USA spies: From the American Revolution to the Civil War

“Therefore no one in the armed forces is treated as familiarly as are spies, no one is given rewards as rich as those given to spies, and no matter is more secret than espionage.”

– Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” (5th century BC China), Chapter 13 (as translated by Thomas Cleary)

Information traveled slowly in those days, at the speed of a horse or a sailing ship

Sun Tzu reminds us that spies have been around since antiquity. In the Peloponnesian Wars of Ancient Greece, for example, Alcibiades betrayed Athens to Sparta, then defected to the Persian side, and then returned to Athens. This high-profile treason had a way of making him a little unpopular in certain quarters, to say the least. But most of the glory of espionage tends to go to the later Cold War period of the twentieth century. The latter period has been the subject of movies like “Breach,” “Bridge of Spies,” and (of course) the “James Bond” franchise. We may thus tend to associate spies with high-tech methods, like hacking and computer encryption. But most of the spies in history were somewhat lower-tech, and the embarrassing government secrets could travel no faster than the speed of a horse. And, during the American Revolution, London and Paris were way across the ocean from the critical campaigns in North America. Thus, it could take months for important information to sail across the Atlantic. The news of the American victory at Saratoga took several months to bring France into the war, delaying the all-important French assistance to the outnumbered (and badly outgunned) American rebels.

British surrender at Saratoga, 1777

Some information in this post was once top-secret, while the rest is largely forgotten

But the spy conflicts of the early United States are largely forgotten today. We hear much about the American Revolution and the Civil War in school, but we don’t hear too many stories about the important spies in our earliest conflicts. This is understandable, because the discussions of these wars usually have to focus upon the politics involved therein – and, of course, upon the many battles themselves. But the spy stories of these wars seem to have all the drama of more modern spy conflicts. They have all of the human interest, all of the juicy scandals, and all of the broader strategic importance. Specifically, the spies therein had a great effect on how these wars ultimately played out. Thus, this might be a good time to talk about a few of the spies in America’s earliest conflicts. Some of the information herein was once top-secret. The rest is largely forgotten to the public. But these details tell a story about how the military secrets of both sides were either protected, or (more embarrassingly) leaked – sometimes with catastrophic consequences, for the one side or the other.

Paul Revere’s ride

Why is Zachary Taylor now considered a “forgettable” president?

By 1849, General Zachary Taylor had spent more than four decades in the United States Army. He had become one of the heroes of the Mexican-American War. But, when Zachary Taylor first ran for president, he had never held a political office in his life. Taylor’s political beliefs were vague and largely unknown, making one wonder why the Whig political party decided to choose him as their candidate. But, in 1840, the war with Mexico had just added some massive territories to the American Union, and our national debate over slavery was now increasing in intensity. That is, would these new states be admitted to the Union as “free states” or slave states? And how would this question be decided? When Zachary Taylor first entered the White House in 1849, the seeds of a future civil war were being sown. The prelude to the Civil War arguably began in this year that Zachary Taylor was inaugurated: 1849. The fateful cannon shots at Fort Sumter were then still twelve years in the future, but the nation was now on a fateful collision course … with itself.

Zachary Taylor

Franklin Pierce: One of our most pro-slavery presidents

In the earliest decades of the United States, all successful political parties tried their best to sidestep the controversial issue of slavery. But it became increasingly hard to do this as time went on, because the nation was expanding westward. Thus, people then had to debate about whether slavery would be expanding westward as well. Franklin Pierce continued the westward expansion through the Gadsden Purchase, but slavery rapidly became the biggest issue of his presidency. He hated the abolitionist movement, and the abolitionist movement likewise hated him in return. In 1820, the Congress had enacted the controversial “Missouri Compromise.” This compromise had admitted Missouri as a slave state, while simultaneously admitting Maine as a “free state” (among other policies). But, in 1854, several aspects of this compromise were effectively repealed, when Franklin Pierce signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act into law. He also created controversy by enforcing the prior Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The country was on a fateful collision course with itself, and the drums of a future civil war began to 

beat with ever greater intensity.

Franklin Pierce

American naval power: Playing a crucial role in the rise of the United States

“An act to discontinue, in such manner, and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, shipping of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour, of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America …”

– Long title of the “Trade Act 1774” (also known as the “Boston Port Act 1774”), as passed by the British Parliament – remembered in the United States as one of the “Intolerable Acts”

How the United States went from a vulnerable backwater to a world superpower …

A few of America’s wars began at sea, as part of greater conflicts between Britain and France. America was just an economic and military backwater, and its navy started out as a pinprick and a laughingstock. But the United States would eventually become the mightiest naval power in the world. How did this happen? The roots of this success involve various political and economic factors, which would be too complex to cover here. But they were expressed in the rise of the American military – and, in particular, of the United States Navy. This was how our economic and political rise was most expressed, and the most direct way that this rise was asserted and defended. Thus, an examination of its effects might be in order here, as I show the role of the United States naval power in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This shows how the rise of the United States as a world power was owing (at least in part) to the United States Navy. The navy was involved in some shameful imperial acts, but it also helped the young nation to survive, and to withstand its most vulnerable periods.

Naval engagement in the Barbary Wars, 1804

A story of revolution, defensive actions, imperialist ventures, and civil war

Most coverage of America’s naval conflicts focuses on the Second World War – and, to a lesser degree, on other wars of the twentieth century. But this post will focus on the now-forgotten role of sea power in some of our earlier naval conflicts. That is, it will go from our navy’s beginning in the 1770s, through its role in the Spanish-American War of 1898 – and, eventually, in the “Great White Fleet” of the early 1900s. This was a critical period for the United States, which (chillingly) involved many frightening dangers on land and on sea. During that time, our navy supported unfortunate imperial ventures against Mexico, Cuba, and the Philippines – although those against Native Americans were primarily on land, so I will have to omit them here. (Although I do cover them elsewhere – here, if you’re interested.) But our navy also defended American sovereignty against serious encroachments from Britain and France, and allowed the United States to survive the most staggering threats of its birth and early childhood.

Battle of Lake Erie – Great Lakes (between the United States and Canada), 1813

James K. Polk: President during the Mexican-American War

James K. Polk was one of the most expansionist presidents in American history. In 1845, he oversaw the annexation of the Republic of Texas, which had once belonged to Mexico. In 1846, he oversaw a full-scale war with Mexico, which would lead to the annexation of what is now the American Southwest. Mexico had formerly claimed the Oregon territory as well, but Oregon was divided between the United States and the British Empire in 1846. Oregon then became an incorporated territory of the United States in 1848, also during the presidency of Mr. Polk. But there’s more to the story of James K. Polk than his controversial foreign policy. He was also a believer in Jacksonian democracy, and the last president of the “Jacksonian Era.” James K. Polk is the only Speaker of the House of Representatives ever to be elected president. But who exactly is James K. Polk? What are the complexities of his legacy? And just where did this man come from? These are the questions that this post will try to examine.

James K. Polk

A review of Henry David Thoreau’s “On Civil Disobedience” (audiobook)

“I heartily accept the motto,—‘That government is best which governs least;’ and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.”

– Henry David Thoreau’s “On Civil Disobedience” (published 1849)

In 1846, the American writer Henry David Thoreau refused to pay a tax to support his country’s then-ongoing war with Mexico. He believed that the war was not only unjust in and of itself, but that it would even create new territory into which slavery could expand (a real danger at that time). His fears were not unfounded, and had some sympathetic aspects to them. But they prompted him to write one of the most influential attacks on government ever printed. He lived in an era when government in the United States was already quite small – far smaller than it is today. But Thoreau was suspicious of the idea of having any government at all, and said so in “On Civil Disobedience” (as quoted above).

Henry David Thoreau

A review of “The Mexican-American War” (audiobook)

Living in Arizona, one doesn’t have to ask why the “Mexican-American War” is important. I live in a part of Arizona that was once part of Mexico, but was transferred to the United States in the treaty that ended the war. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo had profound and lasting consequences on both the United States and Mexico. By many reckonings, Mexico lost roughly one-half of its territory to the United States. This is the largest territorial transfer of any war in American history.

A review of PBS’s “The Latino Americans”

“[The Congress shall have the power] To establish an uniform rule of naturalization … ”

– Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 of the United States Constitution (signed 1787)

The United States has more Spanish speakers than any other country in the world, except its southern neighbor of Mexico. This may be ironic, given that the most spoken language in the United States is English. Nonetheless, the United States has a significant Spanish-speaking population, most of whom are native speakers. Indeed, Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority group in the United States – although it is noteworthy that they are not considered a “race” by the United States Census. Rather, “Hispanic or Latino” is considered an ethnicity, and includes people from multiple races, particularly Whites and Native Americans. This reflects the ethnic diversity of their various countries of origin, where White colonists from Spain had frequently intermarried with the locals.

Benjamin Bratt, the Hispanic/Latino narrator of this documentary

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 “Mexico: A History” (by Robert Ryal Miller)

"[The Mexican Empire] solemnly declares by means of the Supreme Junta of the Empire that it is a Sovereign nation and independent of old Spain ... "

- Declaration of the independence of the Mexican Empire, issued by its Sovereign Junta, assembled in the Capital on September 28, 1821

Since early 2012, I have made an effort to learn the Spanish language. The reasons for this are many (and too long to detail here), but chief among them is the local usefulness of the language. I live in Arizona (in the American Southwest); so Spanish is the most important local language besides my native English. The opportunities to use Spanish here are endless, and I have long wanted to know something about the Hispanic population of the Southwest. I have interacted with them for years, at school and at church.

Mexican flag

Mexico has a strong influence on the American Southwest

In the American Southwest, most of the Hispanics are of Mexican descent - in contrast to the strong Cuban descent found in Florida, and the strong Puerto Rican descent found in New York - the other parts of the United States where Spanish-speaking populations are most often found. In the American Southwest, people of Mexican origin are the most common ones, and so I thought it might be helpful to know something about their country of origin. Mexico is one of my country's only two neighbors, incidentally (the other being Canada). It is also the one that is closest to my home state of Arizona - and thus, the nation that we Arizonans do the most trade with outside of our own. (Stuff that my American audience already knows, I'm sure; but I have an international audience here, so the geography of my situation is worth going over.)

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.

The most fascinating man in American history

"My family is American, and has been for generations, in all its branches, direct and collateral."

- Opening lines of "Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant" (1885), in the very first chapter

If you asked your average person what historical individual they find most interesting, you might hear an answer like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, or another Founding Father. These would be excellent choices. But the person I find most interesting would not make most people's list. Although he was voted President of the United States, he is not remembered as a statesman, but as a soldier. He may have been the finest general in American history, but he is mostly forgotten today.

A review of “Ulysses S. Grant: Warrior President”

"The war between the States was a very bloody and a very costly war. One side or the other had to yield principles they deemed dearer than life before it could be brought to an end."

- "Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant" (1885), Conclusion

I had heard the name "Ulysses S. Grant" as a child, and knew he was important; but did not know much about him. I had heard much criticism of Grant's generalship, with the old claim that he was a butcher - an unfavorable characterization voiced by then-First-Lady Mary Todd Lincoln. I also heard some good things about Grant's generalship, and my father was a great admirer of Grant; but everyone seemed to consider Robert E. Lee's generalship superior to his. The general, it seemed, was incompetent; and a drunk to boot. I knew also of the apocryphal story about someone complaining to President Lincoln about Grant's drinking, and then hearing the response to "Find out what he drinks, and I'll send a barrel of it to all my other generals" (or something to that effect).

Abraham Lincoln

Ken Burns' famous depiction of Grant in "The Civil War"

It was in watching Ken Burns' Civil War miniseries that I got to know Grant a little better; to hear Jason Robards read quotes from him, and to hear a brief version of Grant's postwar life. Ken Burns is a little hard on Grant's presidency in the postwar episode, I think, mentioning only its failures in the brief sentence about it. He does do justice to the story of Grant's writing his memoirs, and setting it up with the business failures that prompted his writing them; but he also ignores some important context when mentioning that Grant had someone tied to a tree for several hours for mistreating a horse - the man was ordered to stop doing it, and persisted quite openly in doing so. Mentioning this insubordination would have seemed appropriate to give context; but given the other virtues of the series, I'll let this omission slide.

The definitive film on Grant is this biography by PBS

This American Experience documentary about him is the definitive film on Grant. The Western director John Ford, I am told, wanted to do a biopic about Grant; but never got to do so. A Hollywood movie would have been something, but this documentary is quite impressive as well; making good use of the many photographs of Grant, the people he worked with, and the events he was involved in. They make good use of quotes from Grant's memoirs, and benefit from having one of the most interesting stories in American history to dramatize. I think Grant may be the most fascinating man in American history, and this documentary does him justice.