USA prisoners of war: From the American Revolution to the Civil War

Warning: This blog post contains some disturbing pictures. One of these in particular is very graphic, and may merit special caution.

I grew up on prisoner-of-war movies – like “Stalag 17,” “The Great Escape,” and “The Bridge on the River Kwai.” They are particularly popular when depicting World War II, or certain other wars of the twentieth century. But relatively little has been said about American prisoners of war in prior conflicts. For example, little has been said about POWs in the American Revolution and the Civil War. Thus, I wanted to fill in some of the gaps here, and talk about our “POWs” (or “Prisoners Of War”) in some of these other periods. I should note that most of these periods were before the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions. Thus, modern rules and laws about the treatment of POWs did not yet apply in some of these periods. The stories of captured Americans, and those that we captured for ourselves, will tell us much about who we were as a people – and who we are today.

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

Abraham Lincoln prevented Great Britain from supporting the Confederacy

“England's course towards the United States during the rebellion exasperated the people of this country very much against the mother country. I regretted it. England and the United States are natural allies, and should be the best of friends. They speak one language, and are related by blood and other ties.”

– Ulysses S. Grant, in the Conclusion of the “Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant” (1885)

There was a real danger that Great Britain would support the Confederacy …

The biggest issue of Abraham Lincoln’s presidency was the rebellion of the Southern states, and the Civil War that quickly erupted when they tried to leave the Union in 1861. There may be good reason for thinking of this kind of domestic rebellion as a “domestic” policy issue. But it also involved complicated foreign policy, as the Southern states tried to get European powers to intervene on their behalf. In particular, the South tried to get Queen Victoria’s British Empire to support the Confederate war efforts. If this had happened, there was a chillingly real possibility that the Civil War would have ended very differently than it did. For example, we might have been forced to become two countries, with chattel slavery living on for years in the more southern country. Abraham Lincoln was just as determined to prevent this from happening. To some degree, Civil War diplomacy also involved distant France, nearby Mexico, and the various Native American tribes who made various choices about whom to ally with. But the two sides’ respective relationships with Britain were the most important theatres of the chess game, since the British had the most power to affect the war’s outcome. Thus, an examination of the Civil War diplomacy might be in order here, to show how both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis conducted diplomacy with the mighty British Empire.

Charles Francis Adams, Sr. – Lincoln’s ambassador to Britain

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

Warren G. Harding: Popular in life, unpopular in death

Warren G. Harding is now known as one of the worst presidents in American history. Many today would even consider him the very worst, although he has several painful contenders for this dubious distinction. But, surprisingly, he was quite popular during his lifetime – and during his presidency. The scandals of his administration only surfaced after he died of a heart attack while in office. Why was he popular in life? Where did he come from, and how did he get to the White House? And how did his presidency become such a train wreck, living in posthumous infamy until the present day? These are the questions that this post will attempt to explain. This post will give a brief overview of the career of Warren Gamaliel Harding, a bitter train wreck of a president.

Warren G. Harding

Even after 1776, the Founding Fathers remained proud of their British heritage

“In England, for a long time after the Norman Conquest, the authority of the monarch was almost unlimited. Inroads were gradually made upon the prerogative, in favor of liberty, first by the barons, and afterwards by the people, till the greatest part of its most formidable pretensions became extinct. But it was not till the revolution in 1688, which elevated the Prince of Orange to the throne of Great Britain, that English liberty was completely triumphant.”

– Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 26), written 1787

Our Founding Fathers rebelled against Great Britain, but were still proud of their heritage

In the thirteen American colonies, George Washington once fought on behalf of the mother country of Great Britain. At that time, the colonies had not even contemplated declaring their independence from Great Britain. Therefore, George Washington fought as a British soldier, early in the “French and Indian War” (as it is now called). Benjamin Franklin spent an even longer portion of his life being patriotic to Great Britain, and even working as part of the distant British government. Nonetheless, both men would eventually rebel against the mother country, with Benjamin Franklin voting in the Continental Congress to declare independence from Great Britain. George Washington would even take up arms against the British Empire on the battlefield. For many years, the British (and their American Loyalist allies) would be extremely unpopular in the rebellious American colonies, and in the new American republic that was soon succeeding them. This would eventually lead the colonies to fight against Great Britain one more time in the War of 1812, under President James Madison. Thus, you might expect that the Founding Fathers would have begun to hate their British heritage. But, on the contrary, they continued to remain proud of many aspects of their British heritage. This post will attempt to show this, and explain why they were right to remain proud of the mother country’s heritage, even after 1776.

Lord Cornwallis surrenders to General George Washington at Yorktown, 1781

A review of Ken Burns’ “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History”

A miniseries covering Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Eleanor Roosevelt

Just as the Americans remember Mr. Churchill, so do the British remember Mr. Roosevelt. But when people in Britain hear the name “Roosevelt,” they tend to think of Franklin Roosevelt, the man who led the United States during World War II. Many in Britain don’t even realize that there was another “Roosevelt” president before him. That is, there was Theodore Roosevelt, in the early twentieth century. Theodore Roosevelt is a little more famous in America than he is abroad. Nonetheless, even Americans will hear the word “Roosevelt,” and instead think of his fifth cousin Franklin Roosevelt. There were two famous divisions of the Roosevelt family, of which this documentary makes extensive note. One was the “Oyster Bay Roosevelts,” the branch that produced Theodore Roosevelt. The other was the “Hyde Park Roosevelts,” the branch that produced FDR. But there was another Roosevelt who was one of the bridges between these two branches – although there were other marriages between the branches. That is, there was Eleanor Roosevelt. She was born into the “Oyster Bay Roosevelts” as Theodore Roosevelt’s niece. But she married into the “Hyde Park Roosevelts,” when she married FDR – her own fifth cousin once removed. These are the three principal characters of the story.