Bells Across the Land: 150th Anniversary of the End of the Civil War (1 Viewer)

[jazzeum]

On April 9, 2015, at 3:15 PM EDT, the National Park Service is inviting everyone to participate in “Bells Across the Land.” At that time, people will ring bells for the next four minutes–one for each year of the war–to commemorate the surrender of Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant, general-in-chief of the Armies of the United States.

See http://www.nps.gov/cebe/learn/news/...ss-the-land-a-nation-remembers-appomattox.htm for more information.

 

[Poppo]

On April 9, 2015, at 3:15 PM EDT, the National Park Service is inviting everyone to participate in “Bells Across the Land.” At that time, people will ring bells for the next four minutes–one for each year of the war–to commemorate the surrender of Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant, general-in-chief of the Armies of the United States.

See http://www.nps.gov/cebe/learn/news/...ss-the-land-a-nation-remembers-appomattox.htm for more information.

You better read again the article that you yourself have posted....

The bell ringing is not made " to commemorate the surrender of Robert E. Lee..." as you write, but because " Lee's surrender did not end the Civil War, the act is seen by most Americans as the symbolic end of four years of bloodshed".

I found strange your comment about the article,also considering that this thing has been made by a" Virginian" national park! But by reading it I found the real sense of it. :wink2:

 

[jazzeum]

Technically correct but, in effect, it did end the Civil War so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Johnston's surrender to Sherman would soon follow and that would be the end of the War.

 

[Poppo]

Technically correct but, in effect, it did end the Civil War so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Johnston's surrender to Sherman would soon follow and that would be the end of the War.

The point I want to make is that they celebrate the end of four years of bloodshed of civil war and not the defeat of Lee, it is not the same thing...

 

[jazzeum]

It's really a distinction without a difference because Lee's surrender effectively meant the end of the Civil War. Yes, Johnston and other Generals still had to surrender or cease fighting but Lee's surrender was the effective end of the Civil War. You could argue that the Civil War wasn't over until August when President Johnson said it was so but no one remembers that date.

Moreover, at that time it was recognized that the War was at an end.

 

[Poppo]

It's really a distinction without a difference because Lee's surrender effectively meant the end of the Civil War. Yes, Johnston and other Generals still had to surrender or cease fighting but Lee's surrender was the effective end of the Civil War. You could argue that the Civil War wasn't over until August when President Johnson said it was so but no one remembers that date.

Moreover, at that time it was recognized that the War was at an end.

I agree with you. But when you introduced this article you wrote:"people will ring bells for the next four minutes–one for each year of the war–to commemorate the surrender of Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant, general-in-chief of the Armies of the United States." Putting the stress on the condederates' defeat. While this commemoration is about the end of the war and not to commemorate the defeat of the confederacy, do you see what I mean now?

 

[jazzeum]

I think you're splitting hairs because the defeat of the Confederacy meant the end of the War.

 

[Poppo]

I think you're splitting hairs because the defeat of the Confederacy meant the end of the War.

I would have preferred the defeat of the Union and the independence of the south states, a much better end of war...