Was the War of the Copper Kings a war between men or a war of conflicting ideologies?
361849
Men and their egos ....\n\nWith egos too big for spacious Montana, three men made legislators little more than yes votes, and turned judges into political pawns and newspapers into attack dogs.\n\nTheir dealings lent an air of sophistication in a state where cattle outnumber people, yet it gave Montana a political black eye – the kind of big one you could expect by telling an off-colored Irish joke at the M&M on St. Patrick's Day.\n\nWilliam A. Clark was the first of Butte's copper kings. An entrepreneur, he owned a bank in Deer Lodge but knew his future was Butte.\n\nBy 1876 he took over mining properties when owners defaulted on loans.\n\nThat same year, an Irishman with the fabled ability to peer into the ground for the next great strike, came to Butte to run a silver operation in what is now called Walkerville.\n\nDuring the next 24 years, Marcus Daly and William Clark would turn Butte into the biggest copper producer in the world. And they would fight like hell.\n\nDaly wanted to leave his mark in business. Clark pined to be a statesmen – already he was wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of most. Each wanted to reach his goals at the expense of the other.\n\nClark made a quick fortune with mines, small smelters and other enterprises.\n\nDaly struck partnerships with financiers and developed the original Anaconda mine, which hit the world's purest collection of copper more than 300 feet underground.\n\nThe race was on.\n\nDaly and his partners bought up adjoining properties, imported laborers from around the world – especially the Irish – and went to work on a smelter west of Butte along the bank of Warm Springs Creek.\n\nHe founded a town there and nearly named it "Copperopolis." That name, however, was already taken so he settled on Anaconda. Today, the Old Works that Daly built is covered by a grassy carpet that beckons golfers.\n\nDaly's company was reorganized during the early 1890s, when it issued $25 million of stock that put ownership of the Butte Hill into the hands of out-of-state interests.\n\nStill, the likable Daly ran the local operation until 1899 when the Standard Oil Co. bought control.\n\nThe 1890s probably remain the most colorful, troubling and uproarious decade in modern Montana history.\n\nThe lessons learned had far-reaching effects for the young state and set its course for the next century.\n\nSteering that history were Daly and Clark, and a bit later the third leg of the copper king trio, Fritz Augustus Heinze.\n\nMuch of the "War of the Copper Kings" boiled down to Clark's ego, Daly's spite and Heinze's stealth.\n\nClark used his newspaper, the Butte Miner, to trumpet his run for senator from Montana and criticize Daly.\n\nIn response, Daly launched the Anaconda Standard, a broadsheet with splendid editing and artful taste.\n\nBut the two papers engaged in the sort of fight where truth was surrendered.\n\nDaly succeeded in thwarting Clark's crooked attempts to land a Senate seat.\n\nIn return, Clark became a Helena hero by making sure it would be the state capitol.\n\nDaly wanted his company town of Anaconda to be the seat of state government, and his supporters ridiculed "Helena's social airs, its cultural pretensions and its black and Chinese elements.\n\n"Helena, they intimated, was a sissy and un-American town!" wrote historian Mike Malone in his book "Montana -- A History of Two Centuries."\n\nClark, meanwhile, fashioned small copper collars that symbolized the danger of having a state government in Anaconda.\n\nIn the end, Clark won that fight and Helena houses the state's copper-domed capitol.\n\nAnd he also went to the Senate amidst one of the worst vote-buying bribery schemes in American history.\n\nIn 1900, the Montana Legislature sent Clark to Washington D.C. as senator, only to have the deliberative body refuse to seat him.\n\nClark returned to Montana and had Lt. Gov. A.E. Spriggs appoint him
76398
Yes. But it is less a war of cultural diversity and more a war between right and wrong. The real culture war is between those who know God and follow His leading in their lives and those who don't know God and follow their own ideas about right and wrong.
29144
Many.  There are wars going on all the time.
489831
Neither, do not you know by now War is not the answer?  Why can not we learn from history?   No one Wins We all lose. Peace on earth, good will toward men.  Are we destined to repeat the same mistakes since Abel and Cain?, No it doesn't have to be.  But according to Bible yes, even in the last days, there will be wars and rumours of wars.  Whew!!! All the turmoil gets old.
614521
Nope. War is caused by greed, too. Religion is often (though not always) just the excuse given to make the people go along with it. Greed will never go away. \n\nHate comes from differences. Human nature is to fear differences. There are more differences among the peoples of the earth than just religion. Race is one that comes to mind.
956682
Power is the impetus for war.\nReligion, land, politics...are the fall guys for power mongers.
197385
There was a minor engagement at Clarkstown in 1863 but I,ve never head of a Battle of Clark house. As for the Copperheads, they were Confederate sympethizers who took their name from snipping the head from a copper coin and wearing it as an emblem of their organisation. President Lincoln banished the whole lot to Canada. Where the Flat Top part of it comes in, i've no idea.
669986
All I could find is that there was a book written by Charles Austin Beard called The Devil theory of War; an inquiry into the nature of history and the possibility of keeping out of war.\n\n**During the great depression, devils led us to war aided by bankers and arms manufacturers on cost contracts
1036624
different levels of knowledge breeds diversity = conflict?\n\nmaybe god wanted his creations to follow a set of imperatives and hence live harmonious lives
23444
wars are not created because of some defect in human lovemaking....wars are usually cold calculated efforts of grabbing more recources dreamed up by guys like our present neocons...dosnt matter if they have enough sex...power in itself is an aphrodisiac....
1176113
I believe there are conflicts and wars because man is greedy.
638588
Because people fight over territory and resources (which may be divided by a political boundary).  A good example is the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait over an oil field.
914001
I believe even at the time there was debate about whether they were justified.  I've heard that General Lemay once remarked that if the war went the other way, they would have been tried as war criminals for their acts.  I don't have the reference for that though, I'll have to look it up.\n\nI look at it thins way, it probably was justified if you believe that war is a contest between enemy populations, and not just between militaries.  If you don't believe that, then probably not.
696656
no the majority there doesn't support him , but the truth is he killed less people in his time than the people killed in this war, and he ruled many years more than this war. and people were safer . not defending this war criminal just saying this war should end.
380343
Killing a king may start a war, depends on the king i suppose.  If he's the war monger, then the war would probably end.
755856
I say it's a civil war. In my view its a religious war that has been going since the birth of Cain and Abel. We cannot solve it and will never solve it until Christ returns. Blood will be shed and peace will not come in that place. May God be with us all.
574454
A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).\n\nUltimately the distinction between a "civil war" and a "revolution" or other name is arbitrary, and determined by usage. The successful insurgency of the 1640s in England which led to the (temporary) overthrow of the monarchy became known as the English Civil War. The successful insurgency of the 1770s in British colonies in America, with organized armies fighting battles, came to be known as the American Revolution. In the United States, and in American-dominated sources, the term 'the civil war' almost always means the American Civil War, with other civil wars noted or inferred from context.\n\nWhat is generally agreed upon is that factors such as nationalism, religion, and ideology, played little role in pre-modern civil wars. While it is quite common for nationalists to read past revolts, such as those of Scotland against England as early stirrings of nationalism, this is a somewhat suspect notion. Religion is more contentious, there are some civil wars that can be seen as fueled by religion in early years, such as the Jewish Revolts against Rome, but these can also be seen as revolts by a servile people against their oppressors or uprisings by local notables in an attempt to gain independence.\n\nCivil wars fought over religion have tended to occur more frequently in monotheistic societies than in polytheistic societies; this has been explained as being due to the fact that the latter tend to be more "flexible" in terms of dogma, to allow for some latitude in belief. In Europe through the Middle Ages, the Christianity of the great bulk of the population was influenced by pagan tradition. With the great majority of the population illiterate, access to the Bible was limited and led to a significant amount of syncretism between Christian and pagan elements. With religion so loosely applied, it was rare for people to feel particularly oppressed by it. There were periodic appearances of heresies, such as that of the Albigensians, which led to violence, but historians tend to view these to be the product of peasant revolts rather than themselves motivators of a civil war.\n\nAs religions tended to become more rigidly defined and understood by their followers, inter-religious tensions generally increased. The rise of Islam witnessed a rash of uprisings against non-Islamic rulers soon after its appearance. Subsequent Islamic history has been marked by repeated civil conflicts, mostly stemming out of the Shi'ite-Sunni divide. In Europe the Protestant Reformation had a similar effect, sparking years of both civil and international wars of religion. Civil wars between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism consumed France in the Wars of Religion, the Netherlands during the Eighty Years' War, Germany during the Thirty Years' War, and more recently, The Troubles of Northern Ireland. Religious disputes among Protestant sects also played an important role in the English Civil Wars, while official persecution of Catholics during the French Revolution spurred the Revolt in the Vendée.\n\n[edit]\nRevolutions\nA revolution is generally seen as a civil war fought over issues of ideology, over how power should be organized and distributed, not merely over which individuals hold it. The classic example of a revolution, and by some arguments the first is the French Revolution, which is seen to hav