Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 23, 2019 8:01:36 GMT -8
I went through a half dozen books last night at the online library looking for something good to read. I was browsing through the non-fiction section and happened upon Confederates in the Attic. I’m 12% into it (which is not much) but find it interesting so far. Tony Horwitz is obviously a competent writer. He knows how to write a paragraph and how to get to the point. I’ll not re-fight the Civil War here — oops…I mean “The War Between the States”. This book is not a screed but would instead appear to be an honest look at the lingering attachment (clearly, in precise description, outed as at least slightly bizarre) that many have to the Confederacy, including some of the complications this creates. One black man that Horwitz interviewed said: The author’s first stop on his open-ended journey to rekindle his own fascination with the Civil War is Salisbury, North Carolina. He spent a night with a group of reenactors — oops sorry again…I mean “Living Historians” or “Historical Interpreters.” One of the fellows there (Robert Lee Hodge) was good at doing the “bloat” whereby Hodge– The rationale for being deeply involved in authentic “Historical Interpretation” is fascinating to read. Many see it as a simpler time. Many note that today’s culture is devoid of substance and meaning and that by immersing oneself in the past one can connect with something much weightier. The tone of the book is thankfully permissive and soft-focus. It’s even funny. The quote that Horwitz chose to start chapter 3 with is one by James L. Petrigru in which he is describing his native state: And so it’s on to South Carolina for Horwitz. And that’s where I’ve left it at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 23, 2019 8:48:02 GMT -8
I've heard of the book, though I don't believe I've read it. Of course, one thing to note about much (though not all) of the Confederate Chic is that people are honoring their ancestors. There are other factors involved (unfortunately including racism), but that's a lot of it.
Petigru received a good deal of mention in Bruce Catton's The Coming Fury, as I recall. He was a rare (white) opponent of secession, perhaps because he was rather old. I seem to recall his fear that his lifetime might end up being about the same as that of the United States.
Incidentally, TCM had the 1941 movie The Devil and Daniel Webster last night. The movie doesn't have it, but in the book when Ol' Scratch foretells the ominous future ahead (for Webster and the country), he mentions the upcoming War of the Rebellion (the most official term for the war). Webster is unhappy, but he gets the devil to admit that the Union is maintained in the end, and is satisfied with that. As he said in his debate with Senator Hayne of (naturally) South Caroline, "Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable."
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 23, 2019 11:43:33 GMT -8
Some seem to be harmlessly tracing family heritage or engaging in historical recreations. Others quite literally see the Civil War as not over. The author notes one club (Children of the Confederacy) where the children are indoctrinated into the supposed facts of the war. Part of their pledge-of-allegiance is: There’s a Q&A section as well in their “Catechism” that includes: Like I said, I’m not reading this book to re-fight the war. But not only was the main “right” the right to take away other people’s rights (something Lincoln noted in a famous quote) but the Confederate constitution mandated slavery. Horwitz notes other bits of misinformation in the “Catechism”: The author notes: It’s not easy to tell when one is celebrating one’s heritage and one is waiting for the South to break away again and re-institute that peculiar institution. I can’t remember if I’ve seen The Devil and Daniel Webster.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Oct 23, 2019 11:52:12 GMT -8
My wife is currently reading this book and says it is interesting. I will read it when she is done.
As some one who has kin on both sides of the war taking sides would make one nuts, although I think I favor the South by about 60/40. The first Jews to settle in the colonies were in the South, about the same time some of my Puritian ancestors were settling in Massachusetts, and a whole bunch of Quaker ancestors in Pennsylvania so it gets kind of weird throwing around ancestors from one side to the other. It is certain that some of my great grandparents would have shot the others.
No serious person wants to refight this war. We are close enough to another one without redoing the issues of the last. However, every soldier who died was an American and their memorials, cemeteries and monuments need to be preserved and not desecrated by thugs. Over 125 years ago wives, sisters, and widows formed the United Daughters of the Confederacy and in conjunction with the Southern Memorial Association established cemeteries for the war dead.
The federal government established national cemeteries for Federal soldiers, and promised money for the Confederate dead. It never happened, another in the long string of broken promises from DC. That broken promise caused the reconstruction era to last much longer and contributed to the myth of the lost cause. Slavery was defiantly an issue, perhaps, 50% but the issues of state sovereignty, individual rights, and the size of the federal government are still with us today. Needless to say, issues the left doesn't and won't talk about. I hold with my statement that 50 years ago the odds of a new civil war were < 1% today >20% and growing.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Oct 23, 2019 11:57:44 GMT -8
The author notes one club (Children of the Confederacy) where the children are indoctrinated into the supposed facts of the war. Part of their pledge-of-allegiance is:
…that the War Between the States was not a rebellion nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery; The children of the confederacy is an auxiliary of the UDC and that is NOT, REPEAT NOT, any part of their pledge. The author has it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 23, 2019 12:02:24 GMT -8
Actually, Gettysburg wasn't the only battle in which the sides were nearly even. Indeed, there were a few in which the Confederates were (probably; estimates are always uncertain) stronger. Among the latter were Pea Ridge (aka Elkhorn Tavern), Gaines Mill (overall, Lee was almost as strong as McClellan during the Seven Days), and Chickamauga. This was also true in many smaller battles. Rosecrans wasn't too much stronger than Bragg at Stone's River aka Murfreesboro, and was probably outnumbered slightly at Corinth. (Glenn Tucker noted in his study of Chickamauga that Old Rosey's defenders point out that he tended to face even odds in his battles -- unlike, say, Philip Sheridan, of whom Tucker said at one point that "Little Phil was rarely at his best when the odds were even.")
One of the largest margins of the war may have been at Wilson's Creek, where Price and McCullough badly outnumbered Union General Nathaniel Lyons (who was killed in the battle). They were probably also helped by the fact that Franz Sigel was Lyons's senior subordinate. (In fairness, Sigel was expert at retreating, having a great deal of experience, much of it in 1848 Germany.)
I don't recall that the Confederate Constitution mandated slavery, but it certainly encouraged it much more strongly than the US one. The Founders had to accept slavery, but they didn't like it and never specifically used the word until the Thirteenth Amendment banned it. By 1861, the Confederates actually supported it and willingly said so in their Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 23, 2019 12:09:21 GMT -8
At least two Jews were politically important in the antebellum South and the CSA. The most important was Judah P. Benjamin, a Senator from Louisiana who spent the entire war in the Confederate cabinet, rising from Attorney General through Secretary of War to Secretary of State. There was also Florida Senator David Yulee. I have no idea if there were any Northern Jewish Senators during this era.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 23, 2019 14:55:00 GMT -8
Being on the left coast, I don’t feel I have a dog in this fight, Artler. But I’m about 90/10 in favor of the Federals.
Still, I’m reading this book with an open mind. It is what it is. Any bit of history (or current events) can be interesting or boring depending upon how it is written. And so far the author has done a very good job of not going all intellectualoid on us. He’s just the average joe writing about his passions and what he’s finding in pursuit of them.
Horwitz himself is from Maryland (which passed approval with the North Carolinians) but I think was raised further north. He does not have any kind of Southern accent which was why one of the North Carolinians asked somewhat skeptically where he was from.
Absolutely. But any statues of Lenin, Marx, Che, or Stalin are going right into the bay.
The clear sense of this book (in the early going) is the Confederate historical pursuits run the gamut. There are some hardcore asshole bigots out there. But my guess is that most are just delving into their own history. And as the author notes, the advent of modern genealogy techniques, combined with a renewal of interest in all walks of life regarding genealogy, has touched the South no less than anyone else.
I really got a kick out of the description of the Historical Interpreters. The ones he ran into in North Carolina were hardcore ones, not farbs. This group loves authenticity. And if someone gets lice, all the better from a certain point of view. They are living exactly as their ancestors did. When the author was invited to join them for a day and night, the apples he brought with him weren’t allowed because they were too pristine…nothing like the soldiers would have had. But the chunk of cheese he had was permitted.
Good god, when you read how these guy ate and slept, no wonder disease took such a heavy toll…on both sides.
And however misguided the cause, there is (or should be) automatic sympathy for the common soldier who owned no slaves and, from his (perhaps simple-minded) point of view, was defending his country (state) from invasion.
The average soldier of the South faced enormous hardships. And my general impression, no offense intended, is that these guys were not necessarily the brightest bulbs on the porch. I think slavery led to a widespread degeneracy of the South that would have to be purged at some point. And when you read some of the descriptions of the hardcore veneration of the Confederacy by some, you get a glimpse for how dark they are/were.
What I realize also is that, for me, this book is a bit of interesting history. For a great many the war isn’t yet over.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 23, 2019 15:12:08 GMT -8
Article 1, Section 9 (limits on Congress) states:
Article 4, Section 2 states:
That sounds to me as if no Confederate state could restrict slavery, nor could Congress.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 23, 2019 16:52:11 GMT -8
If Horwitz is from Maryland, he may know a little something about this. The state song of Maryland was written in 1861 by a New Orleans poet as a call to arms for the state after the Baltimore riot of April 19 against a Massachusetts regiment passing through the city.
The despot's heel is on thy shore, Maryland, my Maryland. His torch is at thy temple door, Maryland, my Maryland. Avenge the patriotic gore that flecked the streets of Baltimore, And be the battle queen of yore, Maryland, my Maryland.
Needless to say the poet was on the side of the rioters, and the despot was Abraham Lincoln.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Oct 23, 2019 19:56:17 GMT -8
The amount of photons and ink spent on the war is incredible and I am going to spill a few more. Q. What is considered by historian as the decisive battle of the war?
A. Gettysburg.
Q. Why?
A. Because it was conclusive evidence to an unbiased mind that the Federal supplies and forces greatly outweighed and outnumbered the Confederate forces. This is a factual accurate analysis of the war up to 3 July 1863. After that date there is no doubt the weight of logistics and manpower would bring federal victory. The intriguing question is could Lee have won at Gettysburg? I say no he could not and Longstreet was correct to counsel withdrawal and a flanking move towards Washington.
The place for Lee to have fought was Union Mills Maryland between Mead and DC. The ground is wonderful defensive terrain, even superior to Mead's position at Gettysburg, very comparable to Fredericksburg. The federals could have been defeated in detail as they could not attack in mass and Lee's artillery would have done to Mead's divisions what he did at Gettysburg.
As long as the federals decided to fight than the ultimate result of the war is a federal victory. However, having made slavery the issue of the war the liberty of Blacks was assured no matter who won, North or South.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 23, 2019 20:05:15 GMT -8
William R. Forstchen and Newt Gingrich used the Union Mills scenario in their Gettysburg, with about the same results you indicate -- the virtual destruction of the Army of the Potomac. It was the first in a series of 3 books, and the others don't work out so well for Lee.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 23, 2019 20:32:12 GMT -8
Many consider the surrender of Vicksburg on July 4, 1863 as important as Gettysburg. From that day forward, the Mississippi was under the complete control of the Union and the western area of the Confederacy was cut off from the East.
There are arguments as to whether or not the Battle of Gettysburg would have ended differently had Stonewall Jackson still been alive. The point being not that Jackson would have been more successful with a frontal assault against a walled position, rather Lee would have likely have given Jackson's opinion more weight than he did Longstreet's and many believe Jackson would have given much the same counsel that Longstreet did.
It should also be pointed out that as the war progressed, Lee was suffering under increasing back pain and had to be carted around in the back of a wagon. I believe he was in a bad way during the few days of the battle. There can be little doubt that such a thing effected Lee's judgment at crucial times. After the war, it turned out that the back pain was the result of a serious heart condition which Lee had. It killed him a few years after the end of the war.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 23, 2019 20:53:54 GMT -8
Glenn Tucker suggests in his study of Gettysburg that Lee had diarrhea, no doubt due to the extra-rich diet the Confederates had in Pennsylvania.
Incidentally, the Mississippi wasn't cleared until Port Hudson surrendered on July 9. Of course, they did so once they found out Vicksburg had surrendered.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Oct 23, 2019 21:49:12 GMT -8
I came across the Union Mills alternative in an argument with a friend back in the 80s. The first time I went to Gettysburg, some 10 years later, I had the time to explore the Maryland countryside and if Lee had been persuaded to flank Mead there I have no doubt he could have destroyed the federal force there. It is the most perfect ground for a defender I have ever seen.
One of the unmentioned accomplishments of Lee as a commander was the retreat from Gettysburg. He not only managed to extract the surviving bulk of his army but all the artillery and supply wagons, cattle, and most of the wounded capable of travel. His supply train was at times 50 miles long and contained over 7000 wagons, with an average of four animals per wagon and replacements that means at least 30,000 draft animals.
There are a lot of very good reasons why Mead did not counter attack Lee on 3 July, but his failure to do so lengthened the war by 18 months and 300,000 more dead. Lincoln was correct to be angry. Grant would have fired him on the spot and Lincoln should have.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 23, 2019 22:01:31 GMT -8
I’m 32% into this book. It’s a powerful narrative.
Because so much heat is thrown on this subject, it wouldn’t do to not have a cool, objective, or at least honest head.
What I don’t want to do is pre-judge the South, not having lived there or visited there. But through the years, I’ve received earfuls of general impressions from white people escaping the South. Because this is a heavily military area as well, you get a lot of cross-pollination in that regard.
Regarding horror stories, you never know when you’re dealing with a Snowflake who thinks someone’s a Nazi because they support the Second Amendment or one who is truly appalled at the primitive, racist rednecks who apparently still infest the South.
This book gives a hard look at some of those rednecks in the first third of this book. It isn’t pretty. It’s certainly good background for better understanding the Confederate flag issue and statues.
An interesting factoid is the sheer recovering of the South. The author notes that today the 11 states of the old Confederacy make up the fifth largest economy in the world.
Some of the Confederate identification and flag-waving is just bizarre as described by the author. He notes one town in Kentucky (it was regarding the Michael Westerman murder) which had gone Confederate-crazy. The author did research and found out this part of Kentucky was most definitely pro-Union and yet it became a craze to wave the Confederate flag and research your supposed Confederate roots.
One type of person (perhaps the poorer, more ignorant sort) seemed to be taking all their grievances and putting them into the Confederate basket as an answer.
Others may well fit this description offered by A.V. Huff, a historian of the South at Furman University in upland South Carolina:
Even Jefferson Davis is quoted as basically saying “Get over it and move on.” But it seems that many have made an idol of the idea of the Confederacy. This book is a few years old so thing may have changed a little since 1999.
My angle is that I blame the Confederacy for Big Government (to the extent anyone from the 1860’s can be blamed for what we are doing today). They were a boil that had to be lanced at some point. They didn’t do it themselves so it came from without.
And that’s emblematic of often good issues (the problem of big government) being ruined by dishonest actors. I think this section of the book is indicative of that:
And therein lies the problem: When you connect some legitimate issues (ask the Asians, for one, about institutionalized racism) with the Confederacy, rednecks, and a whole lot of smoldering racism, you do the harm to the issues. This is what RINOs run from to some extent. I’m no RINO apologist, as you well know, but you can see their side of things. If you come out against affirmative action because it’s a racist policy, it makes it difficult when you are also tarred as a racist because of a bunch of Southern (and other) kooks who may well be racist who are against the same thing, but for different reasons.
I believe in smaller government. But the clearly disingenuous cries of “states rights” in the cause of being able to keep other human beings as slaves does not serve the purpose of shrinking the Federal government. Indeed, one gains further insight into why blacks, in particular, see Big Government as their guarantor of freedom.
The South ruined so many things and yet still there are many crying a river of tears over some twisted nostalgic image of what never was. At least those Historical Interpreters have no illusions about how nasty a life it was for a Confederate soldier.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 24, 2019 5:57:43 GMT -8
Let me be kind to those who have poured poison into your ear regarding the South and say they are misinforming you. What I would like to say is not printable.
I think I can comment on this subject more objectively than most as I come from the South, left the South and came back to the South and saw many places in between.
My wife, who is Chinese has also frequently commented on the kindness of Southerners.
That is not to say that there are not bums, scoundrels, crooks and racists in the South. But so are there in the North, East and West. There are also bums, scoundrels, crooks and racists in China, Japan, Great Britain, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Singapore and every other place I have lived in or visited.
I have often heard (through the media) of those horrible red-neck racists who pour all their frustration into the Old South, but I have never met one.
Something similar has been said about how badly the South treated blacks in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. But strangely, those huge race riots took place in places like Los Angeles, Detroit, Newark, NYC and Chicago.
And strangely for a place which is so racist, I recall that the numbers of blacks moving to the South has been increasing over the decades. Pretty odd for such people to move to a place which is so racist.
Now I will admit that I would prefer that all those pure stellar souls moving to Texas from California, New York, Illinois and other Blue States would just turn around and go back to their heavenly havens and leave us po' benighted red-necks to our medievel ways. But 'parently, wees gotta be taught mannas.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 24, 2019 6:14:18 GMT -8
One thing to mention is that I read a book a while back on the Confederate retreat from Gettysburg. The campaign as a whole wasn't exactly a failure. Lee did pick up a lot of badly needed supplies of all sorts, which was the main purpose of the campaign. There had never been an intention of occupying the territory, so an eventual retreat was inevitable. The immediate importance of the battle was that they had to leave sooner than they would have preferred, thus getting less than they wanted -- and paying a heavy price. When this defeat is combined with the Vicksburg disaster (followed quickly by the loss of Port Hudson), and the loss of central Tennessee at the same time, and the loss of the central Arkansas shortly afterward, it was a disastrous period overall for the Confederacy. Gettysburg and Vicksburg were the worst aspects of this, partly because of the heavy losses, but they all added together.
As for the South today, that's hard to say. I doubt Southerners today are significantly more inclined to racism than Northerners. The "Southern Strategy" of Nixon and later Republicans wasn't based on race, but on the rejection of other aspects of social liberalism. Then, too, opposition to racial quotas and racial busing was nationwide. George Wallace won the Michigan primary with 51% of the vote in 1972 over the issue. It also had roiled Denver school board elections a few years earlier (as detailed in The Real Majority by Richard Scammon and Ben Wattenberg), and was a controversial issue in Boston for several years.
Incidentally, Brown v. Board of Education involved the school system of . . . Topeka, Kansas. And when Wallace had a debate with Charles Percy around 1964, he brought up the fact that in the segregated South the blacks at least could be big fish in small ponds (e.g., black colleges such as Tuskegee) and that the most segregated city, according to surveys, was actually Percy's own Chicago. And when Wallace ran a protest campaign against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he won 34% in Wisconsin, 30% in Indiana (though he did carry Gary), and 43% in Maryland -- in the Democratic primaries.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Oct 24, 2019 6:28:22 GMT -8
What I don’t want to do is pre-judge the South, not having lived there or visited there. But through the years, I’ve received earfuls of general impressions from white people escaping the South Let's not get into a sectional fight. The war was almost 160 years ago. Everyone north and south is long dead. Slavery is dead as a de jure institution in the US and most of the western world. Make, no mistake to judge the South on the basis of slavery is to ignore the contribution to slavery by the North. No one's hands are clean including Lincoln. The conservative values we hold do not exist as deeply north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Without the South the last Republican president would have been Theodore Roosevelt, a dubious distinction at best. Imagine what the 20th century could have looked like. I have lived in almost every part of the country from CA to NY and the South is less racist than any other part. The overt racism of South Boston is still around as is the racism of CA big cities. If you want to find modern day plantation owners you have to look no further than the city and state governments of CA, WA, OR, NY, and MA. That is not to say there are not racists in the South, of course there are, but it it just as likely your next door neighbor is also a racist. You will find no more gracious and considerate people than in the South. Remember in the 20s the Klan was not a regional organization it was national. Indiana, I think a Northern state was a hotbed of Klan activity. fully 10% of the voting public, about 10,000,000 people, were members. A Klan rally today can be held in a phone booth. There may be 1000 hardcore members, and most of those are in the North.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 24, 2019 6:33:08 GMT -8
A major fault of the Civil Rights movement is that it was used to bring into mainstream American society all the leftist perversions which we are now fighting against and apparently losing.
Homosexual marriage, the breakup of the normal family, budget-busting welfare, open borders and many more ills can be tied to the abuse of the Civil Rights movement by the left. It should never be forgotten that the Soviet Union constantly tried to stir up trouble in the USA via race friction.
|
|