which exploited a gap in the defense. Despite reinforcements, the Confederate forces outnumbered the Union by a ratio of 5000 to 2500, resulting in a forced retreat. The casualties suffered by both sides amounted to approximately one-third of their respective forces.

 

Wheatfield:

The Wheatfield was a triangular-shaped field situated at the base of LRT. It was a crucial battleground with road connections spanning the entire fighting zone. Combatants from both sides entered this 20-acre field and launched attacks, only to face unexpected counterattacks from various angles. Owned by John Rose, the Wheatfield was bordered by Rose Woods to the west and Stony Hill, a slight elevation. Houck's Ridge lay to the southeast, while Devil's Den stood to the south. Although elements of the III Corps primarily defended this area, General Meade recognized the vulnerability of Sickles' salient and ordered Caldwell's division from the II Corps, under the command of Hancock, to assist. Notably, the leadership of Samuel Zook, Patrick Kelly (the Irish Brigade), and Edward Cross, who led three brigades, emerged as heroes. The Confederate brigades of Semmes, Anderson, and Kershaw confronted a total of six Federal brigades, resulting in casualties amounting to approximately 30% of all engaged forces.

Colonel Regis de Trobriand, commanding the 38th NY, played a pivotal role in the Wheatfield. His brigade displayed unwavering determination against the relentless assaults launched by Hood's division, particularly the Georgia brigade led by Brigadier General George T. Anderson and the South Carolina brigade commanded by Brigadier General Joseph B. Kershaw. Despite facing overwhelming odds, de Trobriand's brigade valiantly held their ground until they were relieved by units from Major General John C. Caldwell's division of the II Corps. But there was a terrible price—every third man in Trobriand's brigade was a casualty. Despite a personal commendation by his commander, General Birney, he was not promoted for two more years, nor given a medal, likely because he was French, older, and not from West Point. He had a distinguished military career after the war and was an artist and author.

Col. Edward E Cross, 2nd Corps, 1st Division brigade commander.  Positioned on the left of the division's battle line as it entered the Wheatfield, Cross led his brigade with valor and determination. During the fighting, Cross was mortally wounded while at the left of his line near the Rose Woods. He died the next day at a field hospital.  He normally wore a red bandana into battle but having had a premonition of his death wore a black one this day instead which he was wearing when he was cut down leading his brigade into the Wheatfield leading Caldwell's division to support the advanced position of the under attack 3rd Corps. Hancock told him he would be promoted to Brigadier General after that battle, which is when he announced his premonition. 

Samuel Zook: On July 2, 1863, the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, Brig. Gen. John C. Caldwell's division, including Zook's brigade, was sent to reinforce the crumbling III Corps line that was being assaulted by the Confederate corps of Lt. Gen. James Longstreet. Zook was directed by one of the III Corps staff officers toward the Wheatfield to reinforce the brigade of Col. Régis de Trobriand and to fill a gap near Stony Hill. Zook, on horseback, led his men up the hill, which attracted the attention of men from the advancing 3rd and 7th South Carolina Infantry regiments, of Joseph B. Kershaw's brigade. He was struck by rifle fire in the shoulder, chest, and abdomen, and taken behind the lines for medical treatment at a toll house on the Baltimore Pike. He died from his wounds on July 3.

 

Cemetery Ridge:

At the top of the “ladder” was Richard Anderson's division of AP Hill's 3rd Corps, which along with Confederate brigades under Cadmus Wilcox, David Lang, and Ambrose Wright made a final attempt at Cemetery Ridge. The brigades of Carnot Posey and William Mahone did not attack, for reasons that remain obscure and controversial.

The Wilcox and Lang attacks drove Humphrey’s line, at the left of the Sickles salient, back toward Cemetery Ridge. Fighting an intense retreat, Humphreys’ resistance gave Meade and Hancock a chance to find reinforcements for the onslaught that was gathering, which was Lee’s idea all along. They had to bring XII Corps from Culps Hill, as we discussed previously.

William Colvill. During the intense fighting in the Wheatfield, AP Hill’s Corps made a move towards the Union center. He deployed the 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Division, led by Col. George Willard, to counter the advance of Confederate Brigadier General William Barksdale's Brigade. Meanwhile, as Hancock searched for reinforcements, he spotted Wilcox's brigade positioned near the base of the ridge, targeting a gap in the Union line. With time being of the essence, Hancock made a crucial decision to call upon the 1st Minnesota, Harrow's Brigade, of the 2nd Division of the II Corps, to confront Wilcox's division. Despite being vastly outnumbered, Hancock ordered the 1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiment to engage in a desperate bayonet charge against the much larger Confederate brigade four times its size. 

Colonel Colville had been arrested on the way to the Gettysburg battlefield for allowing his men to ford a river on logs chasing the Confederate army into Maryland. His regiment arrived in Gettysburg on the morning of July 2 after traveling 14 miles every day for 11 days, finally resting on Cemetery Ridge.

Pointing towards a Confederate flag flying over the advancing enemy line, Hancock urged Col. William Colvill to lead his men in capturing the colors. He shouted to Col. William Colvill, "Advance, Colonel, and take those colors!" The 262 Minnesotans bravely charged the Alabama brigade with fixed bayonets, managing to halt their progress at Plum Run but suffering devastating losses in the process, with 215 casualties (82%), including 40 fatalities or severe injuries. Col. Colville, who had been detained on his way to the Gettysburg battlefield for allowing his troops to cross a river on logs while pursuing the Confederate forces into Maryland, eventually arrived at Gettysburg on July 2 after an arduous journey. The 1st Minnesota became an iconic regiment that survived more casualties percentage-wise than any other during any other single battle. Due to heroic action there, Colvilll was severely wounded, requiring a cane for the rest of his life.

Despite claims that Wright's brigade "pierced the Union line", the best it seems to have done was attain a brief lodgment on its right wing, which it could neither hold nor exploit, and had to relinquish.  The Union veterans of the action disputed even this interpretation. The only reason that part of Wright's Brigade managed to pass towards the top of Cemetery Ridge was that the 22nd Georgia (and part of the 3rd Georgia) struck a hole in Gibbon's line that had been created when part of Hall's Brigade was sent south to stabilize the line as the Third Corps retreated. On his left where he smacked into the face of the Philadelphia Brigade, Wright was stopped cold and never made it closer than 30 yards from the stone wall. Posey and Mahone would have been facing two of Hays' brigades and numerous guns on Cemetery Hill. They would have been running a gauntlet to approach the Union line. They may have seen something like what Pettigrew and Trimble faced on the afternoon of July 3.

Freeman McGilvery. McGilvery identified a vulnerable and unguarded gap in the Union's defensive line situated at the southern part of Cemetery Ridge, just north of LRT. In response to this critical finding, McGilvery skillfully assembled a makeshift artillery line by gathering cannons from different commands to fortify the gap. Although lacking infantry support initially, McGilvery's strategically positioned "Plum Run line" of fieldpieces played a crucial role in thwarting the Confederate forces' final push towards the heart of the Union's position.

 

Summary

As the battle neared its end, Longstreet's assault had been stopped despite the possibility of breakthroughs in different areas. The question arises: would the addition of more troops have changed the outcome? If Anderson had followed orders and deployed all five brigades instead of just three, in a coordinated and echelon formation, could Cemetery Ridge have been breached? The absence of 3,000 men between Posey and Mahone, as well as the lack of support from Wofford's Georgia Brigade for Barksdale's Mississippi Brigade, impeded the success of the attack. If Anderson's forces had been at full strength with all five brigades engaged, there might have been a chance to secure a foothold on a portion of Cemetery Ridge. However, similar to Pickett's Charge the next day, the lack of reinforcements to maintain the breakthrough would have posed a significant challenge against the inevitable counterattack. There were no reserves or supports prepared to exploit any breakthrough, and the dwindling daylight further complicated the situation.

Most importantly, by 6 pm, the tide had turned. The Union had gained the numerical advantage, with more reinforcements heading towards Cemetery Ridge. The presence of additional Union divisions, fresh brigades, and elements of other corps nearby solidified the Union's position. The remnants of Robinson's and Doubleday's Divisions (including Stannard's fresh brigade) and elements of the Sixth and Twelfth Corps were nearby. Despite the temporary advantage that Lee's forces had initially held, the overwhelming strength of the Union forces, combined with the fading daylight, worked against any potential breakthroughs. The brief advantage that fate had bestowed upon Lee was now gone.

 

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

 

 

Further Reading

·       Harry W Pfanz, Gettysburg: The Second Day. University of North Carolina Press, 1987.

·       Glenn Tucker, High Tide at Gettysburg. Bobbs-Merrill, 1958.

Lee and Longstreet at Gettysburg. MacMillan Publishing Company. 1968.

·       Edwin B Coddington, The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command. Charles Scribner, 1968.

·       James Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox: Memoirs of the Civil War in America. 2nd edition, Lippincott, 1912. Accessed at: http://www.wtj.com/archives/longstreet/

·       Richard Moe, The Last Full Measure: The Life and Death of the First Minnesota Volunteers. HarperCollins Publishers, 1994.

·       https://aoh.com/2019/03/25/patrick-ororke-a-forgotten-hero-of-gettysburg/

·       https://killedatgettysburg.org/patrick-ororke-140th-new-york/

·       Schmidt, Jim. "The Medical Department: A Thorn in the Lion of the Union", Civil War News, October 2000.

·       https://www.civilwarmed.org/chamberlain/

·       https://www.historynet.com/20-fateful-decisions-at-gettysburg/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=hnt-hnn-theme

·       James M McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom. Oxford University Press, 1988.

·       Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative. Volumes 1-3. Random House, 1963.

·       Stephen W Sears, Gettysburg. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.

·       Carol Reardon and Tom Vossler, A Field Guide to Gettysburg, Second Edition: Experiencing the Battlefield through Its History, Places, and People. University of North Carolina Press, 2017.

·       J David Petruzzi, The Complete Gettysburg Guide. SavasBeattie, 2009.

On January 30, 1948, the world mourned the loss of one of its greatest advocates for peace and nonviolence, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, affectionately known as Mahatma Gandhi. His assassination sent shockwaves through India and the rest of the world, leaving many to ponder the question: What if Gandhi had not been assassinated?

Terry Bailey considers this question.

Mahatma Gandhi in 1942.

Before delving into the hypothetical, it's crucial to understand the profound impact Gandhi had during his lifetime. His philosophy of nonviolent resistance, or Satyagraha, not only played a major role in India's independence movement but also inspired countless civil rights and freedom movements worldwide. Gandhi's teachings on ahimsa, (nonviolence) and his emphasis on social justice continue to resonate with people across generations.

If Gandhi had not been assassinated, his presence would have significantly influenced post-independence India's political landscape. At the time of his death, India was grappling with religious and political tensions, particularly between Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi's vision for a united, pluralistic India would have likely shaped policies and initiatives aimed at fostering harmony and inclusivity.

Gandhi was a staunch advocate for economic self-sufficiency and rural development. His promotion of khadi, (hand-spun cloth) and cottage industries was aimed to empower rural communities and reduce dependence on imported goods. Had Gandhi lived longer, he might have spearheaded initiatives to strengthen India's rural economy and bridge the urban-rural divide, emphasizing sustainable development practices.

 

Reforms

Another area where Gandhi's prolonged presence could have made a significant impact is in social reforms and equality. He championed the rights of marginalized communities, including Dalits, (formerly known as untouchables) and women. Gandhi's advocacy for social justice would likely have continued, influencing policies and societal norms to address caste discrimination, gender inequality, and other social injustices.

Beyond India's borders, Gandhi's influence on international relations and peace building would have been profound. His principles of nonviolence and dialogue could have played a crucial role in resolving conflicts and promoting peaceful coexistence among nations. Gandhi's leadership on global platforms would have amplified calls for disarmament, human rights, and environmental stewardship.

 

However, it's essential to acknowledge that Gandhi's continued presence would not have been without challenges and opposition. His ideologies faced criticism from various quarters, including radical factions and those advocating for more aggressive approaches to governance and conflict resolution. Navigating these differing viewpoints while staying true to his principles would have been a delicate balance for Gandhi.

 

Legacy

Even without the hypothetical scenario of Gandhi surviving beyond 1948, his legacy has endured, albeit in different ways. His teachings and philosophy continue to inspire movements for justice, equality, and peace worldwide. Gandhi's emphasis on individual and collective responsibility for social change still remains relevant in addressing contemporary challenges.

It cannot be more over stated that the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi robbed the world of a visionary leader whose influence extended far beyond his lifetime. Imagining a world where Gandhi had not been assassinated offers interesting insight into the potential trajectories of India's development, global peace efforts, and social justice movements. While we can only speculate on what might have been, Gandhi's teachings continue to guide and inspire people in their quests for a better world, reminding us of the enduring power of nonviolence, truth, and compassion.

 

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

George E. Stephens was a Civil War hero from Philadelphia. He was outraged at not initially being able to fight as he was an African America, so took other roles until free African Americans could join the war.

The 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regimentat the Second Battle of Fort Wagner in July 1863. By Kurz & Allison.

When It came to the cause of freedom, George E. Stephens was the first to step up.

It’s been 160 years since the last of George E. Stephens correspondence letters were sent to the New York Weekly Anglo-African, and 35 years since the Civil War movie Glory hit movie theaters around the country. The film depicts the formation of the 54th Massachusetts who bravery led the attack on the Confederate defenses at Fort Wagner in Charleston Harbor in July of 1863.

He is even loosely based on a character in the 1989 film.

Stephens was born in Philadelphia in 1832, the son of William Stephens, worked who would eventually become a lay preacher in the First African Baptist Church, which became extremely active in the abolitionist movement and ultimately in the Underground Railroad.

Although we don’t know much about Stephens’ education, it is probable that he received an education through the Quakers and possibly the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.

Honoring African American Mathematician Benjamin Banneker, he joined a group of fifteen to form The Banneker Institute (a literary society.) Ironically, he was nearly enslaved between 1857–1858 around where the 54th Massachusetts would make their galant charge on Fort Wagner in 1863.

During the Civil War, he initially signed on as a cook and began sending war correspondences to the New York Weekly Anglo-African. 

Stephens was a driving force in enlisting men to join the 54th in Philadelphia and would himself signup with the regiment in April 1863 as a Sergeant.

During the brave attack on Fort Wagner on July 18, 1863 the 54th Massachusetts emerged after 7:30 P.M. and advanced up the sandy beach. By the time that the regiment’s charge arrived at the parapet of Wagner, they had withstood immense casualties. Among the 272 men killed from the regiment was commander Colonel Shaw, whose sword was taken from his body after the battle. 

Fellow Sergeant William H. Carney, upon seeing that the United States flag was faltering and about to drift into the sand, grabbed it and moved forward despite being wounded. After being pulled to safety, he refused to let go of the colours saying that he had not let them touch the ground.

Stephens was at the center of the 54th’s advance on Fort Wagner. He was wounded but managed to survive and escape without being captured.

After the Civil War, he spent time as a cabinet maker and upholsterer and also as a sailor and also educated newly freed slaves.

Stephens died in Brooklyn, New York in April 1888.

In 1997, editor Donald Yacovone released “A Voice of Thunder: The Civil War Letters of George E. Stephens.”

 

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

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

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 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.

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 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

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.

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