Often found in the most unlikely or seemingly uninteresting locales are places of historical significance that have had profound impacts on these places and in other countries and regions, and—in some cases—the world.
Details are often lost to time. Factors including being on the losing side of a battle, shear scope of the event, and number of participants often obscure the precise origin point and precipitating factors.
As the world watches the events in the Ukraine, the states with a Russian majority (Donetsk, Luhansk) have quickly become known for acts of violence and the underlining politics, all of which will leave us wondering exactly how will this war end. Perhaps over time they will become footnotes in the regional history. A detail we may also forget.
Throughout the world, events in the past still affect us—as a revelation or as the prelude to the next important event.
In this article, I will focus on three key events in places you may not yet know. Yet at one point they each had the world watching.
“Contraband” in Hampton, VA, United States
Ride Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor South to its final destination, and you will find yourself in Newport News, VA, a small town whose lifeblood is Langley Air force Base (AFB) and other major military sites reside in the adjacent counties.
As I familiarized myself with my surroundings, I noticed that the station felt like an afterthought of low importance: a shoebox-shaped office with a few benches outside. Freight trains passed on one of the numerous tracks, while the one closest to the platform switched tracks and made its way back north.
Most of these passengers took a connecting bus to Virginia Beach, while a few others waited for friends and family and eventually left me on my own.
The weather switched from rainy to sunny. This was my third visit, and during my second trip, I learned something that was vital to a key moment in U.S. history and gave me more insights into the lives of black and brown peoples in the region.
I wondered, Did the passengers on my train realize that the Civil War actually began in Hampton? The irony is that Hampton was close to the landing site of the first Africans brought to British-occupied North America.
Fort Monroe/Phoebus was that site and an incorporated neighborhood of Hampton (1900), where escaped slaves took refuge during the war by being labeled as “contraband,” thus forcing President Lincoln to respond actively after the Battle of Fort Sumter. This lead to the Confiscation Acts (1861–1862), which opened the door to the Emancipation Proclamation (1863) and eventually the passing of the 13th Amendment.
By 1860, the total white population of Virginia was 1,047,299, and the total number of slaves was 490,865, with 58,154 identified as freed. However, these freed people still relied on paperwork that could be taken, stolen, or disregarded.
Virginia was the biggest slave-owning state in the Republic. Major ports along the Chesapeake provided opportunities for escapees. Luminaires, such as Henry “Box” Brown and Anthony Burns, escaped from Virginian plantations. Over time, enclaves developed in Upper Canada and Michigan and yet even there they made the black population feel as though they were still down in the South.
Ship were useful for those formerly enslaved or using manumission to purchase their freedom and thus escape from the South, and stood out as one of the most accessible options to head North. Yet even as the number of escapees increased, so did the laws that were changed to capture them.
Associations such as The Society for the Prevention of the Absconding and Abducting of Slaves developed increased their surveillance of ports and known escape routes. Local constables began searches of ships, and if any escaped “property” was found, the crew could be jailed for up to five to 10 years.
Many people have the impression that the American Civil War was sudden and that no one was aware of its looming presence—this is untrue. There was a general feeling that it would come and the tension was thick. For example, Southern businessmen who were dealing with Northern businesses stopped paying their debts. A powder keg was going to explode and newly elected President Abraham Lincoln (1860) hoped to avoid that explosion.
Visit the Fort Monroe National Park Museum, and you will see replicas of three gentlemen: Frank Baker, James Townsend, and Sheppard Mallory. These three men were leased by their masters to fight in the war. Instead, they sought to escape by fleeing to the Union-held Fort Monroe.
Unfortunately, it was then the common practice to return “property,” but General Benjamin Butler claimed them as “contraband” as he feared that they would be used against the Union in the field. This opened the flood gates as the fort became a lighthouse attracting escaped peoples wanted to receive equal status. The surrounding town of Roseland Farm located near the fort and used as a Union camp was transformed into a safe harbor now known as Phoebus.
This situation forced President Lincoln to use a more aggressive strategy that ultimately resulted in Confederate soldiers burning Hampton (1861).
What does this tell us about the years leading up to and right after the start of the war and about Lincoln’s initial policies toward the South? How does this impact Americans today as we struggle to both reconcile with and learn about the past?
My personal observations moved towards disregarding the Mason-Dixon Line. Southern territories were occupied by the Union just as Northern cities had a distinct Southern disposition.
Visiting Hampton highlights that the war was not so much about actual engagement in battle but about the politics. What would have happened if those three escaped men had not sought refuge and instead went to fight as per instructed? What then would have swayed Lincoln’s hand?
Waterways of Iquique, Northern Chile
I initially learned about the War of the Pacific (1879–1883) while visiting the port town of Valparaiso, Chile. A prominent statue of a lawyer turned naval commander, Agustin Arturo Prat Chacon, in the main square piqued my curiosity.
When I inquired about who he was, I saw the pride that came with recounting the tale of a foggy early morning battle that won him the respect of his Peruvian foes. He decided to ram his ship, the Esmeralda, while facing defeat in full view of his crew and the Peruvian citizens who were watching in Iquique. He generated excitement in overcoming the stronger Peruvian navy by fighting until he succumbed to his wounds. His famous last speech was as follows:
“Lads, the battle will be unfair, but, cheer and have courage. Never has our flag been hauled down before the enemy and I hope this will not be the occasion for it to happen. From my part, I assure you that as long as I live, this flag will remain flying in its place, and if I should die, my officers will know how to fulfill their duties. Long live Chile!”
Ask most Peruvians about the war and you will be met with confusion and an honest ignorance of the topic. By no fault of their own, most of the information relating to it has been left out of their educational curriculum, leaving Peruvians confused about what happened in Chile on Dia de las Glorias (May 21st).
Bolivians know a little more about the war mainly as a point of contention since it cost them access to the Southern Pacific Coast. This point was brought up by former Bolivian President Evo Morales (2006–2019) who stated that Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet (1973–1990) had promised to return their lands. These promises are a rallying point to keep politicians in office and are brought up every May 21st in response to the Chilean celebrations and in Bolivia. The Chilean response to the matter is typically “concha de tu madre” with a follow-up of “we allow them free access to the ocean for trade”
Parallels exist between the retelling of the war and what is often given to future generations of the victors—that the battle was clear cut. There was an obvious “good guy” and a “bad guy.”
If you had visited Northern Chile prior to the war, you would be standing in what was then Peru and a strip of Bolivia that extended from its current boundaries to the ocean. What is often ignored is the cost of war, the “why”, and the violence often invoked during it. The ultimate cost was 35,000 Peruvians, 15,000 Chileans, and 5000 Bolivians.
Its onset was over the possession of nitrate deposits used in fertilizers and explosives. Its discovery caught the attention of the United States and Spain (1856) who made attempts to take control of the territory but were repelled. The actual start was due to the unspecified boundaries of each country and the attempts of Bolivia and Chile to nationalize these areas after the realization of the wealth that came with complete ownership. Peru’s involvement stemmed from a hidden pact with Bolivia to assist in military matters yet it would be Peru that would take the full brunt of this war after Bolivia backed out after the initial battles.
What is never recounted in the numerous retellings is the human toll and the unequalness of the war. At the onset, the Peruvian army relied on old military tactics used in a previous war that were just as old as were the weapons in use. You would not have been surprised finding various caliber weapons as well as ammunition such as Austrian or Prussian mini guns and old Peabodies mixed in with a few new rifles (Krupp, 73 mountain guns, four Gatling guns) and a few bronze cannons. Over time, new weapons were added, but there was still the issue of perhaps only having a cartridge or two of matching ammunition.
Bolivia had a newly formed military academy (1823), which was occasionally available. If/when it was in session, the school was under the guidance of a French general and a veteran of the Franco–Prussian War.
By the way, the French lost this war, so I imagine he came at a very affordable rate. Most recruits who did attend were whichever men floated in and had no real obligations to anyone but themselves. They also lacked the funds and weaponry to engage in any long-term battle.
Chile, on the other hand, had a shared uniform (aped by the French), unity, and volunteers unlike their opponents. Most of their soldiers where local militia from various regiments. To further fill ranks, the Chilean government recruited drunk men at bars. Multiple smaller units were consolidated into the Chilean military. This brought into use various weapons from the guards such as Complain II rifles, Winchester carbines, Beaumont rifles as well as small arms such as Spencer carbines. Still, some units also had to use outdated weapons.
The war turned brutal with reports of survivors killed by bayonets and the raping of women in small villages in Arica. Disputes within units were about the spoils of war. Men slowly died in the desert or deserted. Chilean prisoners of war were killed by corvo blades that slit their throat. Towards the war’s end, Lima (capital of Peru) was taken without much resistance or acknowledgement of the occupying army with Bolivia ready to return, but it was already too late.
The results are felt today. As stated earlier, Bolivians distrust the Chileans. Wealth generated from the new territories helped establish Chile as an economic power, which caused reverberations throughout South America. During the war, the Chilean press painted Peruvians as cholos (mixed European and non-European ancestry). This was a grave insult due to Peru’s own issues with race and class, which was a topic not spoken of in mixed company.
Today, Peruvians are seen as a lower class that cleans the homes of middle- and upper-class Chileans. A comment that I often heard about the children of Peruvians living in Chile is that a great accomplishment would be if the child becomes a full Chilean citizen, implying the disregard of their past and upgrade in class.
Currently, the glory of the war has lost some of its shine. Younger and more conscience Chileans have started to recognize that the leaders who rose out of the engagement are not the “deities” they were portrayed as being. In March 2021, the statue of General Manuel Baquedano was taken down among protests. To date, it has not been returned.
It would be years before I would visit Iquique, which I often refer to as Old Peru. Walking its streets, you notice that the foods are noticeably more Peruvian in nature than of Chilean. Spices only available in Peru are found there such as merkin or merquen (smoked chili peppers) are well-stocked.
The ocean is in front of you, while the desert is behind you. Chile was the clear victor in this war. It united its people, and the details are still blurred unless you take the time to investigate.
Was it foolish for Peru to enter a war that did not involve them? In my opinion, yes. Would it have made sense for them to step away and allow Bolivia to manage on their affairs? How long would the war have lasted if Bolivia was the sole opponent?
Did the war actually have to happen? In the end, it was about resources and acquiring new lands to supplement wealth. Whereas Chile became viewed as imperialistic and wealthy, the others’ quality of life declined. How can this be and should it be rectified?
Uprisings in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia
Take the Tunis (capital of Tunisia) metro line and you’ll get a good sense of what life is like in the country. Seats have tears in the leather, rusted sections of the train leave rigid holes with views of the tracks. For fun, teens open the door while in transit and hold on to the edges of the slow-moving cars for thrills.
Stations sit on crumbling outdoor platforms where small booths collect fares that can be easily avoided with no fear of fare evasion. Like every other city, depending on the time of day, Tunis offers a view of the populations of various neighborhoods, from businessmen to families and groups of teens.
The boulevards in Tunis, made to resemble Paris, due to its former occupation by France (1881–1956) are grand. Cafes line each side, while an age range of fashionably dressed people drink their café au laits. Yet once you move away from the main areas, you see crumbling infrastructure, merchants selling various wares, and a small shrine to Mohamed Bouazizi.
South of Tunis is the location of Sidi Bouzid. This is a landlocked region where the Arab Spring (Jasmine Revolution) began due to the self-emulation of Bouazizi (12, 2010). Be careful about using Arab Spring since a number of participants where not Arabic, although the regions that were affected were in North Africa and the Middle East.
With wages that were impossible to sustain a decent quality of life, 26-year-old Bouazizi was often taking bribes from the local police. Finding himself with no other recourse, he committed suicide.
Prior to the uprising, there had been protests but none gained any steam. The difference in this occasion was the precipitating event, the spreading via social media and communication apps such as Whatsapp. The results led to various armed uprisings and pro-democracy protests in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen throughout 2011 and 2012. The results included President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisa fleeing the country, leading way to democratically held elections. Another result was that after 30 years in office, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was taken out of office and was eventually replaced by another ruler.
My visit to Tunisia would occur years later. As I paid a visit to the protest sites related to the onset of the spring, there was a sense that it did not make much of a difference. In the end, Tunisia was the only country to maintain its democracy but people’s quality of life, as I was told, was the same.
Bouazizi was frustrated and had given up. That’s understandable, given his situation. His death and images were made into a rallying point. The location of his cart is now a shrine.
The impression left with me was by asking, “Was it worth it”?
I observed the spaces being occupied by children playing football (soccer), trollies rolling by, and people working. Honestly, I could not come up with an appropriate answer. The constant presence of armed military, which at the time was also due to previous terrorist activity. I also noticed how only citizens who were dressed in more European fashions were allowed full access, which I was almost not privy to until I spoke up and made it clear that I was American. Was this the democracy they sought out or was I simply being impatient?
Would more time make a difference to the region?
Why should an event in the North of Africa be of any importance to someone in any other region besides its own? The only sufficient reason is the same as why we are paying attention to the Ukraine. What happens there also affects what is happening in other countries.
Conclusion
At this moment, there is a war transpiring in the Tigray Region of Ethiopia and armed conflicts in the Sahel region of Western Africa. Burma is still under military rule and, in each locale, many are dying each day. The unfortunate topic of Yemen goes unresolved and often ignored. Yet at the moment, we are paying attention to one country with fingers crossed about another. (Taiwan) Perhaps it is the inclusion of NATO or the impression of a “good guy” and a “bad guy” in this fight.
Or perhaps we can only entertain one conflict at a time? Unfortunately, I do not know the answer or else I would speculate and ask your opinion.
The only option available is to wait and hopefully not forget that, in a region with a name we may not properly be able to pronounce, events are happening that may change the world.
Let us not forget how and why we came to this point.
Fin
img Busts of Frank Baker, James Townsend, and Sheppard Mallory at Fort Monroe.
img Contraband Quarters Display from Fort Monroe.
img Ironically enough Jefferson Davis was imprisoned at Fort Monroe.
img Pacific Coast from Iquique
img Abandoned Saltpeter mine in the Atacama Desert
img Crucifix in the Atacama Desert
img 19th Century re-enactors in the Atacama Desert.
img Street vendor in the Medina of Tunis.
img Parisian boulevard in Tunis.
img Combined street and metro lane in Tunis.
I think you hit it on the head when you speculated that we might only be able to mentally handle one conflict at a time. Because of that, a lot of important world events get glossed over.