The Chinese government faced two great crises in 1900 and 2020, and there were diverse similarities between them. Since the responses by the Qing dynasty and the current Chinese Communist Party government to crises were significantly different, they respectively caused divergent paths. The Boxer Rebellion of the early 1900s was an uprising against foreigners living in China and their Chinese collaborators. In response to the Rebellion, The Eight-Nation Alliance of eight countries invaded China to suppress the riots and restore imperial control. The result was a military defeat for the Boxers and fatalities and an indemnity paid by China to western powers. This event marked a crucial turning point in modern Chinese history as it led to growing foreign influence in the country and the eventual decay of Qing dynasty rule. On the other hand, the Covid-19 pandemic affected the entire world but started in Hubei province, China, which presents that the Chinese were the first to taste the wrath of the infection. As the pandemic spread, the Chinese government put in strict measures designed to curb the spread of the disease. The measures demonstrated the efficiency and reliability of the Chinese Communist Party-led government. In essence, the Qing dynasty government’s response to the Boxer Rebellion manifested ill-informed and miscalculated. In contrast, the response to Covid-19 by the Chinese Communist Party government appeared effective and potent.
2. The Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901)
The Boxer rebellion, which lasted from 1899 to 1901 in China, was a violent revolt. Rebellion at its foundation was a grassroots movement aimed at expelling the Western nations’ unwelcome influence. There were enormous numbers of destitute and jobless people in northern China who supported the uprising. The Righteous and Harmonious Fists (Yihequan) was a secret group that spearheaded the Boxer rebellion. Western media reported these young Chinese men were dubbed “The Boxers” because of their military training (Harrington, 2010: p. 1). It was Christian missionaries and Western innovation that enraged the Boxers the most. According to many in China, the country’s culture and governance were being undermined by outside influence. The Boxers killed many Christian missionaries and Western diplomats to free China of foreign intrusion. Similarly, foreign property like railways, Christian churches, embassies, and other institutions was also targeted for destruction.
The Boxers employed a combination of spirituality and religion with militarism and martial arts. Both physical and spiritual discipline was essential components of their regimen. Fighting for a good cause, the Boxers felt, made them impenetrable to the bullets and swords of their opponents (Pye & Preston, 2001: p. 185). The Boxers were joined in battle by several other anti-foreign organizations. A group of young ladies known as the Red Lanterns (Hongdengzhao), for example, merged faith and martial arts in their fight against foreign influences (Chandler, 2012: p. 1). Through their militancy and unwavering faith in the rightness of their cause, groups such as the Red Lanterns, the Boxers, and others tried to revive China. Western diplomats and Christians in Beijing, the Boxer Rebellion capital, were forced into the safety of their embassies and churches. Boxer Rebellion arose as a result of both internal and external pressures in China. Commercial, political, and religious ties between China and countries like the United States and Europe have grown significantly over the years. The Qing Dynasty of China had suffered a series of humiliating losses at the hands of Western nations in the second part of the nineteenth century. It had been compelled to admit European and American business interests and Christian missionaries into China after losing a series of battles to Britain. By the 1890s, many Chinese had grown to despise Christian missionaries and the influence they had gained throughout the country.
The Boxer Rebellion was also sparked by China’s internal problems. Many parts of China were suffering from terrible poverty and unemployment, and an impending drought threatened to turn the country into a famine. The Qing Dynasty’s grip on power was beginning to weaken. As a result of these problems, many Chinese youths decided to organize a revolution to drive out foreigners and improve Chinese society. While the Boxer Rebellion was a significant expression of Chinese nationalism, it also served as a critical wake-up call for the rest of the world, especially the United States. A loss in Chinese international standing ensued, as did a deterioration in the international standing of the Chinese imperial government. The boxer rebellion had consequences on the country, the government of China had to take some measures on the boxer rebellion; fortifications guarding Beijing were demolished following agreed-upon conditions; corrupt government officials were to be penalized; foreign legacies might post soldiers in Beijing; China was barred from importing weaponry for two years, and it promised to pay more in compensation.
At the beginning of the Boxer Rebellion in 1899, the Chinese government (Qing dynasty) was undecided on how to react to the new apprising. During this period, the Chinese imperial court was under the control of Empress Dowager Cixi (Esherick, 1988: p. 289). The empress decided to take a neutral stand at the beginning of the boxer rebellion to see how the movement would fair. As the Rebellion continued to advance towards Beijing, government officials started to take note of the movement’s advances and potential. On June 16, 1900, Empress Dowager Cixi called for a meeting to discuss how the government should approach or react to the boxer rebellion at the turn of the new century. The officials present at the meeting discussed the possibility of supporting the boxer rebellion because the group could help the government drive the foreigners away. They also discussed the possibility of a diplomatic solution (Esherick, 1988: p. 289). However, the government had wanted a China free of foreigners for a long time, so the majority in the meeting, including Empress Dowager Cixi, decided to support the boxer rebellion. Besides, the boxer rebellion was popular among villagers, and the government knew that it would gain favor from the rural population if it supported the uprising. Therefore, the Chinese court eventually determined to support the group even though a few in the meeting opposed the move. The Chinese government demonstrated its support for the boxer rebellion for the first time when they shelled foreign navies stationed at the Dagu Forts on June 17, 1900. The attack marked the beginning of the Battle of the Dagu Forts, short-lived but costly to both sides (Purcell, 2010: p. 251). However, the move made it clear that the Qing dynasty was on the side of the Boxer Rebellion (please see Figure 1).
Figure 1. The 1900 Boxer Rebellion and Foreign Invasion (2008). The image speaks volumes about the struggles and wars that were faced during the boxer rebellion. It visually expounds on what transpired during the Boxer’s rebellion towards foreigners that happened in China in 1900. People started it but subsequently funded it by the state. To get rid of the foreigners, a Chinese sect dubbed the Boxers launched a violent expulsion campaign. Countries from across the world sent in soldiers to stop the violence (Eight-nation Alliance).
3. The Consequence of the Boxer Rebellion in the 1900s
The teaming up of the Boxer Rebellion and the Qing dynasty and the subsequent attack of Taku Forts by the Qing dynasty was reciprocated by excessive force and brutality from the allied forces of Britain, Germany, Russian, US, France, and Japan. The troops attacked villages and killed people suspected to be members of the Boxer Rebellion and their sympathizers, especially in the provinces of Zhili and Shandong. During this campaigns, thousands of villagers in rural China were killed (Chen, 1972: p. 79). The allied forces also looted the locals and destroyed their properties. In fact, looting was a core part of the punitive exercises executed by British troops and was endorsed from above. One of the allied forces that issued what seemed to be a thread to the Boxer Rebellion was the Germans (Hevia, 2007: p. 94). In “Hun Speech” (1900), Wilhelm II (1900) state that the German troops were going to ruthlessly deal with the Boxer Rebellion and show them that messing with the Germans is ill-advised and misguided (“‘Hun Speech’ Wilhelm II (1900)”). The German troops executed this threat by implementing systematic punitive measures in villages, especially in the rural areas where the Boxer Rebellion was popular. The brutality of the allied forces towards the Chinese civilians was criticized world word by some members of the political class and the media. The media covered accounts of looting and other atrocities (Bickers & Tiedemann, 2007: p. 101).
Keen to preserve her position, Empress Dowager Cixi agree to come to the discussion table to negotiate the end of the conflict. The discussions lead to the signing of the Boxer Protocol, the signing was carried out on September 7, 1901. The terms of the agreement required that China pay reparations to the countries affected by the Rebellion. In addition, the Chinese government had to admit representatives from foreign embassies and consulates into their country to protect both foreigners and Chinese Christians (Bickers & Tiedemann, 2007), which established “state within a state” in China and greatly infringed upon Chinese sovereignty. Some members of the Qing dynasty accused of causing the upheaval were also executed to appease the allied forces who were putting pressure on the Chinese government following the Boxer Rebellion (Bickers & Tiedemann, 2007: p. 78). Despite the pressure, the Qing dynasty survived past the Rebellion.
Although the Boxer Rebellion ended in a fashion that seemed or felt like a defeat to the Rebellion and the Qing dynasty, the rebels achieved what they wanted. They showed the allied nations that directly colonizing China’s people would be a challenge. Therefore, the foreigners abandoned original plans of colonizing China directly. Instead, they opted to manipulate the Qing dynasty leaders like Empress Dowager Cixi because it was easier to deal with these people’s government. The Chinese public was seeing the manipulation, and as a result, the ruling Qing elites were being challenged by both internal forces (i.e. the Chinese public and revolutionary parties) and external forces (i.e. the allied forces), which led to a gradual weakening of the Qing dynasty as the central authority in China. In 1912, the Qing dynasty collapsed following its gradual deterioration since the 1901 Boxer Protocol (please see Figure 2 and Figure 3).
Figure 2. The Situation in the Far East (National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.) (Shijutu). The image made by Tse Tsan-tai satirized western powers’ encroaching on China. The author points out foreigners’ wild ambition of ruling over China as “clear at a glance” and “self-evident”. It also shows the weakness and corruption of the Qing Dynasty (the Chinese government of the day), warning Chinese people to strive to rejuvenate their nation.
Figure 3. The Signature Page of Boxer Protocol (Xin Chou Treaty) in 1901 Wikipedia (n.d.). This unequal treaty greatly weakened the Qing dynasty’s rule as the central authority in China. In the image, there were a total of 13 signatures and 12 Signatories. Li Hongzhang and Yikuang represented Qing Dynasty to sign the agreement with 11 countries, including the Kingdom of Spain, United Kingdom, Russian Empire, Empire of Japan, French Republic, United States of America, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Kingdom of Italy, Kingdom of Belgium, and Kingdom of the Netherlands.
4. Covid-19 Crisis of 2020 in China
China’s crisis of 2020, Coronavirus illness brought about by the lethal acute respiratory syndrome, too, started in China. As a result, China was the first country to experience an epidemic of the illness, the first to implement harsh measures in response, and one of the first countries to control it. Hubei province’s capital, Wuhan, was at the center of the outbreak’s first wave of strange prenominal cases (AlTakarli, 2020: p. 4). As of December 31, 2019, it had been reported to authorities by a public member on December 27, 2019. A novel coronavirus was discovered by Chinese scientists on January 8, 2020, as the cause of the illness. Confidentiality and top-down control have been a hallmark of the Chinese government’s response to the Ebola crisis. Earlier January 1, the government employed damage control by countering news as well as those who criticized the crisis and the incarceration of many citizen journalists. It also tried to promote inquiries into the origins of Covid-19, which is facilitated and limited. Even while a 2021 academic study suggests that the Chinese government purposefully under-reported the number of illnesses and fatalities, these assertions have yet to be confirmed.
Early on, local administrations in Wuhan and Hubei were condemned for taking too long to respond and suppressing virus-related material during the local legislature sessions. Many Chinese people came home for the Chinese New Year holiday and traveled via Wuhan, a key transportation hub; the virus spread quickly. According to epidemiology models, face mask requirements and lockdowns of Wuhan and Hubei province around January 23 greatly reduced and delayed the epidemic’s peak, but by January 29, the virus had spread to all provinces of mainland China despite the rigorous efforts (AlTakarli, 2020: p. 4). All provinces had begun high-level public health emergency response efforts by the same day. Bus and train services linking provinces were drastically reduced or even halted entirely in certain cases. The epidemic was designated a public health emergency by the World Health Organization on January 31. More than two dozen nations sent help, including medical supplies, to China because of an acute scarcity of face masks.
As a result of the Covid-19 outbreak from China, numerous nations have been left susceptible. Mechanisms to curb Covid-19 from spreading in China have been successful. For future epidemics, the Chinese government has been seeking to strengthen and improve its ability to respond. As a result, the nation implemented measures such as case identification and extensive surveillance (Royal Collins Publishing Company, 2020: p. 1). The authorities began their investigation of the food market to find the cause of the sickness. There must be a set of method for the identification of cases in the outbreak. The WHO also supplied clinical case identification for the affected individuals. There were health policies and follow-ups in place by the national authority for cases and contacts. Additional community screening was performed by putting thermos-guns at train stations, ferry docking areas, and long-distance bus terminals, among other places, and expanded to include screening individuals at work, and in stores. In addition, authorities were sent to residents’ homes to check on their health, and those who were unwell were made to stay at home. In addition, the Chinese government has made significant investments in cutting-edge tracking technologies. Several examples are the mobile application that identifies individuals into various three categories that analyses individuals traveling history, health condition and assesses if they need to be restricted. The public surveillance system, that can detect and penalize people strolling in publicly without a face mask and recognize those who are developing symptoms, has also proved effective in disease control and monitoring. Since the SARS pandemic, this technology has been proven to be successful and recently improved to add face recognition and cover the entire country of China (please see Figure 4).
According to Chinese officials, Wuhan and Hubei provincial cities were put under lockdown on January 24 by shutting down the airports and suspending every means of public transit, preventing anybody from entering or exiting the cities. This was arrived at and issued the day before the Chinese festival of spring to limit the extremely population mobility, minimizing the disease’s transmission. This announcement was made. In addition, all shops apart from the ones that sold food and medication were closed, and rigorous quarantine measures were imposed (please see Figure 5).
Figure 4. Chinese residents wearing mask as a control measure (Kin, 2020). During the Covid-19 prevention initiatives, the Chinese Government required everyone wear face masks to prevent the spread of the deadly virus from one person to another. Mandatory putting on of the facemasks in public places is one of the collective measures that the government of China imposed to manage the crisis.
Figure 5. Streets in china during the lockdown (2022). To manage the fast-spreading Covid-19, the China government imposed a lockdown that required everyone to stay at home. The image shows the clear and empty streets in Wuhan, China, when the mandatory lockdown was enforced. To facilitate the epidemic prevention work, the government of China temporarily blockaded the city in early 2020.
The administration also pushed forward the reopening of learning institutions and colleges by cancelling any form of gathering that might bring many people. Public facilities were also disinfected in huge campaigns, and health education was offered to those at increased risk of contracting the disease. The public health measures, including the cities’ lockdown, countrywide transportation restrictions, and the Stay-at-Home Movement, contributed to the epidemic’s slowing and eventually being controlled.
Additionally, daily updates on newly investigated, diagnosed, and subclinical cases and deaths are generated. Electronic reporting is mandatory whenever a case of COVID-19 is reported. The overall number in each area is calculated from this data. Using these epidemic curves, epidemiologists in China could conclude the demographic features of the disease, zoonotic origins, modes of transmission and development based on published research and on-site visits to impacted locations. Additionally, the information gleaned from these reports allowed the government to zero in on problem regions that need more aggressive actions. China’s authorities saw a clear warning sign in the daily rise in the cases reported in early 2020, January: patients would soon overrun the hospitals and all other institutions. According to official Chinese plans, a brand-new hospital with the ability to accommodate Covid-19 patients of up to 1000 COVID-19 patients at a time would be built in Wuhan, China (Lin, 2021: 3). People-to-people transmissions of a new virus are extremely difficult to manage in a highly mobile environment. But the Chinese government and people rose to the occasion and managed to keep the pandemic within their borders (Lin, 2021: 2). New incidence and mortality rates began to fall off in late February due to all the steps taken and people’s dedication. Infected patients have recovered at a rate of 95% or higher, indicating that the treatment is working.
5. The Consequence of Covid-19 Crisis of 2020
The social life of people in China was significantly affected by the pandemic. Equally important, economic life was also impacted. The greatest challenges include declining product demand, supply crisis, empty workplaces, important economic projects were temporarily or completely halted, and uncertain investment prospects affected investment (Hessler, 2020a). The impact resulted from Covid-19 itself and the measures taken by the government to contain the infection. The Chinese government took drastic measures to contain the epidemic. The primarily affected city of Wuhan in Hubei, where a significant portion of China’s economic output is generated was de facto sealed off from the rest of China on January 23, 2020 (Hessler, 2020b). In addition, any form of gathering of people was banned. Gatherings and social distance restrictions were also introduced in the rest of China. Many Chinese provinces issued travel bans and movement restrictions.
The facts proved that although some of the Chinese government actions were controversial, the epidemic prevention and control were overall efficient. Some people suggested that the situation would have turned out better if authorities in Hubei did not suppress information about Covid-19. The regime suppressed the news of the outbreak and silenced voices that point out the dangers of the novel coronavirus. When the government realized the seriousness of the situation, they cordoned off districts, large cities, and entire provinces. China implemented curfews, city lockdown, and other compulsory measures to restrain the COVID outbreak. Anything the government found inappropriate on social media was censored in this period of time (BBC News, 2020). These measures attracted significant criticism from foreign media, including BBC News and other western media outlets such as the networker. However, even if the measures taken by the Communist Party government were tough and aggressive, they were effective and comparatively resultful. The country got back on its feet and reopened the economy. The public immensely praised the communist party for its swift, resultful actions. Since then, the government has continued to collect plus points, not just because they have managed to keep the number of infections low, but because they are doing well in controlling the disease than Western countries.
There has been a rise in tension between China and the United States due to the emergence of COVID-19. Rarely is viral breakout discussed as a factor in international relations between superpowers, nor is the study conducted to explore the possible impact of a virus epidemic on public opinion regarding a nation’s foreign policy (Lin, 2021: p. 2). People believe that the Chinese government is to blame for the U.S. disagreement with China, and they are more inclined to embrace harsh policy alternatives. U.S. citizens believe China is to blame for the outbreak of the disease. During the epidemic, the Chinese government’s activities may have left some Americans with the idea that the Chinese government has jeopardized American lives and economic prosperity (Lin, 2021: p. 2).
6. The 1900 Crisis versus 2020 Crisis in China
The two crises in China are similar in that the Chinese government is being blamed for their occurrence. Foreigners and Christian missionaries were opposed by the Chinese government, which supported the uprising (Lin, 2021: p. 2). China was the first to report about the 2020 pandemic. In other nations, the epidemic has been viewed as a deliberate released by China’s government.
Several issues were afflicting China at the time, and the country was in turmoil. Foreigners see China’s government as weak and unable to defend itself against the Western nations, imperial great powers in the world. When outsiders were afraid of the boxer because the Qing Dynasty was not controlling, it disappointed them. The empress was forced to escape for her safety because the Chinese government could not offer the rule and dynasty that its subjects had come to expect. The Chinese people blame their government for the western inversion and alien oppression since they could not stop the foreigners from infiltrating the nation. A treaty signed by American officials established the U.S. as a global force, making it simple for the U.S. to access China and other countries (Miller, 2004: p. 110). However, unlike the other crisis in 1900 where China was seen as weak, the country has proved itself to be a major player in containing the Covid 19 problem. Even if the figures are exaggerated, the Chinese people appear to view the government’s reaction to the outbreak positively (Miller, 2004: p. 78).
The Chinese government appears to have maintained or perhaps significantly improved its standing in the public’s eyes (Davies & Wenham, 2020: p. 1236). China’s response to COVID-19 has been widely praised by its people but also foreigners of China, to varying degrees. A Chicago Council-Levada Analytical Center poll from January 29-February 1, 2021, found that 53% of Americans believe China has successfully dealt with the epidemic, compared to 36% who believe the United States has been successful (Davies & Wenham, 2020: p. 1236). Whether the Boxers should be understood as anti-imperialist, patriotic and proto-nationalist from the start and fruitless inevitable change opponents has been a point of contention from the first. A key occurrence in Chinese contemporary history has no such wide variety of expert interpretation, according to Joseph Esherick, who claims that “confusion over the Boxer Uprising is not merely a consequence of popular misunderstandings” (Davies & Wenham, 2020: p. 1236). Liberals in China, like Hu Shih, were quick to decry the Boxers’ barbarism and folly. First, the Nationalist leader Sun Yat-sen assumed that the Boxer uprising was the result of government rumors that “created uncertainty among the masses together with the scathing condemnation” of “anti-foreignism and obscurantism” of the rebellion (Davies & Wenham, 2020: p. 1236).
Sun referred to the Boxers as “bandits”, but he lauded their “spirit of resistance”, which shocked foreigners with Chinese national integrity. Some students had mixed feelings about the Boxers, saying that the insurrection began from “ignorant and obstinate individuals in the interior provinces,” yet their principles were “brave and virtuous” and might “be converted into a driving force for freedom.” At some point after 1911, nationalist Chinese were more sympathetic to Boxers than they had been before. In 1918, Sun lauded the Boxers for their tenacity and bravery in the face of the Allies, citing the Battle of Yangcun as an example. To Chen Duxiu, the New Culture Movement leader, the savagery of Boxer could be forgiven “given the atrocity foreigners did in China” and that those who were “subservient to foreigners” were the ones who “earned our hatred.”
The boxer rebellion was handled differently as compared to the Covid-19 crisis. The government of China used the Covid-19 crisis to gain respect and more recognition from the way it handled the crisis as seen from the way the country put tight and effective measure to control the crisis despite the fact that the epidemic started in the country (Lin, 2021: p. 141). In the struggle against the new coronavirus illness 2019 (COVID-19), China’s medical emergency monitoring system and ability for governance will be put to the ultimate test by this disease (Lin, 2021: p. 143). The fight against the pandemic has uncovered several vulnerabilities and loopholes, including the essential to build a system that is coordinated for significant assessment of harmful exposure in public health, appraisal, and control and prevention.
In China, the COVID-19 virus has been basically eliminated from the country. Wuhan, the epicenter of the Covid-19 outbreak, reopened its doors on April 8, 2020, following a 76-day shutdown during which a strict coronavirus quarantine was in effect. For more than 70 days China has been battling corona virus and has been forced to lock down the bigger parts of economic and social life in order to curb the virus from spreading (Davies & Wenham, 2020: p. 1236). The implementation of the regularized containments measures of the epidemic and prevention of clustered infections associated with imported cases on the continued second phase is become a serious issue for the country, following a complete restoration of economic and social order. The situation is still dire for the world, which has to work to contain more cases of transmission of the virus, which is dubbed as a worldwide epidemic by the World Health Organization. According to certain reports, the epidemic of COVID-19 is still in its early stages in various nations and areas. Different nations must customize their reactions to their respective conditions in order to manage and prevent corona virus worldwide, according to the World Health Organization (Lin, 2021: p. 145). Lessons learned from the epidemic’s early stages, such as adequate emergency response supplies, authorities identifying the signs earlier, and comprehensive and thorough intervention measures, the federal government giving a correct and responsible response (Liu et al., 2020: p. 1). China’s response is assisting those countries now experiencing the beginning of the corona virus issue in better planning their responses.
The occurrence of the two crises in China caused diverse impacts on China and its course of history. The Boxer rebellion was a battle against foreign invasion in China. When foreign forces invaded the Chinese capital, the normal operations became unstable. They saw China as an imperialist opportunity to acquire power and influence without giving up their territory to do it. Chinese political weakness and the belief that China would disintegrate prompted European powers to negotiate more significant concessions via trade posts that were effectively autonomous colonies. When the uprising was subdued, the Germans, Russians, and British requested more freedoms and monetary reparations from China. This uprising and the events before and after it continue to impact China’s current world views and ties.
There have been great variations on the decisions that the government made during the Covid-19 and the Boxer rebellion crisis that had an impact on the way the entire world view of China either positively or negatively. The Chinese government’s response towards the boxer rebellion left the government vulnerable to foreigners and the country was considered to be weak. Nevertheless, the Covid-19 crisis has given China the chance to prove its power. For Covid-19, China’s anti-epidemic, including the regular screening of cases, accelerated diagnosis, a rigorous quarantine system for close contacts, and a wide range of educational materials for the general populace to make them learn and comply with control measures, provided a platform for other countries to learn on how they can handle crises from the possible strategies that China implemented, from lockdowns screening of citizens and building facilities to help handle the situation. Although the Chinese government has taken foreign criticism for its tough policy, it has been praised for the way the country was able to handle and contain this great crisis. Both two crises emphasize China’s progress over the past 100 years and also some drawbacks, as well as China’s similar situation of being excluded by the “Western” nations.
 AlTakarli, N. S. (2020). China’s Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Model for Epidemic Preparedness and Management. Dubai Medical Journal, 3, 44-49.
 Davies, S. E., & Wenham, C. (2020). Why the COVID-19 Response Needs International Relations. International Affairs, 96, 1227-1251.
 Hessler, P. (2020b, October 5). Nine Days in Wuhan, the Ground Zero of the Coronavirus Pandemic. The New Yorker.
 Hevia, J. L. (2007). Looting and Its Discontents: Moral Discourse and the Plunder of Beijing, 1900-1901. In R. Bickers, & R. G. Tiedemann (Eds.), The Boxers, China, and the World (p. 94). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
 Liu, J, Zhang, G., Zhang, F., & Song, C. (2020) The Lessons and Experiences That Can Be Learned from China in Fighting Coronavirus Disease 2019. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, Article No. 227.
 National Archives and Records Administration (n.d.). Color Broadside “Map of the Present Situation” from Dispatch #54. National Archives and Records Administration.