GREAT WAR 1898:
CRISIS TO QUAGMIRE
The Roots of War
Looking back on what was easily one of the most sweeping and devastating conflicts in human history, it would seem to us today to be almost inevitable. The relative peace, enlightenment, and prosperity of the nineteenth century was swept away in a world of fire and, consequently, the new century of almost perpetual wars (or preparations for them) were born in those same years. The truth of the matter is that, to the people of the time, this conflict looked to be anything but a foregone conclusion and, indeed, many of it’s primary participants entered the conflict completely unprepared and oblivious to the gathering clouds on the horizon. This was despite the fact that a brewing powder keg had been simmering, for some time, just beneath the surface of civilized affairs. Today we see those with the crystal clarity that hindsight affords. At the time, to the average reader of the morning newspaper, it was anything but.
As can be said of most wars, this one had it’s roots in the many that came before it. There was one particular conflict that probably served to lay the ground work more than any other. This war is known by many names but, in the Confederate States of America, it’s most commonly referred to as the Second American Revolution. Their adversaries in that war, the United States, whom they won independence from, most often call it the War of the Southern Revolt. Europeans most often call it either the War of Southern Independence (mostly in the case of Brit’s who actually remember the war) or by it’s more common name The American War of 61.
While diving into the specifics of that conflict would go well beyond the scope of this work, for it’s rife with it’s own complexities and controversies that burn even to this day, the ending of that conflict is very crucial to the larger world war that happened three decades later. I would hope that it would be obvious that how a conflict is resolved is more important than how they are begun or executed. A sloppy peace only invites more war and this is a prime example.
Many, a military historian, have pointed out that despite the Confederate political victory it’s armies were on the verge of defeat. By 1864 the Confederate Army was on it’s last legs despite it’s earlier success in the war. Even Lee’s victory at Gettysburg had not shaken Abraham Lincoln’s resolve to end what he saw as a rebellion against the lawful government. The Confederates had even delivered a letter to Lincoln’s desk the day after the battle, listing their quite reasonable demands, and he refused. The war continued on for yet another year.
There was no one thing that pulled off the Confederate Victory. General Grant had managed to capture all of the Mississippi river just the day after Meade was defeated in Pennsylvania. It was enough for Lincoln to hang on for a little while longer. However, the implications of the defeat were far reaching. Pro Confederate politicians in London and Paris gained momentum and began to apply pressure on Lincoln’s government to end the conflict. Some of these measures could almost be called drastic but, they fell short of what Richmond wanted which was out right recognition of their government.
Ultimately, the US loss was placed firmly in the hands of Confederate General Joseph Johnston who managed to hang on to the besieged city of Atlanta, past the time of Lincoln’s reelection bid. The combination of losses, the pressure from abroad, was enough to cost Lincoln the presidency to his former General, George B McClellan.
Most historians agree that McClellan’s desire for peace was far more rooted in a wish to vindicate his repeated failure’s on the battlefield than for any ideal he held. His speeches, from around the time that he declared a cease-fire, speak volumes to this. His “Peace with Honor” was soon hailed, by those who elected him, as a sham. His inability to reach any compromise with the Confederacy combined with his apparent lack of any sympathy for their cause was enough to make them believe it as well. Northern business interests (mainly from New York and New Jersey), that had financed his election, were not pleased with his efforts to re-establish commerce with Britain and the lost southern states.
It is not well known now but, at the time, there was much call for a resumption of hostilities by 1867 but, by this time, it was too late. The Confederacy had put it’s breath of fresh air to good use. Not only did it have a chance to recover militarily but, more importantly, it had taken the diplomatic opportunities presented it and was now recognized as a legitimate member of the family of nations. If the United States wished to resume the conflict it would be fighting more than just the Confederacy.
“New King George,” as McClellan was labeled by his detractors, and there were many, had left a bad taste in the mouth of both the old and new country alike. Neither side felt as if the war were truly resolved and by 1898 most of the disputes were still there. Also, in 1867, amidst the call for resumed hostilities, the conflicts of the old world added to the fray.
A large group of Irish immigrants, calling themselves the Irish Republican Army, invaded Canada, from clandestine bases in the United States, and attacked British army outposts all along the border. The Fenian Incident, as it came to be called, was enflamed by the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah P Benjamin, for all he could get out of it. There were still many “Copperheads” (Southern sympathizers who were no longer committing treason by aiding the Confederacy) left in the north and they aided Benjamin. McClellan’s administration became racked in controversy and he was eventually forced to back down in a humiliating diplomatic defeat. This incident also put most of the calls for resumed fighting, with the Confederates, to rest.
There was still much sentiment to do something about the Confederacy. There was even a movement to get Abraham Lincoln put on the Presidential ticket for 68. (Despite certain claims, Lincoln was in ill health at this point and stated unequivocally that he would decline if nominated). Nothing came of the cries for war but, over time, a feeling swept across the populace that they had been robbed of victory just as the end was in sight. They had good reason to think this.
Both sides, unwilling or unable to resume hostilities, overlooked the searing issues that divided them. US troops still occupied parts of Virginia including nearly a third of the state that Washington claimed was a separate political entity known as West Virginia. Despite some violence and a fledgling local political party, there was little support for the Confederacy in the mountainous region that was formerly a part of Virginia. The area around the Potomac River was an entirely separate matter.
The US claimed that the original land grant for the District of Columbia, that included parts of Virginia, was still valid, and maintained garrisons there. The populace of this area was highly pro Confederate and violence between civilians and the military authority was common. Stories of the atrocities fed the newspapers on both sides of the border. Southern papers claimed brutality on the part of Yankee occupiers, while Northern papers claimed the violence was a result of unprovoked attacks by Southern thugs. Men such as William Randolph Hurst made their fortunes off such tales, many of which where wildly exaggerated.
Kentucky was claimed by both nations and each had an equal number of supporters there. This is possibly why there was very little violence involved. The Confederacy rejected the results of the 1870 election, that confirmed Kentucky’s status as a member of the United States. There were even Kentucky legislatures in the Confederate congress. This did not seem to bother Washington at all since the election had little to do with placating southern politicians. The plan was to assimilate pro confederates back into the political process, of the United States, and it was a stunning success. As a result the state remained relatively calm.
Missouri was not so lucky. The war did not end with the cease-fire. The fighting raged on and inevitably the pro-Confederate factions were beaten into submission. Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Texas were flooded with Missourian refugee’s who’s descendants, to this day, still harbor an unusual level of hatred for the United States.
The only place that was actually more peaceful and came out ahead, as a result of the chaotic situation, was the Indian territory. Stand Waite (he is considered a founding father there) became the first Governor of the new Confederate State of Sequoyah. It was an independent nation in all but name. Even so, the Confederacy was very popular there and, as a result, Richmond gave them quite a wide berth as long as the support continued.
:origin()/pre00/9fae/th/pre/f/2014/077/a/f/spy_england_x_cross_dresser_reader__ch2_by_oceania_belaria-d7ao382.jpg)
:origin()/pre00/e0b6/th/pre/f/2014/171/4/d/2p_face_x_child_reader___bullied_by_yenbeilschmidt-d7n9axe.png)
:origin()/pre00/63c4/th/pre/f/2013/241/7/2/_harry_potter_x_reader__the_wound_part_2_by_kingdomheartsdreams-d6jyvs2.png)
:origin()/pre00/7ca6/th/pre/f/2014/120/6/2/avengers_x_abused__reader_bucky_barnes_by_katcraft455-d7gn9if.jpg)
Minor quibble I would reverse who talks about the Second American Revolution and Second War of Independence. Generally in the 'real world' It's Americans who talk about the American War of Independence, and everyone else in the world refer to it as the American Revolutionary War.
Apparently many American Historians feel that if you win the war its not a revolution.
Actually I think it is something else. The Civil War is a prime example because the name is quibbled over so often. Southerner's, like me, are always told it is "The War Between The States." Sometimes you could jokingly be chastised for calling it The Civil War. I noticed something though, when those same people who are so ticky about what to call the war, are not on a high horse then they call it "Civil War" too. It's what I've always called it and always will. Same thing applies to the Revolution. It's just easier to say, "the revolution," than the long winded "War Of Independence" and I think ultimately that's the key. People are going to go with what's easiest to use.
It is quite possible that the Federal Government made War of Independence the legal name for their documents. They made the legal name for the Civil War what southerners call it "War Between the States." Let's face it, that's not a mindset, that's not even English. That's Legalese and who cares because lawyers are the only ones who speak it, and then, only when they're getting paid 500 dollars an hour to do so.
Well it was a regional war so, naturally it's going to have regional biased. However, a lot of it is really little more than chest thumping and half the time, I have discovered, people are quite often so ignorant of the war that their biased has left me shaking my head. Back in my army days, I encountered this poor guy that had a rebel battle flag belt buckle. He told me he was from West Virginia and that made him a rebel. I had to delicately explain to him how his state came into existence and I think he cried. Then one day I encountered an unusually stubborn individual, not surprising that he was a Texan, who denied up and down that his home state of Texas was in the CSA. His rationalization was that Texas was a western state and hence had nothing to do with the Civil War, which according to him, only happened in Virginia. So, I try and ignore all of that because, people get bizarre ideas in their heads.
That's the stuff you see though. The real effects left over from the war are still very much there but, nobody seems to notice because, too most Americans, these things are just taken as "normal." Some of them would surprise you too because they're not all scars, they're just changes. One of my published papers on that war was about how it changed what people ate. Had any corn lately? Before the Civil War, people thought eating corn was disgusting. Offering somebody corn in the antebellum period would be the same as offering somebody dog food today. Another major change, well done meat. Believe it or not that was a fad that was made popular by none other than U.S. Grant. Many newspapers reported that's how he ate his steak and it caught on. His reason for nearly burning his dead cow, he was squeamish at the sight of blood, lol.
Bear in mind, the polls as to counter-secede or not in 1861 were monitored by Union troops with orders to arrest anybody voting to join the CSA (yup, all public polls and zero due process...). And research by the state itself seems to have uncovered that not only were veterans of the state evenly split between the sides (as noted in "Hatfields & McCoys" incidentally), not "overwhelmingly" in favor of the Union. I mean, any time I go through Bridgeport or
Weston I see at least two Confederate flags flying, in a supposedly Union state...although in that case, it might have less to do with Confederate support as much as Southern support, YMMV.
Funny you should mention the Hatfields and McCoys, actually one family was mostly from Kentucky but most of them (both families) actually fought for the Confederacy. I don't deny that there were many like them who did, even a substantial amount, however, I think Confederate support in West Virginia has been greatly over estimated since the end of the war. Yes the Federals did have the military advantage in holding the state in the long run but, at the very start of the war, they didn't have any troops there except for some militia/bandits. Same was true for the Confederates but, initially, the South actually had the military advantage until McClellan invaded with Ohio militia. Despite this, at a time when the Confederacy was stronger there, each county still held a vote to leave Virginia and won. The vote you're talking about was on statehood (another vote) not session from Virginia.
I don't just base this on the attitudes that were exclusive to West Virginia (which I might add had a problem with the rest of Virginia for a long time before the war). That entire mountain region from the Ohio River, all the way down to Chattanooga, was very pro-Union. That included Eastern Tennessee which actually rebelled against the confederacy and forced Richmond to have to garrison the entire area for most of the war. For whatever reasons, and theories abound, the mountain folks didn't have much use for the CSA. I think it was largely economic.
As for people displaying confederate flags now. I wouldn't put much stock in that. You're talking about people who have had over a century worth of experiences that nobody in 1861 had and the modern pro-confederate thing has almost nothing to do with the issues of that war. It's simply a cultural fad now. You have to look at what people thought at that time and the West Virginian experience wasn't that different from all of the border states, including right next door in Maryland, where they were touted as very pro southern until it was time to put up or shut up. They shut up.
Last but not least, you have to remember, I'm not writing about the world we live in. I'm talking about differences that would change life in places like West Viriginia by vast degrees.
Ouch. Yeah that must have hurt.
Then one day I encountered an unusually stubborn individual, not surprising that he was a Texan,
Oh yeah no regional bias there (cough cough)
who denied up and down that his home state of Texas was in the CSA. His rationalization was that Texas was a western state and hence had nothing to do with the Civil War, which according to him, only happened in Virginia.
Wow just wow
On a completely different topic
I'd know about the corn in the South, but even up to the 1970s in Britain corn was considered chicken feed.
A fascinating start, Bmovievillain.
The study of History is my second favorite subject, (bet you cannot guess my first?), and I absolutely relish alternate, "What If" time lines, the aformentioned "Guns of the South" being one of my favorite books of the past few decades.
Hence, I cannot wait to see where you are going with this.
Well done, sir.