Monarchist Profile: Lady Mary Bankes

The English Civil Wars produced a great many heroic figures and one of my favorites is Mary Bankes though not all that many seem to know her story. This is, perhaps, not surprising as she rather goes against the preferred narrative of modern feminists in that Mrs. Bankes was a staunch royalist. She was born Mary Hawtry in Ruislip, Middlesex, England to Ralph Hawtry, Esquire of Ruislip and Mary Altham though exactly when I cannot say. August 8 is sometimes listed as the day of her birth but the date seems very unclear as I have seen accounts of her being born as early as 1598 to as late as 1605. In any event, her early years seem to have been blissfully uneventful. In or about 1618 she was married to Sir John Bankes who would go on to become the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Attorney-General to King Charles I of Britain. He was obviously a successful man with a fine legal career and in 1635 he purchased Corfe Castle in Dorset, with all attending manorial rights and obligations, from Lady Elizabeth Coke.

Sir John Bankes Esq.

Lady Mary was also quite successful at her task of wife and mother, giving Sir John ten children, six daughters and four sons (Ralph, Jerome, Charles, William, Alice, Jane, Mary, Joanna, Elizabeth and Arabella). However, their domestic happiness was cut short thanks to the antics of the Parliamentarians. In 1643 Sir John Bankes was called away by the King to take up arms against the enemies of the Crown at London and Oxford and so he departed, leaving Corfe Castle in the charge of his wife with their children, household staff and five fighting men for security. This would prove crucial as Corfe Castle was at the time the only armed royalist castle an the coast of Dorsetshire, having four cannons on its walls. The importance of the castle did not escape the notice of the rebel Roundheads (Parliamentarians) and not long after Sir John left about 40 Roundhead sailors appeared and demanded that the artillery be turned over to them. Well, Lady Mary was having none of that and promptly had her maids and the five men put the cannon in action and frighten the rebels away with a few shots.

That act of defiance showed what Lady Mary Bankes was made of but she also knew that it was a momentary victory and that the real importance of her position was the castle itself rather than the cannon. The enemy had retreated but were not far away and so she did, ultimately, decide to hand the guns over so that she could gather supplies which would enable her tiny household army to withstand a siege. This was very good planning indeed as not long after, in June of 1643, more Roundheads appeared, this time about 600 of them and laid siege to the castle. This went on for more than a month when the rebels began to feel rather silly being held at bay by a handful of men and some women and children so they began to attack the castle. Once again, Lady Mary, with her household, held off these trespassers by pelting them with stones and fiery embers from the castle walls until, after losing over a hundred men killed or wounded in August, the Roundheads conceded the victory to Lady Mary and pulled back.

The siege of Corfe Castle

It helped that a sizeable force of royalists was in the neighborhood as well and these came to call on the castle with Sir John even able to visit his wife and children briefly. A few more soldiers were left behind, bringing the total number of defenders up to 80 at most, but soon the situation shifted back to the way it had been before. The castle was still too important to abandon entirely and the rebel forces returned but remained at a distance. This second siege continued and continued for years. For Lady Mary, this was her darkest hour and at the end of 1644 her husband Sir John died at the age of 55, making her son Sir Ralph Bankes and the new lord of the manor. In spite of this heartache, Mary remained just as tenacious as ever and refused to surrender her fortress to the enemies of the King even as another year and another passed by. 1645 came and went and Corfe Castle still stood defiant, defended by Mary Bankes and her gallant little band. The enemy, perhaps remembering the more than a hundred casualties they had suffered trying to storm the place, simply remained at a safe distance to wait their enemy out.

The time for waiting finally ended in 1646. That year a young royalist officer, named Colonel Cromwell no less, managed to slip inside the castle with a small group of soldiers to offer Lady Mary the chance to escape. She was grateful for any help of course but refused to abandon her home to the enemy and, after all, she had been holding them off well enough for the past few years. However, this second siege would not go on for much longer, though, among her tiny force of children and scullery maids, it was one of the men of the small group of actual soldiers present who was to doom her little outpost. One of the men with her in the castle, one Lt. Colonel Thomas Pittman, slipped outside the castle walls to the enemy camp and offered to betray his King in exchange for his own safety. He persuaded the garrison commander, Colonel Henry Anketell to go to Somerset for reinforcements but the troops that came were Roundheads with their coats turned inside out. About half made it inside before Anketell suspected something and shut the small sally gate. Unfortunately, enough made it inside to secure key positions and hold them until morning when they were joined by a major Parliamentarian attack.

Modern ruins of Corfe Castle

Lady Mary Bankes, with most of her home overrun by the enemy, finally had no choice but to agree to surrender. Although, she did not do so until having her maids and children throw all the family silverware down a well so that it could not be melted down and used to fund the Parliamentarian cause. She was defiant to the very end. However, even the Roundheads were so impressed by her tenacity in holding off such superior forces for so long that they allowed her to keep the keys to the castle as a mark of respect. Not wishing to ever endure such an ordeal again, the Parliament ordered the castle demolished immediately. Lady Mary, for her part, retired to Eastcourt manor, purchased by her sons Sir Ralph and Jerome and remained there until her death on April 11, 1661. She was an extraordinary woman who earned an honored place in the pages of history for her steadfast and determined defense of her home for the sake of King and Country. Had King Charles I been blessed with a few more people with the courage and tenacity of Mary Bankes, he might just have won the war.

The Austrian Empire and the Confederacy

The American Civil War was the bloodiest conflict ever fought in the western hemisphere of the world and, as such, attracted a great deal of attention from other powers. Previously, I have discussed on these pages how a war between two factions of republicans actually had a tremendous impact on the monarchist cause in the Americas. Most of the ‘Great Powers’ of Europe had an interest in the War Between the States. The British Empire had an economic interest with southern cotton feeding the textile mills of England while the industrial centers of the northern states were major competitors. Indeed, only a few decades after the war ended with the north victorious, the United States of America surpassed Great Britain as the world’s largest economy and has remained so ever since. The tentative steps of the Kingdom of Spain to rebuild the Spanish Empire in Latin America, the French-backed restoration of the Mexican Empire and the French plans for a “Kingdom of the Andes” in South America all depended on the Confederacy being victorious due to opposition to all such endeavors by the Union government in Washington DC.

Emperor Francis Joseph

The northern states were also home to large numbers of European immigrants who had fled their countries after failed revolutionary movements, so there were many Irish republicans in the north who detested the British Empire and many liberal Germans who had fled in the aftermath of the Revolutions of 1848. The only ‘Great Power’ to be seen at least as supportive of the U.S. government was the Russian Empire and this was mostly due to the fact that Britain and France were seen as friendlier to the Confederacy and the Russians hoped to counter this such as when Russia sold Alaska to the United States in order to prevent it being added to Canada by the British in a potential future conflict. The Austrian Empire was not extremely concerned about events in America, having many pressing problems of their own to deal with at the time, but that is not to say that they were not interested at all. Although the Emperor of Austria, Francis Joseph, had opposed the whole adventure, his younger brother was Emperor of Mexico and thus his fate, and that of the Austrian volunteer corps sent to aid him in Mexico, also depended almost entirely on the Confederates winning their independence.

Captain Ross at Gettysburg

As also pointed out previously, the Confederacy was also greatly influenced by the style of the Austrian Empire. The uniforms of the Confederate army were inspired by those of the Austrian light infantry and the first Confederate national flag was inspired by the ensign of the Austrian Empire, both being designed by the Prussian artist Nicola Marschall. The Emperor of Austria also had his own “eyes on the ground” so to speak, in the person of Captain FitzGerald Ross, a British-born officer of the Sixth Austrian Hussar Regiment. He made quite a stir in the southern states with his waxed moustache and braided Hussar uniform, in fact he was almost mobbed by admirers after being persuaded by some Confederate officers to wear his full dress uniform, fur busby, dolman and all, for a ride with them. He witness the Battle of Gettysburg, then went to Richmond, Charleston and then Chattanooga, Tennessee where he observed the fight from the lines of the Confederate General Braxton Bragg. He also visited the Gulf coast, Mobile, Alabama and so on. Like many, he was very impressed by the Confederate military and, like many more, was also impressed by the southern ladies. He became an ardent Confederate sympathizer, even to the point of picking up a rifle and taking part in a battle during his long stay in the south. When Ross finally returned to Europe, no matter what bad news reached him, he remained confident that the south would ultimately win.

Such a thing would have, inadvertently, greatly expanded Austrian influence in the New World given that the establishment of a Habsburg monarchy in Mexico (or rather the ‘reestablishment’) would have given Austria a sort of foothold in the region. Confederate President Jefferson Davis was certainly aware of this and tried to enlist the Prussian observer, Captain Justus Scheibert, as an envoy to Emperor Napoleon III of France. He proposed a sort of Franco-Confederate alliance, pointing out that in the Mexican War (of which Davis was a noted veteran) the U.S. had defeated Mexico with only 12,000 men and that if Napoleon would lift the Union blockade of the southern coast, which Davis believed could be done with ‘the stroke of a pen’ and would ensure a Confederate victory, he would supply 20,000 Confederate troops to aid the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico, explaining that southern troops were adjusted to the climate and familiar with the fighting style of the Mexicans.

Austrian officers in Mexico

However, this, as we know, did not come to pass. Although tempted, none of the European powers ultimately were bold enough to risk war with the United States by recognizing the Confederacy (though Pope Pius IX did address a letter to Jefferson Davis as President of the C.S.A.). When the Confederacy fell, the effort to spread monarchy in the Americas quickly fell apart. The U.S. government dispatched an army to the south Texas border and warned the French to withdraw or face war. Napoleon, not wishing to see the enterprise be for nothing, hoped that the Austrian Empire would take up the French cause of supporting the Mexican imperialists. A further 2,000 Austrian volunteers (roughly) were assembled at the port of Trieste, ready to embark for Mexico and fight for Emperor Maximilian. It was, though, at that point that the Union government stepped in by way of U.S. Minister to Vienna John Lothrop Motley who went to the Hofburg and informed the Austrian Emperor quite bluntly that the U.S. recognized only Benito Juarez as the leader of the legitimate Mexican government and that if the Austrian troops were allowed to leave, the U.S. would consider the Austrian Empire to be at war with the Mexican Republic and the U.S. Navy would take retaliatory action on behalf of Mexico.

The expedition was thus canceled, the Austrian soldiers disbanded and the Austrian Volunteer Corps already fighting in Mexico was promptly recalled. Many had already been slaughtered at the Battle of Santa Gertrudis where, seeing which way the winds were blowing, their comrades of the Mexican Imperial Army had deserted in the middle of the battle to join the republicans. The surrender of General Lee at Appomattox Court House in 1865 had set the dominos to falling, the Austrians pulled out and shortly thereafter the Habsburg Emperor of Mexico was captured and shot, the Austrian Emperor then even having a difficult time retrieving the body of his slain younger brother. The Imperial House of Habsburg had had a presence in the Americas ever since Philip the Handsome and Charles V had held their Spanish crowns until the succession was taken up by the Bourbons of France. In 1864, however, another Habsburg returned to, he hoped, usher in a new era of monarchy in the Americas but with the fall of the Confederacy, it was inevitable that the Habsburgs would once again lose their place in the New World.

July Fourth, Kings and Confederates

General John C. Pemberton, CSA

It may surprise some to know, given the current political geography of the United States, that the Fourth of July was not celebrated in the southern states from the time of the American Civil War until World War I. This was because, for the south, not only did it seem hypocritical to celebrate the secession of the American colonies from the British Empire while simultaneously suppressing the secession of the southern states from the American Union but also because it was on July 4, 1863 that the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi surrendered to the U.S. forces. This cut the Confederacy in two and gave the northern states total control of the primary 'artery' of North America. It was also no accident. The Confederate commander, General John C. Pemberton, was a northern native and he believed that he could obtain the best terms if he surrendered on July Fourth rather than any other day. So, for the south, the fourth of July was a sad day and not one that any southerner wished to celebrate. It took many years and some new foreign foes before southerners felt sufficiently "patriotic" to once again join in celebrations marking the American Declaration of Independence from the British Crown.

That the south should not wish to celebrate on a day that marked one of their most pivotal defeats is understandable, however, I would submit that the overriding issue of secession is not so clear cut. It is, occasionally, even today remarked upon that if secession from the British Empire was valid, then secession from the United States must have been as well. An American celebrity (whose name escapes me) actually said as much to President Lincoln himself upon the outbreak of the great crisis in 1861. When asked where he stood, this man said that if secession was just and valid then his sympathies must be with the south but if secession was not just and valid then he must say, "God Save King George". It is certainly a case which has a certain logic to it. However, I cannot quite see it in that way which requires a sort of distance being placed between oneself and the actual events 'on the ground' as it were. If the Confederates were wrong, does that mean that the colonists were too? I do not think so but I would see it, rather, in terms that the Confederates could be right but the colonists still wrong and I think the American War for Independence actually proves rather than disproves such a position which, I confess, must seem contradictory to many.

King George III

For myself, the issue rests on what we might call "founding principles". The southern states, I would argue, had every right to secede (for good reasons, bad reasons or any reasons at all) because of the nature of the union that was forged by the successful secession of the colonies from the British Empire. The southern states voluntarily joined the Union under the current American Constitution. The colonies, on the other hand, never voluntarily joined the British Empire. They were born of it as a child is born of his or her parents. A child does not choose the family he or she is born into, they simply belong together by blood. British colonists were subjects of the British monarch from birth, by the nature of their blood, their ancestry and their nationality. American citizens, on the other hand, were citizens of the United States under the terms of a specific legal contract, namely the Constitution. Moreover, when American independence became real it required King George III to recognize, not the independence of "the United States of America" but rather the independence of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York etc individually. These individual, independent states, formerly colonies, then consented to join together in a union with the other American states, first under the Articles of Confederation and then under the current Constitution. As such, I would argue that they had every right to withdraw from said Union whereas their colonial predecessors had no such right as they had no such legal, contractual relationship with the British Crown.

To put it another way, the southern states had precedent on their side which the rebel colonists did not. There was a time, albeit brief, when they were not part of the Union and so they could revert back to not being part of it again. The colonies, on the hand, had never not been part of the British Empire, had never not been subject to the laws and sovereignty of England (I say England rather than the Crown as, during the Cromwellian dictatorship, there was a period when they were not subject to the Crown but were still subject to the authority of the English government). The United States of America was a product of a new, "Enlightenment" way of political thinking. It was based on a more business-like relationship between two parties. One party consented to be governed under a given code and when the state of South Carolina believed this code to no longer be beneficial, voided the contract and withdrew from membership in the Union. The United Kingdom of Great Britain was not established on such a basis. It was partly for this reason that Britain and America went to war in 1812. The Royal Navy impressed sailors into its service which included, the U.S. argued, American citizens, which is to say British subjects who had taken American citizenship. However, at that time (unlike today), the British did not regard any subject as having the ability to change their allegiance. They were British by blood and subjects of the British Crown by birth and no document from the American government could change that fact.

The U.S. government in 1861 certainly saw things differently. They believed that by cutting ties with the King in London, they had all ceased to be British or Europeans of any sort and had become Americans and so they adopted the British view that Americans in the southern states must be forever united with the Americans of the northern states. However, their system of government had been established in such a way as to be totally different from that of Britain and this is illustrated, I think, by the fact that the U.S. government was obliged to take numerous and repeated draconian measures which were later judged to be completely unconstitutional in order to see the rebellion in the southern states suppressed and the rule of the U.S. government restored to power over the whole country. They were fighting a war which the lofty, liberal ideals of their founders never expected to happen. Would any other prince or potentate have acted differently than Lincoln if a large portion of his country were endeavoring to break away? Perhaps not, but this is the problem with the idealistic liberalism upon which the United States was founded. Whether in the Civil War, World War I, World War II or even the current (and seemingly never-ending) War on Terror, we are shown that the leaders of the United States have found it impossible to maintain the country while strictly adhering to those original liberal values but are forced, again and again, to resort to measures they would, under other circumstances, deem deplorable. Proving, I think, that liberalism and realism have never been companions.

Final Efforts at Restoration in Latin America

As discussed previously on several occasions, the American Civil War represented the last realistic chance to date of ending the monopoly on power of the republican form of government in the Americas. The United States has long before issued the Monroe Doctrine which declared the Americas “off limits” to any European power attempting to reestablish their former New World empires. This was backed up by the British and the Royal Navy made what would otherwise been nothing but bluster something that could be enforced. However, with the outbreak of war between the United States and Confederate States of America in 1861 two very important things changed. First, the U.S.A. was no longer in a position to actually do anything to stop a European monarchy from trying to restore their fallen away territories in the Americas and second, the British and the United States were no longer on very friendly terms. Many in Britain, particularly among the aristocracy, favored the Confederacy. So, from 1861 to 1865 the monarchies of the Old World had a chance to do as they pleased without having to worry about the politicians in Washington DC. Had the Confederacy succeeded in maintaining its independence, this bank holiday might have turned into a new era for monarchy in the Americas.

Queen Isabella II of Spain

The largest, and most discussed, effort along these lines was the restoration of monarchy in Mexico. The British, French and Spanish all landed troops on the Mexican coast in December of 1861, the French stayed, pushed inland and captured Mexico City. The Austrian Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian was imported in 1864 to begin his reign as Emperor Maximilian of Mexico. The French Emperor Napoleon III was also looking to build a canal across Central America and the eventual expansion of the Mexican Empire into that region sometime in the future seemed to be a foregone conclusion. Louis Napoleon also corresponded with President Gabriel Garcia Moreno on the idea of creating a French-backed “Kingdom of the Andes” centered around Ecuador under a suitable Spanish prince. This was not altogether new as the first President of Ecuador had conspired with Queen Marie Christina of the Two-Sicilies (former regent of Spain) to put her son on the throne of a Latin American monarchy that would encompass Ecuador and several surrounding countries. The Empire of Brazil was, at the time, also a major power and Emperor Maximilian of Mexico expected it to become the dominant power in South America had his own regime survived and the years of the American Civil War also saw the Dominican Republic return to the arms of Spain when they recognized Queen Isabella II as their sovereign. When the United States defeated the Confederacy in 1865, the Spanish gave up their half of Hispaniola, knowing they could never hold it in defiance of a hostile United States just across the water.

Another effort by the Old World to regain influence in the New during this period, not yet discussed on these pages, was the Chincha Islands War fought by the Kingdom of Spain under Queen Isabella II against the South American republics of Peru and Chile from 1864 to 1866. It was not a major event and is generally overlooked in the catalogue of historic events of the Americas and, for once, I will concede that this is not unjustified. The war was not a massive conflict, consisting of a few rather minor naval skirmishes, and while it could have been extremely significant, it was not because of two reasons. It ultimately amounted to nothing because the South American republics showed that while they may have a hard time getting along with each other, they would unite to prevent the reestablishment of Spanish rule or even Spanish influence in their continent and because the defeat of the Confederacy the year after the war started meant that even if the Spanish had been successful, the United States would likely have ultimately forced them out anyway. Finally, it is also true that the Chincha Islands War was from start to finish, at the very most, simply a quite modest first step in the direction of rebuilding the Spanish empire at some distant, unforeseen date.

Spanish forces on the Chichan Islands, 1864

The primary antagonists were Spain and Peru and it is worth remembering a few things about both countries. The Kingdom of Spain was a power to take seriously in 1864. The military had been greatly enlarged, mostly due to the ongoing civil wars at home, Spain had the fourth largest navy in the world and Queen Isabella II was anxious to reassert Spain as one of the major European powers. Had not Spanish strength been squandered by the fratricidal Carlist Wars, one can imagine Spain succeeding far beyond the establishment of a foothold in North Africa. Peru, on the other hand, was still a new country, having effectively achieved independence only 43 years earlier. It had been the Spanish royalist stronghold of South America during the Latin American revolutions and was only torn from Spain when revolutionary armies from neighboring countries invaded and forced the Spanish out. One of the things that made Peru and other South American republics somewhat nervous about the Chincha Islands War was that, by 1864, Spain had still not recognized the independence of Peru. The facts on the ground were the facts on the ground but those who thought Spain had more in mind than the ostensible reasons for the conflict could point to the fact that, technically, Queen Isabella II still regarded Peru as a Spanish possession in rebellion rather than a legitimate country.

Conflict erupted following a mob attack on a couple of Spanish subjects in Peru, followed by Peru refusing the Spanish demand for an apology and reparations. Spain was also insisting that Peru pay debts from the colonial period and for Spanish property seized during the war for independence. Peru refused and on April 14, 1864 a Spanish naval flotilla seized the not very well defended Chincha Islands. This was somewhat important as these islands were a primary source of guano for Peru. If the idea of a war over bird feces sounds ridiculous, keep in mind that this bird crap produced more than half of the Peruvian government’s annual income and then you might also want to go and refresh your memory on what oil actually is. Spanish marines occupied the islands, raised the flag and shouted vivas to Queen Isabella II but holding the islands was simply a means to force Peru to the negotiating table. Spanish ships also began blockading the major Peruvian ports but Spain never had sufficient forces anywhere near Peru for a major operation such as an invasion of the mainland to reestablish Spanish authority by force.

Vice Admiral Pareja

This opening move was taken by the local Spanish commander, Admiral Luis Hernandez Pinzon, on his own authority and, at first, the Spanish government tried to undo the action and replaced the admiral with another, Peruvian born, officer but in the face of continued Peruvian defiance decided to carry on for the sake of Spanish honor. Nonetheless, the new man on the ground (or ‘on the water’ as it were), Admiral Juan Manuel Pareja, began negotiations with the Peruvian government and the two sides agreed to a treaty that would end the conflict. However, the Peruvian public considered the agreement an outrage and the Peruvian Congress refused to ratify it and as this was followed by an anti-Spanish rebellion against the sitting government, all doubt vanished that the conflict would go on. A wave of anti-Spanish hysteria swept the region and when Chile closed its ports to the Spanish sanctions were placed on them and ships were dispatched to show the flag in Chilean waters. The Chilean government shortly thereafter joined the conflict, declaring war on Spain.

Ecuador and Bolivia later joined in declaring war on Spain as well. They would take no active part in the conflict but this meant that all ports on the Pacific would be closed to Spanish ships, making it extremely difficult to maintain operations against Peru and Chile. Argentina and the Empire of Brazil were invited to add their names to the list of allies at war with Spain but they were both occupied with a war against Paraguay and decided against it. The Spanish wanted to engage the Peruvian and Chilean navies in a decisive action at sea that would wipe them out and give Spain uncontested naval control of the Pacific coast, however the Battle of Abtao, fought on February 7, 1866 between two Spanish ships and four allied ships (3 Peruvian & 1 Chilean) was tactically indecisive but a strategic failure as the allied fleet survived. On March 31, 1866 the Spanish fleet bombarded the port of Valparaiso, Chile and destroyed 33 Chilean merchant ships, effectively wiping out the merchant marine of Chile. This was followed up by the Battle of Callao on May 2, 1866 in which the Spanish attacked a heavily defended port. They did some damage, inflicted far heavier losses on the Peruvians than they suffered but did no major, lasting damage to the port and ultimately withdrew. Peru, therefore, claimed to have successfully repelled the Spanish while the Spanish also declared victory, saying that their goal had simply been to punish the Peruvians and that goal had been accomplished.

The Battle of Callao

In truth, Spain had basically won the battle. They had destroyed the shore defenses and then sailed away because, effectively, there was nothing more they could do. They had no invasion force to land and so, left when the battle was over. The Peruvians had survived rather than triumphed, there had been considerable loss of life and their claims of driving the Spanish away were rather erroneous. The Spanish had never intended to invade and seize the port, they had no army to do it with and so had left after destroying what shore batteries there were to destroy. Still, the Spanish fleet had sailed away and so it was easy for the Peruvian media to portray the battle as a victory over their former masters. With no base of support and no friendly ports in the region, this engagement effectively ended the war as the Spanish fleet was forced by dwindling supplies to return to Spain via The Philippines. In the aftermath, Peru was so buoyed by their “victory” that they considered revamping their navy and conquering The Philippines which, considering the local opposition to Spanish rule, is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Nonetheless, domestic difficulties quickly nixed the idea.

By 1866, of course, the American Civil War had ended and the United States was once again free to assert itself south of the Rio Grande and all European involvement in the Americas began to draw to a close. In the years that followed the war was officially concluded though it would take well into the next decade before the Kingdom of Spain officially recognized Peruvian independence. This has, needless to say, helped fuel speculation and controversy as to how far Spain intended to go with the conflict. Personally, I doubt there is any precise answer. The Chichan Islands War had not been premeditated, so to speak, but I think it safe to assume that Spain would have logically pushed any advantage as far as it could go. They may have meant simply greater Spanish influence in the region or, had things gone considerably differently, I doubt they would have objected to a reestablishment of the Spanish empire in South America.

Ever since the breakup of the Spanish empire on the American mainland, the Spanish had always believed that they had considerable popular support that was being suppressed and if only they could land in some force, win a respectable victory and appear strong then the great mass of the locals would rush to the Spanish colors and welcome them back as liberators from the succession of military dictators who held power in virtually every Latin American country. Looking back, events would seem to indicate that this was largely wishful thinking. It was certainly the motivation behind the 1829 invasion of Mexico at the port of Tampico by General Isidro Barradas which ended in disaster. Yet, given that Peru had been the center of the most royalist sentiment in Spanish America during the colonial period, this may well have been something the Spanish were counting on to regain their former empire, or at least much of it, ‘on the cheap’ by use of predominately local volunteers. Given the public response in Peru during the Chichan Islands War, if there was any sizeable loyalist element it remained well hidden. Yet, that is not to say it should be dismissed. It may well have been that a significant Spanish victory on the mainland would have convinced the locals that they were the winning side and that always helps to win people over.

As it was, as stated at the outset, the Chichan Islands War was a minor affair. Spain did not back up its forces for a major campaign and, as the American Civil War had ended in 1865, the United States would not have allowed such a thing if it had. As with the Mexican adventure by Napoleon, his dreams of a Kingdom of the Andes, the readmission of the Dominican Republic to the Kingdom of Spain and any thoughts of expansion into South America, all was doomed by the Confederate defeat and the victory of the Union forces in America who stated at the start of European involvement in Mexico that it would never recognize or accept the establishment or reestablishment of any monarchy in the Americas. The only way any of this could have happened would have been if the Confederate States of America had succeeded in securing their independence and thus provided a buffer state between the remaining United States and Latin America. When General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House in southern Virginia, the impact was felt far away from simply the American southern states.

The Austrian Style of the Confederacy

During the American Civil War neither side was without some monarchial connections. Men of royal rank actually fought on both sides, which is not all that surprising given what a titanic struggle it was. Given that the conflict marked the bloodiest war ever fought in the western hemisphere, it is only natural that others would be drawn in by it. Of course, the war did not directly concern the subject of monarchy at all as it was a war between two factions of republicans. Indirectly (as we have covered here over the years) it had a great impact on a number of monarchies in the world, particularly in effort to revive monarchism in the Americas by the Spanish in the Caribbean and the French in Mexico (and perhaps beyond). Both sides, however, had republicanism imprinted on them from birth and both used republican terms to insult their enemies. The Confederates, in the south, for example, were fond of referring to U.S. President Abraham Lincoln as “His Majesty, Abraham I” while the adherents to the Union in the north often branded the southern rebels with the title of “Tories”, originally the term for those loyal to the King in the American War for Independence and which had come to be applied to anyone viewed as a traitor to the American cause and ideals, particularly, in this war, with the notion that “all men are created equal”.

Deification of Lincoln

North and south may have had similar political prejudices concerning monarchy but no one could say they both exhibited a similar level of antagonism toward the institution. The southern Confederacy, then as now, could easily be viewed as the more royal-friendly of the two governments. It was the more tradition-minded, aristocratic, “Old World” part of America but this view was also due to a great deal of political expediency rather than genuine sincerity. The Confederacy was clearly outmatched in the struggle and, as such, it was in the interests of the south to persuade other powers to intervene and most of the foreign powers in the world in 1861 were monarchies. As such, a stridently republican attitude would not have served the south well. The north, on the other hand, was in a dominant position from the outset and, needing no direct foreign assistance, simply wanted foreign powers to stay out of the conflict and, indeed, threatened war against any who would even talk of making peace between the north and south. As such, anti-monarchy sentiment was quite common in the north though the great powers of the world tended to fall more on one side than the other depending on their own politics. This never extended to outright support but one could see prospective alliances waiting to happen. It was clearly in the best interests of the French Empire for the Confederates to win and Britain, while less sure, tended at the higher levels of society to favor a divided America as well. With Britain and France showing more sympathy for the Confederates, this left the Russian Empire showing more sympathy for the United States as a counterweight.

The United States also had a more republican fervor to it, not because of the American people, but because of Europeans. After the Revolutions of 1848 many European republicans had fled to American shores and most foreign immigrants flocked to the big cities of the north such as Boston or New York City. There were many German, Irish, Polish and Sicilian immigrants to the north who were far more zealous republicans than any native-born Americans for whom kingly rule was a distant memory and who, even earlier than the war, had even developed a bit of nostalgia for the old days of colonialism under King George. However, there was one particular immigrant to the American south whose influence gave the Confederacy a very monarchist appearance, even if not everyone in Dixie’s Land realized it. When the southern states seceded and southern boys marched off to war, they bore more than a passing resemblance to the armies of the Hapsburg Empire of Austria-Hungary.

Nicola Marschall

Nicola Marschall was a Prussian-born immigrant to the American south from a family, appropriately enough, of tobacco merchants. He arrived via New Orleans in 1849 and soon moved to Alabama. He did return to Germany for a time but came back and seems to have regarded Marion, Alabama as his home. By profession he was an artist and taught art in the south for a time. In those days, private schools that served the children of high-born southerners offered gainful employment to a number of Europeans as wealthy planter families wanted their offspring to be as “cultured” as the aristocrats of Europe. Every such southern child was expected to be well educated in art and music as well as being well-read in the classics. This reached such an extent that, though few remember it today, before the war it was very unusual to find a member of a wealthy planter family in the south who could not speak French. As an artist, Marschall painted landscapes and portraits and during his career had several notable people pose for him such as Otto von Bismarck, President Lincoln and Confederate President Jefferson Davis. However, his contribution to the monarchial appearance of the Confederacy did not come from his paintings. That started when a friend persuaded him to submit an entry for a possible design for a national flag for the new Confederate States of America.

Austrian & Confederate flags

A congressional committee had been set up to review designs for a proper flag for the Confederacy and they ultimately chose the design submitted by Nicola Marschall. It became known as the “Stars & Bars” because of its similarity to the United States flag or “Stars & Stripes”. However, if one had looked beyond American shores they would have been able to see clearly what the real influence was behind the first national flag of the Confederacy. With a field of three broad “bars” of red-white-red with a dark blue canton containing a circle of seven stars (for the seven original Confederate states) it was almost an exact duplicate of the unofficial national flag of Imperial Austria which Marschall would, of course, have been very familiar with. There was clearly an effort being made to keep it in line with the “style” of the American flag but it was obviously mostly influenced by the Austrian flag, adjusted by simply replacing the crowned arms with a more American circle of stars. The flag was formally adopted as the national flag of the Confederacy on March 4, 1861 and first came to world attention when it was raised over Fort Sumter, South Carolina after the first battle of the war.

However, the similarities between the Confederacy and Imperial Austria went beyond simply the flag that was flown above them. Another congressional committee was called upon to design a proper uniform for the Confederate army and, once again, via a friend of a friend, Marschall ended up being the one whose design was adopted. Thanks to the Prussian artist, the Confederates would march to war looking a great deal like soldiers of the Hapsburg Emperor. This time, the inspiration dates back to 1857 when Marschall, while in Verona, Italy (at that time under Austrian rule) had seen some Austrian sharpshooters and was quite taken with their stylish uniforms of grey tunics with green facings and stars on the collar to differentiate rank among the officers. The uniform Marschall designed for the Confederate army was very similar to this, although, ultimately, very few would end up following the official regulations exactly.

Regulation uniform for CSA artillery officers

The uniform of a grey tunic (in practice almost invariably replaced by a frock coat or jacket), blue trousers and a French-style kepi (cap) in branch-of-service color was very similar to that worn by the Austrians. For officers, rank was denoted by bars on the collar for company officers and stars for field and general officers as well as by the braid on the sleeves forming a design known as an “Austrian knot”. It was a very smart uniform though it was rarely seen as it was intended due to a shortage of materials, an aversion to uniformity and matters of practical necessity. The tunic, for example, proved very unpopular and few persisted in wearing it with most soldiers wearing a short jacket and most officers a frock coat. The kepi was also rather unpopular and for most southern troops was replaced with a broad-brimmed “slouch” hat. Colorful facings, trim and braid also tended to disappear as the war dragged on and more plain uniforms were adopted because of cost, shortage of materials and to avoid standing out as a target. Still, some, like Lt. Colonel Archer Anderson (a staff officer for several prominent Confederate generals) and Lt. General James Longstreet were among the few who persisted in wearing the Austrian-style tunics when other officers would not.

So it was that, aside from individual units on both sides that adopted the style of troops fighting for monarchs, from French Zouaves and chasseurs to Scottish highlanders, Hungarian hussars and Italian Bersaglieri, it was the Confederate armies that marched to war wearing uniforms and flying a flag that were both inspired by those of the Austrian Empire. What Emperor Francis Joseph might have thought of such a thing, we can only imagine.

Soldier of Monarchy: Prince Felix zu Salm-Salm

It would be hard to imagine many other soldiers in the service of the Mexican Emperor having a more colorful career that Prince Felix zu Salm-Salm. Throughout his career he was to fight for the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Austria, the President of the United States and the Emperor of Mexico. He was born Felix Constantin Alexander Johann Nepomuk Prinz zu Salm-Salm at Schloss Anholt in Westphalia on December 25, 1828; the youngest son of Prince Florentin zu Salm-Salm. His first military service commenced on April 2, 1846 when he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Prussian cavalry, first with a Guards Kurassier regiment and then with the 11th Hussar regiment. He saw action for the first time during the Prussian-Danish War at the battle of Aarhuus on May 18, 1849. Although only an ordinance officer, Prince Felix took a handful of hussars and attacked a powerful troop of Danish dragoons on his own authority. This wild act of bravado left him wounded, a prisoner of the Danes and on the bad side of his superiors.

In 1854 Prince Felix left the Prussian army for the Austrian Imperial Army and fought in the Franco-Austrian War in 1859 in Italy. Afterwards, he made the mistake of running up huge gambling debts, a fault which the conservative Emperor Francis Joseph found particularly aggravating and he was dismissed from the army for conduct unbecoming an officer. While his father dealt with his debts Prince Felix decided to see what opportunities lay open in the New World and he sailed to the United States, arriving just in time for the outbreak of the Civil War. During the course of the war Prince Felix was to gain two very valuable things; a better reputation and a devoted wife. He met the German General Louis Blenker who gave him the rank of colonel and made him his chief of staff. He also fell in love with a beautiful and spirited redhead named Agnes LeClerq, the daughter of a Canadian colonel. The two married in secret on August 30, 1862 because her Puritan family did not approve of a Catholic wedding, but the new Princess Agnes was totally devoted to her husband and hated being apart from him.

The following month Prince Felix was given command of the 8th New York Infantry regiment, which he led into combat at the brutal battle of Anteitam, the bloodiest day in American history. Princess Agnes could not bear the situation and rode across the northern Virginia battlefields to join her husband, teaching herself to be a nurse to care for the wounded soldiers. Throughout the rest of the war she hardly left her husband's side and her zeal, courage and ingenuity eventually led to her being given the honorary rank of Captain in the Union army. Prince Felix, for his part, had more than enough opportunity to make up for his less than honorable reputation in Europe and by the end of the war he had been promoted to the rank of brevet brigadier general. When the war ended in 1865 he was briefly the commander of the North Georgia military district, but he had no taste for peacetime army life. He and his wife both dreamed of bigger things and Mexico seemed to be a place of great opportunity. With the war against the republicans under Benito Juarez there was a need for experienced military men, and with his princely German background they would have almost been assured a prominent place in the glamorous society around the Mexican Imperial Couple. Princess Agnes was at first against such a sudden move, but they set out for Mexico in the summer of 1866.

Prince Felix met Emperor Maximilian while on his way to Mexico City and the Emperor was impressed enough to give him the rank of colonel in the Imperial Mexican Army and make him his personal adjutant. By this time, most of the foreign units had gone back to Europe and it was comforting to Maximilian to have a German at his side to talk to. Prince Felix accompanied Emperor Maximilian to Queretaro where ensued the climactic siege which decided the fate of the Mexican Empire. Prince Felix proved his bravery on numerous occasions, leading forays against the republican lines that did considerable damage to the enemy considering the handful of men who took part. Nonetheless, Queretaro was ultimately doomed and Prince Felix was taken prisoner, held with the Emperor and his generals in the convent of Santa Brigida. Other than the Minister of War and Jose Luis Blasio, the Emperor's secretary, Prince Felix was the only non-general held in the convent. Later on, some would mistakenly think he had been a general in the Mexican army since he used a borrowed generals uniform to pose for a photograph.

When President Benito Juarez had Emperor Maximilian executed along with his top generals Miramon and Mejia, there was an international outcry against the Mexican republicans. Juarez defended his inhuman killing of the Emperor, but the backlash was enough to save the lives of other men, like Prince Felix, who had also been sentenced to death. The ruling was commuted to seven years in a Mexican military prison for the dashing German officer. Fortunately for Prince Felix, he had a wife like Agnes on his side. She braved Mexican bandits and Juaristas to go to the aid of her husband, pleaded with Juarez on his behalf and shook down almost every foreign ambassador in Mexico for money to bribe Mexican officials. Finally, the determination of Princess Agnes paid off and wishing to be rid of both of them the Mexican government changed his sentence to permanent exile from Mexico, which was happily accepted.

The couple headed for Europe where Prince Felix tried to rejoin the Austro-Hungarian Army but his unsavory reputation had not gone away during his adventures in the U.S. and Mexico. Instead, he once again joined the Prussian army in 1868 though with less rank than he held in America. He fought valiantly in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and died from wounds received at the battle of Gravelotte-St.Privat on August 18. Princess Agnes had continued her humanitarian work with the army alongside her husband as she had in America and was honored with the Prussian Medal of Honor. She died in 1912 in Germany. Prince Felix of Salm-Salm had served in four armies; Prussian, Austrian, American and Mexican; and had fought in five wars and was twice a prisoner of war. His story, as well as the equally colorful life of his wife, is proof that real life stories can sometimes be far more dramatic than any work of fiction.

Monarchist Profile: Arthur Capel First Baron Capel of Hadham

Baron Capel was one of the top royalist commanders of the Second English Civil War. He was born on February 20, 1608, the only son of Sir Henry Capel of Rayne Hall in Essex and his wife Theodosia Montagu, daughter of the highly esteemed Sir Edward Montagu of Broughton Castle. He attended Queens’ College in Cambridge and in 1627 married the heiress Elizabeth Morrison which brought him considerable wealth. He gained still more from inheritance after the death of his grandfather in 1632, to the extent that he was then one of the richest men in England with holdings in ten counties. Capel put his wealth to work for him in getting involved in politics and he was elected to the “Short Parliament” in April of 1640 as MP for Hertfordshire. In November he was reelected to the same seat in the “Long Parliament”. During that time, few would have taken him for an ardent royalist as he delivered numerous criticisms of royal policy and the actions of King Charles I to pursue his own course of action regardless of the obstacles Parliament tried to put in his way.

In fact, Capel was the first MP to deliver a county petition protesting royal actions and he voted in favor of the execution of the Earl of Strafford. In that case, however, he seems to have had misgivings as he stated later that he regretted it for the rest of his life. By the summer of 1641 Capel had begun to be alarmed at the radical direction Parliament was taking. He had protested against certain things the King had done, but he saw Parliament increasingly setting itself against the King himself and this he found deeply disturbing. King Charles I was, by that time, in need of friends and someone with the wealth of Capel would be a valuable ally indeed. As he already seemed to be drifting away from the Parliamentarians, the King made a friendly overture to him in August of 1641 by raising him to the peerage as Baron Capel of Hadham, giving him a seat in the House of Lords. Lord Capel was seen to be firmly on the royalist side when he voted against the Militia Ordinance which was effectively an effort by Parliament to take control of the armed forces away from the King. When the First English Civil War broke out, Lord Capel put his money where his mouth was and raised and outfitted a cavalry regiment. In October of 1642 he fought in the Battle of Edgehill as a member of the King’s lifeguard.

Even though Lord Capel had absolutely no military experience prior to Edgehill, his standing earned him an appointment to command all royalist troops in north Wales, Cheshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire with the rank of lieutenant general though at least Sir Michael Woodhouse, an experienced veteran, was sent along with him. Lord Capel was certainly not lacking in bravery, audacity or devotion to his cause but he had the misfortune to be up against some of the better commanders of the Parliamentary forces. Capel came under attack by Sir William Brereton and despite some daring maneuvers and bold attacks, Capel was checked at every turn and became the object of some ridicule in the area, at least among those predisposed toward the forces of Parliament. Finally, at the urging of Prince Rupert of the Rhine, Lord Capel was replaced by Lord Byron in December of 1643. He spent most of the next year at court with King Charles I before next being assigned to the commission that discussed the Uxbridge Treaty of 1645 proposed by the Parliamentarians and the Covenanters of Scotland. There was little chance of this being accepted and it was not so Lord Capel moved on to serve on the Council of the Prince of Wales at Bristol where he formed two regiments, one of infantry and the other of cavalry, to serve as the Prince’s lifeguards.

When the western royalist forces surrendered in 1646 Lord Capel went with the Prince into exile on Scilly and then Jersey but the two parted company when the Prince of Wales went to France to join his mother Queen Henrietta Maria. Lord Capel had been invited to go along of course, but did not because he was uncomfortable around the very Catholic entourage of the Queen (not an uncommon sentiment at the time). In 1647 he returned to England and waited on the King who was being held prisoner at Hampton Court. All the while, Lord Capel, along with other royalists, was constantly involved in the effort to gain support for the King and especially to get the Scots to come on side for another effort at defeating the forces of Parliament. Ultimately, this led to the outbreak of the Second Civil War. In 1648 Lord Capel was charged with leading the royalist uprising in East Anglia. He joined with the troops loyal to the King at Chelmsford in Essex in June but they were pounced on by the Parliamentarians under General Fairfax who chased them to Colchester. Lord Capel commanded the rearguard that held off rebel attacks while the army fell back to the city.

Following the siege of Colchester, the city surrendered in August and Lord Capel was taken prisoner. Confined first at Windsor Castle and later the Tower of London to await trial, the intrepid Baron accomplished the remarkable feat of escaping from the Tower. He hid out for several days but was finally betrayed by a boatman hired to take him to a royalist safe house in Lambeth. In February of 1649, with four other prominent royalists, Lord Capel was taken before the “High Court of Justice” and sentenced to death as a “traitor” for remaining loyal to his King and country. Alongside the Duke of Hamilton and the Earl of Holland he was beheaded outside Westminster Hall on March 8, 1649. He had paid the ultimate price for his heroic loyalty but, in time, his sacrifice was recognized. After the restoration of the monarchy, King Charles II restored all confiscated lands to his family and made his eldest son Earl of Essex.

Off Topic Tuesday: The Case of Captain Wirz

(this is a very old little article of mine I dug up - please forgive)

I am an admitted sucker for hard-luck cases, and the case of Confederate Captain Henry Wirz, commandant of the interior of the Civil War military prison at Andersonville, Georgia is one of the hardest of all. Unhappy in his native Switzerland, he came to the southern United States at a time when Americans distrusted most foreigners. His first language was German, which made it even worse, and he was a convert to the Roman Catholic Church at a time when many in America were militantly anti-Catholic. He worked as a doctor before joining a Louisiana infantry regiment at the start of the American Civil War. At the battle of Seven Pines he was wounded by artillery shrapnel which left his right arm paralyzed and in constant pain.

As a sergeant, Wirz served on the staff of Brigadier General John H. Winder, the officer in charge of all prisoners of war taken by Confederate armies. He proved so effective that he was later commissioned as an officer and, due to his European origin and ability to speak English, French and German, was sent to Europe by the southern government on a diplomatic mission, though records of his actions or goals are scarce. Nonetheless, after coming home on a blockade runner he was placed in charge of the stockade at the newly built prison camp at Andersonville.

An important point, which many post-war northerners refused to take into consideration, is that the job Wirz had of commanding the interior of the prison was a very difficult one in which he had a great deal of responsibility, but almost no power to take any action. Supreme authority rested with General Winder as the officer in charge of all POW's, while the command of the post, or Camp Sumter as was the official name, went to his son Richard Winder and all regiments and canon batteries on guard duty had their own officers, most of whom outranked Henry Wirz and did not take kindly to a lowly captain making demands on how their troops were to be used. The only direct power Captain Wirz had was over the interior of the prison and whatever guards were on watch around the stockade. This job therefore meant that Wirz was the one most often seen by the prisoners as "boss", and the one who was subsequently blamed for their every misfortune, while he actually had almost no power to make any major changes to their welfare.

Throughout the rest of the war, when given the opportunity, Wirz proved that, while he certainly had no love for the yankees, he did what he could to improve conditions in the prison. This included such things as moving the hospital outside the stockade, establishing a more efficient method of organization, and numerous attempts to improve sanitation and provide some form of housing for the prisoners. However, in areas such as this, Wirz was constantly hampered by a lack of proper materials. Andersonville, it must be remembered, operated during the last half of the war, at a time when the southern states were in a situation of extreme poverty. When massive numbers of Confederate soldiers and civilians were enduring poverty and starvation, it is hardly surprising that captured enemy soldiers would often be forced to do without as well.

After the war, Captain Wirz would be forced to stand trial for every misery endured by the Union prisoners, and indeed many which were total fabrications, whereas it is easy to see that, in fact, most of the privations these men were forced to endure was the fault of their own government. The first general culprit was the Union blockade, which choked off all imports to the south. The south had almost no industry of any kind, and the majority of crops grown were tobacco and cotton, so when it came to basic necessities the south depended on imports for almost everything. Finally, there was the refusal of U.S. General Ulysses Grant to continue the program of exchanging northern prisoners for southern ones in U.S. prison camps. Grant knew that the north had a huge manpower advantage over the south, and so decided to fight a war of attrition. Unfortunately, this meant that Andersonville would at one point hold around 33,000 prisoners when it was built with the intention of holding only 8,000.

During their captivity many of the northern troops became extremely disgusted with their leaders who seemed to care so little about their horrific suffering. They even sent a petition with thousands of names to Washington D.C. demanding that the exchange program be re-opened. During the trial of Captain Wirz, his lawyer attempted to have this admitted as evidence, but was denied on the grounds that it made the late President Lincoln seem uncaring(?!). Much the same unfairness was shown at the end of the war when Wirz was held prisoner and put on trial for war crimes. Favorable witnesses were threatened with the loss of their pardons if they spoke on his behalf, any sort of rumor or allegation was admitted so long as it was against Captain Wirz. By this time, Lincoln was dead and the north wanted blood. Captain Wirz, commandant of an infamous prison, a foreigner and a Catholic seemed the ideal target. Shortly after the trial he was hanged in the courtyard of old Capital prison; the only man to be executed for war crimes during the Civil War. In recent years the Daughters of the Confederacy erected a small monument in honor of the maligned Captain Wirz at Andersonville, Ga.

Off Topic Tuesday: New Mexico Invaded

General Sibley

In 1861, at the start of the American Civil War a tough Confederate Texan named John R. Baylor had attacked and seized Mesilla, claiming all of the southern half of Arizona and New Mexico as the Confederate Territory of Arizona. Encouraged by this easy victory, Henry Hopkins Sibley, a West Point graduate, and army veteran familiar with the southwest went to Confederate President Jefferson Davis with a bold proposal. He planned to attack north into New Mexico, take control of the Santa Fe Trail, obtain the wealth of the Colorado gold mines for the Confederacy and eventually advance westward to California and open up a Pacific Ocean port for the southern nation. Davis commissioned Sibley a Brigadier General and dispatched him to San Antonio, Texas to begin forming a brigade of cavalry for the expedition.

General Sibley managed to recruit about 3,000 men to form three cavalry regiments and one battery of artillery; these were: the Fourth Texas Volunteer Cavalry under Colonel James Reily, the Fifth Texas Volunteer Cavalry led by Colonel Tom Green and the Seventh Texas Volunteer Cavalry commanded by Colonel William Steele. They were later joined by elements of Baylor's old command raising their total strength to around 3,700 men. The men were rough, tough and eager but poorly supplied. Some who had no weapons at all were armed with antiquated lances captured during the war with Mexico. Sibley hoped to take most of his supplies from the enemy and invaded New Mexico with the intention of moving against Santa Fe and Fort Union.

Colonel Canby

The first major action of the campaign was the battle of Val Verde in which Sibley hoped to lure out the garrison of Ft Craig where he could destroy them. Colonel Edward Canby, commander of the U.S. forces in New Mexico did come out to fight and the Texans gave the Union troops a warm reception. Sibley, who had a reputation as a drinker, was "indisposed" much of the time and command at Val Verde fell to Colonel Thomas Green who won a hard fought victory over the Yankees and forced their retreat back to Ft Craig. Lacking the strength or supplies to storm or besiege the fort General Sibley left it behind and marched on to capture Santa Fe on March 10, 1862. So far, the Confederate advance had been successful. They had beaten the enemy at Val Verde, captured Santa Fe and shortly later took Albuquerque. However, the Confederates were suffering from severe supply problems. The Yankees had destroyed all they could not carry off as they retreated, leaving Sibley without the vast stores he had hoped to use to sustain his men.

Nevertheless, this was still a time for high hopes. Confederate forces to the south and in Arizona were fighting Apache Indians and some were even planning to conquer the northernmost states of Mexico for induction into the Confederacy. The main goal for General Sibley though was still Ft Union, overlooking the Raton Pass. To advance on the fort though, he would first have to take and hold the Glorieta Pass on the Santa Fe Trail. He dispatched about 300 men to secure Glorieta Pass under the command of Major Charles Pyron and William R. Scurry. On March 26, 1862 Major Pyron was attacked at Glorieta by over 400 Union troops under Major John Chivington. The Confederates beat back the attack, but the Union forces regrouped and managed to push them back with two successive flanking movements. All was quiet on the 27th as both sides called for reinforcements. Lt. Colonel William R. Scurry arrived with additional Confederate troops and Colonel John P. Slough came with Union reinforcements. On the 28th both sides decided to attack.

Scurry at Glorieta

Once he observed the Federal forces coming up the pass, Colonel Scurry formed a defensive line and threw back repeated Union attacks. For a time the battle surged back and forth between attacks and counterattacks, but the Confederates would not break. Finally, Colonel Slough abandoned the field and Scurry pulled his men out to report their victory. The Confederates had certainly been victorious on the battlefield, but behind the lines a nasty surprise waited for them. At Johnson's Ranch Colonel Scurry discovered that during the battle Union forces under Major Chivington had destroyed his supply train and killed all of his livestock. The Confederates had no choice but to march back to Santa Fe and from there, without any food or supplies, abandon New Mexico and return to Texas. Despite winning every engagement the Confederates had lost the campaign due to a lack of supplies. In fact, far more Confederates died from cold and starvation on the march back to San Antonio than throughout any of the combat during the invasion. Some grandiose veterans compared their overland trek, often made over winding mountain paths in extreme cold so as to avoid Union forces, to Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow.

Some of the commanders of the New Mexico campaign went on to great fame. Colonel Green rose to the rank of Major General and fought in the victories at Galveston and the Red River Campaign. Colonel Steele became a brigadier general but was killed at the battle of Franklin, Tennessee. General Sibley was given minor commands, struggled with alcoholism and was court martialed in 1863, though he was censured rather than convicted of any crime. After the war he served as a military advisor to the Khedive of Egypt (where his fondness for alcohol was extremely unpopular) before eventually returning to the United States.

Sibley, the would-be conqueror

Probably in no other theatre of the War Between the States did such grand aspirations and the control of such a vast area depend on such relatively small armies. For most it was a frontier sideshow, for the Texans it was a matter of immediate concern and many harbored hopes of recovering the territory formerly part of the Republic of Texas which had been ceded to the United States in the Compromise of 1850. It was also an extremely wild and colorful affair. The battle of Val Verde saw one of the last lancer charges in American history (with devastating effects) and there was the effort of one Irish Yankee to destroy the Confederate supply train using exploding mules. Fortunately for the Confederates, once the fuses were lit the tragic beasts tried to follow their fleeing owners and they ended up exploding in the open, barely attracting notice from the rebels and with the only casualties being the poor mules. Ultimately, neither side gained much from the campaign. Union forces lost nothing but did prevent a Confederate takeover of the southwest and cleared the area of rebel forces, however, their drive east was stopped by a combination of rough terrain, Indian attacks and the string of forts that guarded the west Texas frontier. For the south it was yet another ‘might have been’. Film fans may also note that this campaign provided the backdrop for Sergio Leone’s famous western, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” starring Clint Eastwood.