Why It Makes Sense... (1 Viewer)

I have not questioned the honor or valor of the Southern Soldiers. I agree with Grant's quote on the Southern soldiers. I just do not agree with the cause that they fought. I have my views on the Confederate Battle Flag and many do not agree. Taht is fine.

But for some to call my views "Nuts", I don not think that is appropriate. We all have our views and I understand others viewpoints. One does not have to justify one's position by personally attacking the others view point.

Is it OK for me to come out of the bunker yet.
Well I don't see anyone shelling you exactly but I am not sure we are on the same page. Your first post questioned how anyone in the United States could honor the Confederate Battle Flag and noted that "To [you] it represents a flag and a cause that wished to destroy the United States of America." I replied with an attempt to clarify that it "...did not ...represent the destruction of the United States, rather the recognition of a transfer (albeit temporary) of some the then current United States to the Confederate States." If successful, it would have meant a change in the United States, perhaps temporary, perhaps permanent, but not its destruction. I also noted, in response to your original question that "... whether or not you appreciate the cause, you certainly cannot help but honor the valor." I did not suggest that you questioned that valor, though by your own words, you decry the most common symbol for it. NO ONE called your view nuts, those comments, by several, were directed at the PC outrage expressed by MacPhearson in the linked Times article. If you share MacPhearson's view, then you have voluntarily signed up for the criticism that goes with it I suppose. There is still nothing personal in any of this, you may think our view is nuts and that is your prerogative. There is nothing personal is criticising the viewpoint of another with which you disagree. It is the old "I dispise what you say but...." point. Now lets throw that bus driver under the bus.;):D
 
Matt,

Good post. This will probably be my last post since I'm not sure it's worth continuing the discussion and I agree with George: it is sad.

Did you get the Trudeau book discussion through the Virtual Book Shop site. It's affiliated with the Abraham. Lincoln book shop and every month they have a live (and live via the web) session with Civil War authors. Trudeau was on in November and it was interesting. All interviews show up on the archives for later viewing. I'm not at home right now so if anybody is interested I can post it later (although you can probably find it via google).
 
Deitz,
the Nuts comment was for the NY Times article piece, not your view. I was posting comments on 2 posts at one time, I was asking you a question about your view and you answered. Like I said, I had never run across that viewpoint before.

TD

Sorry, about that I did not read the NY Times article when I responded. I am glad noone took this as personnal attack, it was never meant to be one.

Happy New Year!!!
Brian
 
TD, I believe Ive read a few times that you have ancestors going back to the WBTS in Maryland. Do you know any of their story? I would be interested to hear a border state residents opinion of things.
 
Matt,

Good post. This will probably be my last post since I'm not sure it's worth continuing the discussion and I agree with George: it is sad.

Did you get the Trudeau book discussion through the Virtual Book Shop site. It's affiliated with the Abraham. Lincoln book shop and every month they have a live (and live via the web) session with Civil War authors. Trudeau was on in November and it was interesting. All interviews show up on the archives for later viewing. I'm not at home right now so if anybody is interested I can post it later (although you can probably find it via google).

No, I got stumbled upon it just looking for some more information about the book to see if it was worth looking into. I would imagine that the content of the sessions is similar, but do post the link to the one you're referencing. The Q&A at the end, if there is one, is quite interesting and depends of course on what the local audience asks.
 
Brad

If you think for one minute that actual first hand accounts of Sherman's men and how they waged their War Against Civilians is going to get washed away with one Yankee article ....

Well we have a saying in the South - " That Dog Won't Hunt ! "

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

As a Northerner who lived in the South, I think I can come at this one from a pretty unbiased place, and frankly, I agree with Ron and Tom on this one. Prior to Sherman's march, in post-reniassance "civilized" European war, with the exception of some conflicts driven by religious fanaticism (such as the English Civil War, where Cromwell's forces were known to massacre their Catholic oppenents in places like Dublin) or in cases of prolonged seiges, for the most part, war was fought on defined battlefields, with minimal deliberate or command-sanctioned abuse heaped on civilians.

Sherman set us down the slippery slope to the abomination we now refer to as "modern war" or "total war" where civilians are, if not directly targeted, acceptable victims of collateral damage. I believe that "total war" is only acceptable as a response to a similar tactic employed by your opponent (i.e. the Nazi's are the war criminals, because they targeted Polish, French and British Civilians, the Allies were then justified in targeting German cities in response). So, in my opinion, he was a war criminal, as is every other commander in future conflicts who decided to strike the first deliberate blow against civilians. Perhaps I'm niave, but to me the reason armies wear uniforms is to identify who the combatants are. Similarly, guerillas and non-uniformed spies are war criminals, who should be dealt with summarily.
 
However, he goes on to say that it became such a problem that Sherman finally executed a confederate POW in retaliation. .

This is what I am talking about - when you ask about WAR CRIMES - Union Troops raiding Southern Civilian Targets are killed by the same civilians protecting their property and families - SHERMAN's Response ... Kill a POW !

No question throughout the War there were unfortunate events ON BOTH SIDES - but, this discussion is focused on Sherman and his infamous March to the Sea. To call it justified as means to an end is wrong. It is a reason for much resentment in the South - as well as how the RECONSTRUCTION policies were forced upon the South - yet, I hear no mention of those dark days from our UNION friends.

Look - I DO NOT have a big bug-a-boo about the whole Sherman / Civil War events in my everyday life - but, I do grow very weary of the PC attitude of the North to say it nothing really happen. Kinda like the ultra-crazy view from extremists that say the Holocaust didn't happen - you what I mean ?
 
I'm not making it personal against you Ron, on the contrary, I'm commenting about your comment, not about you. I'm not saying you should agree with the author's piece, but to simply say it's "crap" because he's a professor at the University of Ohio and then toss in a "war crimes" for good measure without providing any basis for your opinion isn't really helpful to any serious discussion about it. So if his piece, which is at least well presented and reasoned, even if you don't agree with it, is "crap" then your rebuttal to it is...what?


Matt - You know sometimes you don't need a 30 page college dissertation to disagree with a ridiculous theory or thought. When something is crap - then there you have it. My opinion - like it or not.

Look you guys in the North - "Don't Get It" from a southern perspective - plain and simple. And to dismiss us Southerners with "Oh how disappointing" or "It is Sad" - that is a bit over the top as well.

I don't have any burning issue with any of you guys - we are having a discussion and if you look back at each of the past posts - The Southern supporters did not take personal jabs at the Northern posters - just at what they said was what they believed was true. Subject matter reference.

Unfortunately, that wasn't the case with Northern supporter postings towards the Southern supporters. Interesting thats all. :rolleyes:
 
Any act of killing a Union soldier by a civilian to protect their personal property is certainly self defense and not murder. We would call it self defense if someone barged into our house and stole our food and we defended our home. Self defense is no war crime.
 
I am about to step in "IT" and I know it. The question of Sherman's actions as related to war crimes or justifyed tactics is one of time and place. In the time and place that they happened it was shocking "first" for Americans. Obviously the side one supports is hoe the events are viewed. I am a firm believer that if you start a war you get what you deserve in terms of retaliation. Once in it, you do what it takes to win it and end it as quickly and as cheaply (life wise to your side) as is possible. The perfect example for modern times being the A-Bombing of Japan. The question of war crimes admidst man's greatest travesty -war- is a PC concept. If you are in a war it is win or die. The South started the war without being in a position to win it. I have deep Southern connections and sympathies and I do not like what Sherman did, but I sure understand it. War is not a gentle pursuit and once firearms made killing more impersonal and "easier", total war was inevitable. Happy New Year everyone! -- lancer
 
People will always say the other side fought dirty, that's just human perception in conflicts. The fact is that civilians and their property have always been adversely affected in conflicts and always will, only the scale varies.

I read somewhere that about 5,000 civilians were killed in the D-Day campaign. This was from a variety of causes such as aerial bombing, Naval and Army artillery, and of course soldiers on the ground firing small arms and mortars as well as tossing grenades in windows etc. Collateral damage or war crimes by an invading force? Personally I see it as collateral damage. However I am not so naive that I can't see how some folk would see it the other way.
 
I am about to step in "IT" and I know it. The question of Sherman's actions as related to war crimes or justifyed tactics is one of time and place. In the time and place that they happened it was shocking "first" for Americans. Obviously the side one supports is hoe the events are viewed. I am a firm believer that if you start a war you get what you deserve in terms of retaliation. Once in it, you do what it takes to win it and end it as quickly and as cheaply (life wise to your side) as is possible. The perfect example for modern times being the A-Bombing of Japan. The question of war crimes admidst man's greatest travesty -war- is a PC concept. If you are in a war it is win or die. The South started the war without being in a position to win it. I have deep Southern connections and sympathies and I do not like what Sherman did, but I sure understand it. War is not a gentle pursuit and once firearms made killing more impersonal and "easier", total war was inevitable. Happy New Year everyone! -- lancer
Lancer, that is an interesting perspective. It is one I considered in my impetuous youth and fortunately, for me at least, did not adopt. War does bring out the most base of human emotion and conduct and it is indeed tempting to want to use ANY means necessary to end it as fast as you can. However, consider the consequences of that theme, which as any war is at least two sided, would be applied with equal vigor by all. There would be no quarter given, the wounded would be summarily killed, any citizen of the side in which any territory was gained would have all property and even their life subject to forfeit and abuse. All weapons would be acceptable, no matter how much collateral damage they caused (if in fact any damage could be called collateral any more) or how much suffering they inflicted, the most heinous acts would be not only justified but expected if they could be said to advance the cause. Personnally, I would not care to be on either side of such a war and given how most of us or wired, the losing side might indeed have the better of it since they at least would be spared the nightmares.

Interestingly, my rationale for this view at the time, knee deep as I was in a war that I despised, was that if all wars were fought that way, perhaps no one would start one. Sadly I think history disproves that idea rather handily. History is replete with examples of the now termed total war and all they did was visit incredible brutality on those involved, both as sufferers and perpetrators. So as tempting is it is to find a silver bullet to end all war, total war is not it.

As to the notion that anyone who starts a war deserves what they get; that is just fundamentally unfair and unnecessarily savage. Perhaps I am old fashioned but I believe in (and even think our country is about) punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent. In war to me the innocent include non combatants, civilians (with the same exceptions applied to captured combatants) and captured combatants who are not proven to have committed their own war crimes. The notion that war crimes is a PC concept just about leaves me speechless, not to mention more than a little insulted (no I am not taking it personally). Surely own society has not devolved to that extent.
 
I dont know how many of you saw the Kennedy Center Honors last night but there was a great moment. Roger Daltry and Pete Townsend were honored together for their work as The Who. Yall might also remember they performed at the benifit concert for the NYPD and FDNY after 9/11. Here is the video from the tribute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PEJE3zxi6g

Its good to remember that at the end of the day were all still Americans. Not to mention some of the best rock music of all time has come from the other side of the pond.
 
No, I got stumbled upon it just looking for some more information about the book to see if it was worth looking into. I would imagine that the content of the sessions is similar, but do post the link to the one you're referencing. The Q&A at the end, if there is one, is quite interesting and depends of course on what the local audience asks.

Matt,

Here is the link, http://www.virtualbooksigning.net/

For some reason, the Trudeau interview isn't up. I will write them and see if they can fix it.

Regards,
 
Its good to remember that at the end of the day were all still Americans.

I think some of the posts are getting a little out of hand so I think we should tone it down a little bit and remember my brother Harris' advice. We fought one civil war, let's not fight another.

And with that, let my wish my fellow members a merry New Year:)
 
Spitfrnd- thanks for the reply and viewpoint. I realize that calling war crimes a PC concept was way over-oversimplifying a complicated subject. I was trying to convey that I believe the concept of rules and law in war is a kind of oddity in itself. Strive as we might, the concept of a "civilized" war with "rules" is really a kind of mass denial. War is, and should be, something so horrible as to be avoided at any and all costs. -- lancer
 
Spitfrnd- thanks for the reply and viewpoint. I realize that calling war crimes a PC concept was way over-oversimplifying a complicated subject. I was trying to convey that I believe the concept of rules and law in war is a kind of oddity in itself. Strive as we might, the concept of a "civilized" war with "rules" is really a kind of mass denial. War is, and should be, something so horrible as to be avoided at any and all costs. -- lancer
I appreciate that mate. That is why I said your perspective was indeed interesting. Unfortunately, I could never find a way to implement that approach in a manner that would be effective or honestly even tolerable to the one implementing the approach. Let me know when you come up with one. Happy New Year, PEACE and LOVE as we used to say.;):D
 
I appreciate that mate. That is why I said your perspective was indeed interesting. Unfortunately, I could never find a way to implement that approach in a manner that would be effective. Let me know when you come up with one. Happy New Year, PEACE and LOVE as we used to say.;):D

Alas, my friend. I fear that such a solution is beyond my capabilities. I have yet to figure out my own small problems. Peace Bro. -- lancer
 
"Look you guys in the North - "Don't Get It" from a southern perspective - plain and simple. And to dismiss us Southerners with "Oh how disappointing" or "It is Sad" - that is a bit over the top as well."

See Ron, here is a case of YOU not getting it. I am not a "Northern Supporter", I am an American, end of story. Am I proud as a "Northerner" from Massachusetts of the exploits of the 54th Massachusetts, the 28th Massachusetts, etc; yes I am. I am also proud as an "American" of Picketts men, they had stones of steel to make that charge, Bennings Georgians, Oates Alabamians, Wheats Tigers, Hoods Texans, etc, etc, they were Americans too and fought brilliantly in the war on numerous occasions. I support all Americans, north, south, east, west. Where somone is from does not matter to me, it clearly does matter to you, that is painfully obvious.

The term "Yankee" in it's own way is offensive to some people, yet you continually use the term.

The Civil War was a pathetic and sad chapter in this nations history, any Civil War is, thousands of young men died for nothing IMO, a war that was not necessary. It was not a "just and noble cause", it was a slaughter where the weapons were far superior to the tactics being used at the time. Brother killed brother, father killed son and for what?

The part I find "sad" is the attitude that still exists in this country 143 years later, ie, north vs south, bad guys vs good guys, our case was noble, just and correct while yours was not, "we have a saying here in the south" etc, etc.

We are all Americans, yet 143 years later, the scars have still not healed and many are still fighting the war. Frankly I don't ever see them healing and this thread proves it.
 
George

The term "Yankee" has also been used to described all Americans. So do you find it offensive when we call that by europeans, spainish and other cultures.

Hey, I agree - WE ALL ARE AMERICANS - and I dont dewell on the Civil War stuff day in and day out. But, you will find regional pride with Southerners - that pride is based on our heritage, culture (not talking slavery or segregation here), family, religion and love of the south. This pride is regional - just like places you find this pride in New York, Boston, Philly, Chicago and even Maine. It is a cultural thing - nothing to be ashamed of nor does it mean we are lesser Americans.

Hey, we all loved the Movie "Glory" and thought the Mass 54th were brave men and set a standard that was good for our Country. So you are not the only one who believes in this admiration. So understand everyone has that appreciation.

I dont hate the North. We were discussing Sherman's March to the Sea - and I believe we all agree (well maybe not all ;) ) that it was brutal, civilians were targeted and killed, it changed the method of war for the United States forever. That was what we were talking about - minus the personal attacks from some forum members.

There will always be disagreements on history - nothing new there - no matter if it is the Civil War or whatever.

But, in the end we need to appreciate that we all have different takes on "what is what happen" and move on. I really dont like this if you dont agree with this then you must be a bigot. Lets face it - there are jerks & bigots North and South and we all know it. I personally dont believe they are on this forum - nor should you.

Ron
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top