In a message dated 7/28/03 1:07:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, NCarolinaCMF@aol.com writes: Need I say more? LOL! My college Anthropology class may be a quarter of a century behind me, but I still remember what constitutes a Neanderthal. My question, which should have been more clear, is what in Hades does it have to do with the Civil War &/or the thread from which it came. :) Sincerely, Mike Peters npeters102@aol.com

In a message dated 07/28/2003 11:54:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, NPeters102@aol.com writes: > Can you explain the Neandertalist comment? Forgive me, but I for one am > having trouble following this thread. In a message dated 07/28/2003 11:54:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, NPeters102@aol.com writes: > Neandertal > Main Entry: Ne·an·der·thal Pronunciation: nE-'an-d&r-"tol, -"thol; nA-'än-d&r-"täl Function: adjective Date: 1861 ( look how close the date is, around the first time modern Neanderthat was spotted) 1 : also Ne.an.der.tal /-"tol, -"täl/ : being, relating to, or resembling Neanderthal man 2 : suggesting a caveman in appearance, mentality, or behavior Need I say more? Carolyn (For those of you who have had your sense of humor surgically removed, this was a tongue- in-cheek post).

Jim, that expression is still used in the midwest and means "fair to average". According to the hyperdictionary at: http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/fair+to+middling, the definition of middling is: [adj] about average; acceptable; Synonyms: adequate, passable, satisfactory. Elaine R. Original Message ----- From: "Jim Gilmer" <jimgilmer@alaweb.com> To: <CIVIL-WAR-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:41 AM Subject: Fw: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Borried middling > > > > That expression "middling" brings up another question. An old southern > expression used when someone asks "How y'all doin?", is the answer "fair to > middlin'". Does anyone know if that term "middling" as it applies to meat > has any connection to the expression stating one's state of health? > > Jim Gilmer > > -------Original Message------- > > From: akeegan > Date: Monday, July 28, 2003 06:45:34 AM > To: CIVIL-WAR-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Borried middling > > Thank you David! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Cagle" <dcagle@centurytel.net> > To: <CIVIL-WAR-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 7:02 PM > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Borried middling > > > > Middling is usually salt cured pork--sow belly or Bacon. Borrowed means > > just that. It was borrowed from someone else. > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: akeegan <akeegan@c3net.net> > > To: <CIVIL-WAR-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 12:29 PM > > Subject: [CIVIL-WAR] Borried middling > > > > > > > General Lee's camp was usally crude, and even when the ground was > > unsuitable for his tents, he refuse to distrub nearby residents by > > > occupying their homes. Vistors were struck by his Spartan fare. > > > He once entertained quests at a meal of cabbage upon which rested a > single > > small piece of meat, a rarity in the field during the war. Each quest > > contented himself with cabbage, politely leaving the meat. > > > The next day, when Lee asked his sevent to use the meat for dinner, he > got > > the reply: > > > "We have no meat, General, that yesterday was borried middling." > > > > > > Could someone please tell me what borried middling was? > > > I reas this passage in the book "The Civil War" by Burke Davis > > > Ann > > > > > > > > > ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== > > > To unsubscribe from list mode, email CIVIL-WAR-L-REQUEST@rootsweb.com > > > and in the text area of the message, type only the word > > > unsubscribe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== > > To unsubscribe from list mode, email CIVIL-WAR-L-REQUEST@rootsweb.com > > and in the text area of the message, type only the word > > unsubscribe > > > > > > > > ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== > To search our list archives since 1996, go to > http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl > and enter Civil-War in the list name > > . > > > > ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== > To search our list archives since 1996, go to > http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl > and enter Civil-War in the list name >

In a message dated 7/28/03 12:48:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, NCarolinaCMF@aol.com writes: if Great Britain really lost the war, or more likely, realized how Neanderthalist (thank you Mike, for giving me the perfect work to describe the North), they were, and simply wanted to be rid of them. Carolyn: Can you explain the Neandertalist comment? Forgive me, but I for one am having trouble following this thread. Sincerely, Mike Peters npeters102@aol.com

In a message dated 07/28/2003 9:05:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, mpruddy@msn.com writes: > 2) To lead up to a new act of secession being prepared for in the not too > distant future by laying the groundwork debating with no quarter given in > the same form and forum as our forebears did with unrepentant poison oozing > from every word and any ability to see another´s viewpoint myopically > subjugated to the construction of pithy, condescending, rebuttals. Gees, the enemy has gotten hold of our plans...lol Carolyn

In a message dated 07/28/2003 2:31:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, GW5438@aol.com writes: > That is the one sentence that has worried me about Mr Lincoln. The > (Federal) > Government did 'assail' the South. It's Army crossed the Potomac and marched > into Virginia. And what followed was just terrible. > Thank you Mr Woollard, Some people from the Colonies are still very much uncivilized, makes one wonder if Great Britain really lost the war, or more likely, realized how Neanderthalist (thank you Mike, for giving me the perfect work to describe the North), they were, and simply wanted to be rid of them. Carolyn

NCarolinaCMF@aol.com wrote: > > And they did indeed enslave our Southern ancestors after the war during the > Reconstruction Era. That era was the lowest, filthiest and most demonic period ----------------------------- Well, gee. I've been hearing for the past several years from die-hard Rebs that slavery wasn't all that bad. In fact, the way they tell it, it was all quite wonderful, and Ol' Massa was just doing the blacks a favor. So, what gives? Is slavery good or bad? Make up your mind. ------------------------------ > > It was a genocide and a holocaust of a whole people. ----------------------------- I'm mainly of Irish descent, with a Scottish line thrown in for good measure; I'm also been well versed and personally aware of what went on in the 20th century, so I know exactly what genocide and holocausts are. Kindly don't try to pass off the CW/Recon era as genocide, 'cause I ain't buying. ------------------------------ > > It began with Lincoln and continued > with Thaddeus Stephens, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Butler and other Federal > officers acting through a host of carpetbaggers and scalawags... ----------------------- You mean like James Longstreet and John S. Mosby? ------------------------ > > The vicious, revengeful radical Northern Republicans caused whatever > and wherever bad race relations still exist in our country today. ----------------------- And the Lord said, " 'You have eaten, then, from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat!' The man replied, 'The woman whom _YOU_ put here with me - _SHE_ gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.' ... To the man He said ... 'Cursed be the ground because of you!" (Gen 3:11-12, 17; NAB, my emphasis). Attempting blame transfer doesn't cut mustard with the Big Guy - just gets Him more angry. ------------------------ > > Reconstruction produced legitimate fear and anger in the war-torn > and politically deprived South. -------------------- Yeah. Imagine the nerve of all those uppity blacks being on the sidewalk and having to say "'scuse, please". Oh, my! The horror! The horror! -------------------- > > It caused the enactment later of many of the Jim Crow Laws in the South. -------------------- Bad news, Carolyn; I grew up in Florida during the 50s/60s and saw what was going on. Bigots and haters don't need a reason, just a target; the rest is just so much rationalization. 9/11 should have taught you that. ---------------------------- > > ...political correctness... ----------------------------- PC has become just an overused, trite phrase used by whiners with their own agenda that they wish to impose on everyone else, and I weary of it. ----------------------------- > > We must never forget what General Robert E. Lee told the Governor of Texas > privately during the horrors of the Reconstruction Era: -------------------------- And that Douglas Freeman didn't put much stock in the story. Saying it over and over again doesn't give it more credibility. Dennis

That expression "middling" brings up another question. An old southern expression used when someone asks "How y'all doin?", is the answer "fair to middlin'". Does anyone know if that term "middling" as it applies to meat has any connection to the expression stating one's state of health? Jim Gilmer -------Original Message------- From: akeegan Date: Monday, July 28, 2003 06:45:34 AM To: CIVIL-WAR-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Borried middling Thank you David! ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Cagle" <dcagle@centurytel.net> To: <CIVIL-WAR-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Borried middling > Middling is usually salt cured pork--sow belly or Bacon. Borrowed means > just that. It was borrowed from someone else. > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: akeegan <akeegan@c3net.net> > To: <CIVIL-WAR-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 12:29 PM > Subject: [CIVIL-WAR] Borried middling > > > > General Lee's camp was usally crude, and even when the ground was > unsuitable for his tents, he refuse to distrub nearby residents by > > occupying their homes. Vistors were struck by his Spartan fare. > > He once entertained quests at a meal of cabbage upon which rested a single > small piece of meat, a rarity in the field during the war. Each quest > contented himself with cabbage, politely leaving the meat. > > The next day, when Lee asked his sevent to use the meat for dinner, he got > the reply: > > "We have no meat, General, that yesterday was borried middling." > > > > Could someone please tell me what borried middling was? > > I reas this passage in the book "The Civil War" by Burke Davis > > Ann > > > > > > ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== > > To unsubscribe from list mode, email CIVIL-WAR-L-REQUEST@rootsweb.com > > and in the text area of the message, type only the word > > unsubscribe > > > > > > > > ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from list mode, email CIVIL-WAR-L-REQUEST@rootsweb.com > and in the text area of the message, type only the word > unsubscribe > > ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== To search our list archives since 1996, go to http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl and enter Civil-War in the list name .

In a message dated 7/28/03 10:26:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mocsa@earthlink.net writes: I can defend against censorship of the Confederate story, its exclusion from textbooks. It is an important perspective. But I will also fight to make sure the Northern perspective is told. Scott: You are preaching to the choir. U. S. Grant, whose memoirs are considered by many the best to come out of the war, wanted, as I've said before, history presented truthfully. As long as there is a "Lost Cause," this will not be the case re: the Civil War. But their are many other cases of our history not being presented truthfully. Even though there is evidence discounting such, they still tell our children that a "magic bullet" from Oswald's gun killed JFK & that Crispus Attucks was the first to die in the American Revolution. Sincerely, Mike Peters npeters102@aol.com

> > "damned Yankees" > l hate to tell you this Scott, but we have been debating the Civil War...you > have been "dragged" in, and most willingly at that. What do you think we have > been talking about? > Welcome back to the trenches.... No, I am saying I won't be dragged in and take your negative attitude. Sure my family suffered by both sides, but the war's over. Now it is time to study the history and effectively fight for that history. Your are studying only one side of that history. That's OK but it would make you much more capable of defending yourself if you knew the big picture. Case in point: One may say Lincoln Emancipation Proclamation freed no one. But historians automatically know this is not true and blow you off as some crackpot. If you knew something of the Union efforts in Missouri, you would know this was not true because the state was flooded with slave refugees that came out of Arkansas. The same about slavery. Making statements that say slavery had nothing to do with the war, as many do, automatically discredits oneself and once again the history establishment labels one as a "crackpot". I was in your situation. I served as the director of communications for the Missouri Division SCV. But I knew we were not making an effective argument because of flaws. I was in a constrained position. I felt like an ostrich with my head in the sand. I had to walk the talk or resign. So I resigned. Now I see the bigger picture and can freely speak the bigger picture. And by doing it I make a more effective argument for preserving Confederate history, and I am not discredited as a crackpot. Plus I am learning an appreciation for the Union soldiers and even abolitionists. When I speak of preserving heritage I mean preserving all our Civil War heritage, not one side. Don't get me wrong the SCV does have a place in preserving history, but they could be better at it. Regardless of the rhetoric, the cause of the SCV today is different than cause of the Confederate soldier of 1861-1865. It is a non-political organization by law. It does not advocate picking up a rifle and defend the right of secession in that manner. Most are proud they are United States citizens and never want to change that. You say "And what is our Cause today? The Causes are the same." I say no it is not. The war's over and the cause today has more to do with preserving Southern history than advocating political principles. I can defend against censorship of the Confederate story, its exclusion from textbooks. It is an important perspective. But I will also fight to make sure the Northern perspective is told. And to do that fairly, and to avoid the risk of being discredited, we must tell the good and the bad. We should not whitewash history to be one rosy picture. We have the advantage of time and immense amount of written history. Also with the passage of time, more and more people are of mixed North-South ancestry. Confederate, Yankee, Southern Unionist, and even slave. This represents nearly every race on earth, black, Hispanic, American Indian, European, ect. At the same time the U.S. is being inundated by people that had no connection to the Civil War. If we don't work together, we are in danger of the Civil War entirely being written out of our history. We must demonstrate the relevance of that war to the freedoms of today. That includes the horrors of martial law, order number 11, and slavery. (But it also includes being able to accept criticism over past military blunders, like the firing on Ft. Sumter.) Now is the time for cooperation and seeing the big picture. "Preserving Civil War Heritage" is the key. P.S. I am still a member of the SCV and they still use my material, like the piece I did on black Confederates--which is history that needs to be told and I have no regrets about writing. Some day they may see the wisdom of cooperation. I have hope as some are pursuing a different course. Scott K. Williams,

My fellow Yankees and Rebels, If you can´t beat em join em... I have been following the most recent version of the most old debate with great interest and before I become mindless or listless, I would like to step out of my sideline role as moderator of the non-moderate for a moment and, with my "lingua" planted firmly on the lateral-side soft tissue surrounding my ingestion orifice, I would like to make a "Modest Proposal" (apologies to Jonathan Swift) There is in the question "Did the South have a legal right to secede from the United States?" a similarity to another more modern question "Did the United States have a legal right to attack Iraq?" Both of these questions point past the (hopefully) obvious fact no one is really trying answer the question in order to solve the problem. The result of those acts is irreversible in both cases -- we cannot un-secede the South any more than we can un-invade Iraq. Debating such faites acomplis (for my Francophone friends who have all but disappeared, I hope I got that plural right) isn´t really fruitful unless there is a purpose. Since it is inconceivable to think this debate is a well thought out monumental waste of time perpetrated on the rest of us by those who persist in prolonging it as a test of our will to stay subscribed, I prefer the much more positive view that the "legality of secession" debate has one of two much more understandable purposes: 1) To assuage the consciences of Northerners or Southerners who feel compelled to justify the acts of their forebears in order to be sure that the sin of being the cause of such a misery as the Civil War rests firmly in someone else´s gene pool and not theirs. 2) To lead up to a new act of secession being prepared for in the not too distant future by laying the groundwork debating with no quarter given in the same form and forum as our forebears did with unrepentant poison oozing from every word and any ability to see another´s viewpoint myopically subjugated to the construction of pithy, condescending, rebuttals. With all due respect to anyone who might be performing a self-flagellating act of contrition in the hope of redemption from his great grandfather´s original sin, I am going to make the assumption that it is not to assuage guilty consciences we are debating. This conclusion is based on the fact that to this practiced eye there isn´t any discernable guilt being admitted to by anyone whom we have had the honor to read over the last month or two. All that is left then is the possibility that we are getting ready for another test of strength and that this debate is only a prelude to a new act of secession. I would like to offer some history which might serve to illuminate the shadowy areas around the "legal" right of secession so that everyone might prepare himself for the possible outcomes to be expected from a new secession. Before 1776, the "right" of the colonies to secede from Britain was debated by enlightened men attempting to resolve the issue peacefully on both sides. These moderates were pushed to the sidelines when the Colonies in a rather surly unilateral act declared their independence from Britain invoking God, whom they had no doubt was on their side, and they added in some Deist philosophy about "inalienable rights" to cater to the less God-fearing. The British, although apparently worshiping the same God, decided that the Colonies had no right to secede and, in spite of all the "self evident truths" expounded, were not dissuaded from sending in the Army to resolve the issue. (ah, yes, the ultimate diplomatic gesture by those who are debating an issue without any desire to understand the other´s point of view) After their defeat the British soldiers and their embarrassed leaders sailed back to Britain and the debate continued although somewhat muted by the breadth of the Atlantic Ocean. In 1812, after thirty years or so had created some form of amnesia which blocked out British memory of Yorktown, Britain decided to attempt to quash the secession once again. God of course, as he is want to do, showed up on both sides, and once again it was determined, with some help from La Belle France and a few motley Pirates of the Caribbean, that the now-united States were physically capable of maintaining their secession from Britain. (by the way one of my son´s ancestors, the Caribbean Pirate, Roberto Cofresí, was in 1825, caught by the Americans and executed by the Spanish, so much for gratitude, but of course that is genealogy and is out of place in this discussion) The question of the "legality of the secession" of the 13 colonies is still debated, presumably, but not widely here where the winning side lives. The animosity engendered in 1776 and 1812 continued as Britain chose a pro-South stance in 1861 undoubtedly relying on the famous divide and conquer strategy which has served so well in India and Ireland. But, alas it was not to be. In 1865 after the fun was over the still United States began talking about taking over Canada to punish Britain, but the thought of so many Canadians in our country dissuaded them and they let her be. When the wild Irishmen of the Fenian Brotherhood attacked Canada in 1866 and 1870, the United States moved in and quashed the raids, preferring, it seems, to have Canadians as opposed to Irishmen on our borders. It remains to be seen if US entry in World War II to aid Britain, France´s lack of support for our invasion of Iraq, and a 5th consecutive American victory at the Tour De France shifts the focus of the debate over the "legality of secession" to France. It was not so simple for the defeated rebels in 1865 who were required to go back into their fields and live amongst those who had defeated them. Prior to the war in the Southern States the "law" was clearly interpreted "we can secede" and in the North the "law" was clearly interpreted "you can´t secede" but like so many things debated in the halls in Congress there was no clear legal answer only the various interpretations from the elected governmental officials and a kaleidoscope of opinions from the elected officials of the various states. As is the case in a republic, the more Neanderthal among the elected won´t negotiate or back down for fear of offending those who fund their elections and provide for their excursions into the more risque side of Washington life. In most of the Congressional debate before the Civil War, the Neanderthals, North and South, far outnumbered those who wanted to negotiate a settlement. Perhaps the proper test of whether a clearly defined law existed against secession might be the fact that Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee and a host of others who fought to secede lived out their lives pursuing different avenues of work after the defeat. A case could be made that secession was not illegal for a Southerner -- just dangerous to his health during its exercise and, if he was among the few who survived, unprofitable afterwards. After the initial jailing of Jefferson Davis no one apparently wanted to test whether the law did or did not allow secession and Jeff was allowed to go to Alabama to write his memoirs, unfortunately in those days the late night talk show circuit wasn´t available to him. At that time and in that place it was proved that although it was feasible to secede, with the scanty resources available to the CSA, it was not feasible to remain seceded and the Union was preserved. The fields were still moist with rivulets of commingled Southern and Northern blood as this newly preserved nation moved on to other tasks now that the question had been resolved. Now and then old soldiers of both sides gathered at reunions where old enemies grasped hands or embraced one another and talked of ancient battles, but in general the war was just an ugly blip in the history of the growing American empire. That was then. This is now...... Based on the premise that we are now getting set to meet once again upon the battlefield in a great war to see whether this nation so conceived and so dedicated to secession in 1776 and 1812, and so dedicated to union in 1865, can win again. Let us now go to my proposal: Instead of the legality of the 1861 secessions, I propose we begin debating the more important issues to be solved before we can begin the secession sequence again: 1. Who is to secede: the original CSA states or should more be added to balance the deck? a. If only the original states are involved should the soldiers born in the states which entered the United States after the war and who care not a tinker´s damn who was right or wrong, be allowed to withdraw to the sidelines and/or form a third disinterested country and join the European Union or the United Arab Emirates? b. If all the states are to participate should we should just run the Mason-Dixon line out to California and use square miles north or south as the determinant of whether any state which entered after 1861 would be secessionist or unionist? c. I haven´t run the line out to Hawaii, would that be a Southern or Northern state? -- or can Queen Lelani´s descendents reclaim the throne? d. Puerto Rico ceded by Spain in 1898 now may be faced with sending soldiers into another battle in which their rooster isn´t in the fight -which side do they fight on? -- or can they secede themselves and declare their independence too? 2. Should we have each state individually be rated in BCS type polls and let them fight it out one against one until a winner is declared. This could be a way of keeping the battle going on forever and we could use an NCAA type enforcement to sanction any state from competing whose power showed it capable of winning. 3. Should President Bush (TX) take over as President of the Confederacy leaving Dick Cheney (NE) in charge of the Union? Or if Cheney is disallowed (NE is a border state) would Colin Powell (NY) be president of the Union when George Bush opts south? Or will we have elections for a new Confederate President perhaps run by Katherine Harris and the Florida Elections Board? 4. How much time should we allow the Yankees to get out of the South? 5. How much time should we allow for the Confederates to get back into the South? 6. Would the actions taken in 4 and 5 above be sufficient to stop the new drive toward session? 7. Should nuclear weapons be allowed or biological warfare accepted? The virulence on both sides of the present debate seems to indicate a willingness to accept any form of barbarity as long as not one Yankee or one Rebel remains alive. 8. If it can be proven that the Southern states have weapons of mass destruction when they take over the Southern armories, should the Union make a preemptive strike before George Bush can establish his brother Jeb in charge of the Fedayeen-George and they gas the Cuban-Americans in Miami? 9. Will the anti-establishment paramilitary groups fight for the South or just shoot anyone who comes near them and move to Montana? 10. Can we take all of the genealogical data from NARA and place it in Salt Lake City and declare Utah a canton of Switzerland until the issue is decided so my great, great, grandchildren will have an easier road than I have had trying reconstruct my past? 11. Am I liable to the draft if I was born in New York left when I was a year old, lived twenty years in California and twenty more in Puerto Rico and the last ten years in Tennessee? -- and whose draft am I to be assigned to? -- and can I legally be coerced into this fight if I have no animosity towards either the Yankees or the Rebels -- only the debaters? 12. Do we have to wait until Iraq is a republic with its own pro-American Neanderthals in command so our troops can come home before secession commences? If so, it may be a while and I suggest a postponement of the above proposals for debate. Mike Ruddy Civil-War

>From American Heritage Dictionary Middling: NOUN: 1. Chiefly Southern U.S. a. Pork or bacon cut from between the ham and shoulder of a pig. Often used in the plural. b. Salt pork. Also called middling meat.

Thank you David! ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Cagle" <dcagle@centurytel.net> To: <CIVIL-WAR-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Borried middling > Middling is usually salt cured pork--sow belly or Bacon. Borrowed means > just that. It was borrowed from someone else. > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: akeegan <akeegan@c3net.net> > To: <CIVIL-WAR-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 12:29 PM > Subject: [CIVIL-WAR] Borried middling > > > > General Lee's camp was usally crude, and even when the ground was > unsuitable for his tents, he refuse to distrub nearby residents by > > occupying their homes. Vistors were struck by his Spartan fare. > > He once entertained quests at a meal of cabbage upon which rested a single > small piece of meat, a rarity in the field during the war. Each quest > contented himself with cabbage, politely leaving the meat. > > The next day, when Lee asked his sevent to use the meat for dinner, he got > the reply: > > "We have no meat, General, that yesterday was borried middling." > > > > Could someone please tell me what borried middling was? > > I reas this passage in the book "The Civil War" by Burke Davis > > Ann > > > > > > ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== > > To unsubscribe from list mode, email CIVIL-WAR-L-REQUEST@rootsweb.com > > and in the text area of the message, type only the word > > unsubscribe > > > > > > > > ==== CIVIL-WAR Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from list mode, email CIVIL-WAR-L-REQUEST@rootsweb.com > and in the text area of the message, type only the word > unsubscribe > >

test

In a message dated 27/07/2003 10:14:55 GMT Daylight Time, workman@dreamscape.com writes: > "The Government will not assail you." Dear Sharon, That is the one sentence that has worried me about Mr Lincoln. The (Federal) Government did 'assail' the South. It's Army crossed the Potomac and marched into Virginia. And what followed was just terrible. Yours, etc. Geoffrey Woollard in Cambridgeshire, England (with sympathies - and, hopefully, some understanding - for both North and South).

In a message dated 07/28/2003 12:09:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, mocsa@earthlink.net writes: > "damned Yankees" l hate to tell you this Scott, but we have been debating the Civil War...you have been "dragged" in, and most willingly at that. What do you think we have been talking about? Welcome back to the trenches.... Carolyn

This address was delivered by the Rev Fr. Alister C. Anderson; Past Chaplain-in-Chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans at the Remembrance Ceremony to honor the Southern soldiers, sailors and civilians buried at the Point Lookout Prison Camp Cemetery. It was delivered on Saturday, June 12, 1999. The Charge of Lt. General Stephen D. Lee, CSA To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we submit the vindication for which we fought; to your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles he loved and which made him glorious, and which you also cherish. Remember it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations. Now, what is the next phrase in General Lee's Charge to us. It is: "We submit the Vindication of the Cause for which we fought". There are two very powerful words in that phrase. They are the words "cause" and "vindication". What was the Cause of our ancestors? And what is our Cause today? The Causes are the same. It is the right of all men to freely govern themselves in society. I have read many letters that Confederate soldiers wrote home to their families. I have read many sermons that Southern clergymen and chaplains preached. Ninety-nine percent of them express this theme: We are fighting for our right to be free. We are fighting because these Yankee armies are invading us to enslave us. And they did indeed enslave our Southern ancestors after the war during the Reconstruction Era. That era was the lowest, filthiest and most demonic period in the history of the United States. It was the nadir of disgrace. It was anything but reconstruction. It was total destruction of everything Southern. It took away every vestige of human freedom for the white Southerner. It was a genocide and a holocaust of a whole people. It was the brutal demonic force of a radical Federal Government gone amuck. It began with Lincoln and continued with Thaddeus Stephens, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Butler and other Federal officers acting through a host of carpetbaggers and scalawags. By far the worst thing that happened through the Northern Federal government's plan to reconstruct the South was the creation of increasing disharmony between the newly freed Negroes and the White population. The vicious, revengeful radical Northern Republicans caused whatever and wherever bad race relations still exist in our country today. Reconstruction produced legitimate fear and anger in the war-torn and politically deprived South. It caused the enactment later of many of the Jim Crow Laws in the South. It caused the terrible formation of Black ghettos in the North. The Reconstruction Era has made many Southerners look at the War as a Lost Cause, especially recent generations of people who have been emasculated by political correctness and Yankee propaganda. But the real cause of the South has been a Righteous Cause - a Just Cause and a Noble Cause. Those words really define the cause for which our ancestors fought. There is no Lost Cause! It is a living Cause -- the cause of freedom, liberty and limited and local government. We must never forget what General Robert E. Lee told the Governor of Texas privately during the horrors of the Reconstruction Era: Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no Sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand. What brave Men..... Carolyn

I am simply challenging the naive "South was always right" doctrine. I know both sides had legitimate arguments. Both sides had their heroes and their "flops". We have an advantage over the participants of the Civil War. We have all the political and military intelligence that they lacked. We can use this so we can really understand the big picture. Or we can stay in the trench and only see the war as it looked to a foot soldier on one side. Once I studied only one perspective and believed it was completely right without question. But I kept coming across stacks of documents that challenged some of those views. It was a dilemma. I had to make a decision. I could get back in the trench where such matters do not threaten me and continue seeing things as a participant in 1861-1865. Or I could get out, take advantage of the passage of time, and survey the debris of war (documents) from both sides. What I find is neither side was all good or all bad. If I lived back then I could have served on either side. So today regarding the Civil War, I am very suspicious of anyone telling me that they were ALL WRONG and we are RIGHT. That these are "damned Yankees" and those are "damned traitors". I can no longer see things that way. I have moved from the trench years ago. I am not going to get dragged in with the overly dated argument if secession is legal or not. That's for trench dwellers. Regardless if the Confederacy had appropriate justification on firing on Ft. Sumter, it was the biggest military blunder of the war. It silenced the calls for letting the South go in peace and ensured a tragic war would begin. It was a moment for strategy that instead became tragedy. Yes, I admire Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. Scott K. Williams,

My Friends, First of all, l would like to say that while l express my opinions on this list, l hope no one takes it personally. l have learned a great deal about the Civil War, having these discussions, because it makes you do your research. Sometimes we get little "digs" in at each other, but it is all in fun, and isn't meant to be vicious and too awfully unkind. Of course, we see the events of the Civil War differently, what caused it, who did the wrong thing and made it worse, and so on. We are all Americans, and proud of our Country, and of our Forefathers who had such grand hopes and visions for this Country. If we regress, and get passionate about our history, is that really so bad? "I MIGHT DISAPPROVE OF WHAT YOU SAY, BUT I WILL DEFEND TO MY DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT." -attributed to Voltaire In a message dated 07/27/2003 4:29:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, mocsa@earthlink.net writes: > The military does not take orders from State level politicians I will only address one of your misconceptions at the moment. So l have chosen maybe the most ridiculous one. Whose Military are you talking about? You are going to have to make up your mind if we are talking about TWO different and separate Countries at War, or just a rebellious South, in your own mind. Whether you want to admit it or not, the South had seceded from the North, had resumed their own God given right to be a sovereign Nation, had the absolute right to empty their own forts of Union, or foreign Soldiers, and take possession of their property. This was done legally, according to our own Constitution! Maj. Anderson was ORDERED out of the Confederate State of South Carolina, off the Property of South Carolina, being a member of the Union's military, he was on enemy territory, and was the benefactor of more time and patients than he deserved. He was therefore, not receiving orders from a "State level politician," but rather, the leaders of a new Country, to surrender Fort Sumter, putting his own life at risk by trespassing, and commiting a crime of war in another Country. Carolyn

Listers, I am looking at data about a small town in northern Maine - a village of 900 souls named Fort Fairfield. It's close to the border with New Brunswick. This tiny place sent 127 men to war during the War Between the States. They ranged from 18-44 and probably had the usual number of boys fibbing about their age. 26 never came home alive, 10 came home disabled. What about these numbers? Do you think that was typical of small communities in the North? I know the South sent a greater proportion out of desperation, but the North surely was not lacking in manpower. What do you think? Sharon Ancestor Chronicles: Our Kin And Their Times http://groups.msn.com/AncestorChroniclesOurKinAndTheirTimes/ Please visit, join, and share your family stories http://groups.msn.com/OurCivilWarAncestors Ancestors in the Civil War? Come visit and join. Both sites are free.