Okay, I realise I’m diving into the internet non-historian’s territory with this piece, but historical accuracy is important. There’s been a push for decades now to promote Mary Seacole as the Black rival and counterpart to Florence Nightingale. This view claims that she was as popular and acclaimed as Nightingale, but has been unfairly forgotten. Only recently have Black historians and activists managed to rescue her from this neglect and restore her to her rightful place in history. I first came across her c. 2001 or so, when I found a programme on her listed in the Radio Times on Radio 4. Since then there have been numerous books on her, you can find her autobiography on Amazon, and she appeared in last season’s edition of Doctor Who, running her hospital in the Crimea in an alternative timeline where the British were fighting the Sontarans. There are buildings and educational institutions dedicated to her, and a few years ago the BBC screened a documentary about her, following a group of mostly Black nurses as they campaigned for a bust to be put up celebrating her.
But this is very much a myth. Her autobiography makes it very clear that she was a businesswoman and a hotelier, rather than a nurse. When she went to the Crimea, it was to open a hotel, mostly catering to the officers. She did some nursing, but she only ventured onto the battlefield three times after the battle was over. She did so only after she had stopped serving refreshments to the tourists and spectators who had turned up to watch, and then mostly tended the officers. The internet non-historian has posted a number of videos debunking the myth about her. But academic historians have also published critical examinations of her. I found this paper, by Lynn McDonald, from the department of sociology and anthropology, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, ‘Mary Seacole and claims of evidence-based practice and global influence’ and published in Nursing Open, vol. 3, number one, in September 2015. The abstract for the paper runs
‘AimThe aim of this paper was to explore the contribution of Mary Seacole to nursing and health care, notably in comparison with that of Florence Nightingale.Background Much information is available, in print and electronic, that presents Mary Seacole as a nurse, even as a pioneer nurse and leader in public health care. Her own memoir and copious primary sources, show rather than she was a businesswoman, who gave assistance during the Crimean War, mainly to officers. Florence Nightingale’s role as the major founder of the nursing profession, a visionary of public health care and key player in advocating ‘environmental’ health, reflected in her own Notes on Nursing, is ignored or misconstrued.DesignDiscussion paper.Data sourcesBritish newspapers of 19th century and The Times digital archive; Australian and New Zealand newspaper archives, published memoirs, letters and biographies/autobiographies of Crimean War participants were the major sources.ResultsCareful examination of primary sources, notably digitized newspaper sources, British, Australian and New Zealand, show that the claims for Seacole’s ‘global influence’ in nursing do not hold, while her use of ‘practice-based evidence’ might better be called self-assessment. Primary sources, moreover, show substantial evidence of Nightingale’s contributions to nursing and health care, in Australia, New Zealand, the USA and many countries and the UK much material shows her influence also on hospital safety and health promotion.’
It compares her and Florence Nightingale’s activities in the Crimea
‘The Crimean War: Seacole and Nightingale compared
When Seacole arrived in the Crimea, she set up a business in a hut, popularly known as ‘Mrs Seacole’s’, which was a restaurant/bar/store/takeaway/catering service for officers, with a ‘canteen for the soldiery’ (Seacole p. 114). While getting her business ready to open, she kindly gave out hot tea and lemonade to soldiers waiting on the wharf for transport to the general hospitals, ‘all the doctors would allow me to give’ (Seacole 1857a p. 101). She made her herbal remedies available to all, but the ingredients were unspecified. Her memoir gives three full chapters (13, 14 and 18) to the meals, catering and services she provided to officers, while there is only passing mention of soldiers, but no details of what she provided for them.
In her memoir, Seacole described precisely three occasions when she gave assistance on the battlefield, postbattle: 18 June, 16 August and 8 September 1855 (Seacole pp. 155–61, 164–67 and 169–72). Yet this is frequently made out to be a regular occurrence. A book by nurses, for example, states that she ‘frequently ventured out onto the battlefield, selling goods and caring for wounded soldiers from both sides’ (McAllister and Lowe 2011 p. 26). A book for schoolchildren describes her ‘main job’ as searching ‘the battlefields for wounded and dying men, even while the guns were still firing’ (Castor 1999, p. 34). An encyclopaedia entry has her caring ‘for British soldiers at the battlefront’, and a ‘familiar figure’ transferring ‘casualties from the front’, for which she won ‘decorations’ from three countries (Encyclopedia Britannica 2014).
Both Seacole personally and her business got favourable newspaper coverage in the The Times and other newspapers. Many more examples have been added from provincial newspaper archives (Staring-Derks et al. 2015); the first two authors are ‘ambassadors’ for the Seacole statue campaign, the third its vice chair. These authors, however, draw inferences from the coverage that do not survive scrutiny of the sources themselves, nor of other available sources from the time.
Most of the items on Seacole retrieved are mere passing mentions, with no content on nursing, hospitals or healthcare. That Seacole and her ‘assistant’ were among the ‘first settlers in the purveying line’ was noted in an Australian newspaper story. The commanders-in-chief of the British and French armies, Codrington and Pelissier, were said to have been seen in her ‘establishment’, also ‘Billy Russell’, the war correspondent W.H. Russell, ‘and every officer of the three armies’ (Sydney Morning Herald 1856). This is business and socializing, not the running of a hospital for ordinary soldiers.
Seacole was noted as being present for the awarding of the Order of the Bath to senior officers and that she was introduced to the official who made the presentations on behalf of the Queen, Lord Gough (Daily News 1856b). She recorded the event in her own memoir, adding that she sent a cake to army headquarters for it, ‘decorated with banners, flags, etc.,’ (Seacole p. 169). Lord Gough, on the other hand, made a point of calling on Nightingale at her hospital (Rait 1903 vol. 2, p. 335). Some of the newspaper items simply refer to the location of her hut, a known landmark, for example, that a ‘stone struck her door, which is three and a half or four miles from the park’ (The Times 1855c) and that there was a police station nearby (The Times 1855e). Other mentions are of her catering, for example, that she was the only woman at the horse races, where she ‘presided over a sorely invested tentfull of creature comforts’ (The Times 1855d).
The world’s first war correspondent, W.H. Russell, was a customer at ‘Mrs Seacole’s’, liked her and paid tribute to her kindness to the soldiers. He recounted spotting her on the battlefield, when he was there interviewing soldiers (The Times 1855b). Seacole quoted his compliments in her memoir (Seacole pp. 171–2), for which he also wrote a warm introduction. All this is to Seacole’s credit, but repetition of his praise does not make her battlefield visits more frequent or make her into a ‘battlefield nurse’. In the four volumes of Russell’s dispatches published later, Seacole appears only once, briefly (Russell 1856 pp. 187–8). When he returned to the Crimea in 1869, escorting the Prince and Princess of Wales on a state visit, their carriages passed near ‘the site of ‘Mother Seacole’s’ (Russell 1869 p. 564). A review of a book recounting another return visit noted ‘the heaps of broken bottles by Mrs Seacole’s store’ (The Times 1869a).
Russell’s mentions of Nightingale, by contrast, are frequent, many of them in considerable detail. His dispatches, as The Times coverage generally, relate the terrible conditions she and her nurses faced and her use of The Times fund to purchase desperately needed clothing, bedding, supplies, food, etc., for the hospitals. Many stories describe the failings of the War Office which Nightingale had to overcome. The Times also printed letters from her and many more about her, from people at the war. A count of mentions in The Times shows more than seven for Nightingale for every one of Seacole. There are too many on Nightingale to include in this paper, but they are available on a website: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~cwfn/archival/times-letters-and-mentions.pdf
Seacole’s own account of her trip to and time spent in the Crimea are largely of her business, its challenges and the officers it served. Newspaper coverage of her activities similarly was largely of the business and its various problems:
•A short item announced her intended ‘hotel’ for ‘excursion visitors’ (The Times 1855a).
•An American newspaper story described her ‘hotel for travelers’, with the reporter’s promise ‘to board withher next year’ (New York Daily Tribune 1855).
•At the first British assault on the Redan, she sold food and drink to spectators, then gave first aid (Seacole p. 157).
•On her second foray onto the battlefield, she gave first aid after selling goods to spectators (Seacole pp. 164–7).
•Seacole is noted, in a memoir, for providing lunch for a cricket match (Astley 1894, p. 145).
•Her third and last foray onto the battlefield –all were postbattle –took place at the second failed British attempt on the Redan (Seacole pp. 169–72).
•For New Year’s Day of 1856 she held a party and took plum pudding and mince pies to the nearby Land Transport Corps Hospital (Seacole p. 187).
•In April 1856, the fighting by then long over, Seacole went out on excursions to see the Crimean countryside; a newspaper story recounts Russian soldiers giving her a religious medallion (Aberdeen Journal 1856).
•In May 1856, a newspaper story reports that she made a ‘grand tour’ in the Crimea, that she was able to leave some stock behind her and that she was given ‘a medal’ by the sultan (The Times 1856b); possibly this is a reference to the religious ‘medallion’ above noted.
•In June 1856, when troops were leaving the Crimea, she was cheered by soldiers as they passed by her hut (The Times 1856c).
•A newspaper story in July 1856, as she was leaving the Crimea, said that she planned to establish a store at Aldershot, a British army base (The Times 1856d); she was seen by an Australian fellow passenger on board the Indus, which sailed from Constantinople to Marseilles (Argus 1857a).
Coverage of Nightingale’s work during the war was extensive and favourable. In The Times alone there were over 200 stories or letters on her over the course of the war. The early stories reported her departure, then the terrible conditions the nurses faced at the Barrack Hospital –the lack of bedding, clothing and supplies, overcrowding and poor nutrition, with much on her use of The Times Fund and other donations to meet needs.
Coverage in 1855 moved on to Nightingale’s trips to the Crimea and its hospitals, her illness, convalescence and return to work. There was much coverage of the improvement in hospital conditions, the work of the Sanitary and Supply Commissions, with Nightingale’s assistance. She was much cited in hearings in London of the Roebuck select committee investigating the state of the army, reported in The Times and in papers in Melbourne (Age 1855), Sydney (Empire 1855, Sydney Morning Herald 1855) and Adelaide (South Australian Register 1855).
Stories in 1856 took up improved conditions for soldiers, with the establishment of the ‘Inkermann Cafe’ and reading rooms, then plans for her return to England and her first work back home to address the problems. There are letters by Nightingale to the editor and some to family members they sent on to a paper. She was frequently mentioned in letters to the editor by people who had visited the war hospitals.’
And concludes
‘The real ‘global nurse’
The evidence shows that the serious work to found the profession of nursing was led by Florence Nightingale, who did major work also on hospital safety and the institution of public health care. Post-Crimea, she conducted research to determine how to reduce death rates, then founded the first nurse training school in the world, which in time sent out trained nurses and matrons to establish professional nursing in many countries. Without ever going to India, she worked for decades on improving health care there, along with social and political reform, famine prevention and relief. She documented the high rates of morbidity and death in colonial aboriginal schools and hospitals. Her work was global and it was globally influential.
Primary sources on Seacole have shown wide interest in her life and circumstances, but not any contributions to nursing or health care. International coverage is similar to that in the U.K. Her book was favourably discussed, wherever it was reviewed, but nowhere treated as more than enjoyable reading. Excerpts appear to have been selected for general interest. By contrast, international coverage of Nightingale over the same period shows her to have been taken as a major contributor to the establishment of nursing and the reform of hospitals and a vigorous advocate of broader social and health care reforms, both for the military and the civil population. There was much coverage also of her work on such other concerns as the vote for women, health in India and relief in numerous famines and wars. Seacole should be credited for the contribution she actually made and Nightingale for hers.
Finally, there are lessons to be drawn from the analysis about the reinterpretation of people’s contributions over time, or revisionism. The tendency to consider that all people in a particular era share the same values and prejudices is overly simplistic. Nightingale was white and of a privileged family background, but she was highly critical of British imperialism and views of racial supremacy. Her papers on aboriginal peoples show this. Her work on Indian health concerns was accompanied by support for Indian nationals; for example, she wrote a campaign letter for the first Indian to be elected to Parliament.
Not everyone shares the prevailing set of attitudes and some indeed oppose them. Clearly there would be no social change if this were not so. Change requires leaders both of the privileged group and the one seeking recognition-independence-equal rights. Nightingale, thanks to her family, was especially conscious of race issues –her grandfather was a leading abolitionist. She can be seen as carrying those concerns forward, indeed as an early contributor to anti-racism.’
Seacole was an enterprising and kind businesswoman and a celebrity at the time, but she was in no way comparable to Nightingale, who was the real force at Crimea and behind the reform of nursing, as well as a pioneering anti-racist.
For further information, see file:///E:/(PDF)%20Mary%20Seacole%20and%20claims%20of%20evidence-based%20practice%20and%20global%20influence.html