Why It Makes Sense... (1 Viewer)

Most northerners I know call it the American Civil War or The War between the states, while most southerners I know call if The War of Northern aggression.

On my most recent trip to Chicago, a semi passed me with a huge Southern batte flag on the back of the trailer with the words "Fighting terrorism since 1861" underneath. Ok then, there you go. A bumper sticker would have done the job IMO, but I guess the guy really wanted his point made.

As lancer pointed out, there are southerners to this day almost 150 years later who still hold a grudge. I am from Massachusetts and I hold no grudges. Some may say "That is because you live in a state from the victors side"; my opinion is there were no "winners" in that war or any war for that matter. Some victory, thousands and thousands of young boys died as a result is how I see it, no winner, no loser.

When we've had to (both world wars) northerners and southerners alike have come together and performed brilliantly. Thousands of boys north and south alike died in both world wars too by the way.

I really wish this "north vs south" attitude would just go away, but sadly it probably never will.

I think the phrase is "Can't we all just get along", so can't we?

Hey Afrikaans nationalists still go on about the Boer War over here. You know about how the British "allegedly" put the Afrikaners in concentration camps and the like. So I suppose some things will just never go away. There is also a huge debate about what to call the war. Anglo Boer War, South African War or Second Freedom War (Tweede Vryheidsoorlog).
What I do know is that whenever a Free State traffic cop spots a Durban registered car you can expect to get pulled over and given a hard time. It always pays to try and greet him in Afrikaans first.

"Good day officer is there a problem"
"Ja Menheer. Do you got a licence for your vehicle?
Is the blerrie brake light working ?"
Step out of the vehilce pliz"

Afrikaners are fondly referred to as "Dutchmen, rock spiders, crunchies, hairybacks and clutch plates or sopkoppies"
English South Africans are referred to equally fondly as "Rooineks and Soutpiels and moffies"

A mate of mine went to an Afrikaans university. On his first day in res as a freshman the head of the house committe came up to him and said' You blerrie Rooinek You won't last here a day" and My friend says with a smile you know he was right. I moved into private digs the next morning
 
Damian,
Thanks for sharing, we get the same sort of thing here as well.

My father is a retired Boston police officer and a fellow officer who's a friend of his got pulled over in Mississippi several years ago while driving to Florida.

He showed the officer his badge and license showing he was from Massachusetts (normally, any decent police officer will let another officer go without a ticket, sort of a courtesy between officers so to speak) and the officer said "That badge ain't gonna help you down here boy, you can take that badge and stick it you know where."

What a class act; comical thing is if the shoe was on the other foot and the Mississippi officer had gotten pulled over here in Massachusetts, he surely would not have gotten the same treatment.

Yep, some wounds just never heal.................
 
Damian,
Thanks for sharing, we get the same sort of thing here as well.

My father is a retired Boston police officer and a fellow officer who's a friend of his got pulled over in Mississippi several years ago while driving to Florida.

He showed the officer his badge and license showing he was from Massachusetts (normally, any decent police officer will let another officer go without a ticket, sort of a courtesy between officers so to speak) and the officer said "That badge ain't gonna help you down here boy, you can take that badge and stick it you know where."

What a class act; comical thing is if the shoe was on the other foot and the Mississippi officer had gotten pulled over here in Massachusetts, he surely would not have gotten the same treatment.

Yep, some wounds just never heal.................

I certainly dont want to start up a war of words with my good friend George here - but, in the South - Family is very important. Long traditions and heritage - with homesteads / land staying in the family for generations.

What seems to be glossed over on the subject is that the SOUTH took the brunt of the war - especially its civilian population. Whole cities were destroyed and towns were burned to the ground. People's livelyhoods were totally destroyed in Agriculture. Most manufacturing was wiped out.

The NORTH started the concept of TOTAL WAR - not the South. The NORTH actively targeted civilian populations for attack and turned them into military targets. The vast majority of the War was fought in the South - so the Southern People had that cross to bear.

So - Yes, its been a long time since the War has ended - and our Country has fought many other Wars - with all States together - United in our strong convictions of Liberty & Freedom. And the wrongs on the past have been resolved for all people. BUT....

But, There is a memory that has been passed down from generation to generation - that the NORTH had its victory over Military and Civilians - and no one south of the Mason Dixon Line was spared.

Yes - we do need to move on - but, there is a reason for the resentment that still lingers - however small, very small - which I believe is really the case when look at the population at a whole.
 
I certainly dont want to start up a war of words with my good friend George here - but, in the South - Family is very important. Long traditions and heritage - with homesteads / land staying in the family for generations.

What seems to be glossed over on the subject is that the SOUTH took the brunt of the war - especially its civilian population. Whole cities were destroyed and towns were burned to the ground. People's livelyhoods were totally destroyed in Agriculture. Most manufacturing was wiped out.

The NORTH started the concept of TOTAL WAR - not the South. The NORTH actively targeted civilian populations for attack and turned them into military targets. The vast majority of the War was fought in the South - so the Southern People had that cross to bear.

So - Yes, its been a long time since the War has ended - and our Country has fought many other Wars - with all States together - United in our strong convictions of Liberty & Freedom. And the wrongs on the past have been resolved for all people. BUT....

But, There is a memory that has been passed down from generation to generation - that the NORTH had its victory over Military and Civilians - and no one south of the Mason Dixon Line was spared.

Yes - we do need to move on - but, there is a reason for the resentment that still lingers - however small, very small - which I believe is really the case when look at the population at a whole.


Thank you Ron for bringing that so far overlooked fact into the fold.
 
You can say that the United States should have let the rebellious states go their own way, such as Louis, and there were others who did not feel that should be the case, such as most of the United States in 1861. Now, if you feel the latter way, as I do, then that meant you had to subdue the rebellious states. The only way to do that was to invade the South. In other words, you had to go where the enemy was and obviously they would have to take the brunt of the war. The South would have liked nothing better than Northern inaction because that would have been tacit acceptance of the CSA.

If you were going to try to win the war and invade the South, it wasn't enough to try to capture cities or areas, you had to destroy the Southern armies, not just capture Richmond. In addition, you had to destory the South's ability to wage war (particularly troubling for the United States Army in guerrilla infested areas such as Tennessee). Lincoln recognized this and wanted Generals who would do this. McClellan, for example, besides all his other defects, didn't want to do this. He didn't want to disturb existing property (read slavery) relations between the caucasian armies. Linconln, on the other hand, recognized that he would have to and tried to use every weapon at his disposal, including the Emancipation Proclamation, which was a use of his war powers to deny the ability of the South to use the Slaves. It was, of course, total war.

In a war like this, total war was the only option available because the Southern Armies had to be destroyed as well as their ability to rely on the local populace. Because the war had to be taken to the rebellious states, it's only logical (and unfortunate) that the Southern population was going to suffer. In addition, what became a war for re-union became a war to destroy slavery (right or wrong, and for which Lincoln received a lot of criticism), which involved destroying the agricultural base upon which the South existed. I'm not sure this is the best comparison but in Vietnam we won battles but didn't subjugate the local populace or destroy the ability of the VC and the NVA to wage war and that was a war that was lost. WW II might be a better comparison because the Allies destoryed both the German Army and their ability to wage war.

I know this won't make a lot of our Southern members happy but this was the only way to win the Civil War.
 
I certainly dont want to start up a war of words with my good friend George here - but, in the South - Family is very important. Long traditions and heritage - with homesteads / land staying in the family for generations.

What seems to be glossed over on the subject is that the SOUTH took the brunt of the war - especially its civilian population. Whole cities were destroyed and towns were burned to the ground. People's livelyhoods were totally destroyed in Agriculture. Most manufacturing was wiped out.

The NORTH started the concept of TOTAL WAR - not the South. The NORTH actively targeted civilian populations for attack and turned them into military targets. The vast majority of the War was fought in the South - so the Southern People had that cross to bear.

So - Yes, its been a long time since the War has ended - and our Country has fought many other Wars - with all States together - United in our strong convictions of Liberty & Freedom. And the wrongs on the past have been resolved for all people. BUT....

But, There is a memory that has been passed down from generation to generation - that the NORTH had its victory over Military and Civilians - and no one south of the Mason Dixon Line was spared.

Yes - we do need to move on - but, there is a reason for the resentment that still lingers - however small, very small - which I believe is really the case when look at the population at a whole.


Ron, even though you work in a foreign country named DC, you did hit the nail on the head.

Since I somehow started this thread, let me put a few things into perspective from someone who grew up South of the Mason Dixon. I had relatives fight for both sides, but a majority were Southern. On an aside, the most records I have are from the Northern relatives, go figure, that's another story , the winners always write the history. ANYWAY, most of my family still refers to it as the War of Northern Aggression as it was always referred to that way for 150 years. Now, that said, we are we happy for a strong country today. BUT as Ron put it, my relative's farms and lands were burned in southern Maryland and Virginia, much like what Sherman did to much of the South. I would not necessarily say that there is still animosity towards the North (I truly think Mississippi and Alabama are finally over it), but I would not recommend mentioning William Tecumseh Sherman's name in any of those States as that is literally fighting words in most areas.:):)

The civilian damage is what caused most of the lingering hostility. I would also like to set the record straight once and for all. Nathan Bedford Forrest was NOT an evil Grand Dragon of the KKK. He founded that group as an underground to fight against the "wrongs" of Reconstruction. However, once he saw it going in the "wrong" direction he tried to disband it. It really burns me up to this day, the uneducated people who refer to Forrest as the racist who started the KKK. That is just crap.

Off the soapbox, this is an enjoyable thread, it is interesting to see the cultures clash, debate and somewhat agree. It is a fascinating topic to study from a lot of viewpoints. Too bad, the BS PC version is taught in school today. I am not even sure Robert E. Lee's name is even mentioned. Again, that is another story.

PS. The War of Northern Aggression comes from the belief that the South declared independence and the North aggressively fought to keep the Union together.

TD
 
Ron, even though you work in a foreign country named DC, you did hit the nail on the head.

Since I somehow started this thread, let me put a few things into perspective from someone who grew up South of the Mason Dixon. I had relatives fight for both sides, but a majority were Southern. On an aside, the most records I have are from the Northern relatives, go figure, that's another story , the winners always write the history. ANYWAY, most of my family still refers to it as the War of Northern Aggression as it was always referred to that way for 150 years. Now, that said, we are we happy for a strong country today. BUT as Ron put it, my relative's farms and lands were burned in southern Maryland and Virginia, much like what Sherman did to much of the South. I would not necessarily say that there is still animosity towards the North (I truly think Mississippi and Alabama are finally over it), but I would not recommend mentioning William Tecumseh Sherman's name in any of those States as that is literally fighting words in most areas.:):)

The civilian damage is what caused most of the lingering hostility. I would also like to set the record straight once and for all. Nathan Bedford Forrest was NOT an evil Grand Dragon of the KKK. He founded that group as an underground to fight against the "wrongs" of Reconstruction. However, once he saw it going in the "wrong" direction he tried to disband it. It really burns me up to this day, the uneducated people who refer to Forrest as the racist who started the KKK. That is just crap.

Off the soapbox, this is an enjoyable thread, it is interesting to see the cultures clash, debate and somewhat agree. It is a fascinating topic to study from a lot of viewpoints. Too bad, the BS PC version is taught in school today. I am not even sure Robert E. Lee's name is even mentioned. Again, that is another story.

PS. The War of Northern Aggression comes from the belief that the South declared independence and the North aggressively fought to keep the Union together.

TD

You did inspire me to start this thread though Im sure you didnt intend to; either way its gotten some fairly interesting opinions going and for that I think we sort of owe you. Anyways...

My family originally came from Georiga, the Atlanta area and Savannah specifically. Many people in those areas as you said will never forgive Sherman for what he did. In Savannah, one of the favorite stories aside from the prolific sleeping arrangements of George Washington in the city, is the story of Sherman's sleeping arangements. Sherman stayed at a home in downtown Savannah right next door to a church. The wives of Savannah organized round the clock teams to ring the church bell constantly. Sherman became fuming mad and had the bell taken down. The wives responded by contacting Lincoln who ordered Sherman to rehang the bell. Sherman hung the bell upside down. The wives saw this as a great victory over the hated Sherman and were more than happy to just hit the bell with whatever they could find. Sherman finally had to post guards around the church until he left the city.

As for Nathan Bedford Forest; I also side with you in that his legacy has been tarnished by the uneducated. Those fortunate enough to know his full story will realize his miliary brilliance. One can only wonder what might have been had Lee seen Forest's bright star and brought him east to wreak havoc on Yankee soil.

P.S. - When I went through high school American History Robert E. Lee's name was mentioned frequently. We even celebrated his birthday.
 
You can say that the United States should have let the rebellious states go their own way, such as Louis, and there were others who did not feel that should be the case, such as most of the United States in 1861. Now, if you feel the latter way, as I do, then that meant you had to subdue the rebellious states. The only way to do that was to invade the South. In other words, you had to go where the enemy was and obviously they would have to take the brunt of the war. The South would have liked nothing better than Northern inaction because that would have been tacit acceptance of the CSA.

If you were going to try to win the war and invade the South, it wasn't enough to try to capture cities or areas, you had to destroy the Southern armies, not just capture Richmond. In addition, you had to destory the South's ability to wage war (particularly troubling for the United States Army in guerrilla infested areas such as Tennessee). Lincoln recognized this and wanted Generals who would do this. McClellan, for example, besides all his other defects, didn't want to do this. He didn't want to disturb existing property (read slavery) relations between the caucasian armies. Linconln, on the other hand, recognized that he would have to and tried to use every weapon at his disposal, including the Emancipation Proclamation, which was a use of his war powers to deny the ability of the South to use the Slaves. It was, of course, total war.

In a war like this, total war was the only option available because the Southern Armies had to be destroyed as well as their ability to rely on the local populace. Because the war had to be taken to the rebellious states, it's only logical (and unfortunate) that the Southern population was going to suffer. In addition, what became a war for re-union became a war to destroy slavery (right or wrong, and for which Lincoln received a lot of criticism), which involved destroying the agricultural base upon which the South existed. I'm not sure this is the best comparison but in Vietnam we won battles but didn't subjugate the local populace or destroy the ability of the VC and the NVA to wage war and that was a war that was lost. WW II might be a better comparison because the Allies destoryed both the German Army and their ability to wage war.

I know this won't make a lot of our Southern members happy but this was the only way to win the Civil War.

Brad

No disagreement here - you have agreed that the UNION / NORTH waged TOTAL WAR against Military and Civilian Populations.

This is why you can still find an attitude in the South. It's not just a bunch of rednecks (I am from the South - I am aloud to say it :D) that hate yankees and blacks. There is a justified reason for those who care to remember - even though the War was many, many years ago.

Although - funny thing - if you look at US History - we hardly can even call the War "a longtime ago" .... when compared to European History.

Ron
 
TD

LOL - Yes - I live in a Foreign Country now ! If not before !! :eek: :eek:

As a fellow Southerner - I feel the PC version of history seems to jump right over the War Crimes of the North.

If Lincoln was held to today's standard - well ..... :rolleyes:

Ron
 
As a fellow Southerner - I feel the PC version of history seems to jump right over the War Crimes of the North.

If Lincoln was held to today's standard - well ..... :rolleyes:

Ron

War crimes might be pushing it. Certainly for the time they were harsh and I certainly dont agree with them as it was some of my ancestors who were affected. However the tactics were effective in their own way. Im just proud to know that my ancestors who servived with Marse Robert never participated in acts of that nature.

As for Lincoln and todays standards... he wouldnt have been reelected for a 2nd term.
 
Harris

If the United States Army went on a Campaign to BURN, DESTROY and ATTACK every Civilian Home and Business in a specific Military Campaign - What would today's Media Call It ?

How would CNN or MSNBC cover it ??

I think Lincoln would a have far more serious fate than not just being re-elected ...... in today's Standard ! ;)

Ron
 
Harris

If the United States Army went on a Campaign to BURN, DESTROY and ATTACK every Civilian Home and Business in a specific Military Campaign - What would today's Media Call It ?

How would CNN or MSNBC cover it ??

I think Lincoln would a have far more serious fate than not just being re-elected ...... in today's Standard ! ;)

Ron

Ron,

You might be right but when you look back at a historical period in time, it's a mistake to judge by it today's standards. Also, let's not forget Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus, had a Democratic politician basically deported and so forth. Today, he might be impeached but that's judged from today.
 
From what I understand Andersonville Prison was pretty rough. It would seem both sides may have a few not so great moments
 
A very interesting thread but it also confirms my belief that 143 years is definitely not enough time for this to be discussed dispassionately. Heck, 343 years might not be enough.

I see this comment about war crimes of the North but in any war, crimes are committed by both sides. Let's not forget what happened at Fort Pillow, particularly from Tom's beloved, Bedford Forrest or what generally happened to blacks fighting in the Army. I believe the situation somewhat changed when Lincoln warned that he would start taking retaliatory actions against Southern pows.

To some of you, Sherman is anathema. To me, he is a hero, for his capture of Atlanta guaranteed Lincoln's election. Otherwise, Lincoln would have lost and his successor, McClellan, might have let the South go its merry way or if the country had been re-unified, slavery would have probably still continued.

Let's face it, in our lifetime, Northerners and Southeners will probably never agree on the Civil War. At least the Civil War rid the country of the scourge of the enslavement of 4,000,000 people although it has taken more than 125 years for blacks to be really free.
 
Harris

If the United States Army went on a Campaign to BURN, DESTROY and ATTACK every Civilian Home and Business in a specific Military Campaign - What would today's Media Call It ?

How would CNN or MSNBC cover it ??

I think Lincoln would a have far more serious fate than not just being re-elected ...... in today's Standard ! ;)

Ron


By no means do I support what the Yankees did. As a Southerner I find it completely inappropriate to target the civilian population in that given time period. But as a person looking back at the situation with a neutral viewpoint, the Union strategy worked.

Marse Robert would have never allowed Stuart or Hampton to commit acts of the same variety their Northern counterparts employed regardless of how well those tactics might have worked. And I for one will not question the philosophy of a great officer and gentleman of Lee's caliber.
 
I was gonna stay out of this but Sherman as a Hero? Any commander after him that did half of what he did, would be court martialed and imprisoned for life, or executed. Violated civil rights, illegal search and seizures, destruction of private property for no more reason than to create panic and pull troops from the front. Burned almost an entire city whether he meant to or not is of little concern. Allowed troops under his command to murder, rape, steal and torture civilians. He did indeed wage total war above and beyond what can be justified. Hero I think not, the man was a terrorist plain and simple. Lincoln's terrorist.
 
I was gonna stay out of this but Sherman as a Hero? Any commander after him that did half of what he did, would be court martialed and imprisoned for life, or executed. Violated civil rights, illegal search and seizures, destruction of private property for no more reason than to create panic and pull troops from the front. Burned an entire city whether he meant to or not is of little concern. Allowed troops under his command to murder, rape, steal and torture civilians. He did indeed wage total war above and beyond what can be justified. Hero I think not, the man was a terrorist plain and simple.

I didnt want to use that word but certainly if I were echo some views shared around family dinners in Savannah or Atlanta then yes terrorist would fit. My mother who is a Savannah native wouldnt allow me to display my Sherman toy soldier for almost a month due to how she felt about him
 
From what I understand Andersonville Prison was pretty rough. It would seem both sides may have a few not so great moments

Quite True - but, then again so was Chicago, Point Lookout, and other Union POW Camps which did far worst than Andersonville and was covered up by the UNION.

No clean hands when it comes to the POWs in the Civil War - its just the winners get to write the history and forget their misdeeds.
 
A very interesting thread but it also confirms my belief that 143 years is definitely not enough time for this to be discussed dispassionately. Heck, 343 years might not be enough.

I see this comment about war crimes of the North but in any war, crimes are committed by both sides. Let's not forget what happened at Fort Pillow, particularly from Tom's beloved, Bedford Forrest or what generally happened to blacks fighting in the Army. I believe the situation somewhat changed when Lincoln warned that he would start taking retaliatory actions against Southern pows.

To some of you, Sherman is anathema. To me, he is a hero, for his capture of Atlanta guaranteed Lincoln's election. Otherwise, Lincoln would have lost and his successor, McClellan, might have let the South go its merry way or if the country had been re-unified, slavery would have probably still continued.

Let's face it, in our lifetime, Northerners and Southeners will probably never agree on the Civil War. At least the Civil War rid the country of the scourge of the enslavement of 4,000,000 people although it has taken more than 125 years for blacks to be really free.

You know - I kinda take offense that this discussion has been overtly passionate ?

I think everyone has made valid points and shown great respect for each others opinion. It always funny when PRO-UNION posters start getting their ears pinned back with the WAR CRIMES of the NORTH - it quickly becomes a "heated" matter - funny thing about the TRUTH when it bops you on the nose. ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top