The U.S. Presidential Election of 1864

President Lincoln understood that his chances of reelection in November hinged on military success in a war now in its fourth year. By the summer of 1864, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant had settled in for a prolonged siege against the Confederates near Petersburg, Va., and Gen. William T. Sherman was making slow progress toward Atlanta. Confederate Gen. Jubal A. Early, meanwhile, had led his troops to the very gates of Washington, D.C. in July, and had attacked a fort guarding the capital city. The war effort seemed to have stalled for the Union, and the public blamed President Lincoln.

Even getting re-nominated was not a given. We may today think of Lincoln as a god, but in 1864, he appeared to be just another failed politician. We want to think of him as this brilliant man and the best president ever, and he was, but in spring 1864, that is not even how his own party viewed him.

The biggest problem was the Radical Republicans, a hardline faction within the Republican party that held the belief that Lincoln was incompetent and therefore could not be re-elected. They had already formed a party called the Radical Democracy Party, for which a few hundred delegates had convened in Cleveland, Ohio, on May 31, 1864. They had even nominated a presidential candidate in the hope that it would drive the main party to nominate someone else.

In modern politics, we tend to think of a two-term president as standard. But in 1864, the last president to have been re-elected was Andrew Jackson in 1832; after him had been 8 one- term (or less) presidents. And before Jackson, the previous 2-term president was James Monroe, who ran unopposed.  So the odds on that basis alone were stacked against him.

Lloyd W. Klein considers the U.S. presidential election  of 1864.

Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson 1864 campaign poster.

The Republican Party Convention

The Republican Convention was held the first week of June, and the delegates who were loyal to Lincoln were so certain that they could not win election that they made a couple of major decisions about their platform and alliances. Moreover, they witnessed one of Lincoln’s cabinet who tried to get the nomination for himself.

The Republican fringe group demanding a stronger position against slavery split off to form the “Radical Democracy” party and nominated John C. Frémont as their candidate. Frémont supported combat without compromise, believed that Congress should strictly control Southern reconstruction efforts, and urged the confiscation of Confederate property. Fremont had been the first Republican nominee in 1856, just before Lincoln, who had to remove him for incompetence if not corruption early in the war.

Republicans loyal to Lincoln created a new name for their party at the convention in order to accommodate the War Democrats who supported the war and wished to separate themselves from the Copperheads, or Peace Democrats. The convention dropped then-Vice President Hannibal Hamlin, a Radical Republican from the ticket, and chose War Democrat Andrew Johnson as Lincoln's running mate. The National Unionists hoped that the new party and the Lincoln–Johnson ticket would stress the national character of the war. In a modern sense, they went after the “swing vote”.

Salmon Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, tried to use his connections within the Radical Republican group to get the nomination. In early 1864 he began a surreptitious campaign for the nomination but hastily ended it after pamphlets intended for private distribution were leaked to the press. He had threatened to resign 3 times during the 4 years of the first term in an effort to embarrass Lincoln. After the convention, he threatened a fourth time and this time Lincoln accepted the resignation.

President Lincoln ran for a second term but replaced Vice President Hamlin on the ticket with Andrew Johnson, a War Democrat. This critical segment of the Democratic Party supported the war effort and the Republicans sought to gain their support in the 1864 election. Lincoln and his running mate supported a quick end to the war, the abolition of slavery and reconstruction of the southern states following the end of hostilities. Lincoln’s opponent, General George McClellan, ran as the nominee for the Democratic Party, which wanted to end the war and accommodate the Confederacy.

The Blind Memorandum

In August 1864, President Lincoln believed he was facing defeat in the upcoming presidential election.  There were no polls as we have today; politicians had to sense what was happening and talk with local men to understand what was going on. And what Lincoln heard must have been disturbing.

Republican insider Thurlow Weed told Lincoln in mid-August 1864 that “his re-election was an impossibility.” Republican party chairman Henry J. Raymond expressed much the same sentiment to Lincoln on Aug. 22, urging him to consider sending a commission to meet with Confederate President Jefferson Davis to offer peace terms “on the sole condition of acknowledging the supremacy of the Constitution,” leaving the question of slavery to be resolved later.

These are signatures of Lincoln’s cabinet members on the reverse of the “Blind Memorandum” dated August 23,1864.  Abraham Lincoln Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

It was in this context that Abraham Lincoln wrote the following memorandum on Aug. 23, 1864:

“This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he can not possibly save it afterwards.  — A. Lincoln”

Lincoln folded the memorandum and pasted it closed, so that the text inside could not be read. He took it to a cabinet meeting and instructed his cabinet members to sign the outside of the memo, sight unseen, which they did. Historians now refer to this document variously as the “Blind Memo” or “Blind Memorandum” because the cabinet signed it “blind.” In so doing the Lincoln administration pledged itself to accept the verdict of the people in November and to help save the Union should Lincoln not be re-elected.

It would be hard to imagine a more profound document in American history, and the fact that this could be so obscure astounds me, and makes me start to compare our contemporary climate. As much as we today think our upcoming election has significant implications, its hard to even compare it to what Lincoln was experiencing.

The Democratic Party Opposition

The Democratic Party still was a strong political force in the North. In August 1864 there were a lot of northerners who were tired of the war and its inconclusive results. The idea of fighting to end slavery, today taken for granted, wasn’t as popular as we might think.  The Emancipation Proclamation and the recruitment of black troops had changed the country, and not everyone liked it. The Democratic Party was generally unified in its opposition to emancipation.

Many civil war histories suggest that the victories at Atlanta and the Overland Campaign changed public opinion from the summer of 1864, and surely they did. But a good part of the reason Lincoln was re-elected was that the Democratic Party self-destructed in the campaign.

Had the Democrats a unified message the soldiers could support, Lincoln might have had serious trouble. But the Democrats were divided. The war democrats wanted to continue the war but seek peace soon while the peace democrats wanted to stop fighting immediately.  Ending slavery wasn’t a priority. Ending the war was.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party had not yet met to make its nomination. This conflict was resolved by nominating a war democrat McClellan with a peace position plank. The Democratic platform declared the war a failure and urged that “immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities,” which McClellan could not fully support. Moreover, once the Democrats nominated George B. McClellan for president on August 30 they saddled him with a “Copperhead” peace Democrat.

There were two factions that existed among the Peace Democrats. For much of the war the Copperheads, led by Clement Vallandigham, had dominated them. The Copperheads declared the war to be a failure and favored an immediate end to hostilities without securing Union victory, either via re-admitting all the Confederate states with slavery intact and legally protected, or by formally recognizing the Confederacy as a sovereign nation and attempting to re-establish peaceful relationships.

But then the Democratic Party blundered. The convention adopted proposals by Copperheads like Vallandigham and Wood calling for a cease fire and a negotiated settlement to the war; but then they selected George McClellan as their candidate.

In 1863, the Peace Democrats started to splinter between the Copperheads and their more moderate members. Moderate Peace Democrats such as Horatio Seymour proposed a negotiated peace that would secure Union victory. They believed this was the best course of action because an armistice could finish the war without destroying the South. The Copperheads continued to advocate allowing the Confederate states to rejoin with slavery intact, however, believing that to do otherwise would merely lead to another Civil War sooner or later.

Its often said that politics is the art of compromise, and at this moment, that was what was tried, but it didn’t work out at all. McClellan was the front runner, so a compromise was struck On the first day of the convention, a peace platform was adopted. McClellan was personally opposed to a peace platform. McClellan supported the continuation of the war and restoration of the Union, but the party platform, written by Vallandigham, was opposed to this position. He inserted a plank calling for immediate peace negotiations.

This was the essential problem at the convention. General McClellan remained very popular and was the obvious choice for the role. But the Copperheads were against it. They tried to induce Horatio Seymour, the Governor of Ne York, to run. But the day before the convention, Seymour announced he would not run. Vallandigham knew he was too divisive. Several men were sounded out for the role, including former President Pierce, all of whom declined. Thomas Seymour of Connecticut received the most votes in opposition.

Representative George H. Pendleton, was the vice presidential candidate. He ran against 7 others, and won on the second ballot. Pendleton, a congressman from Cincinnati,  was closely associated with Vallandigham. He was known to oppose the 13th Amendment and the concept that a state could be compelled to stay in the Union.

The Candidate McClellan

McClellan ran against Abraham Lincoln, a sitting president, our greatest president, as the war was being won; and garnered 45% of the popular vote. Not only isn’t that pretty under the circumstances of voting against a sitting president in a war (the US has NEVER done this), but the Democratic Party of the 19th century was a fundamentally Southern party.  In other words, McClellan got 9/20 votes in a Northern population, running on a platform of stopping the war and reversing emancipation.

Lincoln thought if elected McClellan would be forced by the Copperheads into an early truce. Once he was nominated McClellan repudiated the Democratic Party platform. As a result, whatever message intended to be sent to separate their views from Lincoln was garbled. McClellan’s campaign flailed as his repudiation of the peace plank in the Democratic platform provoked further tensions within his party.

McClellan had different views about race and southern aristocracy then are accepted in modern society and that Lincoln had then: but he was not a traitor, and he did want to win the war, not lose it. McClellan emphasized the fact that he previously led the Union military effort in the War and that he was and remained committed to "the restoration of the Union in all its integrity" and that the massive sacrifices that the Union endured should not be in vain. His central argument was that he could win the war sooner and with fewer casualties than Lincoln & Grant.

The Campaign

By the summer of 1864, the Civil War had gone on for over three years. Over 250,000 Union soldiers had been killed, with many more injured permanently. Victory was not yet in sight. Democrats knew that many of the policies of Lincoln were not popular, including many of those we take today as the reason for the conflict, such as emancipation, the military draft, the use of black troops, and violations of civil liberties. Democrats further suggested that the Republicans were advocating in favor of miscegenation and trying to destroy the traditional race relations. They believed they could win, and Lincoln thought that too.

As if on cue, Lincoln’s fortunes began to change. General Sherman scored a tremendous victory when Atlanta fell to the Union on September 2. McClellan therefore had an ambiguous message against an articulate potus who suddenly was winning battles.

Had the battlefield events gone against the Union, the election would have been much closer. The capture of Atlanta and Hood's burning of military facilities as he evacuated showed that a successful conclusion of the war was in sight, weakening support for a truce. Without the fall of Atlanta early in September, it’s easy to see how the voters might not have flocked to Lincoln.

Finally northern opinion had come around to freeing the slaves and winning a war that had produced so much destruction so that there needed to be a definitive conclusion and a new beginning. In essence, this is what Lincoln was calling for in his Gettysburg Address, which we today take as almost a divine document, but in its essence, was realistically the start of the 1864 presidential campaign.

As late as August 23, Lincoln considered it “exceedingly probable” that he would not be reelected. He thought the copperheads would force McClellan into accepting a negotiated settlement, so he made his Cabinet secretly promise to cooperate with McClellan if he won the election to win the war by the time that McClellan will be inaugurated.

Election Results

History books gloss over the closeness of the popular vote. They cite that Lincoln received over

90% of the total electoral votes (212 versus 21 for McClellan). But a 10% margin is relatively close under the circumstances. McClellan won 48% of the total vote in a bloc of states stretching from Connecticut to Illinois (Lincoln's home state); Lincoln underperformed in 1864 relative to 1860 in several crucial U.S. states (such as New York, Pennsylvania, and Indiana); and that the Republicans lost the Governorship in his (McClellan's) home state of New Jersey. We might well ask if any fool could have come that close. Which makes me wonder, if he wasn’t that stupid, are the accounts of him as a poor general really accurate?

As it is, the popular vote was split 55%-45%, a good but not landslide victory. President Lincoln defeated General McClellan in the election winning twenty-two states to McClellan’s three. Lincoln easily carried the popular vote and won the greatest share of the electoral vote since James Monroe won re-election unopposed in 1820. Lincoln's win made him the first president to win re-election since Andrew Jackson, and the first two-term President unaffiliated with the Democratic-Republican Party or the Democratic Party since John Adams. The National Union ticket was the first and only winning ticket composed of members of two separate parties.

Had McClellan and the Democrats had a plausible, unified peace position that didn’t appear to be total capitulation, they might have had a better shot. He only lost by 10%, which isn’t really a landslide.

Senators Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson from Massachusetts wanted the Republican Party to advocate constitutional amendments to prohibit slavery and guarantee racial equality before the law. Initially, not all northern Republicans supported such measures. Eventually, these would be passed, but at the time, they were considered radical. The problems Andrew Johnson would face as president were starting in 1864.

Fremont might have been a serious third-party “spoiler”, had the newspaper New York World chosen to champion his candidacy (think: FOX News). But then. Frémont was appalled at the Democratic platform, which he described as a "union with slavery". After three weeks of discussions, Frémont withdrew from the race in September 1864. In his statement, Frémont declared that winning the Civil War was too important to divide the Republican vote. He then struck a bargain with Lincoln to remove Montgomery Blair as postmaster general, so he withdrew from the race. Blair had very conservative views on race and slavery.

The 1864 presidential campaign was bitter. More than for just a candidate, voters cast their ballots to determine questions underpinning the broader fate of the Union: Should the war be continued, or should a peace settlement be negotiated? How would the outcome of the war define the role of blacks in a post-war society?

The bloody conflict between North and South loomed over every aspect of American life. The electorate was so divided that some argued the election should be postponed until the war was over. The fact that there was an election in the midst of a civil war is one of the great achievements our country has ever had. Our commitment to fair and free elections, and that the people decide, is our greatest ideal.

Because of the Democrats’ peace platform, the election became a referendum on the war itself. The election tide turned with Union victories during the autumn of 1864 and the masses of soldiers who cast their ballots for Lincoln. The entire concept of soldiers, in the field, voting for who their leader would be, and even if the should be continued, was entirely revolutionary at the time.

Lincoln was highly popular with soldiers and they in turn recommended him to their families back home. The following states allowed soldiers to cast ballots: California, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Out of the 40,247 army votes cast, Lincoln received 30,503 (75.8%) and McClellan 9,201 (22.9%), with the rest (543 votes) scattering (1.3%). Only soldiers from Kentucky gave McClellan a majority of their votes, and he carried the army vote in the state by a vote of 2,823 (70.3%) to 1,194 (29.7%).

Suppose McClellan had Won?

Had McClellan won the election, there is lots of speculation as to whether the war would have continued. The traditional argument is that Lincoln would have remained president until the inauguration, and that by March 1865 the war was all but over. McClellan would have had a victory within 4-6 weeks. He was a soldier and would not have let victory elude him.

But just as plausible is that if Lincoln had been defeated it would have been a huge shock. The Confederates would have declared victory. Would Union soldiers continue to die for a cause that would never happen?

McClellan was in an awkward position. He wrote that he was for restoring the Union. But that was after the war with 20-20 hindsight. However, his party's platform called for the cessation of hostilities and a negotiated settlement (meaning that the CSA would continue as a separate country). His VP was a peace candidate. His speeches at the time say he would negotiate an end to the war not fight it.

If elected, would he repudiate his party and continue the war as vigorously as Lincoln? As president, he could have done so. But the price would have been alienating many or most Democrats. Had he gone the route of disregarding Democrats, he'd have been forced to cooperate closely with the Republicans (almost becoming a Republican himself in all but name).

Alternatively, he could have decided to side with his party and stopped (or slowed down) the war effort --presumably during peace negotiations. The result being the CSA would win its independence.

Moreover, for McClellan to have won, Sherman must fail in Atlanta and Grant must have met some disaster. In hypothetical situations, you can’t just drop McClellan into Lincoln’s shoes in March 1865. You have to account for his being there.

So as with most hypotheticals, it’s too complicated to know for sure. I think the traditional view is much too simplistic. I think McClellan would have negotiated with Davis within weeks of an electoral victory.

Reports of conspiracies between Peace Democrats and the Confederate government to manipulate the election abounded—including a plan, financed with a half-million Confederate dollars, to raise an insurrection among Copperheads in the West with an aim toward creating a western confederacy.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Theodore Roosevelt: A Life of Unyielding Determination and Vision

Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919) was a dynamic force in American history, renowned for his larger-than-life personality, progressive policies, and relentless energy. Born into a wealthy New York family on the 27th of October, 1858, Roosevelt overcame severe health challenges as a child to become one of the most influential figures in American politics. His career spanned a remarkable array of roles: war hero, conservationist, reformer, writer, and the 26th President of the United States.

Terry Bailey explains.

Theodore Roosevelt - presidential portrait. By John Singer Sargent

Early life and formative years

Roosevelt's early life was shaped by a contrast of privilege and adversity. His father, Theodore Roosevelt Sr., was a philanthropist and businessman who deeply influenced young Theodore's sense of duty and morality. However, Roosevelt's childhood was marked by debilitating asthma that left him frail and often housebound. Determined to overcome his physical limitations, he embarked on a rigorous regimen of exercise, boxing, and outdoor activities.

A voracious reader and curious intellect, Roosevelt attended Harvard College, where he excelled in academics, particularly history and biology, although he struggled in Greek and Latin. His interest in natural science would later inform his conservation efforts. After Harvard, he briefly attended Columbia Law School but left to pursue a career in public service and writing.

Political ambitions

Roosevelt's political career began in earnest when he was elected to the New York State Assembly in 1881 at the age of 23. A staunch reformer, he gained a reputation for fighting corruption, earning him the enmity of political bosses but the respect of reform-minded voters.

A series of personal tragedies in 1884—losing both his mother and wife on the same day, his mother, Mittie Roosevelt died of typhoid fever in the early hours of the morning of the 14th of February, 1884, aged 48. In the afternoon and in the same house, Theodore's first wife, Alice Lee Roosevelt, unexpectedly died of Bright's disease. This led him to retreat to the Dakota Territory, where he immersed himself in ranching and frontier life. This interlude strengthened his resolve and shaped his rugged, self-reliant persona.

Returning to politics, he served as New York City Police Commissioner, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and then as the leader of the Rough Riders, a volunteer cavalry regiment that gained fame during the Spanish-American War. Roosevelt's battlefield heroics catapulted him to national fame and a seat as Governor of New York in 1898. His progressive reforms as governor positioned him as a rising star in the Republican Party, leading to his nomination as Vice President under William McKinley in 1900.

Presidency and progressive reform

McKinley's assassination on the 14th of September, 1901 thrust Roosevelt into the presidency at the age of 42, making him the youngest person to hold the office. Roosevelt's presidency marked a dramatic departure from the laissez-faire policies of his predecessors. Known as the "trust buster," Roosevelt sought to curb the power of monopolies through antitrust lawsuits and regulation. He championed the rights of workers, as seen in his intervention during the 1902 coal strike, and pushed for sweeping reforms under his "Square Deal" policy, which aimed at fairness for workers, consumers, and businesses.

Roosevelt's influence extended beyond domestic policy. He played a pivotal role in expanding America's influence on the global stage, adhering to his famous maxim, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." He oversaw the construction of the Panama Canal, brokered peace in the Russo-Japanese War, earning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906, the first American to win a Nobel Prize, reinforcing the United States' status as a burgeoning world power.

Conservation Legacy

Roosevelt's passion for nature and the outdoors translated into a groundbreaking conservation agenda. He established the United States Forest Service, created five national parks, and protected approximately 230 million acres of public land through national monuments, forests, and wildlife refuges. His vision laid the groundwork for modern environmental preservation efforts.

Strengths and weaknesses

Strengths

Theodore Roosevelt was a paragon of dynamic leadership and unyielding tenacity. His larger-than-life personality, boundless energy, and progressive vision helped to define an era of transformation in America. Roosevelt's strength lay not only in his robust physical presence but also in his intellectual vigor, reformist zeal, and commitment to public service. A man of action and ideas, he combined these traits to leave an indelible mark on the nation.

One of Roosevelt's greatest strengths was his unwavering determination. From an early age, as indicated he battled debilitating asthma, which he overcame through sheer willpower and a regimen of rigorous physical activity. This same resolve carried into his political career, where he faced challenges with unrelenting fortitude. Whether it was breaking up corporate monopolies, championing conservation, or navigating international diplomacy, Roosevelt approached every issue with a boldness that inspired both admiration and action.

Another hallmark of Roosevelt's character was his intellectual curiosity and progressive vision. A voracious reader and prolific writer, he was deeply informed on a wide range of topics, from history to natural sciences. This intellectual foundation enabled him to craft policies that balanced innovation with pragmatism.

Roosevelt's charisma and ability to connect with the American people were unparalleled. His infectious enthusiasm and relatable demeanor resonated across social and economic divides. Whether charging up San Juan Hill during the Spanish-American War or delivering fiery speeches advocating for the common man, Roosevelt embodied the ideals of courage and resilience. He understood the power of symbolism and used his persona to inspire a nation to strive for greatness.

In the realm of international relations, Roosevelt's strength as a diplomat and strategist came to the forefront. His efforts to mediate the end of the Russo-Japanese War was the act that earned him the Nobel Peace Prize, a testament to his skill in fostering dialogue and compromise. At the same time, his "big stick" foreign policy underscored his belief in America's role as a global power, combining negotiation with a readiness to act decisively when necessary. In every arena he entered, Theodore Roosevelt exemplified leadership rooted in action, intellect, and a profound sense of duty.

Weaknesses

Although Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States, is often celebrated for his robust personality, dynamic leadership, and progressive policies, like any historical figure, he was not without his weaknesses. These vulnerabilities provide a more nuanced understanding of a man who, while towering in the public imagination, was deeply human.

One of Roosevelt's most prominent weaknesses was his impulsiveness. While his decisiveness was often an asset, it occasionally led to hasty decisions that lacked thorough consideration. For instance, his initial enthusiasm for U.S. intervention in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War evolved into a prolonged and controversial conflict. Roosevelt's tendency to act swiftly sometimes overshadowed a more measured approach that could have mitigated long-term challenges.

Another weakness was his combative nature, particularly in dealing with political adversaries.

Roosevelt relished a fight, whether in the political arena or the wilderness, and his aggressive tactics sometimes alienated allies and opponents alike. His disdain for those he deemed unprincipled or overly cautious often translated into strained relationships, as seen during his fractious split with William Howard Taft, his handpicked successor. This division not only fractured the Republican Party but also contributed to the election of Woodrow Wilson in 1912.

Roosevelt's rigid worldview also presented challenges. He was deeply committed to the ideals of rugged individualism and the moral superiority of the United States, but this sometimes manifested as an inflexible approach to complex international and domestic issues. His belief in the "civilizing" mission of American expansionism led to policies that disregarded the sovereignty and cultures of other nations, particularly in Latin America. His push for the construction of the Panama Canal, while a remarkable engineering feat, was steeped in controversial diplomatic maneuvers that critics argue undermined U.S.-Panama relations.

Finally, Roosevelt's relentless drive for personal and national achievement took a toll on his health and relationships. His larger-than-life persona often masked the physical and emotional strain of his pursuits. By the time he sought a return to the presidency in 1912, his once-boundless energy was noticeably diminished. His need to constantly prove himself, whether through daring exploits or political battles, sometimes hindered his ability to step back and reflect.

These weaknesses, while significant, are a testament to the complexity of Roosevelt's character. They provide a reminder that even the most celebrated leaders are marked by flaws that shape their legacies in profound ways.

Later years and legacy

After leaving the presidency in 1909, Roosevelt remained politically active, dissatisfied with the direction of his successor, William Howard Taft. In 1912, he ran as a third-party candidate for the Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party, splitting the Republican vote and inadvertently aiding Woodrow Wilson's victory.

Roosevelt's final years were marked by declining health but continued engagement in public life. He was a vocal critic of President Wilson's neutrality during the First World War and advocated for greater U.S. involvement. Despite his declining health, Roosevelt remained active until his death in the early hours of the 6th of January, 1919, at the age of 60.

In conclusion, Theodore Roosevelt's life and career embody a relentless pursuit of excellence, reform, and progress. He transcended the limitations of his childhood frailty to become one of America's most vigorous and influential leaders. From his tireless efforts to combat corruption and monopoly power to his enduring contributions to conservation and global diplomacy, Roosevelt reshaped the role of the presidency and left an indelible mark on the nation's trajectory.

Roosevelt's vision for America was one of fairness, opportunity, and strength, an ethos encapsulated in his "Square Deal." His emphasis on balancing the interests of labor, business, and government reflected a commitment to equity that resonates even in contemporary political discourse.

His work as a conservationist remains one of his most celebrated legacies, inspiring generations to value and protect the natural world.

While Roosevelt's assertive policies and imperialistic tendencies invite critique, they also underscore the complexities of his character, a man whose ambitions and ideals often mirrored the contradictions of his era. His larger-than-life persona, unyielding determination, and innovative leadership made him a figure of profound influence, one whose impact continues to shape the United States and its global role.

Theodore Roosevelt's legacy endures not merely in the policies he championed or the lands he preserved but in the spirit of resilience, reform, and vision he exemplified. He remains a towering figure in American history, reminding us of the transformative power of courage, intellect, and action.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

Bright's disease

Bright's disease is a historical classification of kidney diseases that are described in modern medicine as acute or chronic nephritis. It was characterized by swelling and the presence of albumin in the urine, and was frequently accompanied by high blood pressure and heart disease.

Was George B McClellan the Most Underrated General of the U.S. Civil War?

Here Jeb Smith argues that General George B. McClellan was the most underrated army commander of the Civil War. While he does not consider him to be a great general or military genius, he thinks the common portrayal of him as a terrible commander is unjust. No other Northern general, people say, exemplifies the stereotype of an incompetent and timid leader as McClellan does. The author argues that this is an unwarranted perception.

Abraham Lincoln and George B. McClellan in the general's tent during the Battle of Antietam on October 3, 1862.

“No other general in the war commanded more respect and admiration from his men than George McClellan.”

-John Cannan The Antietam Campaign

“Remember that your only foes are the armed traitors,–and show mercy even to them when they are in your power, for many of them are misguided” and later “Bear in mind that you are in the country of friends, not of enemies,–that you are here to protect, not to destroy.”

-George B McClellan May 26 1861 and June 25 1861

Northern Democrats did not see the South as the spawn of Satan but rather as fellow Americans who, in fact, had produced most of the Union leaders up to that point. General McClellan, a Democrat, held tolerant views of the South and sought to avoid needless bloodshed. These perspectives stand in contrast to those of many modern historians and the Republicans of the time, who shaped the narrative to justify the massacres that would follow, as well as the total warfare of 1864 and 1865.

West Virginia and Promotion

“Harley six weeks had elapsed... and in that time he had actually created an army and began the first campaign.”

-George b McClellan Commanding General U.S army May 26 1861

George B. McClellan, nicknamed “Young Napoleon” or “Little Mac,” graduated second in his class of 59 at the U.S. Military Academy in 1846. His class included 20 future full-rank generals, and he later returned to West Point as an instructor.

After the war began, he excelled at organizing militia from three states into a cohesive fighting force and saw his first action as a commander of Union forces in what is now West Virginia. This was a departure from his later reputation as a slow-moving, timid general. During a successful campaign in the mountainous region he launched aggressive attacks, dislodged Confederate forces, and captured key positions. He forced the retreat of Confederate troops fortified in the mountain terrain, all while taking minimal losses and securing large supply bases and many prisoners. This success helped preserve the future West Virginia for the Union and prevented the destruction of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. President Lincoln was very impressed, which led to McClellan’s appointment to replace McDowell after the latter’s defeat in the Battle of First Manassas[1], and later as the commander of all Union forces.

Organization of the Army of the Potomac

“In a very real sense, McClellan rescued the Union in these early days from dependency and fear. Someone had to rebuild the army and show the country that there was great hope for the future.”

-S.C. Gwynne Rebel Yell: The Violence, Passion and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson Simon and Schuster 2014

The nonmilitary press and President Abraham Lincoln, who was pressured for political reasons, wanted quick action and a fast end to the war. Part of what fueled this was the North's inability (even after First Manassas) to see how determined the South was. They thought this would be a quick, easy conflict. They underestimated the South's resolve to fight and ability to wage war. So, while the press and Lincoln called on Mac for fast action, as a military man Mac understood that the demoralized citizen army needed discipline, training, and organization. He provided these, got rid of poorly-performing generals and instilled spirit and pride in the soldiers while increasing their morale. He came to be loved and revered by his men.

One thing even those who are critical of him admit is that he was a first-rate organizer of the army. Mac took a defeated militia force and turned it into a professional army.

“McClellan had started with…a collection of undisciplined, ill-officered, and un-instructed men, who were, as a rule, much demoralized by defeat and ready to run at the first shot. He ended with the finest army ever seen on the North American continent.”

-James V. Murfin Battlefields of the Civil War

Had the North attacked before they were ready, as Lincoln and the press called for, the result would likely have been further defeats and a shattering blow to national morale. As General Sherman stated, Napoléon took three years to build an army, yet “here it's expected in ninety days, and Bull Run is the consequence.”

Mac's offensive plan, as called for by many in the North, was to mass a large army, some said up to 200,000, to march on Richmond and end the war. The Northern people wanted no mistakes after First Manassas. This was Mac's general plan; one that would take time and preparation. Mac also constructed large fortifications around D.C., which had been left almost entirely unguarded by McDowell, including 48 forts and 480 guns. Given that Mac had to train, organize, recruit, and supply a massive citizen army and transform it into a world-class professional army, the time he took to do so was entirely reasonable.

“When I was placed in command of the armies of the United States, I turned my attention to the whole field of operations, regarding the army of the Potomac as only one, while the most important, of the masses under my command.”

-George B. McClellan 1861

Further, Mac was commander of all armies and planned for a simultaneous synchronized attack across the Confederacy, which would take further time to plan and put in motion. On August 4th, 1861, in a letter to Lincoln, he laid out his plan that included the main attack to be against Richmond but also simultaneously pushing into Missouri and down the Mississippi, and after Kentucky joined the Union to push into Tennessee, seizing Nashville, and also begin capturing coastal cities such as New Orleans, Savannah and Mobile, then move on to Montgomery and Pensacola. Mac wanted one massive assault to wipe out the South and not a prolonged war; this would take time to prepare. In February 1862 he wrote to Secretary of War Stanton, saying “I have ever regarded our true policy as being that of fully preparing ourselves and then seeking for the most decisive results; – I do not wish to waste life in useless battles, but prefer to strike at the heart.” He did not want years of bloodshed to wear down the South, but brief, decisive action to end the war quickly.

Demotion by Lincoln

Just when Mac felt his army was ready, winter had started in, and Mac was bedridden for three weeks around Christmas. Lincoln wanted action now despite the impassable roads (he would not demand Grant move this early in ‘64) and Mac was accused of being timid. This offensive action was attempted in the winter of ‘62 by Burnside, and the results were Fredericksburg and the “mud march,” which ended in Burnside's removal. Grant, in ‘64, would start his spring offensive in April, later than Mac would his Peninsula campaign. As Grant said, the roads in Virginia would not allow large movements of troops before then, leading William Swinton in Campaigns of the Army of the Potomacto write, “It was inevitable that the first leaders should be sacrificed to the nation’s ignorance of war.”

So Mac started at the average time for spring offensives. No other Union army was campaigning during this winter. Yet, because of Lincoln's urgency and what he saw as a too-cautious McClellan, he demoted Mac to simply commander of the Army of the Potomac. Lincoln also forced corps commanders he had chosen on the Army of the Potomac. Mac wanted to wait to promote generals until he had seen them in battle. This was not the last time a politician interfered with Mac's plans.

Peninsula Campaign Begins

“Reduced my force by 1/3, after (bless and do not curse) task had been assigned, its operations planned... it frustrated all my plans... it left me incapable of continuing operations which had been begun. It made rapid and brilliant operations impossible.”

-George B McClellan

“Let me tell you that if your government had supported General McClellan in the field as it should have done, your war would have been ended two years sooner than it was.”

-- General Helmuth von Moltke, Chief of Staff of the Prussian Army and one of the leading military experts of the 19th Century

The Peninsula Campaign began with McClellan's strategic plan for an amphibious operation. Leveraging the North's naval superiority to transport and supply his army, he ultimately aimed for Richmond. Mac anticipated having over 150,000 men for the campaign as he set out for the peninsula. However, once he landed, Lincoln would significantly reduce his army with the other troops spread around the valley, D.C., and the Manassas region.

Mac had wanted more men for the offensive, but Lincoln wanted him to hold men back to guard D.C. Lincoln forced Mac to leave McDowell’s I Corps in D.C. along with the garrison already available. Lincoln now had a garrison of around 20,000 in D.C. and up to 74,000 as far as N.Y. that could be shipped/railed/marched to D.C. if it were attacked. Plus, McClellan had set up world-class fortifications. McClellan, McDowell, Winfield Scott, and every corps commander believed this was more than enough men to guard D.C. and supported McClellan's plan to bring more men, but Lincoln would not allow it for fear of D.C. being attacked. Perhaps out of fear of Stonewall Jackson, it was Lincoln, not the general, who, in this instance, was being overly cautious. In Life and Campaigns of George B. McClellan (1864), author George Stillman Hillard wrote, “From the moment the Army of the Potomac landed upon the Peninsula an uneasy sense of insecurity took possession of the minds of the President, the Cabinet, and the members of Congress.”

So Mac landed the army, which was slow-moving because it was massive and carried heavy siege equipment. He faced the largest army the South would field during the war, 88,000 (Grant faced 65,000 in ’64, with a more significant force under him than Mac enjoyed). Once his army landed, he was notified that Stanton had closed all the recruiting depots in the Union. His army would now have to do without either replacements or reinforcements during a major campaign.

This was a massive shock to Mac and the generals in the army. He then was told that McDowell's 40,000 men near Manassas could not be used but must help defend against any possible action towards D.C., despite the fact that Confederates showed no signs of attacking and even burned the bridges south of Manassas as they retreated to defend Richmond. McDowell told McClellan this decision (McDowell protested it) was “Intended [as] a blow to you.” Then McClellan was told the garrison of 10,000 men at Fort Monroe would also be withheld. Even critics of McClellan, like General Heintzelman, said it was a “great outrage” to withhold his army from his command. General Wells said it was the Radical Republicans trying to get Mac to resign. Harper’s Weekly stated, “It is impossible to exaggerate the mischief which has been done by division of counsels and civilian interference with military movements.” Once more, Mac was aggressive, Lincoln and the politicians conservative.

“In General McClellan’s opinion, the way to defend Washington was to attack Richmond; and the greater the force thrown against the rebel capital, the greater the security of our own.”

-George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B McClellan 1864

Mac was now forced to revise his plans because of Lincoln's caution. In the revised plan, McDowell would advance on Richmond from the north with his 40,000 men and better protect against an attack by Confederate General Joe Johnston if he went north to Washington. However, as Mac argued, the attack on Richmond would force the Confederate army to defend their capital rather than launch a desperate attack on D.C. This disagreement delayed the start of the campaign, with Lincoln getting his way.

“Notwithstanding all that has been said and written upon this subject, I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion, that had not the President and his advisors stood in such ungrounded fear for the safety of Washington, and had not withheld McDowell's forces at a time when their absence was a most serious blow to the plans of General McClellan, the close of the year would have seen the Rebellion crushed, and the war ended.”

-- Allan Pinkerton, chief of the Union Intelligence Service, 1861-1862

Yorktown

Mac moved up the peninsula towards Richmond and was promised McDowell’s men if D.C was free of threat. His army's first encounter was with Confederate General John Magruder and a small Confederate force at Yorktown. Magruder skillfully deceived Mac into believing his force was larger than it actually was. He accomplished this by repositioning the same troops in various locations, acting aggressively, continuously moving small units, using ammunition freely, and setting up dummy defensive positions. This convinced Mac that the Confederate force was more significant than it truly was, prompting him to settle in for a siege while he awaited the arrival of his heavy artillery. Mac was concerned that his inexperienced troops might fail in an assault during the first battle of the campaign, which could damage their morale. Mac eventually captured Yorktown and 80 heavy guns without losses, but the delay gave the Confederates time to organize troops to defend Richmond.

Advance on Richmond

Mac then started to push toward Richmond, and the Confederates gave way. The Union army captured both supply and ordnance during this advance. Mac is criticized for slow movement with a smaller Confederate force in front of him, yet he relied upon his friend and “expert” spy Alan Pinkerton, founder of the Pinkerton Detective Agency. Whatever the value of Pinkerton’s other information, one area in which he failed was in accurately assessing enemy troop numbers. He gave Confederate force numbers from various agents as 160,000, 123,000, 180,000, and even 200,000 in Richmond. And on August 6, Federal General Halleck gave estimates of 200,000 around Richmond. Some northern newspapers working independently gave even higher estimates than Mac did. Because of this, Mac actually believed he was outnumbered.

This was common during the war, with generals thinking the force opposing them was more extensive than it really was. Since this was his information, he believed he was not being cautious but aggressive and daring to continue the campaign, even if at a slow/careful pace. At the time, the enemy numbers were not certain. Mac also waited for his heavy siege artillery to come up from the back, as it was needed to attack Richmond's prominent forts at the Confederate capital.

But without a doubt, the advance was working. Richmond was preparing to evacuate. It forced the Confederates to scuttle the ironclad Virginia, which caused a loss of morale throughout the Confederacy. Confederate General Joe Johnston called General Ewell from Jackson to help in Richmond. McDowell was advancing unopposed north of Richmond. Mac had achieved better success than McDowell, Burnside, Hooker, or Meade advancing on Richmond.

“It was not until 1864 that another Union army, led by Grant, would get as close to Richmond as McClellan did in the spring of 1862.”

--Great Campaigns: The Peninsula Campaign David G. Martin Combined Books PA 1992

The next time the Federals would get this close was under their top general, U.S. Grant. They also fought against a weakened Southern army in ‘64 with a much larger Federal army.

But this time, three things saved Richmond and stopped Mac from capturing the Confederate capital and being hailed as a hero. All three had to happen to stop Mac; two of them were very unlikely and could not have been foreseen.

1] Jackson in the Valley

“The most significant contrast between the Virginia campaigns of Grant and McClellan is that Early's offensive did not accomplish its ultimate objective–to relieve the pressure on Lee's army at Petersburg, Jackson's campaign in the Shenandoah valley did. Unlike McClellan before him, Grant would not be forced to alter his designs on the James River one iota.

-Thomas Rowland George B. McClellan and Civil War History

Unlike Lincoln, Mac saw Jackson's valley campaign as a diversion by Lee (now in command of the Southern Army) to pull federals away to help protect Richmond. Richmond was saved because of Jackson's brilliance in the valley. He outmaneuvered and outfought a force over three times the size of his own (17,000- 60,000), defeating them in multiple battles while also threatening D.C.

Jackson knew Lincoln was concerned with protecting D.C. Hence, he knew that aggressive maneuvers would pull men from the peninsula and help save Richmond. Jackson kept 71,000 additional men away from the Richmond attack with his victories and aggressive maneuvering. Lincoln was constantly scared by what Jackson might do, and this prevented McDowell and other troops from helping Mac; the withholding of McDowell would prove decisive.

2] Lincoln Recalling Troops to the Valley

“[It was] Jackson's campaign, and the insane terror it inspired in Washington, which was the true cause of the failure on the peninsula.”

-Colonel Ferdinand Lecomte, quoted in George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B. McClellan 1864

Because of Jackson, Lincoln recalled troops to defend Washington and the valley. He also held back McDowell's 40,000 from the attack on Richmond. This “Changed the whole nature of the confrontation near Richmond,” and “The Confederacy was truly handed an amazing gift.” Mac would have rather left Jackson to clear out the valley and even attack D.C. if he wished. Mac had built massive forts with a large garrison to protect the capital.

“Here is the true defense of Washington, it is here on the banks of the James.”

-McClellan to Halleck August 4th, quoted in George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B. McClellan 1864

After Pinkerton reported a large number of enemy forces to McClellan, he paused his attack due to McDowell's absence. McDowell was supposed to launch an assault on Richmond from the north to prevent the Confederates from mounting counterattacks. McDowell described his recall to the valley as “a crushing blow to us.” Even Lincoln told McClellan, “If you believe you are not strong enough to take Richmond, just know that I do not ask you to try. Just know.”

3] Lee Replaces Joe Johnston

General Joe Johnston, the commanding Confederate general, was injured and replaced by Robert E. Lee. This would change the entire campaign. Mac had been slowly pushing Johnston back towards Richmond, but Lee would take the initiative and attack Mac.

Lee vs Mac

Lincoln’s maneuvers significantly reduced the Mac forces near Richmond attempting to trap Jackson in the valley. Heavy rains swelled the Chickahominy River and created a split the Potomac army, and Lee saw his opportunity.

Lee, whom many consider not only the premier general of the South but of the war, recalled Jackson from the valley to help in the offensive vs. Mac, now with a force nearly equal to his.

Lee would strike the smaller portion of Mac's army and threaten its supply line under General Porter. Porter was supposed to be supported by McDowell from the north to meet up with his flank coming south from Manassas. Had Mac's plan been allowed, the attack would not have been possible. However, when Lincoln sent McDowell to the valley to trap Jackson, Porter was vulnerable, and Lee pounced, enabling its strategic success.

“General McClellan wished and had advised that reinforcements should be sent him by water, as their arrival would be more certain. Now that the James River was open, they might have been sent by that route... Richmond could have been approached by the James, and we should have escaped the delays and losses incurred by the bridging of the Chickahominy, and should have had the army massed in one body instead of necessarily being divided by that stream... the capture of Richmond could not be carried out because to the president’s distempered fancy Washington was not safe... McClellan was commanded to extend his right wing to the north of Richmond, in order to establish the communication between himself and General McDowell. This was running a great risk in case General McDowell should not come, because it exposed our right in a way no prudent officer would have done; and, as General McDowell did not come, the enemy did not fail to take advantage.”

-George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B. McClellan 1864

Lee attacked in multiple bloody battles, resulting in high losses on both sides. Mac would cause high casualties to Lee during the campaign, inflicting more losses than he received. However, Mac, going from “expert” information, believed he was outnumbered and was in danger of being cut off without help from the north. With Lincoln recalling so many of his troops, he ordered a retreat off the peninsula. Mac telegraphed D.C., stating, “If I save this army now, I tell you plainly I owe no thanks to you or to any other persons in Washington...you have done your best to sacrifice this army.”

The retreat on the peninsula was dangerous, yet McClellan and Porter skillfully conducted it to save their forces from disaster. Mac would withdraw by night and defend a favorable position by day. It was a major strategic victory for the South yet a tactical victory for the Union. Lincoln called it a “half defeat.” Given the force size and causalities suffered, Mac performed better than the future Union commanders of the Army of the Potomac.

-Peninsula campaign stats

-Union Forces 105,000 Casualties 23,900 approx.

-Confederate Forces (inc. Jackson) 88,500 Casualties 29,600 app.

Antietam/Mac Takes Command

“I must have McClellan to reorganize this army and bring it out of chaos...there is no man in this army who can man these fortifications and lick these troops into shape half as well as he can.”

-Abraham Lincoln

“General McClellan has again assumed the supreme command of the army... His reception by the officers and soldiers was marked by the most unbounded enthusiasm. In every camp his arrival was greeted by hearty and prolonged cheering... Already his... visit to our camps has wrought a remarkable change in the soldiers. His presence seemed to act magically upon them; despondency is replaced by confidence, and all are glad that McClellan will, hereafter direct them.”

-Ellis’s Leaves from the Diary of an Army Surgeon, p. 214, quoted in George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B. McClellan 1864

Lincoln's selection of the aggressive Republican general John Pope to lead the army led to the embarrassment at Second Manassas. Pope was then exiled to Minnesota to fight Indians, and Lee turned his attention to an invasion of the North. Meanwhile, Mac had to reorganize Pope’s defeated, demoralized army that was integrated into his command and try to restore morale. Mac was reinstated in command of Pope's army and the Army of the Potomac on September 2nd.  The effect was immediate:

“The effect of the news was instantaneous. All of a sudden the federals forgot their defeat, weariness, and hunger and exploded into triumphant hurrahs, multitudes of caps were thrown in the air.”

-John Cannan The Antietam Campaign

Slow to Meet Lee?

A common criticism of McClellan during the Antietam campaign is that he was slow to move the army out to confront Lee's invasion, which allowed Lee to enter Maryland. Lee entered Maryland around September 4-7. Mac had just taken control of a disorganized, defeated army on the 2nd, and “worked a minor miracle in the next few days as he restored the army's morale and organization, and equally significant, its pride and sense of purpose.” No other man in the army could have restored morale and cohesion as quickly as Mac did before the Battle of Antietam. He had reorganized his army and marched to meet Lee by September 9th. Lee had expected a longer time for Mac to prepare, and his fast reaction spoiled Lee's plan to capture Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In his article Showdown on South Mountain historian Dennis Frye wrote, “Pennsylvania was Robert E Lee's target in September 1862. But Maryland and George McClellan got in the way.”

Mac had other reasons to be cautious. General Halleck advised General McClellan to be watchful regarding Washington, D.C., and to wait until General Lee's intentions were fully understood. Halleck believed that Lee was attempting to draw McClellan out, rather than planning a direct attack on D.C. Additionally, McClellan received continual reports from his cavalry regarding enemy troop strength, estimating between 60,000 and 120,000 soldiers. General Porter estimated Lee's army to be 100,000, while General Sumner's assessment was 130,000. This information was accepted by the Union high command, who believed that Lee must have been reinforced in preparation for an invasion.

Mac moved west, forcing Lee to fall back to link with Jackson from Harpers Ferry. Mac helped lead the attack at the Crampton’s Gap, Turner’s Gap and Fox's Gap battles—all victories. At Turner's Gap, CSA losses were 2,300 and USA losses 1,800, even though the attack was up a mountain and through rough terrain. On Sep 16th, Mac trapped Lee by a flank maneuver on Lee's left and captured the road to Hagerstown, forcing Lee's northern invasion to end. Frye wrote, “Lee saw his invasion crumbling. The most important matter now was not Pennsylvania, but preservation of the army.” Mac even took the unpredictable and aggressive General Stonewall Jackson off-guard, causing him to say “I thought I knew McClellan, but this movement puzzles me.”

The Battle of Antietam

The two armies met near Sharpsburg, Maryland, on September 17th. The “cautious” Mac would assault the Confederate lines, leading to the bloodiest day of the war. Mac's plan was to attack both the Confederate left and right simultaneously, followed up with a massive reserve attack in the center.

While not a complete failure the attack failed to destroy Lee, partly due to Burnside's late arrival at the battle. Burnside delayed his assault on the Confederate right, “throwing off the whole plan,” and allowing Lee to shift reinforcements along his line to meet Union forces in the center and left. McClellan sent a half dozen couriers to Burnside to push him to strike more swiftly and threatened to relieve him of command. Yet, Lee's army was nearly breaking in all three sectors.

Mac did not show tactical genius and made some mistakes, but in the end, it was a strategic victory for the North and a tactical draw. He rested on the 18th to resupply (artillery near out of ammo) and gave orders to attack come daylight on the 19th, but the Confederates had left. The battle sent Lee's wounded army back to Virginia and, more importantly, ended any hopes the Confederacy had for European involvement in the war. Thus Frye wrote that “George McClellan saved the union.”

“A man who could take a demoralized army, as McClellan took the combined forces that had been defeated under Pope in front of Washington at the second Bull Run, restore its discipline by the magic of his name and his swift reconstruction of its shattered organizations, and then lead it to victory within fourteen days, after an almost unexampled celerity of movement against the enemy who had crushed it two weeks before--such a man is not to be spoken of or thought of as wanting in the force and vigor of a great general.”

-- George T. Curtis, U.S. Commissioner, historian

Antietam stats

Union Forces 87,000 Casualties 12,401

Confederate Forces 47,000 Casualties 10,316

McClellan Allowed Lee to Escape?

Lincoln heavily criticized Mac for not destroying Lee's army and not following him back into Virginia. However, Mac had sent Porter to harass the enemy retreat, which had initial success, capturing 40 Confederate artillery pieces. However, A.P. Hill counter-attacked, pushing the Union men back across the Potomac. Hill said it was “The most terrible slaughter...a lesson to the enemy, and taught them to know it may sometimes be dangerous to press a retreating army.”

Often, retreating armies fought significant rearguard actions to prevent their own destruction. Civil War battles rarely ended with the destruction of one or other army, only in 1865 when the South was near defeat was an army nearly annihilated. The assumption it could happen in 1862 points more to the expectations of the early-war North than realistic military goals. When the army was criticized for not destroying Lee's forces, a soldier in the Army of the Potomac replied. “Think the rebel army can be bagged? Let them come and bag them. Easy to talk about.” Historian John Cannan said the counter attack showed the federals that the rebels “still had a formidable bite.” Dennis Frye, who studied the Antietam campaign for over 50 years, wrote that ideas that Lee could be easily destroyed were “Myths created by politicians” not accurate judgments based on historical truth.

Further, the Federals were low on supply and had just fought two large-scale engagements. Lee knew where Mac would be unable to supply his army and planned his withdrawal accordingly. Mac was also working off his cavalry’s and Pinkerton's estimates of the Confederate strength. Thinking the Confederates still had equal force, he chose not to push the attack or risk a loss on Maryland soil that would endanger D.C. and the outcome of the war.

Far from defeated, after Lee had fallen back to Virginia he planned to continue the attack again. He sent Stuart’s Cavalry to create a bridgehead at Williamsport, Maryland, to renew the invasion. However, Mac had anticipated this move and sent his own cavalry along with the 6th Corps to prevent such a move. As argued by Dennis Frye, Mac outthought Lee in Maryland.

Later in October, Mac's quick and aggressive move into the Warrenton, Virginia area surprised Lee, splitting Lee's army. Both Lee and Longstreet were concerned. However, Lincoln had given the order two days before, and Mac was removed from command.

Conclusion

“There are strong grounds for believing that he was the best commander the army of the Potomac ever had.”

-Francis Palfrey Antietam, Fredericksburg

While I would not go as far as the above quote does, I would say Mac was the most underrated general of the war. He does not get credit where he should and gets the blame where he should not. I do not see Mac as cautious to a fault as claimed. It was often Lincoln, Stanton, and Halleck being over-cautious about protecting D.C. that interfered with Mac's plans. And his military intel let him down, not his over-cautious nature.

“Look at his campaign in Western Virginia in 1861,–a part of his military career conveniently ignored by his enemies. Here he had a separate command, a defined field of action and was not hampered and trammeled by interference from Washington; and do we see any signs of indecision and want of promptness here? On the contrary, we observe the happiest combination of judgement in design and vigor in execution: one skilful and powerful blow was instantly followed by another, and the result was absolute and permanent military success.”

-George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B. McClellan 1864

Lincoln and the press wanted aggression, and the results were First Manassas, Burnside at Fredericksburg, Pope at Second Manassas, and later Hooker at Chancellorsville. No general of the early war could handle the tandem of Jackson and Lee. Extreme events withheld Mac from the capture of Richmond in ‘62.

A fair critical comparison between Mac and Sherman/Grant is favorable to Mac. Later, when Grant/Sherman gained victories, it was more because of the Confederate armies' reduced capability to offer resistance than their ability to be outgeneral Mac.

I believe the real reason for Lincoln's disappointment with Mac was the North's high expectations. Underestimating the resolve of the South and their leadership, the North desired one battle and one victory in Virginia, which would win the war for them. But it took years for them to realize their error, though doubt began early as Lincoln wrote to his friend Carl Schurz in 1862, “I fear we shall at last find out that the difficulty is in our cause rather than in particular generals.”

“McClellan's relationship with Lincoln is central to any understanding of why historians judge him as a flawed personality...Lincoln has attained a stature that sets him apart from other mortals”

-Thomas J Rowland George B McClellan and Civil Har History: In the Shadow of Grant and Sherman Kent State University Press

Historians may have viewed McClellan negatively because he opposed and disagreed with Lincoln. He committed the “unpardonable sin” of running against Lincoln in the 1864 election on a peace platform aimed at ending the bloodshed. In 1864 George Stillman Hillard wrote, “The real reasons for which General McClellan was removed were political, and not military.” Historian Dennis Frye said “The Republicans could not allow McClellan to be a victor. They could not allow that to happen. They needed to do everything they could to smear McClellan.”

“However patriotic the abolitionist radicals in the north may have been, the very last thing they wanted was for Little Mac to win in the battle for Richmond....the abolitionists would lose their influence.”

-S.C. Gwynne Rebel Yell The Violence, Passion, and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson Simon and Schuster 2014

“There is a political element connected with this war which must not be overlooked.”

-Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War Dec 26 1861 quoted in George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B. McClellan 1864

Lincoln acknowledged that he made many errors that undermined McClellan's chances for success. After McClellan, Lincoln refrained from becoming directly involved with his generals. It appears that some historians have unfairly attributed Lincoln's military shortcomings to McClellan.

“At this moment a considerable portion of his countrymen have their minds barred against all arguments and considerations in defense of General McClellan, by political prejudice. To deny him all military capacity is part of the creed of a great political party. Most supporters of the present administration hold it to be a point of duty to disparage and decry him.”

-George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B. McClellan 1864

Jeb Smith is the author of four books, the most recent being Missing Monarchy: Correcting Misconceptions About The Middle Ages, Medieval Kingship, Democracy, And Liberty. Before that, he published The Road Goes Ever On and On: A New Perspective on J. R. R. Tolkien and Middle-earth and also authored Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War, written under the name Isaac C. Bishop. Smith has authored dozens of articles in numerous publications, including History is Now Magazine, The Postil Magazine, Medieval History, Medieval Magazine, and Fellowship & Fairydust, and has been featured on various podcasts.

Major Battles and Casualties of Union Generals vs Lee

Union commander/ Battle/ Union Losses/ Lee loses/ Union causality per confederate causality

Pope- Second Manassas 13,879 Lee 8,353 1.65 per

Hooker- Chancellorsville 17,100 Lee 12,151 1.43 per

Burnside- Fredericksburg 13,353 Lee 4,576 2.95 per

Grant- Wilderness 18,400 Lee 11,400 1.61 per

Grant- Spotsylvania 18,000 Lee 12,000 1.5 per

Grant- Cold Harbor 12,737 Lee 4,594 2.8 per

Grant- Total 49,100 Lee 27,900 1.75 per

Meade- Gettysburg 23,049 Lee 28,063 .82 per

Meade- Total [above/Grant] 72,049 Lee 55,963 1.29 per

McClellan- Peninsula 15,849 Lee 20,133 .78 per

McClellan - Antietam 12,401 Lee 10,316 1.2 per

McClellan - Total 28,250 Lee 30,449 .92 per

McClellan was the only Union general to give more casualties than taken when faced with Lee. His average over two battles was only bested once by a Union commander, by Meade (who performed worse overall) at Gettysburg. Mac fought against Lee with, if anything, less of a manpower advantage than Grant would have later on. He also faced the Army of Northern Virginia while it had Jackson, was well supplied, and the South had high national morale, unlike what Grant faced.

How many other Union commanders can claim over two battles with Lee to have won a tactical victory on the first and a strategic victory and a tactical draw on the second while inflicting heavy losses? It is no wonder Lee said Mac was the best he faced. And famed Confederate John Mosby, the “gray ghost of the Confederacy,” said that McClellan was the best Union commander “by all odds.”

[1] The two battles at the same site were referred to as First and Second Manassas by the Confederacy, First and Second Bull Run by the Union. I will stick to Manassas throughout, except that where quotations from the Union side refer to Bull Run this will be left unchanged.

The North Siders - Chicago’s Pirate Robin Hoods: Hymie Weiss

The Roaring Twenties were a time period filled with tales of adventure and glamour. Prohibition fueled a party lifestyle - and made available a dangerous but adrenaline fueled life to some of the more enterprising members of the underworld. In Chicago, Illinois, the Twenties have become a time of legend and usually call to mind one man, Al Capone. But Capone, for all intents and purposes, was only a figure head during the Beer Wars. He ran his gang and racket, but he delegated the dirty work.

To the north of him was a group that was, as one newspaper of the time called them, Modern Day Pirates, The North Side Gang. Consider Capone the Prince John to their Robin Hood and his Merry-men, an analogy that Rose Keefe introduced in her book, Guns and Roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion. Robin Hood isn’t quite as steal from the rich to give to the poor and you’ll need to give Little John a temper and thirst for vengeance that was unrivaled. Also, make the merry-men a little crazier and a lot more deadly. You get the picture.

Hymie Weiss more than likely would look back at 1924 as one of those years where everything and anything just seemed to have gone wrong for him. It had all calumniated in the death of his best friend and mentor in November. When Dean O’Banion died, Hymie said everything he had in the world was gone. But that didn’t mean that he was going to stand by and let it stay that way. He mourned his friend, buried him and then began a campaign of vengeance.

Erin Finlen continues her series.

Part one is here.

Grave of Hymie Weiss at Mount Carmel Cemetery in Hillside, Illinois. Source: Nick Number, available here.

Childhood

West Division Street ran through the middle of the Polish neighborhood of Bucktown on the West Side of Chicago and at 2021 W. Division Street was a saloon that was run by William Wojciechowski and his wife Mary. The pair had moved from New York with their children, Joseph, Bernard, and Frederick. In Chicago, they welcomed another daughter named Violet. Then, on January 25, 1898, the youngest of their children, Henryk Josef Wojciechowski, was born, although he would later change his name to Earl, saying it sounded like royalty. His mother would eventually decide to Americanize their last name to Weiss, although not legally.

He was enrolled at a school, St. Malachy’s on Washington, where he, from all accounts was a smart child with lots of friends, adored by his teachers. One even gave him a pocket bible which he would carry in his pocket for the rest of his life. The influences of the saloon life ran deep, and in 1913 his oldest brother, Joseph, was arrested and charged in the murder of three men. According to Joseph and his father a fight had broken out and Joseph was acting in self-defense. He was acquitted. However, rumors soon started circulating in the newspapers that the trial had been fixed and Joseph moved to New Mexico, where he died from Tuberculosis. Whatever the effect this had on Jospeh’s younger siblings is hard to say, as at this time Henryk would have been sixteen and already involved in crime on his own. He had also taken the name Earl.

Hotheadedness and violence seemed to run in the family though, as William, his father was arrested and injured in a labor dispute in Buffalo, New York in 1894 and Fred, Earl’s brother, was also considered to have had a formidable temper as well.

For the most part though, young Earl was no different than most other boys his age, involved in street gang wars from the time he was ten. He wasn’t the healthiest and had suffered from headaches for a long time. In 1918, he tried to join the army but was denied, as his draft card says, for a “double rupture” in his heart. At the time, Weiss was angry, annoyed that he couldn’t serve his country with the skills he had earned on the street. History, though, had different plans for Earl Weiss.

The Making of an Outlaw

Weiss was not an outwardly friendly individual and he was even less adept at making friends with newspapermen, telling them, “If you take my picture, I swear I’ll kill you.” Making an enemy of the press had earned him a much hated nickname, “The Perfume Burglar,” after he tried to rob a store, knocked over the perfume counter and was arrested smelling strongly of multiple scents. Eventually, the press and the underworld gave him a new nickname, “Hymie,” because of his outwardly Jewish appearance, even though he was catholic. He didn’t mind the nickname and seems to have let it stick.

After being turned away from military service he turned his criminal pursuits to safe cracking with Charles Reiser, where he met his mentor and best friend, Dean O’Banion. As discussed in Dean’s article the pair were a study in opposites and while Weiss is often branded the temperamental one it was he that was better at thinking through his actions and planning ahead. Unless provoked, of course.

In June of 1920 he shot his brother, Fred, in their shared apartment for a joke his brother made about Hymie not serving in the military (while newspaper articles at the time say that Fred served in the army, I have yet to find anything besides his draft card and his headstone does not bare the veteran symbol). In a fit of anger he shot Fred square in the chest and then, took him to a nearby hospital before running away. Fred survived and begged the doctors to not look into, although they reported it to the police anyway. The police arrested Weiss, but were not able to find any evidence to convict him.

In the meantime, he was busy helping Dean build their bootlegging empire with their friends Vincent Drucci and George Moran. They were making enough money now to be able to bribe most cops and judges. While they were bootlegging, they continued to pursue other criminal activities. In 1922, Weiss and Moran, under his alias of George Nolan were arrested after a police chase for stealing jewels. No charges were ever pressed all the police did have to fire shots to get the pair to pull over.

Illness and Mourning

At the same time, Weiss was making regular use of the couch that Dean had placed in his office for him. The regular headaches that had plagued him all his life were growing more frequent and the pain getting so unbearable he once had a fit on the floor of the North Siders garage. In early 1924, he left Chicago for Hot Springs, Arkansas in hopes of improving his health. While away, his brother in law and Dean were placed under suspicion for the murder of John Duffy and his name was brought into the equation due to the car being in his name. There probably wasn’t much of the hoped for relaxing on the trip.

When he returned he received a devastating diagnosis, he had terminal arterial cancer. This had been causing the headaches and fainting for so long. It was also the cause of that double rupture that had kept him out of World War I. He was given around two years to live and he intended to make the most of them. He is quoted as saying, “I’m not going to live long, but I will live long enough.” He just had to deal with fallout from Sieben Brewery raid.

It is suspected that he was the real mastermind behind ending the Torrio treaty. He was the thinker of the group but whether he didn’t consider the consequences or simply didn’t think they would be so severe, he still found himself mourning the loss of his best friend in November of that year.

A lifetime of an impulsive temper and hard knocks had taught Weiss a thing or two about revenge and as he drove out of Dean O’Banion’s funeral he was determined to make the people who took him from him pay.

Love and War

Weiss waited and he planned. From November until January he gathered information and observed. Then on January 24, 1925, when Johnny Torrio and his wife pulled up outside their home after a shopping trip Weiss and Moran with Drucci driving the car pulled up next behind them. After waiting for Anna Torrio and the dog to be clear of the car they fired on Johnny Torrio, hitting him multiple times. When he fell to the ground, George Moran ran up to shoot the fatal shot when a laundry truck came around the corner and Drucci blew the horn: it was time to go. Thinking they had done enough damage the North Siders fled the scene. Anna Torrio, a nurse ran to her husband’s side and slowed the bleeding until ambulances arrived.

When word reached Hymie Weiss that he had not succeeded in eliminating Torrio, who was now in critical condition but very much alive in a hospital he was furious. One nurses account gives us an idea of how he reacted when the planning and intelligent part of his brain gave way to the impulsive and angry emotions. She told authorities that a man had run up to the desk demanding to know where Torrio was. She refused, saying no one was allowed to see him, Torrio’s wife had insisted on no one but family and an approved few friends. The man insisted and the nurse, thinking quickly, informed him that there was an increased police presence at the hospital. The man left in hurry after that. The nurse later identified the man as Earl “Hymie” Weiss from his mugshot.

1925 was not off to an auspicious start in anyway and in April, Weiss appeared in court for charges from a bootlegging arrest the previous year. Having originally made a plea of not guilty, he changed it to guilty and in May would serve six months at McHenry County Jail. He was still able to keep in touch and visit with the other members of the North Side Gang and by this time it had become clear that he was the new boss, through his intelligence and the charm that he did have but regularly chose not to use.

When he got out in the fall of 1925, the Genna Gang was no longer an issue, being eliminated through the police, Capone, and Drucci and Moran. He seemed to have relaxed a little and that could be because fell in love shortly after his release.

He met a Follies’ Girl by the name of Josephine Simard in the lobby of the Congress and the two immediately hit it off. He even followed her to New York when she left and returned with her now as husband and wife.

She was what Dean had been for him, a ray of sunshine to his dark moods and while they did fight often—the famous scene in “The Public Enemy” (1931) where James Cagney shoves a melon into Mae Wests face is supposedly based off of Hymie Weiss shoving an omelet in Josephine’s face when she wouldn’t stop talking one morning— they were a well matched pair and seemed very happy together.

He might have cooled in his quest for revenge but his temper certainly had not. In June of 1926, when he was at a party raided by police, he forced the policeman to leave at gun point. The police obviously came back with help and Weiss and a friend were arrested. Weiss wasn’t done yet and filed a petition to be reimbursed for items he believed were stolen during the raid. The petition was quickly denied, but it seems that it might have stirred something of the old Weiss in him.

The Battle Resumes

In August of 1925, Weiss and Drucci, who had been a massive thorn in the side for Al Capone for a while were attacked by rival gangsters and involved in a shoot-out in front of the Standard Oil Building. Well, Drucci was. Weiss ran for cover and Drucci hopped on the running boards of a passing car, telling the driver to follow the assailants, before he was nabbed by the cops. Weiss telephoned his mother, Mary Weiss, who showed up at the police station to pay Drucci’s bail. Drucci’s explanation to police for the event was the gangsters were trying to rob him.

Police and the North Siders weren’t fooled. It was the Capone gangsters as retribution for the killing of Al Capone’s chauffeur, who it was believed was kidnapped and tortured for information about Capone’s routine by the North Side Gang (Note: John Binder, in his book “Al Capone’s Beer Wars” posits that this was probably not the North Side Gang and I am inclined to agree: it did not fit with any of the other crimes committed by the gang under Weiss. Torture of those not directly involved with a life of crime was not their style. It was more likely the Saltis gang behind the chauffeur’s death).

For a month, Hymie Weiss, Vincent Drucci, and George Moran waited before their next attack. The audacity and publicity of the attack has gone down in history as one of the more dramatic gangland attacks of all time. On September 20, 1926 a parade of cars pulled up in front of the Hawthorne Hotel where Capone was having lunch. They fired a first volley of blank ammunition to draw Capone outside and then the real firing began. The mess of shooting used somewhere around two hundred bullets and witnesses agreed they saw Hymie Weiss and Moran or one of the Gusenberg Brothers get out and fire Tommy Guns into the restaurant. One of the Capone gunmen from the Standard Oil Shootout was injured and so was a woman eating in the restaurant. Capone paid for her hospital bills.

Capone decided to give peace talks one more try but not in person, he sent a liaison. Capone was famously scared of Weiss and it’s easy to see why. Capone was a man with a lot to lose and Weiss, as he saw it, had nothing. Weiss told the liaison that he would agree to peace if Capone surrendered John Scalise and Albert Anselmi, who he knew were involved in the murder of Dean O’Banion, to the North Siders. Capone refused and Weiss left the meeting angry.

October 11, 1926, Hymie Weiss’s car pulled up outside Holy Name Cathedral, with four of his men. As he was crossing the street bullets from Thompson SubMachine Gun burst from the window of a nearby apartment. Weiss fell to the ground unconscious and died on the way to the hospital. Paddy Murray, a fellow gangster was also killed and the other three men were critically injured. The side of the church was broken with machine gun bullets and streets away, when Vincent Drucci heard the news he was distraught and newspapers reported that he was being held back from attacking the perpetrators.

Saying Goodbye

Weiss’s funeral wasn’t quite as big as O’Banion’s, a fact that irritated Josephine Simard, but Moran tried to gently explain that they had lost several friends to violence over the last two years. Mary Weiss was accompanied by her two sons and sobbed next to the coffin.

In the fall of 1927, the will of Earl J. Weiss was called into question and while Josephine tried to stand her ground she was no match for the formidable Mary Weiss, who refused to relinquish anything except the car that had been gifted to her (and even that was on court orders) without a marriage certificate, which Josephine could not produce.

Left with two bosses to choose from, there was really only one person to step in after Hymie Weiss died, the man who had loved him as a brother and the one who was nicknamed Schemer for his crazy plans, Vincent Drucci.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Sources

Binder, J. J. (2017). Al Capone’s Beer wars: A Complete History of Organized Crime in Chicago during Prohibition. Prometheus Books.

Burns, W. N. (1931). The one-way ride: The Red Trail of Chicago Gangland from Prohibition to Jake Lingle.

Keefe, R. (2003). Guns and roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion, Chicago’s Big Shot Before Al Capone. Turner Publishing Company.

Keefe, R. (2005). The Man who Got Away: The Bugs Moran Story : a Biography. Cumberland House Publishing.

Kobler, J. (2003). Capone: The Life and World of Al Capone. Da Capo Press.

Sullivan, E. D. (1929). Rattling the cup on Chicago crime.

Otto von Bismarck: The Architect of German Unification

Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898) was a German statesman whose name is synonymous with the unification of Germany and the realpolitik approach to diplomacy. Born into a noble family in the Kingdom of Prussia, Bismarck was well-educated and initially embarked on a career in law. However, he was soon drawn into politics, where his career would have a monumental impact on the future of Europe.

Terry Bailey explains.

A portrait of Otto von Bismarck by Franz von Lenbach.

Early life and entry into politics

Bismarck was born in Schönhausen, a small town near Berlin, into a family of Junker nobility. His early life was marked by a rigorous education, first in law at the University of Göttingen and then at the University of Berlin. His political career began in earnest when he became a member of the Prussian Landtag (state parliament) in the 1840s. During this period, he became known for his conservative views and strong advocacy for the interests of the Junker aristocracy.

Bismarck's early political career was largely uneventful, but he gained attention in 1847 when he was appointed Prussia's envoy to the German Confederation in Frankfurt. His time in Frankfurt exposed him to the complex political dynamics of the German states, and it became clear that his ambition was to elevate Prussia to the leadership of a unified Germany. He returned to Prussia in 1851 and was soon appointed to the Prussian cabinet in the House of Lords.

Architect of German unification

In 1862, Bismarck was appointed Prime Minister of Prussia by Wilhelm I, who sought a strong leader to counter growing tensions within the German Confederation. This appointment marked the beginning of Bismarck's full ascendancy in European politics. Bismarck's primary political goal was the unification of Germany under Prussian leadership, but he understood that this could only be achieved through a combination of diplomacy, military strategy, and deft manipulation of the various German states.

His most famous and successful diplomacy was the orchestration of the wars that would unite Germany: the Danish War (1864), the Austro-Prussian War (1866), and the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871). In each case, Bismarck employed a mix of political maneuvering, military force, and diplomatic alliances to isolate Germany's enemies and win wars that were pivotal for unification.

The Danish War saw Prussia form an alliance with Austria to seize the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein from Denmark, weakening Austria's influence in the region. The Austro-Prussian War, however, marked a definitive shift in the balance of power. Bismarck cleverly engineered the conflict to ensure that Austria was isolated diplomatically and defeated swiftly. The war led to the exclusion of Austria from German affairs, paving the way for the formation of the North German Confederation under Prussian leadership.

The final step in the plan came with the Franco-Prussian War. By provoking France into declaring war, Bismarck played on French fears of a united Germany under Prussian leadership, and in the subsequent victory, the southern German states were drawn into the newly formed German Empire. The proclamation of the German Empire in 1871 at the Palace of Versailles was the crowning achievement of Bismarck's career, but it was not the end of his influence.

Strengths

Otto von Bismarck stands as one of history's most formidable statesmen, whose political strength and strategic acumen reshaped 19th-century Europe. Known as the "Iron Chancellor," Bismarck's ability to balance ruthless pragmatism with long-term vision enabled him to unify Germany under Prussian dominance, securing its place as a major European power. His political strength lay not only in his grasp of realpolitik, the politics of pragmatism and power but in his skillful diplomacy, his understanding of timing, and his ability to manipulate complex political landscapes to his advantage.

His unmatched capacity for strategic diplomacy was pivotal in his success. He masterfully exploited the rivalries among Europe's great powers to achieve his objectives while avoiding prolonged wars. For instance, his orchestration of the wars against Denmark (1864), Austria (1866), and France (1870–1871) followed a calculated progression. Each conflict was designed to isolate his enemies, bolster Prussia's influence, and rally German states around a shared national cause. His deft handling of alliances ensured that Prussia remained secure and dominant while his opponents were often outmaneuvered and divided.

As Chancellor, his political strength was equally evident in domestic affairs. His introduction of progressive social reforms, such as Germany's pioneering welfare state, was a strategic move to counteract the growing appeal of socialism among the working class. By providing health insurance, accident insurance, and pensions, Bismarck both stabilized German society and secured the loyalty of key segments of the population. This innovative approach demonstrated his foresight, blending conservative governance with reforms that preempted social unrest.

Another key aspect of the man's strength was his adaptability and control over the political narrative. He was adept at using the press and public opinion to further his goals, exemplified by his manipulation of the Ems Dispatch to provoke France into declaring the Franco-Prussian War. This event unified German states against a common enemy and ensured their allegiance to Prussia. Bismarck's ability to manipulate information for strategic purposes underscored his comprehensive understanding of power dynamics in a rapidly changing world.

His political strength was a combination of his diplomatic brilliance, his willingness to innovate when necessary, and his mastery of realpolitik. His legacy, though complex, remains a testament to the power of strategic foresight and the skillful use of both diplomacy and pragmatism to achieve transformative goals.

Weaknesses

As stated, Otto von Bismarck, is often celebrated as the "Iron Chancellor," and a statesman of unparalleled influence who unified Germany through shrewd diplomacy and strategic warfare. His political strength lay in his ability to manipulate allies and rivals, navigate the complexities of European power dynamics, and create a unified German Empire under Prussian dominance. Yet, even this giant of 19th-century politics was not without weaknesses, both personal and professional, that shaped and sometimes undermined his legacy.

One of Bismarck's greatest weaknesses was his tendency to centralize power to the extent of becoming a micromanager. While this trait allowed him to control the intricate web of alliances and negotiations that defined his foreign policy, it also made his administration overly reliant on his presence. His reluctance to delegate authority left his successors ill-prepared to manage the empire he had built, a flaw that became glaringly evident after his forced resignation in 1890. Without Bismarck's guiding hand, the complex alliances he had forged began to unravel, setting the stage for the geopolitical tensions that culminated in the First World War.

Domestically, Bismarck's authoritarian approach to governance revealed significant weaknesses. While his Kulturkampf sought to reduce the influence of the Catholic Church, it alienated a significant portion of the population, ultimately forcing him to abandon the campaign. Similarly, his Anti-Socialist Laws, intended to suppress the growing socialist movement, failed to address the root causes of workers' discontent, even though he was instrumental in instigating small social changes. By prioritizing suppression over reform, Bismarck inadvertently fueled the very movements he sought to neutralize. His short-sighted domestic policies created long-term tensions that his successors struggled to manage.

His foreign policy brilliance was accompanied by a significant flaw: his emphasis on isolating France to maintain peace in Europe. While his creation of the intricate system of alliances, such as the League of the Three Emperors and the Triple Alliance, kept France diplomatically marginalized, it depended on maintaining a delicate balance between competing powers like Austria-Hungary and Russia. Bismarck's inability to resolve the underlying tensions between these two empires meant that his carefully constructed system was inherently unstable. When Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck, the absence of his balancing act left Europe vulnerable to conflict.

On a personal level, Bismarck's paranoia and manipulative tendencies alienated many of his contemporaries. His habit of using crises, both real and manufactured, to consolidate power created distrust among allies and subordinates alike. His relationship with Wilhelm I was often fraught, and his domineering style did not endear him to the young Wilhelm II, who ultimately dismissed him. Bismarck's inability to adapt to changing circumstances and his overreliance on confrontation rather than compromise limited his effectiveness in the later years of his career.

Bismarck's strengths as a political strategist were undeniable, but his weaknesses, an over-centralization of power, inflexibility in domestic policies, an unsustainable foreign policy framework, and a manipulative approach to leadership, cast a long shadow over his achievements. While his legacy as the architect of German unification remains intact, the vulnerabilities in his approach sowed seeds of discord that would later fracture the empire he worked so tirelessly to create.

In conclusion, Otto von Bismarck's life and career stand as a testament to the power of strong, calculated leadership and the profound influence a single individual can have on the course of history. His contributions to the unification of Germany not only redefined the map of Europe but also established Germany as a central power on the world stage. Bismarck's ability to navigate the complex web of 19th-century European diplomacy was unparalleled, as he skillfully maintained peace through a carefully balanced system of alliances designed to preserve Germany's position and prevent large-scale conflicts.

However, his legacy is far from unblemished. While his Realpolitik solidified German unity and stability during his tenure, his policies also fostered a fragile equilibrium that depended heavily on his oversight. His dismissal by Kaiser Wilhelm II disrupted this delicate balance, and the subsequent abandonment of his cautious diplomacy contributed to the volatile environment that would lead to the First World War. Moreover, Bismarck's emphasis on authoritarian governance, repression of socialist movements, and the Kulturkampf revealed a darker side to his statesmanship, which continues to spark debates about the long-term impact of his methods.

Ultimately, Bismarck's legacy is a dual-edged sword. On one hand, he was a visionary who forged a modern German state and achieved unparalleled diplomatic success. On the other hand, the very foundations he laid carried within them the potential for instability and conflict. His life exemplifies both the triumphs and the limits of power, leaving an indelible mark on European history that continues to be studied and debated. Bismarck's story is not just a narrative of unification and strategy but also a cautionary tale about the unintended consequences of even the most masterful leadership.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

Ems Dispatch

The Ems dispatch (French: Dépêche d'Ems, German: Emser Depesche), sometimes called the Ems telegram, was published on the 13th of July, 1870; it incited the Second French Empire to declare war on the Kingdom of Prussia on the 19th of July, 1870, starting the Franco-Prussian War.

The actual dispatch was an internal telegram sent by Heinrich Abeken from Prussian King Wilhelm I's vacationing site at Ems to Otto von Bismarck in Berlin, describing demands made by the French ambassador concerning the Spanish succession.

Bismarck, the chancellor of the North German Confederation, released a statement to the press, stirring up emotions in both France and Germany.

The name referred to Bad Ems, a resort spa east of Koblenz on the Lahn river, then in Hesse-Nassau, a new possession of Prussia.

The Kulturkampf

In the history of Germany, the Kulturkampf (Cultural Struggle) was the seven-year political conflict (1871–1878) between the Catholic Church in Germany led by Pope Pius IX and the Kingdom of Prussia led by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.

The Prussian church-and-state political conflict was about the church's direct control over both education and ecclesiastical appointments in the Prussian kingdom as a Roman Catholic nation and country.

Moreover, when compared to other church-and-state conflicts about political culture, the Kulturkampf of Prussia additionally featured anti-Polish sentiment.

A Remarkable World War 2 Major – John Howard

Major John Howard (December 8, 1912 - May 5, 1999) served as an Officer in the British Airbourne Division during the Second World War. His military career and his reputation were made famous during the early hours of D-Day at the Orne River and Cean Canal Bridge, more famously referred to as Pegasus Bridge. The operation to seize these Bridges from the Germans was of vital importance to the whole of the D-Day invasion. His wartime exploits featured in the iconic war film the Longest Day. In that film Howard was played by actor Richard Todd who in fact served under Howard himself and was present in real life at Pegasus Bridge. Who was this real life hero and what was his story?

Stephen Prout explains.

Major John Howard.

John Howard’s early years

Within Howards own written account he describes his early very ordinary upbringing which was not unusual for families in Britain at the time. He was born in West London in 1912. At school Howard performed well academically, but he would be denied the chance of a place in a secondary school due to the poor state of his family’s finances. He found his outlet as a member of the scouts where he could exercise his passion avidly in outdoor pursuits, boxing, and various other sports he enjoyed. This focus on his physical fitness would serve him well in the following years with his time in the army.

He then began working life starting in a clerical position at a stockbroker. This position was then abruptly cut short by the economic recession of the 1930s. The outlook for most families in Britain at this time was bleak and Howard’s family was no exception and so with few other options Howard joined the British Army where he went on to serve two separate terms.

First enlistment in the army

Howard enlisted in the British Army in 1932, serving in Shrewsbury first as a private soldier and then as a non-commissioned officer until 1938. His first term in the army was not particularly eventful. There were few opportunities for advancement in a peacetime army and his attempts to build a career were limited. Howard also found army life difficult in so much as he did not find settling in easy. His skill at physical fitness soon attracted the attention of his superiors and he performed consistently well on army exams to become became a company clerk and later a physical training instructor.

However when his application for a commission as an officer was rejected, the highest rank he would reach at this stage was to corporal. He therefore left in 1938 to serve as police constable in Oxford. With the outbreak of World War Two John Howard was recalled for duty. This time his army career would be quite different and earn him a small place in the history books.

The Second World War and second enlistment

By September 1939 Britain was once again at war with Germany and Howard began serving a second term in the Army. This would present him with a completely distinct experience from his first spell in the army. This time he would progress multiple times up through the officer ranks. He began his second term as Regimental Sergeant Major in the King's Shropshire Light Infantry and by the time he was in action on June 6, 1944 he advanced to the rank of Major. He was one of the first of many of the allied soldiers in combat within the opening hours of D-DAY at Pegasus Bridge. It would be an event that would make him remembered.

The war changed the culture in the Army but only very gradually. Howard’s first challenge was a familiar one and it was to do with ascension into the higher chain of command in the army. Howard was one of the first officers in the British Army whose rise in rank was not assisted or influenced by the incredibly old and exclusive social class network that was prevalent at the time. It was a network where only select individuals from certain backgrounds were permitted into the officer ranks and these individuals were usually drawn from the wealthy classes.

His progression was a rarity amongst the officer classes, and he would feel this discomfort so much so that this rise in the ranks was not always met with ease. Due to the elitist nature of the British Army Officer class, Howard initially had difficulty establishing himself with the ranks of the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, second battalion, initially as Second Lieutenant. The idea of an officer being recruited, progressing, and breaking traditional norms was not common and in many quarters frowned upon by existing officer classes. All this would gradually change as the war progressed. Acceptance eventually came by the time he was promoted to Captain in 1941. His reputation would establish him as a respected leader and by the time his mission on D-Day was over his abilities were never in doubt. He was then swiftly promoted to Major.

The Road to D-Day

Howard soon proved to his peers to be an outstanding, committed, professionally driven officer and he quickly earned their respect. In the months preceding D-Day he trained his men relentlessly, and at the same time also expected no less if not more from his officers. He constantly tested the men and officers’ physical fitness with a combination of continuous training such as day and nighttime maneuvers with regular sporting activities. The results paid off in the way the men performed and quickly executed their mission on D-Day at the Orne River bridges. As his assault began the defending Germans on the bridge were caught by surprise. They were convinced that they were facing a superior if not larger force on that eventful night of June 6.. Howard’s men quickly overcame the defenders. The training had paid off.

Howard prepared his men exceptionally well and he was determined that he and his men would be ready for the tasks that lay ahead. For one exercise he requested that a training ground be found which could resemble the terrain and conditions he and his men expected to face in Normandy to carry out simulations. Such a site was identified and that was near the River Exe in Exeter, Devon.

In that simulation he deployed his men to execute numerous demanding drills and practice assaults. Once the exercises had finished he then had his men march back from Exeter to their base in Oxford. It was a long haul, and they were all met with a mixture of heavy rain and scorching summer weather, but the men and Howard continued to persevere. There were no exceptions with no “officer privilege” as all ranks including Howard were to complete the march together. It earned him the respect of his men.

Howard also expected discipline from his officers when they had finally returned to base and his men were showered, fed, and bedded down. When he was not conducting day or night military training he insisted the men of his D Company were kept active with various sports or cross country runs. By the time Operation Overlord was ready to be launched they were a cohesive professional elite force.

During the training, Howard reported that he suffered constant airsickness and the only occasion he avoided this was on the actual assault on Pegasus Bridge where of course he had other matters on his mind.

Between 1941 and 1942 he moved between ranks as he joined the airborne division and took on D Company. He took a temporary demotion from Captain to take on the command of the glider division, but his rank to Captain was restored in 1942 and he would progress further on to become a Major.

On June 5 there was a lot of anticipation and fraught nerves which were made worse by the waiting as an adverse weather front was not going to settle. Later that day the signs were beginning to show that the weather was turning and so the mission was ready to launch. "D" Company began to mobilize and prepared to board their gliders. The gravity of the moment was not lost. In Major Howard’s words, "It was an amazing sight. The smaller chaps were visibly sagging at the knees under the amount of kit they had to carry.” Prior to boarding Howard attempted to give them a pep talk, "I am a sentimental man at heart, for which reason I don't think I am a good soldier. I found offering my thanks to these chaps a devil of a job. My voice just wasn't my own." Just before eleven o’clock, Howard's glider took off, followed at one-minute intervals by the remainder of his attacking force. One hundred and eighty-one airborne troops were heading into German occupied France in the dead of night.

Operation Overlord and Pegasus Bridge – the strategic importance

There were two Bridges that needed to be taken quickly to assist and progress the planned British landing at Sword beach. It was of vital importance that the Allies denied access to any potential German counterattacking force. Once those bridges were secured the Allies could press further inland to push back the German forces and proceed with their post invasion plans.

Howard had one hundred and eighty men in those initial early hours at his disposal together with the element of surprise. This was a small force but highly professional; however they were only lightly armed therefore in some respects vulnerable at that early stage in the invasion. They landed close to the bridges in their gliders and quickly departed from the fuselage and assaulted the German occupiers while the sentries were either stunned or sleeping.

After quickly overwhelming the defenders, which took less that fifteen minutes, Howard and his men had a long uncertain night ahead. They were alone for the next few hours in German occupied France in the dead of night. They were only lightly armed with every possibility of a strong counterattack until support arrived from the larger invasion force. That support arrived a few hours later with further support coming from Lord Lovatt’s Special Service at midday. The mission was a success, and it became an essential and often referenced story of Operation Overlord’s history.

His citation on his conduct on D-Day reads as follows:

Major Howard was in command of the airborne force which landed by glider and secured the bridges over the River Orne and Caen Canal near Benouville by Coup de main on 6-6-44. Throughout the planning and execution of the operation Major Howard displayed the greatest leadership, judgment, courage, and coolness. His personal example and the enthusiasm which he put behind his task carried all his subordinates with him, and the operation proved a complete success.

In those three months following D-Day Howard distinguished himself, earning the DSO medal.

Re-Posting home, Injury, and the Wars End

Howard returned to England on September 4, 1944. For three months after the taking of the two bridges he and his troops were involved in heavy fighting around Caen as part the continuing Allied advance into Nazi occupied Europe. Howard began originally with one hundred and eighty-one men - by the time of he was returned home only forty remained and he was the only officer left alive. His objectives were met but the cost was high. On his return he was immediately tasked with rebuilding his company and conduct further training in readiness for further operations. However, events took a different turn. He was involved in a car accident in November 1944 where whilst driving at speed he crashed his car inflicting him with life changing injuries.

He remained in this hospital until March 1945, and so played no further part in the war in Europe, missing momentous events such the Battle of the Bulge, Market Garden, the crossing of the Rhine, and the invasion of Germany. After being discharged from hospital he was assigned another task. This time the focus was on Asia as the war with Japan continued after Germany surrendered. His job was again to train and condition his 6th Airborne Division for a proposed assault on the Japanese mainland.

During training he was again put out of action by injury. The commander of the 2nd Oxford & Bucks Light Infantry asked Howard if he could be fit in time to resume command to undertake this proposed mission and so Howard immediately began an arduous physical training regime at a running track near his home with only after a few months of recuperation, but he was not fully healed. On his second day of training his hip jammed under the strain of his physical training and his nerves in his right leg deadened. He returned to hospital for a further operation and by the time he was discharged a second time the war in Asia was over.

Celebrating Major John Howard - After the War

There have been accounts that he was discharged quietly without any ceremony that recognized this bravery and contribution, but this is not strictly true. In 1946 he received an audience with King George. Also, in that same year he received the coveted Croix de Guerre avec Palme in France for his wartime heroics at the two famed bridges. As a tribute, Pegasus Bridge aka the Bénouville Bridge was renamed "Esplanade Major John Howard" in his honour. His legacy endured in many ways. Afterwards he went on to lead a quieter life as a public servant in the National Savings Committee and the Ministry of Food.

Later, his part was depicted in the classic film, The Longest Day that brought Operation Overlord to the cinema. However, his career, his rise through the ranks and his final year in the army would be a bittersweet one and not one fitting or expected for such a hero as he was forced to sit the war out from a hospital bed.

His contribution and that of his men at D-Day captured vital strategic objectives against impossible odds. That brief time in the whole of the war was a vital contribution that ensured Operation Overlord’s success. Whatever the duration of time Major John Howard had spent in the war, it is without doubt that those three months he served in active duty has earned him his place in history.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The North Side Gang—Chicago’s Pirate Robin Hoods

The Roaring Twenties were a time period filled with tales of adventure and glamour. Prohibition fueled a party lifestyle - and made available a dangerous but adrenaline fueled life to some of the more enterprising members of the underworld. In Chicago, Illinois, the Twenties have become a time of legend and usually call to mind one man, Al Capone. But Capone, for all intents and purposes, was only a figure head during the Beer Wars. He ran his gang and racket, but he delegated the dirty work.

To the north of him was a group that was, as one newspaper of the time called them, Modern Day Pirates, The North Side Gang. Consider Capone the Prince John to their Robin Hood and his Merry-men, an analogy that Rose Keefe introduced in her book, Guns and Roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion. Robin Hood isn’t quite as steal from the rich to give to the poor and you’ll need to give Little John a temper and thirst for vengeance that was unrivaled. Also, make the merry-men a little crazier and a lot more deadly. You get the picture.

Who was responsible for running this group of gangsters that, while small, caused a lot of trouble for the biggest figure of Chicago’s Underworld? That was none other than Dean O’Banion. Our figurative Robin Hood.

Erin Finlen starts her series here.

Dean O’Banion.

Dean O’Banion

Dean O’Banion, or Dion as he is often misnamed in history, is considered the archetype of Irish Chicago Gangsters. An impulsive, faintly religious, prankster who was oddly chivalrous and loyal to a fault was the original boss of the North Side Gang during Prohibition and his death became the catalyst for what are known as The Beer Wars.

The Death of a Mother

Born in Maroa, Illinois on July 8, 1892, to Charles and Emma O’Banion, Dean was a middle child of three, with a big brother named Floyd and a little sister named Ruth. He was a good student and in one of the only surviving childhood pictures of him, taken at his school in Maroa, it is easy to see a precocious but loving child staring back. Maroa is a small town a few hours’ drive south of Chicago and away from the influences of the big city it is possible that O’Banion would have taken a very different path is things had stayed the same with his happy family to guide him.

Except, Dean was struck by a tragedy that no child is equipped to endure and certainly not back them when there was no therapy or mental health knowledge, not in the way we have now. When he was six years old, O’Banion’s mother passed away from tuberculosis and his world was shattered. He had loved his mother dearly and after her death not only did he lose her, but his father moved him and his older brother to Chicago in an effort to be closer to his own family and for better employment opportunities. His sister Ruth stayed behind in Maroa and ended up living in Kansas and having a family of her own when she was older.

Chicago, it’s His Hometown

The shock of not only losing him mother but then being uprooted from his childhood home and leaving behind his sister was probably traumatic and confusing. It would have given a much less optimistic child a pessimistic and depressed disposition. Dean, however, found that he enjoyed the adventure that was waiting for him.

In Chicago, he was enrolled at Holy Name School on State Street, but school only did so much to curb his impulsiveness and there was no stopping the influences of the neighborhood they lived in an area that was called “Little Hell,” and that lived up to its name with child gangs running the streets.

Then when he was sixteen, he went to hop on the back of a trolley car, slipping when he grabbed the handle, he fell and was hit by the wheels of the trolley. It broke his leg and he walked with a limp for the rest of his life. Given the state of medicine in the early 1900s, he seems to have had some of the luck of the Irish to have not had a worse outcome.

He eventually left school and started working, first as a singing waiter in a saloon, where he met the acquaintance of a criminal named Charles Reiser. Reiser would introduce him to safecracking, although, Dean, always a little trigger happy and impulsive, wasn’t the best at deciding how much nitroglycerin to use. His frame of mind was always ‘more is better’ and he had a tendency to ruin the contents of the safe when he blew it open, once blowing a hole in the wall of the building but leaving the safe unharmed.

Through Reiser and safe cracking he met the man who would become his best friend and right hand man, Earl “Hymie” Weiss.

Robin Hood and Little John

Weiss and O’Banion were friends from the start, a study in opposites. O’Banion was impulsive with a temper that was easily triggered but just as easily satisfied. He was jovial and people were drawn to him, wanting to be his friend. Weiss was serious, with a temper that was terrifying when he was set off and not nearly as easily calmed. Smart and forward thinking he was O’Banion’s perfect foil and the two almost seem to be made to rule the Prohibition scene. Which they began almost as soon as it started, with O’Banion hijacking the first truck and immediately starting his booze running racket. They were very successful and it showed.

They were also regularly in trouble together, but by that point they were able to pay off most juries and judges. When asked why they were robbing a telegraph office O’Banion said he was there to apply for a job. Similarly, when asked why his finger prints were at the scene of the crime, he replied with “That was an oversight. Hymie forgot to wipe them off.”

O’Banion’s biggest passion was the flower shop, Schofield’s, that he had bought stock in with his friend Sam ‘Nails’ Morton. Where Morton was content to be a silent partner, though, O’Banion preferred to work there, getting his hands dirty. One of the most notorious gangsters of his day was unrecognizable humming and arranging bouquets, while helping customers when they came into the shop. The store also his office. On its second floor he ran the North Side Gang, taking calls and meetings, he even installed a couch for Weiss, who was frequently laid low with migraines.

O’Banion loved to dress nicely and dine well. What he didn’t put up with was…well, it was a lot. Once in a restaurant he heard a man yelling at his wife. O’Banion intervened and wrestled the man to the floor. When someone made a barbed remark about them he shot them in a crowded theater. Afterwards, he realized what he had done and apologized, according to a newspaper man at the time, asking him what brand of cigars he should send him. When some of his drivers complained that one of the other men who worked in the garage was gay, he told them to deal with it or leave, that that was just the way the man was and he wasn’t hurting anything.

O’Banion, as evidenced by the man in the restaurant berating his wife, was not one to take a marriage commitment lightly and when he met Viola, who would become his bride. He was immediately smitten. The pair were deeply in love and when he died, she told reporters that the man she knew wouldn’t have hurt a fly. That he only carried a gun because of the danger in the city. Naive? Yes. Lying? Possibly. But it is very likely that the version of him that she knew was not the man who shot people in theaters or took men on one way rides, a term, by the way, that is credited to his best friend, Hymie Weiss.

Two of his other best friends and his other underbosses in the North Side were Vincent Drucci and George Moran. Moran and O’Banion were good friends, but the important one to look at here, is Vincent Drucci. Drucci was a Sicilian who had grown up on the north side of Chicago. When he came home from World War I, he fell in with O’Banion and his friends. Drucci offsets any rumors that O’Banion hated Sicilians, as the two played pranks together and would go to speakeasies, laughing and having a good time. It wasn’t Sicilians that O’Banion hated, it was just one family of them: The Gennas. They are the ones caused the most trouble and who would eventually lead to his death.

The Murder of John Duffy

At the start of 1924, Dean O’Banion was already in a bit of trouble, although no one could really pin the blame on him. A man named John Duffy had been found murdered in a ditch north of the city. His body was found with three bullet holes in it and when police went to his house they found the body of his girlfriend who had been shot dead by Duffy. No one questioned with the regards to the couple seemed at all surprised that Duffy would have murdered her and expressed concern for her. Duffy was not a well-liked man.

It was suspected that Dean O’Banion killed him, as Duffy was last seen getting into a car with O’Banion and one man who authorities later decided was James Monahan, Hymie Weiss’s brother in law, outside of the Four Deuces, an establishment run by South Side leaders Johnny Torrio and Al Capone. The car that police seized in the investigation belonged to Monahan, though he told police that Weiss was paying on the car for him. In Hot Springs, Arkansas at the time, receiving treatment for his headaches, Weiss was released of suspicion.

Some suspect that O’Banion was trying to frame Torrio and Capone for Duffy’s murder by meeting him outside The Four Deuces. However, it is more likely that was simply a way to get Duffy to meet him, as Duffy was believed to have ties to their gang. That fact and the fact that Weiss’s car was used, inadvertently throwing suspicion on O’Banion’s friend, implies that rather than being a plot to frame Torrio, it was another of O’Banion’s impulsive, spur of the moment decisions.

The Sieben Brewery Raid

When Prohibition had started it had been a free for all in Chicago, with everyone trying to steal alcohol and speakeasies from everyone else. Johnny Torrio, according to history, organized the gangs and got them to agree to only sell alcohol in their assigned territories. This had worked out remarkably well, except that The Terrible Genna Brothers, as they were known, a family gang of ruthless killers from the west side of the city refused to back off of O’Banion’s territory. And by May of 1924, O’Banion had had enough, deciding to cut ties with Torrio and the whole situation entirely. Unfortunately, he chose the worst possible way to do it.

Telling Johnny Torrio that he was interested in selling his stock in the Sieben Brewery O’Banion asked him to meet at the brewery to finalize the deal. What Torrio didn’t know but Dean O’Banion did was that on that particular day the brewery was set to be raided by the police. Torrio had already been arrested for violating prohibition once, but O’Banion had not, meaning that he would more than likely get off with a warning, while Torrio was going to have to serve jail time.

Making matters worse, O’Banion didn’t hide that he had been expecting the raid well, shaking hands with the police and in general being in quite a good mood for someone being arrested. It didn’t take much for Torrio to put together what had happened.

When the Genna Brothers found out, they demanded permission to kill O’Banion. The only person stopping them was the leader of Sicilian Union in Chicago, Mike Merlo, who was against violence and urged them not to get revenge. The Gennas and Torrio with their heavy respect for Merlo, agreed. Except it was really just waiting. Merlo was dying of cancer and once he died, there would be nothing standing in their way.

Let the War Begin

Over the summer of 1924, O’Banion was busy as ever. In July he was arrested for violating the Volstead Act again, this time with Hymie Weiss and another gangster, Dan McCarthy. Their trial was put on hold however, as Weiss was too ill to go to court and doctors informed authorities that they weren’t sure Weiss would live long enough to stand trial.

After the second arrest, O’Banion took a brief vacation out west, where he was introduced to a new weapon. The Thompson Submachine Gun. He was extremely interested in them and brought them back with him when he and his wife returned to Chicago.

November 9, 1924, Mike Merlo succumbed to cancer and took with him the stay of execution that he had given O’Banion. The Gennas brought in a hired gun and placed orders for thousands of dollars’ worth of flowers. In spite of them being rivals this was not unusual, Schofield’s was the place to go for your flower order, especially if you were part of the Underworld. That night, after O’Banion had left the shop Jim Genna and another man came in, getting a feel for the shop and picking up $1,000 of the $3,000 worth of flowers they had order from Mr. Schofield, telling him they would get the rest in the morning.

When the car pulled up on the day of the funeral to pick up the order, four men emerged from the car. Frankie Yale, John Scalise, Angelo Genna and Salvatore Ammatuna walked into the shop. According to William Crutchfield who was working that day, sweeping up fallen petals, O’Banion recognized them and asked William to go to the back so he could speak with them. O’Banion didn’t seem suspicious according to him. In fact, he greeted them with an outstretched hand. That was his view as the door to the back room closed behind him. And only a few moments later he heard gunshots. Dean O’Banion had been shot four times and lie dead on the floor of his beloved flower shop. And all hell was about to break loose.

Crutchfield telephoned the authorities who arrived at the shop, with sirens on and began their investigation. Coming down the street, Hymie Weiss and George Moran saw the cars and detoured to Weiss’s mothers house, where he telephoned the shop asking for O’Banion. He was informed of what had happened, and according to Rose Keefe in her book, The Man Who Got Away, silently went into the bathroom and locked the door. Moran had to break it down and when he did he found Weiss sobbing, saying “Everything I have in the world is gone.”

Saying Goodbye

O’Banion’s funeral was the biggest that Chicago had ever seen and it enthralled and disgusted people in equal measure. The funeral itself was attended by many figures of gangland and Torrio and Capone paid their respects as well. A bold move, considering it was generally accepted that they had helped with, if not entirely ordered the hit on the man for whom the funeral was being held. Vincent Drucci and Hymie Weiss cried openly and Weiss was photographed helped Viola, Dean’s widow, after being unable to carry the casket due to his grief.

After the funeral, as the last of the mourners filed out and the gangsters got into their cars and drove away, everyone knew this was not going to end well. Chicago held it’s breathe. The Chicago Beer Wars had begun.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Sources

Binder, J. J. (2017). Al Capone’s Beer wars: A Complete History of Organized Crime in Chicago during Prohibition. Prometheus Books.

Dean Charles O’Banion. (n.d.). https://www.myalcaponemuseum.com/id158.htm

Keefe, R. (2003). Guns and roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion, Chicago’s Big Shot Before Al Capone. Turner Publishing Company.

Keefe, R. (2005). The Man who Got Away: The Bugs Moran Story : a Biography. Cumberland House Publishing.

Kobler, J. (2003). Capone: The Life and World of Al Capone. Da Capo Press.

Sullivan, E. D. (1929). Rattling the cup on Chicago crime.

Charlemagne: The Father of Europe

Charlemagne, or Charles the Great (748–814), looms large in history as a warrior king, a unifier of Europe, and a patron of culture and education. Ruling as King of the Franks, and later crowned as the first Holy Roman Emperor, his reign marked a pivotal chapter in European history. Known as the "Father of Europe," his influence transcended his lifetime, laying the foundations for modern Western civilization.

Terry Bailey explains.

A depiction of Pope Leo III crowning Charlemagne.

Major campaigns and victories

Charlemagne's military conquests were central to his legacy. Over his reign, he expanded the Frankish Empire significantly, uniting much of Western and Central Europe.

The Saxon Wars (772–804)

One of Charlemagne's longest and most grueling campaigns was the subjugation of the pagan Saxons. This series of conflicts, lasting over three decades, was marked by fierce resistance and brutal retaliations. His conquest of Saxony was not just military but also religious, as he sought to Christianize the region. The Massacre of Verden, in October 782, where Charlemagne reportedly executed 4,500 Saxons, underscores the ferocity of these wars. Despite the bloodshed, he succeeded in integrating Saxony into his empire.

The Lombard campaign (773–774)

Charlemagne's Italian ambitions were realized through his victory over the Lombards, a Germanic kingdom threatening the papacy. Responding to a plea from Pope Adrian I, Charlemagne crossed the Alps and besieged Pavia, the Lombard capital. He crowned himself King of the Lombards, becoming the first ruler to hold both Frankish and Lombard titles.

Campaigns in Spain (778–801)

Charlemagne's attempts to expand into the Iberian Peninsula met mixed results. His expedition in 778 ended with the infamous defeat at Roncevaux Pass, immortalized in the epic poem The Song of Roland. However, he eventually established the Spanish March, a buffer zone against Islamic expansion, solidifying his influence south of the Pyrenees.

The Avar campaigns (788–803)

In Central Europe, Charlemagne waged successful campaigns against the Avars, a nomadic people based in the Danube basin. Their defeat allowed him to seize immense wealth and consolidate control over modern-day Austria and Hungary.

Political ambitions and governance

Charlemagne's political vision was as expansive as his military ambitions. He sought to create a unified Christian empire, which he achieved through conquest, diplomacy, and administrative reform.

The coronations as the Holy Roman Emperor

On Christmas Day, 800, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans. This act symbolized the fusion of Roman, Christian, and Germanic traditions and marked the revival of the Western Roman Empire. It solidified Charlemagne's authority and established a precedent for the relationship between the church and the state.

Administrative reforms and cultural revival

Charlemagne restructured his empire to ensure efficient governance. He divided it into regions called counties, overseen by counts, and employed royal agents known as missi dominici to maintain oversight. These reforms improved communication and justice across his vast territory. Additionally, Charlemagne's reign sparked the Carolingian Renaissance, a revival of learning and culture. He established schools, preserved classical texts, and promoted literacy among clergy and nobility. His court at Aachen became a center of intellectual and artistic activity.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Charlemagne was a visionary leader with remarkable strengths, but his reign was not without flaws.

Charlemagne strengths

As one of history's most influential leaders, Charlemagne showcased an extraordinary blend of military genius, visionary leadership, and cultural patronage. His campaigns across Europe revealed an unparalleled strategic acumen and adaptability, enabling him to expand his empire and establish dominance over diverse territories. Whether facing formidable foes or navigating complex geopolitical landscapes, Charlemagne's military prowess secured his place as one of the great tacticians of his era.

Beyond the battlefield, Charlemagne's unifying vision set him apart. He skillfully integrated disparate peoples and cultures into a cohesive empire, fostering a sense of unity that transcended linguistic and regional divides. By promoting a centralized administration and encouraging loyalty through just governance, he laid the groundwork for the Carolingian Empire's enduring stability.

Charlemagne's patronage of learning and culture further cemented his legacy. Recognizing the transformative power of education, he spearheaded initiatives that revived intellectual pursuits in the medieval world. His support for the arts and establishment of schools contributed to the Carolingian Renaissance, a cultural revival that preserved and advanced knowledge for future generations. In blending martial prowess, visionary governance, and a passion for enlightenment, Charlemagne left an indelible mark on European history.

Charlemagne's weaknesses

Although Charlemagne is often hailed as the father of medieval Europe and built an empire that spanned much of Western Europe, his reign was not without its flaws. One of his most criticized actions was his brutality in war. A prime example is the Massacre of Verden, as indicated he ordered the execution of 4,500 Saxons, a decision that alienated many of the conquered peoples. His military campaigns, while successful in expanding his empire, were marked by harsh methods that sowed resentment in some regions.

Another weakness of Charlemagne's reign was the challenge of succession. Upon his death, his empire was divided among his sons, a move that ultimately led to fragmentation. This division weakened the long-term stability of the empire and made it more susceptible to external threats. The lack of a clear, unified succession plan contributed to the decline of his empire, limiting the lasting impact of his centralized rule.

Charlemagne's religious policies also left a complicated legacy. His efforts to Christianize the pagan peoples under his control, although pivotal in spreading Christianity, created lasting tensions. His forceful approach to conversion often led to religious intolerance, alienating those who resisted or adhered to other beliefs. These policies, while shaping the religious landscape of Europe, also fueled conflict and division.

Global influence

Charlemagne's influence extended far beyond his lifetime, despite these weaknesses, with the influence remaining profound. His reign laid the foundation for the modern concept of Europe, both culturally and politically. His emphasis on education and governance set a precedent for future European rulers. The Holy Roman Empire, although fragmented, would become a cornerstone of medieval European politics for centuries. Today, Charlemagne is celebrated as a symbol of unity and cultural revival. The Charlemagne Prize, awarded annually for contributions to European unity, reflects his enduring legacy and the lasting impact of his vision for Europe.

In conclusion, Charlemagne's life and reign epitomize the transformative power of vision and leadership in shaping the course of history. As a warrior, he reshaped the geopolitical landscape of Europe, creating a vast empire that unified diverse peoples and cultures under a single banner. His relentless campaigns, whether in Saxony, Lombardy, or the Avar territories, demonstrated not only his military brilliance but also his unwavering commitment to expanding and securing his realm. These victories, however, were not without their costs, as the methods employed sometimes left scars of brutality and resentment that echoed through history.

As a ruler, Charlemagne's administrative reforms and promotion of education and culture forged the foundations of a more cohesive and enlightened Europe. His efforts during the Carolingian Renaissance revitalized intellectual pursuits and preserved classical knowledge, bridging the ancient and medieval worlds. His court at Aachen became a beacon of learning and innovation, symbolizing his dedication to fostering progress and unity. Despite his flaws, such as the divisive succession plan and the harshness of his religious policies, his achievements in governance and cultural revival remain unparalleled.

The coronation of Charlemagne as the first Holy Roman Emperor marked a defining moment in European history, intertwining the destinies of church and state and establishing a legacy of cooperation and conflict between these two powers. This act not only affirmed his authority but also set the stage for centuries of European politics, influencing the structure and governance of future empires.

However, Charlemagne's weaknesses, which were often ruthless in method, the challenges of succession, and the tensions caused by his forceful Christianization efforts, should not overshadow his monumental contributions. Instead, they highlight the complexity of his rule and the intricacies of forging a lasting empire in a turbulent era. While his empire eventually fragmented, the cultural and political seeds he planted endured, influencing the development of modern Europe.

Today, Charlemagne is remembered as a symbol of unity, resilience, and cultural flourishing. His legacy lives on not only in the institutions and traditions that trace their origins to his reign but also in the broader idea of Europe as a shared cultural and political entity, including the Charlemagne Prize which underscores his enduring influence and the relevance of his vision in contemporary times.

Ultimately, Charlemagne's life and reign serve as a testament to the profound impact one leader can have on the world. By merging military prowess, visionary governance, and cultural patronage, Charlemagne earned his place in history as the "Father of Europe", a title that reflects his pivotal role in shaping the continent's destiny and identity. His legacy continues to inspire, reminding us of the enduring power of unity, leadership, and cultural advancement.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes

Missi Dominici

The Latin term missi dominici translates to "envoys of the lord" or "envoys of the ruler."

Missi means "sent ones" or "emissaries."

Dominici is the genitive form of dominus, meaning "lord" or "master," indicating possession or association.

The term was used during the Carolingian Empire to describe officials sent by the emperor (such as Charlemagne) to oversee local administration, ensure loyalty, and enforce royal policies.

A Society Without Women? Sex & Gender in the Wild West

What would a society without women look like? Any conjecture is fanciful and contrived, but there has been a period in American history where an analogous situation prevailed for a sufficient period to provide thoughtful grist – the settlement of the American West. Fewer than one in twenty pioneers to California during the early Gold Rush is female. Even in 1853, only some 8,000 of San Francisco’s 50,000 residents were women. Well into the 1880s, men made up almost two-thirds of California’s pioneer population.

Terry Hamburg explains.

Emigrants Crossing the Plains. Drawn by F.O.C. Darley, engraved by Henry Bryan Hall.

“You have no idea how few women we have here, a San Francisco lawyer writes to his sister back home in 1849,” and if one makes her appearance in the street, all stop, stand, and look. The latest fashion is to carry them in their arms (the streets are incredibly muddy). This we see every day.”

The gender imbalance is a subject of marvel to every observer then and since. The world’s oldest profession thrives in this hormonal tsunami. In the course of 1849, the hamlet of San Francisco’s bolts to 20,000, of which it is estimated 1000 are women - and two-thirds of those work in or manage brothels. Most men pouring into the city are in their raging testosterone twenties and have been deprived of traditional sex for at least six months.

Some of the most successful and powerful women in mid-nineteenth century America live in the frontier where they are vastly outnumbered by men and subject to a more primitive, unfiltered form of masculinity. Madams, in particular, parlay their business into fortune and influence. “The only aristocracy we had here at the time,” remarks Caleb T. Fay, a leading San Francisco politician during the Gold Rush, “were the gamblers and prostitutes.” A brothel proprietress made her money off patriarchy, but that success is a challenge to it as much as an accommodation.

Exporting Virtue

It was a simple proposition. Plenty of California men - most believed rich or soon to be so - without women. Ladies possessing the adventure and pluck to travel to that far-off land might find an ideal situation. “Every man thought every woman in that day a beauty,” a Sacramento woman confesses to her diary. “Even I have had men come forty miles over the mountains, just to look at me, and I was never called a handsome woman, in the best day, even by most ardent admirers.”

The men needed both the carnal and the cultural. Females would deliver a healthy dose of virtue to tame the savage beast. “We do not wish to say, or even imply, that San Francisco is the wickedest and most immoral city in the world,” historian Benjamin E. Lloyd mused in 1876, “but it has not yet overcome the immoral habits contracted in the days when the inhabitants were nearly all males, and had nothing to restrain them from engaging in the most vicious practices; when there were no mothers to chide their waywardness and say in winning tones: “My son go not in the way of evil” and fewer virtuous sisters to welcome brothers home, and by their loving kindness and noble lives, to teach them to cease from sinning.” Readers applauded the sentiment of James Wyld in his 1849 Guide to the Gold Country of California: “Society without woman is like an edifice built on sand. Woman, to society, is like the cement to the stone. The society has no such cement; its elements float to and fro on the excited, turbulent, hurried life of California immigrants.”

There are formal schemes to fill this moral vacuum. The most celebrated is hatched in 1849 by Eliza Farnham, author and former matron of the female section of Sing Sing Prison. She has skin in the California game. Her late husband leaves a large tract of land near Santa Cruz that she is keen to develop. Farnham concocts an ambitious plan: organize a group of well-recommended marriageable women that would “bring their refinement and kindly cares and powers” to the rough-hewn society of male fortune seekers. Ideologically, Farnham goes farther than most feminists of the age, advocating the natural superiority of women. She is prominent, and so are her public supporters, the likes of Horace Greeley and William Cullen Bryant, editors of The New-York Tribune and The New York Evening Post, and Henry Ward Beecher, the renowned clergyman and abolitionist.

Farnham shuttles between cities on the Atlantic coast, addressing meetings, examining applicants, and giving press interviews. Soon, she could announce that more than 130 women had “signified” a desire to join up. The New York Tribune praises her and the “precious cargo . . . on an errand of mercy to the golden land.” Editors on both coasts are captivated by the notion. In California, there is joy. One local mining newspaper reports that “smiles of anticipation wreathed the countenance of every bachelor in town.” However, Farnham is having difficulty finding suitable clients and then closing a deal that yanks young ladies from the comforts of family and friends to trek halfway around the world on a wild speculation, and for a big fee - payable in advance, thank you. No refunds. The ballyhooed April launch is postponed. By June, she is ready to give up the plan and sail with a scant three prospects. Disappointed supporters complain that her personal standards for recruits may have been too high, along with the price tag. TheAlta California accepts the news graciously: “The will is always taken for the deed, and bachelors will unquestionably cherish the liveliest of feelings of regard for the lady who so warmly exerted herself to bring a few spareribs to the market.” Farnham expresses no regrets. After experiencing “the moral and social poverty” of California for six years, she is “grateful that my endeavors failed.”

More women

There are other grand plans to civilize the Wild West by estrogen. A few years later, Sarah Pellet, a noted advocate of temperance, abolition, and woman’s rights pursues a scheme for “amelioration of the condition of Californians.” Again, the plan looks solid on paper: export 5,000 “respectable, marriageable New England girls” to be recommended by the Sons of Temperance as “worthy girls.” The Sons of Temperance in California agrees to serve as guardians upon their arrival. If this initiative works, there are plans to up the contingent to 10,000. Unfortunately, too few worthy girls are willing to be shipped and the plan is abandoned, again breaking miners’ hearts.

The gradual but relentless march of progress will eventually balance the genders in California. 50-50 is the order of nature.

Terry Hamburg is director emeritus of the Cypress Lawn Cemetery Heritage Foundation. His recently published book Land of the Dead: How The West Changed Death In America explores how the demands of survival and adaptation in the Gold Rush western migration changed a multitude of American customs, including the way we bury and grieve for our ancestors. California and San Francisco serve as case studies. Visit his author page: https://www.terryhamburgbooks.com.

From Red to Clear: The Story of how Coca-Cola was Secretly Delivered to the USSR

Coca-Cola is undoubtedly the most famous soft-drink beverage in the world, and we are all intimately familiar with the iconic red, white, and black color combination. But did you know that Coca-Cola at one point shed its iconic color scheme to sneak its way into the Soviet Union?

It is honestly difficult to imagine Coca-Cola being any other color; it's hardly recognizable, and yet that was precisely the point. All the effort that went into creating what we know today as “Coca-Cola Clear” was done to quench the thirst of a prominent Red Russian.

Here is the story of how the iconic beverage became a small sweet spot in the deteriorating East-West relationship of the Cold War. Chaveendra Dunuwille explains.

Georgy Zhukov, around 1960. Source: Mil.ru, available here.

Coca-Cola and World War II

Allied Forces

Before we get into the actual story, it is important that we comprehend how important Coca-Cola was during the war and its profound impact on both sides of the conflict.

According to Coca-Cola, the company began building its global network in the 1920s, and it significantly expanded during World War II thanks to the visionary thinking of then Coca-Cola president Robert Woodruff. The Woodruff instructed the company to ensure that every American serviceman and woman should be able to get their hands on a bottle of Coke for 5 cents, wherever they were and no matter how much it cost the company. This declaration ended up costing the company $83.2 million in today’s dollars. But Coca-Cola would agree that it was money well spent.

Coca-Cola was seen as an integral part of maintaining morale among US forces in all theaters of the conflict. During the war, Coca-Cola partnered with the United Services Organization (USO) in 1941 and played an important role in the American war effort as a much-needed morale booster for the young GIs. In 1943, General Eisenhowerordered over 3 million bottles of Coca-Cola to North Africa and requested supplies to keep refilling over 6 million bottles every month. In the Pacific theater, when Richard Bong set the American air-to-air victories record, General Henry ‘Hap’ Arnold gifted the aviator with 2 cases of Coca-Cola as a reward. In another instance, the very mention of the name Coca-Cola saved Lt Col. Robert "Rosie" Rosenthal’s life. After being shot down in one of his mission, Roshental was intercepted by advancing Soviet forces. To avoid being mistaken for a German pilot, he began to yell "Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Lucky Strike, Coca Cola, bombing Berlin." This allowed the Soviets to recognize him as an American and helped him return to friendly lines. The show Masters of the Air also features Lt. Rosenthal’s interactions with the Soviets. 

Whether it be Europe, the Pacific, or North Africa, the young GIs could always count on a cool, refreshing bottle of Coca-Cola to remind them of the “taste of home.” In one of their letters home, a US soldier remarked, “If anyone were to ask us what we are fighting for, we think half of us would answer, the right to buy Coca-Cola again.” - Mark Pendergrast, For God, Country and Coca-Cola (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1993)

Coca-Cola’s ad campaigns of the time heavily leaned on this rhetoric and featured almost exclusively military personnel. Today, these decisions can be credited for fostering the long-standing good relationship between Coca-Cola and the US military.  

In order to keep up with the never-ending demand, the company built over 64 bottling plants across the world and sent over 200 employees to maintain the facilities. The employees that got the crates to the front lines were named the “Coca-Cola Colonels.” While they were civilians, they were issued military uniforms when operating on the front lines and given the rank of technical observer. The Coca-Cola Colonels often endured the same dangers the soldiers faced, and unfortunately, three of them were killed in action.

By the end of the war, Allied service personnel had consumed over 5 billion bottles of Coca-Cola; the company had become a quintessential part of the American identity, and the stage was set for its global expansion.

Nazi Germany

Much like in the US, Coca-Cola was incredibly popular in Germany as well. By 1929 Coca-Cola was being bottled and drunk in Germany, and by 1940, Coca-Cola was the undisputed soft-drink king in Germany, enjoyed by all levels of German society. According to some legends, Hitler himself was rumored to indulge in Coca-Cola while relaxing to watch Hollywood movies.

It would seem that the Atalanta-based company was unfazed and turned a blind eye to the events that were unfolding in the name of business. The company continued to supply its German subsidiary with syrup and other supplies during the early days of the war, and the head of the German subsidiary, Max Keith, is reported to have toured the facilities in occupied Holland and France to take over their businesses.

However, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the US officially entered World War II, and American companies were ordered to immediately halt all business with the enemy. As a result, Coca-Cola HQ cut off its supply of syrup to Germany, leaving Keith stranded and Coca-Cola’s GmBH on the verge of collapse.

But ever resourceful, Keith worked with his chemists to develop a recipe that cleverly worked its way around wartime rationing by using leftovers like fruit shavings and apple fibers. While it may sound unappetizing by modern standards, the new product sold over three million cases and saved Coca-Cola GmBH. After the war, Coca-Cola refined the recipe and reintroduced this drink in April 1955, making its way to the US in 1958. This drink is none other than Fanta.

Breaching the Iron Curtain

It's 1945; World War II has ended, and a new war is on the horizon, a Cold War. The old world order had collapsed, replaced by the clash of ideologies between the two new superpowers, the US and the USSR.

With its actions in World War II, Coca-Cola identified itself around the world as an icon of American culture, and this did not go on well with the Soviet Union. Despite the colors aligning, Coca-Cola’s sweetness could not breach the Iron Curtain as the Soviets viewed it as a tool of western imperialism and wanted to stave off a ‘Cocacolanization’ of the Soviet people.

However, it was during the war that a prominent Russian general, one Georgy Konstantionvich Zhukov, developed a taste for Coke that he just couldn’t seem to shake. General Zhukov is no ordinary general; he was a marshal of the Soviet Union who oversaw some of the Red Army’s fiercest battles, including the legendary Battle of Kursk. He would go on to become the 1st Commander of the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and later the Minister of Defense. Despite all the accolades and the high position in the USSR, not even he could enjoy a bottle of the famed American drink without great personal cost. Thus, he devised a clever plan that would allow him to enjoy his guilty pleasure without getting into hot water with the Communist Party.

Zhukov communicated to his US counterparts that if the iconic caramel coloring could be removed, he could pass the drink off as vodka, arguably Russia’s most famous beverage. As an added layer of security, he also mentioned that the Coke should not be filled in its usual bottles, lest some curious eyes recognize the distinct shape.

General Mark W. Clark communicated Zhukov’s request to President Truman, who then passed on the message to James Forley, the Chairman of the Coca-Cola Export Corporation. After some tinkering, the chemists at Coca-Cola managed to produce a clear variant of the iconic drink and filled it in unmarked straight bottles complete with a white lid that included a red star. Zhukov took the delivery of 50 of these Clear Coke crates, and the rest remains a mystery.

What happened to the Bottles?

We honestly don’t know what happened to those 50 crates. The fate of the Clear Coke seems to be one of those moments in history that have seeped through the cracks. Perhaps Zhukov indulged in guilty pleasure? Or was it confiscated by the Soviets? We may never know.

Did the efforts pay-off for Coca-Cola and the US?

In retrospect, you could say that the effort to make the Clear Coke and deliver it to Zhukov didn’t really pay off in the long or short term for Coca-Cola or the United States.

While Zhukov would have no doubt been personally thankful to his old American colleagues for delivering him the Coca-Cola, the interaction is relegated to history as an interesting footnote, and it did not help mend the deteriorating US-Soviet relations of the period.

At the same time, despite trade restrictions being lowered over time, Coca-Cola was effectively locked out of the Russian market due to clever marketing by their rival PepsiCo, involving the then Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev (a story for another time). Pepsi effectively maintained a monopoly in the Russian market up until 1980 when Coke came into Russia through the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

Can you get Clear Coke today?   

Yes, you can. But Coca-Cola Clear is a Japan exclusive product. Its available in many major Japanese retail stores such as Lawson and Seven-Eleven. But thanks to online shopping and worldwide delivery services, you can enjoy this beverage from almost anywhere in the world.

 Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 Sources

●      An American GI’s best friend: Coca-Cola

●      Articles - Rod Beemer | Author · Speaker · Historian 

●      Mark Pendergrast, For God, Country and Coca-Cola (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1993)

●      The USO & Coca-Cola: A Refreshing 80+ Year Partnership

●      How did Coca-Cola grow as an international business?

●      How Fanta Was Created for Nazi Germany - Gastro Obscura