Another story is how after the war 2000 liberated Union Prisoners of War boarded the steamboat Sultana to travel back home, and after a boiler exploded it sank near Memphis killing over 1200 men.
Imagine, these men had spent months/years struggling to survive in concentration camp conditions in Confederate prisons and had finally made it out, only to drown on their way home.
how is that for bad luck?
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
it sounds like you have some awesome memorabilia there. i'm sure there are museums that would pay a large price for that lincoln item. i would like to see it. if you have a pic can you post it?
i was just thnking, the country was so divided back then, imagine if there was the current talking head media that we have today back then. it would have just fueled the fire. what would beck, hannity, rush, olberman, malloy, maddow, etc have said? if they had our media today there might have been no reconstruction. it is certainly interesting to think about.
I'll definitely try and post some pics. The media was pretty ruthless with Lincoln at times. The war obviously grew very unpopular as it went along, mainly due to the fact that photographers like Matthew Brady and Timothy O'Sullivan brought the war home to the people through their graphic images. Up until that point, war was thought of as a spectator sport. "Hey there's a battle going on just outside town, throw some ham in the picnic basket and let's go watch". When people started realizing that it wasn't glamorous, it wasn't exciting, and that it was infact a terrifying very bloody event, then it became not so cool.
The longer the war went on, the tougher it became for Lincoln to maintain the war effort. He was under tremendous pressure to negotiate peace with the South. Eventually he started to try and take control of the situation by doing things that would seem unfathomable to us. Under his power, the Federal government made huge power grabs, suspended Habeas corpus, spent loads of money before congress every authorized it, and detained thousands of people without sufficient cause. This was the ugly side that many people don't associate with Lincoln, but in his mind it was all about the greater good, which of course was to preserve the Union. As was mentioned earlier, while he was a staunch opponent to slavery; slavery in and of itself was not the driving force behind the war. He would have never sacrificed the Union in order to free the slaves. It's also important to note that slavery was never the driving force behind the South's decision to leave the Union. It was a huge issue, but the bigger issue was that the southern states believed the constitution provided them the authority to govern themselves. They saw the north as becoming what England was to the Colonists.
I've always felt that if Lincoln had not been assassinated, that this country would be a much much different place. I believe that had he served his second term, and oversaw the Reconstruction phase, that this country would have become much healthier as a result. Lincoln was, more than anything, a compassionate man. While others in his administration couldn't wait to "punish" the South, Lincoln couldn't wait to let them back into the family and reconcile. His attitude can be summed up by what he said to one of his Generals when he first visited Richmond after it fell. The general asked Lincoln how he should handle the defeated Confederates, and Lincoln's reply was to "Let 'em up easy". This was how he planned to deal with South overall after the war, and I believe had he been able to do so, the bitterness and hatred that raged through the South afterwards would have at the very least been lessened. It's like if you have a boxing match between unequal opponents, the smaller guy gets some good hits in, and the fight last longer than everyone expects, but inevitably the big guy knocks out the little guy. Now imagine the big guy kicks the little guy in the teeth while he's down. That pretty much sums up what happened after the war. Whereas Lincoln was the kind of person to kneel down next to the defeated opponent, give him some water, and then help him to his feet. I don't know, sometimes I just wonder how different things would have been.
i completely agree with all points mentioned here. i think reconstruction would have been much more favorable for the south had lincoln lived and served a second term. there were many in the north that never forgave the south for their treason and causing the war, but i think lincoln would have been more compassionate. i often wonder how things would have been different had lincoln and kennedy served their full terms.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
If you guys really want to see some civil war history, Beautiful gardens,Historic homes,Old graveyards,The Beach,great food,and Beautiful people then you need to come to Charleston.
If you guys really want to see some civil war history, Beautiful gardens,Historic homes,Old graveyards,The Beach,great food,and Beautiful people then you need to come to Charleston.
the hunley is another great story from the war. those guys were brave to go into a hand crank powered submarine. i could not imagine the hell of sinking in that thing. were they able to restore it? i saw that they had a funeral for the soldiers, which was the right thing to do. charleston looks very nice. i love old cities like that.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
here is a link for byrnzie, or anyone else interested in the actual battlefields as they are today. most are preserved pretty well. this site has thousands of pics from many of the battlefields. you can see strategic positions, landmarks, graves both mass and individual, monuments to the soldiers of every state that fought at that battlefield...its quite impressive to see all of these pics. i have spent the last 2 hours looking around the site....
I lived near Vicksburg for a few years. last i checked, they had a lot of civil war stuff there (and thats pretty much it).
that seige lasted 47 days. i heard that the union drummer boy Orion Hatch (i think that is his name), age 13, was shot in the leg and wounded and still managed to find general sherman to request more ammo for the unit he was in. there is a monument for him there.
the pics on that website that i posted a few posts ago are amazing. they erected stunning monuments at vickeburg. did you go see any of it when you lived there?
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
here is a link for byrnzie, or anyone else interested in the actual battlefields as they are today. most are preserved pretty well. this site has thousands of pics from many of the battlefields. you can see strategic positions, landmarks, graves both mass and individual, monuments to the soldiers of every state that fought at that battlefield...its quite impressive to see all of these pics. i have spent the last 2 hours looking around the site....
both of those look really interesting. especially the second one you listed. i have never thought about what may happen after a battle and the armies have moved on. sounds like an interesting read.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
both of those look really interesting. especially the second one you listed. i have never thought about what may happen after a battle and the armies have moved on. sounds like an interesting read.
Trust me...it is one of the best books I've read on the subject. It's very revealing and well written. I see the price they have listed on Amazon is a bit steep, and I knew I only paid like $20 something for it on one of my trips to Gettysburg. I just realized that they are pricing out hard covers. They have paperbacks for sell there as well. Here's the link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1577470419/ref=tmm_pap_new_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=new
what is everybody's thoughts on Sherman's march to the sea? that was the first time total war had been used. those armies pillaged and burned most of georgia and south carolina. sherman was an interesting guy. he believed in "a hard war, but an easy peace". him and grant had a very close relationship and when lincoln offered sherman the job of heading the union forces to replace grant he declined because he valued grant's friendship too much. the history channel had a 2 hour show on sherman's march last month. it was quite good.
Some black southern humor for you...
Sherman was the first superintendent of Louisiana State University, but had to resign his position when Louisiana seceded from the union. When the war ended, he donated two cannons to LSU that started the Civil War when they were fired at Fort Sumter (they're currently on display in front of the military science building). All of the buildings at LSU are named after people who figure prominently in the university's history, but nothing bears the name "Sherman." There has been a small movement, that has picked up a little steam recently, to get a building named after him. Not surprisingly this has been met with strong opposition, but, undeterred, there are still people who believe that his role in the formation of LSU should be recognized.
My office was putting together a documentary on LSU's history for our sesquicentennial this year, and, unavoidably, the topic of Sherman's role - and the building controversy - came up. One person had an awesome suggestion: name the FETI building after him. FETI = Fire and Emergency Training Institute - i.e., where the local firefighters train to put out fires.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
I lived near Vicksburg for a few years. last i checked, they had a lot of civil war stuff there (and thats pretty much it).
that seige lasted 47 days. i heard that the union drummer boy Orion Hatch (i think that is his name), age 13, was shot in the leg and wounded and still managed to find general sherman to request more ammo for the unit he was in. there is a monument for him there.
the pics on that website that i posted a few posts ago are amazing. they erected stunning monuments at vickeburg. did you go see any of it when you lived there?
its been a long time since i was there, but there is tons of stuff there. a few of the trenches are still there. i think i saw most of it
I lived near Vicksburg for a few years. last i checked, they had a lot of civil war stuff there (and thats pretty much it).
that seige lasted 47 days. i heard that the union drummer boy Orion Hatch (i think that is his name), age 13, was shot in the leg and wounded and still managed to find general sherman to request more ammo for the unit he was in. there is a monument for him there.
the pics on that website that i posted a few posts ago are amazing. they erected stunning monuments at vickeburg. did you go see any of it when you lived there?
its been a long time since i was there, but there is tons of stuff there. a few of the trenches are still there. i think i saw most of it
yes the trenches and "earthworks" are still there. that site i posted has some pics of the battlefields. they look so peaceful and tranquil that it is hard to imagine the carnage that happened there. i definitely want to check it out.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
both of those look really interesting. especially the second one you listed. i have never thought about what may happen after a battle and the armies have moved on. sounds like an interesting read.
Trust me...it is one of the best books I've read on the subject. It's very revealing and well written. I see the price they have listed on Amazon is a bit steep, and I knew I only paid like $20 something for it on one of my trips to Gettysburg. I just realized that they are pricing out hard covers. They have paperbacks for sell there as well. Here's the link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1577470419/ref=tmm_pap_new_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=new
thanks for the link. i read some customer reviews and a couple of them accused the author of being biased and interjecting a lot of anti-war opinions. now i am anti war, i just don't want to feel like i am being preached to. did you get that impression from the book?
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
thanks for the link. i read some customer reviews and a couple of them accused the author of being biased and interjecting a lot of anti-war opinions. now i am anti war, i just don't want to feel like i am being preached to. did you get that impression from the book?
It's been a while since I read it, but to be honest, I didn't really get that. Maybe I just didn't take it that way. I definitely didn't feel like I was being preached to. I think anyone, conservative, liberal, whatever your beliefs, can easily become very anti-war the more you study war. In the very early stages of the Civil War, as I mentioned earlier, people were very excited about the prospect of war. It was like a football game to them, and they would load up their picnic baskets and go watch. That's because they had no idea what it was like. I don't doubt that the more the author has studied the subject, the more senseless it becomes and I can see how it would be hard not to interject your opinion from time to time.
I guess what intrigues me about this era, more so than anything else in our history is the combatants. It's not like the Revolution when we were fighting the British, or WWII when we fought the Axis powers, or even our current wars. In those wars we didn't know the enemy personally, they were just "bad guys" to us. During the Civil War, you literally had people that were best friends opposing each other, brothers, fathers, and I can't even fathom knowing that you were attacking a unit that more than likely had some member of your family in it. There are a lot of stories out there where people report having opposed family and/or friends on the field of battle.
Anyway, I could go on for hours on this subject, but then I wouldn't get any work done here. LOL One thing that has always bothered me though is how now days especially, people have such a skewed view of southern soldiers, as if they were Nazi's or something. Now, please don't get me wrong, I am NOT one of those "the south will rise again" nuts. I guess though, after studying this so much, I see where they were coming from; not from the slavery issue, but from their desire to govern themselves. I think Lincoln understood their cause as well, but he couldn't allow it to fracture the Union. That is why his plan for reconstruction was going to "let 'em up easy". You have to keep in mind that a vast majority of people in that era, North and South were staunch racists by today's standards, even Lincoln. That is just the way society was at that time. I've never seen or read a single thing where Union soldiers (aside from maybe the 54th Mass.) were ever fighting and willing to die for slaves. Nor were confederate troops willing to march over the open ground in front of overwhelming opposition with the mindset of keeping slaves. Hell, most soldiers and officers didn't even have slaves. There were definitely heroes and villains on both sides.
thanks for the link. i read some customer reviews and a couple of them accused the author of being biased and interjecting a lot of anti-war opinions. now i am anti war, i just don't want to feel like i am being preached to. did you get that impression from the book?
It's been a while since I read it, but to be honest, I didn't really get that. Maybe I just didn't take it that way. I definitely didn't feel like I was being preached to. I think anyone, conservative, liberal, whatever your beliefs, can easily become very anti-war the more you study war. In the very early stages of the Civil War, as I mentioned earlier, people were very excited about the prospect of war. It was like a football game to them, and they would load up their picnic baskets and go watch. That's because they had no idea what it was like. I don't doubt that the more the author has studied the subject, the more senseless it becomes and I can see how it would be hard not to interject your opinion from time to time.
I guess what intrigues me about this era, more so than anything else in our history is the combatants. It's not like the Revolution when we were fighting the British, or WWII when we fought the Axis powers, or even our current wars. In those wars we didn't know the enemy personally, they were just "bad guys" to us. During the Civil War, you literally had people that were best friends opposing each other, brothers, fathers, and I can't even fathom knowing that you were attacking a unit that more than likely had some member of your family in it. There are a lot of stories out there where people report having opposed family and/or friends on the field of battle.
Anyway, I could go on for hours on this subject, but then I wouldn't get any work done here. LOL One thing that has always bothered me though is how now days especially, people have such a skewed view of southern soldiers, as if they were Nazi's or something. Now, please don't get me wrong, I am NOT one of those "the south will rise again" nuts. I guess though, after studying this so much, I see where they were coming from; not from the slavery issue, but from their desire to govern themselves. I think Lincoln understood their cause as well, but he couldn't allow it to fracture the Union. That is why his plan for reconstruction was going to "let 'em up easy". You have to keep in mind that a vast majority of people in that era, North and South were staunch racists by today's standards, even Lincoln. That is just the way society was at that time. I've never seen or read a single thing where Union soldiers (aside from maybe the 54th Mass.) were ever fighting and willing to die for slaves. Nor were confederate troops willing to march over the open ground in front of overwhelming opposition with the mindset of keeping slaves. Hell, most soldiers and officers didn't even have slaves. There were definitely heroes and villains on both sides.
i am definitely going to check out the book. hopefully i can find it somewhere this weekend, if not i'll get it online.
i spoke with my dad last night and his father's grandfather and his brothers fought for the union in some regiment in ohio while his cousins from tennessee fought for the confederacy. i am not sure of any other details than that because my dad really had no interest. the only person who would know for sure would be my grandfather's sister who is 93 years old and in failing health, who i have not seen in about 20 years.... i would feel a little weird to call her up and say "you probably don't remember me too well, but can you tell me about your grandpa in the civil war?" my family is terrible about family history stuff :(
i could go on about this for hours as well. it is perhaps my favorite subject of american history. you are correct, the confederacy is painted in a negative light but i think it is for several reasons. i think it is because of their leaders. they seceded from the union, they started the war at ft sumter and they waged an aggressive war against the united states. i think that is all people see when they think about the civil war, but it is not that black and white. many northerners saw them as traitors and wanted to wage war on them for only that reason. i think both sides are painted in a negative light because once the armies marched they became invaders. when the north entered the southern states they were an invading force, and vice versa. i think people stopped seeing each other as americans and viewed each other as "the enemy". it is only a natural response and goes back to the usual american sentiment of "us against 'them' ". you are right, most confederates would not fight to keep slaves and most yanks would not die to free them, but i think it is deeper than that. the south thought of the north as oppressors and the north viewed the south as the unruly relative who got frustrated and estranged themselves from the family. at least that is the easiest way i can try to justify or explain it.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
you are right, most confederates would not fight to keep slaves and most yanks would not die to free them, but i think it is deeper than that. the south thought of the north as oppressors and the north viewed the south as the unruly relative who got frustrated and estranged themselves from the family. at least that is the easiest way i can try to justify or explain it.
for anyone that is interested, i just found out that gen. william tecumseh sherman and 3 or 4 confederae generals are buried in a huge cemetery about 10 minutes from my house. i might go check it out this weekend.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
That civil war was about states standing up for their rights against an overarching federal government. Sounds familiar.
The right to enslave black people.
Maybe the federal government is needed to keep such yahoo's in place. The same kind of yahoo's who are now causing trouble for ethnic minorities in Arizona.
And rewriting history in Texas schoolbooks right now.
as i have said on numerous occasions, i would be willing to let texas secede if they want to go. their governor was talking about it last year...i would shed no tears if they did leave. that would be one less border for us to patrol, right? i would definitely NOT fight a war to keep the union intact if texas thought they would be better off on their own...
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
That civil war was about states standing up for their rights against an overarching federal government. Sounds familiar.
The right to enslave black people.
Maybe the federal government is needed to keep such yahoo's in place. The same kind of yahoo's who are now causing trouble for ethnic minorities in Arizona.
And rewriting history in Texas schoolbooks right now.
a lot of people will cite Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, or Grant as their favorite Civil War leader. I think mine is Joshua Chamberlain from Maine who was expertly played by Jeff Daniels in Gettysburg and Gods and Generals. He is a veteran of many of the major battles including Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Petersburg, Appomattox, was wounded in two of those battles, won the congressional medal of honor, was later governor of maine and was the president of the college where he was a professor before the war. very interesting gentleman.
A trilogy of books about the civil war written by 3 generations of a family are a good read as well. They are historical nonfiction. First is Gods and Generals by Jeff Shaara, next is Killer Angels by Michael Shaara and last is The Last Full Measure by Jeffry Shaara.
I recently visited Manassas when I went to Bristow to see PJ. It is a pretty awesome place. About 5,000 acres of battlefield you can explore there. It is pretty sobering to be there and walk around in the woods and try to imagine what they must have been going through. There were two major battles there a year apart and it is where Jackson got the nickname Stonewall. Definitely worth a visit.
Also, Appomattox Court House is pretty awesome as well. They have several period houses. I read on here that you have already discussed Wilmer's story. His house is there and you can see the actual room where the surrender took place. The original furniture is questionable because the ranger said all officers present with Grant (Lee only brought one guy with him) must have know it was going to be an important day in history because everyone present took souvenirs. Everything from the lamps to the couch!
A trilogy of books about the civil war written by 3 generations of a family are a good read as well. They are historical nonfiction. First is Gods and Generals by Jeff Shaara, next is Killer Angels by Michael Shaara and last is The Last Full Measure by Jeffry Shaara.
I recently visited Manassas when I went to Bristow to see PJ. It is a pretty awesome place. About 5,000 acres of battlefield you can explore there. It is pretty sobering to be there and walk around in the woods and try to imagine what they must have been going through. There were two major battles there a year apart and it is where Jackson got the nickname Stonewall. Definitely worth a visit.
Also, Appomattox Court House is pretty awesome as well. They have several period houses. I read on here that you have already discussed Wilmer's story. His house is there and you can see the actual room where the surrender took place. The original furniture is questionable because the ranger said all officers present with Grant (Lee only brought one guy with him) must have know it was going to be an important day in history because everyone present took souvenirs. Everything from the lamps to the couch!
i have heard that those three books are very good. i did not know it was three generations of the same family though. i thought that i heard a efw years ago that the next movie in the gettysburg, gods and generals trilogy was going to be last full measure, but i have not heard anything about it in a few years. the end credits of gods and generals mention that the next movie was going to be last full measure. i guess it has been put on hold.
i would like to see manassas one day. two very bloody battles there at bull run. has anyone else noticed that most of these battles take their names from creeks or rivers near the battlefields?
i have also heard that souvenirs were taken not just from appomattox but other historlcal places in the civil war. the officers were educated men and i am sure that the historical significance of what was going on was not lost on them..
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
this is confederate artillery aimed at the hornet's nest just as it was during the battle..
also here is an interesting soldier's letter to home from the battle of shiloh...
http://civilwargazette.wordpress.com/20 ... at-shiloh/
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlWkvUdj ... re=channel
If you guys really want to see some civil war history, Beautiful gardens,Historic homes,Old graveyards,The Beach,great food,and Beautiful people then you need to come to Charleston.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHotS9-oofA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqIDDpOH ... re=related
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.battlefieldportraits.com/battlefields.htm
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
the pics on that website that i posted a few posts ago are amazing. they erected stunning monuments at vickeburg. did you go see any of it when you lived there?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Cheers, I'll check it out.
Here's another amazing book, that I would almost consider a "must read". It's not so much about the battle, as it is about the events that occur right after a major battle. http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Blighted-Land-Gettysburg-Aftermath/dp/0939631822/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274234025&sr=1-1
Cheers dude. I'll check these out.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Trust me...it is one of the best books I've read on the subject. It's very revealing and well written. I see the price they have listed on Amazon is a bit steep, and I knew I only paid like $20 something for it on one of my trips to Gettysburg. I just realized that they are pricing out hard covers. They have paperbacks for sell there as well. Here's the link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1577470419/ref=tmm_pap_new_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=new
Some black southern humor for you...
Sherman was the first superintendent of Louisiana State University, but had to resign his position when Louisiana seceded from the union. When the war ended, he donated two cannons to LSU that started the Civil War when they were fired at Fort Sumter (they're currently on display in front of the military science building). All of the buildings at LSU are named after people who figure prominently in the university's history, but nothing bears the name "Sherman." There has been a small movement, that has picked up a little steam recently, to get a building named after him. Not surprisingly this has been met with strong opposition, but, undeterred, there are still people who believe that his role in the formation of LSU should be recognized.
My office was putting together a documentary on LSU's history for our sesquicentennial this year, and, unavoidably, the topic of Sherman's role - and the building controversy - came up. One person had an awesome suggestion: name the FETI building after him. FETI = Fire and Emergency Training Institute - i.e., where the local firefighters train to put out fires.
its been a long time since i was there, but there is tons of stuff there. a few of the trenches are still there. i think i saw most of it
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It's been a while since I read it, but to be honest, I didn't really get that. Maybe I just didn't take it that way. I definitely didn't feel like I was being preached to. I think anyone, conservative, liberal, whatever your beliefs, can easily become very anti-war the more you study war. In the very early stages of the Civil War, as I mentioned earlier, people were very excited about the prospect of war. It was like a football game to them, and they would load up their picnic baskets and go watch. That's because they had no idea what it was like. I don't doubt that the more the author has studied the subject, the more senseless it becomes and I can see how it would be hard not to interject your opinion from time to time.
I guess what intrigues me about this era, more so than anything else in our history is the combatants. It's not like the Revolution when we were fighting the British, or WWII when we fought the Axis powers, or even our current wars. In those wars we didn't know the enemy personally, they were just "bad guys" to us. During the Civil War, you literally had people that were best friends opposing each other, brothers, fathers, and I can't even fathom knowing that you were attacking a unit that more than likely had some member of your family in it. There are a lot of stories out there where people report having opposed family and/or friends on the field of battle.
Anyway, I could go on for hours on this subject, but then I wouldn't get any work done here. LOL One thing that has always bothered me though is how now days especially, people have such a skewed view of southern soldiers, as if they were Nazi's or something. Now, please don't get me wrong, I am NOT one of those "the south will rise again" nuts. I guess though, after studying this so much, I see where they were coming from; not from the slavery issue, but from their desire to govern themselves. I think Lincoln understood their cause as well, but he couldn't allow it to fracture the Union. That is why his plan for reconstruction was going to "let 'em up easy". You have to keep in mind that a vast majority of people in that era, North and South were staunch racists by today's standards, even Lincoln. That is just the way society was at that time. I've never seen or read a single thing where Union soldiers (aside from maybe the 54th Mass.) were ever fighting and willing to die for slaves. Nor were confederate troops willing to march over the open ground in front of overwhelming opposition with the mindset of keeping slaves. Hell, most soldiers and officers didn't even have slaves. There were definitely heroes and villains on both sides.
i spoke with my dad last night and his father's grandfather and his brothers fought for the union in some regiment in ohio while his cousins from tennessee fought for the confederacy. i am not sure of any other details than that because my dad really had no interest. the only person who would know for sure would be my grandfather's sister who is 93 years old and in failing health, who i have not seen in about 20 years.... i would feel a little weird to call her up and say "you probably don't remember me too well, but can you tell me about your grandpa in the civil war?" my family is terrible about family history stuff :(
i could go on about this for hours as well. it is perhaps my favorite subject of american history. you are correct, the confederacy is painted in a negative light but i think it is for several reasons. i think it is because of their leaders. they seceded from the union, they started the war at ft sumter and they waged an aggressive war against the united states. i think that is all people see when they think about the civil war, but it is not that black and white. many northerners saw them as traitors and wanted to wage war on them for only that reason. i think both sides are painted in a negative light because once the armies marched they became invaders. when the north entered the southern states they were an invading force, and vice versa. i think people stopped seeing each other as americans and viewed each other as "the enemy". it is only a natural response and goes back to the usual american sentiment of "us against 'them' ". you are right, most confederates would not fight to keep slaves and most yanks would not die to free them, but i think it is deeper than that. the south thought of the north as oppressors and the north viewed the south as the unruly relative who got frustrated and estranged themselves from the family. at least that is the easiest way i can try to justify or explain it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
EXACTLY! 100% dead on there.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
And rewriting history in Texas schoolbooks right now.
BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
HTFD-6/27/08
ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
OKC-11/16/13
SEA-12/6/13
TUL-10/8/14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Exactly.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I wouldn't doubt it. I posted that link a little ways back for paperback versions. That's about as cheap as you can get it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Chamberlain
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I recently visited Manassas when I went to Bristow to see PJ. It is a pretty awesome place. About 5,000 acres of battlefield you can explore there. It is pretty sobering to be there and walk around in the woods and try to imagine what they must have been going through. There were two major battles there a year apart and it is where Jackson got the nickname Stonewall. Definitely worth a visit.
Also, Appomattox Court House is pretty awesome as well. They have several period houses. I read on here that you have already discussed Wilmer's story. His house is there and you can see the actual room where the surrender took place. The original furniture is questionable because the ranger said all officers present with Grant (Lee only brought one guy with him) must have know it was going to be an important day in history because everyone present took souvenirs. Everything from the lamps to the couch!
i would like to see manassas one day. two very bloody battles there at bull run. has anyone else noticed that most of these battles take their names from creeks or rivers near the battlefields?
i have also heard that souvenirs were taken not just from appomattox but other historlcal places in the civil war. the officers were educated men and i am sure that the historical significance of what was going on was not lost on them..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."