L2R1 - Civil War and Spanish-American War Veteran Relations

Civil War and Spanish War Veteranhood: The Sinking of the USS Maine and the Indiana GAR

• Following the destruction of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, the Indiana state commander of the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) reported that the organization supported war with Spain via a unanimous rising vote.

• A resolution passed by the group endorsed the national administration’s goal to liberate Cuba from what they termed "Spanish cruelty and oppression."

• Some veterans had advocated for intervention as early as $1896$, with the Indiana state commander at that time protesting the "inhuman cruelties" and "misrule" of the Spanish government.

• Daniel Ryan, an Indiana state commander, celebrated victories in Cuba and the Philippines, specifically noting Commodore Dewey’s victory in Manila Bay on May $1^{st}$ ($1898$), the bottling up of the Spanish fleet at Santiago, and the subsequent land and sea battles.

• Despite this outward support for the war effort, the Indiana GAR members voted for the "indefinite postponement" of a resolution to admit Spanish-American War veterans into their ranks.

• The Indiana judge advocate general issued a specific ruling regarding funerals: GAR posts could attend the funeral of a Spanish-American War soldier, but they were strictly prohibited from using the specific GAR burial service rituals.

• This exclusion signifies that "veteranhood" was viewed as a non-transferable identity that did not bridge different generations or distinct wartime experiences.

Institutional History: The GAR and the USWV

• Because they were excluded from the GAR, veterans of the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars established their own organization: the United Spanish War Veterans (USWV) in $1904$.

• The GAR was the largest Union veterans' organization and has been extensively studied regarding its politics and racial policies; however, the USWV remains largely under-researched despite the availability of meeting records.

• Scholarly context on exclusion:

  • Mary Dearing (Veterans in Politics): Notes that President William McKinley (a GAR member) favored inclusion, but the GAR national commander rejected it. The majority of members were unwilling to "divide honor" and opposed giving new veterans priority in government hiring.

  • Stuart McConnell (Glorious Contentment): Argues the refusal to amalgamate stemmed from the GAR's preoccupation with the specific memory of "their" war.

• Membership and Longevity Statistics:

  • The GAR accepted only Union Civil War veterans. Membership peaked in $1890$ at more than $427,000$ members. It declined to approximately $93,000$ in $1920$ and $16,500$ by $1930$. The organization ended in $1956$ with the death of the last Union veteran.

  • The USWV (formed $1904$, folded $1992$) peaked in $1933$ with $126,000$ members.

  • Mobilization Comparison: Approximately $400,000$ men mobilized for the Spanish-American War/Philippine-American War/Boxer Rebellion (roughly $4\%$ of the eligible male population in $1900$). In contrast, the Civil War saw participation from $50\%$ of eligible Northern men and $80\%$ of eligible Southern men.

The Conflict of Memory: Reconciliation vs. The Union Cause

• Disparate memories of the Civil War complicated the relationship between the two groups:

  • Spanish War Veterans' Memory: Mostly born after $1865$, they embraced a "reconciliationist" memory. They viewed Union and Confederate soldiers as equally patriotic. This was reinforced by serving alongside Southerners in $1898$.

  • Union Veterans' Memory: Rejected the idea that Confederate service was equal to Union service. They adhered to the "Union Cause" (or "Won Cause"), viewing the Confederacy as a treasonous attempt to protect slavery.

• The USWV and Sectional Reunion:

  • Approximately $40,000$ volunteers from former Confederate states served in $1898$.

  • Southern regiments (e.g., First Georgia, First South Carolina) were brigaded with Northern units (e.g., Thirty-first Michigan, Fifth Pennsylvania).

  • Famous Confederates like Generals Joseph Wheeler and Fitzhugh Lee served in the Spanish War. The USWV even named camps in Illinois after these former Confederates.

  • Theodore Roosevelt described his regiment (federal volunteers) as the sons of both Union and Confederate soldiers, claiming their fathers' valor was the tie that bound them together.

  • USWV leaders William Jones and others believed their war destroyed the "last vestige of sectionalism."

  • Symbols of Reconciliation: The USWV leadership adopted a "blue and gray" uniform to symbolize unity, though this was unpopular with the rank-and-file who preferred military-style uniforms.

Racial Policies and Segregation

• The two organizations had starkly different approaches to race, influenced by their different war memories:

  • GAR Policy: Formally rejected racial segregation. In $1891$, the national encampment rejected a proposal for an all-white department in the South, stating that anyone who stood between the flag and those who would destroy it was "good enough to be a comrade."

  • USWV Policy: Allowed the creation of separate all-black "Departments." The constitution stated that if four or more camps were composed of Negroes, they "may" be organized as a separate department by the Commander in Chief.

• Regional Segregation in the USWV:

  • Virginia: Whites forced black camps into a separate department (The Department of the Potomac).

  • New York: Black and white camps remained in a single state organization.

  • California/Colorado: Black posts were assigned to a separate department. Delegates in Northern California once refused to attend a convention because a Los Angeles camp admitted four black veterans.

  • USWV Commander in Chief ($1906$): Explained that separate departments were necessary for growth in the South due to local racial attitudes, though he stated black comrades were "equally entitled to respect" for their service.

• Resistance and Presence:

  • Black USWV members fought for recognition, highlighting the service of the Twenty-fourth Infantry Regiment who volunteered to nurse comrades in Yellow Fever camps.

  • They successfully demanded to be referred to as "Negro" rather than "colored" in $1906$.

  • Discrimination persisted long-term; as late as $1963$ in Lansing, Michigan, black USWV comrades were told they could not stay in the official convention hotel and had to use a segregated establishment.

The "Small War" Narrative and Its Consequences

• Civil War veterans and public figures often minimized the Spanish War experience:

  • Theodore Roosevelt referred to his cohort as "Comrades of a lesser war" compared to the "big war" of the $1860s$.

  • GAR official Allan Showers gave a minimalist assessment of USWV service: "You men… knew nothing but your duty… and you came home."

  • In contrast, GAR rhetoric for Civil War service emphasized "exile from home, fatigue, cold, hunger, disease, wounds" and a "bitter schooling in the realities of war."

• Redefining the Timeline: While the Spanish-American War is often remembered as lasting three months in $1898$, including the Philippine-American War extends the conflict from April $25^{th}$, $1898$ to July $4^{th}$, $1902$, making it longer than the Civil War.

• Casualties and Health legacy:

  • Philippine-American War: Approximately $1,000$ KIA; $3,200$ died from disease/other causes; $3,000$ WIA.

  • Training Camp Dangers: Many veterans were sickened at stateside camps like Chickamauga. $20,000$ soldiers were infected with typhoid fever; $1,600$ died in training camps without ever leaving the country.

  • Post-war effects: Many USWV members suffered from chronic tropical diseases that American doctors were ill-equipped to treat. There are even recorded cases of veterans suffering from leprosy after returning from overseas.

Gender, Manhood, and the "Heirs" Dispute

• A significant tension existed between the USWV and the "Sons of Veterans" (now known as the Sons of Union Veterans):

  • USWV members complained that the Sons of Veterans marched ahead of them in parades.

  • USWV arguments: They believed actual military service in $1898$ should take precedence over the blood ties of men who never served. One commander stated that men of age in $1898$ who failed to answer the call should be "ashamed to appear in the uniform of a military organization."

  • GAR arguments: In $1915$, the Massachusetts GAR proposed that the Sons should take precedence over all other groups, including the USWV. One GAR member, Comrade Payne, mockingly referred to the USWV by saying, "they call themselves veterans."

• The Heirship Debate: Some GAR members wanted the Sons designated as their official "heirs."

  • James Tanner argued against making military service the primary criterion for being an heir, as it would be an "aspersion" on their own progeny who did not serve in the Spanish wars.

  • The GAR commander in chief argued the Sons' manhood was proven through business and public life success rather than military service, essentially waiving the military requirement to validate their sons' social status.

Questions & Discussion

• Audience Interjection (Roosevelt Speech): When Theodore Roosevelt described the Spanish-American War as "not very big," an audience member (likely USWV) shouted, "long enough over in the Philippines."

• Comrade Payne vs. Inman (1915 Massachusetts GAR Meeting):

  • Payne: Referred disparagingly to Spanish-American War soldiers, stating, "this feeling between the Spanish War—they call themselves veterans… and the Sons of Veterans is exceedingly irritating."

  • Inman (Member of both USWV and Sons): Raised a point of order and angrily demanded the stenographer read back Payne’s remarks because he felt his veteran status was being questioned.

• Massachusetts Official on Parades: One official complained about Spanish War veterans wanting to parade with the GAR, comparing them to a "body of women" who tried to march and were removed by police, thereby challenging both the veterans' identity and their manhood.

• James Tanner’s Greeting: Tanner welcomed Spanish War veterans by quoting Roosevelt but added the conciliatory note that though it was a little war, "we handled it. And you handled it splendidly."

In the first week of the course, the focus was on the historical context and significance of the Civil War, particularly its impact on shaping modern America. The readings assigned for that week included excerpts from historians who discussed various perspectives on the war, including its political, social, and cultural repercussions. This academic material was instrumental in deepening my understanding of the themes presented in the lecture, which emphasized the transformation that America underwent as a result of the conflict.

The readings enhanced my grasp of the overarching theme regarding how the Civil War not only resolved the immediate issues of slavery and states' rights but also set the stage for subsequent social movements. The authors argued that the war catalyzed changes in gender roles and race relations, aligning perfectly with the lecture’s discussion about how the war dismantled pre-existing societal norms. This connection was enlightening; I had previously viewed the Civil War primarily through a military lens without fully appreciating its broader social implications.

One of the insights that struck me was the discussion of the evolving identity of soldiers during the war and how this reshaped notions of masculinity in the post-war era. The readings presented a viewpoint that was somewhat unexpected; many soldiers returned with a newfound appreciation for equality among their ranks, transcending previous societal hierarchies. This notion was later supported in the lecture through examples of integrated units and shared experiences among soldiers from different backgrounds. It made me reflect on how war acts as a leveling force, breaking down barriers that may have seemed immutable before.

In reflecting on my personal reactions to the lecture, I found it particularly compelling when the professor described the emotional toll of the war on both veterans and civilians. The use of primary sources like letters and diaries brought a humanity to the historical figures that often feel distant in textbooks. It personalized the statistics and presented a vivid picture of lives interrupted and changed forever. This narrative approach deepened my emotional connection to the material, making the historical events feel more relevant and urgent.

I was surprised by the discussion on how the aftermath of the Civil War led to long-lasting divisions that can still be seen today. It challenged my previous assumptions that the war was a definitive endpoint to conflict regarding race and state rights. This realization made me more curious about the ways history continuously shapes contemporary issues. I wonder how this could relate to the ongoing discussions around social justice and equality in today's society, which appears to echo many of the struggles faced in the Civil War era.

Moreover, I felt encouraged to question the prevailing narratives that are often presented about the Civil War. It motivated me to seek out diverse perspectives and engage with varying interpretations of historical events as I move forward in the course. This approach, I believe, will be essential not only for me as a student but also for understanding how history informs current societal debates and conflicts.

Overall, the connections between the readings and the lecture themes greatly enriched my understanding of the Civil War's complexities and reverberations throughout American history. With this foundation, I feel more prepared to delve into future topics, keeping in mind how intertwined social issues and historical events are, thereby shaping our current societal landscape.