Questions continually arise regarding the differences between the original teachings of Charles Taze Russell and those of Jehovah's Witnesses today. Particularly are we concerned here with Russell's "Armageddon," which was expected to be a social revolution.
Let me say, at the outset, that these posts are of historical interest only, and are not intended to "trash" Russell. If other posters wish to respond in a different spirit, that is beyond my control. Also, as I do not wish to offer lengthy quotations, I offer the following sources for further research: Russell's own writings, the Studies in the Scriptures, cover this topic in Volume I, The Divine Plan of the Ages, Study XV, "The Day of Jehovah" ( http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/htdb0082.htm ) and Volume IV, The Battle of Armageddon (originally The Day of Vengeance) ( http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/indexd.htm ), the entire volume being devoted to this subject. For commentary on the social conditions existing during the formation of Russell's ideas, and the history of his renaming the fourth volume, see The Herald magazine, edition of May-June 1999 ( http://www.heraldmag.org/toc_may99.htm ). For Russell's final views on Armageddon, see Zion's Watch Tower, Reprints 5752 ( http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r5752.htm ) and 5771 ( http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r5771.htm ).
The Adventist tradition, from which Russell derived much of his inspiration, taught that the earth would be burned by literal fire. Upon discovery of the "invisible presence" of Christ (supposed to be in effect since 1874), Russell wondered if other features of the end-time might be different from what had been expected. He learned that "fire" as used in Scripture can be merely a symbol of destruction without reference to the actual means of destruction - and this he applied to the eschatological (end-time) fire as well. Thus, passages such as 2 Peter 3:10-12 were to be taken figuratively. But if the old biblical figures such as fire, earthquake, storm, etc. were merely symbols, this left the question of means to be answered, for something must bring to an end the old world order in preparation for the new age.
Another factor which influenced Russell's thinking was his acceptance of historicism as the correct approach to the predictions of Daniel and Revelation. This was a school of thought, long accepted by mainline Protestant scholars, which understood the fulfillment of apocalyptic visions to be panoramic views of the history of the world from the time of writing to the consummation of history, and the apocalyptic figures could be made to fit the facts of history because they were interpreted symbolically. But this meant, to be consistent, that the final features of the prophecies (having to do with the end of the world) must also be symbolic. This means that there is no literal description in the prophecies as to how the world will end.
There were some historicist interpreters who had already applied one of the "earthquakes" of the book of Revelation to the French Revolution. Could something like this on a worldwide scale be the means by which the present world would come to an end? Other passages of Scripture also seemd to be describing revolution, as when Psalm 46 described the mountains collapsing into the sea - mountains being understood to be kingdoms and the sea the masses of humanity.
In 1848 there had been a series of revolutions in Europe, and also around this time Carl Marx began the socialist movement encouraging worldwide revolution. Many of the socialists and anarchists were driven from their own countries in Europe and immigrated to the USA. There had been a labor riot in Chicago in 1878 that created widespread panic in the country. As a result of the Industrial Revolution, many people who had previously been able to live off the land moved to the cities and were employed by laissez faire capitalists, the labor movement began, and there was fear of class warfare. To Russell, some of the prophecies seemed to indicate that the final conflict would have something to do with economics. There were pronouncements in the Prophets (when viewed from later apocalyptic thought) that the final sinners would cast their silver and their gold into the streets (Ezek. 7:19; Zeph. 1:18), and Russell found a significant pronouncement in the Epistle of James that cursed the rich in the last days. (James 5:1-5) So he concluded that the final conflict, the Armageddon, would be between capital and labor.
There was no way in which Russell, by logical argument, could directly prove that his view was correct. He could not prove it by comparing scripture with scripture, for no matter how suggestive they might be, the Scriptures do not immediately correspond to economic conditions of the nineteenth century. Rather, he studied the conditions prevalent in his own time, and took an intuitive leap in applying scripture accordingly. We might compare this with someone living during the Cold War who witnessed the stockpiling of thermonuclear armaments and came to the conclusion that this is how the world would end, that this is what the Bible was referring to all along. But in Russell's day, there were no super weapons. There were social and economic conditions threatening the established order. Russell thought that a worldwide revolution, possibly spreading from country to country (as the revolutions of 1848 had done), would bring a state of world anarchy. But instead of another class finally seizing control (as occurred in the French Revolution and later in Russia), the new stablizing influence would be God's kingdom as represented by the resurrected Ancient Worthies in Israel (then Palestine).