American foreign policy shifted on December 2, 1823, when President James Monroe announced the Monroe Doctrine in his yearly address to Congress. President Monroe reaffirmed that European colonial expansion in the Western Hemisphere would be considered a hostile act to the US, while also pledging non-intervention in European matters. Despite this bold declaration, the US lacked the military, especially naval, strength to enforce it. Instead, the British Royal Navy played a decisive role in upholding the doctrine throughout much of the 19th century, aligning it with Britain’s own economic and political interests in the Americas.

Why & How the Monroe Doctrine Was Born

The origins of the Monroe Doctrine can be found as early as 1783, when the United States declared the policy of isolationism following the American Revolution.

American historian Samuel Eliot Morison pointed out that:

“as early as 1783, then, the United States adopted the policy of isolation and announced its intention to keep out of Europe. The supplementary principle of the Monroe Doctrine, that Europe must keep out of America, was still over the horizon.”

By 1823, the Latin American Republics had achieved long-awaited independence and diplomatic recognition from the United States. These territories had been under Spain’s colonial rule for centuries. The Napoleonic Wars and the subsequent invasion of Spain in 1808 weakened Spain’s colonial control, laying the foundation for the Spanish colonies to seek independence. In the following years, the waves of the independence movement spread across Latin America.

When Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated in 1815, the Congress of Vienna did not take into consideration the independence struggles in Latin America. However, the United States saw the opportunity to support the revolutions in the Western hemisphere. The Congress of Vienna intended to restore the balance of power in Europe, reinstate monarchies, and prevent the spread of revolutionary movements. On the other hand, the United States, influenced by its own revolutionary past and economic interests, viewed the colonies’ independence movement as a way to weaken European dominance in the Americas.

The formation of the Holy Alliance on September 23, 1815, changed the power dynamics. The alliance, composed of the European powers of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, aimed to strengthen monarchism in post-Napoleonic Europe. To achieve this goal, the Holy Alliance authorized the use of military force to re-establish the rule of the Bourbon dynasty over Spain and its colonies. At the same time, France had already agreed to re-establish monarchy in Spain in exchange for control over Cuba.

As a constitutional monarchy, Great Britain did not join the Holy Alliance, whose members supported the principle of absolutism. Instead, British Foreign Secretary George Canning proposed to American President James Monroe a joint Anglo-American action that would constrain the Holy Alliance’s influence in the Western Hemisphere.

The British proposal was dictated by several calculations. In particular, as a great European power, Britain sought to maintain its current colonies as well as expand territorially to meet the increasing demand for new markets and sustain its quick industrialization. While the Spanish Empire struggled to survive, and France was still weak from the Napoleonic Wars, Britain remained the only European power able to influence the power dynamics with the United States, whether through support or coercion.

In 1821, the Russian Empire also entered the contest between the powers set on gaining influence in the Western hemisphere with the Ukase (proclamation), claiming territorial sovereignty over northwestern North America (present-day Alaska) and most of the Pacific Northwest. Under this proclamation, the Russian Empire also forbade non-Russian ships from approaching the coast.

Simultaneously, the Monroe administration was negotiating with Spain to purchase Florida to increase its influence in the region. The negotiation resulted in the Transcontinental Treaty, signed in 1821. Following this, the United States proceeded to recognize the Latin American republics of Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico as independent states in 1822.

While the United States sought to keep the old European colonial powers out of the Americas, the Monroe administration recognized that the United States lacked the necessary military strength to achieve this goal. As the historian Caitlin Fitz pointed out: “Great Britain was the preeminent global power, while the United States was little more than a “second-ring show in the high-strung Atlantic circus.”

Although President Monroe did not turn down British suggestion to join forces to deter European colonialism in the Western hemisphere, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams disagreed, claiming that “It would be more candid as well as more dignified to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France, than to come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war.”

Despite these concerns, the conflux of interests between the two countries, ensuring the stability and independence of Latin American republics while preventing European intervention, led to the creation of the Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed by the United States, but enforced by the Royal Navy of Great Britain.

The Monroe Doctrine

In his yearly address to Congress on December 2, 1823, President James Monroe unveiled a new American foreign policy strategy, later known as the Monroe Doctrine. According to this doctrine, the New and Old Worlds, having distinct socio-political systems, should remain divided.

James Monroe outlined four key points of the new approach:

• The United States would refrain from interfering in the internal affairs or the military conflicts between European powers.
• The United States would recognize and would not be involved in the affairs of the existing European colonies in the Western Hemisphere.
• The remaining territories of the Western Hemisphere were closed to future colonization.
• Any attempt by a European power to gain control over any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States.

The address read:

“In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparations for our defense.…With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition to oppress them or control in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.”

Initially, President Monroe’s address was not perceived as the foundation of a foreign policy “doctrine” but rather as an answer to the security challenges and the compromise between passive and aggressive policy options in light of the rising threat of the re-colonization of the newly independent republics in Latin America by the reactionary European powers.

According to author Leonard Axel Lawson, avoiding entering the Anglo-American alliance and instead declaring the unilateral Monroe Doctrine was part of Secretary Adams’s diplomatic game. In his book The Relation of British Policy to the Declaration of the Monroe Doctrine (1922), Lawson argues: 

“England possessed, at that time, a navy as large as the combined navies of all the other powers of the world; and, insofar as the existence of the British navy compelled respect for those interests, it also compelled respect for and observance of the Monroe Doctrine.”

Indeed, Secretary of State Adams, in explaining his position regarding the relation with Great Britain, declared: “My reliance upon the cooperation of Great Britain rested not upon her principles but upon her interests.”

By adopting the Monroe Doctrine, the United States needed a formidable maritime presence, especially a powerful navy, to safeguard the vast coastline of the Americas from European colonial powers’ intervention. The British Royal Navy would play a decisive role in enforcing the doctrine throughout the 19th century, even if it acted out of self-interest in expanding and maintaining trade relations.

The British Royal Navy’s Role in Enforcing the Monroe Doctrine

In the 19th century, the British Royal Navy maintained a dominant presence in key strategic regions, particularly the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the South Atlantic, to prevent European intervention in the Americas and to deploy rapidly in case of a threat.

One such example was the Falkland Islands Dispute in 1833, when Britain deployed its fleet to curb Argentina’s claim over the islands. While Argentina was not a European nation, Great Britain illustrated its intention to uphold the Monroe Doctrine with this move.

Similarly, when France invaded Mexico and installed Emperor Maximilian I, a French-backed monarch, in December 1860, Britain decided to withdraw its support for France in 1866. Without British diplomatic and naval support, France was forced to retreat from Mexico.

The event effectively deterred future French ambitions in the region and reinforced the Monroe Doctrine.

Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary & the End of British Royal Navy Dominance

During the second half of the 19th century, the United States emerged as a leading naval power.

By this time, the United States had undergone a rapid industrialization process and expanded its economy and infrastructure through global trade. Regarding territorial expansion, in 1867, the United States acquired strategic locations such as Alaska. However, the Spanish-American War of 1898 appeared to be a turning point. The United States emerged victorious and gained control over former Spanish territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. This victory demonstrated American military strength and capabilities.

This period also saw the influence of Alfred Thayer Mahan’s naval theories, which emphasized the importance of a strong navy for acquiring and maintaining global influence. Alfred Thayer Mahan’s naval theories inspired Theodore Roosevelt who emerged as a leading maritime strategist. After 1901, when Roosevelt became the president of the United States, he linked the Monroe Doctrine to his new foreign policy approach. In this context, he secured the construction of the Panama Canal connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and sent 16 battleships, also known as the Great White Fleet, on a world tour.

The introduction of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904 marked the beginning of the United States actively enforcing the doctrine itself, rather than relying on the British fleet. The Roosevelt Corollary ensured that the United States could intervene in the internal affairs of the Latin American countries if necessary. Throughout the 20th century, the United States would play a decisive role in world politics as a new global power.

Passion, both for the law and civil rights, defined the life of Thurgood Marshall. He drew on his life experiences to identify problems within the US justice system and subsequently challenged these problems on Constitutional grounds. He became the first African-American man to serve on the US Supreme Court, but even before that, he was tearing down racial divides within the law, taking on and winning landmark cases as a young lawyer. From lower middle-class beginnings to a permanent place in history, Thurgood Marshall was a strong voice for change and equality.

“Thoroughly” Interested in the Law

From an early age, Thurgood, born Thoroughgood Marshall on July 2, 1908, in Baltimore, Maryland, had a keen interest in the justice system. Tired of being teased by schoolmates, Marshall legally changed his name to Thurgood at the age of six. He grew up in a lower-middle-class home with his brother and parents, Norma and William. Norma was a teacher, and William, the grandson of a slave originally from the Congo, worked as a railroad porter and later as a steward at an exclusive whites-only club. When he wasn’t working, William enjoyed attending local court proceedings and often brought his sons along with him. Lively discussions would follow, with the lawyers’ arguments rehashed by the trio, often at the dinner table. Marshall would later remark that his father never told him to be an attorney, but “turned me into one.”

Marshall’s intrigue with US law only grew as he got older. Once, in high school, he was given a punishment for misbehavior that would pique his interest: he was ordered to read the Constitution. He even memorized certain parts, considering the fact that many of his contemporaries, including him and his family, were not, at the time, able to enjoy the rights outlined in the document. Like many locations of the era, Baltimore was still operating under Jim Crow laws. Marshall himself attended an all-Black school. Public restrooms were segregated, and discrimination permeated his community.

Classroom to Courtroom

Marshall decided he could be a voice for change, and that the law was the avenue to successfully make those changes. After graduating from high school, he followed his brother to Lincoln University, which at the time was considered the Black counterpart to Princeton University. At first, Marshall embraced the social aspects of college and relied on his intelligence to make up for missed classes. However, after a brief suspension involving a hazing incident with his fraternity, Marshall decided it was time to get down to business. He focused on academics and got involved in civil rights causes in the surrounding community. He met Vivian Burey, and in 1929, they married. After completing his undergraduate degree in 1930, Marshall decided law school was the logical next step.

Marshall’s first choice of law school was the University of Maryland, and he applied upon his college graduation. However, he was denied admission due to his race. Instead, he attended Howard University Law School, where he graduated first in his class in 1933. His family strongly supported this pursuit, with Norma Marshall even selling her wedding ring to help pay for her son’s legal studies. While at Howard, Marshall’s interest in civil rights law and the Constitution grew even further. He was inspired by a mentor, Charles Houston, who introduced him to the NAACP. Houston was in charge of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund and served as the organization’s first general counsel. While Houston did this work, Marshall often worked alongside him.

Fighting Landmark Cases

Thurgood Marshall briefly attempted to start his own law practice, but found that business was slow and clients often couldn’t pay. He found more success working alongside Houston and the NAACP. One of his first cases was Murray v. Pearson, which he worked on with Houston. In the case, Marshall defended a man whose shoes he’d been in just a few years before; Donald Murray had been denied entrance to the University of Maryland Law School on the basis of race.

In 1936, Marshall, Houston, and Murray won their case, marking one of the first successful challenges to segregation and the “separate but equal” doctrine in the United States. In 1938, Houston resigned, and Marshall took over his position as the NAACP’s general counsel. Later, he became the special counsel of the NAACP’s Fund, Inc., a legal activism organization. He continued to argue civil rights cases, including his first before the Supreme Court in 1940. Chambers v. Florida was based on the murder conviction of four Black men who had been forced to confess to the crime by police in violation of their constitutional rights. This defense was a success for Marshall.

As a lawyer, perhaps the most notable of Marshall’s cases was Brown v Board of Education in 1954. This case directly challenged the “separate but equal” doctrine, and ultimately, struck it down. The justices ruled once again in Marshall’s favor, deciding that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” thus desegregating American schools under the law. The win established Marshall as one of the most successful lawyers in America, and his prominence increased. In 1955, his wife died from aggressive lung cancer, and Marshall found himself a widower after 25 years of marriage. He remarried to Cecilia Suyat, and the pair had two sons.

Becoming a Judge

In 1961, Marshall’s legal reputation led to an appointment by President John F Kennedy to the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals. For four years, Marshall served as a judge on the circuit, issuing over a hundred decisions. None of his circuit court decisions was ever overturned by the Supreme Court. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson appointed Marshall to be the nation’s first African-American Solicitor General. In his new position, the third highest in the Justice Department, Marshall was assigned to argue on behalf of the federal government in Supreme Court cases. During his two-year tenure, Marshall argued 19 cases and won 14 of them.

Sitting Supreme

1967 would propel Marshall into another “first” when Johnson appointed him the first Black member of the Supreme Court. In an era where Civil Rights legislation on the federal level was only newly enacted in America in recent years, Marshall’s appointment was a landmark in itself. Johnson later remarked that Marshall’s appointment was “the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man, and the right place.”

In his new role as Associate Justice, Marshall continued to uphold his strong dedication to the importance of individual and civil rights for the American people. He was known as a liberal justice, arguing against the death penalty repeatedly over his term. In fact, he wrote over 150 dissenting opinions relating to death penalty appeals during his time as a justice.

Though dedicated to the law, Marshall was known for his laid-back attitude, even in the courthouse, where he greeted the Chief Justice with “What’s shakin’, Chief baby?” in the hallways. As time went on, the Supreme Court grew more conservative with the appointment of eight judges by Republican presidents, which often frustrated Marshall and weakened his influence. Nonetheless, he remained dedicated to his beliefs and interpretations of the law, writing strong dissents when necessary.

An Incredible Legacy

After 24 years on the Supreme Court bench, Thurgood Marshall retired in 1991. His successor was Justice Clarence Thomas. Just two years into retirement, Marshall passed away from heart failure. He was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

Despite the loss of his physical presence, Marshall’s impact on the American people remains. To quote an obituary piece about him, “Every day we live with the legacy of Justice Thurgood Marshall.” Today, the Thurgood Marshall Institute at the Legal Defense Fund (formerly “Fund, Inc.”) uses social science research and public education to further Marshall’s intentions of supporting a multiracial democracy.

A voice for change, Thurgood Marshall fought for continued improved access to constitutional rights for all Americans. Though his name might not be as recognizable as that of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malcolm X, Marshall toiled alongside them in the fight for equality in America. Using the law as his tool for progress, Marshall spent his life dedicated to the cause of opening doors for people of all races, and the results of his efforts linger today.

Born in Virginia in 1784, Zachary Taylor was a soldier and landowner who played a key role in America’s westward expansion. After winning early fame during the War of 1812, Taylor spent the following decades commanding frontier outposts and occasionally suppressing Native American uprisings. He achieved national recognition for his victories in Texas and northern Mexico during the Mexican-American War. His fame led him to the White House, but he died 16 months later in July 1850 at a time when disagreements over slavery threatened to tear the Union apart.

Young Zack

Zachary Taylor was born on November 24, 1784 in Orange County, Virginia. He was born into one of the most prominent families in the state and his father Richard was a Continental Army officer during the Revolutionary War. In recognition of his service, Richard Taylor had been granted a large parcel of land near Louisville, Kentucky. When Zachary was eight months old, he accompanied his family to Louisville.

As a young child, Taylor was educated at home by his mother. He quickly learned to farm the land and would become a shrewd businessman. In 1808, at a time when the US Army was being expanded at a time of increasing tensions with Britain in the wake of the Chesapeake Affair, the 23-year-old Taylor received a commission as a first lieutenant in the Seventh Infantry Regiment.

After recruiting a company of around 80 men, Taylor sailed with them to New Orleans in April 1809 to report for duty. Serving under the command of the incompetent and corrupt Brigadier General James Wilkinson, Taylor was among the hundreds of men who fell ill in the summer heat. Taylor was granted extended leave to recuperate at his home in Louisville, where he married Margaret Mackall Smith in June 1810.

After returning to the army as a captain in early 1811, Taylor was given command of Fort Knox on the Wabash River in the Indiana Territory to protect American settlements from Native American raids. The posting lasted for a month until Taylor received orders to appear as a witness in one of several courts-martial involving General Wilkinson.

War of 1812

During Taylor’s absence from Indiana, on November 7, 1811 General William Henry Harrison defeated an Indian ambush at Tippecanoe Creek led by Tenskwatawa, the brother of the legendary Shawnee chief Tecumseh. Following the victory, Harrison sacked Tenskwatawa’s base of Prophetstown, encouraging the Native American tribes to seek closer relations with the British in Canada.

In March 1812, three months before the formal outbreak of the War of 1812, Taylor returned to Indiana to command the small garrison at Fort Harrison. In early September, when most of Taylor’s men weakened from disease, the fort was attacked by a party of indigenous warriors, who set fire to the blockhouse with all of Taylor’s supplies. Taylor kept his head and ordered his men to put out the fire and repair the defenses, causing the raiders to abandon their attack the following morning.

Taylor’s success marked the first American victory in the War of 1812 and led Tecumseh to abandon his raids on Indiana Territory and retreat north to join the British. Since the northwestern theater had calmed down, Taylor unsuccessfully lobbied for a transfer to the northeast around New York and Lake Ontario.

After participating in a series of minor pacification actions in Indiana in 1813, Taylor took command of American forces in the Missouri Territory in 1814. In early September, Taylor was encamped on Credit Island on the Rock River when he was attacked by a Native American force. Although Taylor managed to drive them out of the island, the appearance of a British artillery unit led him to withdraw with minor losses.

Old Rough and Ready

By late 1814, Taylor was frustrated that he was still only a brevet major, and in early 1815 he received a promotion to full major. However, the War of 1812 had already ended and Taylor was once again reduced to captain. He refused the commission and retired to Louisville, but was commissioned as a major in the Third Infantry Regiment within a year.

Between 1816 and 1818, Taylor commanded the garrison at Fort Howard in Green Bay, Wisconsin. He then returned to Louisville and was promoted to lieutenant colonel in April 1819. Following a series of frontier postings in the 1820s, Taylor saw action in the Black Hawk War in 1832, named after the chief of the Sauk Indians who led an uprising in April 1832 in response to American encroachments on tribal land.

Taylor, who had fought against Black Hawk at Credit Island, led a mixed force of regulars and militia under Brevet Brigadier General Henry Atkinson. After the militia suffered initial reverses, Taylor received orders to establish a base for supplies and reinforcements, enabling Atkinson to defeat Black Hawk in July.

In 1837, Taylor arrived in Florida with 1,000 men to participate in the Second Seminole War, which had already frustrated several American generals’ efforts. On Christmas Day 1837, Taylor launched a frontal attack against the Seminoles at Okeechobee. Although Taylor broke the enemy line and forced the Seminoles to retreat, the victory had been won at a significant cost, with over 150 casualties. The Seminoles registered only 11 killed and 14 wounded. Nevertheless, Taylor’s conduct at Okeechobee earned him promotion to brevet brigadier general and while his men bestowed upon him the nickname Old Rough and Ready.

Landowner and Slaveholder

In addition to his career as a soldier, Taylor was a landowner and property speculator who profited from America’s westward expansion. Beginning in the 1820s, the Taylor family had its primary residence in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Two of Taylor’s daughters died in infancy in 1820, shortly after the move to Louisiana.

At around the time of the Black Hawk War, Taylor’s 18-year-old daughter Sarah fell in love with the young Jefferson Davis, future president of the Confederacy. Taylor was adamant that his daughter would not become a military wife, but this did not prevent the couple from eloping in 1835. Three months later, Sarah died of malaria at 21.

Taylor’s wife Margaret often accompanied him to his various postings, and they remained in Florida until 1840 when Taylor was granted leave to return to Louisiana. In April 1842, while commanding the outpost at Fort Smith in Arkansas, Taylor acquired the Cypress Grove Plantation in Jefferson County, Mississippi along with its 81 slaves, a number which increased to above 100. Low cotton prices and regular flooding meant that the plantation was not profitable during Taylor’s ownership.

Mexican-American War

In June 1845, Taylor received orders to take a small force to Fort Jesup in western Louisiana. While this appeared to be a routine frontier posting that Taylor had been used to throughout his military career, his latest command had considerable political significance in the context of the annexation of Texas.

In 1836, American settlers in Texas secured independence from Mexico. The Texans were vulnerable to a counterattack by the Mexicans and sought assistance from the United States. American political elites were split on the prospect of annexing Texas, which contributed to sectional tensions over the expansion of slavery. The election of Democrat James K. Polk in 1844, a protégé of President Andrew Jackson, led President John Tyler to initiate the process of annexation on the eve of his departure from office in March 1845.

With the Texas legislature due to vote on annexation on July 4, 1845, Taylor was ordered to advance to the village of Corpus Christi on the bank of the Nueces River, within a strip of disputed territory between Texas and Mexico. Taylor only arrived at the end of July and proceeded to spend several months drilling his men while Polk attempted to negotiate a major land purchase from Mexico.

By 1846, it was clear that Mexico would not sell any land to the United States at any price. In March, Taylor advanced on Matamoros on the Rio Grande, encountering minimal Mexican resistance. Following a tense stand-off, a Mexican cavalry detachment crossed the Rio Grande and attacked an American patrol, leaving 16 dead. This action marked the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.

With fewer than 3,000 men under his command, May 8, 1846 Taylor repulsed a Mexican attack by General Mariano Arista at Palo Alto thanks largely to his light artillery, which inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy. After Arista withdrew on the morning of the 9th, Taylor overruled his subordinate officers by launching a pursuit. Taylor caught up with Arista at Resaca de la Palma and secured a decisive victory by capturing the Mexican guns on the Matamoros road and breaking the Mexican line.

Taylor’s victories over Arista earned him national fame, and President Polk gave him authority to make operational decisions at his own discretion. By mid-May, Taylor had occupied Matamoros, where he spent the next three months attempting to integrate some 8,000 enthusiastic but ill-disciplined volunteers into his army. In August Taylor advanced on Monterrey with 6,000 men and captured the city by the end of September.

Taylor’s capture of Monterrey won him promotion to major general, but his decision to agree a truce with the Mexicans to reorganize his exhausted army angered President Polk. Polk believed that Taylor’s occupation of northern Mexico would eventually force the Mexicans to the negotiating table, but by late 1846 he was persuaded to support a plan for General Winfield Scott to lead an amphibious landing at Veracruz and march on Mexico City.

Taylor was incensed when Scott helped himself to his best men for the landing at Veracruz. Although he received new reinforcements to replace some of the men Scott had taken, he had no more than 5,000 men when Mexican dictator General Antonio López de Santa Anna launched an offensive with a force three times larger.

On the suggestion of his subordinate General John E. Wool, Taylor occupied a strong defensive position at Buena Vista. Although the Mexicans made good progress in outflanking Taylor’s position on February 23, Taylor ordered Jefferson Davis’s Mississippi Rifles to stem the Mexican advance. Taylor’s artillery continued to play a major role in beating off the Mexican attack. Both sides had sustained heavy losses, and Santa Anna withdrew on the morning of the 24th and hurried back to Mexico City to confront General Scott.

Following Scott’s conquest of Mexico City in September 1847, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War with Mexico ceding more than 500,000 square miles of territory to the United States.

President

Although Scott had the glory of capturing Mexico City, Taylor emerged from the conflict as a national hero. Both men sympathized with the Whig Party, but while Scott signaled his presidential aspirations in 1839, Taylor did not become a serious presidential candidate until 1847.

Taylor’s candidacy was championed by Kentucky senator John Crittenden, a moderate Whig who was alarmed at the sectional tensions over slavery. The Whigs were dominant in the free states in the north, while the Democrats controlled the slave states in the south. While the Whigs had opposed the Mexican-American War, a military hero and southern slaveholder like Taylor on the Whig ticket would appeal to both north and south.

After formally declaring himself a Whig in April 1848, Taylor beat Scott and veteran statesman Henry Clay to the presidential nomination in June. To balance the ticket, New York’s Millard Fillmore was chosen as the vice-presidential nominee. Taylor defeated Democrat Lewis Cass of Michigan and was inaugurated as president on March 4.

Despite being a slaveholder himself, Taylor was opposed to the prospect of newly conquered territories of New Mexico and California becoming slave states. The population of California had increased rapidly following the 1849 Gold Rush. Taylor encouraged California’s application for statehood, but their draft constitution explicitly prohibited slavery, which ensured that it would be denied by the southern-dominated Senate. Taylor’s hopes for statehood for New Mexico were held up on similar grounds.

Taylor’s administration also faced a number of foreign policy challenges, including the British presence in the Caribbean. Both the British and Americans hoped to build a canal through Central America, and in February 1850, Taylor’s secretary of state John Clayton negotiated the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty which prevented either country building such a canal unilaterally.

Death and Legacy

With Congress deadlocked on California and New Mexico, a trio of veteran senators warned that the issue could break apart the Union. These were John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, a champion of southern states’ rights, Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, a liberal stalwart, and Henry Clay of Kentucky, the Whig veteran nicknamed the Great Compromiser.

In early 1850, Clay proposed a legislative package with provisions for the admission of California as a free state while leaving the question open in Utah and New Mexico, and a strengthened Fugitive Slave Act that would be enforced by federal agents. The latter was a major concession to the south, but Taylor refused to support it and insisted on immediate statehood for California.

With matters still unresolved in Congress, Taylor attended the ceremony of the laying of the foundation stone for the Washington Monument on July 4, 1850. In the sweltering summer heat, the 65-year-old president ate apples and cherries washed down with cold milk. Taylor was soon suffering from acute gastroenteritis, likely caused by contaminated food and drink as a result of Washington’s poor sanitation systems. His condition quickly deteriorated, and he died at 10:35pm on July 9.

Taylor’s successor Fillmore supported an initiative to break up Clay’s compromise package into five separate bills, all of which were passed by September 20. While the Compromise of 1850 temporarily resolved disagreements over slavery, it did not prevent the outbreak of Civil War a decade later.

Owing to his brief tenure in office, historians rate Taylor as a poor president. However, his biographer John Eisenhower credits Taylor for being a committed Unionist when many southern officers, including his own son Richard, would go on to break away from the Union.

The Civil Rights Movement was built through the work of three different rights organizations—the NAACP, SCLC, and SNCC. Each played a unique role in the fight for equality. Legal challenges, nonviolent protest, and student-led activism were the tactics used. Together, they changed the course of American history. From courtrooms to lunch counters, these organizations pushed for desegregation, voting rights, and dignity. They challenged Jim Crow and helped pave the road to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. Their legacy lives on in the continued fight for justice.

Fighting Jim Crow Through the Courts: The NAACP

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was the earliest of the three Civil Rights organizations. Founded in 1909, the NAACP used the Judicial system of the United States against itself during the Civil Rights era. At a time when lynchings, segregation, and voter suppression were widespread, the NAACP took the fight out of the streets and into the courtroom. The strategy, while often slow-moving, was deliberate.

While changing the legality of segregation was a lengthy process, the results were often permanent. Due to the supremacy clause, which indicates the supremacy of federal law over state law, the efforts of the NAACP ensured the widespread implementation of legislation that could not be abridged by legislation passed by state congressional bodies. Under the legal leadership of Charles Hamilton Houston and later Thurgood Marshall, the NAACP challenged segregation in the public sector. Their most important success came in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned a previous 1896 Supreme Court case, Plessy v. Ferguson, and declared segregated schools unconstitutional.

Marshall argued the “Separate but Equal” precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson was inherently unconstitutional. Separating people by race instilled a sense of inferiority, no matter if the conditions were equal to one another. Marshall’s argument swayed the Supreme Court, which ruled in a 9-0 majority against the Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas. The ruling mandated that all school districts in the United States be desegregated, not just in Topeka, Kansas.

Their work, however, didn’t pertain to just legal battles. The NAACP also organized voter registration drives, challenged housing discrimination, and built a national network of branches to respond to civil rights violations, creating field secretaries in southern states who would oversee various civil rights violations in their districts. Though it didn’t organize sit-ins or marches the way SNCC and the SCLC did, which garnered the attention of media outlets, its role in dismantling legal segregation was paramount.

Nonviolence and Power Through Prayer: The Rise of the SCLC

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) was created in 1957, just after the success of the Montgomery Bus Boycott in Alabama. At the center of it was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who became its first president. The SCLC gained its following from the Black church, showcasing the importance of religion in the African American community. Church leaders were some of the few people in the South who had both education and a literal pulpit from which to spread their message, and the SCLC used that to its advantage.

Dr. King ensured the mission was rooted in nonviolence and Christian values. Taking direction from the nonviolent efforts of Gandhi in India, the SCLC protested by marching and boycotting.

While not initially seen as effective, King knew that violent resistance would be used as an argument to prolong segregation. One of its most important campaigns came in Birmingham in 1963. With sit-ins at lunch counters, marches, and protestors facing down police dogs and fire hoses, the campaign forced national attention. Birmingham, as the summer of 1963 became known, showed the world the brutality of segregation and pushed the Kennedy administration to act.

Later that year, the SCLC helped organize the March on Washington to further demonstrate to the government that change needed to happen. The image of Dr. King delivering his “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to a crowd of over 250,000 men, women, and children of all races wasn’t accidental. The SCLC understood that the fight for civil rights needed to be brought to people’s attention.

The Power of the Youth: SNCC’s Grassroots Revolution

The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, better known as SNCC (pronounced snick), started in 1960. Unlike the NAACP and SCLC, SNCC wasn’t built by lawyers or pastors—it was a grassroots organization started by students at southern segregated universities. Today known as HBCUs. They didn’t have money, offices, or national connections, but were driven by the desire to see change. They launched sit-ins, registered voters, and traveled into some of the most dangerous towns in the Deep South.

What made SNCC different was its approach. They trained locals to become organizers themselves. Their crowning achievement took place in Mississippi in the summer of 1964. Known as the Mississippi Freedom Summer. SNCC volunteers—primarily students from northern universities—knocked on doors and taught people how to pass voter literacy tests, paid their poll taxes, and offered rides to polling locations. They risked beatings, jail, and worse. Three SNCC organizers—James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman—paid for their actions with their lives.

The deaths of Chaney, Shwerner, and Goodman did not dissolve SNCC. As the movement progressed, the grassroots organization helped with some of the era’s most influential moments. From the Freedom Rides to the March on Selma, the SNCC gave ordinary people an avenue to demand equality.

Tensions, Strategy Splits, and Growing Pains

As the movement matured, differences between these organizations became more visible. The NAACP preferred cautious, courtroom battles. The SCLC emphasized a moral approach and large-scale demonstrations. SNCC wanted direct, community-based action. These strategies didn’t always align.

Tensions grew during major campaigns where these organizations joined their efforts, like the March on Washington, where SNCC leader John Lewis was asked to soften his language and tone to avoid offending allies in Congress. Lewis resisted claiming that if he was to get in trouble for his language, it would be “good trouble.” Some SNCC members felt the SCLC was too cautious or too eager to compromise.

In contrast, NAACP leaders occasionally criticized younger activists in SNCC for what they saw as reckless actions of prideful youth. These disagreements reflected real debates about the direction of the movement. Was it better to appeal to the federal government or build local power? Should the focus be on integration or on economic justice?

Should the movement remain strictly nonviolent as newer groups like the Black Panthers, who felt the Civil Rights movement up to this point had been too passive and needed to be more militant, began to rise? The answer was that there was never one way to advocate for Civil Rights. Each of these organizations fought hatred with a different approach. Together, they were able to accomplish their shared goal of legal equality for African Americans.

Landmark Victories and National Legislation

Despite their differences, the work of the NAACP, SCLC, and SNCC helped achieve some of the most significant legal victories for equality in American history. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned segregation in public places and outlawed employment and housing discrimination. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 struck down literacy tests, poll taxes, and the grandfather clause used to keep African Americans from voting.

The NAACP’s courtroom victories built the legal groundwork. The SCLC’s televised marches and moral appeals forced the federal government to act. SNCC’s work in Southern towns exposed the brutality of Jim Crow to the nation. Together, they created pressure that politicians had to act upon. While the laws they helped pass didn’t solve every problem, they represented a turning point in the nation’s history. For the first time, civil rights were guaranteed by the full force of federal law.

Impact and Legacy

The work of the NAACP, SCLC, and SNCC didn’t end in the 1960s. Their legacy lives on in the fights for justice happening today. The NAACP continues its legal advocacy, challenging voter suppression and racial discrimination in the courts, such as racial gerrymandering laws. The SCLC, though smaller, still promotes nonviolence and faith-based activism.

The SNCC, officially disbanded, left behind a model of grassroots organizing that influences movements today like Black Lives Matter. The different approaches of these organizations showed that change takes different forms. They also showed that movements must evolve to meet the moment.

Voter suppression, police brutality, and systemic inequality didn’t vanish with the Civil Rights Act. Their combined legacy is a reminder that real progress is never the work of one leader or one march—it’s the result of thousands of people, each doing their part, for years on end.

Passed in 1919 to enforce the 18th Amendment, the Volstead Act became the cornerstone of Prohibition in America. Named after Congressman Andrew Volstead, it set strict limits on “intoxicating liquors” while allowing exceptions for medicinal and industrial use. The law fueled a thriving underground market of bootleggers and speakeasies, igniting widespread public anger and corruption. Over time, the growing backlash from citizens and politicians proved overwhelming, paving the way for the 21st Amendment in 1933, which finally repealed Prohibition and marked the end of the Volstead era.

1. The Volstead Act Was to Enforce the 18th Amendment

The Volstead Act, formally known as the National Prohibition Act, was passed into law in 1919 to give legal weight to the 18th Amendment, which banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of “intoxicating liquors.”

Lawmakers and temperance advocates (individuals, mainly women, who believed alcohol to be the cause of all of society’s problems) believed that prohibiting alcohol would reduce crime, mend broken families, and increase workplace productivity. For example, many pointed to the rampant public drunkenness and social disorder in cities like Chicago and New York as evidence that change was desperately needed.

This movement came at a time when the average American consumed several gallons of whiskey a year on average. Yet, while the Act was meant to transform society by eliminating the negative impacts associated with alcohol, enforcing a nationwide ban proved far more challenging. Many communities resisted what they saw as a drastic limitation on their civil liberties. In some areas, police strictly enforced the prohibition, while in others, officials turned a blind eye to illegal activities.

2. It Was Named After Congressman Andrew Volstead

The law bore the name of Congressman Andrew Volstead of Minnesota, a leading proponent of the temperance movement and someone who could give the movement a voice in a society that was still largely male-dominated.

Volstead believed that getting rid of alcohol consumption was key to solving many of the negative aspects of American society from domestic violence to the downturn of the economy. His passionate speeches and the pressure he put on Capitol Hill transformed what began as a small movement into a national law.

Critics and supporters alike came to associate his name with the movement. However, his association with Prohibition also made him open to controversy, as opponents pushed back on the law’s limitations on personal freedom. Despite the backlash, Volstead’s name remains a symbol of that era’s ambition to ban the consumption of alcohol as well as its unforeseen consequences.

3. It Defined “Intoxicating Liquors” and Set Guidelines for Medicinal Alcohol

A cornerstone of the Volstead Act was its detailed definition of “intoxicating liquors.” The law stated that any beverage containing more than 0.5% alcohol by volume was illegal. This tight definition aimed to eliminate loopholes that might allow alcohol to slip through the cracks. However, the Act also provided several key exemptions.

For instance, alcohol was still permitted for medicinal purposes and for religious ceremonies, where wine played a ceremonial role. Industrial uses of alcohol were also allowed, which meant factories could still procure it for their manufacturing needs. These exemptions were meant to balance strict prohibition with practical realities, yet they inadvertently created opportunities for abuse.

Doctors began prescribing “medicinal” alcohol to anyone willing to pay the extra fee, and some bootleggers exploited the industrial exemption by smuggling alcohol under other names. Ultimately, the Act’s language, designed to leave nothing to chance, became one of the factors that made enforcing Prohibition so complicated.

4. It Sparked a Surge in Bootlegging and the Rise of Speakeasies

Instead of ushering in an era of sobriety, the Volstead Act sparked a massive underground economy. With legal avenues for alcohol production and distribution closed, bootleggers seized the opportunity to supply the demand. Across the nation, individuals began smuggling, distilling, and selling alcohol on the black market.

This trade was marked with illegal stills, hidden shipments, and coded communication channels. Secret bars, known as speakeasies, sprang up in basements and back rooms across the country. Gaining their name due to the fact one would have to “speak easy” the secret code to gain entrance, these venues quickly evolved into hubs of social life, where jazz bands played and people celebrated the financial success of the “roaring twenties.”

High-profile bootleggers, such as Al Capone in Chicago, became notorious figures, amassing vast fortunes while engaging in violent turf wars with other mobsters. In the end, the impact of this underground economy is seen today, as it changed the very nature of American nightlife.

5. It Increased Crime and Corruption

One of the most profound and lasting effects of the Volstead Act was its boost to organized crime across the nation. Criminal organizations quickly stepped in to meet the unwavering public demand for alcohol. People like Al Capone capitalized on the situation, establishing extensive networks to smuggle, produce, and distribute liquor. These organizations did not operate in the shadows, they often controlled entire neighborhoods, using violence and intimidation to maintain their grip on the market.

Organized crime groups also infiltrated local governments and law enforcement agencies, engaging in widespread bribery and corruption to secure their operations. For example, in cities such as Chicago and Detroit, police officers and politicians were frequently accused and found guilty of accepting bribes, allowing illegal activities to go unpunished in return for a share of their profits. Over time, the chaos and violence associated with bootlegging and smuggling left many feeling the enforcement of Prohibition was a losing effort.

6. It Fueled Public Discontent and a Culture of Rebellion

Rather than uniting the nation, the Volstead Act ended up fueling widespread public anger. Many Americans came to view the strict ban on alcohol as a direct violation of their personal liberty and an attempt by the government to dictate one’s free time.

In both urban centers and rural communities, people found creative ways to defy the law, from organizing underground drinking clubs to openly mocking prohibition patrols. Outside of the more known forms of resistance, neighbors would share illicit drinks and exchange stories of evading authorities. Public protests and acts of civil disobedience were not uncommon, as citizens voiced their frustration through everything from demonstrations to political cartoons in local and national newspapers. The growing anger against Prohibition showcased the disconnect between legislative intent and the public’s lived reality, setting the stage for a movement that would eventually demand the end of Prohibition. This resistance was a key factor in the eventual repeal of Prohibition, as the public’s anger became too much for politicians to ignore.

7. The Act Caused Its Own Downfall

The Volstead Act’s legacy is a textbook case of unforeseen consequences leading to a policy’s downfall. While initially created to curb the evils in society associated with alcohol consumption, the Act sparked an era defined by criminal enterprises, corruption, and widespread public anger. Over the years, the negative outcomes of Prohibition became impossible to ignore. The booming underground economy, violent gang wars, and the growing lack of respect for law enforcement all demonstrated that the Volstead Act was hurting society more than helping.

The economic strains of the Great Depression further worsened public dissatisfaction with Prohibition, as many felt that resources could be better spent on relief efforts rather than enforcing an unpopular ban. The mounting pressure from voters, business leaders, and even former temperance advocates eventually forced a reassessment of the law.

In 1933, the 21st Amendment was passed, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, repealing the 18th Amendment and effectively ending the legality of the Volstead Act. This repeal marked the end of Prohibition, signaling a return to regulated alcohol sales and a recognition that dictating personal behavior on such a scale had proven a fruitless effort.

On May 4, 1886, a strike in Haymarket Square in Chicago turned deadly when an unidentified person threw a bomb at the police, who, in turn, opened fire against the strikers. Known as the Haymarket Affair, the event caused the first “red scare” in the US and led to the arrest of several foreign-born anarchists, many of whom received the death sentence in a controversial trial. While the Haymarket Affair caused a setback in the American labor movement, it inspired generations of labor activists, leaders, and artists throughout the world.

The Haymarket Affair & The Eight-Hour Movement

“We’re summoning our forces from the shipyard, shop, and mill,” sang strikers in the 19th century, “eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, eight hours for what we will!” Published in 1878 and written by I.G. Blanchard, the song Eight Hours quickly became the official anthem of the Eight-hour Movement that aimed to secure better working conditions for laborers.

In the 19th century, the average laborer worked around 12 hours a day in factories and mills, and some even worked up to 100 hours a week. Wages were often so meager that workers could barely afford a basic living. People from low socioeconomic backgrounds and recent immigrants usually started taking up physically demanding jobs in their childhood or teenage years. Working conditions were often unhealthy and dangerous.

In the mid-19th century, the eight-hour workday, first proposed by Robert Owen in 1817 in New Lanark (Scotland), became the key demand of labor unions and movements that were quickly forming and spreading in industrialized countries. In 1856, for example, stonemasons working at a building site at the University of Melbourne, Australia, walked off their job to protest a failed negotiation between their union and building companies. On their banners, they painted a symbol of three intertwined numbers eight. The design was a visual representation of the Eight-hour movement’s motto: “Eight hour Work, Eight hour Recreation, Eight hour Rest.” The Australian workers were ultimately successful, and skilled laborers secured an eight-hour workday.

In the US, the first national call to shorten the workday was made during the August 1866 meeting of the National Labor Union in Baltimore, Maryland. While the resolution went unheeded at the time, the eight-hour workday remained a key demand of the various local and national labor organizations in America. The following year, the workers’ unions in Chicago believed to have finally achieved their goal when the Illinois government introduced a law shortening the working day to eight hours. However, a loophole in the decree allowed employers to contract longer working hours. On May 1, the city’s labor movement organized a strike that brought all economic activities in Chicago to a halt for a week. However, the protest (and its demands) eventually collapsed.

Chicago & the Labor Movement

In the 1880s, the demand for an eight-hour workday resurfaced among unionized workers. At the time, Chicago was the center of the labor movement in the US, embodying the contradictions of the Gilded Age. The 1871 Chicago Fire and subsequent rebuilding had attracted many foreign-born workers (especially from Germany, Scandinavia, and Bohemia) to the city. When the Panic of 1873 triggered the Long Depression and widened the gap between the upper and working classes, many laborers joined the anarchist and socialist groups and trade unions.

In particular, the 1877 national railroad strike, when tens of thousands of workers marched through the streets of Chicago, played a crucial role in spreading socialist and anarchist ideals among the working class. German-born George Schilling, a leading figure in the city’s labor movement, described the strike as “the calcium light that illumined the skies of our social and industrial life.” Led by August Spies (also an immigrant from Germany) and Albert Parsons, Chicago’s unionism (combined with anarchism) rejected capitalism and envisioned workers directly owning and managing their workplaces, a philosophy known as the “Chicago Idea.”

While the elite felt threatened by the rapid development of what contemporary observers called the “labor question,” an increasing number of workers joined the ranks of the city’s 26 anarchist groups and various labor unions, especially the Knights of Labor, the leading union in America at the time. In 1883, the Pittsburg Congress founded the International Working People’s Association (IWPA). While the anarchist group’s end goal was to replace the “wage-slavery” with a free society, by 1886, many had shifted their focus on securing higher wages and an eight-hour workday for the working class.

What Caused the Haymarket Affair?

On May 1, 1886, the American labor unions organized a nationwide strike to demand the introduction of the eight-hour workday. In Chicago, about 80,000 people, led by Albert Parsons and his African-American wife, Lucy, walked off their jobs to march through the city’s streets. The event ended without violence. Two days later, however, police and workers clashed at a protest at the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company, where a group of policemen opened fire against the demonstrators who were harassing the strikebreakers hired by the firm. Several civilians died in the ensuing shootout.

August Spies, the editor of the Arbeiter-Zeitung (Workers’ Newspaper), the most popular anarchist publication in the US, witnessed the scene. Rushing to the office of his newspaper, Spies wrote a leaflet calling workers to protest police brutality. “Revenge! Workingmen, to Arms!” read the flyer’s slogan. However, Spies later testified he asked to remove the word “revenge” from the text. After reading Spies’ leaflet, some anarchist groups gathered at Grief Hall decided to organize a rally on the evening of May 4 at Haymarket Square.

What Happened During the Haymarket Affair?

On May 4, 1886, only about 3,000 workers gathered in Haymarket Square to listen to the various speakers. Mayor Carter Harrison was also in attendance to make sure the rally would not turn violent. Before leaving the square, Harrison told Inspector John Bonfield the police were no longer needed, as the meeting was peaceful. At 10 p.m., when Samuel Fielden began the last speech of the gathering, only 300 people remained in the light rain.

Alarmed by some heated remarks made by Fielden, a group of policemen returned to Haymarket Square, demanding that the crowd disperse. As Fielden agreed to the request, a never-identified man threw a handmade bomb at the police, who opened fire. In the ensuing chaos, seven police officers and an estimated four to eight workers died. Several other policemen and civilians were wounded. It was later revealed that some officers were killed by the bullets fired by their colleagues.

What Happened After the Haymarket Affair?

The Haymarket Affair caused a nationwide wave of hysteria and xenophobia that has been described as the first American “Red Scare.” In the following days, as the police looked for the man who threw the bomb, several foreign-born anarchists, radicals, and labor leaders were arrested, and the offices of the radical press shut down. Initially, the investigators believed Charles Lingg, an anarchist known for his skills in handling explosives, had made and thrown the bomb. However, no solid evidence was found to confirm this theory.

As tensions rose in the city, with workers organizing strikes and demonstrations, the Chicago mayor forbade people to gather in public spaces and hold rallies. Amid the general panic and fear, the press depicted the Haymarket Affair as a conspiracy masterminded by radical immigrants. “Let us whip these slavic wolves back to the European dens from which they issue, or in some way exterminate them,” urged The Chicago Times. An article published in The New York Times on May 6 put forward a similar narrative of the Haymarket Affair: “Everything points to a preconcerted plan on the part of Spies, Parsons, and Fielden to try the effect of one of their bombs. The speeches were planned to rouse the mob gradually to a point where police interference could reasonably be hoped for and then a man … was detailed to throw a bomb when the proper time came.”

On May 27, the Chicago Grand Jury indicted several men for the Haymarket Affair, declaring: “​​We find that the attack on the police of May 4 was the result of a deliberate conspiracy, the full details of which are now in the possession of the officers of the law.” Eight of them, known as the “Chicago Eight,” would eventually stand trial: August Spies, Albert Parsons, Samuel Fielden, George Engel, Adolph Fischer, Michael Schwab, Louis Lingg, and Oscar Neebe.

The Haymarket trial, presided over by Judge Joseph E. Gary, began in June 1886 in the Cook County courtroom. State Attorney Julius Grinnell initially tried to prove that August Spies had been the mastermind behind the violence and the one who threw the dynamite bomb on May 4. As the eyewitness statements brought forward by the prosecution were disputed, Grinnell urged the jury to hold the Chicago Eight morally responsible for the Haymarket Affair: “The question for you to determine is, having ascertained that a murder was committed, not only who did it, but who is responsible for it, who abetted it, assisted it, or encouraged it?”

On August 20, the jury found all defendants guilty. Seven of them received the death penalty. Oscar Neebe was sentenced to 15 years. As the Supreme Court rejected the defense’s appeals, even writers such as George Bernard Shaw and Oscar Wilde became involved in the Haymarket Affair, asking the governor to grant clemency to the Chicago Eight. In November, Illinois Governor Oglesby commuted Schwab and Fielden’s sentences to life in prison. On November 11, four of the Chicago Eight were hanged. The day before, Louis Lingg had committed suicide. In 1893, Governor John Peter Altgeld pardoned Fielden, Schwab, and Neebe, declaring the trial against them had been biased.

The Haymarket Affair & International Workers’ Day

In the US, the Haymarket Affair led to a setback in the labor and eight-hour movements, with employers and businessmen rescinding some rights American workers had previously been granted. In particular, the Knights of Labor, blamed by many for the incident, lost their leadership position in American unionism and dissolved in 1886.

While the Haymarket Affair negatively impacted the workers’ movement in the US, labor leaders around the world hailed the “Chicago Eight” as martyrs, echoing August Spies’s last words: “The time will come when our silence will be more powerful than the voices you strangle today.” In 1889, when socialist and labor parties met in Paris for the First Congress of the Second International, the delegates attending the meeting decided to organize a “great international demonstration” to call for the eight-hour workday. The global strike would be held on May 1, 1890, to honor the victims of the Haymarket Affair, at the time widely referred to as a riot.

This “universal proletarian celebration” was supposed to be a one-off event. “No one could predict the lightning-like way in which this idea would succeed and how quickly it would be adopted by the working classes,” wrote the German philosopher and revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg. “Everywhere the Workmen Join in Demands for a Normal Day,” commented the New York World on May 2, 1890.

In the following years, other violent confrontations between workers and police occurred in the US. In May 1894, federal troops stopped a strike at the Pullman Palace Car Company in Chicago. In the ensuing riot, 30 people died. The event inspired the delegates of the 1904 Sixth Congress of the Second International to turn May First, present-day May Day (or International Workers’ Day), into an annual event. The Pullman Strike alarmed the American authorities, and President Grover Cleveland officially established Labor Day as a national holiday. However, reputing May Day as too closely associated with radicalism, he set the celebration for the first weekend of September.

In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and thus began an era of insatiable conquest. Indigenous peoples throughout the Americas were subjected to new threats, from disease to new competition for resources to intentional extermination. Thousands were killed and their homes lost to history. However, despite this influx of outsiders, some towns and villages survived. Picking up the pieces, resilience paved the way for a return to tradition—and growth into the future.

Here are four remarkable Indigenous towns that persevered through conquest and remain vibrant amid contemporary challenges.

1. Mexico City Was Once Tenochtitlan

Mexico City is known for many things, one of which is its status as the oldest extant metropolis in North America. Founded in 1325 (though people have lived in the area much longer) and originally named Tenochtitlan, Mexico City was the capital of the Aztec Empire. The Aztecs were a powerful entity that ruled much of Mexico. They were exceptional warriors with impressive engineering skills, as evidenced by their massive stepped pyramids that remain today. Large marketplaces could be found throughout the empire and included goods from agricultural pursuits, weaving, ceramics, jewels, and more. At the height of Aztec power in the 16th century, the city of Tenochtitlan was home to somewhere between 200,000-250,000 people, connected with a number of satellite villages.

It was a thriving city, one that Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés noted as resembling Venice, Italy. Unfortunately, Cortés orchestrated the downfall of the Aztec capital, culminating in his conquest of the city in August 1521. His efforts were supported by competing tribes, disease, and the Aztec emperor’s belief that the Spaniards were part of a religious prophecy.

Cortés began building his new capital atop the conquered one, forcing survivors to do most of the construction. The city returned to prosperity very quickly and gained prominence during the colonial era. In the 19th century, Indigenous Mexicans gained enough strength to successfully take their homeland back from Spanish colonials, with September 16, 1810, noted as the day independence was declared. The name Mexico comes from the Aztecs’ name for themselves, Mexica (meh-shee-ka).

Today, Mexico City is estimated to have a population of nearly 23 million, and that number is increasing annually. It is home not only to native populations but also to immigrants from Canada, the United States, Central and South America, South Korea, China, and other regions. It is home to the largest population of Americans outside of the United States. The economy is largely service and manufacturing-based, and accounts for nearly a quarter of the gross domestic product of the country.

2. The Rebuilding of the Pueblo of Acoma

Located in modern New Mexico, the village, or pueblo, of Acoma is ancient, with references to it appearing frequently in accounts of Spanish exploration. Peaceful contact between Indigenous peoples and the Spanish occurred numerous times in the 16th century, but in 1595, Don Juan de Onate was awarded permission by Spanish authorities to undertake efforts to conquer what we now know as New Mexico. By 1598, Onate took possession of the area and required the Acoma people to take an oath known as the Act of Obedience and Homage. Under this ceremony, the Acoma acknowledged that they would obey the King of Spain. Several Acoma people did, but once they realized what the words meant, they decided to retaliate against the invaders.

After a three-day battle, the Spanish prevailed, burning the pueblo of Acoma and taking about 500 Acoma men, women, and children prisoner. Trials followed, some resulting in death sentences. The trials made news headlines around the world and were scrutinized closely. Upon examination, complaints were made against Onate, and he was eventually banished from New Mexico.

Although Onate was absent, Spanish influence remained, and missionary efforts were prevalent. Resistance among the Acoma people remained high, and they briefly regained control of the area after the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. However, the Spanish re-conquered the area in 1699. Even so, Acoma Indigenous culture remained strong and persisted for centuries thereafter. The city was rebuilt, preserving much of the original streetscape. Today, it features traditional flat-topped adobe buildings, with the tribe committed to its continuing restoration and care. A small population lives in Acoma full-time, with many other Acoma people living nearby in Acomita, 15 miles away. The Pueblo of Acoma is a popular tourist attraction and is used regularly for tribal ceremonies.

3. Perpetual Resistance: The Yaqui in Vicam

The Yaqui people resisted more than just the Spanish invaders during their 396 years of on-and-off conflict. This Indigenous nation occupied numerous pueblos throughout northwestern Mexico, including Vicam. The Yaqui fought Spanish armies, beginning with the soldiers of Nuno Beltran de Guzman in 1531, refusing to give up their homeland and way of life. When Mexican Independence was officially declared in the early 19th century, many Mexicans celebrated, but not the Yaqui. They wished to retain their own state and system of government within the new country. Ethnic cleansing efforts by the Mexican government were initiated, resulting in the death and enslavement of thousands.

In 1927, the Yaqui surrendered, but did not give up their identity. The Yaqui Zona Indigena (Yaqui Indigenous Zone) was created by the President of Mexico, Lazaro Cardenas, in 1930, which allowed for some tentative improvements for the Yaqui people. Vicam is one of the eight traditional pueblos located within this zone. There are also Yaqui outposts in the United States, based in Arizona, Texas, and California. The Yaqui received US federal recognition in 1978.

Today, Vicam offers tourists an immersion into Yaqui culture. It isn’t home to resorts and other tourist traps, but serves as a hub for traditional activities. Festivals, ceremonies, and events such as cultural runs are celebrated in Vicam. In 2023, the Yaqui People’s University opened in Vicam. The higher education institution offers degrees in typical fields like education and engineering, but tailors learning to the cultural history and needs of the Yaqui people.

4. From Ancient Settlement to Art Capital: Hanapepe

Hanapepe, Kauai, Hawaii, was inhabited by native Hawaiians for centuries before European contact in 1778. Its fertile soils meant that agricultural pursuits flourished, both before but also after colonization. Salt was also an important commodity for the area. The growing sugar industry led to widespread immigration to the islands, and Hanapepe became popular for smaller farms. The town was an economic hub by the time the 20th century rolled around.

The United States annexed Hawaii in 1898 following the overthrow of the traditional royal family, largely as a result of interference by agricultural magnates. It became the 50th state in 1959. However, many argue that the annexation was illegal, and in 1993, Congress issued a joint resolution and apology. Still, Hawaii remains part of the United States. Additionally, natural disasters, such as hurricanes, have hindered Hanapepe’s success over the years.

Regardless of annexation status, Hanapepe remains a vibrant cultural reminder of Hawaii’s Indigenous history, with a modern twist. Today, it is known as the “biggest little town” and “the town that keeps refusing to die.” Hanapepe is home to salt ponds, with farms that are one of only two areas in Hawaii where sea salt is harvested using traditional methods. It has a rich reputation as a destination for artists and art lovers alike. Historical buildings have undergone renovations, retaining their original aesthetic. Hanapepe is even said to be the inspiration for Kokaua Town, the setting of Disney’s popular Lilo & Stitch franchise. Although the population is only a few thousand, it is a major stop for a large portion of Kauai’s annual tourist influx, which exceeds 1 million.

There is no denying that colonial interests, genocide, and conquest have irreparably changed the landscape of the Americas. Even so, conquerors were unable to completely erase the legacy, culture, and tradition of American Indigenous peoples. These four towns illustrate the ability of native cultures to survive and even thrive in the face of assimilation and adversity.

Assimilation was the tool used in attempts to subjugate Native Americans since Europeans first landed on the North American continent. Forcing the adoption of white culture threatened the existence of many historic cultural traditions belonging to hundreds of varying tribes. Despite the sometimes violent push to absorb European-American ways, some tribes have persisted in protecting their traditions. Beyond that, several have taken these measures public, sharing their ways with the world through museums and cultural centers across the country. These impressive tribal-run institutions offer a unique glimpse into Indigenous lifeways, past and present.

1. Mashantucket Pequot Museum & Research Center: Online and In-Person

The Mashantucket Pequot Museum & Research Center has been tribal-operated since its opening in 1998. The Mashantucket, also known as the Western Pequot tribe, is one of the oldest federally recognized tribes, with a reservation located in Southeastern Connecticut. The museum, located in Mashantucket, Connecticut, spans 308,000 square feet and includes permanent and temporary exhibits, classrooms, an auditorium, a gift shop, and a restaurant. The research center houses both collections and laboratories where ongoing study takes place.

The museum introduces visitors to the history of the Mashantucket Pequot tribe in a variety of ways, including films, interactive events, archives, art, traditional crafts, and more. In addition to permanent exhibits and revolving temporary exhibitions, the institution operates virtual tours on its website. Recent themes include “Reclaiming the Waterways” and “Battlefields of the Pequot War.”

The museum is not the only way the Mashantucket tribe has impacted local tourism. The tribe has become one of Connecticut’s highest state revenue contributors and employers. The Mashantucket were leaders in the development of the Indian gaming industry, establishing an agreement with the state in 1993 to start gaming operations at Foxwoods Casino.

2. Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum: “A Place to Learn, A Place to Remember”

As its name promises, the Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum offers visitors a memorable glimpse into the history and cultural ways of the Seminole tribe. Meaning “a place to learn, a place to remember,” Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki is located in the heart of the Florida Everglades. It is home to more than 200,000 historic objects, traditional crafts, artifacts, and works of art. The complex includes a one-mile-long raised boardwalk that allows visitors to walk through the Everglades, with several resting points that include educational features and a re-created ceremonial ground. A modern-day version of a Seminole tourist camp often features tribal artists who demonstrate traditional arts and crafts and answer visitors’ questions.

While hosting field trips and regular visitors, the museum sponsors a number of community gatherings, both at the museum and at local landmarks. The community gatherings are often interactive, such as one that was held in 2024 to mark Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples Awareness Week. Event attendees were invited to speak and participate in creating a work of art to be used for a future museum installation.

3. The Abbe Museum Celebrates the People of the Dawnland

Though the Abbe Museum in Bar Harbor, Maine, was not founded by tribal interests, the Wabanaki people of Maine have played an increasingly prominent role in its operations. Today, the Board of Trustees is largely made up of Wabanaki people, and exhibit curation is often Wabanaki-driven. Meaning “people of the dawnland,” the Wabanaki nation is made up of Maine’s four Indigenous tribes, the Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Maliseet, and Micmac.

Founded in 1926 and opened in 1928, the museum was established by Dr. Robert Abbe, a New York doctor who spent summers in Bar Harbor. He assembled a collection of local Indigenous artifacts and collaborated with other collectors to share his collection with the public. In 1928, the museum became the first Maine institution to sponsor archaeological research that expanded its exhibits and impacted future research throughout the state.

Today, the museum is home to the largest collection of Wabanaki basketry, and its conservation programs have been recognized on a national level. The museum has extensive educational programs for adults, families, and students. It offers training programs for teachers and lesson plans that help students meet the objectives of the Maine Learning Results, which include standards for education about the Wabanaki.

4. Living History at the Suquamish Museum

The Suquamish Museum, located in the heart of Suquamish territory in Washington state, was the initiative of tribesman Lawrence Webster. Webster was forced to attend the Tulalip Indian Boarding School as a youth in the early 20th century. Like in other Indian boarding schools of the era, Webster was prohibited from speaking his native language, Lushootseed. Despite receiving punishment for speaking it, Webster managed to retain his hold on his native tongue during his time at the school. He went on to participate in a number of efforts to revitalize Lushootseed and other aspects of Suquamish culture. Inspired by Webster’s work, the Suquamish Museum opened in 1983.

The museum asserts that it isn’t just a place for the conservation of historical artifacts, but a “dynamic repository” for Suquamish culture. The Suquamish tribe occupied the region near Puget Sound for thousands of years before European contact. Embracing tradition and sharing it with the public drives the ongoing work at the museum. In a unique blending of tradition and modernity, the museum even offers a mobile app to make centuries of history and a future of conservation accessible to everyone.

5. The Award-Winning Museum of the Cherokee People

The Museum of the Cherokee People in Cherokee, North Carolina, has a reputation as one of the longest-operating tribal museums in the United States. Established in 1948, it shares Cherokee history and culture on traditional tribal lands. The institution is home to a number of permanent and revolving exhibits, hosting public visitors, schools, and more. For online researchers, the museum features a virtual catalog including artwork, books, artifacts, and more that can be accessed online. Those interested in tribal genealogy can even make an appointment with the museum for a genealogy consultation.

The Museum of the Cherokee People has received several recognitions, including being named as one of the Top Ten Best Native American Experiences by USA Today.

6. Acoma Sky City Cultural Center & Haaku Museum

The pueblo (village) of Acoma, home to a tribe of the same name, is one of the oldest continually inhabited places in what is now the United States. Located in New Mexico, the pueblo, with many historically maintained buildings, is open to visitors for tours. A small population of tribal members lives in the pueblo full-time, with many others calling the nearby town of Acomita home. However, tourists can also experience the Sky City Cultural Center and Haaku Museum. Located at the base of the mesa, the cultural center acts as a gateway to the traditional Acoma lifestyle.

While a tourism center has existed at this location for some time, the original building burned in 2000. The revitalized cultural center opened in 2006. Built in a style that mimics traditional pueblo buildings, the square, flat-roofed building houses exhibits, conference rooms, a gift shop, a restaurant, and a library. There are also reparation rooms, which are not open to the public, where the study and return of traditional artifacts are completed as part of the process of addressing historical injustice.

7. Manifest Destiny in a Different Light: Tamastslikt Cultural Institute

Located along the historic Oregon Trail near Pendleton, Oregon, the Tamastslikt Cultural Institute focuses on telling the story of US western expansion from the Indigenous point of view. The museum recounts the story of the Cayuse, Walla Walla, and Umatilla tribes, and while it shares their traditions, it also looks to the future. Its exhibits and programs demonstrate that despite immigration, war, and broken treaties, the culture of these confederated tribes survived and will be preserved for future generations.

A variety of events are hosted by the museum and are usually free and open to the public. Past events have included book signings, special speakers, and film showings. While 16,000 years of traditions are on display, the institute also highlights contemporary tribal culture, such as the involvement of the tribes in the restoration of salmon habitat in the Northwest. This collision of past and present is prevalent in the museum’s permanent exhibits, which exemplify “We Were,” “We Are,” and “We Will Be.”

America is home to hundreds of diverse Indigenous nations. When colonization began in the Age of Exploration, these groups were suppressed, relocated, and endured genocidal actions at the hands of governments and settlers. Though Indigenous populations suffered under these measures, and assimilation forced its hand, America’s native peoples held onto their sacred traditions as time marched on. Even today, in the 21st century, Indigenous ways of life that date back hundreds of years are curated and preserved for future generations.

1. Taos Pueblo: Continuously Inhabited for Over 1,000 Years

Indigenous people have inhabited the Taos Valley in New Mexico for about a thousand years. A pueblo, or village, was built there most likely between 1000 and 1400 AD. The structures making up the pueblo were built from adobe, a mixture of soil, water, and straw that was sun-dried into bricks or poured into forms. Parts of these original structures still exist in Taos Pueblo and are considered to be the oldest continuously inhabited places in the United States.

From a distance, the pueblo appears to be one large structure, but it is actually numerous individual homes built side by side and in levels, sharing common walls. Originally, the only way into these buildings was via the roof, but doors and windows have been added in subsequent years. Today, about 150 people live within Taos Pueblo full-time, and are members of the Taos tribe, which in total numbers about 1,900 people on tribal lands. Other people keep seasonal homes or have built modern homes nearby in the valley. The village’s operations are overseen by a Tribal Council, made up of about 50 male elders. This group appoints a tribal governor and war chief annually. The governor and his accompanying staff deal not only with issues within the pueblo and tribal lands, but with non-Native relations.

The pueblo is largely supported by the tourist trade, with over 1.7 million day visits reported in 2022. This allows for around 3,000 jobs to be supported by tourism in Taos County. In addition to viewing the ancient buildings themselves, visitors are drawn to crafts made by traditional artisans, including pottery and silverwork such as jewelry. Traditional dances such as the Turtle Dance, celebrating the New Year, and other events are open to spectators.

2. A Traditional Village in North Carolina

In the heart of North Carolina’s Smoky Mountain region lies a living history museum offering the public a look at life within an 18th-century Cherokee Village. Though the employees of Oconaluftee Indian Village do not live as their ancestors did 24/7, their demonstrations of traditional practices have become an important part of their daily lives. Real-life performances of dancing, music, and more connect visitors with history in an engaging way. Artisans utilize historic practices not only to engage with visitors but also to preserve their cultural heritage. In addition, employees wear traditional dress daily.

The Village opened to the public in 1952, and though it is a re-created replica of a village, it incorporates numerous traditional aspects and speaks to accuracy in its re-imagined homes, ceremonial areas, and council house.

3. Traditions Persist on Pine Ridge

The Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota is home to the Oglala Lakota and is a place where rich history meets modern challenges. The site of the 1973 Wounded Knee Occupation, Pine Ridge has a legacy of political strife that has contributed to today’s hurdles. Those living on the reservation face an unemployment rate of over 80%, a lack of educational funding, and poor healthcare access. Despite these obstacles, the citizens of Pine Ridge remain dedicated to many of their people’s traditions. Forms of expression such as beadwork, painting, quilting, and sculpture continue to thrive. Ceremonies are essential to the Oglala culture, including naming ceremonies, sweat lodge practices, and the Sun Dance.

Largely considered the most important traditional ceremony of the Lakota people, along with several other Plains tribes, the Sun Dance is a time of great renewal. A trimmed and decorated cottonwood tree serves as the central pole, and dancers begin dancing around it at sunrise. Before dancing, their bodies are purified through a special ceremony called Inipi. Traditionally, lengths of rawhide were attached to the central pole and pierced into the chest of the dancers, attaching them to the pole. Dancing would continue, with the dancers hoping to eventually release themselves through the tearing of their flesh in a practice of self-sacrifice and cleansing. Singing, praying, and chanting may take place at various points during the ceremony.

4. Gathering Sweetgrass in Maine

Currently, four Indigenous tribes inhabit the state of Maine: the Maliseet, Micmac, Passamaquoddy, and Penobscot. Collectively, these tribes are known as the Wabanaki, which means “People of the Dawnland.” Among the traditions of the Wabanaki is the practice of gathering sweetgrass, often used in basketmaking. It also has its place in ceremony and traditional medicine. Sweetgrass is a perennial native grass, earning its name from its sweet aroma. However, beginning in the early 20th century, Indigenous peoples were prohibited from harvesting sweetgrass within Acadia National Park.

Acadia is one of the most visited parks in the National Park System, with around 4 million visitors a year. It covers approximately 50,000 acres along the Maine coast. It includes mountains, forests, marshes, and beaches, with habitats that support sweetgrass. In 2015, the National Park Service announced new regulations that would allow for the gathering of certain plants and their parts by federally recognized Indigenous tribes within national parks. This wasn’t a blanket law, still requiring agreements and other steps before gathering could occur, most notably an environmental assessment to determine that gathering for traditional use would have no “significant impact” on the resources within the park.

In a show of cooperation, park officials worked with Wabanaki representatives and scientists to study the potential effects of sweetgrass gathering, and in 2024, released a statement announcing a “Finding of No Significant Impact” for the collection of sweetgrass for traditional purposes. This allowed the federally recognized tribes of Maine to move forward in entering agreements with the National Park Service for traditional sweetgrass harvesting. Though it is not anticipated that traditional plant gathering will impact the ecology of Acadia, the situation will continue to be studied and monitored.

5. The Indian Shaker Church Combines Cultures

Though not traditional by some standards, the Indian Shaker Church, centered in the Northwestern United States and Canada, combines Christianity with Coast Salish spirituality. Founded in 1882 near Shelton, Washington, the religion remains active today.

The religion was founded by John and Mary Slocum and emphasizes a belief in Jesus, along with healing rituals and gestures. Slocum was called to spread his religious beliefs after a near-death experience during which he reported God spoke to him. Congregants are encouraged to abstain from alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and gambling. Though considered a Christian sect, non-Indigenous people are generally not invited to participate in the Indian Shaker Church.

The church has faced criticism and discrimination on multiple fronts throughout its existence. Bans against Indigenous religions were common in the late 19th and early 20th century in both the United States and Canada, punishable by arrest. On the other hand, some of those practicing more long-standing Indigenous religious traditions looked upon the Shaker Church’s association with Christianity with suspicion. It is unknown how many practicing Indian Shakers exist today, but this uniquely hybrid religion remains alive and well, with numerous physical church locations throughout the Pacific Northwest and western Canada.

Despite hundreds of years of existence, certain Indigenous cultural traditions are just as alive today as they were generations ago. Tribal members have persisted in preserving these ways of life through numerous challenges and attempts to stop them. Still, Indigenous people throughout America have demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that their sacred heritage survives to be taught to future generations. Cultural customs rely on this dedication to memory to persevere and thrive.

History often remembers World War II for its beachhead landings and setpiece battles. These seven American generals in the Second World War were not only effective commanders but also shaped the course of global history for the rest of the century and up to the present day. They became the 20th-century Argonauts, leaders who epitomized the theory of the Great Man and built the foundations of American hegemony.

1. George Marshall: The Architect of Victory and Peace

Born in 1880 in Pennsylvania, General George Marshall proved to be one of the most powerful men in uniform of any country during WWII. A veteran of the Philippine-American War and the First World War, he was a graduate of the Virginia Military Institute and a lifelong infantryman. Marshall had a talent for staffwork and organization and was nicknamed “the noblest Roman of them all” by Winston Churchill.

From September 1939 to November 1945, Marshall held the role of Chief of Staff of the US Army. On his watch, the US Army underwent the largest expansion in its history from 200,000 men to over 8,000,000 men. Additionally, he oversaw the rehabilitation of a force degraded by years of poor commanders and insufficient training, turning the army into a well-honed machine. His leadership ensured that the Americans had a smooth chain of command throughout the war.

After the end of the war, he was appointed Secretary of State by President Truman in January 1947 and oversaw the implementation of the Marshall Plan, the aid program to support postwar reconstruction in Europe. In 1953, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, becoming the only career Army officer ever to receive the honor. Upon his retirement, he was one of the world’s most distinguished military commanders and public servants, a military statesman and icon of American power.

2. Dwight D. Eisenhower: Supreme Allied Commander

Marshall could not do it alone; he needed competent subordinates to execute the Allied war plans. One of these subordinates became one of the most famous military commanders in history, possibly more so than Marshall himself. Dwight D. Eisenhower was ten years younger than Marshall grew up in Texas. When war broke out in 1939, he was a lieutenant colonel; by 1945, he was General of the Army (five stars) and the Supreme Allied Commander in Northwest Europe.

Eisenhower oversaw the invasion of North Africa, the landing in Sicily, the Normandy invasion, and the march into Germany. By the end of the war in Europe, he commanded 91 divisions from a polyglot mixture of countries, led by prickly personalities such as British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery and General George Patton.

Eisenhower was not always considered the best tactician or battle manager. He lacked command experience of large numbers of men in a war zone. Where he excelled was the implementation of the strategy devised by the Western Allied leadership and his ability to command a force composed of men from so many different countries. Even when there were major disputes between commanders of different Allied countries, he ensured that they didn’t hinder the plan to crush the Germans.

After the war, he succeeded Marshall briefly as Army Chief of Staff, became the 1st Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, and served as a two-term president from 1953-1961. Like George Marshall, Eisenhower was a military statesman who left a lasting global legacy in uniform and as a civilian political leader.

3. Douglas MacArthur: The Brilliant Insubordinate

On the other end of the globe, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, leading the Southwest Pacific Area Command, was also able to execute the Allied war plan against Japan, though with considerably more notoriety. MacArthur’s career was topsy-turvy. He had risen through the ranks, fighting in WWI and even served as Chief of Staff several years before Marshall did.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and invaded Southeast Asia in December 1941, MacArthur was serving as the commanding officer of the Philippine military before they were due to get full independence. He was recalled to active service right before the Pearl Harbor attacks and led the doomed defense of the Philippines before being ordered to withdraw to Australia.

MacArthur took command of his headquarters and led a series of offensives against the Japanese in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands before fulfilling his vow to return to the Philippines. He pursued an island-hopping strategy to bypass heavily defended Japanese islands, taking advantage of Allied control of the sea. By the end of the war, he was the Supreme Allied Commander in Tokyo and oversaw the postwar reconstruction of Japan.

However, his reputation for braggadocio and feuding with the White House led to his downfall. Despite the operational brilliance of his landing at Inchon during the Korean War, MacArthur’s tendency to challenge President Truman’s policy led to his dismissal. Despite his insubordination, MacArthur continues to be regarded as one of the most talented field commanders in American history.

4. George Patton Jr.: The Peerless Tank Commander

Like General Eisenhower, George Patton rose up the ranks rapidly in WWII from colonel in 1939 to four-star general in 1945. Unlike Eisenhower, Patton was a rambunctious, aggressive, controversial field commander who made his legend through his willingness to fight the enemy as much as possible and was disdainful of the other Allies during the war.

Born in 1885 in California, Patton was a veteran of the Mexico Expedition in 1916 and WWI. Unlike many other American generals, he was an experienced tank man, having commanded an armored brigade. This reinforced his sense of aggressiveness, leading him to drive his subordinates hard and insist that they lead their men from the front.

During the war, he commanded the II Corps in North Africa, the 7th Army in Sicily, and the 3rd Army in mainland Europe, where his aggressive instincts broke Germany’s formidable Siegfried Line. His command was marred with controversy; he slapped a shell-shocked soldier in the face, leading to his firing from the command of the 7th Army. He was later relieved of command from the 3rd Army after telling reporters he wanted to fight the Soviets.

Nonetheless, his reputation as a hard-driving officer ensured that he would be seen as a talented battlefield commander around the world. The 1970s movie Patton became a classic war film and a favorite of President Richard Nixon. While he was not as high ranking as the generals listed above, he was still one of the most well-known generals in military history.

5. Henry Hap Arnold: The Visionary of Global Air Power

The Second World War saw the rise of the use of mass aircraft in an offensive role independent from ground operations. While the independent US Air Force did not exist during the war, the US Army Air Force did operate as an independent force when conducting strategic bombing in Europe and Asia. The commander of the USAAF was General Henry Hap Arnold. Arnold was one of the first military pilots in history and learned to fly from the Wright Brothers in 1911. During WWI, he was responsible for converting civilian factories to produce thousands of planes and engines.

After taking over the USAAF in 1938, Arnold exhibited logistical mastery in transforming the force into a lethal tool that could shatter the enemy’s ability to make war. In 1939, the USAAF had 20,000 men and a few hundred planes. By the end of the war in 1945, it had over 2.4 million personnel and 80,000 aircraft. Arnold suffered from severe stress and had four heart attacks during the war, but he managed to continue in the role.

After the war ended, he lobbied heavily for the creation of the independent USAF, which came into being in 1947. In 1949, he was awarded the five-star rank of General of the Air Force to accompany his five-star General of the Army. He was considered one of the most ruthless air commanders during the war and became synonymous with the concept of strategic bombing.

6. Omar Bradley: The GI General and the Largest Field Command

As Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Eisenhower had three army groups under his command. The largest of these was the 12th Army Group of 1.3 million men under General Omar Bradley. This gave him the distinction of being the field commander to oversee the largest body of men in any American military formation to date. Bradley, whose calm demeanor and empathy for his men earned him the nickname the “GI General”, started the war as a staff officer at the Pentagon and ended it as one of the most prominent field commanders of any military during the war.

General Bradley took over command of the II Corps from General Patton and played a role in the destruction of the German and Italian forces in Tunisia. While he was initially Patton’s junior, he leapfrogged him as commander of the 1st Army in Normandy and then as commander of the 12th Army Group, which included Patton’s 3rd Army.

Bradley earned a reputation as a level-headed commander, overseeing the breach of the Siegfried Line, the counterattack in the Ardennes, and the crossing of the Rhine. After the war, he served as head of the Veterans Administration, Army Chief of Staff, and the 1st Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in US military history.

7. Curtis LeMay: The Ruthless Theorist of Strategic Bombing

General Curtis LeMay was the equivalent of Patton in the Army Air Force: a bombastic, aggressive commander who sought to use as much force against the enemy as possible. Unlike Patton, he lived to see much of the Cold War after his service as a commander in WWII.

General LeMay started the war as a Major and became a Major General by the end at a mere 38 years old. When he took over a bomb group in Britain, he devised the theory of the “combat box”, in which bombers flew as close to each other as possible to maximize the effect of their onboard machine guns. After commanding the 3rd Bombardment Division in 1943 in England, he transferred to the Pacific where Hap Arnold ordered him to take over the XX and XXI Bomber Commands.

America was bombing Japan ineffectually and LeMay sought to change that. On his watch, the US firebombed multiple Japanese cities, bringing home the war to the Japanese public. He also oversaw the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This proved to be some of the most controversial acts of the war and earned LeMay a reputation as a ruthless commander.

After the war, he served as commander of Strategic Air Command, the Air Force Chief of Staff and the running mate for George Wallace’s segregationist presidential campaign in 1968. Like Arnold, he became one of the major architects of strategic bombing (so-called “bomber barons”) and a major proponent of air power.

Building American Hegemony

America has always had military commanders known for their competence and ruthlessness: Winfield Scott, William T. Sherman, Norman Schwarzkopf, and others. However, the generals that oversaw America’s effort to defeat the Axis Powers became legends akin to the most famous rockstars of the 20th century. These men understood the use of hard power as a tool of diplomacy and how their efforts could lead America to becoming a superpower.

The US Army started WWII with very limited resources, poor training, and a lack of confidence. Thanks to the efforts of these men, and many others, the army was transformed into one of the most powerful armies ever seen in human history. That is not to say that they were flawless. Many of them showed poor judgement in certain areas of command and morality. However, they were able to overcome whatever flaws they had to ensure Allied victory in the Second World War and facilitate American leadership in the postwar world.