Myths about the Civil War (1 Viewer)

[Rutledge]

I don't know who this Dilorenzo guy is, but he certainly seems to have an agenda. The War to Prevent Southern Independence? Never heard it called that one before.

You dont know who the "DiLorenzo guy" is, yet you instantly categorize his perspective as biased and unworthy because, well, you dont agree with him. What a "progressive" perspective. :rolleyes2:

We more typically call it the War of Northern Aggression dwon here, but I like this title too. Its a good point DiLorenzo makes. As the Northern army was raping, pillaging and child killing its way through the South, one cant help but admire their deep feelings about the injustice of slavery....^&cool

 

[Sans Culotte]

You dont know who the "DiLorenzo guy" is, yet you instantly categorize his perspective as biased and unworthy because, well, you dont agree with him. What a "progressive" perspective. :rolleyes2:

We more typically call it the War of Northern Aggression dwon here, but I like this title too. Its a good point DiLorenzo makes. As the Northern army was raping, pillaging and child killing its way through the South, one cant help but admire their deep feelings about the injustice of slavery....^&cool

And to think that it all began with a terrorist attack on Federal property!:rolleyes2:

 

[jazzeum]

You dont know who the "DiLorenzo guy" is, yet you instantly categorize his perspective as biased and unworthy because, well, you dont agree with him. What a "progressive" perspective. :rolleyes2:

We more typically call it the War of Northern Aggression dwon here, but I like this title too. Its a good point DiLorenzo makes. As the Northern army was raping, pillaging and child killing its way through the South, one cant help but admire their deep feelings about the injustice of slavery....^&cool

What good does it to do the blame game; there is enough to go around, trust me. It's as if the War had never ended.

These are the kinds of discussions that just don't advance anything between people and I suppose it may take another hundred years (at least) before true reunion happens.

As far as DiLorenzo, here's a review.

 

[thebritfarmer]

What good does it to do the blame game; there is enough to go around, trust me. It's as if the War had never ended.

These are the kinds of discussions that just don't advance anything between people and I suppose it may take another hundred years (at least) before true reunion happens.

As far as DiLorenzo, here's a review.

I don't get it either Brad, there doesn't seem to be this much "passion" between members regarding WWII

 

[Rutledge]

And to think that it all began with a terrorist attack on Federal property!:rolleyes2:

**nny. I'd wouldn't call a telegraphed attack on a military installation terrorism. But I would certainly consider the raping of women and killing of children terrorist acts - it's what alqueda excels in.

Besides, everyone knows, man for man, the rebel army was twice the outfit the union army could dream of being.

But be thankful - southerners make up a disproportionate percentage of the armed forces today. Who knows where the US would be without southern toughness on the battlefield.....:redface2:

 

[jazzeum]

Scott,

It's one of the defining events in our country's history and its echoes are still reverberating today. In WW II you can say that most people have forgiven but not forgotten. When it comes to the Civil War, it seems there is neither forgiveness nor forgetting.

Here's an interesting little clip from Ken Burns that was on AOL today. It can be accessed here.

 

[Scott]

I remember one of the reenactments at Bentonville, North Carolina back in the 1990s. Some local lady in period dress was haranguing we men representing the army of the United States. "Why don't you Yankees go home!!??" One of the men in ranks replied, "Ma'am, this is the UNITED STATES, we are HOME!" and gave her a "tip o' the kepi."

 

[Jay]

I remember one of the reenactments at Bentonville, North Carolina back in the 1990s. Some local lady in period dress was haranguing we men representing the army of the United States. "Why don't you Yankees go home!!??" One of the men in ranks replied, "Ma'am, this is the UNITED STATES, we are HOME!" and gave her a "tip o' the kepi."

What a great line. That says it so well. There may have been atrocities committed by Union troops working their way though the South. And their were some committed by Southern troops, certainly against Black Unions soldiers.
But I don't know that one would hear the Germans complaining about the Yanks and Brits fighting their way through Germany just to free some people from a concentration camp. Germans generally realize that they were wrong and don't try to excuse it. I suspect it's not known as the War of Allied Aggression in Germany.

 

[Jay]

And to think that it all began with a terrorist attack on Federal property!:rolleyes2:

{bravo}}

 

[Rutledge]

What a great line. That says it so well. There may have been atrocities committed by Union troops working their way though the South. And their were some committed by Southern troops, certainly against Black Unions soldiers.
But I don't know that one would hear the Germans complaining about the Yanks and Brits fighting their way through Germany just to free some people from a concentration camp. Germans generally realize that they were wrong and don't try to excuse it. I suspect it's not known as the War of Allied Aggression in Germany.

You see, there it is. The equating of southerners with nazis. Anytime someone pulls out this old canard, so and sos are "like nazis", you know they have run out of argument.

And really, so the German people were happy to see foreign troops invading their country? Those russians were real charmers. Like yankees, to **rther YOUR anology?

So what other fascinating insights about WWII might you have? :rolleyes2::rolleyes2:

 

[Rutledge]

I remember one of the reenactments at Bentonville, North Carolina back in the 1990s. Some local lady in period dress was haranguing we men representing the army of the United States. "Why don't you Yankees go home!!??" One of the men in ranks replied, "Ma'am, this is the UNITED STATES, we are HOME!" and gave her a "tip o' the kepi."

I bet she is still reeling over that one.....you reenacters are nutty! :tongue:

 

[Scott]

It has to be in good **n because we Northern Union reenactors would have to "play" with Northern Confederate reenactors who in my own experience are few or not as authentic. Southern reenactors usually welcome the reenactors who make the effort to drive all the way down there to where the battles actually took place. If we didn't travel to the Southern events then the Southerners would have to "Galvanize", that is play Union troops themselves.

I haven't been to a big event since Antietam in 2002. To pull off an event as big as that reenactment was there has to be cooperation and not sectional hatred. There's usually a lot of shaking of hands at the end of a reenactment.

**nny, my father a Boston kid was in the 101st Infantry of the Massachusetts National Guard, but he spend some time training troops in Virginia before going to Europe with the Yankee Division of the Third Army. He used to joke about when a Southerner gave him "lip" and my father, a Sergeant told him not to give him any "Cheap Rebel s**t!" Then again if it wasn't for my father going to Europe, I might have had a Southern mother. That's another story.

 

[Sans Culotte]

**nny. I'd wouldn't call a telegraphed attack on a military installation terrorism. But I would certainly consider the raping of women and killing of children terrorist acts - it's what alqueda excels in.

Besides, everyone knows, man for man, the rebel army was twice the outfit the union army could dream of being.

But be thankful - southerners make up a disproportionate percentage of the armed forces today. Who knows where the US would be without southern toughness on the battlefield.....:redface2:

O, I see. So if you notify your intended victim ahead of time, then your ensuing action can't be terrorism. It legitimizes everything, That's where Timothy McVeigh went wrong. And the Southern Hospitality shown to the black troops at Ft. Pillow shows the difference between that action and any charges directed toward Union troops. And what followed after the Civil War with the KKK, black codes , and Jim Crow, the lynchings & the bombings show,the true meaning of the bumper stickers which say "Heritage Not Hate?" More like the "Heritage OF Hate."

Man for man, men from all over the US have more than amply displayed their combat prowess in various wars over the years, including in our current wars. But no matter in what proportion or disproportion they're fighting,though,I believe that they're ALL fighting under the flag of ONE nation. I taught many of them when I lived in South Carolina. One of them, who could have been discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" ruling, volunteered for another tour of duty in Iraq so that he could be with his lover. Sort of an updated version of the Theban Band.

 

[Rutledge]

O, I see. So if you notify your intended victim ahead of time, then your ensuing action can't be terrorism. It legitimizes everything, That's where Timothy McVeigh went wrong. And the Southern Hospitality shown to the black troops at Ft. Pillow shows the difference between that action and any charges directed toward Union troops. And what followed after the Civil War with the KKK, black codes , and Jim Crow, the lynchings & the bombings show,the true meaning of the bumper stickers which say "Heritage Not Hate?" More like the "Heritage OF Hate."

Man for man, men from all over the US have more than amply displayed their combat prowess in various wars over the years, including in our current wars. But no matter in what proportion or disproportion they're fighting,though,I believe that they're ALL fighting under the flag of ONE nation. I taught many of them when I lived in South Carolina. One of them, who could have been discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" ruling, volunteered for another tour of duty in Iraq so that he could be with his lover. Sort of an updated version of the Theban Band.

This from an academic. Shocker! :wink2:

Yet the differentiation eludes the "learned fellow" somehow? Attacks on MILITARY Institutions are not usually considered terrorism. They are built for just that purpose, after all. Its the burning and pillaging of large CIVILIAN areas, ie. the city of Atlanta, that more typically falls under the definition of (state-sponsored) terrorism.

 

[lancer]

Watched "Birth of a Nation" on TCM the other night. Now that is a alternate viewpoint that depends on how one sees the ACW, or at least, the post ACW. It is a powerful piece of propaganda or history, taking into the time it was made, 50 years after the ACW. Sure isn't in line with today's various histories but it is a viewpoint. -- Al

 

[wadepat]

Post originally supplied by Lancer

There is a rather large and favorable review in The Washington Post today on Gary Gallagher's new book, "The Union War", a companion book to his 1997 "The Confederate War". The basic point in the book seems to be that the war was fought for the preservation of the union/nation as the main reason. Goes a long way to put to rest the more recent PC writings that the differences over slavery were the main motivation. -- Al
______________________
"Come and get them." - Spartan response to Persian demand that they lay down their arms at the pass of Thermopylai
"The world is **ll of idiots and if you don't point it out to them, how will they know?" -- Dr. John Becker
"I AM in a world of S***!" -- Pvt. Pyle ( aka Leonard Lawrence) - FMJ

 

[wadepat]

Post originally supplied by Jay

There is a rather large and favorable review in The Washington Post today on Gary Gallagher's new book, "The Union War", a companion book to his 1997 "The Confederate War". The basic point in the book seems to be that the war was fought for the preservation of the union/nation as the main reason. Goes a long way to put to rest the more recent PC writings that the differences over slavery were the main motivation. -- Al

Interesting article, thanks also for the reference, but I'm not sure what you or he mean by the PC writings about the difference over slavery.
Certainly saying that the war was not about slavery and was about "States Rights" is clearly the Politically Correct version as some see it. It had nothing to do with owning people, their idea seems to be, it was more about Washington wanting to impose its will on us. As been clearly shown before, "States Rights" only became an argument afterwords to try and justify a horrible position.

It seems that his thesis, and I think this is something that few who've studied the war in any depth would argue about, is that the North fought to preserve the Union first and foremost. Apparently the author of the book makes the point that Northerners seemed to care about America as a great, united country with high ideals about democracy, and about people. Whether those Northerners practiced those ideals then or later was certainly a different matter. One can point to slaves owned in the North, draft riots, etc. etc. etc. All are valid.
Lincoln said early on (and I'm paraphrasing here) about freeing all the slaves if it would preserve the Union, and freeing none of them if it would do the same.
However, that doesn't change the fact that for the South it was about slavery. Clearly some Southern states had a more vested interest than others in the issue, though some of the Southern states remained more or less connected to the Union. I think the article referenced makes that pretty clear.

 

[Scott]

That term "PC" is getting old. It's usually a pejorative against the statements by minorities who now have the political and economic power to object to being used or insulted. State's Rights just means right's claimed by certain people of areas of land with man-made borders. I'd like to see historical examples of a state claiming and demanding rights to expansion of the well being of all of it's citizens rather than keeping cheap labor.

 

[lancer]

Post originally supplied by Lancer




Interesting article, thanks also for the reference, but I'm not sure what you or he mean by the PC writings about the difference over slavery.
Certainly saying that the war was not about slavery and was about "States Rights" is clearly the Politically Correct version as some see it. It had nothing to do with owning people, their idea seems to be, it was more about Washington wanting to impose its will on us. As been clearly shown before, "States Rights" only became an argument afterwords to try and justify a horrible position.

It seems that his thesis, and I think this is something that few who've studied the war in any depth would argue about, is that the North fought to preserve the Union first and foremost. Apparently the author of the book makes the point that Northerners seemed to care about America as a great, united country with high ideals about democracy, and about people. Whether those Northerners practiced those ideals then or later was certainly a different matter. One can point to slaves owned in the North, draft riots, etc. etc. etc. All are valid.
Lincoln said early on (and I'm paraphrasing here) about freeing all the slaves if it would preserve the Union, and freeing none of them if it would do the same.
However, that doesn't change the fact that for the South it was about slavery. Clearly some Southern states had a more vested interest than others in the issue, though some of the Southern states remained more or less connected to the Union. I think the article referenced makes that pretty clear.

A much clearer representation of the article. I made a poor attempt at trying to briefly review the review.:redface2: -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

As I said elsewhere, I haven't read the book yet and I'm sure the initial aim of the war was to preserve the Union. However, following the Emancipation Proclamation this did change or, stated another way, the Union could only be preserved by ridding the nation of slavery.

In Lincoln's famous letter to Senator Albert Hodges of Kentucky in April 1864, he indicated that, with respect to the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, he was "in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter."

In 1864, when the War was going poorly, he was criticized from elements in the North because they suspected the war aims had changed from one to preserve the Union to one to eradicating slavery, which not everyone supported. It was probably only Sherman's victory in Atlanta that saved his Presidency and Lincoln was **lly prepared for the prospect of losing.

His letter to James Conkling in August 1863 (the **ll text of which can be accessed here) is somewhat instructive. In it he states:

"You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistence to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes.

I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistence to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept."