Random thought of the moment.

Military Humor. Laugh at me. Laugh at you. Laugh at them.

Moderator: Site Admin

Post Reply
User avatar
mortar_guy78
Ranger
Posts: 891
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 7:41 am

Re: Random thought of the moment.

Post by mortar_guy78 »

rgrokelley wrote:
mortar_guy78 wrote:Who won the argument?
Neither. Not really arguing. More like history geeks throwing out facts and theories. Walked away shaking hands.
Nice. I'm a history geek myself. I have very little formal training, mind you, but I like reading and talking about it.
HHC 4/64 AR '97-'99
HHC 1/75 RGR '99-'01
HHC 1/508 ABCT '01-'04
C co, HHC 2/1 IN '04-'07
C co, B co 1/24 IN '07-'11
D co 308th MI '12-'15
7th SFG(A) MICO '15-'18
C co 308th MI '18-Present


Keep your mind in hell and despair not.

THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES
User avatar
colt1rgr
Ranger
Posts: 2903
Joined: December 24th, 2004, 2:29 pm

Re: Random thought of the moment.

Post by colt1rgr »

rgrokelley wrote:
K.Ingraham wrote:
rgrokelley wrote:Standing at the high water mark at Gettysburg, arguing slavery and the origins of the war with a Black guy from Brooklyn... as both our kids looked bored and a little embarrassed.
Were you just at the 150th at Manassas?
No, this was last weekend. Manassas is happening right now (July 23rd). Puck and I don't do WBTS reenacting anymore. We did back in the 135th and 140th anniversaries, but that reenacting became too money grubbing. We do Revolutionary War reenacting.
Puck makes one hell of a Dan Morgan, Sittin' up on that horse, big ass dip in his lower lip :lol: :lol:
1st Ranger Bn 86-92, C Co, HHC, Bn COLT, RHQ 94-95 Ranger Class 14-87 MFF 05 May 88

"Life is like a drop zone, sometimes you just miss the whole damn thing!"
User avatar
colt1rgr
Ranger
Posts: 2903
Joined: December 24th, 2004, 2:29 pm

Re: Random thought of the moment.

Post by colt1rgr »

rgrokelley wrote:
mortar_guy78 wrote:Who won the argument?
Neither. Not really arguing. More like history geeks throwing out facts and theories. Walked away shaking hands.
I prefer NOT to argue with Yankees about the "War of Northern Aggression". I usually just point to a picture of Obama and state in my best Peter Griffin voice "Looks like we ALL lost. Yeah, LOOKS like we ALL LOST! Yeah.................. :| ).
1st Ranger Bn 86-92, C Co, HHC, Bn COLT, RHQ 94-95 Ranger Class 14-87 MFF 05 May 88

"Life is like a drop zone, sometimes you just miss the whole damn thing!"
User avatar
mortar_guy78
Ranger
Posts: 891
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 7:41 am

Re: Random thought of the moment.

Post by mortar_guy78 »

Is it a legitimate question to ask why many people in the Southern US refuse to use the term "Civil War"? Or why people ignore the fact that much of the south was pro-Union and these sentiments were supressed by the Confederate Gov't?

Not trying to start anything. I realize that perspectives differ. I have just never heard an actual explanation of these things.
HHC 4/64 AR '97-'99
HHC 1/75 RGR '99-'01
HHC 1/508 ABCT '01-'04
C co, HHC 2/1 IN '04-'07
C co, B co 1/24 IN '07-'11
D co 308th MI '12-'15
7th SFG(A) MICO '15-'18
C co 308th MI '18-Present


Keep your mind in hell and despair not.

THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES
User avatar
scar
Ranger
Posts: 204
Joined: May 18th, 2007, 10:46 am

Re: Random thought of the moment.

Post by scar »

mortar_guy78 wrote:Is it a legitimate question to ask why many people in the Southern US refuse to use the term "Civil War"? Or why people ignore the fact that much of the south was pro-Union and these sentiments were supressed by the Confederate Gov't?

Not trying to start anything. I realize that perspectives differ. I have just never heard an actual explanation of these things.
I have never experienced someone from the south not using the term "Civil War", I was born and raised in MS, and live in GA and have never heard of someone not calling it by that name.
3/75 C 1-1

RS 01-10
User avatar
mortar_guy78
Ranger
Posts: 891
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 7:41 am

Re: Random thought of the moment.

Post by mortar_guy78 »

scar wrote:
mortar_guy78 wrote:Is it a legitimate question to ask why many people in the Southern US refuse to use the term "Civil War"? Or why people ignore the fact that much of the south was pro-Union and these sentiments were supressed by the Confederate Gov't?

Not trying to start anything. I realize that perspectives differ. I have just never heard an actual explanation of these things.
I have never experienced someone from the south not using the term "Civil War", I was born and raised in MS, and live in GA and have never heard of someone not calling it by that name.
I'm originally from Indiana, but I lived in GA for a while. My wife is from a little town in South Central GA and I've been back to visit a few times. I usually hear the terms "War of Northern Aggression" or "War Between the States". I also frequently hear the term "Northern Aggressors" when referring to Union troops.

Edited to add- Specifically Sherman's troops during the March to the Sea.
HHC 4/64 AR '97-'99
HHC 1/75 RGR '99-'01
HHC 1/508 ABCT '01-'04
C co, HHC 2/1 IN '04-'07
C co, B co 1/24 IN '07-'11
D co 308th MI '12-'15
7th SFG(A) MICO '15-'18
C co 308th MI '18-Present


Keep your mind in hell and despair not.

THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES
User avatar
VAK
USAF Veteran
Posts: 4305
Joined: September 26th, 2003, 1:17 am

Re: Random thought of the moment.

Post by VAK »

My Pop's family was from Virginia and my mother's was from Missouri and depending on the generation of ancestors, I've heard it called both. I'd argue as the majority of the South was pro-Union and I would absolutely argue who 'wrote' the history of the War.

I absolutely agree that there were many people in the South who were pro-Union prior to the invasion of the South by Union forces. (To that end, even families such as the Younger's despite being slave holders were against secession prior to the invasion. Cole Younger's father went on to be murdered and robbed on a roadside outside of Harrisonaville, MO by a Union Patrol.) Further, there were 'elements' of several states that had opposing views from where they were at the beginning of the War. TN is a great example, in eastern TN in the region called Franklin, those people were absolutely pro-Union despite having seceded from the own home state of North Carolina some 30 years before. In Missouri, the legitimate government of the State was sent into hiding after Union forces based out of the St. Louis area, Illinois and Kansas invaded Jefferson City. The elected and legitimate government was replaced without election by the Lincoln administration.

This is truly an amazing topic and I could go on for days speaking to the Constitutional rights of States vs. the Lincoln Administration's thoughts of keeping the Union together. But then we could speak for some time about the South's role in governance and taxation prior to the War. (The South carried the Union for decades and when they initially seceded, the majority of other states were pro-secession right up to seeing their tax base dry up.) New York and Maryland are two other great examples of mixed thoughts on secession. New York's garment district got the majority of their incomes from working with southern cotton and they absolutely initially supported the South's right to secede. Maryland and New Jersey kept their right to slave ownership until well after the Civil War was over. Keeping in mind that New Jersey was the last state where slave ownership was legal. (The Emmancipation Proclamation only effected those slaves in states who were in rebellion.)

If anyone would like to keep going on this topic, let me know and I'd be happy to debate the history. Again, great topic for the 150th anniversary.
"Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum"
(Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe)

Mentor to those who would seek to be CAS God's
User avatar
rgrokelley
Triple Canopy
Posts: 2860
Joined: February 5th, 2008, 5:57 pm

Re: Random thought of the moment.

Post by rgrokelley »

mortar_guy78 wrote:Is it a legitimate question to ask why many people in the Southern US refuse to use the term "Civil War"? Or why people ignore the fact that much of the south was pro-Union and these sentiments were supressed by the Confederate Gov't?

Not trying to start anything. I realize that perspectives differ. I have just never heard an actual explanation of these things.
This is an easy one. A civil war is one where people from the same nation fight to see who will run that nation. Great example of this is the English Civil War (Parliament vs King) or the Russian Civil War. Our war, was not a civil war by definition. It was a war of Independence. The South wanted to be independent of the north, they did not want to run the north. Just to make it official Congress back in the early 1900s had to figure out what to call it for the official US history books. They are the ones who decided upon the name "War Between the States". So that is the official name.

Second question, why... if the South was pro-union, did they wish to leave the north. I like to use my state, North Carolina, as an example. Each state left the union for different reasons. To list these, they are:

1. Politics. The north (Republican) states stated that any state joining the union must be anti-slavery (which equates to Republican). The South wanted the new states to be able to choose which party it would become. To put this into modern perspective, imagine if Puerto Rico was going to join the union, and the democrats then said that they could only join if they had pro-abortion candidates. Slavery was used as a means to achieve control in Congress.

2. Money. England called this war the Tariff War for the longest time. The north, which existed on industrialization, did not have anything that the rest of the world wanted. The South did (cotton). The South, due to this, was the richest part of the United States. Rolling in dough. A modern example would be a state with oil wells today, such as Texas or Alaska. The north wanted that money to stay here, and the only way to do it was to impose high tariffs for products coming into the South. Force the South to sell their cotton to the north so that they could make a profit too.

3. Fear. The book "The Impending Crisis" was basically a how-to manual for slave uprisings. It wasn't until after that book came out that slaves were not taught to read. Lincoln, and the Republican party, endorsed that book... thought it was great. So a major political party endorsed a book that called for the death of American citizens, if they held slaves.

4. Tyranny. Now we come to my state, which did not have a large slave population, as compared to the other slave states. After Fort Sumter was fired upon Lincoln called for the creation of an army to march into South Carolina. In between South Carolina was Virginia and North Carolina. Prior to Lincoln's proclamation both those states were pro-Union. North Carolina even had a pro-Union governor (Vance). Once Lincoln said that he was going to invade both North Carolina and Virginia with an army, to punish South Carolina, those two states decided he had become a dictator and a .. They both left (so did Tennessee).

The Southern government didn't repress much. It was all left to the states (which is also one of its downfalls). North Carolina continued to have a large union sentiment in the mountains, and so did Virginia. It was so strong in Virginia that eventually part of Virginia seceded from the Confederacy and became West Virginia.
A & C Company, 3rd Ranger Battalion 1984-1986
2/325, 82nd Airborne 1979-1984
F Company, 51st LRSU 1986-1988
5th Special Forces Group 1989-1995
3rd Special Forces Group 1997-1999
RS - DHG 5-85
User avatar
mortar_guy78
Ranger
Posts: 891
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 7:41 am

Re: Random thought of the moment.

Post by mortar_guy78 »

Thanks. That clears things up a bit.

To clarify my own post, I was referring to pro-Union sentiment in pockets of the Confederacy, not entire states. I was also under the impression that it was a crime in the CSA to publish, disseminate or receive pro-abolition literature.

From another perspective on states rights vs. federal power (playing devil's advocate since I have no real emotional connection to the issue) were the future CSA states respective of the sovereignty of the state when their representatives at the federal level tried to force northern states to return fugitive slaves despite local laws to the contrary? Or when they tried to force non-slave states to recognize the legitimacy of chattel slavery when slave owners traveled within their borders?

My own limited understanding of the northern perspective (which is why I am picking rgrokelley's brain here) is that the southern states, specifically the powerful land and slaveowning class, dominated the federal government for much of the time up until shortly before the war and it was partly the northern ascendance in industrial production that ended that. From this perspective, secession was largely a reaction against the loss of power and influence as well as to the rising abolitionist sentiment in the north and to the known sympathies of the Republican party.

Like I said, I'm not trying to start a conflict, I'm genuinely interested in finding out. I know that how the facts are viewed is largely a matter of perspective. For example, one of my high school teachers was a huge fan of John Brown and Sherman. On the other side, I recently had a soldier from Florida who told me that his heroes were Nathan Bedford Forrest and Quantrill. It would be interesting to put the two of them in a room... :twisted:
HHC 4/64 AR '97-'99
HHC 1/75 RGR '99-'01
HHC 1/508 ABCT '01-'04
C co, HHC 2/1 IN '04-'07
C co, B co 1/24 IN '07-'11
D co 308th MI '12-'15
7th SFG(A) MICO '15-'18
C co 308th MI '18-Present


Keep your mind in hell and despair not.

THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES
User avatar
rgrokelley
Triple Canopy
Posts: 2860
Joined: February 5th, 2008, 5:57 pm

Re: Random thought of the moment.

Post by rgrokelley »

OK, before I go into this history lesson... I am a historian. I'm going to give answers you may not like, but it is history. You don't deny it, you don't hide it, you throw it out there and let folks decide what is right and wrong.
To clarify my own post, I was referring to pro-Union sentiment in pockets of the Confederacy, not entire states. I was also under the impression that it was a crime in the CSA to publish, disseminate or receive pro-abolition literature.
Nope. Within the borders of the CSA there was still an abolitionist movement, and there were several officers in both the Confederate legislature and the Confederate Army who believed that the slaves should be allowed to fight, and earn their freedom. The individual states regiments (not the Confederal level, but state level) had a mixed army. One woman who observed the Confederate army marching through Maryland before the battle of Sharpsburg commented that every fourth soldier was black. What was outlawed was anyone trying to do violent abolition, such as John Brown.

Now, the side that did punish what was printed was the North. There are several famous cases of Lincoln ordering newspaper editors arrested, and even had one banished from the United States. Clement Vallandigham gave a major speech on May 1, 1863, charging that the war was being fought not to save the Union but to free the slaves by sacrificing the liberty of all Americans to "King Lincoln". He was arrested, sentenced to serve two years in jail and then banished.
From another perspective on states rights vs. federal power (playing devil's advocate since I have no real emotional connection to the issue) were the future CSA states respective of the sovereignty of the state when their representatives at the federal level tried to force northern states to return fugitive slaves despite local laws to the contrary?
You are talking about the Fugitive slave act (1850) which was passed by a Congress that had more northern representatives due to population, than Southern representatives. At that time slavery was legal. So they did not consider the Federal government violating the Constitution, which had not been amended to outlaw slavery yet (1865). When I say "they" I am not talking about just Southern states. At the time of the passing of the Fugitive Slave Act there were several northern states that still had slavery. Heck, New Jersey's slave population actually increased during the war.
Or when they tried to force non-slave states to recognize the legitimacy of chattel slavery when slave owners traveled within their borders?
I've said this to my students, if you truly want to understand history, you have to try to look at it through their eyes. We look at all of this with 21st century eyes and beliefs. Unfortunately history is a foreign country. They don't talk like us and they have different manners and customs. However trying to look at this with 19th century beliefs, I figure you can compare it to someone owning a gun (property) which is disputed by other states. If I travel through New York, I want to them to recognize the legitimacy of me owning a gun. If I'm passing through I would like to still have that gun when I come out the other side of the border. If the state of New York confiscated my gun, I would be pretty angry. I would want my state to "force" New York to recognize that I am allowed to have that gun according to my State reciprocity.
My own limited understanding of the northern perspective (which is why I am picking rgrokelley's brain here) is that the southern states, specifically the powerful land and slaveowning class, dominated the federal government for much of the time up until shortly before the war and it was partly the northern ascendance in industrial production that ended that.
The South never dominated the Congress at all due to population. The largest populations were in the north. More population equals more representatives. Even in the Senate, which is equal across the board, there was an even split. What the South did have was wealth... incredible wealth. I used the analogy of an oil producing state today, but Southern cotton was truly king. This was the ONLY place in the world producing the short staple cotton that Europe and the rest of the world wanted. The South could and did name their price. This domination didn't end shortly before the war, but continued into the war.

The South was the "evil rich" and the north did not have anything the rest of the world wanted. They had industrial might, but so did England and France. In fact the steel from England could out manufacture anything from the U.S. and it was of a better quality. So northern ascendancy into industrialization did not break the Southern hold on the wealth of this nation. The north needed to figure out how to tax these Southern states out of their money, or create tarrifs to force them to buy northern goods. Ironically history repeats itself. The north, relying on factories, is dying. Other nations can out produce them for cheaper. The one constant bit of wealth in America's history is that which comes out of the ground, either by growing, drilling or mining.

The only thing that destroyed the South's riches was the war. War has a habit of doing that. It took almost three generations for the South to recover from the destruction, but the wealth has returned.
From this perspective, secession was largely a reaction against the loss of power and influence as well as to the rising abolitionist sentiment in the north and to the known sympathies of the Republican party
The South never had power in the Congress due to population size. Abolitionist were considered a nuisance, but not the big threat (that is until John Brown staged his jihad and killed citizens). I listed the main reasons for secession, but it all comes down to centralism versus decentralism. Who should control us, the Federal government, or the States. This is a fight as old as this nation and it still goes on today.
Like I said, I'm not trying to start a conflict, I'm genuinely interested in finding out. I know that how the facts are viewed is largely a matter of perspective. For example, one of my high school teachers was a huge fan of John Brown and Sherman. On the other side, I recently had a soldier from Florida who told me that his heroes were Nathan Bedford Forrest and Quantrill. It would be interesting to put the two of them in a room... :twisted
If I ever met someone who was a huge fan of John Brown, I would quickly remove myself from their presence. That would be like someone saying they are a huge fan of Tim McVeigh, that douche who gunned down those kids in Norway, or Bin Laden. John Brown slaughtered untold numbers of innocents in Kansas, dismembering them, and then took his show on the road. He wanted to arm the slaves to rise up and kill all their masters. Ironically the first person killed by his holy war was a black man, Heyward Shepherd.

As a Ranger I think Forrest was a fantastic leader. He rates up there with Patton with his idea of striking the enemy fast, hard and where he suspects it least.

Quantrill, not so much.

In the end, history is never black and white, cut and dried. There are shades of gray that only can be found after lifting several layers. Most of what you know, all of us know, about history is either simplified, wrong, or a plan lie. Only doing your own research, using primary accounts, can you try to find the truth.
A & C Company, 3rd Ranger Battalion 1984-1986
2/325, 82nd Airborne 1979-1984
F Company, 51st LRSU 1986-1988
5th Special Forces Group 1989-1995
3rd Special Forces Group 1997-1999
RS - DHG 5-85
User avatar
Buzz
Ranger
Posts: 1064
Joined: December 20th, 2009, 7:33 pm

Re: Random thought of the moment.

Post by Buzz »

rgrokelley, mortar_guy78, VAK and all.

Thank you for the insightful questions and answers, much of what you speak I studied in school but it lacked the insight of Soldier/Historians, keep it up.
2nd squad-1st plt-C 2/75 77-78
RS 4-78

The way I became a Ranger and have earned the small amount of success I have had in life has been mostly due to one quality - determination. Lefty.
User avatar
mortar_guy78
Ranger
Posts: 891
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 7:41 am

Re: Random thought of the moment.

Post by mortar_guy78 »

Thanks okelley. I'm renewing my interest and will be studying more on my own.

I appreciate the time it takes to respond to a laundry list of questions by a relative naif like myself.
HHC 4/64 AR '97-'99
HHC 1/75 RGR '99-'01
HHC 1/508 ABCT '01-'04
C co, HHC 2/1 IN '04-'07
C co, B co 1/24 IN '07-'11
D co 308th MI '12-'15
7th SFG(A) MICO '15-'18
C co 308th MI '18-Present


Keep your mind in hell and despair not.

THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES
User avatar
rgrokelley
Triple Canopy
Posts: 2860
Joined: February 5th, 2008, 5:57 pm

Re: Random thought of the moment.

Post by rgrokelley »

Buzz wrote:rgrokelley, mortar_guy78, VAK and all.

Thank you for the insightful questions and answers, much of what you speak I studied in school but it lacked the insight of Soldier/Historians, keep it up.
There is another factor too. I am a Southerner. You will always get a different version of history when you see it from the other side. That war defined us more than anything else in our nation's history, and it is why the South is the way it is today (politically, spiritually, and weaponry)
A & C Company, 3rd Ranger Battalion 1984-1986
2/325, 82nd Airborne 1979-1984
F Company, 51st LRSU 1986-1988
5th Special Forces Group 1989-1995
3rd Special Forces Group 1997-1999
RS - DHG 5-85
User avatar
mortar_guy78
Ranger
Posts: 891
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 7:41 am

Re: Random thought of the moment.

Post by mortar_guy78 »

[quote="rgrokelley"]OK, before I go into this history lesson... I am a historian. I'm going to give answers you may not like, but it is history. You don't deny it, you don't hide it, you throw it out there and let folks decide what is right and wrong.



If I ever met someone who was a huge fan of John Brown, I would quickly remove myself from their presence. That would be like someone saying they are a huge fan of Tim McVeigh, that douche who gunned down those kids in Norway, or Bin Laden. John Brown slaughtered untold numbers of innocents in Kansas, dismembering them, and then took his show on the road. He wanted to arm the slaves to rise up and kill all their masters. Ironically the first person killed by his holy war was a black man, Heyward Shepherd.

As a Ranger I think Forrest was a fantastic leader. He rates up there with Patton with his idea of striking the enemy fast, hard and where he suspects it least. [quote]

My history teacher said he admired Brown for his conviction. I guess one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

As far as Forrest goes, I would say that the accounts I have read of the Fort Pillow Massacre and Forrest's post war exploits would kind of get in the way of any admiration that I'd have.

Then again I've always been sort of fascinated by Sherman, which makes for interesting conversation around my wife's family.

I'm going to go hit the books.
HHC 4/64 AR '97-'99
HHC 1/75 RGR '99-'01
HHC 1/508 ABCT '01-'04
C co, HHC 2/1 IN '04-'07
C co, B co 1/24 IN '07-'11
D co 308th MI '12-'15
7th SFG(A) MICO '15-'18
C co 308th MI '18-Present


Keep your mind in hell and despair not.

THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES
Post Reply

Return to “Good Humor Popsicle Zone”