I recommend an essay by David von Drehle in last week's Time Magazine on the Civil War: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2063679,00.html. He contends that the war was always about slavery from the very beginning but why after the war concluded, historians, politicians, and the media ignored or downplayed that reality, be they northerners or southerners.
Regards,
Jerry Schaefer
ASM Affiliates, Inc.
2034 Corte Del Nogal
Carlsbad, CA 92011
760-804-5757 (office)
760-804-5755 (fax)
http://www.asmaffiliates.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carl Carlson-Drexler
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: Today in history
It is interesting that the term chosen for the Official Record (yes,
written by northerners), that of the "War of the Rebellion," has not
yet been mentioned here. Northern writing on the war in the postbellum
years emphasized terminology that framed the South's aggression (who
shot first at Fort Sumter?) as four years of collective treason, a
narrative that does not seem to have much salience in popular memory.
I do wonder if protestations that "Southerners" still remember it as
the War of Northern Occupation/Aggression would be more properly
asserted as WHITE southerners remember it as such. Growing up in Texas
as a Civil War aficionado and re-enactor, those (few [a small minority
compared to those who choose "Civil War]) who chose the
occupation/aggression terminology were invariably white. Those few
African Americans who came to the reenactments and talked with the
participants never, to my best recollections, used the more
aggressively pro-Southern (for clarity, I was always wearing the blue
uniform).
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Smoke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In Arkansas, the majority of the locals DO call it the war of Northern
> Aggression. They are not being facetious. Almost none of them owned
> slaves. They were too poor. The ONLY reason that many people fought
> against the Union was State Rights and because the northern troops
> were here. They were NOT fighting to defend slavery. The textbooks
> call it the Civil War but the people still call it the War of Northern
> Aggression (currently some now call it the war of Northern
> Occupation). The terms Civil War and War Between the States are
> sanitized terms that no not adequately describe the horror, brutality
> and destruction. Anyone who objects to the term "War of Northern
> Aggression" does not know history or contemporary south easterners
> (my idea of "The South" is still New Mexico and Arizona). Yes, the
> term is divisive but it is historically correct for the people who
> fought it and their descendant's today.
>
> Until I moved to Arkansas from the Northern Rockies, I had no idea how
> important that war was to American history. It was glossed over in
> grade school, a college prep school and two Universities. Just some
> rote memorization of battles and generals and that the only reason for
> the war was slavery. I just thought of it as a bunch of easterners
> killing each other off and wished it would have lasted a few more
> years. How is that for ignorant, brutal and shallow? The hate
> generated by both the war and Reconstruction is still there to this
> day. I was amazed. An historical archaeologist can even see it in
> the pattern of the roads and transportation systems up to post WWII.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Jim <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> It isn't calling attention to the event that I object to, although it could hardly come as news to the subscribers of this listserv...it is the choice of words and the lack of balance inherent in those words. I don't mind Civil War/War Between the States, although I think it flies in the face of most historiography, but the original posting calling the event aggression followed by the sequel claiming occupation strikes me as political, and that seems inappropriate for this venue. I would much rather hear about some new archaeological insights into the conflict and its aftermath than the long string of postings that likely will follow this exchange and distract participants from their research while clogging everybody's inbox.
>> James G. Gibb
>>
>> Gibb Archaeological Consulting
>>
>> 2554 Carrollton Road
>>
>> Annapolis, Maryland USA 21403
>>
>> 443.482.9593
>>
>> www.gibbarchaeology.org www.porttobacco.blogspot.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Smoke Pfeiffer
>
> Laws do not represent either reason or justice.
> They represent force.
>
|
