The Latin American wars of independence were followed by … more wars?

The Napoleonic Wars sparked some serious wars of independence throughout Latin America. One portion of Spanish America after another became independent from Spain, and Brazil likewise became independent from Portugal. During these wars, the United States declared its “Monroe Doctrine,” pledging to keep European nations from making any additional encroachments into the New World. But, despite the American “Monroe Doctrine,” European nations continued to interfere in Latin America, even after the Spanish and the Portuguese had officially been kicked out of their former colonies. The Brazilian War of Independence would end in 1824, and the Spanish American wars of independence would finally end in 1833. But the remaining portions of the nineteenth century saw further wars in Latin America. Commercial considerations kept European powers in the picture there, although the distances continued to create some logistical challenges for the faraway Europeans. This post will focus specifically on the wars in South America, and how they rocked the continent in the post-independence parts of the nineteenth century. It is a story of distant empires interfering in local politics, and even of conflicts with similar cultures that were much closer to home on the continent.

The Chincha Islands of Peru being occupied by Spanish sailors, 1864

Napoleon’s 1812 invasion of Russia led to his downfall

“From the day of exchanging the ratification of the present treaties, there shall be perfect peace and amity between his majesty the emperor of the French [Napoleon], king of Italy, and his majesty the emperor of all the Russias.”

– “Treaty of Tilsit, 7 July 1807,” between Napoleon Bonaparte of France and “Alexander the First” of Russia – a treaty which was soon broken in 1812, when Napoleon invaded Russia

In 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte came to the throne of France. He was the victor of campaigns in the “French Revolutionary Wars,” and must have seemed truly “invincible.” But his world came crashing down all around him, when his forces were defeated while invading Russia in 1812. How did all of this happen? How did the most powerful man in Europe become a prisoner in St. Helena by 1815 – later to die as a prisoner in 1821? How did the Russian people rally against the French (and other invaders) in this campaign? And what do certain prior events in the Napoleonic Wars, such as Russia’s twice switching sides in that conflict, tell us about Napoleon’s invasion of Russia? In this post, I will try to answer these questions. I will show how the larger “Napoleonic Wars” turned around in this massive Russian campaign. And I will show how Napoleon’s downfall owed much to his being routed by the Russians during this invasion.

Paul the First of Russia

Why are certain European languages so often spoken in Africa? (Answer: History)

“A Declaration introducing into international relations certain uniform rules with reference to future occupations on the coast of the African Continent. And deeming it expedient that all these several documents should be combined in one single instrument, they (the Signatory Powers) have collected them into one General Act, composed of the following Articles …”

– “General Act of the Berlin Conference on West Africa” (26 February 1885) – an agreement among some of the European powers

Many of the contemporary languages of Africa came to the continent from elsewhere …

Many of the contemporary languages of Africa came to the continent from elsewhere. Even the Arabic language arrived from the Middle East, although this was fairly early in (North) African history. Arabic is the dominant language of Muslim North Africa today, as you may know. In fact, Arabic is the most spoken language in Africa today. But many other languages on the African continent arrived from Europe, during the “Scramble for Africa” – which was mostly during the nineteenth century. Thus, the languages of English, French, and Portuguese are among the most spoken languages on this continent. To a lesser degree, Spanish is also spoken in certain parts of Africa, and has a presence there. This would surprise many, because we expect Africans to speak various languages that are native to the continent (such as Swahili – or “Kiswahili,” as it is sometimes called). And, very often, they do speak native African languages. But the European languages also have a strong presence in Africa, which is a legacy of the past colonization there. How did all of this happen, you might be wondering? That is what this post will be undertaking to explain. I have discussed other African colonies from Germany and Italy in another post, and their various effects on the World Wars (more about that here). Thus, I will not attempt to duplicate much of that coverage here. Rather, I will instead focus this post on the bigger colonization by Britain, France, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal – some of which were very influential, as I will show later on. I will also throw in a number of country names – and, at times, dates. But it is not expected that the reader will remember any of these details. Rather, I just hope that I will convey the feeling of how complicated these geopolitics were, and answer a possible reader’s question about how these European languages came to be in Africa. This came in the context of European colonization elsewhere in the world.

Front view of fort São João Baptista – Portuguese Benin, 1917

Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

– 8th and 9th Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (1842), as written by the Prophet Joseph Smith

I am a believer in the Holy Bible – both the Old and New Testaments

I am a believer in the Holy Bible. I was raised on the stories that it contains, and still try to study them today. I’ve been trying to learn Biblical Hebrew and Greek for some time now, because I would like to one day read the Holy Bible in the original. Hebrew is the primary language of the Old Testament (or the “Hebrew Bible,” if you prefer), while Greek was the original language of the New Testament.

A review of PBS’s “The Gilded Age” (American Experience)

A portrait of capitalism (and some other things) in late nineteenth-century America

This film is a portrait of capitalism (and some other things) in late nineteenth-century America. This is the era now known as “The Gilded Age.” It’s possible to have too much regulation in an economy, but it’s also possible to have too little, and this era (in general) had too little. Corporations purchased monopolies and other special privileges from the government. This would lead to antitrust laws, designed to fight the power of “trusts” (another word for monopolies). But it would also lead to broader debates about the nature of capitalism itself. Should the government try to redistribute wealth? How should we take care of the poor? How do you prevent capitalism from turning into “robber-baron capitalism,” a phrase often associated with the economic system of this time?

Toluca Street Oil Field in Los Angeles oil district, circa 1895–1901

The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily designed to be legally sound …

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

– Abraham Lincoln, in his letter to Horace Greeley (August 22nd, 1862)

On September 22nd, 1862, Abraham Lincoln issued what is sometimes called the “Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.” In it, he basically said that if the Southern states were not back in the Union by New Year's Day 1863, then he would free their slaves. (The actual Emancipation Proclamation came on New Year's Day itself, when he actually did so.) One commentator actually said that it's “the dullest thing you ever read.” With two possible exceptions, neither one has any soaring rhetoric or ringing phrases, and “here was a guy who could do that,” as this commentator said. Why did Lincoln choose not to do that with the Emancipation Proclamations (and there are actually two of them)?

First reading of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln

A review of “Queen Victoria's Empire” (PBS Empires)

“ ♪ Rule, Britannia!
Britannia, rule the waves.
And Britons never, never, never shall be slaves. ♪ ”

– “Rule, Britannia!” (1740), a British patriotic song written decades before Queen Victoria was born

At the height of the British Empire, it was the largest empire in the history of the world. Its geography was so widespread that people often commented that the sun “never set” on its borders. Actually, it is not the only empire in history to be described in this way, but it may still be the most prominent of them. The British Empire actually predates Queen Victoria's reign by some centuries, with its “first empire” going from 1583 to 1783 (the year that they lost America). The “second empire” went from 1783 to 1815, the year that the Napoleonic Wars ended. But a number of historians believe that Britain's “imperial century” was from 1815 to 1914, the year that World War One began. Queen Victoria reigned for more than half of this latter period, as it turns out, and was alive for an even larger share of it – part of which was before she assumed the throne in 1837. Thus, historians sometimes refer to this empire as “Queen Victoria's” empire, and to this era of British history as the “Victorian era.”

A review of PBS's “The Gold Rush”

The California Gold Rush is one of those events that tends to have been heard of by the public, but is often overlooked by popular historians today for a number of reasons,. Among them is that it is partially an economic story, and thus considered less "sexy" than the more "traditional" topics of politics and the military. Nonetheless, the Gold Rush is a monumental event in the history of America which had massive repercussions on the history of the West, causing the rapid colonization of California by White immigrants (and a handful of Chinese immigrants), and creating the ethnic mix that California is so known for today - since it is a race relations story as much as it is anything else, fraught with interest for anyone interested in American history. (But more on the particulars of that later.)

Sutter's Fort - California, 1849 (not to be confused with Sutter's Mill)

A review of PBS's “The Abolitionists”

"No person held to service or labour [a. k. a. "slavery"] in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."

- Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the original Constitution  (a. k. a. the "Fugitive Slave Clause"), later superseded by the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865

The meaning of the word "abolitionist" was kept secret from slaves ...

The future abolitionist Frederick Douglass was a young slave boy when he first heard the word "abolitionist." He said it was some time before he found out what the word meant, even though "it was always used in such connections as to make it an interesting word to [him] ... If a slave ran away and succeeded in getting clear, or if a slave killed his master, set fire to a barn, or did any thing very wrong in the mind of a slaveholder, it was spoken of as the fruit of abolition." He did not dare to ask any one about its meaning, he said, because he was "satisfied that it was something that they wanted [him] to know very little about." The dictionary afforded him little or no help, because it said only that it was "the act of abolishing," without mentioning what it was that was to be "abolished." (He was entirely correct that his masters didn't want him to know about it, and would have punished him severely if he had made any inquiries to them about its meaning.)

Frederick Douglass

... because it referred to the abolition of slavery

Thus, it was not until later that he finally discovered the mysterious secret of the word's meaning: "I got one of our city papers," Douglass said later, "containing an account of the number of petitions from the north, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and of the slave trade between the States." (He was a literate man, it should be noted; in an age when slaves who knew how to read could be punished severely for the "offense" of literacy. He was thus one of a number of slaves who risked their lives just for the knowledge of learning how to read.) "From this time," he said, "I understood the words abolition and abolitionist, and always drew near when that word was spoken, expecting to hear something of importance to myself and [my] fellow-slaves." This early encounter with the abolitionist movement for Frederick Douglass, although brief, would have an enormous effect on his life; giving him the courage to escape from slavery once and for all, even after a first escape attempt had resulted in severe punishment. He also joined the abolitionist movement as one of its most distinguished supporters - contributing much to the cause of black freedom, before and after the Civil War.

Latin America became independent because of Napoleonic Wars – (well, partially)

" ... the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers ... "

- The Monroe Doctrine, expressed by James Monroe (then the President of the United States) in his Seventh Annual State of the Union Address (2 December 1823)

What does Napoleon have to do with Latin American independence?

When Napoleon's troops went to occupy Spain and Portugal, they set off a chain reaction of events that had massive effects on the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in Latin America - including, eventually, independence. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Napoleon Bonaparte

A review of “The War of 1812” (PBS program)

"No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

- Excerpt from a lesser-known verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner," written by Francis Scott Key in 1814

This war would be unthinkable today ...

It's hard to imagine today that there could have been a war between America, Britain, and Canada - and in those rare times when we do imagine such a war, the war that Americans usually think of is the American War of Independence (or the "American Revolution," as we in America usually call it). Most Americans have some vague recollection from their middle school history class that there was a war in 1812, but they couldn't give you much information at all about where it was fought, or whom it was fought against. Even the "when" of the war is somewhat unknown, since the term "War of 1812" is actually something of a misnomer. "The War That Began in 1812" would be a more accurate term, since the war actually lasted until the year 1815. This is not communicated by the phrase "War of 1812," which makes it sound like it lasted only a single year (when in fact, it lasted for nearly three).

The death of British General Sir Isaac Brock at the Battle of Queenston Heights - Canada, 1812

A review of PBS's “Transcontinental Railroad” movie

"[The Congress shall have the power] To establish post-offices and post-roads ..."

- The United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 7

It allowed a continent to be crossed in just a week, where before it had taken six months or more. It enabled fast transport for trade goods of all kinds, connecting the economies of the continent's East and West coasts. And it unleashed a wave of settlement and colonization, which would have massive effects on the population spread and distribution in the West - and by extension, the history, politics, economics, and even geography of the country.

Snow gallery (a portion of the railroad), while under construction

A review of Ken Burns’ “The Civil War” (PBS series)

"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still must it be said that 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.' "

- Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1865)

It was the bloodiest war in American history, with more American dead than World War II. It was a war that both sides thought would last ninety days, but which ended up dragging on for nearly four years. And it was a war that freed four million Americans from bondage, and brought some sweeping changes to American society.

Confederate dead at Antietam

A review of “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War”

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void."

- Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1868), Section 4

It was the end of a civil war in which four million slaves were freed, but which failed to bring true freedom to the people on whose behalf it had largely been fought. It was called the "Reconstruction Era" because its purpose was to rebuild (and heal) a war-torn nation, but which saw almost as much violence and destruction as actual reconstruction. And it brought the vote and other rights to the former slaves of the South for a time, only to see those rights taken away almost overnight when the Reconstruction Era ended in a corrupt political deal, giving the White South almost everything it wanted.

Confederate capitol of Richmond, 1865 (the end of the war)

Reconstruction period characterized by anarchy, chaos, and even (at times) armed conflict

Much has been written about the military conflict called the "Civil War" (fought between North and South), but not as much has been written about the postwar Reconstruction period, which is perhaps even more complex politically than the war itself. Indeed, some historians have even called it the "Second Civil War," because it was characterized by anarchy, chaos, and even (at times) armed conflict. This was between former Union soldiers occupying the South, and former Confederate soldiers joining the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist organizations, who were trying to undo all that the North had fought and died for.

A review of “The U.S.-Mexican War 1846-1848” (PBS series)

"The occupation, separation, and annexation [of Texas] were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union."

"For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."

- Ulysses S. Grant, in "Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant," Chapter III

I live in a region of the United States that was once controlled by Mexico (in the state of Arizona), so I live daily with the effects of a war from the 1840's. Few people could put this war in the right half-century, let alone the correct decade; and fewer still could name any major battles or players in this war. Nonetheless, the effects of the war are all around us, and it has entered discussions about contemporary politics on more than one occasion. On topics ranging from illegal immigration to anti-Hispanic racism to foreign policy towards Mexico, we in the American Southwest are often reminded of this war. In less controversial ways, we are reminded of it in the many place names of Spanish origin that surround our homes. From names of streets to names of cities to names of entire states, the influence of Spanish place names are all around us, which were often borrowed in their turn from the native peoples of the region. Mexican culture is all around us, from Spanish taught in schools to the remarkable Mexican food that many of us eat; and the region would belong to Mexico still, if not for a long-ago war from the 1840's.

Mexico lost half its territory to the United States in this war ...

The war was, of course, fought between the United States and Mexico, and was the only major war between our two nations. There have been border skirmishes since then (notably one in the 1910's), but nothing on the massive scale of this one from the 1840's. Mexico lost half its territory to the United States in this war, and several American states were formed out of the land transferred in the peace treaty. The war was undoubtedly an act of imperialist aggression motivated (to some degree, at least) by racism. But there's more to the story than that. Imperialism and racism are favorite topics of liberal PBS; but surprisingly, the network manages to tell the story in a documentary for television with a minimum of political correctness, and manages to stick to the facts about this topic most of the time. My judgments might not completely agree with theirs, but I have to hand it to them that their documentary about this war is extremely interesting, and it is of tremendous value to the student of American history, particularly those who (like me) live in the Southwest. Thus, I thought I would offer my review of this documentary here.

A review of PBS Empires “Napoleon”

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."

- Napoleon Bonaparte

He was the ruler of France, but learned French as a second language, and spoke it with an accent. He praised the egalitarian ideals of the French Revolution, but always considered himself a little more equal than everyone else (much like a Marxist that way). And he was a military genius whose victories brought him glory and power, but who lost it all through the tragic flaw of always wanting more, and never knowing where to stop.

How Napoleon is perceived in America

The man was Napoleon Bonaparte, and his name is well known to young and old. But few in America know much about him, or care. It's not only that he lived far away from the world we live in - Americans have a never-ending interest in (and horror of) Adolf Hitler, even though he too was across the Atlantic. But Napoleon is perceived to have had little or no effect on American history. Part of it may be that he was so long ago, but part of it may also be the perception that he was beneficial to our country - that his fighting our mutual enemy of that time (Great Britain) kept us from losing our War of 1812. There may be some truth in this; but regardless of one's feelings about it, he was a major foreign policy issue for the presidencies of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison; and was the central fact of domestic life for the vast majority of the continent of Europe. He hit very close to home for them, and inspired a never-ending fascination with his life that lives on in Europe today.

A review of "Crucible of Empire: the Spanish-American War"

I just finished watching "Crucible of Empire: The Spanish-American War," PBS's two-hour documentary about this time. I was generally impressed by this documentary. One of the pleasant surprises for me was that they did not just cover the American side, but also the Cuban and Filipino sides as well. They interview some Filipino historians in addition to American ones, although there are no interviews with Cubans or Spaniards. The Cuban part is more understandable, since people in this communist country cannot speak their mind freely without fear of government reprisal; but the general omission of the Spanish perspective is something of a mystery, given the pains that they took to depict other perspectives.

Map of the Americas, with Cuba highlighted in red

This war was a two-front war, fought in both Cuba and the Philippines ...

This war of 1898 was really a two-front war, with fighting in both the Caribbean and the Pacific. Thus, the geography of the war is somewhat complicated. On the one hand, Cuba is a Caribbean island close to American Florida; but on the other hand, the Philippines are way across the Pacific Ocean, with distances comparable to those traversed during the Pacific theater of World War II. Thus, the fighting in this war was somewhat spread out.

Far side of the globe, with Philippines highlighted in green

A few problems with “The Communist Manifesto”

"A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter ... Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Two things result from this fact: I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself."

- Opening lines of "The Communist Manifesto" (1848)

I was recently told that I should write a blog post about why Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were wrong - arguing not on values as I did in another post (though there is a place for that as well), but on facts and theories, challenging their dubious factual and theoretical claims.

Karl Marx

Friedrich Engels

In discussing problems with Marxism, where does one start?

To someone who's read and understood their book "The Communist Manifesto," that might seem easy - and in some ways, it is. But in trying to debunk it, I had one big problem: where to start. Despite "The Communist Manifesto" being a tiny book (which I read through in a day), it sometimes seems when I'm reading the book like its two authors were having a competition to see who could cram more fallacies into a small amount of space. And they both won.

Marx and Engels

Discussion of Marxist fallacies is practically a genre in its own right ...

I intend this blog post to be a short one, so I will only be able to summarize this book's problems. But if you're after a more thorough treatment of its fallacies, this is practically a genre in its own right, so there are lots of works to choose from.

My favorite Western film (Lewis and Clark)

I have seen a lot of great Westerns, but my favorite in the genre is not a Hollywood film at all, but a four-hour Ken Burns documentary called "Lewis and Clark: The Journey of the Corps of Discovery."