The War Between The States Discussions

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zonie

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
MLF Supporter
Joined
Oct 4, 2003
Messages
30,271
Reaction score
2,789
Location
Phoenix, AZ
And to Zonie, It does merit discussions well beyond 1875.
respectfully,
SM
As you should know, the cutoff date for discussions on the Muzzleloading Forum is 1865. I extended the cutoff date to 1875 to allow discussion of the events that happened immediately after the war ended.
These things do not include events or issues that are not tied directly to the war.
 

nkbj

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
6,953
Reaction score
294
So, if I moved into your area down South seeking peace and prosperity in my now later years, would I be accepted?
SM
You won't blend in but you can avoid taboos.
Speak unhurriedly and do not expect your norms of acceptable personal conduct to be honored. When someone seems to take offense at your well intentioned behavior understand that you are ignorant of what they consider acceptable or else you would not have gotten that reaction. Figure it out. Assume that they're as smart as you are and have the home court advantage. But to look on the bright side at least you have a leg up on Margaret Meade with a mostly common language.
When you go south (just as discovered by salesmen in the early 1980's) there are social norms (triggers) that can produce results opposite of your intentions. That's the way it is when you go to the other ends of a continent despite the great leveling achieved by television and movies. Culture is very, very persistent.
If you do go best wishes in your travels.
 

Carbon 6

75 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
5,408
Reaction score
2,281
You won't blend in but you can avoid taboos.
Speak unhurriedly and do not expect your norms of acceptable personal conduct to be honored. When someone seems to take offense at your well intentioned behavior understand that you are ignorant of what they consider acceptable or else you would not have gotten that reaction. Figure it out. Assume that they're as smart as you are and have the home court advantage. But to look on the bright side at least you have a leg up on Margaret Meade with a mostly common language.
When you go south (just as discovered by salesmen in the early 1980's) there are social norms (triggers) that can produce results opposite of your intentions. That's the way it is when you go to the other ends of a continent despite the great leveling achieved by television and movies. Culture is very, very persistent.
If you do go best wishes in your travels.
In other words, NO!
 

Eutycus

58 Cal.
Joined
Nov 10, 2018
Messages
2,347
Reaction score
859
Location
South Texas
Several posts back Russian Involvement in the Civil War was brought up.Here's one Russian who got real involved. A Russian Colonel John Basil Turchin ( Ivan Vasilovitch Turchinoff) who was a strict disciplinarian who believed in Old World ways was court martialed for letting his troops run wild in occupied Huntsville and Athens, Alabama. Among some of the things he was court martialed for was the rape of a slave girl by soldiers. He also had his wife in camp which was against the orders of General Buell. For other many atrocities please google his name.
His wife made her way to Washington and pleaded with Lincoln. The wife must have been very persuasive , instead of severe punishment Turchin was made a brigadier general. General Turchin went on to be known as the Russian Thunderbolt for his cavalry charges especially at Chickamauga and Chattanooga. He resigned on Oct 4,1864. After the war his mind weakened and He died in a insane asylum in Illinois in 1901.
 

TNGhost

40 Cal.
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
414
In other words, NO!
The answer would be yes. Having literally decades of experience living both north and south of the Mason Dixon line, my experience is that people south of that line are unequivocally more tolerant, accepting and hospitable than in the north.

There is reason the well known phrase is "Southern Hospitality" and not Northern Hospitality
 

Carbon 6

75 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
5,408
Reaction score
2,281
my experience is that people south of that line are unequivocally more tolerant, accepting and hospitable than in the north.
In your case, I believe you 100%
Things have change a lot since the civil war.
 

nkbj

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
6,953
Reaction score
294
The answer would be yes. Having literally decades of experience living both north and south of the Mason Dixon line, my experience is that people south of that line are unequivocally more tolerant, accepting and hospitable than in the north.

There is reason the well known phrase is "Southern Hospitality" and not Northern Hospitality
Very true. Being a south Texas born, bred and trained gentleman who grew up to become a constant business traveler for decades, the company sending the big van to collect my belongings time after time...
The behavior of the northren was frequently found to be just wrong. But you see, it depends upon where you are. Seeing a young lady in New York City in the 70's honestly offended by my holding a door open for her explained a great deal to me. Cannot help but laugh at the thought of what she would have thought if I insisted upon me instead of her walking next to the curb. And the mind set of the white collar and blue collar, in how they looked down on not just people with different shades of skin but ethnic groups of otherwise indistinguishable people. Amazing. But to them it made sense so deal with it because it isn't the wrong thinking of an individual you're looking at but rather a culture that they were steeped in by the families who raised them, by the people they grew up loving.

What makes sense to one people is just simply madness to another. And everyone, every person, is crazy on some subject. But which subject you're crazy on depends on who you ask.
:doh:

Hey, speaking of crazy, yall see where there's a move afoot to remove the Albert Pike statue in DC?
What's next, wanting to get rid of the giant obelisk jutting up from the vesica piscis on the the National Mall?
 

nkbj

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
6,953
Reaction score
294
Several posts back Russian Involvement in the Civil War was brought up.Here's one Russian who got real involved. A Russian Colonel John Basil Turchin ( Ivan Vasilovitch Turchinoff) who was a strict disciplinarian who believed in Old World ways was court martialed for letting his troops run wild in occupied Huntsville and Athens, Alabama. Among some of the things he was court martialed for was the rape of a slave girl by soldiers. He also had his wife in camp which was against the orders of General Buell. For other many atrocities please google his name.
His wife made her way to Washington and pleaded with Lincoln. The wife must have been very persuasive , instead of severe punishment Turchin was made a brigadier general. General Turchin went on to be known as the Russian Thunderbolt for his cavalry charges especially at Chickamauga and Chattanooga. He resigned on Oct 4,1864. After the war his mind weakened and He died in a insane asylum in Illinois in 1901.
The Russian government's role is a fascinating subject in itself. They were none too happy with what the houses of western Europe were trying to pull in North America.
 

arcticap

54 Cal.
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
515
Location
Central Connecticut
There were informal negotiations with the Russians over the purchase of Alaska beginning in 1859 - 1860 by the Buchanan administration.
The Russians had first approached the British about purchasing it and perhaps wanted them to start a bidding for it with the US, but they weren't interested.
Then the civil war occurred which led Russia to shelve the sale.
When negotiations were restarted after the war, the Russians believed that selling Alaska to the US was a way to put a check on British power since it would feel threatened by Canada being nearly surrounded by US territory.
The Alaska purchase was signed March 30, 1867.
The long period between 1859 - 1867 indicates that Russia was waiting for the civil war to end so that it could complete the sale of Alaska to the US.--->>> Alaska Purchase - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Eutycus

58 Cal.
Joined
Nov 10, 2018
Messages
2,347
Reaction score
859
Location
South Texas
You don't see this word used much, especially as a verb. At the court martial of U.S.Col. John Turchin it was pointed out that a slave girl was "debauched" by some of his troops.
 

arcticap

54 Cal.
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
515
Location
Central Connecticut
Edit Post #4,409 above - The Russians had first approached the British about purchasing it and perhaps wanted them to start a bidding war for it with the US, but they weren't interested.
 

TNGhost

40 Cal.
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
414
In your case, I believe you 100%
Things have change a lot since the civil war.
Wrong. Southern hospitality was a "thing", long before the War of Northern Aggression was a "thing".

What makes sense to one people is just simply madness to another. And everyone, every person, is crazy on some subject. But which subject you're crazy on depends on who you ask.
:doh:

Hey, speaking of crazy, yall see where there's a move afoot to remove the Albert Pike statue in DC?
What's next, wanting to get rid of the giant obelisk jutting up from the vesica piscis on the the National Mall?
Being born in the North, raised in the South, and having spent about half my life on either side of the Mason-Dixon, gives me somewhat of a unique perspective, and likely makes me twice as crazy as most.

As far as the removal of Albert Pike, and other Confederate war memorials. They were, in 1959, by federal law, added to the general pool of war and veteran memorials that are by legal statute prohibited from removal, destruction or desecration. However, unfortunately, an overly self important portion of the current population feels their opinion supersedes the rule of law in our country.
 

Carbon 6

75 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
5,408
Reaction score
2,281
Wrong. Southern hospitality was a "thing", long before the War of Northern Aggression was a "thing".
The term "War of Northern Aggression" is outside of the forum's timeline. It wasn't first coined until the 1950's, by the same people that gave us Jim Crow laws.

Only a certain type of Southerner needs to be reminded of their inherent hospitality, for the rest of us, it's just being normal. I've been all over this country and have met nice hospitable people wherever I went.
For some reason (the civil war) Some southerner's have to keep reminding people that they are or were hospitable, (because they were once rebels).
So If a northerner takes offense to "southern hospitality" it's probably because they see through the facade and know that it wasn't always the case. That there was a time when they enslaved people, and drove northerners and southerners who didn't like slavery from the south. A time when they hated the america that they lived in . A time when the South was very inhospitable and intolerant.
"Southern Hospitality" is just regional marketing.
 

Whitworth

40 Cal
MLF Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
105
Reaction score
101
Location
Elk Ridge Mountain, Washington County Maryland
The answer would be yes. Having literally decades of experience living both north and south of the Mason Dixon line, my experience is that people south of that line are unequivocally more tolerant, accepting and hospitable than in the north.

There is reason the well known phrase is "Southern Hospitality" and not Northern Hospitality
Well said.
 

Howard Pippin

Squint
MLF Supporter
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
167
Reaction score
96
Location
Montana
What southerners disliked the most about Sherman was how effective of a General he was.
The south continued to fight a war well past having any reasonable hope of ever winning it.
So he was trying to not only save Union lives, but southern lives as well.
And Sherman was trying to wake the south up to that fact that the time to save themselves was at hand.
No one should be sorry for saving additional soldiers from the cruelties of war by waking southerners up to the fact that the war was now upon them.'
And the Confederates had shot and killed hundreds of thousands of Union troops.
So what would logic dictate where a person's sympathies should lie?
Certainly not with the perpetrators of such a cruel war.

When Grant became President, Sherman succeeded him as Commanding General of the Army from 1869 - 1883.
His memoirs are one of the best first hand accounts of the civil war.

This is a good read. --->>> The War Nerd: Why Sherman was right to burn Atlanta
I too lost many long-ago relatives that fought on the south side and it's a pity that they acted the way they did. You're right that is a good read. I'm sure you know it's never going to get settled, and people, like my kids, have no idea that some of their long-lost relatives were fighters for a cause that wasn't just. Memories will dim over time, generations must pass, my granddad was born the year of the Custer battle and his dad was born before the Civil War, and I believe his dad, was killed in the Civil War. There is even a cemetery full of these people, some were fighters, and the cemetery bears my last name.
Peace
squint
 

TNGhost

40 Cal.
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
414
The term "War of Northern Aggression" is outside of the forum's timeline. It wasn't first coined until the 1950's, by the same people that gave us Jim Crow laws.

Only a certain type of Southerner needs to be reminded of their inherent hospitality, for the rest of us, it's just being normal. I've been all over this country and have met nice hospitable people wherever I went.
For some reason (the civil war) Some southerner's have to keep reminding people that they are or were hospitable, (because they were once rebels).
So If a northerner takes offense to "southern hospitality" it's probably because they see through the facade and know that it wasn't always the case. That there was a time when they enslaved people, and drove northerners and southerners who didn't like slavery from the south. A time when they hated the america that they lived in . A time when the South was very inhospitable and intolerant.
"Southern Hospitality" is just regional marketing.
I am afraid I am going to have to correct the record once again. The first known published use of the term War of Northern Aggression, was in an 1862 speech given to Tennesseans by Union Gen. John Alexander McClernand at the Hardeman County Courthouse at a meeting of assembled citizens

Quote:

" You have been told, gentlemen, that this is a war of Northern aggression. I deny it. It is no war of aggression. It is a war of defence, of defence..."

This from a story posted to the Chicago times by one of its correspondents who was at the meeting on August 23, 1862.


So given the context of the speech, in which McClernand states "you have been told..." tells us that the phrase had prior usage and was in common use in the South as early as 1862, which I am certain pertains to the period were are discussing.

Now I know such facts are difficult to find these days on the internet, as those who control most of it are "woke" PC types with their proclivity to censoring the views of others, but diligence in looking and a good library of real books, and possessing a strong general knowledge of the subject, will likely get you to things they haven't yet, or in the case of books can't be, erased easily.

If Invasion of a territory whilst burning stealing, raping and killing everything you can get your hands on (including the slaves you are supposedly emancipating). isn't aggression, then I don't know what is.

Now as far as Southern Hospitality. Historians say that that goes back even further,, to the 1600s, prior to the establishment of the United States, according to scholars, and Yankee scholars at that.

Quote of University of Massachusetts English Prof. Anthony Szczesiul :

"Q: How did the idea of Southern hospitality get started?

A: Historians trace it to the social customs of wealthy planters in different Southern colonies during the 1600s and 1700s. But no one used the phrase “Southern hospitality” until the 1820s or 1830s..."


Now I would encourage you to read the entire article, but to get to the facts, beware of the "woke" PC twists as applied by today's academia and stick to definitive verifiable facts, such as dates.
 

Carbon 6

75 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
5,408
Reaction score
2,281
I am afraid I am going to have to correct the record once again. The first known published use of the term War of Northern Aggression, was in an 1862 speech given to Tennesseans by Union Gen. John Alexander McClernand at the Hardeman County Courthouse at a meeting of assembled citizens

Quote:

" You have been told, gentlemen, that this is a war of Northern aggression. I deny it. It is no war of aggression. It is a war of defence, of defence..."

This from a story posted to the Chicago times by one of its correspondents who was at the meeting on August 23, 1862.


So given the context of the speech, in which McClernand states "you have been told..." tells us that the phrase had prior usage and was in common use in the South as early as 1862, which I am certain pertains to the period were are discussing.

Now I know such facts are difficult to find these days on the internet, as those who control most of it are "woke" PC types with their proclivity to censoring the views of others, but diligence in looking and a good library of real books, and possessing a strong general knowledge of the subject, will likely get you to things they haven't yet, or in the case of books can't be, erased easily.

If Invasion of a territory whilst burning stealing, raping and killing everything you can get your hands on (including the slaves you are supposedly emancipating). isn't aggression, then I don't know what is.

Now as far as Southern Hospitality. Historians say that that goes back even further,, to the 1600s, prior to the establishment of the United States, according to scholars, and Yankee scholars at that.

Quote of University of Massachusetts English Prof. Anthony Szczesiul :

"Q: How did the idea of Southern hospitality get started?

A: Historians trace it to the social customs of wealthy planters in different Southern colonies during the 1600s and 1700s. But no one used the phrase “Southern hospitality” until the 1820s or 1830s..."


Now I would encourage you to read the entire article, but to get to the facts, beware of the "woke" PC twists as applied by today's academia and stick to definitive verifiable facts, such as dates.
That's fine googling there young lad, but did you see the forest though those trees ?
 

TNGhost

40 Cal.
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
414
Some of it was internet search, but some from books providing where to look, and some from memory of which books to look in.

Books that were made from cutting them thar trees, much to the chagrin of those so concerned with the state of the weather these days I suspect.

If one were to read the speech by Union General McCleland in the article I posted, you would also see that he denotes nothing but pro-slavery moves the North made, wondering, why, with all of that pro slavery sentiment in the North would the South secede? That alone pretty much clinches that the feeling among Northerners and Southerners, that the war, at least in 1862, was not about slavery.

He yet goes on further to detail the North's grievances, not as the institution of slavery, but as keeping the Union together under the Constitution and the possibility of loss of natural resources and transportation to the economy of the Union (ie. Southern cotton, the Mississippi river and ports on the Gulf Coast), inciting the crowd with his forecasts of economic doom should the South be allowed to secede. Further illustrating that the war was not about slavery, but about wealth and control.
 
Last edited:

nkbj

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
6,953
Reaction score
294
It would appear Sherman was nuts, making him uniquely suited to the job. Can't help but suspect perhaps it was guilt for the death of his son that pushed him over the edge. Well, whatever did it, it made him the man he was.
 

nkbj

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
6,953
Reaction score
294
Some of it was internet search, but some from books providing where to look, and some from memory of which books to look in.

Books that were made from cutting them thar trees, much to the chagrin of those so concerned with the state of the weather these days I suspect.

If one were to read the speech by Union General McCleland in the article I posted, you would also see that he denotes nothing but pro-slavery moves the North made, wondering, why, with all of that pro slavery sentiment in the North would the South secede? That alone pretty much clinches that the feeling among Northerners and Southerners, that the war, at least in 1862, was not about slavery.

He yet goes on further to detail the North's grievances, not as the institution of slavery, but as keeping the Union together under the Constitution and the possibility of loss of natural resources and transportation to the economy of the Union (ie. Southern cotton, the Mississippi river and ports on the Gulf Coast), inciting the crowd with his forecasts of economic doom should the South be allowed to secede. Further illustrating that the war was not about slavery, but about wealth and control.
Like President Lincoln repeated, a house divided cannot stand. He knew the problem was reversing the division and being as quick about it as he could. Imagine how aggravated he must have been at McClellan.
 
2
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top