Heritage and Homeland: N

Heritage and Homeland: N.G. Gonzales, His State Newspaper,

and His Call for South Carolina’s Re-Emergence

During the Spanish-American-Cuban War of 1898

Timothy F. Brown

University of South Carolina

Introduction

Narciso Gener Gonzales was in a rare, if not unique, position during the Cuban Crisis of 1898.[1] His father, born in Cuba, fought for Cuban independence in the late 1840s; his mother came from one of South Carolina's most prominent families. During the Cuban conflict of 1898, N.G., as he signed his name, was editor of The State newspaper in Columbia, fast becoming a leading voice in South Carolina. Gonzales was well-known for his “unreserved candor and the unrivalled vigor of his editorial expression.”[2] It was a style that served both him and his paper well, as the paper continued to grow in both prominence and circulation during the late 1890s.[3] He was always ready to stand up for what he believed in and wasn’t afraid to put his feelings into print. But what about the needs of Gonzales’ readers? Should they have been put aside for the personal feelings and causes of the editor? In his biography of Gonzales, Professor Lewis Pinckney Jones points out that: in the first four months of 1898, The State rivaled the Hearst and Pulitzer papers in its partisanship.…Interested though the population probably was, it is difficult to believe that South Carolina wanted to have its attention riveted on Cuba and Cuba alone, but The State seems to have made that assumption.[4]

How would Gonzales’ Cuban and Southern heritages play into his editorial policy during a conflict that has been called “a newspaper War,” rife with sensationalism and the birth of “yellow journalism”? This paper examines the editorials of N.G. Gonzales during the year leading up to his eventual voluntary service in the Cuban conflict in May of 1898. Examining N.G. Gonzales’ editorials may provide a clearer picture of Gonzales’ love for his State, both the paper and South Carolina.

Historical Significance

Several studies have been conducted on the impact that newspapers had over public opinion during the Cuban conflict. Most of them have centered on the New York press, specifically the New York World of Joseph Pulitzer, and the New York Journal, published by William Randolph Hearst. These papers have long been vilified for the sensational way they not only portrayed events that actually happened, but also for some that may not have happened at all.[5] Interestingly, these studies address least the press coverage from the region of the United States closest to Cuba – the South.

This study begins to fill that gap in historical research about the Cuban conflict. It also begins to fill the gap in research about N.G. Gonzales. While books and research papers have been written about the founding of The State and others have been written about the Gonzales brothers,[6] little has been done to examine N.G. Gonzales' work connected with the newspaper’s coverage of the events leading up to the Cuban conflict. Professor Lewis P. Jones touches on the topic in his biography of N.G. Gonzales, Stormy Petrel, but he merely hits the highlights. S.L. Latimer also touches on N.G. (and his brothers) and his passion for a Free Cuba in his history, The Story of The State, but like Jones, he merely touches; there is no in-depth analysis or discussion of what Gonzales was writing and how often he wrote it.[7] Philip S. Foner quotes Gonzales extensively in his books on the “Spanish-Cuban-American” war, but his is of a national scope, not one devoted to the study of a South Carolinian. Foner doesn’t offer the depth and focus of the present research, which bridges that gap between the study of the Cuban conflict and the State’s editorial coverage of that conflict.

Many of the studies that have looked at the newspapers in other states and how they covered the Cuban crisis were conducted to examine the notion that all newspapers practiced “yellow” journalism in their coverage and called for war with Spain at any cost. Morton Rosenberg and Thomas Ruff analyzed Indiana newspapers over a four-year period, from 1895 to 1898. By and large, they found that Hoosier newspapers were not “yellow,” and indeed were cautious about what they said, even though they professed to be fiercely patriotic. In one case, the authors cited the Lafayette Journal:

If there was the slightest ground for action by the United States in the maintenance of national honor, we would be the foremost to advocate it... But thus far there is no justification for war.[8]

Some Hoosier papers were in favor of going to war, and one even pointed to the unifying benefits of another battle: Greensburg Review—If ever Yankee Doodle and Dixie are heard in Cuba, Butcher Weyler and his army might as well take to their boats. No power on earth could stand before the music that would mean so much.[9]

Rosenberg and Ruff concluded that Indiana papers were certainly not as “jingoistic” about going to war as were their New York counterparts, although the Hoosier papers did seem to have a grasp of what was going on.

North Carolina papers seemed to mirror their neighbors to the South a little more closely in many respects. Like South Carolina, the Tar Heel state fought for the Confederacy and lost. Families were left without fathers and brothers. The state was struggling through Reconstruction. In 1866, many newspapers were agreed that a war so soon after the Civil War was not in the best interests of the South. Just 30 years later, however, attitudes changed.

George Gibson concluded in his study of Tar Heel papers that in 1895 “North Carolina showed no lack of sympathy for the rebels. The (Raleigh) North Carolinian declared: ‘We think the time was come for this country to show an active sympathy for those neighbors of ours who are making such a bold stand for their independence.’”[10] But as with Indiana, North Carolina papers deduced, in 1898, that war might be coming, whether they wanted it or not.

The South prays that there will not be necessity of war to preserve the National Honor, but if war is declared it will not be wanting in patriotic devotion to the flag.[11]

Georgia newspapers were little different, according to journalism historians Louis Griffith and John Talmadge. They noted that the papers urged caution, and were concerned that a war with Spain would only make Southern ports more vulnerable. But with the sinking of the Maine came a change in attitudes. “News of the disaster reached he (Atlanta) Constitution too late for its issue of Feb. 16th to carry more than a hurried announcement. The next day the paper proclaimed in a huge headline that ‘T'WAS THE DEED OF A DASTARD,’ yet an editorial in the same issue advised that public judgment be held up until an investigation could be made.”[12]

An examination of The State’s editorials should indicate whether the ancestry of the newspaper’s Cuban-Southern editor affected his views. Since many other papers in the country were cautious, and since papers in both Georgia and North Carolina were careful with their words and their opinions, a more aggressive editorial policy by The State in support of war in Cuba would indicate that N.G. Gonzales was swayed by both sides of his heritage: he hoped for freedom for his Cuban brethren, and for renewed glory for his Southern comrades.

Methodology

This study will be conducted in two parts. The first will be a quantitative content analysis of editorials, both full and “survey” (short passages listed under the heading, “The State’s Survey”) in The State newspaper from May 1, 1897, through N.G.Gonzales’ departure for Cuba on May 9, 1898. It will be a census survey, examining all the editorials in all the editions of the newspaper. This research will determine how many editorials Gonzales wrote during that time. Lewis P. Jones has pointed out that Gonzales wrote nearly every editorial for every edition of The State up until about 1900, and only then did he relinquish Sundays. It is reasonable to assume that an editorial written during the time period under study would have been written by Gonzales.

The qualitative portion will examine the editorial bias. N.G. Gonzales was a man of strong convictions. What did he tell the readers of The State about the Cuban conflict through his editorials? How often did he comment on the conflict? Did he run an editorial every week merely to keep up interest? But the most important variable will be what Gonzales said in his editorials. Was he trying to stir up more sentiment for the Cuban conflict through his editorial writing? By examining the language and style of his writing and by looking at the timing of his editorials, this paper hopes to reach a better understanding of the type of influence Gonzales was trying to wield.

It could be argued that this research should include an analysis of the stories that appeared in The State during the time in question. That was considered, and a coding sheet was developed for just such a purpose. However Gonzales had recently acquired the rights to use the Associated Press wire and he used it quite extensively to fill his eight-page newspaper.[13] In fact, his paper often carried the claim as the “only newspaper in Columbia with a full use of the Associated Press wires.” Gonzales was very liberal with his use of national and international stories, so it would not seem unusual that he would run several stories of the Cuban conflict in his newspaper; he also ran several stories of the war between Greece and Turkey as well as troubles in Russia and other parts of Europe. This research focuses specifically on the editorials of N.G. Gonzales and it questions whether his heritage led him to write editorials that were out of the mainstream of his neighbors in other states.

For the coding sheet and the definition of the variables, please see Appendix C.

NANNO

On August 5, 1858, Narciso Gener Gonzales “sniffed the air of the Edisto” for the first time.[14]His father was Ambrosio Jose Gonzales, a former Cuban Freedom fighter; his mother was Harriett Rutledge Elliott, daughter of a prominent family from Beaufort. It would be a nice fairy tale to say that N.G. grew up in the lap of fortune and luxury, a child of the South. But the Civil War destroyed the family home, and fever took Harriett during a trip to Cuba when “Nanno,” has his family called him, was 12 years old. Nanno eventually found himself in private school in Fairfax, Virginia, and he was thrilled at the chance to grow. But while he excelled in studies, he returned home to South Carolina eight months later, penniless.[15] He later found work as a telegraph operator, thanks to his older brother, but it wasn't long before he ended up working for a newspaper, The (Charleston) News and Courier.

He worked first as a correspondent in Columbia. A transfer to Washington, D.C., helped him sharpen his before he returned to Charleston in 1883, considering himself the heir apparent as editor of the News and Courier. When that didn’t happen, he returned to Columbia to as the Capital correspondent. When “Pitchfork Ben” Tillman won the Governor’s Mansion in 1890, Gonzales was out of a job (he had left his Courier job to campaign for Tillman’s opponent). It was then that his life was to change again, as he and his brother Ambrose were approached by a group of conservatives who wanted to start a new newspaper in Columbia. That paper, called The State, published its first edition on February 18, 1891.[16] N.G. Gonzales was editor, his brother Ambrose the “general agent,” or publisher/manager. Issue number 1 contained the promise that the paper would be “Democratic, independent, fair, statewide, and progressive.”[17] N.G. Gonzales was now able to fire off his opinions and deliver the news the way he wanted.

The Coming War

The Buildup

While Spain had controlled Cuba since before the American Revolution, the newly formed United States had long wanted the island for its own. President James Buchanan once wrote, “The acquisition of Cuba would greatly strengthen our Bond of Union…(and) insure the perpetuity of our Union.”[18] Several years later, before Theodore Roosevelt became President, he would be quoted as saying:

I wish to Heaven we were more jingo about Cuba and Hawaii. The trouble with our nation is that we incline to fall into mere animal sloth and ease, and then to venture too little instead of too much…There seems to be a gradual feature of vitality in these qualities…that make men fight well and write well.[19]

Indeed, there were several offers made by the United States to Spain to purchase the island outright, including one of $100 million in 1848.[20]But Spain wasn’t interested.

Tensions grew on the island between the Spanish occupiers and the Cuban inhabitants. Several times, the United States tried to intervene and either take control of Cuba on its own, or broker a deal to keep the peace; nothing worked. On February 16th the USS Maine, which had been sent to Havana harbor ostensibly to “monitor” the situation, sank from an explosion. Rumor was rampant that the Spanish were responsible, though evidence at the time was at best, inconclusive. The United States, so consumed with the idea of annexing Cuba for its own purposes as well as with the obvious struggles of the Cuban people, decided it was time for war. When President McKinley asked Congress for a declaration of war on April 11, 1898, it was for “the termination of hostilities between the government of Spain and the people of Cuba.”[21]

It took a week for Congress to decide on the final declaration, and when it was formally announced on April 25 (retroactive to April 22), it was far from President McKinley’s true intent. Congress didn’t want to fight the Spanish AND the Cubans. Thus in the Teller Amendment to the declaration of war, Congress emphasized “neutral intervention,” meaning that the United States recognized Cuba as an independent nation, and that it:

…disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island, except for the pacification thereof, and asserts that when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people.[22]

Semantics and opinion would become factors with these words—just what is pacification, and when will it be accomplished? Those were questions over which United States leaders, and N.G. Gonzales, would debate.

Attitude in South Carolina

One might think that South Carolina would want nothing to do with war again, being only a generation removed from the ravages of the Civil War. But evidence of the passion for the cause of “Cuba Libre,” or at least the desire to make a good showing in battle for the rest of the Union, is as close as the State House in Columbia where there are two monuments to the Cuban Crisis on the grounds.[23] The Palmetto State was one of frequent change in fortune, but little change in ideology. South Carolinians took pride in their stand in the “War of Northern Aggression” (Civil War).[24] Among the white population, the belief in the glory of the Confederacy and the love of those who fought for it was still very strong.[25] But that didn’t mean it wouldn’t carry over to a new loyalty to the “Re-United States.” There was the belief among whites that the South was a unit within a larger unit—the Union. The hatred toward the northern aggressors did not take away from the loyalty to the reunited country, and the “new” flag of the United States. Southerners could love the South and the memory of the Confederacy, but also pledge their allegiance and loyalty to the United States. In fact, that love of the Confederacy and belief in patriotism made southerners more suited to join up and fight in the Cuban crisis. Songs of the day started showing the push for more cooperation between the North and South. The second verse of “Remember the Maine” is clear: “With Yankee Doodle, Dixie swells/ with no discordant notes; And Northern cheers and Southern yells/Come from ten million throats.”[26] In one advertisement, the Prudential Insurance Company pledged to honor life insurance policies, even “in the event of war.”[27]And in what can only be described as a strange set of circumstances, John Phillip Sousa made his contribution to the cause of reconciliation as well. On April 17, 1898, mere days before the United States was to officially declare war with Spain, the Charleston News and Courier carried a story from New York City about a Sousa concert. Sousa was in his second encore, trying to follow his stirring rendition of the Star Spangled Banner:

At last Sousa raised his hand for silence, and when he could be heard, said, ‘Ladies and Gentlemen, it seems as though the only appropriate encore that I can give in these days is ‘Johnny get your gun,’ but there’s another air we all will cheer to-night,’ and turning to his band he led off ‘Dixie.’ The previous applause was as a Sunday quiet compared to the bedlam that broke loose as the strains of this beloved southern air arose. Cheer after cheer was given from all parts of the house, and through and over all, in startlingly increased volume rose the genuine, old time ‘Rebel yell.’…a man in the orchestra, who jumped into the aisle and called for three cheers for ‘One flag and one country, the North and the South—we’re all ready,’ and the cheers, given with a will, were accented by the now familiar yell.[28]

The South was ready to fight, and the North appeared ready to have it.

FINDINGS

In all, 398 editorials, both full and “survey” met the criteria for this study. Of those, 117, or 29 percent, were considered “full” editorials (ones with titles, containing several paragraphs); 281, or 71 percent, were considered “survey” editorials (no titles, ranging from 3 lines to 33, and listed under the heading “The State’s Survey”). And while the number suggests that there was an average of 1.1 editorials (of either kind) per day, the breakdown of the numbers tells a much different story.

South Carolina Pride through Patriotism

N.G. Gonzales, of course, had two sides to his heritage: the Cuban side, and that of his late mother, Harriett Elliott Gonzales. The Elliott side of the family exerted great influence over N.G. and his siblings, and they all had a deep love for South Carolina. When Gonzales began to write about the pending war and the impact that it would have on the state, he appeared to have two primary objectives: 1) to encourage South Carolinians to help in any way possible and 2) to remind them that theirs is a state full of honor and glory and should be treated as such.

Gonzales wrote about the South and its place in the Union should war break out. He had written many times about the chances that South Carolina troops would have the opportunities for glory and for honor in a Cuban campaign; but he also understood the dangers that war presented. Responding to criticism from other editors around the city and the state, Gonzales wrote that he wasn’t advocating war, merely the independence of Cuba; and if the South benefited from that, all the better:

…We think that as many southern men as have a taste for army service should volunteer; we would like to see the larger part of the army made up of southerners; see them do the best fighting and win the greatest honors of the war. This is their country and their cause. Nothing could have a worse effect in perpetuating sectional feeling than their remaining at home and sulking; nothing would have a happier effect in obliterating northern prejudice and restoring the south to full and esteemed comradeship with the other sections than prompt volunteering and such fine service in arms as southern men can give to the country. When the men of the south and north shall have fought together against a common enemy the war of 1861–1865 can be said, at last with real truth, to be over.…[29]

Gonzales knew that many in the South continued to harbor both ill feelings toward the North and a sense of inferiority toward themselves. He took every chance he could to change that attitude. When the Maine was sent to Havana, Gonzales made sure to point out that it was a “Son of the South,” Gen. Fitzhugh Lee, who had made the call, “in all his coolness.”[30] His love affair with the myth that would surround Lee continued throughout the conflict, even as Lee came home from Havana and reported to Congress and McKinley what was happening to Americans in Cuba. In April, as Lee made his way to Washington, D.C., Gonzales was among the first to cheer him, and made it clear that others were cheering him as well:

On the 9th of April, 1865, Robert E. Lee surrendered the army of Northern Virginia to Gen. Grant. On the 9th of April 1898, Fitzhugh Lee “evacuated” Habana. But he did so as a high officer of the United States, and bore with him a letter from General Grant’s grandson, seeking the honor of serving on his staff in case he should command an army of the United States against Spain. And he left Habana to begin an ‘Ode to Washington,’ which was throughout an ovation and which ended in one of the most remarkable demonstrations in the history of the national capital, extending even to the war department and the White House. The war is pretty nearly over.[31]

Gonzales used the excitement over Lee’s return to introduce the notion to many Southerners that the North was beginning to look to the South for leadership and patriotism. While it was unlikely that any old Southern officers would be given ultimate command over troops, Gonzales was pushing for the recognition that Southerners should expect commands:

“Fitzhugh Lee returns from his long and difficult experience at Habana to find that the whole nation honors and loves him. Few public servants have been more promptly rewarded for distinguished services. Not long ago, he was the favorite son of Old Virginia. Now he is a favorite son of Old Glory.” –New York Sun. It really seems so, and Old Glory can prove it by letting him lead an army into Cuba. His good right arm has been tingling these two years under the bonds of diplomacy—it is time that it should be allowed some exercise.[32]

While he is engaging in hyperbole here Gonzales also recognizes how valuable the growing legend of Fitzhugh Lee can be for his readers. Gonzales is reminding Southerners of their heritage of loyalty and determination. And he also admonishes those who would suggest that the North should do all the fighting because the “Union government” is pushing this war. After the article over the John Philip Sousa concert[33] Gonzales saw an opportunity to, in essence, say “the time has come to heal.”

The theory that thousands of auditors in theatres should go wild over “Dixie,” that the New York naval reserves should march to their war-time monitor keeping step to it, that the air should awaken enthusiasm whenever in the north it was played, that these spontaneous popular manifestation were due to a scheme to induce the south to the north’s fighting is absurd. Why not honestly admit the obvious meaning of them, a desire to show fellowship with the south and to wipe out sectionalism in a common cause?[34]

Gonzales was afraid that an American war without the South would set unification back generations. He wasn’t afraid to go after Southern heroes, either. When Gen. Wade Hampton was quoted (he would later say ‘mis’-quoted) as saying he would prefer the North to send all the troops to the front, Gonzales jumped right in:

No! The south is knitted to the Union now by closer bonds than have held it there for 75 years; there is less sectionalism, less of misunderstanding, less prejudice, less conflict than there has been since the time of the younger Adams. We are Americans and once more we feel that we are. We share in the greatness of our country and we recognize our duties toward it. We feel as keenly as the people of any other section our responsibility for the guarding of its interests and the maintenance of its honor. The state which shall volunteer quicker than South Carolina in the national cause must step fast to the telegraph office.

From Gen. Hampton’s past record we are induced to think that he expressed himself the other day without due consideration. We believe that if war should be declared his good right hand would burn for the saber-hilt.[35]

As it was, Hampton later “explained” himself, and Gonzales took him at his word. But this still gave Gonzales a chance to extol South Carolinians to think of themselves as Americans as well as Southerners, something he feels they hadn’t done for a long time. He saw these opportunities and worked to make the most of them, because he felt that a strong Southern showing, including a strong showing from South Carolina, would shape the future of relations in the Union for generations.

On April 22, 1898, when the declaration of war against Spain was finally announced, Gonzales acted as if he alone predicted that it would happen and congratulated himself because the “result has been a vindication of logic and honest dealing.”[36] The next day, he started trying to stir up people of the South Carolina to march off to what he thought would be glorious battle:

The War Spectacle

These are stirring times—times worth living in, and, if need be, dying in.

It may be very barbaric and all that, but it is a pleasure to feel the blood tingle and the pulses throb as the great kaleidoscope of war presents its quick-changing pictures; to know that on the land there are armies marching and on the sea squadrons steaming to execute the American will; to have a vivid, virile interest in the day’s news, to know that every hour is an hour of history, that heroes are in the making and that deeds are doing or to be done which will mark the time down the centuries.…The war may bring suffering and death to many of us, but at least it makes life, while it lasts, worth the living. Whether in body or in spirit we fight with the fighters there is an intoxication in the time, and exaltation which is grateful to the old Adam that is in us. At close quarters we grant you it may not be so entrancing a prospect, but, while the panorama unrolls itself afar in a world’s theatre you are privileged to enjoy the excitement it affords; to feel, to throb, to breathe, to LIVE![37]

And again, he comes under fire for advocating South Carolinians to engage in their “patriotic duty.” Again, he responds by not only with what he considers learned discourse, but a promise that he will be there, too:

Unable to answer The State and to demonstrate that war is always without excuse and those who engage in it malicious murderers, the Greenville News evades that subject and pleases itself by insinuating that The State has been urging others during the last three years to go to the aid of the Cubans, but has not sent any volunteers to them out of its own office. What this, if true, would have to do with the matter we don’t know, but we may as well say that the services of the editor of The State were offered to the Junta years ago, and declined on the ground first that thousands of men were then waiting in Cuba for arms and ammunition that could not be furnished, and second, that he could do more for the cause as an editor, promoting recognition of the Cuban government by the United States. It was obvious, besides, that the Cuban policy was to avoid pitched battles and simply to wear Spain out, and that policy, while effective, was not dependent on numbers. Hence, he not only did not urge any reader of The State to go over but dissuaded those who expressed to him a desire to do so. He will go over now for various reasons – one of which is that he wants to go, and another that he has advised others to go. We have not urged the editor of the Greenville News to volunteer. With his views on war we would sooner advise an Episcopal bishop to take the field.[38]

Conclusion

N.G.Gonzales, characterized as a fiery champion of Democratic causes in South Carolina, saw the Spanish-American-Cuban War as a way to bring South Carolina back into prominence in the Union. At the time this research was started Cuba, South Carolina, and heritage were central points of discussion in America. Cuba and the United States were fighting over a 6-year-old Cuban boy found floating in the ocean on Thanksgiving Day, 1999; South Carolinians of all colors were fighting over the heritage of a Confederate flag that still flew over the State House in Columbia; and people began to question whether their view of history was the “right” view. While not every event in 1897–1898 had direct bearing on the perception of the modern events above, there is a sense of irony that more than a hundred years after the end of the Cuban conflict, people are still arguing over the same core issues.

N.G. Gonzales was a fiery, passionate man who fought hard for what he believed. His battles with the Tillman family are legendary[39] and his editorials leading up to his service in Cuba during the Cuban conflict are certainly worth note. His Cuban-Southern heritage afforded him a unique perspective during the conflict. On one side he pushed hard for the independence of his father’s homeland; on another side he lobbied for South Carolinians to realize their future was in the Union, not hating it; and yet he never tired of slashing an opponent for his beliefs.

Gonzales held a nostalgic love for Cuba, and as the conflict of 1898 loomed closer, he continued to hold out hope that Cuba would be free. The Cuban side of his heritage deeply influenced how he wrote about the conflict. He often romanticized about the life of the Cuban insurgent, yet when it suited his needs he was ever-ready to comment on the hardships the Cuban faced. His editorials show that while he had indeed thought long and hard about the issue he allowed his emotions to get the better of him, sometimes.

The South Carolina side of his heritage allowed Gonzales the chance to push for a better place for the state within the Union. Gonzales remembered the destruction of his home in the Lowcountry, and, with his brothers’ help, he long supported his sisters as they struggled to bring the home back to its original glory.[40] He believed that South Carolina deserved a place of respect within the Union and he reasoned that the war, as savage as it could be, was a way to give the state the glory that he thought it should have.

But were his views that much different than those of his contemporaries in other states? The views of the New York City dailies have been well documented, and it is reasonable to assume that while Gonzales, Hearst, and Pulitzer eventually all agreed upon war, they reached their respective positions in different ways. Newspapers in the Midwest covered the Cuban conflict, but not with the fervor that was shown in the New York dailies or in Gonzales’ State.[41] But Gonzales’ contemporaries in Georgia and North Carolina were closer to him in their editorials.

Georgia newspapers were loyal to the history of the South as much as Gonzales was, but they were slow to pick up the drumbeat of war. Griffith and Talmadge conclude that the two Atlanta dailies, the Constitution and the Journal, were following the practice of the New York papers, in which they would lure the readers in with page spanning headlines, then “preach” to them through their editorials.[42] And the conservative newspapers in Georgia were having trouble determining their direction; on one hand desiring to remain loyal Southerners and rally around Fitzhugh Lee while on the other hand reminding their readers of the horrors of war, and what waging war meant.[43] Even up to early February, the press in Georgia urged the United States government “not to take on the war-like and predatory ways of the European nations.”[44] In the end Georgia papers as a whole, like Gonzales, recognized that war could restore the integrity and standing of the South, and declared that a united America could withstand any nation.

The overall mood in the North Carolina press was closer to Gonzales’ in that most Tar Heel papers were able to see through much of the sensationalism. Gibson notes that most papers were not likely to push for war, but as the conflict escalated, they grew warmer to the idea.[45] While many papers hoped that war could be averted, like Gonzales they were ready to accept it if it proved the only option for the freedom and relief of the Cubans. Gibson also points out that the Raleigh News and Observer called for not only recognition of the Cuban belligerency, but also the full independence of the Cuban government and people.[46] There, Gonzales and his North Carolina contemporaries are in unison. A possible connection could be that both newspapers were centered in state capitals, and therefore more accustomed to “seeing through” the politicking to the real issue. The News and Observer’s view on the De Lôme letter was very similar to that of Gonzales, citing that De Lôme “told the truth…The only crime was in a foreigner…presuming to write as Americans write.”[47] But the News and Observer and its neighbors were slow to call for war. Gonzales had been calling for war shortly after the explosion of the Maine; Gibson notes that many Tar Heel papers didn’t start until early March.[48] Perhaps Gonzales was out in front because he knew the desire of the Cuban people to be free more than his contemporaries possibly could and perhaps also because his devout love for Cuba was mixing with a devout love of South Carolina’s need for respectability again.

N.G. Gonzales’ heritage was the driving force behind his views; yet he was also a newspaperman of his times, and he would often use hyperbole in order to convey his message to his readers. His screaming headlines during the Cuban conflict were new to the people of Columbia, but Gonzales knew he had to get their attention.[49] By combining his heritage and the hyperbole of his profession, Gonzales continued to work towards what he felt was a better South Carolina—a state that was moving ahead, and putting the ravages of the Civil War behind it.

Gonzales knew he had a commanding position as editor of The State, and he was determined to use it. That he did so and yet was prepared to back up his words with his actions by going to Cuba and fighting on the front lines is testament enough to the man.[50] This research offers another glimpse into Gonzales’ words as they played out during what has been called the “Newspaper War.” It allows us to see the efforts of Gonzales as he and South Carolina moved closer and closer to not only starting a war in Cuba but also ending the war at home.

Appendix A

Totals of Coded Editorials

May 1, 1897–May 9, 1898

Full Survey Total

May-97 5 9 14

Jun-97 2 2 4

Jul-97 0 2 2

Aug-97 0 4 2

Sep-97 3 4 4

Oct-97 6 17 23

Nov-97 5 9 14

Dec-97 4 14 18

Jan-98 2 14 16

Up to 2/16 3 4 7

After 2/16 10 9 19

Mar-98 32 61 93

Apr-98 39 112 151

Up to 5/9 6 20 26

Totals 117 (29%) 281 (71%) 398

Editorial from February 17, 1898

The Loss of the Maine.

The destruction of the Maine shocks and awes the country. The moment is one of tense anxiety, of infinite eagerness to know the truth.

If the explosion which caused the loss of this splendid battleship and 250 lives was the result of accident or of negligence within the vessel there will be great pity but—no more. If, on the other hand, it were the product of foul play, if it can be shown that the Spanish had aught to do with it, then war between the United States and Spain need no declaration. The strongest administration could not stand against the wrathful rising of this mighty people. Pending knowledge we must be calm and wait.

The mystery thus far is absolute. It cannot be solved, even in fact, until divers can examine the hull of the sunken warship. We cannot venture to build a theory on so grave a subject upon some basis of accurate information, so we shall offer no pinion. But it is harder to understand how the destruction of the vessel could have come from within than from without its armoured sides. It was night. Most of the officers and crew were in their bunks. Little work could have been doing at that hour. The magazines would naturally have been closed. Their steel casing ought to have been strong enough to withstand the explosion of any small engine in operation near them.

Of all the outer causes the first to suggest itself—and indeed the only plausible one—is the explosion of a torpedo or submarine mine under the ship. The concussion might have produced explosions of detonating material in one of the magazines.

Who could have had an interest in committing so great a crime? The Cubans, some say—by this act hoping to embroil Spain and the United States in War. But in Habana Cuban sympathizers with the insurrection have no means for torpedo operations—no access to the torpedo stations and no skill in the use f the destructive engines.

The Spanish Tory businessmen are beginning to favor annexation in order that they and their property interests may be protected against the revenges which they fear would follow the success of the insurrection. But an easier and less cruel method of provoking a war which would end in annexation would be to mob the American consulate or American citizens.

The Spanish volunteers are at the moment most likely to commit such an outrage. They hate the Cubans and hate the Americans doubly because of their sympathy for Cuba. They have never scrupled at bloodshed to promote their ends. They have resented bitterly the presence of an American warship in their harbor. They constitute the "home guard" of the city and man the forts in rotation. They have access to the torpedo stores. They are young, and being young, are reckless. A fantastic and perverted notion of resenting American intervention may have caused some of them to carry out a torpedo attack on the intrusive warship.

We do not think that Spanish regulars, whether of the army or navy, could have done such a deed.

Last Monday we said: The storm centre has changed. It is no longer in Washington, no longer in Madrid. These (autonomists) proposals have brought it to Habana. Watch Habana.

Appendix B

The Monument to the South Carolina Soldiers of the Spanish-American War.

A closer look at the cross on the base of the monument.

The State’s headline from the sinking of the Maine, February 17, 1898.

An ad in The State newspaper from the Prudential Insurance Company

Appendix C

Coding Booklet

Column

Variable Name

Variable Label

Value Labels

Text/Value

1–4

Item

Item Number

0001–9999

5–10

Date

Date of Publication

Mm/dd/yy

Day

Day of Publication

1=Sunday

2=Monday

3=Tuesday

4=Wednesday

5=Thursday

6=Friday

7=Saturday

Place

Placement of Story

1= Front page

2= Inside Newspaper

3= Editorial page

Type

Type of story

1= News

2=Editorial

Zone

Story zone in paper

1= upper right

2= upper left

3= lower left

4= lower right

Scope

Scope of news story

0= can’t tell

1= local

2= national

Origin

Origin of the story

0= can’t tell

1=local

2= national/ap wire

Headline

Headline of story

0= no

1=yes

Headline Length

Number of lines in the Headline

01–99

Headline Text

Text of Headline

0= no

1= yes

20–21

Headline length

Length of headline in columns

01–99

22–24

Length of Story

Length of story in lines

001–999

Jump

Does the story jump to the next page

0= no

1= yes

Editorial Type

Type of Editorial

1= Full

2= Survey

Title

Editorial Title

0= no

1= yes

Bias

Is there a bias to the editorial

0= no

1= yes

Slant

What is the slant of the editorial

1=strongly for war

2=for war

3= neutral

4= against war

5=strongly against war

6= can’t tell

Author

Is the Editorial Local or National?

1= local

2= national

Editorial Length

How many lines is the editorial?

001–999

Coding Definitions

It is assumed that coders are either in college or graduate school (or have completed either) with a working knowledge of print journalism. The definitions are listed below for assistance.

As for determining whether a story fits the criteria in the first place:

Should it contain, in the headline or the body, any or all of the following terms: Cuba, Cuban, insurgent, freedom fighters, Spain, Captain-General, McKinley, Sagasta, Canovas, Weyler, Blanco, Fitzhugh Lee, filibustering, Cuban question, reconcentrados, Havana (or Habana, in this case).

1) Place

a) Front – Either on the front page or in the area generally considered the news section of the newspaper.

b) Editorial – in the editorial section of the newspaper, generally the next to last even page of the front section; either an editorial by the editors/publishers of the paper (or of same by another paper, reprinted in the State), or a letter from a reader, generally referred to as a “letter to the editor.”

2) Type – type of story/record/unit studied.

a) News – news story written by a reporter/wire service that offers the record of an event.

b) Editorial – a commentary written by the editors/publishers of a paper.

c) Letter to the editor – letter written, generally by a reader, for the purpose of publication in the editorial section of the newspaper.

3) Zone – area of the page in which the story appears; the page is generally divided into quadrants, with the “fold” of the paper (where it is horizontally folded for delivery) being the horizontal axis, and a line from through the center of the paper from the top to the bottom being the vertical axis.

a) Upper right – the right side of the paper above the fold

b) Upper left – the left side of the paper above the fold.

c) Lower left—the left side of the paper below the fold.

d) Lower right—the right side of the paper below the fold.

4) Scope – What is the field of the story? Does it concern only local interests in Cuba? Or does it refer to national discussion/facts/interest in the conflict; i.e., in the report, is the main topic about the discussion on Washington, or is it the discussion in Columbia?

a) Local – the main focus of the story is of events/discussion/people pertaining to Columbia and South Carolina

b) National – the main focus of the story is of events/discussion/people pertaining to the nation, and for that matter, the world (since we’re talking about Spain).

5) Origin – who wrote the story? To determine this, look to the dateline of the story (i.e., Washington, Havana, Paris, Madrid, etc = national; Columbia, anywhere in South Carolina = local)

a) Local – a reporter from the State (or from another South Carolina publication) wrote the story, ostensibly using facts that the reporter himself gathered.

b) Wire service/national reporter – a reporter from a wire service (Associated Press/United Press International) or from another, out of state newspaper (New York World, New York Journal, etc.) wrote the story, and the State picked it up and ran it.

6) Headline – the title section of the story, typically the synopsis of the story content.

7) Survey—a portion of the editorial section of The State where various one liners or small paragraphs are offered as editorials. These rarely have titles, other than under the main heading of “The State’s Survey.”

8) Headline length – Measure each line in standard number of columns. The State newspaper during this time generally used eight columns for its page.

9) Length of story – write in the number of lines using three digits. If the story is an odd measure, say one and half columns wide, take that into account; therefore, the number of lines in a story laid out one and one half columns would have to be multiplied by 1.5 to get an actual count of lines. Count all other partial lines as a whole line each (i.e., even if a line only has one word, that counts as a full line)

10) Jump—does the story jump from the page where it starts to another page?

11) Bias – Is there a bias on the part of the author in favor of one position on Cuban policy over another? In other words, does the author weave the story in a way that tries to persuade the reader to believe one set of facts over another? Does the author present the facts in a way that would cause the reader to believe the facts the way they are presented?

12) Slant – does the bias, if it is present, appear to be:

a) Unrelated to involvement in Cuba;

b) Strongly for involvement in Cuba;

c) For involvement in Cuba;

d) Neutral

e) Against involvement in Cuba;

f) Strongly against involvement in Cuba;

g) Can’t Tell.

h) How to determine slant of editorials

i) Words and phrases such as “the time for action is now,” “war is coming, and we must fight,” or “intervention” would suggest involvement by the United States in Cuba. Look for those terms that encourage action on the part of the United States, especially to encourage freedom of the Cubans from Spain.

13) Local Editorial – is the author of the editorial local, that is, from The State or from another newspaper within South Carolina. Typically, editorials from the local newspaper don’t have a byline, but appear right under or close to the masthead. National editorials usually have a notice that mentions that the editorial is from another newspaper or city.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Newspapers, such as The State, often used the term ìCuban Questionî or ìCuban conflictî to describe what eventually became the first part of the Spanish-American War. For the purposes of this paper, ìCuban conflict,î ìCuban crisis,î and ìSpanish-American Warî will be interchangeable in referring to the same war over Cuba.

[2] Rev. Samuel M. Smith, in The State, January 19, 1904.

[3] For a more complete examination of the history of The State, see S.L. Latimer, The Story of The State and the Gonzales Brothers, Columbia, S.C.; The State Printing Company, 1970.

[4] Lewis Pinckney Jones, Stormy Petrel: N.G. Gonzales and His State, Columbia, S.C., University of South Carolina Press; 1973; p. 273.

[5] See Wilkerson, Public Opinion and the Spanish American War, and Wisan, The Cuban Crisis as Reflected in the New York Press.

[6] See Latimer, The Story of The State; Todd, The Editorial Policy of The State, 1903–1913; Pierce, Palmettos and Oaks

[7] Both works contain less than ten pages each on the topic – Jones, pp. 273–280; Latimer, pp. 45–48.

[8] Morton Rosenberg and Thomas Ruff; Indiana and the Coming of the Spanish American War; Ball State University Press, Muncie, In; 1976; p. 20. Both editorials and newspapers articles were part of this study.

[9] Greensburg Review, Dec. 25, 1896, as cited in Rosenberg and Ruff, p. 19

[10] George Gibson; ìAttitudes in North Carolina regarding the Independence of Cuba, 1868–1898;” North Carolina Historical Review, vol. 43, p. 54.

[11] Raleigh (N.C.) News and Observer, March 5, 1898, as cited in Gibson, p. 60

[12] Lewis Griffith and John Talmadge; Georgia Journalism, 1763–1950; University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA; 1951; p. 123.

[13] Gonzales had lost his rights in 1896, but had been getting the wire reports anyway; he had to fight hard to get the official rights back. See Jones.

[14] Ibid. p. 10.

[15] Jones, p. 41.

[16] See Latimer and Jones for more complete histories of The State.

[17] Jones, p. 140, citing The State, Feb. 18, 1891.

[18] Louis A. Perez, The War of 1898: The United States and Cuba in History and Historiography, Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1998, p. 4.

[19] Susan Moeller, Shooting War: Photography and the American Experience of Combat; Basic Books, Inc., New York; 1989; in all sections of text, the researcher has attempted to condense some of the text. The omitted sections do not change the meaning of the quoted sections, or the context in which they are used.

[20] Perez, p. 4.

[21] Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 10, pp. 63–64, as cited in Perez, p. 19.

[22] Congressional Record, 55th Congress, 2nd session, vol. 31, p3988, as cited in Perez, p. 21.

[23] For pictures of the soldiers’ monument, please look to Appendix B.

[24] Southerners often view the Civil War more as the North invading the South, rather than a war over slavery, state’s rights, freedom, etc.

[25] In fact, it has yet to die; witness to battle over the Confederate flag that continues to fly near the entrance to the South Carolina State House.

[26] ìRemembering the Maine: The United States, 1898, and Sectional Reconciliation;î The Crisis of 1898; Angel Smith and Emma Davila-Cox, ed; St. Martin’s Press, New York City; 1999, p. 49.

[27] See Appendix B.

[28] News and Courier, April 19, 1898, p. 5.

[29] Ibid, Feb. 28, 1898.

[30] Ibid, Jan. 25, 1898.

[31] Ibid. p.4.

[32] Ibid, Apr. 13, 1898.

[33] See previous section, The Setting – Attitude in the United States,

[34] Ibid, Apr. 21, 1898.

[35] Ibid, Mar. 3, 1898.

[36] Ibid, Apr. 22, 1898.

[37] Ibid, Apr. 23, 1898.

[38] Ibid, Apr. 27, 1898.

[39] For Gonzales, those battles ultimately proved deadly. Ben Tillman’s nephew, Jim, who was Lieutenant Governor at the time, shot Gonzales in the head while the editor was walking by the State House on January 15, 1903. Gonzales died four days later.

[40] Jones, Stormy Petrel.

[41] See Mark Welter’s work on Minnesota newspapers and B. Karl Zobrist’s work on Chicago newspapers. Welter points out that the Minnesota press “was either disinterested in the rebellion, or it turned to more objective sources to cover the struggle,” and Zobrist notes that the Chicago Record and Daily News “were among those papers which were not guilty of sensationalist journalism.”

[42] Griffith and Talmadge, p. 124

[43] Ibid, p. 122

[44] Ibid, p. 123

[45] See George Gibson, ìAttitudes in North Carolina regarding the Independence of Cuba, 1868–1898.”

[46] Gibson, p. 57, citing the News and Observer, Dec. 8, 1896

[47] Gibson, pp. 58–59, citing News and Observer, Feb. 11, 1898

[48] Gibson, p. 60

[49] Jones, Stormy Petrel p. 273.

[50] For more on Gonzales’ time fighting in Cuba, see the collection of his writings from the island while in service, entitled In Darkest Cuba.