A Southern perspective.

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

I know lot of yankees, sodbusters, settlers and prospectors frequent this site. Just to let ya know, it weren't the Civil War, it were the War of Northern Aggression!

[Dr. Bob]

DDD,

Dr. Bob is an old fart who was in the Mexican war and did not take sides in the War of Southern Rebellion.   My GG Grandfather was a stone mason and hired someone to serve for him and stayed in St. Louis cutting stone.  In 1860 Dr. Bob moved to Council Grove, KS, on the Santa Fe Trail, bought a Hotel/Saloon and served all who arrived.  Having friends on both sides I chose to be NOT INVOLVED!  Your always welcome at my fire as all pards are!

[St. George]

Actually - the history books call it the War of the Rebellion or American Civil War - you could look it up.

This Forum has always acknowledged that there were two sides - my own relatives rode for the Cavalry serving them.

However - there is absolutely no room, nor tolerance for divisiveness - which a post like this can suddenly become.

Unlike other Moderators - I'll delete the post - not move or archive it.

Behave accordingly.

In the future - supply interesting, historically-relevant, referenced material, since personal opinion has no relation to the historical truth of the matter - nor has any form of personal agenda.

Folks come here to enhance their knowledge and to learn more about the times as they really were, and any type of revisionist history merely espouses opinion without provenance.

Scouts Out!

[Advertising]

[Books OToole]

Actually:

In Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Louisianna, Mississippi, etc. it was the war of Northern aggression.

In Missouri it was a true Civil War.  (Two state governments, neighbor against neighbor, etc.)

In Kansas it was the war of Southern Aggression.

It makes it more interesting when you consider it from those different perspectives.

Books

[St. George]

What it's referred to 'regionally' is different from what it's referred to 'officially' - and when instructing - the Army refers to it as the 'American Civil War' or the 'War of the Rebellion'.

The winners get the naming rights, to be sure - but they're also charged with accuracy in presentation of the conflict.

The term' Late Unpleasantness' was a nineteenth century term of politesse - used in polite company so as not to offend.

There's no doubt that many of the defeated Confederacy went West to attempt to rebulid lives shattered by a long, divisive war that left their lands a shambles and the Carpetbaggers and Scalawags at the helm.

But Federal soldiers went West as well - and for the same reasons - to rebuild and to find a new beginning for their families.

Out on the Frontier - the two groups got on remarkably well - since they shared the common goal of surviving and building what would eventually become the America that we love today.

This conflict has been studied since the last salute was fired and by highly-respected men who'd served on both sides.

What an individual 'believes' to be true can differ wildly from actual documented fact - and there's no accounting for that personality quirk.

During the years following the defeat of the Confederacy - the Reconstruction did little to foster faith in unification - however - times changed and with them - societal attitudes.

Plus - late in the twentieth century - the 'Investigative Journalist' was born - determined to uncover the dark, dirty secrets of pretty much everything.

Had there been anything 'new' to uncover - they'd've found it.

What some did do was to manufacture it, instead - and that's difficult to disprove in the face of a strident voice - but documentation wins out in the end - not 'propaganda' - regardless of which side it originates on.

The only 'revisionist history' is wishful thinking and the only 'suspect' history comes from European professors biased against this country and attempting to belittle its history.

Posts like this get real political - real quick - and that's not why we're here, and why it's viewed askance.

It's preferable that we get back to discussing leaders and weaponry and personalities of that sad war, and what they became - and can leave the politics out of it.

Since it's a relatively little-read history - if you want to read about Reconstruction - look for :

'The Angry Scar' - by Hodding Carter

'Destruction and Reconstruction' - by Richard Taylor - Lieutenant-General in the Confederate Army

Both solid Southerners - and men of high principle - not 'revisionists' nor 'propagandists' .



Scouts Out!

[Marshal Deadwood]

Agreed St. George.
I come here to talk guns, and friendly history.
I wont touch the Civil War reenactments for the very exact reasons you wish it keep off the board.

I hope insults on either side arent the best that can be done on a public forum.

Marshal Deadwood

[Cyrille]

Every country has it's "favorite" war the discuss, mull over, study, argue about etc. For the remainder of the 19th and the majority of the 20th century it was the War of the Rebellion in this country. But now, IMHO it is or soon will be the last global conflict i.e. the Second World War. I lived through part of it, actually all of it in which this country was involved but was too young to realize what was going on, being born at the beginning of 19 and 41. That's my 2 cents worth.

[St. George]

Thanks to 'The History Channel' - and the proliferation of books and movies on the subject - I doubt WWII will be the one.

In this country - it wasn't seen as 'divisive' - while the Civil War was, since it changed forever how we - as Americans - viewed ourselves and our Country, and how it would later shape our direction as a nation.

The next time we'd see this divisiveness would be Viet-Nam - and now - Iraq - though the level of support for the military during this current conflict is exemplary.

That's one lesson learned from an earlier war...

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Cyrille]

No; you're right WWII wasn't divisive, to was, in this country at least,  cohisive. It brought the country together and that is why in the recent past and now-a-days, at least in my little corner of the U S of A, it has become a topic of interest and open discussion. As far as the "Hitler" channel is concerned, IMHO it dwells overmuch on Der Fuehrer and his machinations against, what he and his henchmen considered the 'Unfit' of the Human Race.

[Hill Beachy]

I had always heard that Congress adopted the term "War Between the States" back in the 1920's, but apparently that was a resolution which was offered but never passed.  There is a very good discussion of this subject at the following website:  http://en.allexperts.com/e/n/na/naming_the_american_civil_war.htm

Among other things, the website mentions that "War between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America" was the official term used in documents in Richmond during the war.

[Dr. Bob]

Howdy HB,

Thanks for the link.  Lot of information that I didn't know.  The "Late Unpleasantness" is a time period that I have skipped reading about.

[St. George]

You might want to try one that the Army uses as a Leadership Study at Fort Leavenworth.

Michael Shaara wrote 'The Killer Angels' - later made into the movie - 'Gettysburg'.

The Army adopted it almost immediately for use, since it touched on principal characters of that pivotal battle.

Later, his son - Jeff Shaara - wrote the other ends of what is now a trilogy - "Gods and Generals' and 'The Last Full Measure'.

Also - Shelby Foote wrote 'The Civil War' - later made into a miniseries - but the books are far, far better.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[matt45]

hello the camp
And a book from a first person perspective, if one can find it...

Fighting For The Confederacy by Edward Porter Alexander.  He had a history out there as well, but this one was a personal recollection he penned for his daughters- a great read
                                                                                               matt45

[Marshall Mims]

Yep, I reckon' that taking sides about the War Between the States is a bit like talking politics where it doesn't belong. Well, I truly have respect for descendants of both Armies in that rebellion, and had plenty of kin involved in the fighting, including a cavalry man that made it home.

I encourage you to research your ancestors that may have been involved in that War if you have not spent time looking into it.

John

[St. George]

No need for 'blue' ink - if it keeps up - I'll happily delete the thread.

I said up front to behave - so please do.

Scouts Out!

[Cyrille]

I see no reason to delete this thread. The only thing that I have read here that IMHO might be considered as mildly inflammatory is the first entry. However I give its arthor the benifit of the doubt and think that it was written with "tongue-in-cheek" so to speak.
   When I was a young 'un' I really and truly believed that the History books were wrong! Gowing up in the south in the '40s, 50's and 60's of the 20th century and hearing all the tales of how we whipped the boys in blue in this battle, that skirmish, or that one etc. etc. there was no way on God's green earth that we could've lost! Alas I finally had to face the hard reality that we [the south] did indeed lose, and believe you me that was a bitter pill to swallow.
 There was[is?] one book that finally put things in perspective for me and that book was "If the South had won the Civil War" I believe it was written by Makenly Kantor[sp?] a work of fiction surely,  the primese  was that because of the WWI we reunited with the United States and once again became one country, under God, indivisable with Liberty and Justice for All! The old saw is true "Politics makes strange bedfellows."

[Ozark Iron John]

I think my signature is a "Southern Perspective".

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

No hostility intended. I nearly forgot about this as I have been outta state  and working the past 4 weekends to boot. Been on here a few times. Just failed to drop in this forum.
This simply came to mind as a Northern friend of mine and I rib each other a bit, particularly that day. My apologies to anyone offended. I hope this settles things quite a bit as it was all said in jest.
Having that said, the social dynamics and perceptions of the winning and losing sides is a part of history. The humility of defeat, the razing and reconstruction of the South further intensified already hostile feelings that stem back prior to the Civil War. And these feelings, to an extent, remain in much of the Southland today. Now I'd say not many hold hostile feelings, we're to worried about the Imperial Federal Government.  Those that do hold them, I tend to see, do so out of ignorance, suspicion or just the fact that folks are different out of the South. VERY different: in habit, but not in human form, hopes or dreams.
To the Yankees, some of my best friends are from above the Mason -Dixon. To the sodbusters, I worked on a farm in my teens and thoroughly respect ya. It's a tough yet rewarding life. To all Americans fighting for civilty, equality and a brighter future, my hats off to ya.
My apology is sincere to those feeling one neccesary. I humbly submit it and wish for it's acceptance.