Basis of 1996 Hostilities ?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Dave Gorski

unread,
Jun 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/25/96
to

Since I've been lurking in this NG for the last
few weeks I've been struck by what seems to be a huge
amount of hostility towards people with the same supposed
intrests (ACW). I'm not refering to the spirited
discussions of Yank vs. Reb, we all learn from and enjoy
these. I'm refering to the mean spirited personal attacks,
Yank to Reb and Reb to Yank. I realize that the ACW
involves some very emotional issues, and that people are
very passionate in their stands on these issues, but these
attacks have raised some questions that perhaps someone
from the group can help me with.
As a "northerner", with a relative who served to
preserve the Union, I'm thankful that thousands made
sacrifices to form this country and move us forward.
I also understand and admire the extraordinary sense
of LOYALTY, DUTY, and HONOR displayed by Confederate
troops. the sacrifices of BOTH groups of men are what
formed this country.
I respectfully ask, do the folks who take a
Confederate position on issues belive that they would be
better off today if the South had been successful in
separating from the North ? Are the personal attacks that I
read in this NG just a re-enactment of the hostilities of
the Civil War era ? Maybe I'm reading more into these
posts than really exists ?
While I was in the military I served with men from the
North as well as the South and never noticed any hostility
becouse of the part of the country you came from.Is there still
a hostility between the regions ? If so what is the basis of
this hostility ? Since 1865 I've felt that in many ways the
North has become more like the South and the South more like
the North.
Any civil comments or explanations would be welcome. I am
particularly interested in the Southern perspective.
Thanks,
Dave Gorski

Linda Teasley

unread,
Jun 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/25/96
to

Dave Gorski (bi...@execpc.com) wrote:

[introductory post about reflections on Unionist/Confederate hostility
on this newsgroup snipped]

: Any civil comments or explanations would be welcome. I am


: particularly interested in the Southern perspective.

As one of the grumpier Confederates on this newsgroup, I will
tentatively offer a couple of comments. The American Civil War was
terribly costly and occurrred just a little over one hundred years ago.
Most of us can almost touch relatives who fought in it. The fruits of
its devastation lasted and its impact thus still felt.

Most people honor those who suffered through it, and it is a source of
intense irritation to be told that, "Your military history was mediocre,
and your political history absolutely shameful." We can say that about
ourselves, mind you, but will not tolerate that from other small-minded
people. Our efforts to demonstrate the hypocrisy of statements like that
will not end soon.

This set of circumstances should not surprise you. Every village in
England has an impressive memorial to their sons who fought in WWI.
Homer's rhapsodes sang about the Greeks and the Trojans five hundred years
after
the actual event and drew passionate acclaim from audiences. Events
associated with the life of a whole people have a privileged place and
this has been true time out of mind.

Linda Teasley
--
Five pelican bedecked battle flags began to flap. . . three thousand
men stepped off on the left foot. With strict cadence, ninety paces per
minute, a forest of burnished steel paraded up the hill.
Winchester --- 25 May 1862

Al Lewis

unread,
Jun 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/25/96
to

bi...@execpc.com (Dave Gorski) wrote:

> Any civil comments or explanations would be welcome. I am
>particularly interested in the Southern perspective.

> Thanks,
> Dave Gorski

Dave,

Suggest you check out the Southern League website at www.dixienet.org.
Read all the articles, get a feel for what a " reasoned " southern
perspective is in this day and time.

Probably the greatest barrier to non-Southerners' understanding of the

Southern perspective has been ( as with many other areas and issues in
today's society ) the less than objective, shallow, stereotype
maintaining coverage by the national media of issues related to the
South, the War for Southern Independence, symbols of the War, etc.
After all, if I relied on the mass media for my impressions of various
cities, regions, groups in this country I would be way off the mark
much of the time.

To understand the historical Southern mindset, it is extremely
important to understand the roots of the majority of people who
settled in the South. They were not merchants, seamen, tradesmen
from the old country. Most were of Celtic stock. This meant that
they were tremendously independent in spirit, liked to be left alone
to determine their own destinies, etc. Understanding the nature of
the people who settled the South then gives you insight into why
you hear the argument from Southerners that the War for Southern
Independence was about states' rights, not slavery!! Slavery was an
instutition of the times resulting from a number of primarily economic
reasons. Slavery was simply one of many issues that Southerners felt
were not the business of a far-off government which was not
understanding of local issues They felt very, very strongly about
local determination.

Yes, many modern Southerners would say that we would be better off
if the North had not invaded and subjugated the Conferates States.
Why? Perhaps we would have much more local control over what
government we might need. It's that simple. It's basically a
centralist vs. provinicialist argument.

As to current hostilities, I can only say that, IMHO, there is simply
a reaction by modern Southerners against what they perceive are
unwarranted attacks on various aspects of their unique Southern
heritage, most often by people who don't live in the South and who
don't understand that much about the South. Again, the mass media has
done such a wonderful job of associating the Confederate Battle Flag
with hate groups only that we now have various institutions (schools,
local municipalities, etc.) ruling that the display of Confederate
symbols simply can't be tolerated because of the negative
connotations. How would the majority of Americans feel if Old Glory
was banned from display because of atrocities committed in Vietnam.
Do we throw the baby out with the bath water?

Oh well, I'll get down off my box now. Maybe this will give some
insight into how one Southerner feels, at least.

Al Lewis in Fort Worth "Cowtown", Texas
"Where the West Begins and the East peters out"


"All opinions expressed are not necessarily yours, but most likely mine"
----------------- INDICOM BUILDINGS, INC. ----------------------
E-Mail: Ind...@airmail.net 721 N. Burleson Blvd.
Voice: 817-447-1213 Burleson, TX 76028
Fax: 817-447-2528
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


liz leigh

unread,
Jun 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/26/96
to

(snip)

> I respectfully ask, do the folks who take a
>Confederate position on issues belive that they would be
>better off today if the South had been successful in
>separating from the North ? Are the personal attacks that I
>read in this NG just a re-enactment of the hostilities of
>the Civil War era ? Maybe I'm reading more into these
>posts than really exists ?

(snip)

> Any civil comments or explanations would be welcome. I am
>particularly interested in the Southern perspective.
> Thanks,
> Dave Gorski

According to James McPherson who is a noted historian of marked Yankee
tendencies, about 2/3 rds of the soldiers in the Confederate armies
were from non-slave holding families (DRAWN WITH THE SWORD P. 121) They
were typically backwoods 'yeomen' farmers. Many observers today might
regard the Southern 'yeoman' farmer as a 'cracker' with a lifestyle
characterized by the stereotyped image of the Clampet family in THE
BEVERLY HILLBILLIES -- West Virginians, but 'crakers' nonetheless.

Now, consider the following questions:

1. When was the last time you saw a re-run of THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES?

2. When was the last time you saw a re-run of AMOS & ANDY?

3. Why has one of the above been banned as an unfair representation of
a class of Americans while the other has not?

4. Why is it okay to ridicule the often false stereotypical image of a
'cracker' but it is an unforgivable evil to do so for virtually any
other class of American citizens?

5. Why shud anyone be surprised when individuals whose heritage is
ridiculed occasionally respond with vigor?

Consider also the following:

About 20 years ago there was a made-for-tv drama entitled THE MISSLES
OF OCTOBER which was about the Cuban missle crisis. At one point
Khrushcev sent a private message to John Kennedy warning of the total
destruction of nuclear war. He reminisced about the wasteland the
Germans left behind in Russia during WW II. Nikita added that, as an
American, Kennedy would not likely understand the point he was trying
to make because, EXCEPT FOR THE AMERICAN SOUTH, our country had never
experienced the horror of total war.

Indeed, Kennedy and his staff were mystified by Khrushcev's
'ramblings'. But Southerners have some appreciatin for what the Russian
Premier was trying to say. Again according to Mc Pherson, 2/3rds of the
property values in the South were wiped out by the war. We have
ancestors who lived thru that and had to recover or move on. One fourth
of the white males (McPherson again) from the South did not return
home. That is a far larger percentage than up North. Yet when we want
only to honor their memory with the St. Andrew's Cross we are condemned
as racists.

When we watch the Clampets on tv we demonstrate an ability to laugh at
ourselves and our forebears. We also want the power to honor our
heritage and may get downright mean, wicked, dirty, and nasty when told
that heritage is nothing but evil.

Phil Leigh

=======================================================================

Most things are praised or decried because it is fashionalbe to praise
or decry them.

La Rochefoucauld

=======================================================================

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Jun 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/26/96
to

In article <4qpor7$a...@news-f.iadfw.net>, Al Lewis <ind...@airmail.net> wrote:
>bi...@execpc.com (Dave Gorski) wrote:
>
>> Since I've been lurking in this NG for the last
>>few weeks I've been struck by what seems to be a huge
>>amount of hostility towards people with the same supposed
>>intrests (ACW). I'm not refering to the spirited
>>discussions of Yank vs. Reb, we all learn from and enjoy
>>these. I'm refering to the mean spirited personal attacks,
>>Yank to Reb and Reb to Yank. I realize that the ACW
>>involves some very emotional issues, and that people are
>>very passionate in their stands on these issues, but these
>>attacks have raised some questions that perhaps someone
>>from the group can help me with.
>> As a "northerner", with a relative who served to
>>preserve the Union, I'm thankful that thousands made
>>sacrifices to form this country and move us forward.
>> I also understand and admire the extraordinary sense
>>of LOYALTY, DUTY, and HONOR displayed by Confederate
>>troops. the sacrifices of BOTH groups of men are what
>>formed this country.
>> I respectfully ask, do the folks who take a
>>Confederate position on issues belive that they would be
>>better off today if the South had been successful in
>>separating from the North ? Are the personal attacks that I
>>read in this NG just a re-enactment of the hostilities of
>>the Civil War era ? Maybe I'm reading more into these
>>posts than really exists ?
>> While I was in the military I served with men from the
>>North as well as the South and never noticed any hostility
>>becouse of the part of the country you came from.Is there still
>>a hostility between the regions ? If so what is the basis of
>>this hostility ? Since 1865 I've felt that in many ways the
>>North has become more like the South and the South more like
>>the North.
>> Any civil comments or explanations would be welcome. I am
>>particularly interested in the Southern perspective.
>> Thanks,
>> Dave Gorski
>

the above response appears to be meaningless unless one goes back and inserts
the word "white" before every mention of the word "Southerner."

Stephen Schmidt

unread,
Jun 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/26/96
to

liz...@ix.netcom.com (liz leigh ) writes:
>Again according to Mc Pherson, 2/3rds of the
>property values in the South were wiped out by the war.

I'm away from my McPherson and can't doublecheck the source,
but with that qualification:

1) About 1/3 of the wealth of the South was held in the form
of slaves, which were emancipated. I wouldn't really say that
qualifies as "wiped out by the war" except in the most
metaphysical sense.
2) Much of the remaining fall of property values was caused
by the change in value of plantations and other property which
had depended on slavery.

There was also, of course, considerable damage and destruction
of the sort more normally associated with war (burned buildings,
damaged bridges, farm fields dug up for trenches, and so forth)
but the amount of this is nothing like 2/3 of the prewar value
of Southern property. One might also note that much of this
damage was done by the CSA army rather than the USA; perhaps
this should serve as a reminder not to shoot first at someone
stronger than you.

Steve
--
Stephen Schmidt Department of Economics
210A Social Sciences Union College
(518) 388-6078 Schenectady NY 12308

efr...@cc.memphis.edu

unread,
Jun 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/26/96
to

[Most of Phil Leigh's heartfelt reply to Al Gorski
snipped]

> According to James McPherson who is a noted historian of marked Yankee
> tendencies, about 2/3 rds of the soldiers in the Confederate armies
> were from non-slave holding families (DRAWN WITH THE SWORD P. 121) They
> were typically backwoods 'yeomen' farmers. Many observers today might
> regard the Southern 'yeoman' farmer as a 'cracker' with a lifestyle
> characterized by the stereotyped image of the Clampet family in THE
> BEVERLY HILLBILLIES -- West Virginians, but 'crakers' nonetheless.

Hey! The Clampitts wuz fum Tennessee.

Ed "weren't they?" Frank


Meanwhile

unread,
Jun 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/28/96
to
liz leigh (liz...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: 4. Why is it okay to ridicule the often false stereotypical image of a

: 'cracker' but it is an unforgivable evil to do so for virtually any
: other class of American citizens?

: Phil Leigh

Yep, ridicule you and your family right to your face.
God forbid you object, that *must* mean you're in
favor of slavery. Certainly it *can't* mean that
you just don't like having someone say that you and
your family are garbage.

d.


Southern Witch

unread,
Jun 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/29/96
to
In article <1996Jun26.1...@unvax.union.edu>,
schm...@unvax.union.edu (Stephen Schmidt) wrote:

~~~snips~~~

> There was also, of course, considerable damage and destruction
> of the sort more normally associated with war (burned buildings,
> damaged bridges, farm fields dug up for trenches, and so forth)
> but the amount of this is nothing like 2/3 of the prewar value
> of Southern property.

~~~more snips~~~


To quote from Foner's "A Short History of Reconstruction" (p. 56):

Agricultural statistics reveal the full extent of the economic disaster
the South had suffered. Between 1860 and 1870, while farm output expanded
in the rest of the nation, the South experienced precipitous declines in
the value of farm land and the amount of acreage under cultivation. The
number of horses fell by twenty-nince percent, swine by thirty-fice
percent, and farm values by half. The real value of all property, even
discounting that represented by slaves, stood thirty percent lower in 1870
than its prewar figure, and the output of the staple crops cotton, rice,
sugar, and tobacco, and food crops like corn and potatoes, remained far
below their antebellum levels. Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg returned
from the war to his '"once propserous" Alabama home to find "-all, all-
was lost, except my debts."

Despite the grim reality of desolation and poverty, the South's economic
recovery involved more than rebuilding shattered farms and repairing
broken bridges. An entire social order had been swept away, and on its
ruins a new one had to be constructed. The process by which a new social
and economic order replaced the old followed different paths in different
parts of the South. But for black and white alike, the war's end ushered
in what South Carolina planter William H. Trescott called "the perpetual
trouble that belongs to a time of social change."

[end quote]

To argue about whether the destruction amounted to 1/3 or 2/3 of pre-war
values is somewhat pointless. What Foner seems to be saying is that the
South was devastated in every conceivable way and would take years to
recover from the physical and psychological beatings administered by the
victorious Union Army. There are those who would argue (with much
validity) that the process remains unfinished to this day.

Kathie "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" Fraser

--
Kathie Fraser http://www.erols.com/kfraser
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The South is a land that has known sorrows...a land of legend,
a land of song, a land of hallowed and heroic memories."
--Edward Ward Carmack

Andrew Stooksbury

unread,
Jun 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/29/96
to
So, what you are saying is that it was the Southern troops and not
Sherman and his March to the sea that destroyed Georgia. I guess it
was not Sheridan in the Valley either. I guess the Northern scorched
earth policy had nothing to do with it.

David S.

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Jun 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/29/96
to
In article <00003213...@msn.com>,

Have you actually read a history of Sherman's march to the sea? If you have,
then you will know that the Confederates destroyed a great amount of things,
and that Confederate troops "foraged" a great amount more. If you think that
Union troops were the only people doing damage, guess again.

RStacy2229

unread,
Jun 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/30/96
to

In article <4r4bts$q...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>Have you actually read a history of Sherman's march to the sea?

Yes, by the man himself, in his own words, both in official correspondence
and in his biography. You can revise anything else you want, but the man
who vowed to "make Georgia howl" did just that, and you can't cover it up.
He started by burning Rome, Ga., an account of which I can provide you
from a civilian eyewitness.

I would like someone to explain to me how Sherman's treatment of the
largely female workforce at the New Manchester and Roswell mills served
any logical military purpose.

Get a grip, Mark. One of these days I expect to log on and find that you
are somehow blaming Hiroshima, the sinking of the Lusitania and original
sin on the South.

Robert Stacy McCain

Dennis Maggard

unread,
Jun 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/30/96
to

kfr...@erols.com (Southern Witch) wrote:

>~~~snips~~~

>~~~more snips~~~

>[end quote]


This may well be the first time Foner has ever been quoted on this
newsgroup in support of the South and the southern point of view!
It's common enough to see the devil quote scripture for his purposes,
but seeing an angel return the compliment is a real treat! :-)


Dennis


System Janitor

unread,
Jun 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/30/96
to

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>then you will know that the Confederates destroyed a great amount of things,
>and that Confederate troops "foraged" a great amount more. If you think that
>Union troops were the only people doing damage, guess again.

The 40 mile wide burnt path through South Carolina was the track
of Sherman's army, not Wheeler's foragers.

-Mike

Maury

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

In article <4r73ia$7...@news4.digex.net>, dmag...@access.digex.net says...

>
>kfr...@erols.com (Southern Witch) wrote:
>
>>In article <1996Jun26.1...@unvax.union.edu>,
>>schm...@unvax.union.edu (Stephen Schmidt) wrote:
>
>>~~~snips~~~
>
>>> There was also, of course, considerable damage and destruction
>>> of the sort more normally associated with war (burned buildings,
>>> damaged bridges, farm fields dug up for trenches, and so forth)
>>> but the amount of this is nothing like 2/3 of the prewar value
>>> of Southern property.
>
>>~~~more snips~~~
>
>>To quote from Foner's "A Short History of Reconstruction" (p. 56):
>
>>Agricultural statistics reveal the full extent of the economic disaster
>>the South had suffered. Between 1860 and 1870, while farm output expanded
>>in the rest of the nation, the South experienced precipitous declines in
=====================================================

Snippettes galore, see original

=======================================================

>This may well be the first time Foner has ever been quoted on this
>newsgroup in support of the South and the southern point of view!
>It's common enough to see the devil quote scripture for his purposes,
>but seeing an angel return the compliment is a real treat! :-)
>Dennis

<SMILE>, way to go, Kathie!


Good point, Dennis -- well said.
-- Maury

A. Chilton Lannen

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:

>In article <4r4bts$q...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,


>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>

>>Have you actually read a history of Sherman's march to the sea?
>
>Yes, by the man himself, in his own words, both in official correspondence
>and in his biography. You can revise anything else you want, but the man
>who vowed to "make Georgia howl" did just that, and you can't cover it up.
>He started by burning Rome, Ga., an account of which I can provide you
>from a civilian eyewitness.

What is there to cover up? Sherman's goal was to break the
morale of the Southern people by hurting them badly, and, at the same
time, cut off the Lower South from the Upper. He accomplished his
mission on both counts. You don't shatter a peoples' will to fight
by slapping them on the wrist.

>I would like someone to explain to me how Sherman's treatment of the
>largely female workforce at the New Manchester and Roswell mills served
>any logical military purpose.

Did the mills continue to operate? If not, then the military
purpose was served.

>Get a grip, Mark. One of these days I expect to log on and find that you
>are somehow blaming Hiroshima, the sinking of the Lusitania and original
>sin on the South.
>
>Robert Stacy McCain

In devastating portions of Georgia along his route to Savannah,
Sherman was following precedent established as far back as the Roman
Republic. When the Romans (whom Southern elites often admired
greatly) began to re-establish control over Italy near the end of the
Second Punic War, most of the cities that had rebelled and joined
Hannibal surrendered -- others did not. So the Romans torched a few
of the formerly rebellious towns and put every man, woman, and child
to the sword. This made the holdouts fold rather quickly. To break
an entire population's will to fight you have to devastate them.
I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just an aspect of wars.

--Andrew

-------
and...@ix.netcom.com
"God cannot alter the past; that is why he is obliged to connive
at the existence of historians." -- Samuel Butler


Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

In article <4r5tca$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4r4bts$q...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>
>>Have you actually read a history of Sherman's march to the sea?
>
>Yes, by the man himself, in his own words, both in official correspondence
>and in his biography. You can revise anything else you want, but the man
>who vowed to "make Georgia howl" did just that, and you can't cover it up.
>He started by burning Rome, Ga., an account of which I can provide you
>from a civilian eyewitness.
>
>I would like someone to explain to me how Sherman's treatment of the
>largely female workforce at the New Manchester and Roswell mills served
>any logical military purpose.
>
>Get a grip, Mark. One of these days I expect to log on and find that you
>are somehow blaming Hiroshima, the sinking of the Lusitania and original
>sin on the South.

I asked if you had read a history of the march, not a memoir. If you had read
a history of the march, you would have known the damage done by the
Confederates themselves. What Sherman did or did not do is irrelevant to the
discussion.

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

In article <hubcap.836171990@hubcap>,

System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>then you will know that the Confederates destroyed a great amount of things,
>>and that Confederate troops "foraged" a great amount more. If you think that

>>Union troops were the only people doing damage, guess again.
>
>The 40 mile wide burnt path through South Carolina was the track
>of Sherman's army, not Wheeler's foragers.

Not only is that hyperbole, but it doesn't even address the Confederate
scorched earth policy.

gary charbonneau

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

In article <00003213...@msn.com>,
Andrew Stooksbury <Wolly...@msn.com> wrote:

>So, what you are saying is that it was the Southern troops and not
>Sherman and his March to the sea that destroyed Georgia.

Look at it this way. Sherman estimated that the March to the Sea
cost Georgia and the Confederacy $100,000,000 ($20,000,000 in supplies
and property seized by the Union army, and $80,000,000 in waste and
destruction). By way of comparison, estimates of the total value
of all slaves prior to the war were on the order of two to three
billion dollars. Simple arithmetic suggests that emancipation cost
Southern whites as much as twenty to thirty Marches to the Sea.

Suppose that the Union armies had not invaded the Confederacy.
Would Southerners then willingly have freed their slaves, thus subjecting
themselves to the economic equivalent of twenty or thirty Marches to the Sea?
Unthinkable. They would only have freed their slaves if and when slavery
became unprofitable. But if slavery had become unprofitable, the
result would have been a catastrophic fall in slave prices as slaves
ceased to be an asset and became a liability, essentially wiping out
two to three billion dollars of capital investment (not including the
fall in land values which would probably have occurred at the same time).

White Southerners found themselves in a box in which emancipation must
either _cause_ their impoverishment or _result_ from it. Barring
the continuing survival and profitability, they were doomed to become
drastically poorer whether Yankee armies invaded or not.

- Gary Charbonneau

System Janitor

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>Not only is that hyperbole, but it doesn't even address the Confederate
>scorched earth policy.

The ``Confederate scorched earth policy'' isn't relevant to
Sherman's March.

-Mike

Maury

unread,
Jul 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/2/96
to


>rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
>
>>In article <4r4bts$q...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

>>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Snippity-Do-dah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ <31d7554f...@nntp.netcruiser>,

~ and...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>You don't shatter a peoples' will to fight >by slapping them
>on the wrist.

That same line of thinking, I do believe, could and did
assist in the maintaining of the system of slavery. -- Maury

>--Andrew > And...@ix.netcom.com

RStacy2229

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <4r8o1k$g...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:

>Simple arithmetic suggests that emancipation cost
>Southern whites as much as twenty to thirty Marches to the Sea.
>

Yes, but the damage was not distributed as a statistic. Consider the poor
women living in little cottages at the New Manchester mills on Sweetwater
Creek. One day, the Yankees show up, herd the women up (allegedly
accosting some in the process) and ship them off to Kentucky, where the
women and their children are treated as POWs for the next several months.
Meanwhile, the mill and the surrounding cottages are burned to the ground
by the Yankees. Never mind the lost wages for the workers and the trauma
of their forcible relocation, but even if they do manage to make it back
home, they find that they have no homes and no jobs. Those working women
were not plantation mistresses, but the "glorious war to end slavery"
deprived them of their livelihood.
And since Sherman's army plundered and pillaged randomly across its path,
visiting destruction on whatever homes were encountered, the theft,
vandalism and rapine were fairly universal. Something more than half the
white families in that region owned no slaves, yet their smokehouses were
emptied, what few possessions they owned were stolen and, often enough,
the women were insulted or worse. Orders were to destroy every mill and
every factory along the way, thereby destroying what little industry that
agricultural region possessed.
And why? Tell me. Why? As Jefferson Davis had said, the South asked
nothing but to be let alone. This war of conquest and subjugation was
necessary under what theory of government?

Robert Stacy McCain

RStacy2229

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <4r8o1k$g...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:

>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu

Why is it that the amount of hostility exhibited toward the South is, in
most cases, directly proportional to the likelihood of the person posting
from an "edu" address?

Think about it: Pitcavage, Simpson, Epperson, Schmidt. Except for Mike at
Clemson, I don't think the Southrons have a single "edu" poster.

RSMC

RStacy2229

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <4r8o1k$g...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:

>White Southerners found themselves in a box in which emancipation must
>either _cause_ their impoverishment or _result_ from it. Barring
>the continuing survival and profitability, they were doomed to become
>drastically poorer whether Yankee armies invaded or not.>
>- Gary Charbonneau

Andrew Stooksbury had asked whether destruction by Southerners exceeded
that caused by Sherman's troops. Somehow, Mr. Charbonneau has turned this
into a discussion of slavery -- an old abolitionist trick. Mr. Stooksbury
was discussing the value of the crops, livestock, homes, barns and other
property stolen or destroyed by the vandal horde. Now comes Mr. Charboneau
to say that because of emancipation, "White Southerners ... were doomed to


become drastically poorer whether Yankee armies invaded or not."

This is a non sequitur. Most white families in the South did not own
slaves and didn't lose a dime because of emancipation. But the value of
lost labor (75 percent of Southern soldiers were from non-slaveholding
families) by those men who left their farms to fight for their country for
four years was immense, while those who were killed and died of illness
represented a permanent loss to their country. And the destruction wrought
by Sherman's forces was visited upon slaveholder and non-slaveholder
alike.

Yet we see once again the old Yankee trick: When in doubt, demagogue the
issue by castigating the South for slavery, as if nothing else mattered
about the war except the region's system of labor. And the context within
which Mr. Charbonneau resorts to this trick is quite enlightening. A
family lost its home to arsonists? Its sons were slain on the
battlefields, its daughters raped by Yankee stragglers? Its livestock were
stolen or slaughtered? Crops stolen or burnt? Everything that wasn't
nailed down was taken from these defenseless civilians?

Oh, reasons Mr. Charbonneau, this is not a war crime, but social justice,
since the family was "doomed to become drastically poorer." These people
had committed the sin of being white Southerners and were therefore
deserving of whatever fate befell them. Never mind the slippery morality
involved in the process of saying that the end justifies the means. Never
mind the dehumanization of the foe. So have the forces of imperial
conquest and tyranny always reasoned. Pizarro and De Soto were quite
similar in their reasoning, with "God, gold and glory" being their version
of the Union's "John Brown's body."

Thinking of the reaction we Southerners get when we defend the Confederacy
from calumny, let me say to our Northern neighbors:
"You won the war; get over it!"

Robert Stacy McCain
Rome, Third Military District, Occupied CSA

RStacy2229

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <31d7554f...@nntp.netcruiser>, and...@ix.netcom.com (A.
Chilton Lannen) writes:

>You don't shatter a peoples' will to fight
>by slapping them on the wrist.
>

Thanks. We'll keep that in mind. (Note to General Lee: Confederate
Wrist-Slapping Battalions seem to be ineffective. Yours, Jeff. D.)


RStacy2229

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <31d7554f...@nntp.netcruiser>, and...@ix.netcom.com (A.
Chilton Lannen) writes:

>>I would like someone to explain to me how Sherman's treatment of the
>>largely female workforce at the New Manchester and Roswell mills served
>>any logical military purpose.

> Did the mills continue to operate? If not, then the military
>purpose was served.

Yes, but having captured the territory on which the mill stood and
deported the work force to Kentucky, to:
a. BURN the mill; and
b. to BURN the surrounding homes of the mill workers, destroying the
entire village
seems a tad excessive, don't you think?
A textile mill west of the Chattahoochee River was of little use to the
Confederate government if Johnston's army were held east of the
Chattahoochee, as Sherman had both the wherewithal and determination to
do. The destruction of New Manchester and the deportation of its residents
(same is true at Roswell) makes sense only as an act of retribution, and I
believe the fellow who "died to make us holy," as the song said, would
have disapproved of a policy of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

RSMC

RStacy2229

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <31d7554f...@nntp.netcruiser>, and...@ix.netcom.com (A.
Chilton Lannen) writes:

>To break
>an entire population's will to fight you have to devastate them.
>I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just an aspect of wars.
>

So you're saying that if Lee's army had burned and looted its way into
Pennsylvania, that would have improved Southern chances of victory?
And are you thereby justifying "Operation Linebacker" and the
carpet-bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong? The German bombing of London and the
firebombing of Dresden? What about the devastation of Poland under Nazi
rule? Are you saying that this was just part of breaking their will to
fight?
Perhaps if Sherman had herded Southern civilians onto railcars and shipped
them to concentration camps, then starved, shot or gassed them to death,
maybe THAT would have done the trick, huh?

RSMC

RStacy2229

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <4r8mnu$a...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:

>Not only is that hyperbole, but it doesn't even address the Confederate
>scorched earth policy

I have no knowledge of such a policy and presume that you will refer me to
a nice history of this policy, however ....
If Sherman had not been engaged in a war designed to conquer and subjugate
the South by a policy of invasion, arson and larceny, such a "Confederate
... policy" would have been unnecessary.

RSMC

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <4re3ap$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4r8o1k$g...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>

Forgive me for not weeping overmuch. I think there were a lot of blacks who
just wanted to be left alone, too. Sometimes you don't get what you want, but
you get what you need.

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <4re3d1$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <31d7554f...@nntp.netcruiser>, and...@ix.netcom.com (A.
>Chilton Lannen) writes:
>

Gosh, you mean there were EXCESSES in WARTIME? Heaven forfend. I guess I
could get all righteous and note things like the great Texas unionist massacre
or Shelton Laurel or Saltville or all the rest of the long litany of
Confederate atrocities, but I won't. These things happen in war, and both
sides were equally culpable of murder, destruction, rapine and pillage.

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <4re3dc$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <31d7554f...@nntp.netcruiser>, and...@ix.netcom.com (A.
>Chilton Lannen) writes:
>
>>To break
>>an entire population's will to fight you have to devastate them.
>>I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just an aspect of wars.
>>
>So you're saying that if Lee's army had burned and looted its way into
>Pennsylvania, that would have improved Southern chances of victory?
>And are you thereby justifying "Operation Linebacker" and the
>carpet-bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong? The German bombing of London and the
>firebombing of Dresden? What about the devastation of Poland under Nazi
>rule? Are you saying that this was just part of breaking their will to
>fight?
>Perhaps if Sherman had herded Southern civilians onto railcars and shipped
>them to concentration camps, then starved, shot or gassed them to death,
>maybe THAT would have done the trick, huh?

Maybe he should have just enslaved them and put them to work on the
plantations, huh? That would have been a rather more poetic justice.

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <4re3e8$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

Tell that to Edmund Ruffin.

Brian Blakistone

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:

>Suppose that the Union armies had not invaded the Confederacy.
>Would Southerners then willingly have freed their slaves, thus subjecting
>themselves to the economic equivalent of twenty or thirty Marches to the Sea?
>Unthinkable. They would only have freed their slaves if and when slavery
>became unprofitable. But if slavery had become unprofitable, the
>result would have been a catastrophic fall in slave prices as slaves
>ceased to be an asset and became a liability, essentially wiping out
>two to three billion dollars of capital investment (not including the
>fall in land values which would probably have occurred at the same time).

I'm not so sure, if the planters could lever themselves up to their
eyeballs with slaves as collatoral, you would have two powerful groups
that needed a bailout, the government might just have compensated
them, spreading the cost to the entire nation. Another way might have
been a very gradual phase out, so that all children born are free,
since the dollars the children would earn would be far in the future
and uncertain, it would be a far less costly way for the planters to
eliminate the institution.

Brian


gary charbonneau

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <4re3bh$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:

>Why is it that the amount of hostility exhibited toward the South is, in
>most cases, directly proportional to the likelihood of the person posting
>from an "edu" address?

Mr. Stacy, the hostility I feel toward the South is not due to the fact
that I post from an "edu" address, but because the South is too darn
hot and humid for my tastes (I feel hostile toward Indiana,
from which this post emanates, for precisely the same reason). I have
no reason for hostility toward any of the people of the South, and feel
none. I hope that you have no hostility toward me, and especially
hope that you have no hostility toward me because of my e-mail address.

- Gary Charbonneau

gary charbonneau

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <4re3c1$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4r8o1k$g...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>
>>White Southerners found themselves in a box in which emancipation must
>>either _cause_ their impoverishment or _result_ from it. Barring
>>the continuing survival and profitability, they were doomed to become
>>drastically poorer whether Yankee armies invaded or not.>
>>- Gary Charbonneau
>
>Andrew Stooksbury had asked whether destruction by Southerners exceeded
>that caused by Sherman's troops.

Fair enough. I am quite sure that we both agree that the destruction caused
by Sherman exceeded that caused by Southern troops. It may even have
exceeded it by a whole order of magnitude. Since I have never seen
any figure quoted on the value of the destruction caused by Southern troops,
I certainly can't say.

>Somehow, Mr. Charbonneau has turned this
>into a discussion of slavery -- an old abolitionist trick. Mr. Stooksbury
>was discussing the value of the crops, livestock, homes, barns and other
>property stolen or destroyed by the vandal horde. Now comes Mr. Charboneau
>to say that because of emancipation, "White Southerners ... were doomed to
>become drastically poorer whether Yankee armies invaded or not."
>
>This is a non sequitur. Most white families in the South did not own
>slaves and didn't lose a dime because of emancipation.

Hardly a non-sequitur. White Southerners, as a statistical category,
most definitely and demonstrably did become poorer as a result of
emancipation -- since that statistical category includes both slaveholders
and non-slaveholders, and the slaveholders owned most of the wealth. But
I accept the criticism and suggest that the start of the sentence be
amended to read, "Slaveholding white southerners ...."



>But the value of
>lost labor (75 percent of Southern soldiers were from non-slaveholding
>families)

That parenthetical statement may be true, but at the same time very
misleading. Perhaps "75 percent of Southern soldiers were from
non-slaveholding families," but that would include Southern soldiers
(black as well as white) who fought for the Union as well as those
who fought for the Confederacy. We know that 75 percent of Southern white
families owned no slaves, but I don't think we know that the distribution
of _Confederate_ soldiers mirrored the distribution of Southern white
families. If anyone has any statistics on that, I would be most
interested in seeing them.



>by those men who left their farms to fight for their country for
>four years was immense, while those who were killed and died of illness
>represented a permanent loss to their country. And the destruction wrought
>by Sherman's forces was visited upon slaveholder and non-slaveholder
>alike.
>
>Yet we see once again the old Yankee trick: When in doubt, demagogue the
>issue by castigating the South for slavery, as if nothing else mattered
>about the war except the region's system of labor. And the context within
>which Mr. Charbonneau resorts to this trick is quite enlightening. A
>family lost its home to arsonists? Its sons were slain on the
>battlefields, its daughters raped by Yankee stragglers? Its livestock were
>stolen or slaughtered? Crops stolen or burnt? Everything that wasn't
>nailed down was taken from these defenseless civilians?
>
>Oh, reasons Mr. Charbonneau, this is not a war crime, but social justice,
>since the family was "doomed to become drastically poorer."

I have not reasoned that these were not war crimes. I was addressing a quite
separate issue, which is whether these acts were primarily responsible for any
real or suggested impoverishment of the South as a region. That they
were responsible for some level of impoverishment is unquestionable.
However, they pale into insignificance compared with the effects of
emancipation.

>These people
>had committed the sin of being white Southerners and were therefore
>deserving of whatever fate befell them. Never mind the slippery morality
>involved in the process of saying that the end justifies the means.

John Dewey, for one, pointed out that the dichotomy between means and
ends is false. We always choose a package that consists of both ends
and the means to achieve them. When Southerners seceded, for example,
they had no choice but to leave almost half of the Southern population
in a state of slavery, to work the farms and plantations while the
white men went off to war. Even if they had had any inclination
whatsoever to free the slaves (they did not), they could not have done so with
any realistic prospect of achieving independence. Did the end (independence)
justify the means (continued slavery)? If not, was slavery
a war crime? Was the value of the package (independence with continued
slavery) worth the moral cost of the package? Must the answer depend on
whose ox got gored?

>Never
>mind the dehumanization of the foe. So have the forces of imperial
>conquest and tyranny always reasoned. Pizarro and De Soto were quite
>similar in their reasoning, with "God, gold and glory" being their version
>of the Union's "John Brown's body."
>
>Thinking of the reaction we Southerners get when we defend the Confederacy
>from calumny, let me say to our Northern neighbors:
>"You won the war; get over it!"

I did not win the war. I was not in the war. I do not refer to the
North ca. 1861-1865 as "we".

- Gary Charbonneau

gary charbonneau

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <4re7o3$b...@optional.cts.com>,

If by "the government", you mean, "the Confederate government",
probably not. If slavery had ever been legally abolished in an
independent Confederacy, it is highly probable that it would have
been abolished by the individual state governments, as required by
the theory of states rights and, basically, by the Confederate
constitution. I believe that this would likely have occurred
by means of that "other way" that you suggest, but this
would still almost certainly have been accompanied by the
loss of all the capital invested in slaves, and, quite probably,
followed upon the emancipation of most of the slaves by their individual
owners, leaving only a minority to be freed. The slaveholders would,
however, have had every economic incentive to do what they could to maintain
the profitability of slavery by any means possible, to perpetuate the
institution for as long as possible.

- Gary Charbonneau

efr...@cc.memphis.edu

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

RS McCain asks:



> Why is it that the amount of hostility exhibited toward the South is, in
> most cases, directly proportional to the likelihood of the person posting
> from an "edu" address?

Why is that a literate person can go through this
ng and find "hostility...toward the South" when
what is usually displayed is informed criticism
of aspects of *Confederate* history and politics?

Hostility toward "The South" (tm) has indeed been
exhibited from time to time, but such people as
Tony D. were not welcomed by the likes of the
list below.

> Think about it: Pitcavage, Simpson, Epperson, Schmidt. Except for Mike at
> Clemson, I don't think the Southrons have a single "edu" poster.

"Edu" Frank

Stephen Schmidt

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) writes:
>Why is it that the amount of hostility exhibited toward the South is, in
>most cases, directly proportional to the likelihood of the person posting
>from an "edu" address?
>Think about it: Pitcavage, Simpson, Epperson, Schmidt. Except for Mike at
>Clemson, I don't think the Southrons have a single "edu" poster.

Steve Wall has a .edu account, I think. Maury used to have
a .edu account but doesn't anymore.

Some of it is just statistical flukes. There are more
Group members than diehard Southrons. Out of the ten or
twelve Group members, it is quite likely that at least
some would be from .edu sites. There are really only
about four or so Southrons (Reb, RSM, Linda, Mike, have
I missed anyone?) and the odds of not having a .edu in
such a small sample are respectable.

The four you named are educators. We posses a desire to inform
those who need informing. I think the hostility is all on
the other end. It's hard to teach those who don't want to
be taught, preferring comfortable falsehoods, but some of
us make the effort anyway. Sometimes it's more for the
benefit of the lurkers than the Southrons, though.

Steve
--
Stephen Schmidt Department of Economics
210A Social Sciences Union College
(518) 388-6078 Schenectady NY 12308

Stephen Schmidt

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) writes:
>So you're saying that if Lee's army had burned and looted its way into
>Pennsylvania, that would have improved Southern chances of victory?
>And are you thereby justifying "Operation Linebacker" and the
>carpet-bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong? The German bombing of London and the
>firebombing of Dresden? What about the devastation of Poland under Nazi
>rule? Are you saying that this was just part of breaking their will to
>fight?

None of those materially affected the outcome of the wars in
question, except possibly the Poland case. If you want to make
a more reasonable comparison (which I guess you don't, but bear
with me) you might compare it to the Phoenix program during the
Vietnam War, which was actually pretty effective as a weapon
against the Vietcong.

>Perhaps if Sherman had herded Southern civilians onto railcars and shipped
>them to concentration camps, then starved, shot or gassed them to death,
>maybe THAT would have done the trick, huh?

Ah, nothing like a little pious hypocrisy. It's been what, ten
days since RStacy was last outraged because someone raised the
Nazis? Maybe twelve?

James F. Epperson

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

On 3 Jul 1996, RStacy2229 wrote:

> In article <4r8o1k$g...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
> char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>

> >char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu


>
> Why is it that the amount of hostility exhibited toward the South is, in
> most cases, directly proportional to the likelihood of the person posting
> from an "edu" address?
>
> Think about it: Pitcavage, Simpson, Epperson, Schmidt. Except for Mike at
> Clemson, I don't think the Southrons have a single "edu" poster.

This is a red-herring claim on two counts. First, Linda Teasley is an
English professor at the University of South Florida (she just doesn't use
a school account for this newsgroup), Steve Wall is in the Philosophy
Department at the same school, Chuck Pinnegar (who seems to be dormant
right now) posted from an account at a Canadian university, and there have
been several transient members of the newsgroup who advocated the
Confederate viewpoint from university addresses.

Second, I am not "hostile" to the South. I am hostile to attempts to
present myth as history, however.

Jim Epperson | I would like to see truthful
Department of Mathematical Sciences | history written -- US Grant
University of Alabama in Huntsville +-------------------------------------
eppe...@math.uah.edu URL: http://www.math.uah.edu/~epperson
URL: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson


gary charbonneau

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

By any theory which is not logically equivalent to anarchy. More
specifically, by the theory which holds that, in the absence of
demonstrable and irremediable oppression by the government, people owe
loyalty to the government and have no right to take up arms against it,
and that the right of self-determination is limited to a considerable extent
by the principle of majority rule.

That the Confederates also subscribed to this theory is demonstrated
by their actions against the Unionists of eastern Tennessee and
northern Alabama. They merely subscribed to a particular version of the theory
which held that the government of the United States was a special
case, not entitled to the loyalty of the people of the United
States if and when that loyalty conflicted with loyalty to a
particular state.

- Gary Charbonneau

efr...@cc.memphis.edu

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

Robert Stacy "Victim from a long line of victims"
McCain writes, in response to Gary Charbonneau:



> Oh, reasons Mr. Charbonneau, this is not a war crime, but social justice,

> since the family was "doomed to become drastically poorer." These people


> had committed the sin of being white Southerners and were therefore
> deserving of whatever fate befell them. Never mind the slippery morality

> involved in the process of saying that the end justifies the means. Never


> mind the dehumanization of the foe. So have the forces of imperial
> conquest and tyranny always reasoned. Pizarro and De Soto were quite
> similar in their reasoning, with "God, gold and glory" being their version
> of the Union's "John Brown's body."

> Robert Stacy McCain
> Rome, Third Military District, Occupied CSA

Well, RS, we'll all start weeping for you and yours
when you deed your property back to the Creeks.

Ed "now it's all clear to me" Frank

Brooks Simpson

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:

>Why is it that the amount of hostility exhibited toward the South is, in
>most cases, directly proportional to the likelihood of the person posting
>from an "edu" address?
>
>Think about it: Pitcavage, Simpson, Epperson, Schmidt. Except for Mike at
>Clemson, I don't think the Southrons have a single "edu" poster.

Well, this would be an ignorant comment from some people, but, then, I've
come to expect that from this one.

Apparently Mr. McCain forgets that many of the posters he lists above
have never expressed hostility to a group of people who were in the
South--enslaved blacks. Rather, their hostility, as far as I can
understand it, is to the fact of their enslavement.

But then perhaps Mr. McCain doesn't recognize blacks as Southerners, only
whites. Where this leaves mixed-race offspring is for others to debate.

I do think Mr. McCain is in a fair way to take the prize as flame-baiting
Reb of the year, replacing one long-time holder of the award and a few
folks from early this year.

Brooks Simpson


A. Chilton Lannen

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:

>In article <31d7554f...@nntp.netcruiser>, and...@ix.netcom.com (A.
>Chilton Lannen) writes:
>
>>To break
>>an entire population's will to fight you have to devastate them.
>>I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just an aspect of wars.
>>

>So you're saying that if Lee's army had burned and looted its way into
>Pennsylvania, that would have improved Southern chances of victory?

First, he could not have done so, as his army was neither large
enough nor free of opposition. But if he had, say, managed to wipe
out several manufacturing sites, then, yes, the chances of a Southern
victory would improve.



>And are you thereby justifying "Operation Linebacker" and the
>carpet-bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong?

It worked quite well in hurting the capacity of the North
Vietnamese to wage effective war (excluding terrorist attacks and
guerilla actions). That it did not fulfill the completely unrealistic
expectations some had does not diminish the fact that it did have an
effect.

> The German bombing of London and the
>firebombing of Dresden?

Both important production centers of both people and products.
The German bombing of London might well have caused the British to
capitulate if Hitler had properly funded the Luftwaffe (and if the
Luftwaffe had better strategic commanders). The loss of Dresden's
production hurt Germany and probably contributed to ending the war
sooner.

> What about the devastation of Poland under Nazi
>rule? Are you saying that this was just part of breaking their will to
>fight?

This example doesn't fit. The Polish had already surrendered to
the Germans. War won, morale broken. Continuing to wage war on the
populace after it has capitulated is murder.

>Perhaps if Sherman had herded Southern civilians onto railcars and shipped
>them to concentration camps, then starved, shot or gassed them to death,
>maybe THAT would have done the trick, huh?

So because I believe that what Sherman did had a real military
purpose, I somehow support the Holocaust?? Hitler's maniacal
destruction of European Jews had nothing to do with military policy.
Indeed, it hurt the war effort because Nazi soldiers were gassing
helpless citizens who had already surrendered rather than shooting at
the Soviets, who were far from helpless and had not surrendered.

--Andrew

-------
and...@ix.netcom.com
"God cannot alter the past; that is why he is obliged to connive
at the existence of historians." -- Samuel Butler


Maury

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

~<4re3bh$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, rstac...@aol.com says...

>Why is it that the amount of hostility exhibited toward the South is, in
>most cases, directly proportional to the likelihood of the person posting
>from an "edu" address?
>
>Think about it: Pitcavage, Simpson, Epperson, Schmidt. Except for Mike at
>Clemson, I don't think the Southrons have a single "edu" poster.
>

>RSMC
--------------------------------


They're slow. I graduated! B-)

Formerly, w...@itc.virginia.edu

W...@ITC.VIRGINIA.EDU


That address is still on my images I uploaded to
West Virginia's "Byrd" military site that I posted
on recently.


Kind Regards,
w...@cstone.net
Maury, in Virginia

Dave Smith

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:

>Why is it that the amount of hostility exhibited toward the South is, in
>most cases, directly proportional to the likelihood of the person posting
>from an "edu" address?

>Think about it: Pitcavage, Simpson, Epperson, Schmidt. Except for Mike at
>Clemson, I don't think the Southrons have a single "edu" poster.

That's one of the more ridiculous things I've seen posted in
quite a while.

Dave "non edu, and sometimes viewed as a member of the Group" Smith

------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Smith "Always Store Beer in a Dark Place"
Villa Hills, Ky --- Lazarus Long
http://users.aol.com/dmsmith001/
The Cincinnati CWRT http://users.aol.com/CintiCWRT/
------------------------------------------------------------


Ted Waltrip

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

In <4reqk9$g...@news.asu.edu> Brooks Simpson <brooks....@asu.edu>
writes:
>
>rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
>
>>Why is it that the amount of hostility exhibited toward the South is,
in
>>most cases, directly proportional to the likelihood of the person
posting
>>from an "edu" address?
>>
>>Think about it: Pitcavage, Simpson, Epperson, Schmidt. Except for
Mike at
>>Clemson, I don't think the Southrons have a single "edu" poster.
>
>Well, this would be an ignorant comment from some people, but, then,
I've
>come to expect that from this one.
>
>Apparently Mr. McCain forgets that many of the posters he lists above
>have never expressed hostility to a group of people who were in the
>South--enslaved blacks. Rather, their hostility, as far as I can
>understand it, is to the fact of their enslavement.
>
>But then perhaps Mr. McCain doesn't recognize blacks as Southerners,
only
>whites. Where this leaves mixed-race offspring is for others to
debate.
>
>I do think Mr. McCain is in a fair way to take the prize as
flame-baiting
>Reb of the year, replacing one long-time holder of the award and a few

>folks from early this year.
>
>Brooks Simpson
>

Same old whining claptrap! For christ's sake learn a new tune!! Ted
Waltrip

Ted Waltrip

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

In <1996Jul3.1...@unvax.union.edu> schm...@unvax.union.edu

(Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>
> There are more
>Group members than diehard Southrons. Out of the ten or
>twelve Group members, it is quite likely that at least
>some would be from .edu sites. There are really only
>about four or so Southrons (Reb, RSM, Linda, Mike, have
>I missed anyone?)

Stevey old buddy!! I'm still here watching you!!! Ted Waltrip

TRuger4279

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

True, but then they would have had to do the same to some of their own
troops
that still owned slaves in the beginning. Let us not forget that
Northerners still
owned, although a much smaller percentage, slaves.

Curt

A. Chilton Lannen

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

schm...@unvax.union.edu (Stephen Schmidt) wrote:

>rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) writes:
>>Why is it that the amount of hostility exhibited toward the South is, in
>>most cases, directly proportional to the likelihood of the person posting
>>from an "edu" address?
>>Think about it: Pitcavage, Simpson, Epperson, Schmidt. Except for Mike at
>>Clemson, I don't think the Southrons have a single "edu" poster.
>

>Steve Wall has a .edu account, I think. Maury used to have
>a .edu account but doesn't anymore.
>

>Some of it is just statistical flukes. There are more


>Group members than diehard Southrons. Out of the ten or
>twelve Group members, it is quite likely that at least
>some would be from .edu sites. There are really only
>about four or so Southrons (Reb, RSM, Linda, Mike, have

>I missed anyone?) and the odds of not having a .edu in
>such a small sample are respectable.

But wait! Maybe he is actually on to something here. I had a
an .edu address last year and will have another .edu address starting
again in August. ;-)

Or maybe he is not onto something.

--Andrew
If you are a fan of wacko theories, you should hear the "The Beatles
were Communist spies and they left clues in their music and names"
theory. I thought that one up amongst some historically minded
friends in a bar at 3 AM. We couldn't find a publisher for the
planned book, tho. What a shame . . .

Ted Waltrip

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

In <Pine.SUN.3.91.960703125945.10050G-100000@zonker> "James F.
Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> writes:
>
>O

>Second, I am not "hostile" to the South. I am hostile to attempts to
>present myth as history, however.
>
>Jim Epperson

But in our Southern opinion Jimmy that's exactly what you "victors"
have been doing for 130 years. Ted Waltrip

Lynn Berkowitz

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

On Thu, 04 Jul 1996 05:59:15 GMT, and...@ix.netcom.com (A. Chilton
Lannen) wrote:

:If you are a fan of wacko theories, you should hear the "The Beatles


:were Communist spies and they left clues in their music and names"
:theory. I thought that one up amongst some historically minded
:friends in a bar at 3 AM. We couldn't find a publisher for the
:planned book, tho. What a shame . . .

:
No, no, no, no!! That was to cover up Paul McCartney's death at the
hands of, of, uh, wait a minute...well, some terrorist group that
doesn't really exist. Emmett Jordan would probably know. :)

A co-worker of mine was in that same bar, at about the same time,
talking to a bunch of conspiracy-minded whacko gun nuts. He basically
agreed with everything they told him (there were about six of them)
and he let them on to a little secret: the Trilateral Commission, New
World Order, The Group and Elders of Zion have left secret codes in
the newspapers, magazines, advertisements, etc. You know, all those
codes that begin with http://www.

ObCivilWar:

On this day in Vicksburg, 133 years ago, the "Bowels of the
Confederacy" received a mighty enema, allowing the Father of Waters to
once again flow unconstipated to the sea. This was due to another
conspiracy plot of Yankee devil Pemberton, who planned to turn over
the city on the 4th of July, having been urged to do so during a
seance in which the ghost of Benjamin Franklin urged him to return to
Pennsylvania.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lynn Berkowitz lynn...@ix.netcom.com

James F. Epperson

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

On 3 Jul 1996, RStacy2229 wrote:

> And why? Tell me. Why? As Jefferson Davis had said, the South asked
> nothing but to be let alone. This war of conquest and subjugation was
> necessary under what theory of government?

There is a terrible reality to warfare which says that it almost always
expands uncontrollably. Politicians who have embarked casually into wars
never seem to learn this, but it is true. They always say that they can
control things, but they almost never can. Japan did not think she would
get her cities fire-bombed and nuked when she embarked on the policies
that led to Pearl Harbor, but it happened that way. Japan also only
wanted to be "let alone," to pursue her own interests in China. She
miscalculated, got into a position where she had to fight in order to
preserve what she perceived as her national honor, and ended getting
smacked pretty hard in the resulting war.

I see a lot of similarity between the actions of the Southern politicians
and the Japanese leaders. Both were very much driven by rather extreme
notions of honor; both claimed that they really did not start the war, but
were forced into it by the actions of the US government; both just wanted
to be let alone to pursue their own destinies, not acknowledging that
there might be legitimate interests of the US government in conflict with
those destinies; both were badly beat up in the war that resulted; both
still have adherants who fail to see that by initiating the events that
led to war, they (i.e., Japanese government or secessionist politicians)
bear a heavy responsibility for what happened to their people.

(Caveat and disclaimer: By no means do I intend to compare the CSA to
those parts of the Japanese war effort such as the Bataan Death March or
other atrocities. My point is to make a limited comparison between the
political decisions that led to the start of the two wars, =ONLY=.)

Brian Blakistone

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>Brian Blakistone <cbla...@sdcc13.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:

>>>Would Southerners then willingly have freed their slaves, thus subjecting
>>>themselves to the economic equivalent of twenty or thirty Marches to the Sea?

[I suggest a government bailout or a very gradual emancipation]

>If by "the government", you mean, "the Confederate government",
>probably not. If slavery had ever been legally abolished in an
>independent Confederacy, it is highly probable that it would have
>been abolished by the individual state governments, as required by
>the theory of states rights and, basically, by the Confederate
>constitution.

I was actually thinking in terms of the States remaining in the Union,
but even if not there would be no reason the Confederate gov't. could
not offer a carrot to entice states to get rid of the institution.
Also since States could rejoin the Union could on a fifty percent
vote, it could have been offered by the Union as an enticement to
Unionists like Holden of NC to return to the fold permenantly.

> I believe that this would likely have occurred
>by means of that "other way" that you suggest, but this
>would still almost certainly have been accompanied by the
>loss of all the capital invested in slaves, and, quite probably,
>followed upon the emancipation of most of the slaves by their individual
>owners, leaving only a minority to be freed.

I'm not sure I follow this, they would retain the rights to their
current capital in the slaves, it would only be the children that they
would lose out on. Assume a company owns an unsafe factory that
cannot be refitted, it was very cheap to make. The government allows
them to use it for its useful life, but requires it be replaced with a
more expensive version when its life is done. You haven't really lost
capital, you miss some profits far in the future, but the present
value of those dollars is very small.

>The slaveholders would,
>however, have had every economic incentive to do what they could to maintain
>the profitability of slavery by any means possible, to perpetuate the
>institution for as long as possible.

This is certainly true, I just don't think a total loss of the capital
invested was inevitable, likely perhaps. There is another difference
between the destruction of Sherman and the emancipation of the slaves.
Emancipation was a huge transfer of wealth from the planters to the
freedmen, the South as a whole was not harmed, indeed it was
undoubtedly a net gain in the long term. The destruction of houses,
farms, livestock and infrastructure actually destroyed resources, as
opposed to transferring title.

Brian


efr...@cc.memphis.edu

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

In article <4rfnbb$o...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, ted...@ix.netcom.com(Ted Waltrip ) writes:
> In <1996Jul3.1...@unvax.union.edu> schm...@unvax.union.edu
> (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>>
>> There are more
>>Group members than diehard Southrons. Out of the ten or
>>twelve Group members, it is quite likely that at least
>>some would be from .edu sites. There are really only
>>about four or so Southrons (Reb, RSM, Linda, Mike, have
>>I missed anyone?)
>
> Stevey old buddy!! I'm still here watching you!!! Ted Waltrip

Strange thing for a grownup to devote himself too.

Ted, when you are ready to do something other than
make one-line sniping attacks we all might be more
interested in what you have to say.

Ed "speaking for many, I daresay" Frank

REB 4 LIFE

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960703125945.10050G-100000@zonker>, "James F.
Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> writes:

<snippage of pro-South census>

>Second, I am not "hostile" to the South. I am hostile to attempts to
>present myth as history, however.

Yeah, me too. That claptrap about how "Lincoln freed the slaves"
ticks me off every time I see it.

R4L


REB 4 LIFE

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

In article <1996Jul3.1...@unvax.union.edu>,
schm...@unvax.union.edu (Stephen Schmidt) writes:

>Some of it is just statistical flukes. There are more


>Group members than diehard Southrons. Out of the ten or
>twelve Group members, it is quite likely that at least
>some would be from .edu sites.

Ten or twelve. What happend to the Gang of Four. Seems
like ye be on the run, if you feel the need for so many call-ups
from the minor leagues.

>There are really only
>about four or so Southrons (Reb, RSM, Linda, Mike, have
>I missed anyone?)

You left out Kathie Fraser and the Rev. Dr. Maggard. I would
include Phil Leigh, Michael Polizzi, and Mike Behrent in our
number as well. Also, you will be glad to hear that the Messrs.
Gaelic Reb, Celtic Reb, the Missouri Rebel, and Larry Beane
are still with us. However, they have been heavily involved in
some internal "housekeeping" here in the Confederacy and have
had limited time for pointless discourse with yankees and
scalawags. Expect most, if not all of them, to return here later
in the summer.

<snip>

>The four you named are educators. We posses a desire to inform
>those who need informing.

I prefer the word indoctrinate over inform when relative to the "four".

>I think the hostility is all on
>the other end.

No no no. It's hard to be hostile when you spend so much time
laughing.

>It's hard to teach those who don't want to
>be taught, preferring comfortable falsehoods, but some of
>us make the effort anyway.

Comfortable falsehoods? Lemme see here... oh yeah! Such as
Lincoln freed the slaves. Such as Sherman's destruction of Georgia
was a legitimate tool of war. Such as secession was illegal and those
who supported it were traitors. Such as Lincoln was justified in
"bending" the Constitution with regards to habeus corpus,
censorship of the press, etc...

>Sometimes it's more for the
>benefit of the lurkers than the Southrons, though.

Lurkers Beware!

R4L


REB 4 LIFE

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960703133525.10391B-100000@zonker>, "James F.
Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> writes:

<snips fore and aft>

>I see a lot of similarity between the actions of the Southern politicians
>and the Japanese leaders. Both were very much driven by rather extreme
>notions of honor; both claimed that they really did not start the war,
but
>were forced into it by the actions of the US government; both just wanted
>to be let alone to pursue their own destinies,

What a totally amazing and completely bizarre notion. The Japanese
wanted to be "left alone" to pursue their territorial conquests in China
and SE Asia. They aggressively sought to conquer other soveriegn
nations. The Confederacy sought to be "left alone" so its citizens could
lead THEIR OWN LIVES on THEIR OWN SOIL. In case you haven't
noticed on your own, allow me to point out that these goals ARE NOT THE
SAME.

Geez Louise, put your brain in gear next time...

R4L

Dave Gorski

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

In article <00003213...@msn.com>, Wolly...@msn.com (Andrew
Stooksbury) wrote:

> So, what you are saying is that it was the Southern troops and not
> Sherman and his March to the sea that destroyed Georgia. I guess it
> was not Sheridan in the Valley either. I guess the Northern scorched
> earth policy had nothing to do with it.
>
> David S.

If I understand correctly from the E-mail I've received and the
posts I read here the answer to my questions about hostility in 1996
would be about the same as if I had asked the question in 1866.
The basis of the hostility is the war itself, the loss of life, the
destruction of property and land (regardless of who caused the damage)
and the "subjugation " of the Southern people.
Media stereotypes, and Northern insensitivity towards (white)
southern culture perpetuate the hostility.
But what about (white) Southern sensitivity towards Blacks? or
White American's sensitivity towards Native Americans, Germans towards
Jews, men towards women, and the list goes on and on and on.....
The South is not the first "cultural" group to have lost a war. Even
though there are those who will deny that it was lost. Doesn't there
come a time when you must force yourself to accept what has undeniably
happened as a part of history, a part of your culture, and move on ??
Was the South as resistant to physical and financial reconstruction
as it seems to be to a psychological reunion to the United States ?

Thanks for the many good points made,
Dave Gorski

James F. Epperson

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

No comparison is perfect, but this one is better than you might think.
For one thing, the original post that I was responding to decried the
extent of destruction in the American South during the ACW, and in that
regard the comparison is very valid. Neither the Japanese nor the
secessionists considered that their actions might lead to significant
harm being visited on their home lands, and ever since there have been
those who were unwilling to face up to their (Japanese or secessionist)
responsibility for that.

But, to go farther, your defense of the Confederates ignores, yet again,
the fact that they wanted to be left alone in order to continue to reap
the benefits of slavery. Is this less of an evil that wanting to conquer
other nations? At least the Chinese could fight back . . .

Steven F. Miller

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96