The Crimean War – Part 6: The Long-term Effects and Historical Significance

The Crimean War (1853–1856) is often remembered for the infamous Charge of the Light Brigade, the pioneering efforts of Florence Nightingale, and the brutal conditions suffered by soldiers on all sides. However, its true significance extends far beyond these well-known episodes. As the final instalment in this series, we examine how the war shaped future conflicts, modern medical practices, political realignments, and cultural legacies. The Crimean War was a crucible of change, marking a transition from traditional to modern warfare and leaving an enduring impact on global history.

Terry Bailey explains.

Read part 1 in the series here, part 2 here, part 3 here, and part 4 here.

A Russian Emancipation Reform took place in 1861. The above painting is Peasants Reading the Emancipation Manifesto, an 1873 painting by Grigory Myasoyedov.

A catalyst for future conflicts

The Crimean War foreshadowed many aspects of later conflicts, particularly the American Civil War (1861–1865) and the First World War (1914–1918). Tactical developments, such as the use of rifled firearms, improved artillery, and early trench warfare, highlighted the obsolescence of Napoleonic-era battle strategies. The war also underscored the importance of logistics, supply lines, and rail transport, elements that would become central to modern warfare.

For the American Civil War, the Crimean War offered key lessons in battlefield medicine, military organization, and the use of industrial technology in war. Notably, Union and Confederate forces adopted the rifled musket and the Minié ball, both of which had proven devastating in Crimea. Additionally, the use of railways to transport troops and supplies became a strategic necessity in the American conflict.

During the First World War, echoes of the Crimean War were unmistakable. Trench warfare, extensive use of artillery bombardments, and the difficulties of siege warfare at Sevastopol found eerie parallels on the Western Front. Furthermore, the Crimean War demonstrated the importance of alliances and diplomacy, a factor that would play a crucial role in shaping the alliances of 1914.

The war's role in modern medical practices

Perhaps one of the most enduring legacies of the Crimean War is its impact on medical care. The appalling conditions in field hospitals, where infections ran rampant and sanitation was virtually nonexistent, led to a medical revolution spearheaded by figures such as Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole. Nightingale's implementation of hygiene protocols, improved ventilation, and systematic patient care dramatically reduced mortality rates.

The war also highlighted the need for organized battlefield nursing, paving the way for the establishment of professional nursing as a respected vocation. Nightingale's work influenced the founding of the modern military medical corps and laid the groundwork for the Geneva Conventions and the Red Cross movement.

Political fallout for Russia and the Ottoman Empire

The Treaty of Paris (1856) ended the Crimean War but left deep political wounds, particularly for Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Russia, previously regarded as an unstoppable force in Eastern Europe, suffered a humiliating defeat that exposed its military and logistical shortcomings.

The war spurred Tsar Alexander II to initiate the Great Reforms, including the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 and the modernization of the Russian military. These reforms, while significant, also sowed the seeds of future unrest and revolution.

For the Ottoman Empire, the war briefly strengthened its position as a European power, but it also underscored its dependence on British and French support. The empire's chronic instability and economic weaknesses persisted, contributing to its gradual decline and eventual collapse in the early 20th century.

Enduring cultural legacy

The Crimean War left an indelible mark on literature, art, and memorial culture. Alfred, Lord Tennyson's poem The Charge of the Light Brigade immortalized the tragic heroism of British cavalrymen, ensuring that their doomed advance remained a symbol of both courage and folly.

Meanwhile, artists such as Roger Fenton pioneered war photography, providing some of the first visual records of conflict and shaping public perceptions of war.

Memorials to the Crimean War can be found across Europe, particularly in Britain, where statues, plaques, and monuments honor the sacrifices of soldiers. The war's legacy also persists in the many place names and military traditions inspired by its battles and leaders.

The transition to modern warfare

The Crimean War marked a crucial shift from traditional to modern warfare. The use of industrial technology, the importance of logistics, and the role of the press in shaping public opinion all foreshadowed conflicts to come. It was one of the first wars to be extensively covered by newspapers, influencing government decisions and public sentiment in a manner that would become standard in later wars.

Moreover, the Crimean War demonstrated that war was no longer solely about battlefield heroics; it was about endurance, supply chains, and public perception. It highlighted the growing importance of infrastructure, railways, telegraphs, and steam-powered ships, which would become indispensable in future conflicts.

Needless to say, the Crimean War was far more than a conflict of empires vying for influence; it was a turning point in the evolution of warfare, medicine, politics, and culture. It heralded the twilight of the old world and the dawn of a new era defined by industrialized conflict, strategic alliances, and the inexorable advance of technology.

The echoes of Sevastopol's sieges, the lessons learned in battlefield medicine, and the political upheavals it triggered all reverberated through the decades, shaping the course of history in ways its contemporaries could scarcely have imagined.

Militarily, the war exposed the obsolescence of outdated tactics and underscored the necessity of logistical efficiency, mechanized transport, and advanced weaponry, principles that would dominate future conflicts from the American Civil War to the mechanized horrors of the 20th century.

In medicine, it catalyzed a transformation that saved countless lives in subsequent wars, institutionalizing sanitation, organized nursing, and the professionalization of medical care. Politically, it reshaped the balance of power in Europe, compelling Russia to modernize, hastening the Ottoman Empire's decline, and reinforcing the precedent that alliances could determine the fate of nations.

Culturally, it imprinted itself onto literature, photography, and collective memory, immortalizing both its tragedies and its triumphs.

Ultimately, the Crimean War stands as a watershed moment in global history, a conflict fought with the weapons of the past and present, therefore, bearing the hallmarks of the future. It was a war that reshaped the world, not only through the treaties that concluded it but through the profound and lasting transformations it set in motion.

The shadows of Crimea stretched far beyond the battlefields of the 1850s, lingering in the wars, politics, and medical advancements that followed, ensuring that its legacy endures to this day.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes

The Geneva Conventions

The Geneva Conventions, the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law, have their origins in the mid-19th century, with their development significantly influenced by the horrors of the Crimean War (1853–1856).

This conflict, exposed severe deficiencies in battlefield medical care and the treatment of wounded soldiers, highlighting the need for international humanitarian protection.

As indicated in the main text the Crimean War was one of the first major conflicts in which mass media, particularly war correspondents and photographers, brought the suffering of soldiers to public attention.

Reports from the front lines described appalling conditions, with thousands of wounded left untreated due to a lack of medical personnel and supplies. The work of figures such as Florence Nightingale and others, who revolutionized military medical care and nursing by improving sanitation and organizing hospitals, underscored the desperate need for standardized and humane treatment of the wounded.

The inefficiency and suffering witnessed during the war deeply influenced the movement towards formalized humanitarian protections. Swiss humanitarian Henry Dunant, inspired by similar horrors he observed during the Battle of Solferino (1859), took up the cause of improving battlefield medical care.

His 1862 book, A Memory of Solferino, argued for the establishment of a neutral medical organization to aid wounded soldiers regardless of nationality. This led to the creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863 and, a year later, the signing of the First Geneva Convention in 1864.

While the Geneva Conventions were not directly a product of the Crimean War, the lessons of that conflict, especially the need for better medical care and organized humanitarian efforts, greatly contributed to the momentum that led to their establishment.

What was the ‘Stab-in-the-Back’ Myth that Tormented Inter-War Germany?

From the moment Germany sought an armistice in November 1918, total disbelief amongst the populace ensued at how the Imperial Reich could have been defeated. For many, the answer lay outside of military reality and was instead deeply rooted in conspiracy: that at the decisive hour, the German army had been betrayed at home, with the betrayal having been led by Jews and socialists. The myth would prove impossible for the fledgling democratic republic to shake off, and the Nazis would subsequently make it part of their official history. How did it emerge and why did it prove so persuasive?

James Russell explains.

A 1924 cartoon showing the leaders Philipp Scheidemann and Matthias Erzberger as stabbing the German army in the back. Available here.

The Roots of the Stab-in-the-Back

The ‘stab-in-the-back’ myth can be first traced to a growing wartime notion that Germany’s war effort was being weakened by strikers and shirkers. These arguments were not unique to Germany: Allied cartoons, for example, often accused strikers of weakening the nation’s war effort.

However, in Germany these began to take overtly political and racialist undertones, often encouraged by the wartime government. As the last German offensive of the war descended into failure, its collapse was blamed on strikes, denying the soldiers of what was required in their moment of need. Supposedly treasonous elements within German society were blamed, primarily Jews and socialists.

The key to understanding how the myth took hold is in the wartime nation’s widespread narrative- that Germany was fighting a just war, and that it was winning. German propaganda, under the military dictatorship of Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg, repeatedly hammered home these messages.

The lack of wartime enemy occupation or the populace’s experience of the war’s front lines supported these beliefs. The vast majority of fighting on the Western front took place in France and Belgium- only reaffirming to the people the false belief that Germany could not be losing.

With such a perception of Germany’s apparent strength, the scene was set for the conspiracy to proliferate when news of defeat emerged. The first official declaration utilising the ‘stab’ metaphor probably occurred on 2nd November 1918 when a member of the Progressive People’s Party announced to the German parliament:

“As long as the front holds, we damned well have the duty to hold out in the homeland. We would have to be ashamed of ourselves in front of our children and grandchildren if we attacked the battle front from the rear and gave it a dagger-stab.” (1)

The German Defeat

The news that Germany was suing for an armistice on 11 November 1918 shattered the nation’s existing assumptions. Given the existing narratives, many believed that Germany could not have been defeated militarily. For many, the only explanation for defeat was that, inspired by revolts at home, the newly empowered socialist government had committed treason by unnecessarily suing for peace.

Indeed, it was an elaborate plan by Ludendorff and Hindenburg to pin the blame on the new democratic government. Without making any official declaration regarding defeat themselves, and then ceding the responsibility to sue for peace to the new republican government, they successfully pinned much of the blame away from themselves and on to the democratic politicians.

Ludendorff claimed that Germany’s strikes constituted ‘a sin against the man at the front’ and an act of ‘high treason against the country’. They were the ‘work of agitators’ who had infatuated and misled the working class, both of whom were the culprits of the German defeat. (2) These comments were entirely hypocritical – made despite having privately pressed both the Kaiser and politicians for an armistice given Germany’s imminent military collapse.

Meanwhile, whilst testifying before a parliamentary committee investigating the causes of the German defeat, Hindenburg remarked: “An English general said with justice: ‘The German army was stabbed in the back.’ No guilt applies to the good core of the army.” (3) Given the enormous prestige won by both Hindenburg and Ludendorff in the wartime struggle, especially the former, their testimonies lent powerful weight to the myth.

The situation was not helped by the republic’s first President and leader of the Social Democrats, Friederich Ebert. In public recognition of soldierly effort and sacrifice rather than any conspiratorial suggestion, his declaration from the Brandenburg Gate to returning soldiers that no enemy had vanquished them added greater legitimacy to the myth’s claim.

Historians unanimously agree that, faced with a dramatic shortage of supplies, the flooding of US soldiers and materiel into the Allied ranks, a collapsing home front, and with the possibility of an Allied march through Austria, Germany was in a position where defeat was inevitable. Furthermore, the responsibility for the collapse of morale on the home front rested squarely on the German government, who prioritized the needs of the front line at the expense of civilian well-being.

The Myth that Never Dissipated

Throughout its existence, the Weimar Republic witnessed an unhealthy deployment of the ‘stab-in-the-back’ – a myth which challenged the very foundations of the state. Matthias Erzberger, head of the German delegation which signed the armistice in November 1918, would pay for such a signing with his life. He was assassinated in 1921, a death welcomed by many. Many right-wing groups refused to recognise anything other than the total complicity of all democratic politicians in the German humiliation. This was the case even when these politicians vehemently protested the perceived severity of the Versailles Treaty.

Adolf Hitler heavily utilised the myth with his unremitting denunciation of those ‘November Criminals’ who had sued for an armistice in November 1918. Such castigations became a constant feature of Nazi propaganda, with their accusations of ‘high treason against the country’ being particularly virulent in its antisemitism. The Jews had ‘cunningly dodged death on the plea of being engaged in business’ and it was this ‘carefully preserved scum’ that had sued for peace at the first chance presented. (4)

Unlike the events in the Russian Empire in 1917, the revolution in Germany’s political landscape over the course of 1918 and 1919 was partial. The key party in deciding Germany’s future, the Social Democrats, forged a compromise between their ideals whilst maintaining many continuities from the old regime. Hence Germany’s courts, army and educational system underwent little change despite Germany’s new republican setup. These institutions, still populated by many individuals loyal to the old regime, empowered the myth’s proliferation. When Hitler faced charges of treason for launching a coup in 1923, the Munich court he faced was lenient to say the least. It allowed him an uninterrupted three-hour tirade to defend his actions and expound the illegitimacy of the Republic. Despite being found guilty of treason, Hitler was nonetheless imprisoned in pleasant conditions for only a year. (5)

One of the most destructive implications of the myth transpired in the Second World War: Hitler declared in 1942, “the Germany of former times laid down its arms at a quarter to twelve. On principle I have never quit before five minutes after twelve.” (6) Unlike the First World War, Hitler’s Germany would not surrender until the bitter end, with all the death, ruin and misery resulting therefrom.

What role did the Socialists and Jews actually have in the First World War?

Contrary to prevalent assumptions and prejudices, the German-Jewish population was overrepresented in the army, rather than ‘shirking’ as was consistently argued by antisemites during and after the war. Many Jewish Germans saw it as an opportunity to once and for all demonstrate their allegiance to the nation and eliminate all remaining traces of antisemitism. The authorities in 1916, subscribing to the shirking argument, ordered a census of Jews in the army. The results indicated Jewish overrepresentation rather than underrepresentation, but its results were never released to the public. This concealing of the truth only fuelled antisemitic conspiracy.

Meanwhile, German socialists found themselves in an awkward position throughout the war. It’s outbreak in 1914 divided them, culminating in a fractious split later in the war. Yet for the most part, German socialists remained loyal to the nation’s war effort, as part of a wider German political truce. Naturally, the political leadership of the Social Democrats attempted to balance the more radical elements of Germany’s workers against the demands of the state for war contribution.

Unfortunately, Germany’s strikes of January 1918 strikes signified a particularly divisive episode, with major ramifications for the post-war scene. By mediating between the strikers and the state, the Social Democrats were blamed by the more radical left-wing parties as unnecessarily prolonging the war, and on the other hand, blamed by the right-wing for denying the resources needed by German soldiers at the 11th hour. In 1924, President Ebert would be found technically guilty of treason by the German courts for his role in the mediation. It is, however, worth noting that Germany lost far fewer total days to strikes than Britain did during the war.

The stab-in-the-back myth remains a powerful reminder that Germany’s first experience of democracy had had a fundamentally unhealthy backdrop throughout its existence. It also warns of the dangers of unfounded claims in politics – and the importance for any democracy to thoroughly combat their falsehoods.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Sources:

(1)   Ernst Muller, Aus Bayerns schwersten Tagen (Berlin, 1924), p.27.

(2)   Erich Ludendorff, My War Memories, 1914-1918, vol. 1 (London, 1919), p.334.

(3)   German History in Documents and Images, Paul von Hindenburg's Testimony before the Parliamentary Investigatory Committee ["The Stab in the Back"] (18 November 1919). Accessed 19 March 2025. https://ghdi.ghidc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=3829

(4)   Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Boston, 1943), p.521.

(5)   The Manchester Guardian, 27 February 1924, 7, ‘Ludendorff Trial Opens: "A Friendly Atmosphere." Hitler denounces Marxism and Berlin’s Timidity.’

(6)   Jewish Virtual Library, Adolf Hitler: Speech on the 19th Anniversary of the “Beer Hall Putsch” (November 8, 1942). Accessed 19 March 2025.

U.S. Civil War Nurse Louisa May Alcott

Among the thousands of women who served as nurses in the American Civil War was a little-known writer from Massachusetts. Her name was Louisa May Alcott.

Heather Voight explains.

Louisa May Alcott at around 20 years old.

Why Louisa became a Civil War Nurse

Louisa May Alcott had several reasons for wanting to become a nurse during the Civil War. Her father, Bronson Alcott, was an ardent abolitionist. The Alcott home sheltered runaway slaves from the South. Louisa shared her father’s abolitionist views at a young age. Her parents allowed her and sister Anna to roam their neighborhood streets. One day, before she had learned to swim, a black boy rescued Louisa from a pond. From then on, Louisa decided to befriend African Americans.

Louisa was also frustrated with the limited role that women were supposed to play in the Civil War. Like her mother and many of the other women in the neighborhood, Louisa helped to sew bandages and items of clothing for soldiers in their town. Soon she got bored, however, and wanted to do something more active. “I like the stir in the air, and long for battle like a war-horse when he smells powder,” Louisa wrote.

A more personal reason also encouraged Louisa to leave home. Her writing, though it kept her family solvent, was not getting the attention from the public that she wanted. In 1862 she wrote mainly thriller stories which made money but received no critical acclaim.

Requirements for Civil War Nurses

For these reasons Louisa responded enthusiastically when family friend Dorethea Dix became the Union’s superintendent of female nurses. Louisa fit almost all the requirements for Civil War nurses. Louisa was plain, always simply dressed, and already thirty years old. The only requirement she didn’t meet was that nurses should be married. Apparently, the marriage requirement was waived because she received her letter calling her to serve as a nurse on December 11, 1862. Louisa started packing at once. In addition to her clothing and some games, she packed some Charles Dickens novels that she planned to read to her patients.

Louisa’s Arrival at the Union Hospital in Washington, D.C.

After a tumultuous journey by train and ferry, Louisa arrived at Union Hotel Hospital in Washington, D.C. on December 16, 1863. This so-called hospital was a hastily converted former hotel and tavern.

Louisa kept a journal during her time as a nurse and wrote letters home whenever she had a spare moment. Eventually her words became known as Hospital Sketches. Three of these sketches were published in Commonwealth Magazine. The sketches were lightly fictionalized accounts of her nursing experiences.

Nursing on the Day Shift

A few days after she and her fictional counterpart Tribulation Periwinkle started nursing, they had to deal with wounded from the Battle of Fredericksburg. The battle was a terrible Union defeat in which 12,700 men were killed in one day. Tribulation describes the scene at the hospital: “when I peeped into the dusky street lined with what I at first had innocently called market carts…now unloading their sad freight at our door…my ardor experienced a sudden chill, and I indulged in a most unpatriotic wish that I was safe at home again, with a quiet day before me.”

The men coming in from Fredericksburg were covered in dirt from battle and from being piled on top of each other. A nurse’s first job was to clean the patients. The idea of caring for the physical needs of badly wounded and dying men was overwhelming to a woman whose only nursing experience was derived from her sister Beth’s battle with scarlet fever. As Tribulation says, “to scrub some dozen lords of creation at a moment’s notice was really—really—However, there was no time for nonsense.” Tribulation gets to work scrubbing an Irishman who is so amused at the idea of having a woman wash him that he starts laughing and “so we laughed together.”

Another of a nurse’s duties was to serve food to the men. Tribulation helped distribute the trays of bread, meat, soup and coffee. This fare was better than the nurses’ who were given beef so tough that Tribulation thought it must have been made for soldiers during the Revolutionary War.

Once the meals were cleared away, Tribulation took a lesson in wound dressing. Ether was not used to ease the men’s pain and Tribulation expressed her admiration for the soldiers’ “patient endurance.”   

After giving out medication and singing to the men, Tribulation finally retired for the evening at eleven.

Nursing on the Night Shift

Eventually both Louisa and her counterpart Tribulation moved from the day to the night shift. Tribulation says, “It was a strange life—asleep half the day, exploring Washington the other half, and all night hovering, like a massive cherubim, in a red rigolette, over the slumbering sons of men. I liked it, and found many things to amuse, instruct and interest me.” Amusement could be found in the hospital, laughing with patients or discovering that she could recognize them just by the differences in their snores.

Much of nursing was not amusing, however. Louisa wrote about her friendship with a patient named John. He worked as a blacksmith and served as the head of the family for his widowed mother and younger siblings. As Tribulation says, “His mouth was grave and firm, with plenty of will and courage in its lines, but a smile could make it as sweet as any woman’s.” Tribulation admires his will to live and is sure he will recover. She’s shocked to learn from the doctor that John is one of the sickest patients, with a bullet lodged in his lung. Eventually John asks, “This is my first battle; do they think it will be my last?” Tribulation answers him honestly. She stays with John as he dies, holding his hand to the very last.

Louisa’s Illness and Return Home

Louisa’s nursing career came to an end when she contracted typhoid pneumonia. She was determined to stay and try to recover at the hospital, but she agreed to go home when her father came to see her. She left on January 21, 1863, just over a month from when she arrived. Despite the illness and the lingering side effects she experienced from being dosed with a mercury compound by doctors, Louisa never regretted becoming a Civil War nurse. She wrote in Hospital Sketches that “the amount of pleasure and profit I got out of that month compensates for all pangs.”

The Publication of Hospital Sketches

The biggest compensation she received from her war work was the publication of Hospital Sketches. Her first three stories as nurse Tribulation Periwinkle published in Commonwealth Magazine proved to be so popular that Louisa wrote three more and they were published as a book. After years of writing thrillers and romances that paid well but were largely ignored, Louisa’s Hospital Sketches brought her popularity and critical acclaim. Louisa wrote to her publisher that “I have the satisfaction of seeing my townsfolk buying and reading, laughing and crying over it wherever I go.” Suddenly Louisa’s writing was in demand, with publishers requesting more stories and books. Louisa was on her way to becoming a famous author because of her decision to become a Civil War nurse. 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

References

Alcott, Louisa May. Hospital Sketches. Boston: James Redpath, 1863.

Cheever, Susan. Louisa May Alcott: A Personal Biography. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010.

Delmar, Gloria. Louisa May Alcott and “Little Women:” Biography, Critique, Publications, Poems, Songs and Contemporary Relevance. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland and Company, 1990.

LaPlante, Eve. Marmee and Louisa. New York: Free Press, 2012.

Stern, Madeleine. Louisa May Alcott: From Blood and Thunder to Hearth and Home. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1998.

The Crimean War – Part 5: The Aftermath

As the guns fell silent in the Crimean Peninsula, the world stood on the brink of a new era. The Crimean War (1853–1856) not only reshaped the geopolitical landscape of Europe but also heralded sweeping changes in warfare, diplomacy, and society. This fifth instalment in the six-part series on the Crimean War explores the Treaty of Paris, the shifting balance of power, the staggering costs of the conflict, and the profound military transformations that emerged in its wake.

Terry Bailey explains.

Read part 1 in the series here, part 2 here, part 3 here, and part 4 here.

The Congress of Paris by Edouard Louis Dubufe.

The Treaty of Paris (1856): Terms and Consequences

The war formally concluded with the Treaty of Paris, signed on the 30th of March, 1856. Negotiations in the French capital saw representatives from Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, and Sardinia gather to settle the terms of peace. The treaty sought to check Russian expansionism while maintaining the fragile equilibrium of European powers.

Key terms of the treaty included

·       Neutralization of the Black Sea: Russia was prohibited from maintaining a naval presence or military fortifications in the Black Sea, significantly curtailing its strategic influence in the region.

·       Territorial Adjustments: Russia was forced to return the occupied territories of Kars and Ardahan to the Ottoman Empire, while conceding Bessarabia to Moldavia, a move that altered the regional balance.

·       Recognition of Ottoman Sovereignty: The treaty reinforced the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, affirming its place as a key player in European affairs.

·       Freedom of Navigation: The Danube River was opened to international trade, ensuring access for European powers to the Black Sea.

Despite the treaty's attempt to stabilize Europe, the neutralization of the Black Sea was an ephemeral restraint. Within two decades, Russia reasserted its dominance, signaling that the treaty had merely postponed future confrontations rather than permanently resolving underlying tensions.

The shifting balance of power in Europe

The Crimean War marked the first major military conflict involving all of Europe's great powers since the Napoleonic Wars. Its conclusion reshaped the continent's diplomatic landscape in profound ways:

·       The Decline of Russia's Prestige: The war shattered Russia's image as an invincible power. The defeat exposed the inefficiency of its military and administration, prompting Tsar Alexander II to embark on sweeping domestic reforms, including the emancipation of the serfs in 1861, which would have profound effects on Russia in the future

·       The Strengthening of France: Napoleon III emerged as a diplomatic victor, with France positioned at the heart of European affairs. However, this newfound influence proved short-lived, as the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871) would soon challenge France's supremacy.

·       The Weakening of Austria: Austria's decision to remain neutral alienated both Russia and the Western powers. This diplomatic isolation left Austria vulnerable, contributing to its defeat in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866.

·       The Rise of Italy and Germany: The war's aftermath set the stage for the unification of Italy and Germany. Sardinia, a minor participant in the war, gained diplomatic favor with France, paving the way for Italian unification, while Prussia closely observed and adapted military strategies that would later prove instrumental in its ascendance.

The human and economic cost of the War

·       Casualties: An estimated 750,000 soldiers and civilians perished due to combat, disease, and harsh conditions. Cholera, dysentery, and typhus proved deadlier than enemy fire.

·       Economic Strain: Britain and France expended vast financial resources, while the Russian economy suffered immensely, exacerbating internal unrest and the eventual push for reform.

·       Medical Advancements: The war exposed severe deficiencies in military medical care. Figures like Florence Nightingale revolutionized nursing practices, leading to lasting improvements in battlefield medicine.

Military innovations: A new era of Warfare

The Crimean War was a crucible for military transformation. The conflict heralded the dawn of modern warfare, integrating emerging technologies and tactics that reshaped combat in the decades that followed.

The role of railways

Railways played a crucial role in logistics, particularly for Britain, which constructed the Grand Crimean Central Railway to transport troops and supplies efficiently. The rapid movement of personnel and material proved an invaluable asset, foreshadowing their extensive use in later conflicts such as the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War.

The telegraph: A revolution in communication

The war was the first in which the telegraph was extensively employed, allowing commanders to communicate in near real-time with their governments. Britain's ability to relay information quickly from the frontlines back to London fundamentally altered wartime decision-making and heralded the era of media influence on public perception of war.

Rifled muskets and artillery

The widespread adoption of rifled muskets transformed battlefield tactics. Unlike smoothbore muskets, rifled weapons offered greater range, accuracy, and lethality. The traditional close-formation charges of earlier conflicts proved disastrous against entrenched riflemen, prompting a gradual shift toward dispersed infantry tactics that would dominate future wars.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Treaty of Paris (1856) may have drawn the Crimean War to a close, but its impact extended far beyond the negotiation tables of the French capital. While the treaty temporarily checked Russian expansion and sought to preserve the balance of power in Europe, its provisions proved to be a short-lived restraint rather than a lasting resolution.

Russia's return to the Black Sea in 1871, unimpeded by the Western powers, underscored the treaty's inability to enforce long-term stability. The war had exposed deep-seated geopolitical tensions that would continue to shape European diplomacy in the decades to come.

In many ways, the Crimean War was a watershed moment in military history. It heralded a transition from the massed formations of the Napoleonic era to the mechanized warfare of the modern age, with advancements in weaponry, logistics, and communication laying the foundation for future conflicts.

The war also had profound humanitarian consequences, driving reforms in military medicine and public health, with figures like Florence Nightingale leaving an indelible mark on battlefield care.

The political reverberations of the war extended far beyond its immediate participants. Austria's diplomatic isolation, France's fleeting dominance, and Russia's introspective reforms all shaped the evolving power dynamics of the 19th century. Meanwhile, the war's impact on Italy and Germany set the stage for national unification, altering the European order in ways the Treaty of Paris could neither anticipate nor prevent.

Ultimately, the Crimean War was not just a struggle for territory or influence; it was a harbinger of the conflicts to come. The uneasy peace brokered in 1856 did little to resolve the underlying rivalries that had led to war in the first place. Instead, it merely postponed them, leaving Europe on a path toward greater upheavals in the latter half of the 19th century and beyond.

In retrospect, the Treaty of Paris was less a resolution and more a temporary pause in an ongoing contest for power, one that would continue to shape history long after the ink had dried.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

The Grand Crimean Central Railway (GCCR)

The Grand Crimean Central Railway (GCCR) was a vital logistical project built during the Crimean War (1853–1856) to support British and French military operations against Russia. The railway was constructed rapidly in 1855 by British engineers to address the severe supply shortages beset by the British Army besieging Sevastopol.

Before its construction, supplies, including food, ammunition, and medical provisions, had to be transported overland from the port of Balaclava to the front lines, a slow and inefficient process due to poor roads and harsh winter conditions.

Recognizing the urgent need for an effective supply line, the British government enlisted Samuel Morton Peto, a prominent railway contractor, along with his partners Edward Betts and Thomas Brassey.

The project was undertaken by engineers and laborers from Peto, Brassey & Betts, who transported prefabricated materials from Britain to Crimea. Despite the challenging terrain and war conditions, they managed to lay the first tracks in just seven weeks, an extraordinary feat of engineering and logistical coordination.

The railway ran from Balaclava to the British encampments, drastically improving the transportation of supplies, troops, and artillery. It featured locomotives and horse-drawn wagons, allowing for continuous movement of goods. As a result, it significantly enhanced the British Army's operational effectiveness, reducing starvation and disease among the troops and ensuring a steady flow of ammunition to the front.

The Grand Crimean Central Railway ultimately played a critical role in sustaining the siege of Sevastopol, which ended in victory for the Allies in 1856. After the war, the railway was dismantled, but its success demonstrated the increasing importance of rail logistics in modern warfare.

The emancipation of the Russian serfs

The emancipation of the Russian serfs was one of the most significant social reforms in Russian history, formally enacted by Tsar Alexander II on the 3rd of March, 1861 (19th of February, Julian calendar). Before this, millions of peasants were bound to the land and under the control of noble landlords, unable to move freely or own property.

Serfdom had long been a cornerstone of Russian society, but by the mid-19th century, it was widely recognized as an impediment to economic modernization and military effectiveness. The humiliating Russian defeat in the Crimean War (1853–1856) highlighted the inefficiencies of a serf-based economy and contributed to mounting pressure for reform.

The Emancipation Manifesto and accompanying statutes freed roughly 23 million serfs, granting them personal freedom and the theoretical right to own land. However, the reform was deeply flawed. Instead of receiving land for free, peasants were required to buy their plots through redemption payments, a system that left many impoverished for decades.

These payments, spread over 49 years, placed a heavy financial burden on the newly freed serfs, many of whom struggled to survive. Furthermore, the land allocated to them was often of poor quality, and communal farming arrangements under the mir (village commune) system restricted economic mobility. Many former serfs remained tied to their old estates as laborers due to a lack of viable alternatives.

Despite its shortcomings, emancipation marked a turning point in Russian history. It weakened the nobility's traditional dominance, gradually transformed the rural economy, and set the stage for further reforms.

However, widespread dissatisfaction among the peasantry persisted, fueling unrest and revolutionary movements in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. By the time of the Russian Revolution of 1917, peasant grievances over land and economic inequality remained unresolved, contributing to the overthrow of the monarchy and the radical restructuring of Russian society.

How do Movie Depictions of World War 2 Negatively Alter American Memory?

As the conclusion of World War II approaches its 80th anniversary, the memories of this historic event are at risk of fading into darkness. As the number of surviving veterans from the war diminishes, the responsibility of preserving their history falls to the next generations.

Here, Dallas Dores considers this in the context of film depictions of World War II.

John Wayne in the 1962 World War II film The Longest Day.

Historians the world over work diligently to protect the legacies of World War II from being forgotten, but they are not the only ones. Entertainment media such as film and television production has also sought to preserve the memory of World War II through a more visual process. Movies and television series in America have captured the attention of younger generations who could not otherwise have ‘experienced’ the events of World War II. While these films and series may serve as a means of preserving the historical legacy of World War II, they are not a reliable source of historical accuracy. Movies and television shows, no matter how educational they may attempt to be, are designed for entertainment. As such, these modern depictions of World War II will often substitute much of their historical accuracy for attention catching action or even ulterior agendas, such as national patriotism. Such depictions can even fall on the wrong side of the fine line between fact and fiction for the sake of public reception. This favoritism of entertainment over education has dangerous consequences for the modern day public memory of World War II. As such films and series become increasingly popular, much of the American public, unfamiliar or otherwise disconnected with the generation of the 1940’s, is at risk of accepting these false film narratives of the war as facts, leading to a fictionalized, homogenized interpretation of World War II.

Motivations

The greater acceptance of film interpretation over historical research of the war traces back to the growing popularity of such films. It is no secret that war films, particularly World War II films, have a large and enthusiastic audience in the 21st century, especially in the United States. The modern day film is able to engage with the viewer and bring them subconsciously into the action being depicted in typically more powerful ways than the average textbook. As Anton Kaes discusses in his article History and Film, historical films are able to play with certain aspects of the story being told and translate it in a present tense, giving the viewer a stronger connection with the events unfolding before them. This ability to reshape history, however, is where the primary concern with such historical films begins. Although a film may be more ‘engaging’ than a basic textbook, the historical accuracy of a film is at far greater risk of corruption. As Richard Godfrey observes in his work Visual Consumption, historical films in the US, particularly those concerned with World War II, are rarely without ulterior motives. Many of these films strive to affirm a desired national identity, one that invokes a militaristic patriotism, by elevating the role of the United States above its more accurate standing, while simultaneously minimizing the more negative aspects of the past. Historical films concerning the war, particularly from the American perspective, oftentimes seek to create their own interpretations of the war rather than present the original story, with all its flaws and mistakes. This is also done with the theory that American audiences do not want to see the negatives of their nation’s past, only the positives. As Barry Schwartz puts it in his article Memory as a Cultural System, “We cannot be oriented by a past in which we fail to see ourselves”. This logic plays a critical role in the development of the historical film narrative. If a filmmaker wants their viewer to identify with the main character of their movie, they remove as many flaws associated with that character as possible, or at the very least give the character a sense of redemption for past mistakes. Thus begins the creation of the distorted memory. As films gain greater attention over books, the average viewer begins to accept what is depicted on the screen as fact. Although there are films that clearly represent fiction, others leave the viewer questioning reality vs imagination.

Semi-authentic stories

With entertainment taking priority over education, these films oftentimes take liberties in their unique interpretations of historical events. This can take both a simple form such as a semi-authentic story based on true events, or a more extreme form where the film becomes more fictional than historical. The Quentin Tarantino film Inglourious Basterds is a prime example of the latter. The film’s director himself made it clear that this film is a work of fiction, with the events and characters therein being created out of pure imagination. A film such as this would not be looked to for historical accuracy or information. On the opposite side of the coin is Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, arguably one of the most historically accurate World War II films. The film has been hailed as one of the most authentic depictions of the American soldier’s experience in World War II put into film. This authentic feel contributed to the film’s popularity, and as Lester Friedman discusses in Citizen Spielberg (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Chicago), it is also the cause of the film's memory distortion. The popularity of the film carried over far beyond simple entertainment, as viewers of the film began to confuse the event of the movie with real life. A number of accounts from the Omaha Beach memorial in France tell of tourists needing to be told that there is no grave for Captain John Miller, the fictional main character of the film. Although there were incidents during World War II where multiple brothers served and died in the war, the story of Private James Ryan is fictional. Even though the film is a work of fiction, it is viewed by many as fact. As John Whiteclay Chambers explains, “the public memory of war…has been created less from a remembered past than from a manufactured past”. As the collective memory of World War II becomes shaped by film rather than account, it is also distorted and altered in a way that does not clearly distinguish fact from fiction.

Women

Not only is the film narrative of World War II inaccurate, it is also incomplete. The stereotypical World War II film in America, which in turn is connected with the stereotypical American narrative of the war, features stoic, Caucasian male soldiers on the frontlines of battle. This image contributes to many of the national identities filmmakers and studios attempt to emphasize in such films. However, in elevating certain images and narratives, others are either diminished or even left out. The story of American women is rarely depicted in World War II films, and when it is, as Victoria Tutino examines, it does not tell the entire story. Tutino agrees that “Society needs these films in order to understand the context of the wartime era”, however, she warns that “society must be wary as this medium only explores one side of women’s multi-dimensional roles”. The role of American women during the war is often limited in its film depiction, either to that of a field nurse or a patriotic homefront worker. The life and times of Rossie the Riveterby Connie Field attempts to overcome this underrepresentation by revealing the untold story of women workers. In creating this film, Fields collected the accounts of 700 American women who worked during the war and presented five main speakers on screen, two Caucasian and three African American, all from different backgrounds. The purpose of Field’s work was to challenge the notion that American women joined the workforce solely out of patriotism, as depicted in many films, and reveal their true desires for economic gain in a male driven workplace. Although this film attempts to fill in the incomplete narrative of women’s role during the war, it still falls into the same trap of trying to convince the audience that this is the complete story. While 700 individual accounts is certainly a substantial source of information, it is only a small portion of the larger image of millions of women who entered the working and military forces, all from different backgrounds and for different purposes. While attempting to correct the shortcomings of many films, The life and times of Rossie the Riveter falls into the same trench of trying to create its own narrative.

African American soldiers

Just as with women in World War II, the legacy of African American soldiers is severely underrepresented in film history. Just as with women, countless African Americans served in the US military during the war and fought for their nation. While this piece of history is remembered in text, it is all but forgotten in film, with the overwhelming majority of American World War II films focusing primarily, if not entirely on the more commonly seen Caucasian soldier. This once again falls under the umbrella of a national identity, one that chooses to overlook past mistakes rather than accept them. Though some films have in recent years attempted to shed a stronger light on the African American soldier, they should not be taken without caution. Just as with the narrative of women, Clement Alexander Pricequestions if “moving images of black soldiers enhance an understanding of the black experience in war, or do they, like so many written documents, reflect a circumscribed view”. The film can only encompass so much of history accurately before it becomes infected by the imagined narrative. In 2008, director Spike Lee released Miracle at St. Anna  (Touchstone Pictures, 2008), a film which he had hoped would draw some much needed attention to the experiences of African Americans during the war. The film addressed racial situations that many African Americans faced on the homefront, presenting a subject matter which other similar films typically shy away from. However, the film’s realism does not last and the all too common element of fiction distorts the narrative. Near the end of the film, a scene takes place in which a commanding German Officer takes pity on one of the main African American characters, handing him a pistol and offering words of encouragement to him in English. A situation such as this, in which a ranking officer of the Nazi military would not only spare but arm an enemy soldier, let alone one of non-Caucasian descent, is completely inconceivable from a historical standpoint. As such, the audience is left questioning whether or not the film’s context should be taken literally or metaphorically, as fact or fiction. This creates a paradox in which accepting the film as fact leads to the belief of false narratives, but interpreting the film as fiction distorts the true realities as exaggerations. In either case, the film’s credibility as a reliable source of historical memory is tarnished.

Conclusion

As World War II continues to be the subject of modern popular culture, the memory of its past becomes further entangled in a web of distortion. The use of film and television as a source for memory is increasing, and as such its factual evidence is replaced by imagined narrative. As the generation of the 1940’s rapidly diminishes, their memories are left in the hands of those who use and warp it for ulterior purposes. The desire to promote a national agenda over less-than-comfortable details creates an altered narrative of the past, one that magnifies only small portions of the war and replaces the rest with imagination. As filmmakers take their own liberties in substituting certain aspects of history with more media-adjacent interpretations, the public memory of these events is changed and distorted into an imagined fiction. These films place entertainment over education, leaving viewers wondering how these films should be interpreted and oftentimes fail to discern between fact and fiction. Furthermore, as the presented narratives of films are accepted, the excluded facts are forgotten. The true experiences of individuals such as women and African Americans are more often than not either misinterpreted and altered or completely left out of the greater image, leaving these aspects of the past to be lost in history. The use of film over text as historical reference is a dangerous path, one that homogenizes the public memory into a synthetic image so detached from reality that the true memory of the past is all but erased.

References

Lester Friedman, Citizen Spielberg, (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Chicago)

Richard Godfrey, Simon Lilley, Visual consumption, collective memory and the representation of war, (Consumption Markets & Culture, Taylor and Francis Online, 2009), Visual consumption, collective memory and the representation of war: Consumption Markets & Culture: Vol 12 , No 4 - Get Access (tandfonline.com)

Anton Kaes, History and Film: Public Memory in the Age of Electronic Dissemination, (History and Memory 2, no. 1, 1990), History and Film: Public Memory in the Age of Electronic Dissemination on JSTOR (asu.edu)

Spike Lee, Miracle at St. Anna, (Walt Disney Studios, 2008).

Barry Schwartz, “Memory as a Cultural System: Abraham Lincoln in World War II.”, (American Sociological Review, 1996) Memory as a Cultural System: Abraham Lincoln in World War II on JSTOR (asu.edu)

Steven Spielberg, Saving Private Ryan, (Dreamworks Pictures, 1998).

Victoria Tutino, Stay at Home, Soldiers: An Analysis of British and American Women on the Homefront during World War II and the Effects on Their Memory Through Film, (Of Life and History, College of the Holy Cross, 2019), Stay at Home, Soldiers

John Whiteclay Chambers, David Culbert, World War II, Film, and History, (Oxford University Press, 1996), ProQuest Ebook Central - Reader (asu.edu)

America’s Path to Polarization: A Short History

Most Americans are disgusted by politics. Asked in 2023 for one word to describe politics, they responded, “divisive,” “corrupt,” “polarized.” For many, polarization is the root of the problem. Writers lament polarization’s dysfunctional consequences, and a national organization devoted to bridging the partisan divide is flourishing.

Yet the 2024 election only deepened polarization. Despite a divisive, topsy turvy campaign, the polls changed little throughout 2024, and the results were within the margin of error. Most voters were locked in, and few changed their minds.

Many assume that our current predicament goes back to the 1960s. After all, the ‘60s was decade of dissent and division. It generated bitter conflict over foreign policy, race, women’s rights, sexuality, and a host of highly charged moral issues that would dominate American politics for the next half century.

Author Don Nieman’s recent book The Path to Paralysis: How American Politics Became Nasty, Dysfunctional, and a Threat to the Republic, challenges that assumption. Partisanship may be endemic, but polarization is a recent development.

Jefferson attacked as an Infidel, available here.

How Partisanship and Polarization Differ

There is a big difference between partisan conflict and polarization. American politics has always been contentious. That’s the nature of democratic politics in a country as big, diverse, and dynamic as the U.S. A positive vision may inspire, but negative campaigning and appeals to fear mobilize voters. Federalists charged that Jefferson was a godless Jacobin. Andrew Jackson’s managers alleged that John Quincy Adams had served as a pimp for the Russian Czar. LBJ suggested that Goldwater would unleash nuclear war. George H.W. Bush used Willie Horton to appeal to White fear of Black men.

However, there is much more to polarized politics than bitter partisanship and negative campaigning. Politics become polarized when support for the two major parties is  closely divided and upwards of 90% of voters have decided which side they support. When voters get their news from sources that reinforce their prejudices and can’t agree on basic facts.  When wild, baseless conspiracy theories become widely accepted and fear and loathing of the oppositionmotivates voters more than support for their party’s position on the issues. When politicians favor political theater that thrills their base over making the compromises necessary to govern.

In 1968, the U.S. was bitterly divided over race and the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon and George Wallace waged divisive presidential campaigns that appealed to fear and promised law and order. It was the opening salvo in a succession of culture wars that would define American politics for the next half century and counting.

Yet the country wasn’t polarized. Ticket-splitting was common. States routinely sent Democrats to the U.S. Senate while casting their electoral votes for Republican presidential candidates. And vice versa. Most states were in play in presidential elections and swung back and forth between red and blue control. Some Republicans were moderate and some Democrats conservative. Politicians knew they had to reach the middle, valued compromise, and got things done.

Richard Nixon used racially coded language to appeal to White Southerners, but he became the architect of affirmative action.

Ronald Reagan was the face of conservative resurgence, but he cut a deal with Democrats to raise taxes, reduce deficits, and save Social Security (a program he hated).

President Ronald Reagan with Thomas "Tip" O'Neil.

George H.W. Bush worked with Democrats to strengthen environmental regulations. He incorporated cap-and-trade policies championed by Democratic senator Al Gore into the Clean Air Act of 1991. He also recognized the threat of climate change and signed the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change—the precursor to the Kyoto, Copenhagen, and Paris Climate Agreements.

After surviving scurrilous attacks from the right, Bill Clinton joined his nemesis Newt Gingrich to forge a grand compromise on Social Security that was only derailed by Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky and subsequent impeachment. 

George W. Bush worked closely with Senator Ted Kennedy to pass sweeping education reform that combined the accountability Republicans demanded with a massive infusion of federal support for schools that served poor children.

The Tipping Point

Partisanship hardened into polarization following Barack Obama’s election in 2008, when seven long-developing trends converged in a perfect storm.

US President Barack Obama taking his Oath of Office.

First, massive changes that transformed the media began in the 1980s. Cable TV and talk radio, then the internet and social media ensured that more and more Americans got their news from sources that confirmed their biases. News outlets proliferated. Many were fact free, spreading lies and wild conspiracies. Debates became hotter because Americans couldn’t agree on basic facts much less the best solutions to problems.

Second, the transition from an industrial to a service economy, coupled with trickle-down economic policy, led to a sharp increase in income inequality. After 1980, the top 10% did very well, the top 1% better, and the top .1% enjoyed wealth that put the Robber Barons to shame. But middle and working-class Americans struggled. That left many angry, alienated, and suspicious. The 2008 recession and the bank bailouts that followed stoked their anger.

Third, the Republican Party became more conservative as it made big gains in the South in the mid-1990s and after. By 2008, well over half of Republicans in the House and Senate came from the South—long the most conservative region of the U.S. The Democratic Party shifted modestly leftward while the GOP took a hard right turn. With moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats endangered species, those most inclined to compromise were missing in action.

Fourth, beginning in the late 1960s, immigration surged. By 2020, immigrants constituted 15% of the population, a proportion not seen since the 1910s. Approximately 11 million had entered the country illegally. Many White Americans worried that they were losing their country. The election of a Black president in 2008 reinforced that fear. In 2011, polling revealed that a majority of Republicans believed the baseless birther conspiracy that alleged that Obama hadn’t been born in the U.S. (and therefore wasn’t qualified to serve). It was a sure sign of growing anger, alienation, distrust, and willingness to believe the worst about the enemy.

Fifth, the Great Recession of 2008 damaged the Republican brand, and Obama’s convincing victory rattled Republican leaders. They feared a political realignment that would make Democrats the dominant party for a generation. They decided to dig in, oppose everything Obama proposed, refuse to compromise, create gridlock, and make the Democrats look ineffective.

Sixth, gerrymandering created safe congressional districts. By the early 2000s, few seats in the House were competitive. Republican incumbents had more to fear from the right flank of their own party than from Democrats. Moving toward the center to compromise with Democrats was unnecessary to sway undecided voters in the general election, and it might invite a conservative challenge in primaries.

Finally, and fatally, the GOP embraced populism. The party that had traditionally appealed to fiscal conservatives, the college educated, and the country club set found that by appealing to discontented rural and working-class Whites without a college education they won new recruits. Sarah Palin offered a glimpse of the power of populism in 2008, and the Tea Party Revolt of 2010 confirmed that it worked as Republicans re-took the House.

Populism brought new recruits to the party. Many were angry, hostile to establishment politicians they believed had sold them out, and got their news from outlets that traded in conspiracy theories. They didn’t want civil debate or politicians who compromised. They wanted leaders who would fight. Plenty of politicians—including many with Ivy League credentials—eagerly obliged.

After the 2010 mid-term elections, politics were polarized. Government regularly faced shutdowns and even default. What little the federal government accomplished was done through executive order.

Mainstream Republicans led by alumni of the George W. Bush administration sought to pull the party back after Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012. They produced a major report—the Growth and Opportunity Project—that insisted the party broaden its appeal to the young, people of color, and immigrants. It demanded a return to the center.

That didn’t happen. Donald Trump understood how the Republican Party and American politics had changed. Appeals to moderates and undecided voters had become less important in a polarized polity. There were too few of them. Mobilizing his base with a polarizing, populist campaign full of invective, exaggeration, lies, and racist and sexist language worked. It disgusted many Republicans, but Trump’s success and threats of retribution by his base against those who bucked him brought them around

Trump captured the Republican nomination, won the White House in 2016, and ultimately made the Republican Party his own. Even after two impeachments, unsteady leadership during a global pandemic, incitement of an attempted coup on January 6, 2021, and conviction of a felony, Trump’s base never wavered. They supported him as he waltzed to the Republican nomination and won re-election on November 5, 2024.

Where Do We Go from Here?

Since 2016, the U.S. has experienced three presidential and two mid-term elections. The margins of victory have been tight, and power in Washington has shifted between the two major parties. The result has been wild swings in policy exemplified by withdrawing, then re-entering, and once again withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. Congress is gridlocked, and executive orders have taken the place of legislation to address critical issues. American politics remains polarized, to the disgust of most voters, even as they refuse to budge from their commitment to one side of the great divide.

Those hoping for a way out of divisiveness and gridlock might look to history. From the 1840s to the early 1860s, conflict over slavery created bitter animosity and stalemate that led to civil war. The war ended slavery and realigned American politics, producing two decades of Republican hegemony. The end of Reconstruction, industrialization, and the agrarian crisis of the 1880s and 1890s once again left the two major parties closely divided with control in Washington shifting frequently. Political conflict was bitter and gridlock the order of the day. The election of 1896 broke the logjam and ushered in over 30 years of Republican dominance.

Only a fool would predict how or when or current impasse might end. If history is our guide, the most likely scenario is a crisis that scrambles political loyalties and permits one of the parties to achieve dominance. We can only hope that it’s more like the crisis of the 1890s than the cataclysm of the 1850s.

Author Don Nieman’s recent book is The Path to Paralysis: How American Politics Became Nasty, Dysfunctional, and a Threat to the Republic. Available here: Amazon US

The Crimean War – Part 4: Life on the Frontlines & the Human Experience

War is often remembered for its battles, its victories, and its great leaders, but for the ordinary soldier, the reality is far grimmer. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the trenches of the Crimean War, where men endured not just the enemy's gunfire but an even more relentless onslaught: hunger, disease, and the unforgiving elements.

Terry Bailey explains.

Read part 1 in the series here, part 2 here, and part 3 here.

The Mission of Mercy: Florence Nightingale receiving the Wounded at Scutari. By Jerry Barrett.

The winter of 1854–1855 turned the besieged city of Sevastopol into a frozen wasteland, where soldiers huddled in ill-equipped trenches, wrapped in tattered uniforms that offered little protection against the biting cold. Food was scarce, medical care was rudimentary at best, and the looming specter of death came as often from sickness as from enemy fire.

Rats, lice, and the stench of decay were constant companions. Letters Home painted a picture not of glory but of sheer survival in a war where the greatest challenge was simply staying alive.

Yet, amidst this suffering, change was brewing. The horrors of the Crimean War would spark reforms in battlefield medicine, bring women like Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole into the public eye, and transform war reporting forever. This conflict was not just fought in the trenches, it was fought in the hospitals, the newspapers, and in the minds of those who would demand a better future for the soldiers of tomorrow.

Life in the trenches: Mud, hunger and the shadow of death

For soldiers on the frontlines, the Crimean War was defined not just by battle, but by relentless suffering. The harsh winter of 1854–1855 turned the trenches outside Sevastopol into frozen pits of misery. Soldiers faced extreme cold with inadequate clothing, often wearing threadbare uniforms unsuited to the brutal climate. Supplies were inconsistent, and food shortages left men weak and malnourished. Hard biscuits and salted meat made up the bulk of their diet, with fresh rations arriving sporadically, if at all.

Disease was as deadly as enemy fire. Dysentery, typhus, and cholera swept through the ranks, claiming more lives than the battles themselves. Lice and rats were omnipresent, spreading filth and infection. Letters from soldiers described the unimaginable stench of decaying bodies, the cries of the wounded, and the relentless fear of the next attack.

Medicine and Florence Nightingale's legacy

The appalling conditions of battlefield hospitals were brought to the world's attention by Florence Nightingale, a determined British nurse who arrived in Scutari in 1854. Hospitals were overwhelmed, with wounded men lying in their filth, untreated for days. Infection was rampant, and medical supplies were scarce.

Nightingale, along with a team of nurses, introduced basic hygiene practices, insisting on cleanliness, fresh air, and proper nutrition. Though germ theory was not yet understood, her efforts significantly reduced death rates. Dubbed "The Lady with the Lamp," Nightingale's nightly rounds brought comfort to the suffering, and her work laid the foundation for modern nursing.

Women in the war: More than just nurses

While Nightingale became the face of female contributions to the war effort, many other women played crucial roles. Mary Seacole, a Jamaican-born nurse and entrepreneur, independently travelled to the war zone and set up the "British Hotel" near Balaclava, offering soldiers warm meals, medical care, and even morale-boosting comforts like fresh linens and tea. Despite being overlooked by British authorities, Seacole's efforts were widely recognized by the soldiers she treated.

Women also played vital roles as camp followers, laundresses, and caregivers. Some disguised themselves as men to fight, while others served as spies or helped transport supplies. The Crimean War broadened the perception of women's capabilities in conflict, laying the groundwork for future involvement in military and medical service.

The first war of the press: War correspondents and public opinion

The Crimean War was the first major conflict to be extensively reported in newspapers, changing how wars were perceived at home. William Howard Russell of The Times was the first modern war correspondent, sending back vivid and often damning accounts of the British army's struggles. His reports exposed government mismanagement, the suffering of the soldiers, and the incompetence of some commanders, leading to public outrage and political reforms.

Illustrations and early war photography also emerged, with Roger Fenton capturing haunting images of the battlefield. Though staged to avoid showing corpses, his photographs gave civilians a stark glimpse of war's desolation. The press coverage of the Crimean War shaped public perception, fueling both patriotic fervor and calls for change.

Needless to say, the Crimean War was more than just a military campaign; it was a turning point in how war was fought, perceived, and remembered. For the soldiers trapped in the trenches, it was a grim struggle against not only the enemy but also disease, hunger, and the merciless elements. The horrors they endured underscored the urgent need for improved logistics, medical care, and military planning, lessons that would influence future conflicts.

Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole's efforts revolutionized battlefield medicine, proving that compassionate and systematic care could save lives even in the direst conditions. Their contributions marked the beginning of modern nursing and demonstrated that women had an indispensable role to play in war beyond traditional domestic spheres. The presence of women in military operations would only grow in significance in the decades to come.

At the same time, the Crimean War ushered in a new era of war reporting. The firsthand accounts of war correspondents like William Howard Russell shattered the romanticized image of battle, exposing the incompetence of leadership and the suffering of common soldiers. Photography, though still in its infancy, provided the public with a tangible, visual connection to the realities of war. Never before had the home front been so intimately tied to events on the battlefield, paving the way for future conflicts to be scrutinized through the lens of journalism and public opinion.

In many ways, the Crimean War set the stage for the modern era of warfare. The lessons learned in its muddy, disease-ridden trenches shaped military reforms, the evolution of medical care, and the role of the press in holding governments accountable. Though often overshadowed by later conflicts, its impact was profound, leaving behind a legacy that still resonates in military, medical, and journalistic practices today.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

In the Shadows of the Himalayas: The Rebels of India’s North-East Frontier Agency

Nestled in the northeastern frontier of India, the region now known as Arunachal Pradesh has long been a mosaic of cultures, languages, and traditions. Historically referred to as the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), this area has been home to myriad indigenous tribes, each with its distinct identity and way of life. Among these, the Tani people have etched their legacy into the land, enduring the harsh terrains and the tumultuous tides of history. It is from this resilient stock that Tako Mra, a name now synonymous with courage and foresight, emerged as a warrior, leader, and symbol of cultural preservation. His life and vision, shaped by personal experiences and key alliances, offer profound insights into the challenges of nation-building and cultural integration.

By Tadak Esso and Pupy Rigia.

The North-East Frontier Agency in 1954.

The Integration of Northeast India

The history of NEFA, and by extension Arunachal Pradesh, is deeply intertwined with the broader narrative of India's struggle for independence and its subsequent nation-building efforts. The northeastern territories, with their strategic significance and rich cultural diversity, presented a unique challenge to the nascent Indian state. As the British Empire began its retreat from the Indian subcontinent, the future of these remote regions became a focal point of India's territorial consolidation efforts.

Following the Partition of India in 1947, the integration of the northeastern territories was pursued with vigor. The region, characterized by its complex ethnic tapestry and relative isolation, had largely remained unadministered during British rule. This lack of formal governance left a vacuum that the Indian government sought to fill, albeit with significant resistance from the indigenous tribes.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, recognizing the strategic importance of NEFA, emphasized the need for its integration, stating, "We must win the hearts of the frontier people and make them feel a part of India." However, this approach often clashed with the aspirations of the local tribes, who viewed these efforts as a continuation of colonial domination.

Early Life and Leadership of Tako Mra

Tako Mra was born in 1925 in the rugged hills of NEFA, an area teeming with the vibrant cultures of its various tribes. Growing up in the Sadiya region, Mra was exposed to the rich traditions of the Tani people from an early age. His education, marked by brilliance and an innate sense of leadership, set him apart. From his youth, it was evident that Mra was destined for a path that transcended the ordinary.

The tumultuous backdrop of World War II brought Mra into the fold of the British Indian Army. In 1943, he enlisted and soon found himself leading an infantry in the dense jungles of Yangon (present-day Myanmar). His strategic prowess and courage in the face of adversity earned him high honors from the British. However, the war left a lasting impact on Mra—both physically, as he suffered paralysis in his left arm, and mentally, as it sharpened his resolve for the autonomy of his people.

Reflecting on his wartime experiences, Mra later wrote, “The forests taught me resilience, and the war showed me the cost of freedom. We, too, must fight for our own freedom, not against a foreign empire but against the loss of our identity.”

The post-war period was a transformative time for Tako Mra, marked by his political awakening and growing involvement in the struggle for indigenous autonomy. A pivotal moment in this journey was his encounter with Zapu Phizo, the charismatic Naga leader who championed the cause of a free and autonomous Northeast. The relationship between Phizo and Mra was not merely one of ideological alignment; it was a deep and strategic partnership forged in the crucible of shared struggle and vision.

Phizo, known for his sharp intellect and persuasive oratory, saw in Mra a kindred spirit—a leader with the military acumen and grassroots connection necessary to galvanize resistance. For Mra, Phizo represented a broader framework for the aspirations of the Northeast. Their discussions, often held in secret amidst dense jungles and remote villages, touched on the preservation of tribal cultures, resistance to forced integration, and the dream of a unified hill tribe nation.

Mra’s later writings reveal the profound influence of these exchanges: “Phizo opened my eyes to the possibility of unity among the hills. He believed in a nation not defined by borders but by the spirit of its people.” This partnership was instrumental in shaping Mra’s political strategy, as he began to envision a Northeast where cultural preservation was not just a goal but a right.

Buoyed by his alliance with Phizo, Mra’s growing concern for the cultural and political future of his people led him to engage in correspondence with key Indian leaders and colonial authorities. In 1947, Mra wrote to the Viceroy of India, advocating for the exclusion of the hill tribes from the Indian Union and their establishment as a Crown Colony. He argued that the unique cultural and geographic realities of the region necessitated a different approach, warning that forced integration would only lead to unrest.

In 1948, Mra followed this with a letter to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, cautioning against the incorporation of NEFA into the Indian Union. He warned Nehru that if India persisted in its efforts to incorporate the Abor Hills, his people would resist. Mra’s words were unambiguous: “If India pushes to incorporate the Abor Hills, my men will fight back. We cannot go from being ruled by an elite in Britain to one in New Delhi.”

These letters underscore Mra’s foresight and his deep-seated belief in cultural preservation and political autonomy. His assertion that NEFA was never Indian to begin with highlighted the distinct identity of the region. Scholars today recognize this as an early articulation of what has become a persistent tension in Indian nation-building—the challenge of integrating diverse cultural identities without erasing them.

The 1953 Achingmori Incident

The tensions between the indigenous tribes and the Indian government culminated in the Achingmori incident of 1953, a defining moment in the history of NEFA. The incident occurred when a group of Daphla tribals from the Tagin community, under Mra’s leadership, attacked an Indian government party. The assault resulted in the death of 47 individuals, including Assam Rifles personnel and tribal porters, during an administrative tour in Achingmori, present-day Arunachal Pradesh.

Mra’s leadership in this incident was shaped by his military experience and his unwavering commitment to the autonomy of his people. His war-time tactics were evident in the precision and coordination of the attack, reflecting his deep understanding of guerrilla warfare.

To many in NEFA, the Achingmori incident was not merely an act of rebellion; it was a statement of defiance against the imposition of external authority. It was, in Mra’s words, “a fight to ensure that our children inherit a culture, not a colony.”

Prime Minister Nehru, addressing the Parliament in 1953, acknowledged the complexities of administering such remote regions. He stated, "The fact that that place is not an administered area does not mean that it is outside the territory of the Indian Union. These are virgin forests in between, and the question does not arise of their considering in a constitutional sense what their position is."

The aftermath of Achingmori saw further internal strife among the tribal communities. The Galong (now Galo) tribe, who were also affected by the massacre, sought retribution. In a tragic turn of events, Mra was betrayed by a Galo girl who poisoned his drink. This act of betrayal, possibly stemming from the complex inter-tribal dynamics and the perceived short-lived victory of Achingmori, led to Mra’s untimely death in 1954 at the age of 29.

His death marked the end of an era, but it also cemented his place in the annals of history as a symbol of resistance and the quest for autonomy.

Legacy and Contemporary Relevance

Despite his premature demise, Tako Mra’s legacy endures as a symbol of resistance and the quest for autonomy. His warnings about cultural assimilation and the loss of identity resonate with contemporary struggles faced by indigenous communities across the globe. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the ongoing push for greater autonomy under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution are contemporary manifestations of the tensions Mra foresaw.

Mra’s vision of a unified, autonomous hill tribe nation remains a poignant aspiration. His life serves as a reminder of the importance of cultural preservation and the right to self-determination in the face of modern state-building efforts. His story, though often relegated to the margins of history, offers valuable insights into the broader narrative of nationhood and the enduring quest for identity.

As historian A.K. Baruah aptly puts it, “Tako Mra was not just a leader of the Tani people but a visionary who understood the fragility of cultural identity in the face of political assimilation.” His life and vision underscore the importance of self-determination and the preservation of cultural identity in the ever-evolving narrative of nationhood.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Suggested Reading

1. “Escaping the Land” : Mamang Dai

2. The Assam Rifles Securing the Frontier, 1954–55.

3. The Battle of NEFA--the undeclared war : Bhargava

The 1860 U.S. Presidential Election - Part 2: The Campaign & Result

The 1860 Presidential Election set the stage for the Civil War and had significant repercussions for the United States. Throughout the 1850s, the nation grappled with contentious issues surrounding states' rights and the institution of slavery in the territories, which ultimately shaped the political landscape of the election. This period saw the Democratic Party splinter into Northern and Southern factions, reflecting deep divisions within the country. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln emerged victorious against Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge, Northern Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, and Constitutional Union candidate John Bell. The electoral divide between Northern and Southern Democrats highlighted a profound sectional conflict, enabling Lincoln and the Republican Party to ascend to power without any backing from Southern states. In the wake of Lincoln's election, and before his inauguration in March 1861, seven Southern states chose to secede from the Union, a decision that precipitated the onset of the Civil War. Just weeks after Lincoln's victory, South Carolina formally declared secession.

Here, Lloyd W Klein looks at the campaign and the election itself.

Part 1 on the candidates is here.

Campaign poster for John Bell and his running mate, Edward Everett.

Stephen Douglas and Herschel Johnson campaign poster.

The Campaign

Following his nomination, Lincoln adopted a campaign strategy typical of the era, opting for a stay-at-home approach that involved no public speeches. Instead, he dedicated his efforts to managing the campaign from behind the scenes. He expressed that his primary goal was to prevent any divisions within the Republican Party, advising party members to refrain from discussing contentious issues that could lead to disagreements. With a united front among Republicans and existing fractures within the Democratic Party, particularly concerning Bell's candidacy, the main concern for Republicans was the potential for disunity that could jeopardize their electoral prospects.

In contrast to Lincoln's restrained approach, Douglas was highly active, campaigning vigorously in both Northern and Southern states. He passionately defended the Union and vehemently opposed secession, making a significant impact during his campaign. Breckinridge engaged in minimal campaigning, delivering only a single speech.

Much of the electioneering consisted of parades and rallies that heightened public interest, resulting in an impressive turnout on election day, with approximately eighty percent of eligible voters participating.

The electoral preferences in many of the individual states were highly illustrative of political opinion of the moment. Voters in border states like Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri tried to find a candidate who supported Union and also slavery. Texas was especially intriguing in that Sam Houston favored this approach but would lose to the popular secessionist entreaties of Louis Wigfall. The states with the largest slave holdings were those that voted solidly for Breckinridge.

Constitutional Party leaders did not expect to win the election outright, but instead sought to win states in the Upper South and the Lower North. They were particularly focused on Maryland, the lone state won by Fillmore in 1856, as well as Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Slavery & Secession

The plantation owners in the southern states, who held significant power, were deeply concerned that Abraham Lincoln's election as president in 1860 would signal the demise of their established way of life. Outnumbered by northern advocates who championed the idea that the western territories should be reserved for free individuals, these southern elites feared that the expansion of slavery would be curtailed. They worried that if the practice of slavery was confined to the South and the sale of enslaved individuals to new markets was restricted, the value of their so-called "property" would decline, leading to a detrimental impact on their economic well-being.

The implications of such restrictions extended beyond economic concerns; they also posed serious political threats. The potential for white southerners to be placed on equal footing with the Black Americans they had enslaved was a source of anxiety, as it jeopardized not only their economic advantages but also their personal safety. The southern oligarchs, whose wealth and social standing were intricately linked to the institution of slavery, felt their control over power slipping away. This fear was compounded by the constant dread of slave uprisings and the looming threat of financial disaster if they could not extend the institution of slavery into new territories.

In light of these factors, the prospect of Lincoln's presidency was viewed as a direct threat to their way of life. The southern elites believed that his administration would dismantle the foundations of their society, leading to a loss of both economic stability and social dominance. The combination of these fears—economic decline, loss of power, and the potential for social upheaval—created a volatile atmosphere in the South, where the stakes of the election were perceived as nothing less than existential.

The establishment of slavery as a social construct became integral to the southern way of life and its economic success, leading individuals who did not own slaves to perceive it as a cause worth defending, even at the cost of their lives. In order to protect this system, the elite class of southern slaveholders reinterpreted the principles of American democracy. They argued that the vision of the Founding Fathers, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, contained a significant flaw by proclaiming that all men are created equal. In stark contrast, these southern enslavers openly acknowledged a hierarchy among people, asserting their right to dominate.

By embedding white supremacy into the cultural fabric of society and framing slavery as a social norm, the poorer classes in the South found themselves fighting for their own sense of identity, community, and way of life. This struggle became a deeply personal battle, as they believed they were defending not only their homes and neighborhoods but also their very existence. Ironically, neither side fully comprehended the motivations and stakes involved for the other, leading to a profound misunderstanding of the conflict.

Abraham Lincoln's remarks in Chicago on July 11, 1858, which were later referenced by Stephen Douglas during their fifth debate in Galesburg, encapsulated the central issue at hand. “I should like to know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop?” he asked. Lincoln questioned the implications of making exceptions to the Declaration of Independence's assertion of equality. The Northern states recognized that the fight was not solely about the rights of Black individuals; it was a broader struggle to uphold the foundational principles of equality and justice that defined the nation.

Sectional and State Predilections

Although there were four principal candidates, the electoral battles were largely sectional, with Lincoln and Douglas prevailing in the North while Breckinridge and Bell competed for support in the South. Many voters in favor of secession cast their ballots for Breckinridge, hoping to create a scenario where no candidate would secure a majority of electoral votes, thereby forcing the election to be decided in the House of Representatives. This strategic voting reflected the deep divisions within the country at the time, underscoring the contentious nature of the election.

The electoral trends observed in various states vividly reflected the prevailing political sentiments of the time. In border states such as Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri, voters sought a candidate who would endorse both the Union and the institution of slavery. Texas presented a particularly fascinating case, as Sam Houston advocated for this dual support but ultimately lost to the strong secessionist appeals of Louis Wigfall. Meanwhile, the states with the highest numbers of enslaved individuals consistently cast their votes in favor of Breckinridge.

California

After the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846 and the Gold Rush, people came to SF literally from all over the world. The population of SF went from about  1000 to about 25,000 in about 5 years. As would be expected, both transplanted southerners favoring slavery (“Chivs” for chivalry), slave owners who brought their slaves with them, free blacks, immigrants, and transplanted northerners all were thrown together in a hurry. Although admitted as a free state, several hundred slaves were present and about 4000 free blacks.

There was no direct overland route to San Francisco, the primary city, from the East. Getting to SF required either a six-month cross-country trip, usually by wagon pulled by ox, or a dangerous voyage by ship around Cape Horn. The Isthmus of Panama was another option that was developed, but plenty of travelers became ill or died from Yellow Fever.

Although Leland Stanford did not share a personal relationship with President Lincoln, his role as Governor of California and his engagement with the Central Pacific Railroad significantly bolstered the Union's war efforts and influenced the nation's success during the Civil War. As the railroad project was being initiated, Stanford traveled eastward to garner support for both the railroad and his Republican candidacy for governor. In 1860, he sought backing from influential figures, discovering that Lincoln was a strong advocate for western expansion. Stanford leveraged his control over the California Republican Party to rally support for Lincoln, who, in turn, required the state's electoral votes to endorse a viable transcontinental railroad route. Thus, Stanford's backing for the Union was reciprocated with federal assistance for the Central Pacific project.

Another key figure during this period was Thomas Starr King, an Episcopal pastor in San Francisco, renowned for his eloquence and oratory skills, comparable to prominent speakers like Beecher and Emerson. Originally hailing from New Hampshire, King moved west in 1860, where he was deeply inspired by the natural beauty of Yosemite, which he viewed as a divine creation. He collaborated with fellow abolitionist Frederick Law Olmsted to advocate for the establishment of Yosemite as a protected reserve and a state park in California, reflecting his commitment to both environmental preservation and social justice.

King became an influential voice for abolition within his church, warning his congregation of the impending conflict over slavery and emphasizing the importance of preserving the Union. He captivated audiences with readings of poetry by notable authors such as Harte, Longfellow, and Lowell, while also gaining recognition for his fervent support of Abraham Lincoln's candidacy. On February 22, 1861, during a sermon on Washington's Birthday, he passionately urged his congregation of over a thousand to unite in saving the Union. He adorned his pulpit with an American flag and concluded each sermon with a heartfelt plea for blessings upon the president and all those dedicated to the cause of a united nation.

Lincoln won California in the 1860 election by just 0.6%. California had a strong anti-slavery sentiment, particularly among its settlers from free states. Many Californians were aligned with the Republican Party’s platform, which opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories and states. California’s political landscape was influenced by the growing Republican Party, which was gaining popularity in the North and West. California had only become a state in 1850, and its economy was largely driven by mining and agriculture, industries that did not rely on slavery. Many Californians saw the expansion of slavery as a threat to their economic interests and the political balance between free and slave states.

Virginia

Virginia isn’t usually considered a “border state” because it would become the capitol of the CSA and because slavery was widely practiced ante bellum. It is typically classified as being of the “Upper South” along with North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas, in large part because while it did eventually secede, it was late. The western part of the state was so Unionist that it seceded from Virginia to become a separate state.

But in many ways, Virginia was not exactly a southern state either. Its markets were in the north, its western population favored Union. It was fundamentally the plantation owners who favored secession. It is fascinating that the future capital of the Confederacy just a few months before secession voted to support someone who opposed it.

The election of Abraham Lincoln as president was held on November 6, 1860. He received just 1% of the 167,000 votes in Virginia. The state was carried by Constitutional Union candidate John Bell, who ran on a platform of compromise; he won by just 156 votes over John Breckinridge. Virginia voted for John Bell over Breckinridge because Bell offered a more moderate, Unionist approach that appealed to a broad coalition of voters who wanted to avoid the extremes of both secession and a Republican presidency. These voters were concerned about the future of the Union and believed that Bell’s platform provided the best chance to preserve it, even if it meant compromising on slavery. The map shows that Bell and Douglas were strongest in western Virginia and the northern counties while Breckinridge won in the agricultural regions.

While slavery was common in Virginia, its economy was much less dependent on it than most southern states. Cotton was not grown here, nor rice. There had been a devastating drought, and many slaves had been sold to other states and territories because there wasn’t work for them. In fact, slave sales were one of the highest revenue producers in the late 1850s here.

While the elite favored secession here, many did not in 1860. This was exactly the kind of state the Constitutional Union Party was created to carry. Virginia’s decision to vote for John Bell over John C. Breckinridge in the 1860 presidential election can be understood through a combination of political, social, and regional factors. In Virginia, there was a significant portion of the electorate that favored a more moderate approach to the sectional crisis. Many Virginians, particularly the state’s political elite, feared the deepening divisions between the North and South. John Bell, representing the Constitutional Union Party, ran on a platform of preserving the Union and avoiding secession. This position resonated with Virginians who sought to avoid conflict while still upholding the interests of Southern slaveholders.

While Breckinridge, the candidate of the Southern Democrats, strongly advocated for the protection of slavery and was seen as a champion of Southern rights, many Virginians were wary of the extreme positions that could lead to secession. A significant portion of the population wanted to find a way to keep the Union intact, and Bell’s platform of compromise and Unionism appealed to these voters.

Virginia had long been a key player in national politics and had a strong tradition of statesmanship. Figures like John Tyler, a former president and a Virginian, supported Bell and helped promote the Constitutional Union Party. For many Virginians, the idea of preserving the Union was more important than advancing the interests of slavery through secession. This made Bell a more palatable candidate than Breckinridge, who was more closely associated with the secessionist cause.

Many Virginians feared the consequences of a Lincoln victory, which they saw as a threat to slavery. However, they also saw the election as a pivotal moment and believed that supporting Bell, who sought to avoid direct confrontation over slavery, offered the best chance to preserve peace and prevent the collapse of the Union.

Only 9 days later, on November 15, Virginia Governor John Letcher called for a special session of the General Assembly to consider the creation of a secession convention. The legislature convened on January 7 and approved the convention on January 14. On January 19 the General Assembly called for a national Peace Conference, led by Virginia native and former President John Tyler, to be held in Washington, DC on February 4, the same date that elections were scheduled for delegates to the secession convention.

Maryland

But interestingly, Maryland, a border state north of Virginia, made a different choice. The reasons are really interesting to consider.

Maryland gained admission to the Union as a slave state in 1788. Because Maryland borders Virginia, the slave trade and the plantation-based system of slave labor spread to Maryland and developed there, so that by 1860 there were 87,189 African American slaves in Maryland. Slavery continued in Maryland until November 1, 1864, when the state adopted its state constitution, which outlawed slavery. Delaware was admitted to the Union as a slave state in 1787.

Maryland voted for John C. Breckinridge, the Southern Democratic candidate. Breckinridge received 45.9% of Maryland’s popular vote, securing the state’s 8 electoral votes. Maryland supported Breckinridge in large part because of its geographic and economic ties to the South. Although Maryland was a border state, its economy and society had strong ties to the Southern states, particularly through agriculture and slavery. Breckinridge’s pro-slavery stance resonated with many Maryland voters.

There were also complex political divisions in Maryland. Its electorate was deeply divided between Unionists and Southern sympathizers. Breckinridge’s support reflected the influence of pro-Southern sentiment, particularly in rural areas. In that state, where the southern democrats officially split during the convention in Baltimore, there was a fragmented opposition. The state’s vote was split among the four candidates: This division allowed Breckinridge to win with a plurality rather than a majority. The map shows that Breckinridge won because of the population of Baltimore. Baltimore was Democratic in orientation but the rural areas of the west of the state were Unionist.

Maryland’s divided loyalties would continue to play a significant role during the Civil War, as the state remained in the Union despite considerable Southern sympathies.

The Presidential Election

The election took place on November 6, 1860, resulting in Abraham Lincoln securing just under 40 percent of the popular vote. Despite this, he achieved a decisive victory in the Electoral College with 180 votes, primarily by winning the Northern states, except New Jersey, which he shared with Stephen Douglas. Douglas received nearly 30 percent of the vote but only managed to capture Missouri's 12 electoral votes. John C. Breckinridge, with 18 percent of the national vote, claimed 72 electoral votes by dominating the Southern states, along with Delaware and Maryland. Meanwhile, John Bell garnered 12.6 percent of the vote, earning 39 electoral votes from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia.

The voting patterns in the South highlight the significant regional divide during this period. Lincoln did not receive any votes in the states that would later form the Confederacy, except for Virginia, where he obtained a mere 1 percent of the total vote, while Douglas received just under 10 percent. This lack of support can be attributed to Lincoln's absence from the ballot in those Southern states, reflecting the deep-seated opposition to his platform. The state was carried by Constitutional Union candidate John Bell, who ran on a platform of compromise; he won by just 156 votes over John Breckinridge.

The demographic disparity between the North and South played a crucial role in the election outcome, as the North had a larger population, thus controlling the Electoral College. While Lincoln dominated the Northern states, he failed to win any Southern states. Douglas managed to secure 12 electoral votes from the North, but this was insufficient to pose a significant threat to Lincoln's candidacy. The Southern vote was divided between Breckinridge and Bell, preventing either from amassing enough support to challenge Lincoln effectively.

The election of 1860 solidified the positions of the Democratic and Republican parties as the dominant political forces in the United States, while also underscoring the entrenched views on slavery and states' rights that divided the nation.

1860 Election Results

Abraham Lincoln

Republican

180 Electoral Votes

John C. Breckinridge

Democratic

72 Electoral Votes

John Bell

Constitutional Union

39 Electoral Votes

Stephen A. Douglas

Democratic

12 Electoral Votes

Implications

In a nation deeply divided, Lincoln garnered approximately 40% of the popular vote, which was sufficient for a narrow victory in a highly contested election. This statistic indicates that a significant 60% of voters opted for candidates other than Lincoln: he was truly a minority president. A pressing concern emerged: would the Southern states accept the election outcome? Just weeks after the election, South Carolina made the decisive move to secede from the Union.

Shortly thereafter, on November 15, Virginia's Governor John Letcher convened a special session of the General Assembly to deliberate on the establishment of a secession convention. The legislature met on January 7 and subsequently approved the convention on January 14. By January 19, the General Assembly had called for a national Peace Conference, to be led by former President John Tyler, scheduled for February 4 in Washington, DC, coinciding with the elections for delegates to the secession convention. By the time Lincoln was inaugurated in March, seven Southern states had already seceded, and within a month of his presidency, the nation was plunged into civil war.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

The Crimean War – Part 3: Major Conflicts of the Crimean War

The Crimean War (1853–1856) was a conflict shaped by political rivalries, military innovation, and brutal clashes that tested the resilience of European armies. At its heart lay a struggle for influence between Russia and the Allied forces of Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire, and later Sardinia. The war's battles would reveal the strengths and weaknesses of 19th-century military tactics, paving the way for modern warfare.

Terry Bailey explains.

Read part 1 in the series here, and part 2 here.

The Battle of the Alma by Eugene Lami.

Among the most significant engagements was the Battle of Alma, fought on the 20th of September, 1854. This clash marked the first major confrontation between the Allies and Russian forces, setting the tone for the bloody campaigns that followed. It was a battle of strategy, courage, and missed opportunities, a battle that could have altered the course of the war had its victors seized the moment.

Therefore in the third instalment of the Crimean War, the aim is to delve into the key battles of the Crimean War, from the storming of the Alma Heights to the grueling Siege of Sevastopol, the legendary Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava, the chaotic hand-to-hand combat at Inkerman, and the crucial naval struggle in the Black Sea. Each of these engagements played a pivotal role in shaping the war's outcome and left a lasting impact on military history.

The Battle of the Alma: The First Clash

The Battle of the Alma, fought on the 20th of September, 1854, was the first significant engagement of the Crimean War. Allied forces, comprising British, French, and Ottoman troops, confronted the Russian army along the Alma River, approximately 35 miles north of Sevastopol. The Russian forces, under Prince Alexander Menshikov, had established strong defensive positions on elevated terrain south of the river, anticipating a formidable challenge for the advancing Allies.

The Allied strategy involved a coordinated assault, with the French army, led by Marshal Jacques St. Arnaud, advancing along the coast, while the British, under Lord Raglan, took an inland route. The French initiated the attack, with General Bosquet's division crossing the river and scaling the cliffs to outflank the Russian left. Concurrently, the British forces advanced under heavy artillery and musket fire. Despite facing intense resistance, the disciplined advance of the British infantry, including the notable actions of the Guards and Highland brigades, succeeded in breaking the Russian defensive lines.

The battle concluded with a decisive Allied victory, compelling the Russian forces to retreat toward Sevastopol. However, the Allies did not capitalize on their success; a lack of cavalry pursuit allowed the Russian army to withdraw in an orderly fashion, regroup, and fortify Sevastopol. This missed opportunity extended the conflict, leading to a protracted and grueling siege that would last for nearly a year.

The Battle of Alma not only demonstrated the effectiveness of Allied cooperation but also highlighted significant tactical lessons. The engagement underscored the importance of coordinated assaults and the need for effective pursuit of retreating forces to fully exploit battlefield victories. These insights would influence military strategies in subsequent conflicts, marking Alma as a pivotal moment in military history.

The Siege of Sevastopol: A war of attrition

The Siege of Sevastopol was the longest and most grueling engagement of the Crimean War, a drawn-out contest that tested the endurance of both the Allied and Russian forces. As the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Sevastopol was a crucial strategic target, and after their victory at the Battle of Alma, the Allied forces comprising British, French, and Ottoman, in addition to, Sardinian troops moved swiftly to encircle the city. However, the Russians, led first by Admiral Vladimir Kornilov and later by the formidable engineer General Eduard Totleben, transformed the city into a fortress of resistance.

Over nearly a year of brutal combat, the siege became a grim precursor to modern warfare. Trenches stretched across the battlefield, artillery pounded both sides relentlessly, and waves of counter-assaults turned the land into a nightmarish no-man's-land. The British launched repeated attacks against the Redan, while the French targeted the Malakoff, but each advance came at a staggering cost. Despite superior naval firepower and resources, the Allies found themselves locked in a war of attrition against the determined Russian defenders.

As the months dragged on, exhaustion and disease ravaged both sides. Yet, in September 1855, after relentless bombardment and a final decisive assault on the Malakoff, the Russian position became untenable. Realizing the city could no longer hold, the Russians evacuated Sevastopol, destroying their remaining defenses and scuttling their fleet to prevent it from falling into Allied hands. The fall of Sevastopol marked a turning point in the Crimean War, illustrating the devastating cost of prolonged siege warfare and foreshadowing the brutal conflicts of the 20th century.

The Battle of Balaclava: The Charge of the Light Brigade

The Battle of Balaclava fought on the 25th of October 1854 during the Crimean War, stands as a testament to both the horrors of miscommunication in battle and the unwavering courage of soldiers. Initially centered on a Russian offensive aimed at severing British supply lines, the battle took on legendary status due to the ill-fated Charge of the Light Brigade.

A misinterpretation of orders led approximately 600 British cavalrymen to charge straight into a heavily fortified Russian artillery position. Lacking proper support and facing withering fire from all sides, the Light Brigade suffered devastating losses. Their bravery, however, became the defining image of the battle, symbolizing the perils of unclear commands but also the fearless discipline of the British cavalry.

Beyond this tragic episode, Balaclava also highlighted the resilience of British forces in other engagements. The 93rd Highlanders, famously dubbed the "Thin Red Line," held their ground against a Russian cavalry advance, demonstrating steadfast discipline under immense pressure. Meanwhile, the Heavy Brigade's decisive charge successfully repelled a larger Russian force, showcasing the effectiveness of well-coordinated cavalry tactics.

Though the battle itself was inconclusive from a strategic standpoint, it left an enduring legacy. Alfred, Lord Tennyson's poem The Charge of the Light Brigade immortalized the heroism and sacrifice of those who rode "into the valley of Death." Balaclava remains one of the most evocative moments of the Crimean War, a story of valor, tragedy, and the importance of clear military leadership.

The Battle of Inkerman: The Soldiers' Battle

On the foggy morning of the 5th of November, 1854, the Crimean War saw one of its most brutal and chaotic engagements, the Battle of Inkerman. Often called the "soldiers' battle," it was defined not by grand strategic maneuvers but by the courage and resilience of individual troops and small units. The Russian forces, seeking to break through Allied lines, launched a surprise assault against British positions. The thick fog obscured visibility, turning the engagement into a series of fierce, close-quarters skirmishes.

Despite being heavily outnumbered, the British forces, later reinforced by their French allies, held their ground with remarkable tenacity. The rugged terrain and poor visibility meant that command-and-control structures struggled to function effectively, leaving much of the fighting to the initiative and discipline of individual soldiers.

Bayonet charges, hand-to-hand combat, and relentless volleys of fire defined the battle, as small groups of troops clashed in isolated struggles across the battlefield. Ultimately, the Allied forces repelled the Russian attack, inflicting significant losses. Inkerman proved that superior training, discipline, and tactical adaptability could overcome sheer numerical strength. The battle also highlighted the challenges of battlefield communication and coordination in unpredictable conditions. More than a test of strategy, the Battle of Inkerman became a testament to the determination and fighting spirit of the soldiers who fought it.

The Naval War in the Black Sea

The Crimean War was not only fought on land but also saw significant naval confrontations, particularly in the Black Sea, where control of supply lines and strategic ports played a decisive role. From the outset, the British and French fleets imposed a stringent blockade on Russian ports, crippling supply routes and restricting reinforcements. This maritime pressure was a key element in the broader Allied strategy to weaken Russian resistance.

One of the war's most pivotal naval engagements occurred on the 30th of November, 1853 at the Battle of Sinop, where the Russian fleet delivered a crushing blow to the Ottoman navy. This early Russian victory, marked by the destruction of several Ottoman vessels, shocked Britain and France, prompting them to escalate their involvement in the conflict.

The Allies responded by deploying their technologically superior steam-powered warships, which soon established dominance in the Black Sea.

The naval campaign reached its climax with the bombardment of Sevastopol, the heavily fortified Russian stronghold. Although the naval artillery alone could not break the city's defenses, it placed immense pressure on Russian forces, contributing to the eventual fall of the city.

The final blow to Russian naval power came with the destruction of their Black Sea fleet, ensuring that their maritime influence in the region would never fully recover. This loss significantly weakened Russia's overall war effort, demonstrating the crucial role that naval supremacy played in shaping the outcome of the Crimean War.

The Crimean War's major battles showcased the evolution of warfare, from traditional cavalry charges to the grueling realities of siege warfare and trench combat. The bravery of soldiers on both sides was met with the harsh realities of logistical failures, disease, and miscommunication. With Sevastopol under Allied control and Russian forces reeling, the war moved toward its final phases, setting the stage for the dramatic conclusion of this historic conflict.

Therefore, it is very easy to conclude that the Crimean War, was particularly savage with important battles such as the battles of Alma, Balaclava, Inkerman, and the prolonged siege of Sevastopol, setting the stage and providing a warning of what future conflict would look like, however, it was the breaking of the siege of Sevastopol that marked a turning point in the Crimean War.

These engagements revealed the brutal realities of modern conflict, where industrial advancements, evolving tactics, and logistical challenges shaped the course of battle. The war underscored the growing importance of coordination between infantry, cavalry, artillery, and naval forces, while also exposing severe deficiencies in communication, leadership, and medical care, issues that would demand urgent reform in the British and other European armies.

The war's most enduring legacy, however, lies in its far-reaching consequences. Militarily, it demonstrated the vulnerabilities of large, conscripted armies reliant on outdated doctrines, prompting significant reforms in the Russian, British, and French armed forces. Politically, the war shattered the balance of power that had defined Europe since the Napoleonic era, diminishing Russian influence in the Black Sea region and setting the stage for conflicts in the future. Diplomatically, it highlighted the fragility of alliances, as tensions between Britain and France persisted beyond their temporary wartime cooperation.

Perhaps most notably, the Crimean War heralded a new era of warfare, where technological advancements, including steam-powered warships, rifled muskets, and the first war correspondents brought the brutality of battle closer to home than ever before. The public outcry over the appalling conditions faced by soldiers, particularly in British hospitals, led to transformative changes in military medicine and logistics, championed by figures such as Florence Nightingale. These lessons would resonate far beyond the 1850s, influencing military strategy and humanitarian efforts in conflicts to come.

While the Crimean War may not have reshaped borders as dramatically as later wars, it left an indelible mark on military history. The valor displayed by soldiers from all combatant forces, the strategic miscalculations, and the hard-fought battles all contributed to shaping the modern world. In many ways, the lessons learned in Crimea foreshadowed the brutal realities of warfare in the 20th century, making it a conflict not just of its time, but of times to come.

In the next instalment, we will explore the humanitarian crisis that emerged from the war and the critical role of medical advancements in battlefield care.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

Victoria Crosses

The Crimean War (1853–1856) was the first conflict in which the Victoria Cross (VC) was awarded. The medal was instituted in 1856 by Queen Victoria to recognize acts of extreme valor in the face of the enemy.

A total of 111 Victoria Crosses were awarded for actions during the Crimean War. What made these VCs special was the Crimean War medals were awarded retrospectively for bravery displayed during the war, which took place before the inception and minting of the medal.

The poem, 'The Charge of the Light Brigade'

It is worth quoting Alfred, Lord Tennyson's poem about the Charge of the Light Brigade as it is intimately linked to that event.

I

Half a league, half a league,

Half a league onward,

All in the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!

Charge for the guns!" he said.

Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

II

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"

Was there a man dismayed?

Not though the soldier knew

Someone had blundered.

Theirs not to make reply,

Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do and die.

Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

III

Cannon to right of them,

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon in front of them

Volleyed and thundered;

Stormed at with shot and shell,

Boldly they rode and well,

Into the jaws of Death,

Into the mouth of hell

Rode the six hundred.

IV

Flashed all their sabres bare,

Flashed as they turned in air

Sabring the gunners there,

Charging an army, while

All the world wondered.

Plunged in the battery-smoke

Right through the line they broke;

Cossack and Russian

Reeled from the sabre stroke

Shattered and sundered.

Then they rode back, but not

Not the six hundred.

V

Cannon to right of them,

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon behind them

Volleyed and thundered;

Stormed at with shot and shell,

While horse and hero fell.

They that had fought so well

Came through the jaws of Death,

Back from the mouth of hell,

All that was left of them,

Left of six hundred.

VI

When can their glory fade?

O the wild charge they made!

All the world wondered.

Honour the charge they made!

Honour the Light Brigade,

Noble six hundred!

Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson FRS, (6 August 1809 – 6 October 1892)