The US Political System: A View from the Confused UK>

I currently reside in the UK, but lived in the US for much of my life. Many Brits I know or have overheard in pubs find the US political system extremely confusing. Trump's attack on Iran has prompted new questions about it; notably his ability to start a war without the approval of the so-called representatives of the people: Congress. OK, I know Brits find other things American confusing, like baseball and American football, just as most Americans find cricket, rugby, and FIFA football confusing. As George Bernard Shaw put it, "The English and the Americans are two great peoples separated by a common language." 

Brits are expressing their confusion about US politics more often in the Trumpian Era, because Trump is in the UK news 24/7. Many of the Brits' comments since November 2024 relate to the question, How did the US "elect" such a despicable charlatan twice? What about learning from experience? Why can't they get rid of him? An American could reply, "Hey, UK voters made another charlatan, Boris Johnson, prime minister." That's true, but there is this difference: when enough people in the UK realized what a bloviating, bullshitting, devious narcissist Johnson was, they sent him packing. His own party did, in fact, responding to angry public opinion. In fact, the Tories got rid of four PMs in 14 years. The voters turned out a fifth in 2024. That's one advantage the parliamentary system has over the presidential system. Prime ministers serve at the pleasure of the party in power. The party in power can jettison their leader at any time, if they become sufficiently toxic to the voters. Presidents serve fixed terms. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to get rid of one before the next election, no matter how incompetent or vile.

The Conservatives (Tories) allowed their members to pick Johnson's successor. The members tend to be extreme in their views, and opt for candidates with extreme views -- and limited ability. That made Liz Truss the perfect choice. She managed to nearly destroy the UK economy in just a few weeks. Tory MPs could not get her out the door fast enough. 

Back to the UK view of US politics. The most common question after the 2016 election was, Why didn't Hilary Clinton get elected? She got 3 million more votes than Trump did. In order to answer that question, I had to try to explain role of the Electoral College in presidential elections. Despite its name, it has no connection with education, much less wisdom. Have you ever tried to explain the English Wars of the Roses to glassy-eyed, hungover undergraduates? I have. I don't recommend it. 

I have explained to astonished British listeners how the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to prevent the US from becoming a democracy. I must add many Americans are also astonished to learn that the Founders were opposed to democracy. The Founders feared that the "people" would elect some nut who would threaten "property," including human property. The EC, you see, does not represent the "people." It represents the states, each of which has a certain number of "electoral" votes, based on their population.  

Three times in US history presidential candidates who lost the popular vote have become president, because they got a majority of electoral votes. The most recent time was in 2016, when the Electoral College assured the "election" of a nut who wants to restore slavery and admires Hitler. Trump still claims he won the popular vote in 2016, just as he continues to claim he won the 2020 election, not Biden.

Yes, the Founding Fathers wanted a republic but not a democracy. And they are not the same thing. A country can be a democratic republic. It can be an undemocratic republic. It can also be a democratic monarchy, like the UK and quite a few European countries. The monarchs in these countries have no real power. They are titular heads of state. 

Of course, all this was not enough to explain what enabled Trump's rise to power, or why he remains there despite his incompetent and criminal behavior. There were many more questions to answer.

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!

Kings Fall Apart: Or, It's Not Always Good to be King, Mr Trump

TRUMP has been trying to make himself the first King of the USA since a revolting people gave George III the boot in 1776. Laying aside the argument that the Donald is a much worse leader than the last king, the King of Orange should think twice about being on a throne, however golden. George III, a Far Better Man Than Trump

The history of monarchy in the British Isles, which I know best, should not inspire a desire to play Macbeth and Don a crown. Few kings or queens have been able to enjoy their reigns, short or long. Only one British king has been called "The Merry Monarch," Charles II, and even he faced a sea of troubles, partly of his own making. 

Charles II did manage to last twenty-five years and die in bed with his crown on his head, a fate denied many other monarchs. The last Anglo-Saxon king, Harold, was killed in battle against the 1066 Norman Invasion led by Duke William of Normandy. Tradition holds that an arrow landed in Harold's eye. He had been king for only a few months. 

William I, Harold's Conqueror, did much better time-wise. But he had to deal with an Anglo-Saxon populace which did not welcome being ruled by a king who rewarded his French-speaking warriors with their lands. He dealt with the opposition by killing lots of peasants and destroying their homes. His corpulent body exploded when he was being forced into a too small tomb, emitting a foul smell and showering those nearby with unmentionables.

William II, the Conqueror's eldest son, had a nasty and short reign, cut short by an arrow again. On this occasion, the archer may have been an assassin hired by his brother Henry, who succeeded as king. Henry I he had a fairly lengthy reign. Legend has it that he died from eating a surfeit of lampreys. It is more probable that  a stroke killed him. Or maybe he died of worry about the succession.

Henry had no male successor, only a daughter, Matilda. He named her as his heir, but when he died, the alpha males among his barons decided they could not stomach being ruled by a woman, and chose his nephew Stephen as king. Those familiar with the US election of 2024, when Americans chose Trump over Kamala Harris, will understand. 

The result was nearly twenty years of fighting between the supporters of Stephen and those of Matilda. The Anarchy, as this period is called, was not a good time for anybody, except for some robber barons. Peasants, as always, paid a heavy price. 

In the end, the two sides reached a deal: Stephen would remain king, but on his death, the throne would pass to Matilda's son Henry of Anjou. When Henry II became king in 1154, he started a line of kings known as the Angevins or Plantagenets. Henry also inherited a large part of France, directly, or through his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. He was always moving about to keep control his large and diverse territories. He faced many rebellions among his nobles and vassals. The rebels eventually included his sons and Eleanor. 

Two of his sons became king after him. Richard and John, of Ivanhoe and Robin Hood fame. That's all fantasy, but so is Richard's "Lion-Heart" reputation. He is the only king to have a statue outside of Parliament, for some unfathomable reason. Richard spent a mere six months of his ten year reign in England, and like Trump, treated the country like a cash cow. He massacred thousands of Muslims, Jews, and even Christians while Crusading for Christ in the oddly named Holy Land. He also died when struck by an arrow, while besieging a rebel castle. Gangrene set in, and that did for him.

Richard I had no children. Enter his brother John, the only English king of that name. Let's see why. (NB: This is not John)

End of Part I.

 

The Real War on Christmas was waged by Christians

Ho! Ho! Ho! It's that jolly time of year again! That hilarious time in the USA when FOX News, Republicans, and rightwing Evangelicals profess outrage at the "War on Christmas." A fake outrage, of course, trotted out at years' end for political and cultural reasons, like keeping the poor in their place working for peanuts. Not to mention keeping up donations to TV evangelists with huge mansions. 

Today's War on Christmas is a Phony War. But a real war on Christmas once took place. It was several centuries ago in the UK, with spillovers into Puritan America. And guess what? It was waged by Christians. They were called Presbyterians in Scotland and Puritans in England and New England. 

In England, the Puritans were on the winning side of of the Civil War between Parliament and Charles I in the 1640s. They famously closed the London theaters as dens of immorality. They also abolished the celebration of Christmas as a "pagan celebration." They ordered that it be kept as a day of "fasting and humiliation." No singing, no dancing, no merriment at all. Try that today. 

In New England, transplanted Puritans did the same. They kept the ban in place until the 1850s. The war ended for good after President Ulysses S. Grant declared Christmas a federal holiday in the 1870s.

It may seem odd for Christians to ban Christmas, but the Puritans found no biblical justification for celebrating the birth of Christ. Nobody knew when he was born anyway (we still don't). The Puritans also associated Christmas revels with sinful, ungodly pagan rites and behavior, not to mention Papists (Catholics). 

A wit once defined a Puritan as a person who was angry because somewhere, somebody was having a good time. That is a bit simplistic and unfair to Puritans as a whole, but the accusation fit some of them.

The Scots had preceded the English in the War on Christmas, as in so many aspects of British life. After the Presbyterian Church of Scotland came to dominate Scottish religious life in the late 16th century, they abolished the celebration of Christmas. John Knox, the Calvinist preacher who led the Scottish Reformation, was a dour sort who darkened Scottish culture for centuries. 

Scotland's Christmas ceased to be a holiday of feasting, fun, and folly (if it ever was). It became just another dark, dank, and dreary winter day -- like a Scottish Sunday until recently. 

During the Civil War, Scots Presbyterians allied with like-minded English Puritans. They also made common cause in the war on Christmas. 

[Image: Parliamentary soldiers enforcing the ban on celebrating Christmas, c. 1640s, William Barns Wollen, 1900] 

In England, the Restoration of the Monarchy under Charles II ("The Merry Monarch") in 1660 also led to a restoration of traditional Christmas celebrations. They were still light years away from the materialistic orgies of today. That required the influence of grasping, greedy American capitalism.  

In Scotland, the restoration of Christmas took much longer than in England. Presbyterian leaders continued to stifle enthusiasm for Christmas enjoyment for a couple of centuries. The difference shows in the holiday hierarchy of Scotland, compared to England, and most other civilized countries.

In Scotland, Christmas comes in a distant second to Hogmanay (New Years' Eve) as a real blowout. Think about it. The canny Scots simply transferred their serious celebrating from a sacred day to a secular one. Touché, Puritans! Freud would have understood. 

If you want to witness Scots letting their hair down these days, go to Edinburgh during Hogmanay! Or, just visit any Scots pub on a Saturday night. 

Scotland's elevation of New Year spread to the rest of the globe by the 20th century. For what do we sing at midnight on 1 January? "Auld Lang Syne" by Scotland's national poet, Robert (Rabbie) Burns, of course!

PS. If you go to the USA these days, be careful not to say "Happy Holidays!" or "Seasons Greetings!" And do not write "Merry Xmas" on your cards or gifts either. You may be accused of making war on Christmas, or even of Satanism. Or, even worse, of being a liberal. 

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks! 

God Save the King! (Or Queen)

Since the accession of Charles III, we have often heard the phrase "God Save the King!" It seems strange after 70 years of hearing "God Save the Queen!" uttered for Elizabeth II. 

"God Save the King" is the original, of course. It is not known how old the phrase "God Save the King" is. It appears in 16th century translations of the Bible. "God Save the King" is used in reference to King Saul, the first king of Israel. 

As early as 1444, navy seamen were instructed to say "God Save King Henry" as a watchword aboard ship. That was Henry VI, a pious monarch who needed all the saving he could get. He was king when the Wars of the Roses started. The sailors used the phrase as a watchword on board ship. 

"God Save the King" had become a popular rallying cry by the mid-18th century. How much it was used before then is obscure. The Jacobite Rebellion of 1745, which threatened to topple the Hanoverian King George II, gave the cry a boost, and a song of the same name as well.  

The Gentleman's Magazine published a version of the song in 1745. It specifically names King George as the object God should be saving. [Image: George II by Thomas Hudson, 1740s]

It opens: "God save great George our king, long live our noble king." God apparently responded: the Jacobites led by "Bonnie Prince Charlie" met their final defeat at Culloden in 1746. The Catholic Stuarts ceased to be a royal threat. [Image: Charles Edward Stuart, aka Bonnie Prince Charlie, by Alan Ramsay, 1745]

Somewhere around that time, the song "God Save the King" had appeared. Historians disagree about who composed it and when. They have suggested dates between the 1680s and 1740s and Henry Purcell, Thomas Arne, Charles Burney as the composer. They all had a hand in it, it seems.

The phrase "God save the King" is used purely by custom and tradition. It has no basis in law. Similarly, the song of that name is not the official national anthem, although it is often treated as if it were.  

It is unlikely that the UK will ever have an official national anthem, even if it doesn't break up. Few of the English like "God Save the King/Queen," and even fewer Scots or Welsh. Most people sing it with all the enthusiasm of the dead. In Northern Ireland, Loyalists or Unionists like the song. Republicans detest it. 

Many in England have suggested for an anthem "Jerusalem," William Blake's evocative poem, rendered to music by Sir Hubert Parry in 1916. "Jerusalem" is often played as an anthem at English rugby and cricket matches. But it is about England, not the UK, so has little following in the so-called "Celtic Fringe." It is often sung as a hymn in churches. 

The same is true of another tune some people have proposed as a national anthem: "Land of Hope and Glory" from the tune by Edward Elgar, with lyrics by A.C. Benson (1901-02). It has imperialistic overtones that offend many people nowadays.

The Scots usually play "Flower of Scotland" as their anthem at sporting events. That isn't going to catch on in England or Wales. 

One rousing song that was highly popular during the imperialist age is "Rule Britannia," music by Thomas Arne, lyrics by James Thomson (1740). It celebrates Britain, not just England. Alas, it is too warlike and racially insensitive to be considered as a national anthem. 

The lines "Rule Britannia! Rule the Waves, Britons never will be slaves" make the song's unfitness for the current world obvious. When it was written Britain was the greatest slave trading nation in the world. And Britannia certainly doesn't rule the waves anymore. Waives the rules, maybe. 

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks! 

     

 

The Brexiteer's Guide to English Ancestry

Hey, Brexiteers! Mes amis! You don't have to have a DNA test to prove what a True Born Englishman you are! All you need to do is read a poem by Daniel Defoe, an Englishman of oops, Flemish descent.

"A Brexit victory's a contradiction, In speech an irony, in fact a fiction." (Apologies and thanks to Daniel Defoe,1660-1731)

Brexit is real now, sort of. Devout Brexiteers proclaim, in near holy terms, that the UK has finally achieved "independence." By the "UK", however, they really mean England. 

Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland must reconcile themselves to being dragged about by the whims of English nationalists. British companies are in the same boat. The immense costs of Brexit for those trading to Europe are becoming distressingly clear. 

Narrow English nationalists are the big winners for now. It remains to be seen what they have actually won. In fact, Brexit is a triumph of extreme nationalism, aided by ignorance and lies, over economic rationality. 

Much of the pro-Brexit vote in 2016 stemmed from xenophobia, a hatred of foreigners. In this case, "tyrannical" foreigners in Brussels. Of course, not all who voted for Brexit were motivated by by xenophobia. Yet the rhetoric of hard Brexiteers is often based on the assumption that people who are "Not English" are somehow "lesser breeds," not to be trusted and certainly not listened to.

England found itself in a similar situation more than 300 years ago. The thrones of Britain were occupied by a foreigner, the Dutch prince William of Orange. He and his wife Mary had become joint sovereigns in 1689 following the Glorious Revolution, in which he and the Dutch military had played the pivotal role. (Image: William III, of Orange)

 

Despite being hailed as the savior of English Protestantism, William III (II in Scotland) was never much liked in England or in Scotland. In Northern Ireland, of course, he is still idolized by people who remain imprisoned in a time warp, the eponymous "Orangemen." 

William became thoroughly unpopular in England after Mary died of smallpox in 1694. People not only disliked him but the Dutch soldiers, politicians, and merchants who followed him to London in particular. They were the target of numerous vitriolic pamphlets and poems. 

In 1701, Daniel Defoe took up his pen to defend the Dutch king and his countrymen. He did so in a long satirical poem that was highly successful in its time. "The True-Born Englishman" is not read much today. Perhaps it should be, at least some of it. 

Defoe was a prolific writer, mostly of political pamphlets at this time. Later he made his name as the author of Robinson Crusoe (1719) and other novels. (Image: Defoe)

The target of Defoe's satire was not Englishness per se, but anti-Dutch xenophobia. To clear up any misunderstanding about that he added an explanatory preface two years later. In it he declared "that an Englishman, of all men, ought not to despise Foreigners as such ... since what they are today, we were yesterday, and tomorrow they will be like us." 

The English were themselves foreigners, invaders who eventually assimilated into one nation. The Dutch newcomers would assimilate as well, given the chance, Defoe implied. 

The English, far from being racially pure, were in reality a mongrel race. The "English" were a people forged from the union of Celtic Britons, Romans, Scots, Picts, "Anglo-Saxons," and Danes. Somewhat oddly, Defoe left out the Normans, here wearing the latest in 12th century fashion.

Defoe pulled no punches. The "union" he meant was sexual. Englishness originated "in eager rapes, and furious lust." The "rank daughters" of the land "Receiv'd all nations with promiscuous lust." The "nauseous brood" that resulted contained the "well extracted blood of Englishmen." 

In reality, the "True-Born Englishman" did not exist: "A true-born Englishman's a contradiction, In speech an irony, in fact a fiction."

Defoe understood the biological and cultural reality of Englishness 300 years ago. Why do so many people today continue to champion a view so much at variance with history and biology? They should check the ancestry of their leader, True-Born Boris.

Further Reading: Daniel Defoe, The True-Born Englishman (London, 1701 and later editions)

  

Gin Crazes: Georgian England and Beyond

If you search the internet for "Gin Craze" these days you will probably find information about two such crazes. One is the current craze for craft, artisan, and boutique gins with alll sorts of added flavorings, including asparagus. 

The number of gin distilleries in the UK increased from 152 to 315 between 2013 and 2018. In 2016 a gin hotel opened, run by the Portobello Road Distillery, where over indulgers can spend the night. That may be a first for modern London, but perhaps not for an earlier age, as we will see. "Gin craze sees number of UK distilleries double in five years."

The other craze, which comes up in searches far more frequently, has a much longer pedigree. This is the original Gin Craze that  swept over England, especially London, in the early 18th century. Gin, or geneva, as it was often called, was a new drink in the British Isles. It was introduced by Dutch producers and drinkers who arrived after their ruler, Willliam of Orange, became king of England in 1689, as William III (1689-1702). 

The government under William and his successor, Queen Anne (1702-1714), promoted gin as an alternative to brandy, a French import. During most of this period, Britain was at war with France. (Image: William III)

The new spirit caught on quickly, especially in London and among the lower orders. Producers and sellers touted gin as a medicine that could cure gout and indigestion. But it soon became popular for other reasons. One is that it was untaxed and therefore cheaper than beer and other drinks such as brandy. No license was required to distill or sell gin, unlike other alcoholic drinks.

Another reason is that gin promised a quick route from misery to oblivion, an obvious attraction to the wretched masses of London's slums. "Drunk for a penny, dead drunk for twopence. Clean straw for nothing," as William Hogarth put it. The straw indicates a possible connection with today's gin hotel. The intoxicated could  sleep off their inebriation on the straw. Perhaps not an ideal accommodation for today's gin tourist.

Gin shops proliferated rapidly in the poorer parts of the capital. According to an estimate in the 1730s, one London house in five contained a gin shop. By the 1740s, consumption of gin in London had reached astounding levels, on average more than two pints per person per week. The gin they drank was roughly twice as strong as that sold today. 

Many people denounced the situation, among them novelist and magistrate Henry Fielding and artist William Hogarth. They blamed gin for an upsurge in mortality, poverty, and crime. 

In 1751 Fielding, founder of the Bow Street Runners, argued that if consumption was not curbed, there would soon be "few of the common people left to drink it." Fielding claimed that "gin alone" was responsible for a large proportion of theft and robbery in his jurisdiction.

Hogarth agreed. In the same year, he tackled the gin problem in his classic engravings "Gin Lane" and "Beer Street." "Gin Lane" highlights the destructive effects of excessive gin drinking on London's populace. Desolation and death reign everywhere in this grim work, centered on the intoxicated woman whose child is falling from her arms, probably to its death. This part of the scene recalls another nickname for gin, "Mother's Ruin." Fighting, theft, and suicide are hallmarks of this neighborhood. Buildings are falling down, shops decrepit. Only the pawnbroker and undertaker are prospering.

"Beer Street" is the complete opposite. Here, everyone is prospering except the pawnbroker, whose services are unneeded and whose shop is decrepit. Crime and violence are absent. Happiness, robust health, and good cheer reign. 

The government's response to the gin craze was to tax the production and sale of gin heavily, thereby raising its price, as well as the Crown's revenue. Parliament passed a series of gin acts between the 1720s and 1750s. The Gin Act of 1736 introduced prohibitive licensing fees. It inspired the cartoon below, which celebrates the "funeral of  Madame Geneva." Her death, as it turns out, was greatly exaggerated.

Enforcement of the act relied on paid informers, who were often victims of crowd violence, the so-called "Gin Riots." Producers and sellers largly ignored the law, and consumption continued to rise. Critics claimed that the illegal gin was improperly distilled and often poisoned.

The 1736 act was repealed in 1743 and replaced by a more moderate, more workable law in 1751. Consumption dropped after 1743, and more in the 1750s, probably more for economic reasons than legislative ones. 

In the early 19th century gin enjoyed a major renaissance with the opening of "gin palaces," establishments much more attractive than the dingy gin shops of the previous century.  One of these "palaces" is pictured below. The unknown artist portrays it as a convivial enough place, but the drunks and young children indicate cause for concern. 

Gin drinking reached near its 18th century levels again and aroused renewed condemnation. The renowned caricaturist George Cruikshank produced the cartoon below in 1829, "The Gin Shop." Once again, gin was equated with destruction. At the left, Death chortles cheerlily that he will "have them all dead drunk presently. They have nearly had their last glass." 

The various gins in the shop are stored in coffins. Signs indicate that gin is the road to the workhouse, financial and physcical ruin. Parents have brought their children to the shop, and the mother is forcing her infant to drink gin. The "woman" serving the gin is actually a skeleton wearing a mask. 

Cruikshank reiterated the point in other works, such as the one below, "The Battle of A-Gin-Court," (1838). In obvious reference to one of England's greatest medieval victories in the Hundred Year War, Agincourt, Cruikshank emphasizes the message that gin is bringing about the disintegration of a once great nation.

Cruikshank certainly convinced himself. He became a teetotaler in the 1840s. Gin consumption fell with the growing strength of the Temperance Movement during the Victorian Age, but the advent of the gin and quinine tonic as an antidote to malaria in Britain's tropical possessions helped keep the gin industry alive. Today's gin craze is helping it to thrive again, for good or ill. 

Further Reading: 

Jessica Warner, Craze: Gin and Debauchery in an Age of Reason. (London, 2003)

Patrick Dillon, The Much Lamented Death of Madame Geneva: The Eighteenth Century Gin Craze. (London, 2003)

An Unwelcome Immigrant: Cholera Comes to Britain

At the beginning of the 1830s, Britain was in ferment. As with Brexit today, the country was badly divided over several issues: reform of Parliament and extension of the suffrage, abolition of slavery, poor law reform. In the midst of rising unrest, an unwelcome immigrant was approaching Britain. 

Doctors called it Indian or Asiatic Cholera after its alleged place of origin. It had long been known in the Indian subcontinent, much of which was now under British control. An outbreak in 1817 killed 10,000 British soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Indians.

In the following years cholera spread inexorably into Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Russia, and continental Europe. By 1830 it had reached Western Europe and was poised to cross the English Channel. 

Local authorities in Britain vowed to keep it out. The cartoon below imagines John Bull seizing the cholera, imagined as an Indian, trying to sneak through an equally imaginary protecting fence into England. The reality was far different.

Efforts to prevent cholera reaching Britain proved in vain, as no one then knew how cholera spread or what caused it. Indeed, within a few months after making landfall in Britain it had reached the Americas and become a truly global pandemic. 

In November 1831, cholera broke out in the northern English port city of Sunderland. The main effect of cholera is violent diarrhea, which produces severe dehydration and often death, within hours or a day or two. The victims' skin often turned blue, giving it the name "Blue Disease." The image below shows a woman who died at Sunderland. 

Within weeks, cholera was breaking out in many parts of the kingdom. In London and elsewhere, authorities tried to locate the source of the disease, with no success. See Looking for the Elusive Mr. Cholera on this blog.

Boards of health informed the inhabitants of cholera's symptoms and listed remedies, most of which would have had no impact on the course of the disease. Medical and health boards often emphasized temperance in eating and drinking. They advised agaist drinking cold water when the body was heated and consuming "ardent spirits." 

The connection with water was correct. The main medium through which cholera spreads is water contaminated by the intestinal evacuations of the infected. But avoiding water only when one was "heated" would have had little effect. Ardent spirits caused many health problems, but cholera was not one of them. Some doctors prescribed ardent spirits.

Medical professionals tended to favor standard remedies for most dangerous diseases: bleeding, purging, mercury, and opium. Removing fluids from a body that was already becoming dehydrated seems perverse, and did make things worse. 

A couple of physicians argued for rehydrating with saline solution and got better results. Most medical men scorned such an unorthodox therapy until the late 19th century or later. Today rehydrating is a standard procedure, often combined with antibiotics.

Critics ridiculed the advice and efforts of boards of health and doctors in the 1830s, as seen in these contemporary cartoons. 

The cartoon below shows the Central Board of Health congratluating iself with a sumptuous dinner despite the mounting death toll from cholera. At bottom right a paper has the words "while doctors differ and deny, the country bleeds and patients die."

The 1832 epidemic killed about 55,000 people in the UK. It was the first of several outbreaks to strike the country during the nineteenth century. Other diseases killed far more people during that time, but they were mostly familiar and aroused far less terror than cholera. 

In the 1850s, following a couple more severe outbreaks in Britain, London surgeon John Snow demonstrated that contaminated water was the main source of cholera infection. See London's Great Stinks, Cholera, and John Snow on this blog. 

Snow had no idea what the contaminant was. He theorized that it might be a microscopic organism. In the early 1880s, German physician Robert Koch isolated the microbe responsible: the cholera vibrio. 

The solution became obvious: avoid drinking contaminated water and you could prevent cholera. Some authorities, accepting Snow's theory, had begun to advise that precaution even before Koch's discovery, as this poster from 1866 shows. 

The first cholera vaccine came into use in the 1880s and improved versions followed. (Below: Inoculation in Calcutta 1894) 

Today, cholera is preventible and curable. But thousands of people continue to die of this dreadful disease each year from a lack of safe water and adequate medical care in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The civil war in Yemen has unleashed an ongoing major epidemic, with hundreds of thousands of infections. (Below: cholera patients in India)