Union vs Confederate, North vs South
Joe Dzikiewicz
to share (inflict?) it on all of you.
When discussing the conflict, we really should not speak of North vs South.
The South was certainly not monolithic in its support for the Confederate
cause, with every state except for South Carolina providing white regiments to
the Union armies. And that doesn't even get into the question of support of
all of those slaves, who were as much southerners as was Jefferson Davis.
While the north had less confusion in this regard then the south, support for
the Union was not universal in the north, and several northerners fought for
the Confederacy.
We should really use the terms "Confederate" and "Union" - not "South" and
"North."
In this light, one of my favorite ACW factoids is that at the beginning of the
war, the highest ranking general in the Union army was from Virginia (Winfield
Scott), and the highest ranking general in the Confederate army throughout the
war was from New Jersey (Samuel Cooper).
(In fact, when I speak to children on the war, as I do occasionally, I usually
like to ask them which side they would have supported if they came from
Virginia (where I live), and which side they would have supported if they came
from New Jersey. I think the Scott-Cooper story helps demonstrate that the war
was a bit more complex than many of these kids realize.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Joe Dzikiewicz
I can resist anything but temptation!
Patrick Carroll
>When discussing the conflict, we really should not speak of North vs South.
>The South was certainly not monolithic in its support for the Confederate
That may be true, in regard to the CW per se. But thanks to the CW (and
perhaps especially to the song "Dixie"), the South is now a bona fide entity
with its own unique identity and history.
If the CW "forged a nation," as the saying goes, apparently it also forged the
sectional identity of the South.
So, when someone today says, "I'm from the South"--in some particular
context--we mentally put together a set of pertinent stereotypes. Being from
the South means a certain something; it makes one different from Californians,
New Yorkers, and others. And in fact, I have heard my southern co-workers use
that very phrase ("I'm from the South")--choosing it over their state names
(which vary from SC to LA to FL to GA to TX).
So, the terms North & South may be suspect among CW historians (even amateur
ones like most of us), but it makes perfect sense to the rest of the world.
What I wonder is this: Is there a fitting symbol for the South which would be
"politically correct" in today's society?
There's all the controversy over the Confederate battle flag, so that won't
work. Individual states have palmettoes, peaches, and so forth. But what about
a symbol that could stand for the South, capturing its feisty, provincial CW
heritage, *without* offending large groups of people?
Heck, even Disney's "Song of the South" seems to have gone underground for
being politically incorrect. What symbols *can* the South legitimately display
with pride?
Just wondering.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Joe Dzikiewicz
>If the CW "forged a nation," as the saying goes, apparently it also forged
>the
>sectional identity of the South.
Actually, I think that identity already existed before the ACW. In fact, I'd
say that it was in place at the time of the Revolution.
The ACW may have firmed it up, but even today we speak of Kentucky and Maryland
as being part of the south, even though they were not Confederate states.
>Heck, even Disney's "Song of the South" seems to have gone underground for
>being politically incorrect.
That's more a matter of racial stereotypes than anything else. (And I'd say
that calling "Song of the South" politically incorrect is a fair cop...)
Mark Pitcavage
Carroll) wrote:
>Heck, even Disney's "Song of the South" seems to have gone underground for
>being politically incorrect. What symbols *can* the South legitimately display
>with pride?
Gosh, maybe a symbol that's not racist?
Mark Pitcavage, Ph.D.
The Militia Watchdog, http://www.militia-watchdog.org
Gary Charbonneau
Patrick Carroll wrote:
>
> What I wonder is this: Is there a fitting symbol for the South which would be
> "politically correct" in today's society?
>
> There's all the controversy over the Confederate battle flag, so that won't
> work. Individual states have palmettoes, peaches, and so forth. But what about
> a symbol that could stand for the South, capturing its feisty, provincial CW
> heritage, *without* offending large groups of people?
>
> Heck, even Disney's "Song of the South" seems to have gone underground for
> being politically incorrect. What symbols *can* the South legitimately display
> with pride?
Any number of symbols could be used (or concocted). But why is a symbol of the
South necessary? Every other region of the country gets along fine without one.
- Gary Charbonneau
trekk...@mailcity.com
jd...@aol.com (Joe Dzikiewicz) wrote:
> We should really use the terms "Confederate" and "Union" -
not "South" and
> "North."
Despite certain exceptions- "North" and "South" are
true enough.
>
> In this light, one of my favorite ACW factoids is that at the
beginning of the
> war, the highest ranking general in the Union army was from Virginia
(Winfield
> Scott),
Significant
and the highest ranking general in the Confederate army throughout the
> war was from New Jersey (Samuel Cooper).
Who? Not significant.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Joe Dzikiewicz
> Despite certain exceptions- "North" and "South" are
> true enough.
Only if you consider 20-25% an exception.
That was a rough percentage of southern soldiers who fought for the Union.
Only if you consider 30-40% an exception.
That was a rough percentage of states below the Mason-Dixon line (the
traditional definition of "southern"), or states that had slavery, that stayed
in the Union.
These numbers are sufficiently large that I wouldn't regard them as mere
exceptions, but rather as significant arguments against the "north vs south"
terminology.
>>(Samuel Cooper).
>
> Who? Not significant.
Samuel Cooper. Adjutant General for the CSA throughout the war, and the
highest ranking officer in the CSA for the entire war. He didn't have a
battlefield command, and so doesn't get much press. But extremely significant
nevertheless.
Bill Wright
>
> But why is a symbol of the South necessary? Every other region
> of the country gets along fine without one.
A "symbol" is not "necessary", but it is desired by those who want
one. The only problem is that people who, for their own reasons,
don't want the peole who want the "symbol" to have it. There sems
to be a rule of nature that some people just can't mind their own
business.
As far as "Every other region of the country gets along fine
without one." I suggest that you take notice of the shouting
and screaming that goes on every time someone tries to
burn a U.S. flag (the "symbol" of our current country).
Bill
David A. Campbell
> without one." I suggest that you take notice of the shouting
> and screaming that goes on every time someone tries to
> burn a U.S. flag (the "symbol" of our current country).
I think Gary is referring to provincialism here, not nationalism.
David A. Campbell
Bill Wright
>
> I think Gary is referring to provincialism here, not nationalism.
I repeat:
"A 'symbol' is not 'necessary', but it is desired by those who
want one."
I see no difference between a "provincial symbol" and a
"national symbol", and your attempt to imply a difference is
lost on me.
Bill
Jacobian
>"Gary Charbonneau" wrote:
>>
>> But why is a symbol of the South necessary? Every other region
>> of the country gets along fine without one.
>
>A "symbol" is not "necessary", but it is desired by those who want
>one. The only problem is that people who, for their own reasons,
>don't want the peole who want the "symbol" to have it. There sems
>to be a rule of nature that some people just can't mind their own
>business.
No. The problem is that the people who clamor for a "Southern" symbol want a
symbol which excludes people whom they believe are not sufficiently southern.
For example my home state, Virginia (the home of Gens. George Thomas and
Wingfield Scott) officially celebrates Lee-Jackson Day and Confederate History
Month -- implying that Confederate sympathy and ancestry is the cornerstone of
what it means to be a good Virginian.
Matthew
Bill Wright
>
> The problem is that the people who clamor for a "Southern" symbol want a
> symbol which excludes people whom they believe are not sufficiently southern.
Your bias is showing itself to be pretty strong. There are no people
"clamoring" for a "Southern symbol". There are a lot of people who
were perfectly happy with what existed until some politically motivated
organizations started "clamoring" to dishonor and remove the
"Southern symbol" which was in place.
> For example my home state, Virginia (the home of Gens. George Thomas and
> Wingfield Scott) officially celebrates Lee-Jackson Day and Confederate History
> Month -- implying that Confederate sympathy and ancestry is the cornerstone of
> what it means to be a good Virginian.
I live in Virginia. We "celebrate" Labor Day, here. Does that mean that labor
union membership, or sympathy with unionism, is another "cornerstone of
what it means to be a good Virginian"?
Bill
Joe Dzikiewicz
>union membership, or sympathy with unionism, is another "cornerstone of
>what it means to be a good Virginian"?
Why no. But it does mean that celebrating workers and their work is part of
what it means to be a good American.
Patrick Carroll
>Wingfield Scott) officially celebrates Lee-Jackson Day and Confederate
>History
>of
>what it means to be a good Virginian.
>Matthew
Is that what it implies? Or does it just highlight the fact that an important
part of Virginia's history involves its once having held the Confederate
capital and been the scene of many brave battles in defense of that capital?
And that Lee & Jackson are probably the two most notable Virginians who
participated in those battles?
Here in Minnesota, there's an annual "Civil War Days" event at Fort Snelling.
And the one time I went there, I saw reenactors dressed in the uniform of the
1st Minnesota reg't. It kinda made sense, this being Minnesota and all. I'd
have been surprised to see a Confederate reg't there. I'd be just as surprised
to see the 1st MN at a reenactment in Richmond.
Scott & Thomas may have hailed from Virginia, but their CW roles were played
out elsewhere--so those roles should be celebrated elsewhere.
Besides, look on the bright side. You get Lee & Jackson. We get John Pope,
who was send here to MN to quell the Sioux uprising, after he lost at 2nd
Manassas. (And now Jesse Ventura, who's doing nothing to quell the current
Native American uprising--namely the profusion of Lakota/Ojibwe casinos. <g>)
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Joe Dzikiewicz
> Or does it just highlight the fact that an important
>part of Virginia's history involves its once having held the Confederate
>capital and been the scene of many brave battles in defense of that capital?
It is rather interesting that there is a Lee Jackson day, but no day for Thomas
Jefferson or James Madison (who, IMHO, were of greater historical
significance).
>Besides, look on the bright side. You get Lee & Jackson. We get John Pope,
>who was send here to MN to quell the Sioux uprising, after he lost at 2nd
>Manassas.
Virginia's got a remarkable amount of history. Of course, we peaked rather
early - not much since the end of the ACW, even if we have Jamestown,
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and all those ACW battles and people early on!
Bill Wright
Bill Wright wrote:
> >
> >I live in Virginia. We "celebrate" Labor Day, here. Does that mean that labor
> >what it means to be a good Virginian"?
Joe Dzikiewicz wrote:
>
> Why no. But it does mean that celebrating workers and their work is part of
> what it means to be a good American.
Then why would celebrating the courage and loyalty of your ancestors to the
state in which they were born and reared be thought to be otherwise?
Bill
trekk...@mailcity.com
jd...@aol.com (Joe Dzikiewicz) wrote:
> Only if you consider 20-25% an exception.
>
> That was a rough percentage of southern soldiers who fought for the
Union.
And they were generally from the "northern" part
of the Confederacy.
>
> Only if you consider 30-40% an exception.
>
> That was a rough percentage of states below the Mason-Dixon line (the
> traditional definition of "southern"), or states that had slavery,
that stayed
> in the Union.
And they were the "northern" tier of slave states.
>
> These numbers are sufficiently large that I wouldn't regard them as
mere
> exceptions, but rather as significant arguments against the "north vs
south"
> terminology.
And the Copperheads in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio
were generally from the southern parts of each
state. They favored making peace with the Confederacy
and letting them go.
"North and South" may not be exact enough for you-
but they are good enough.
Joe Dzikiewicz
>Then why would celebrating the courage and loyalty of your ancestors to the
>state in which they were born and reared be thought to be otherwise?
I am a Virginian, having lived here all my adult life. My wife is a Virginian,
having lived here since she was about 4. My children are Virginians, having
been born here and never lived anywhere else.
And yet, I have no ancestors who fought in the war, and the only ACW ancestors
my wife has fought for the union.
Celebrating Lee-Jackson day seems particularly silly to me. Celebrating a
group that fought for a nation created to preserve and extend slavery seems
particularly wrong to me.
I'd find it much more appropriate to celebrate Scott-Thomas Day then
Lee-Jackson day. And if we are handing out holidays, why not have a
Jefferson-Madison Day? Those two had a much greater, and more positive, impact
on both Virginia and the nation as a whole.
Further, I noted in a previous post that Virginia history peaks early - up
until and through the ACW, Virginia was where it all happened, contributing
over a third of the presidents, many of the most important statesmen, and much
of the real leadership of the nation. After the ACW, Virginia has an almost
negligible affect on the nation and the world.
Part of that is simply that the nation grew, and that any state's influence was
going to decline relative to the rest of the nation. But a large part of that
is due to the fact that Virginia fought on the losing side in the ACW, thereby
allying itself with a losing cause.
So in asking a Virginian like me to honor the Confederates, you are asking me
to honor those who betrayed the nation, fought for a nation built on the
cornerstone of slavery, and in doing so vastly decreased the importance of
Virginia to the nation and the world. Putting aside the question of whether we
should make judgments on historical figures (which you do when you choose to
honor them), that doesn't seem an appropriate use of my honor to me.
Jacobian
>"Jacobian" wrote:
>>
>> The problem is that the people who clamor for a "Southern" symbol want a
>> symbol which excludes people whom they believe are not sufficiently
>southern.
>
>Your bias is showing itself to be pretty strong.
Was it where I called the rebs a "bunch of slave-driving traitors"? Is that
what gave it away?
> There are no people
>"clamoring" for a "Southern symbol".
Not one? I could have sworn I heard this guy say something once.
> There are a lot of people who
>were perfectly happy with what existed until some politically motivated
>organizations started "clamoring" to dishonor and remove the
>"Southern symbol" which was in place.
>
And some who weren't.
>> For example my home state, Virginia (the home of Gens. George Thomas and
>> Wingfield Scott) officially celebrates Lee-Jackson Day and Confederate
>History
>> Month -- implying that Confederate sympathy and ancestry is the cornerstone
>of
>> what it means to be a good Virginian.
>
>I live in Virginia. We "celebrate" Labor Day, here. Does that mean that labor
>union membership, or sympathy with unionism, is another "cornerstone of
>what it means to be a good Virginian"?
>
>Bill
>
>
You've made my point. Labor Day celebrates Labor -- you know, hard, honest
work. The resolution passed by the General Assembly says nothing about trade
unions. They don't take sides.
If the Commonwealth wants to declare a "Civil War Between the States Month" or
a Lee-Jackson-Thomas Day, that's fine. I object to them promoting one side
over the other.
Matthew
Joe Dzikiewicz
>> Only if you consider 20-25% an exception.
>>
>> That was a rough percentage of southern soldiers who fought for the
>Union.
trekk...@mailcity.com responded:
> And they were generally from the "northern" part
> of the Confederacy.
A large number of them were from southern parts of the Confederacy.
Of course, a large number of those were black, but you weren't suggesting that
only whites from the south count as "southerners," were you?
Every state in the Confederacy contributed entire regiments to the Union cause.
Every state in the Confederacy except South Carolina contributed regiments of
white soldiers to the Union cause. Calling the war one between "north and
south" is pretending that those men did not exist.
> And the Copperheads in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio
> were generally from the southern parts of each
> state.
The worst anti-Union actions in the north were the New York draft riots. New
York city, while in the southern part of New York state, is hardly part of the
south.
Bill Wright
> >
> >Then why would celebrating the courage and loyalty of your ancestors to
> >the state in which they were born and reared be thought to be otherwise?
Joe Dzikiewicz wrote:
>
> I am a Virginian, having lived here all my adult life. My wife is a
Virginian,
> having lived here since she was about 4. My children are Virginians, having
> been born here and never lived anywhere else.
I was talking about the state in which our ancestors were born and reared.
> And yet, I have no ancestors who fought in the war, and the only ACW
> ancestors my wife has fought for the union.
In which case, I wouldn't expect you to have those feelings (or, perhaps,
even to understand them).
> Celebrating Lee-Jackson day seems particularly silly to me. Celebrating a
> group that fought for a nation created to preserve and extend slavery seems
> particularly wrong to me.
Can't you "get it" that we are not celebrating "a nation created to preserve
and extend slavery", but we are celebrating "the courage and loyalty of our
ancestors"? If you refuse to try to see the thing from the Southerners'
viewpoint, we can get nowhere.
> I'd find it much more appropriate to celebrate Scott-Thomas Day then
> Lee-Jackson day. And if we are handing out holidays, why not have a
> Jefferson-Madison Day?
Go ahead and do it, but you'd better check with the NAACP first, those
men were slaveholders.
(snip of a strange view of history)
> So in asking a Virginian like me to honor the Confederates, you are
> asking me to honor those who betrayed the nation, fought for a nation
> built on the cornerstone of slavery, and in doing so vastly decreased
> the importance of Virginia to the nation and the world.
I can't speak for others, Joe , but I'm not "asking a Virginian like [you]"
( who was born elsewhere and has no love for Virginia and her history)
"to honor the Confederates". All I ask is that I, and others with REAL
Virginia ancestors, be allowed to celebrate their courage and their loyalty
to their state governments and their native land (as they saw it) without
being accused of wanting the return of slavery.
> Putting aside the question of whether we should make judgments on
> historical figures (which you do when you choose to honor them), that
> doesn't seem an appropriate use of my honor to me.
Sigh! It is not "making a judgement" to honor an ancestor who did his
duty in an honorable way. As far as asking (or even expecting) you to
honor these ancestors of ours, forget it! We have become quite used
to the influx of carpet baggers and other forms of foreigners. We don't
want them to praise (or to interfere with) our peculiar celebrations.
Bill
HAWK
... The next time you go to Richmond, Va you may see a glorious statue
of General Lee sitting on his horse Traveler. I believe the inscription
just says "LEE"....actually there was nothing more to be said... Can
the Yankees match this? maybe a portrait of Lincoln .....
HAWK
Patrick Carroll
>or
>a Lee-Jackson-Thomas Day, that's fine. I object to them promoting one side
>over the other.
>
>Matthew
Well, to each his own. To me, a Lee-Jackson-Thomas day would be a ridiculous
case of kowtowing to political correctness. It'd make me gag. One of the cool
things about Virginia is that it was once "center stage" for the Civil War--and
home of the Confederate capital. And one way to express that "coolness" is
with some good-natured reenactment--a friendly rivalry that loosely mimics what
was once a hot, deadly struggle of arms.
I see nothing wrong with that kind of good-natured rivalry. The annual
Blue-Grey football game has been an example of it in the sports world. And I
kinda like it when I meet someone who takes special pride in being from the
South--even when they surprise me by semi-seriously decrying me as a "damn
yankee."
As far as I'm concerned, that yanks vs rebs rivalry is an important part of
American culture. And I hope it never gets completely lost as our country
grows ever more homogenized. A few decades ago, you could travel from
Minnesota to Texas and feel almost like you were in a different country. Now
it's hard to tell much difference between Dallas and Minneapolis.
In the early 80s I was driving an 18-wheeler through New Mexico or Texas, when
I caught part of a dialogue on the CB radio. A stranded trucker with a
distinctive Massachusetts accent was bemoaning his luck, when a passing trucker
with an equally distinctive southern drawl came on the air and tried to console
him. But he began with, "Why, you sound like a damn yankee!" The New
Englander replied, "You're damned right I'm a yankee--and proud of it, too."
The rivalry was real, but behind the accents and rivalry and all was a tone of
friendship; and the southerner managed to help out his northern buddy in the
end.
That little conversation made my day and proved memorable. Without the
rivalry, it would've been just another boring dialogue.
The serious part of the Civil War was settled long ago, folks. It's not for us
to waste time and energy refighting battles that were already won or lost in
generations past. But if those battles catch our interest and capture our
imagination, we can help make them memorable to present and future generations.
One attractive way to do that is to keep the hatchet buried but perpetuate the
healthy, good-natured rivalry between "yanks" and "rebs."
However, that doesn't mean everyone has to participate. Just because you live
in Virginia doesn't mean you have to take the southern side, or any side. A
co-worker of mine grew up in Ft. Worth, TX; but he always resisted taking on
the distinctive Texan accent and mannerisms--so he could just as well be a
Californian or Midwesterner for all you'd know. That's fine for him, and for
anyone else who's happy to just blend in.
But if someone *wants* to wear a Stetson and cowboy boots and thus express a
little showiness about his Texan roots, what's the problem with that? And how
much of a stretch is it for the state of South Carolina to fly a flag that
says, "Don't forget--the Civil War started here!" To me, that's no more an
issue than all the hubbub about the Gold Rush that still gets publicly
remembered in my native California. I never felt like I had to be a prospector
just because I happened to live in the area. But I was glad the area I lived
in had that distinctive bit of heritage.
As long as some extremist groups are still fighting for the southern cause of
the 1860s, I suppose some other extremist groups will keep fighting the
civil-rights battles of the 1960s. But personally I'd be happier if both
groups would bury the hatchet and be done with it. Then the bitterness would
die down, and everybody could enjoy the friendly rivalry that most of us
already appreciate.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
HAWK
tried to put my two cents worth in occasionally. but I will honestly
say, your post is the best that has ever come through. Your thoughts on
the Civil War are perfect. Its like the old saying " I wish I could have
thought of that" ...HAWK
Joe Dzikiewicz
>I was talking about the state in which our ancestors were born and reared.
Then you should not use the term "Virginian."
One of the marvelous things about this nation is that we do not limit ourselves
to accepting as full members of our nation and community only those with
historical and national ties to those communities. I can hardly think of a
more un-American view then one that would conclude differently.
>I can't speak for others, Joe , but I'm not "asking a Virginian like [you]"
>( who was born elsewhere and has no love for Virginia and her history)
>"to honor the Confederates".
Bill, you apparently conclude that I have no love for Virginian history based
entirely on my views of one four year period. That is utterly absurd.
The history of Virginia spreads over more than four centuries, and includes
some of the most important figures and events in American history. My view of
Virginia History can hardly be derived from my opinions of one percent of that
period.
> It is not "making a judgement" to honor an ancestor who did his
>duty in an honorable way.
Of course it is. Deciding that a person is worthy of honor is as much a
judgment (which, incidently and counter-intuitively, is the correct spelling -
not a spelling flame, but a note on something I find rather curious) as
deciding that a person is worthy of dishonor.
Joe Dzikiewicz
>The next time you go to Richmond, Va you may see a glorious statue
>of General Lee sitting on his horse Traveler. I believe the inscription
>just says "LEE"....actually there was nothing more to be said... Can
>the Yankees match this? maybe a portrait of Lincoln .....
The next time you reach into your pocket, pull out a penny. You will see a
glorious profile of Lincoln. The inscription just says "Liberty" - actually
there was nothing more to be said.
On the flip side, you will find a nice depiction of the Lincoln Memorial. Not
as nice as the real thing, of course, but it gives you some idea of one of the
most dramatic and historic monuments in America.
Patrick Carroll
>ourselves
>to accepting as full members of our nation and community only those with
>historical and national ties to those communities.
But one of the marvelous things about U.S. history is that there was a time
when one's home or native state could be so important that he'd willingly
identify with it--and even choose to go to war in defense of it. Today that's
a quaint notion, but once it was all too real. And I think it's worth
remembering the time when statehood and state citizenship was so very
important. Maybe it's even worth keeping alive a sort of "friendly rivalry"
between states today.
--P. C.,
Minnesota