Conference smurf::civil_war

    Good question, Ben. As a person who was born in New York City, raised
    in Massachusetts and now lives in Richmond, VA, I have the unique
    opportunity to have witnessed both ends of the spectrum. Plus, I am a
    2nd generation American so I have no ancestral ties to the American
    Civil war.
    
    As no other area of the country, the souteast is a region of the US
    with it's own identity while maintaining a diverse lifestyle. In the
    19th century we saw an agrarian society that grew tobacco in Virginia
    and the Carolinas, cotton in Mississippi, Texas and Alabama and fruits
    and vegatables in Florida, Louisiana and Georgia. This society had a
    disdain for major metropolitan areas and clung to an economy that was
    doomed to founder no matter the outcome of the Civil War. Slave labor
    was not destined to last.
    
    The self determination of the Southern citizens was manifested in their
    desire to form a new nation and their willingness to risk everything to
    accomplish it. Modelling itself after the Articles of Confederation, it
    strove to keep the best the United States had to offer while
    incorperating the special interests of it's unique, at that time, way
    of life.
    
    I find the sympathy for the Confederacy akin to those who root for
    the Balkans in their fight against the Soviet Union. The little guy
    going toe to toe with the big fella. I seriously don't believe that
    many of these sympatizers delve into the real meaning of the
    Confederacy which had it's roots in slavery. They look at the romantic
    J.E.B. Stuart charging around McClellen's army in 1862 or marvel at the
    cunning and daring of Robert E.Lee who forsakeed his country in defense
    of his native state.
    
    It's a way of protesting a group in Washington telling you what to do.
    Regional pride. Lovbe of the underdog.
    
    Of course there are some who embody what was wrong with the concept of
    the Confederacy. Those who saw nothing wrong with slavery whose bigotry
    blinds them to the folley of their opinion. Since the KKK sprung from
    the bosom of the defeated Confederacy, the racism, hate and animosity
    that go along with those views is naturally applied to the Confederacy
    as a whole.
    
    But it is like calling all Germans anti-Semites or all members of the
    Continental Congress bigots. Few foot soldiers of the CSA owned slaves
    and many had no interest in preserving the anti-bellum lifestyle of the
    South Carolina planters. 
    
    You know how people in New Hampshire or Vermont are turned off by New
    Yorkers or Bostonians? Multiply that 100 times to understand the
    feelings of the average white southerner in 1860.
    
    Well, that's my opinion, FWIW.
    
    Rich
    

    
    You ask why I chose to portray a Confederate?
    
    First of all my roots are deep in New England tradition so to speak.
    I was born, and raised in Massachusetts. And will probably die a blue
    blood Yankee. Both of my great-great grandfathers fought for the Union
    cause. So why should I, chose to defend the South?
    
    I have been an reeanctor now (Civil War, what else?)for about 5 years
    now. I chose to protray a Confederate, in all honesty because of the
    mystique of the Rebel soldier. Out-numbered, out-gunned, ill equipped,
    no industrial base so to speak, it took the mighty Union host four
    long, bloody years to bring them to there knees.
    
    As was stated in the earlier note it may have been the romantic
    chivalry of J.E.B. Stuart's ride or Jackson's Valley Campaign of 62'.
    Or the awe inspiring march of Pickett's men across the mile wide field
    at the crossroads at Gettysburg. Or just the fact of those proud men
    surrending at Appomattox, who so inspired J. Chamberlain, that he wrote
    a tribute to them. And the ultimate tribute, not a cheer or snide
    remark from the Union troops recieving their arms and bloody stained
    battle flags at Appomattox.
    
    I've been fascinated by history since an early age. I did not chose to
    portray a Confederate with my eyes closed to symbolism of what I would
    be defending. I never condoned or believed in one man's right to own
    another man. In all actuality, I would gander to make a guess that 
    85 - 90% of the men who fought for the South never even owned slaves.
    
    An example was given by Shelby Foote on the PBS series, It seemed that
    this Union Cavalry patrol surrounded this Rebel infantry man after the
    Battle of Shiloh. The Captain asked the soldier what is he fighting
    for? You don't look like you own slaves? He answered, "Because ya'll
    is down here." 
    
    We are fortunate to have in our ranks a direct decendant of someone
    who fought in the 5th Alabama Battalion. I have been able to get my
    personal portfolio of the man I portray. I have his service and medical
    records. I even have a picture of his gravestone. And everything that
    I've been able to dig up on the man shows that he was no better than
    a share cropper himself.
    
    I believe he fought because his homeland was being invaded. Not because
    he owned slaves. He probably was no better off than a slave himself.
    I believe it was sheer pride, and the belief of defending his homeland
    that made bear arms against his fellow Americans.
    
    I apologize for being a little long winded or seeming to go astray from
    the original question. But, I believe for myself, it may have been a
    little affinity for the underdog and the mystique more than the belief
    of owning another man that led me to portray a Confederate soldier.
    And also the fact that I like to stir things up a little!!?? :^)
    Don't ya'll forget, history is always written by the winner.
    
    So if ya'll is ever at an reenactment sometime and if ya ever see the
    5th Ala. Batt. flag floating in the breeze, just stroll into the camp
    and look up one Cpl. Noah Little. I'll be more than willing to cook
    up some coffee with ya'll and sit awhile and chat about this here
    question of yours. It's much easier to sit an spell and chaw face to
    face rather than over tis here electrical thingie'.
    
    					The Alabama Slammer
    
      

    I find myself in complete agreement with the Slammer on this one.  The
    reason I joined the 28th Ma. rather than a rb unit is that I just
    couldn't justify in my own mind portraying a reb with a Boston accent.
    Of course, now I find myself trying to justify portraying a soldier 
    with an Italian last name and no Irish accent in the Irish Brigade!
    I'll let you try to figure that one out!
    
    Ziff
    

    
    In answer to the Hahhvahd accent, if ya'll was a'wonderin'.
    
    This here back-woods, Alabama bumpkin' don't even try to fake a 
    Southron accent. People could tell it was fake anyway.
    
    Basically, in camp talking to folks', wes'm just try to explain to
    them why we do portray Confederate soldiers. We just try to leave people
    with the basic understanding of what we're trying to portray (Reb
    soldiers)in basic camp surrondings, what there life might have been
    back home, what our personal reasons are for fighting, sweethearts and
    wives that we've left behind, etc.
    
    But, the basic thought we try to leave with folks is, that no matter
    what the color uniform, blue or gray, we were all Americans. Both sides
    suffered the same type of wounds, diseases, filth, and daily grind of
    camp routine. Americans killing Americans. Most people never even
    really give that aspect much thought.
    
    One of the great aspects of this hobby is that you're able to change
    sides so to speak. At many of events you have reenactors "galvanizing"
    in other words, changing coats to even the sides up, basically, not to 
    present to the public a lop-sided battle so to speak. How would it 
    look to ya'll if you have 20 Yanks defeating 100 Rebs? 
    
    My first hankerin' was to do Confederate and it will always be my first
    love. But I'm just as proud to don the blue and fight under the Stars
    and Stripes as under the Stars and Bars. That's what makes the hobby
    so fascinating. Sure, you have your die-hards that just won't do that.
    But FWIW, I believe there missing out on some fun!
    
    Besides, I just like to stir ya'll up! Somebody's gotta to keep ya'll
    Yanks on the straight and narrow!
    
    Save you're Confederate money!!! We'all is just taking a break!!!
    
    					The Alabama (Hahhvahd) Slammer

    Last night I got a new Genealogical Journal from the Southern Illinois
    Genealogical Society and it had copies of letters from Ill. soldiers
    from the Civil War. The soldiers from the North weren't just fighting
    to free the slaves, as many were fighting because they didn't believe
    the South had the right to secede.
    
    There's a whole lot more to the ACW than just the slavery issue.
    
    This is no different than any issue we face today. Don't believe what
    you're told, investigate for yourself, make your own decisions.
    
    OK I'm off the soap box.
    
    Larry

    Personally Slammer, I wouldn't mind in the least watching 20 Yanks
    whomp the tar outta 100 rebs!  
    
    The average Yank didn't give a darn about the slaves (as evidence I
    submit the draft riots in NYC).  He fought because the South fired on
    his flag, the symbol of his nation.  Such an insult could not go
    unpunished.
    
    The average Reb didn't give a darn about the slaves (well over 90%
    didn't own any, and a dirt-farmer wouldn't fight just so Colonel so-
    and-so could keep his).  He fought because the North was invading his
    nation.  He was defending his home.
    
    That is the basic difference: the North viewed the US as one
    indivisible entity, with the states making up a part.  The South saw
    the states as their own nation, with the US as a contractural entity
    which was only their to serve their best interests.
    
    As evidence, Virginia did not even seriously think of secession until
    called upon to provide troops after Fort Sumter.  She was the most 
    industrial and least slave owniing of the south.
    
    Ziff

With me, I think it's a combination of tradition and state's rights.  Although
Indiana went officially 'north', southern Indiana (where I'm from) maintained 
a strong southern leaning.  The slaves were still smuggled through our area, 
even though they were officially far from the south.  (Kentucky was 'neutral'.)

I DO NOT support slavery, but I do support the right of a people to decide
their own matters.  The south depended on agriculture, which depended on slave
labor at that time.  The north seemed pompous enough to demand that the south
give up its lifestyle to satisfy a northern moral/political stand.  To me, 
that was wrong.

Randy

Randy, I've seen studies indicating that Southern agriculture would
have benefited from emancipation.  Slaves do what they must, not what
they can, but they still use up pretty much the same resources.  Look
at feudal Europe and Bolshevik Russia, and observe the failure of these
systems.  A slavery-driven economy was doomed to failure given enough
time -- for one thing, the rest of the world was banning slavery and
turning a jaundiced eye toward countries that didn't do so.

The South might have succeeded only to drive itself into economic
collapse; with little serious manufacturing might to stack up against
the remaining part of the US, trade imbalance would have become
catastrophic if the South could even find trading partners.  Cotton was
becoming more and more available from other sources, such as Egypt and
the Caucasus; the South's monopoly wasn't going to last.

The lifestyle issue is bogus, too, given that the Southern "lifestyle"
was possessed by a *very* small number of rich people while the vast
majority of the population didn't own any slaves.  You say you don't
supoort slavery -- but when you support a people's right to decide their
own matters, does that extend to the human chattels held in bondage in
the South?  or only to the people who could vote...?

-d

    I grew up on Southern traditions, but not what you might think.
    I was not exposed to the "moonlight and magnolia" stuff until I
    was well into my teens.  As with Ken Ricker, it was the indomitable
    will and sheer courage of the Southern fighting man that intrigued
    me.  I was raised on a certain amount of bitterness about
    Reconstruction, and some wistfulness about the Lost Cause.  The
    one most important idea my folks set in my head, though, was to
    do my own research and my own thinking.
    
    As I read and learned more and more about the war and its causes,
    I found more and more philosophical identity with the doctrine of
    states' rights.  The more I studied period documents (as opposed
    to after-the-fact rationalizations) I found that Old Abe was not
    the saintly prince of justice he was made out to be in my school
    books.  I found more things in Jeff Davis' thought with which I
    could identify.  I found more ways in which the northern position
    was hypocrisy and tyranny.  I started off sympathyzing with the
    Confederacy because of the peerless Rebel soldier, but developed
    a very strong philosophical sympathy for the Southern position.
    Now, after reenacting the life of the Rebel soldier to the point
    that the Old Sergeant sometimes slips in on my 20th Century
    personality, I find myself back to saying, "The Yankees invaded
    my home and I'm not particularly concerned about what the rich folks
    do with their slaves.  I'm fighting these unionist dogs with all
    my heart and soul."
    
    This topic could very easily get hung up on "What caused the War
    Between the States?"  That question is certainly crucial, but maybe
    deserves its own topic.  I would just like to say here, though,
    that slavery was NOT the primary cause of the war.  It is entirely
    possible to be a staunch Southern sympathizer and be an abolitionist.
    The word for such a person is "Secessionist."
    
    Why do I support secession?  (1) No government is a philosophical
    primary.  Governments are made by people, and I agree with Jefferson
    on what ought to be done with governments that don't work.  (2)
    Rather than try to overthrow the U.S. government and force the Southern
    position down Northern throats, the Southern states sought to form
    their own government.  Secession formed no threat at all to the
    Federalist philosophy.  (3) Slavery was a despicable evil, including
    where it existed outside the Confederacy (New Jersey, Deleware,
    Maryland, and the District of Columbia)  The North was as much a
    part of the institution as was the South.  Southerners would have
    worked the problem out on their own; they would have had to because
    slavery was absolutely impracticable.  Northerners were too far
    removed from the situation to have any sense of how to solve it,
    and if they had REALLY been interested in ending slavery, the best
    thing they could have done would have been to let the South go -
    to let the Confederacy sink or swim on its own.
    
    One note on the "Southern lifestyle" as mentioned by another noter
    in this topic.  That lifestyle was not just the planter class. 
    It included the entire South.  It meant, not just slavery on big
    plantations, but the independent small farmer out in the hills,
    too.  It also meant the growing educated middle class (it was growing
    slowly, but it was growing.)  It also meant the rapidly growing
    urban population.  It meant a political philosophy in which government
    was viewed as a vehicle for tyranny, and the best government was
    the smallest, and the smallest was best when kept within rifle shot.
    
    Frankly, in watching the capricious and devastating programs of
    our present government, it is real easy for me to believe that the
    smaller and more localized (that is, decentralized) a national
    government is, the better. 
    
    Got a bit long-winded, I reckon, but *GOD* I love this stuff!!!
    
    
    Wess
    

MacKinlay Kantor's historical novella, "If the South Had Won the Civil
War," published in 1960, should be required reading for anyone who wants
to shoot solely at slavery.  I wouldn't want to spoil it for those who
haven't read it, but Kantor's conclusions (while quite naive in some
resopects) do hold up under fairly close scrutiny -- and for some of the
reasons I cited in .8 in this string.

-d

RE: .8

>I've seen studies indicating that Southern agriculture would
>have benefited from emancipation.  

I doubt that very many southerners had the benefit of that knowledge.  They
perceived a real threat to their way of life, and acted to defend their homes,
not unlike people of today.

>A slavery-driven economy was doomed to failure given enough time 

I don't doubt it.  But that was not justification for acts such as Sherman's
Butchery to the Sea!

>The lifestyle issue is bogus, too, given that the Southern "lifestyle"
>was possessed by a *very* small number of rich people while the vast
>majority of the population didn't own any slaves.  

I disagree.  Lifestyle is a broad term.  Southern lifestyle is, to me, the
freedom to do determine your own direction, as far as your opportunities
will allow.  I have never felt so trapped as I have in New England.  Not only
can I not go out shootin' at the local creek, but Mass. promises to put me
in jail for even having a gun!  'Not my idea of freedom!

>You say you don't supoort slavery -- 

That's right.

>but when you support a people's right to decide their own matters, does 
>that extend to the human chattels held in bondage in the South?  or only 
>to the people who could vote...?

You, yourself, have determined that slavery was doomed.  It would not be a 
valid question today, anyway, as slavery would not have lasted that long.
There is no value in my giving my opinion as to whether slaves had a right to 
govern their own futures.

    re .11
    
    In defense of New England, I would point to many areas of Vermont, New
    Hampshire, Maine, western Massachusetts, eastern Connecticut and
    northwestern Rhode Island in August and the rural atmosphere is akin to
    the country areas of the South.
    
    re "The Southern Way of Life"
    
    I believe this has more to do with the rural lifestyle versus the
    factory life. In the North, Indiana, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania and
    Massachusetts had huge pockets of manufacturing centers. These areas
    did not exist in the South.
    
    Rich
    

    Sorry for the lapse in getting back to this.  Work rears its ugly
    head, you know!
    
    My defense of the South has nothing to do with my personal views
    on slavery and whether it should have continued.  As I said in a
    disclaimer somewhere around here, I *LOATHE* the very idea of slavery.
    
    The sad fact is, though, that the North was not fighting against
    slavery, nor the South fighting [even primarily] for it.  A
    slave-oriented agricultural system was part of the lifestyle that
    was covered by "states' rights."
    
    Slavery could not have continued for more than two decades. World
    opinion was rising against it, and even domestic opinion in the
    South, itself was growing.  Did you know, for example, that well
    over 1/2 the anti-slavery societies in the U.S. before the war
    originated in the South?
    
    *{OPINION ALERT!}*  Had the South been allowed to secede and sink
    or swim on its own, I think slavery would have been abolished within
    20 years.  The problem having been solved by the people involved
    in it, there would not have been the trauma associated with
    manumission, and American Blacks would not be fighting for equal
    status in 1991.  The South would not have developed its bitterness
    toward the North and toward industrialization/centralization, in
    general.
    
    Most important of all, though, is this tragic "what if:"  Where
    would the U.S. and the C.S. - indeed, the entire Human race - be
    today had we not lost 600,000 lives.  Many of those killed were
    our very finest; none but the very finest could have endured that
    war long enough to be killed in 1863, '64, or '65.  Is it not
    agonizingly possible that the man or woman who held the answer to
    the slavery problem went to a premature grave?
    
    The result of the war was that a region of the U.S. was held against
    its will, mourning the deaths of over 200,000 of its sons and husbands,
    while a mocking victor paraded  before their eyes a bogus symbol
    of what had been a war of oppression.  Human nature being what it
    is, how could Southerners *NOT* have focused a great deal of hatred
    on the innocent freedman?  He was the only person in their reach.
    
    I wish I could remember who said this, but it was never more true
    of any war than of the War Between the States:
    
    	"War is a political process that proves not who is right, but
    	who is left."
        
    Wess

    Suggesting that things would have been O.K. in the South because
    slavery would have been abolished in 20 years is not something that the
    slaves would have been too thrilled about.
    
    Paul

    re: .14
    
    I never implied that they would have been thrilled, or that slavery
    was *EVER* "okay."  What I said was that had the South been allowed
    to work the matter out on their own, without losing 200,000 of their
    best men, Blacks would have been better off, sooner, than has been
    the case.
    
    Wess

From _The Mind of the South_ by W.J. Cash (Vintage Books, c. 1941):

[discussion of violence in the culture of 19th-century south]

... But if I show you Southern individualism as eventuating violence, if I
imply that the pride which was its root was in some sense puerile, I am very
far from suggesting that it ought to be held in contempt. For it reached its
ultimate incarnation in the Confederate soldier.

To the end of this service this soldier could not be disciplined. He slouched.
He would never learn to salute in the brisk fashion so dear to the hearts of
the professors of mass murder. His "Cap'n" and his "Gin'ral" were likely to
pass his lips with a grin - charged always with easy, unstudied familiarity.
He could and did find it in himself to jeer openly and unabashed in the face of
Stonewall Jackson when that austere Presbyterian captain rode along his lines.
And down to the final day at Appomatox his officers knew that the way to get
him to execute an order without malingering was to flatter and to jest, never
to command to brusquely and forthrightly. And yet - and yet - and by virtue of
precisely these unsoldierly qualities, he was, as no one will care to deny,
one of the world's very finest fighting men.

All what you will for esprit de corps, for this or for that, the thing that 
sent him swinging up the slope at Gettysburg on that celebrated, gallant
afternoon was before all else nothing more or less than the thing which
elsewhere accounted for his violence - was nothing more or less than his
conviction, the conviction of every farmer among what was essentially only
a band of farmers, that nothing living could cross him and get away with it.

    re: .16
    
    Oh, my!  That's good!
    
    Oh, my!
    
    Oh, my!
    
    Thank you!
    
    Wess

    RE .16:
    
    But how much of the behavior the quote describes is distinctly
    _Southern_?
    
    There were many regiments in the Union Army, especially those from the
    west, where "snappy" salutes, deference to officers, and martial
    bearing were similarly dispensed with.  And from what I have read, a
    "slouching" gait on the march was characteristic of most veterans, who
    had figured out how to cover ground quickly.
    
    Even during the Revolutionary War, von Steuben observed that there was
    a difference between American and European soldiers in getting them to
    follow orders - in Europe, he said, I tell a soldier "do this", and he
    does it; in America, he needed to say "this is the reason you ought to
    do that".  Martinets were not popular in _either_ army during the Civil
    War, nor were those officers who stiffly demanded obedience most likely
    to get it.
    
    As for his reasoning on Pickett's Charge, I'd like to see some
    significant amount of first-person evidence that the motivations were
    any different from those of the men who attacked the stone wall at
    Fredricksburg (for example).  Historically, conspicuous bravery by
    _units_ is linked with training, discipline, and esprit do corps (in
    some mixture), and not usually with an aggregation of "rugged
    individualists".
    
    MikeR
    

    re: .18
    
    Compare Wiley's "Life of Billy Yank" to his "Life of Johnny Reb."
    True enough, even the average Federal soldier was a far cry from
    his European counterpart, but Johnny, by and large, had it all over
    Billy in the way of nonchalance.
    
    In reenacting there is a steriotype of the Confederate soldier as
    a totally undisciplined, unmilitary, hooligan.  Some Confederate
    units proudly boast of never having drilled for a minute.  I think
    these units have missed the boat by a long ways.
    
    Massed firepower and organized infantry could only have been 
    matched - much less overcome - by equally massed firepower and
    equally organized infantry.  In fact, the drill of some Southern
    units was admired by their enemies.  Consider the alignment of
    the men in Pickett's assault on Cemetery Ridge.  Those men were
    not sloppy soldiers.  They may have been a lot of things, but they
    were NOT sloppy soldiers!
    
    Mike, I think you may  be looking for something that isn't there, 
    or at least, can't be dissected.  Speaking of the motivation in
    a body of men as large as that which moved up Cemetery Ridge is
    a doomed effort.  They were too varied.
    
    At some point, the motivation that led soldiers on both sides into
    the army broke down.  At some point, the Union, or secession, or 
    home, or adventure all become insignificant.  At that point, a
    man's willingness to get the other fellow, regardless of the cost
    to himself, becomes paramount.  Later in the war it was easier to
    see, I think.  The classic example is the legend of the exchange
    between a Yank and a Reb between Franklin and Nashville:
    
    	"Hey, Reb!  How many of you are there left, anyway?"
    
    	"Enough for another killin', I reckon."
    
    The unwillingness to quit, under any circumstances.  It's dangerous
    to speak of other men - especially those so long dead and so shrouded
    in myth - but I believe the analysis in .16 comes very near the
    truth.
    
    As for Fredicksburg - the fact that the statement applied to some
    Yanks does not diminish its truth for some Rebs.  Personally, I
    regard the assault on Fredericksburg as at least the equal of anything
    Johnny ever did.  To Johnny's everlasting tribute, it took men like
    those at Fredericksburg four years to overcome him.
    
    
    Wess

    Shelby Foote notes that the Army of the Mississippi and the Army of the
    Potomac didn't get along very well at all in Chattanooga.  The
    westerners considered the AoP troops dudes, and the easterners thought
    the AoM solders were a lot of slovenly misfits.
    
    It was a unit thing, not a north/south thing.  When it came down to the
    nitty gritty, both sides were incredibly courageous.  Had the Reb been
    undisciplined malingerers, they would certainly have suffered the fate
    ot Ambiorix' Gallic troops in the winter of 58/57 BC, when Ambiorix
    lost over 60,000 men - about half their number - to Caesar's legions,
    which numbered some 12,000 in all.  The Gauls fought every man for
    himself, and the Romans fought as a rock-hard unit.
    
    -dick

    
    	I have a few things I would like to say that are just for me. In
    the latest issue of The Civil War News (an excellent paper, I recommend
    ya'll get it) there was two articles on the same page, the first
    entitled "TIRED OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT YANKEE 'BIAS' and the other "THE
    U.S. IS EXPERIENCING HYSTERIA ABOUT CONFEDERACY". The first talks about
    how the North won the war and the author is tired of hearing the South
    making excuses and complain about books, etc., always taking the North's
    side (I.E., the recent Ken Burns tapes). The second talks about the 
    second "RECONSTRUCTION ERA", I.E. the bans being placed on the 
    Confederate Battle Flag (it always seems to be the Battle Flag, most
    people don't even recognize the National Flags, sad, huh?) two examples
    being the Boy Scouts of America and Franklin High School, Franklin,
    Tenn., where thousands of Confederate soldiers were killed and are
    buried! The articles make other points and are to long to cover.
    	What is the point you ask? I'm not really certain, I just know both
    these articles make me mad. Not for the same reasons, but, they both
    got to me. I think it is because I have great reverence for history.
    History to me is the only real TRUTH. It usually is viewed from 
    several different angles, but some where under all the different point
    of views there is the truth. They say that truth is a casuality of any
    war, even more so a Civil War. But this is a 130 years later, surely
    the truth should no longer be on the casuality list? If a country
    cannot look at itself and say yes we came from there but now we are
    here now, then how strong is that nation?
    	The 1860's was a time of racism, bigotry and sectional hatred, that
    would put anything we all know to shame. But that is the way it was, to
    try and cover that up and make heroes of villians out of those people
    who were what they were is ridiculous. The only real truth in what
    those people were, is that they were both Americans, fighting and dying
    for what they believed in.
    	I guess what gets me so mad about all of this is people try and
    rewrite history years later for their own reasons, and eventually what
    they write becomes the truth. It's like the old saying, you tell a lie
    long enough and it becomes the truth. That to me is alot more scary
    than anything my ancestors ever were. I am not responsible for what
    people were back then, but, as an reenactor I have taken on the job of
    telling people the truth the best I can, and being a member of the 5th
    Alabama Battalion, I have chosen to tell the South's side. That does
    not mean that I am trying to convince the world the South was right and
    the North was wrong, there is no right or wrong in war, the very act of
    war has taken the point beyond a right or wrong. But, I feel that in
    1991 the South needs more spokesmen than the "winning side" does.
    Because I feel the Southern people did have a very valid point of view,
    and I have chosen to tell it.
    	I guess what also makes me angry is people assume you have to be
    from the South to want to speak for the South. To me that makes it
    personal, like the only reason you say such and such is because your
    from there etc., etc. That is the exact opposite of what I'm trying to
    do. It's like saying the only reason you would say something is because
    you have something to gain from it, and not because it is the way it
    was. I want people to look at this period in American History and say
    yes there was mistakes made and we can avoid those mistakes in the 
    future. 
    	The only view we get of the future is by looking at the past.
    Because we are people just like they were and we can and will make the
    same mistakes they did. But if we let it be we can follow different
    paths than they did. It is said that the only truely stupid man is the
    man that keeps doing the same things the same way and expects the
    outcome to be different each time.
    	Lets each of us do our best to keep the people we come in contact 
    with at events from being stupid, lets try and teach them. Teach them
    to look at the truths about The War Between The States.
    
    		Thanks for reading this, I hope it made some sense.
    
    					Your Obediant Servant
    
    						The Alabama Slammer
    	 
    

    re: .21
    
    Can you hear me clapping?  Well done, Kenneth.
    
    May I extract your note and circulate it to my lads?
    
    
    Wess

    This essay was written by me for a valuing differences observance at a
    DEC facility.  It has not been circulated much, apparently, and I have
    never heard a syllable of response to it.
    **************************************************************
    
    It's a pretty flag, really.  Its red field and blue St. Andrew's 
cross are pleasing to the eye.  Its white stars are bright and shining, 
as stars on a flag ought to be.  How odd that many Americans look upon 
it and shudder in revulsion -- or in terror.
    It is seen waving above marching ranks of white-robed people who 
chant slogans of hate and moral putrification.  It is seen in crowds 
of people who cheer political candidates who pronounce "Negroes" as 
"Nigrahs."   How did this pretty flag get to be associated with such 
ugly people?  What are its roots, that it has come to such a pass?

    In January of 1861 the states of the American South began to 
leave the Union.  Their cause was liberty - the right to live the 
way they wanted.  The Union, they said, was hostile toward them, and 
even disposed to violence.  Whether they were right about that is not 
the scope of this piece.  It is indisputable that they believed they 
were right, and as always has been the case with people who take their 
politics seriously, that was enough.
    They compared themselves to the patriots of 1775 who, in pursuit of 
liberty as they defined it, waged war against Great Britian.  Like 
those old patriots, Southerners wanted independence from the Union and 
the liberty to solve their own problems and live their own lives.  When 
the Union called up troops to send south and crush the spirit of indepen-
dence, Southerners called up their own army.
    Be careful, now.  This is their perspective.  If their ideas of what 
liberty ought to look like are flawed by our standards, one can not doubt 
their committment to their ideals, nor the sincerity of their belief in 
their own rightness.                                              
    Southern women sent their men to do war with the Yankee beast.  
Southern sons watched their fathers go striding grimly down dirt roads.  
Southern daughters watched their brothers board trains bound for the 
eastern cities where the Army of the Confederate States was gathering.
    The army they called up was a true people's army in a sense that few 
American armies have ever achieved.  It was served by men and women from 
all professional, economic, cultural, ethnic, religious, and national 
origins.  The motives of those first  recruits were surely varied, but the 
evidence of their letters and diaries reveals one common thread:  they 
would send the Federal troops from Southern soil or die trying.
    Southerners formed a government and wrote a set of rules for that 
government.  They elected representatives and designed a flag for their 
new nation.  The flag was similar to the U.S. flag.  It had the same 
blue canton, and a circle of seven white stars.  In place of the 13 
red and white stripes, this flag had three broad bars:  the top and 
bottom bars were red, the center one white.  The Stars and Bars.

    In July of 1861 the first great battle of the war was fought in 
northern Virginia, near the town of Manassas.  Early in the battle 
things were going badly for the Southerners.  Their commanding general, 
P.G.T. Beauregard, saw a column of troops coming toward his flank.  
If they were Federals his army was doomed.  Beauregard watched and 
fretted, but in the distance, dust, and smoke he could not make out 
their uniforms.  He could not tell whether their flag was the Stars 
and Stripes or the Stars and Bars.  He was about to order his artillery 
to fire on the colmun when a puff of wind caught the flag.  It was the 
Stars and Bars, and Manassas was saved for the South.
    After the battle Beauregard suggested to his staff that their soldiers 
needed a battle flag - a symbol to mark their presence on the field - 
a symbol so daring and distinctive it could never be mistaken for any 
other.  This flag was to be the symbol of the Confederate Soldier, not 
of the Confederate Nation.
    Beauregard's staff designed a flag based on the Saint Andrew's 
cross of Scottish origin.  The field was red, the cross blue, and the 
stars white.  The cross and the flag itself were outlined in white.  
The flag was square so it would fly straight out when carried by a 
walking man.  This flag was used by Beauregard's army, only.  Other 
Confederate armies adopted other flags.
    Beauregard went on to frustration and near-glory, but his army 
wrote a record that will stand well in the books for all time.  It 
became the Army of Northern Virgina, and its leader from mid-1862 on 
was Robert E. Lee.  Lee became by far the most famous of all Confederates, 
and his army the most famous of all their armies.  To many, they came 
to stand for the Confederacy. 
    Ironically, the Beauregard flag was never the Confederate national 
flag.  The Stars and Bars held that distinction until May, 1863 when 
it was replaced with the Stainless Banner.  The Stainless Banner was 
solid white except for the canton, which was a small replica of the 
ANV battle flag.  The Stainless Banner was revised in March of 1865 
with a vertical red band on the fly.
    The rectangular, un-bordered Saint Andrew's Cross flag we see most 
often today most closely resembles the Confederate naval jack.  A 
similar flag was used as a regimental battle flag in the Army of 
Tennessee.  As used by the Army of Northern Virgina, though, the 
Beauregard flag was square.
    The soldiers who fought under that flag fought for their rights 
as they defined them.  And when it is all broken down, isn't that 
what we all must do?  We can not see into the future to learn what 
our grandchildren will say about us.  We must take what evidence we 
can, make the best decisions we can, and do our best.  That is what 
those Southern men did in '61.
    They believed so strongly in the rightness of their cause they 
held out against overwhelming odds in manpower, arms, transportation, 
and food.  For four years they lived as we would not have a cur dog 
live today.  They suffered indescribable hardships - shuddering in 
malaria's grip, aching with starvation's cramps, clawing at lice 
and fungus, watching their teeth fall out from scurvy.  When it 
was over, the Federals who had finally run them to ground were 
astonished that men could even walk in such condition, let alone 
fight like tigers as these had.
    The South lost almost 200,000 men in the war.  It lost entire 
cities, millions of acres of farms, billions of dollars in food 
crops, almost 80% of its draft animals, hundreds of miles of its 
poor railroads, and most wretched of all, the national identity it's 
young men had carried on their scrawny shoulders.  There was nothing 
left of the Southern Confederacy.  Its president was in jail for 
answering the call of those who elected him.  Its capital city 
was a pile of rubble.  Its constitution was a fable from history.  
Its lifestyle was in ruins, never to rise again.  Its armies were 
starving bands of vagrants, staggering across the land trying to 
find what was left of their homes.
    Upon Southern soil stood Northern soldiers.  In Southern schools 
stood Northern teachers.  In Southern bureaus sat Northern bureaucrats.  
Farms that had been in families for generations were divided at 
gunpoint, with not a penny of compensation to the honest farmers 
who had worked them, and the little plots given to former slaves.
    Be careful, still;  this is their perspective.

    Southerners had lost everything for which they had suffered so 
terribly - everything but the honor won by their young men in battle.  
What Human, if stripped of all that made life sweet - save the 
glory of his son's achievements - would not cling fiercely to that 
glory?   Might we not be understanding if that man should keep a 
scrap of cotton cloth, through which unnumbered bullets had torn,
and droplets of sacred blood soaked?  Can we hold that scrap of 
cloth corrupt, and damn it, or damn he who holds it?
    There was an inevitable bitter backlash after the war.  Groups 
of disenfranchised white men wreaked terror on Blacks.  These 
Blacks had been in the beginning but subordinate factors in the 
war.  With Lincoln's machinations, though, they had become its 
central focus.  The whites took out their hatred of the Yankee 
nation on Blacks who came within their reach.  Over the years, their 
hatred became unfocused, as habits do.  They passed it on to their 
children as a package deal, and too often the package was wrapped 
in what they thought was the symbol of the Confederacy:  a flag.
    The flag they chose was not the symbol of the Confederacy.  It 
was a rectangular approximation of the battle flag, but in their 
ignorance they called it the Stars and Bars!  It is a measure of 
their ignorance that they no more know why they hate than what 
their chosen symbol really means.
    If a poor actor butchers Shakespeare, or an off-key singer makes 
torture of Mozart, do we damn the creators?  If an ignorant brute 
misuses a symbol of heroism and dedication, do we damn the creators 
of the symbol - or the symbol, itself?
    Condemn racism by all means.  It is despicable.  But do not 
hate that flag.  It has been the symbol of far better and finer 
men than those who wear their bed sheets in public.  It is still, 
even today, taken by many liberal, moral Americans as the standard 
by which Human qualities ought to be judged.

    If the Army of Northern Virginia were to be transported to this 
day and age, perhaps the first heads they would crack would be 
those of the brutes who usurped their flag and tried to make it 
synonomous with the terrorizing of innocent people.



Wess Rodgers, December, 1990, Albuquerque, N.M.

All the below is just IMHO and if you disagree then I am open to arguement. This
is all taken from an outsiders view ( I live in England).

Through history if the winner of a confilict causes great pain and suffering
on the losser then in the future the winner actualy becomers the losser.

The previous reply explains vividly the change in emphisis in the southern
views and this one catalists to sone of the major problems in the USA today.
That is the racism, the treatment of the races, the problems in poor ethnic
areas etc...
(I do not think I need to go on, I'm sure we all know that kind of problems that
America is suffering)

The same is true of the English invasion on Ireland by Cromwell which really 
started the problem which are still there today.

Also the allied treatment of Germany in WW1 in the backgroung to WW2.

There are many other cases in history of the victor creating future problems 
by being over enthusiastic after the war is over.

If the victor does not cause this real hardship their tends not to be this great
lasting problems (ei over many years), ei after WW2, Crimea, etc.

Personaly, I think some of the problems the US had could have been avoided if 
the Union/North had been more careful and considerate after the war. With less
to chaff over the soth may have become a much stronger/stable area thus 
hopeful stopping some of the problems that have been seen later. This would not
have stopped th problems but IMO it may have reduced the problems significantly.
Mark 

    re .22 and .23
    
    Kenneth and Wess - Well written. Bravo. Coming from a town in
    Massachusetts (Walpole) where the sports teams are known as Rebels and
    the Confederate Battle Flag adorns the jerseys of the #1 football team
    in the state, I have often been engaged in discussions about the
    symbolism associated with the flag. I have almost, to the letter, gone
    through the explanation Wess so eloquantly described in .23 and have
    found some people totally unwilling to disassociate the flag with
    racism and the KKK. 
    
    To those who DO feel that way, I actually understand. If I was a Jew I
    would not view the swastica(sp?) as an ancient cultural symbol - I
    would shiver in fear and loathe those who displayed it - associating it
    with Nazi terror. Likewise, if I was black, I might very well be
    sensitive to the display of the Confederate Battle flag. The symbolism
    might be too much for me. But, as I see blacks engaging in athletics at
    Ole Miss with the band playing a spirited rendition of "Dixie" while
    the battle flags wave in the stands, I see no colors on the faces of
    the participants. I see a unified student and alumni body rallying
    around a banner and tune, not shuddering from a symbol some see as
    racist.
    
    Rich
    

    re: .25
    
    I have heard other people compare the Battleflag and other Confederate
    devices to Nazi symbols.  I can understand how a person might make such
    a comparison at a Klan rally, where hate is so thick you can cut it
    with a knife.  (Ever been to an honest-to-god, bonfire-and-moonshine
    Klan rally?  I have, though by accident.  It's an experience you can
    afford to miss.  Trust me.)
    
    However, in historical fact there are VAST differences between the CSA
    and the 3rd Reich.  It is one of my fondest dreams to have a hand in
    educating enough people on those historical facts that the hate
    campaign waged against anything Confederate withers away.
    
    I've noticed - and I admit to a limited body of data - that the less
    northern influence a southern area feels, the more mellow EVERYone is.
    We wore our uniforms from Richmond to Savannah to Atlanta to Vicksburg
    in the spring of 1990.  (We had just come from the 125th anniversary
    reenactment of Sayler's Creek and Appomattox, and couldn't bear to
    shuck our Gray.)  Everywhere except in downtown Richmond and in Atlanta
    we were met with courtesy and eager curiosity by Whites and Blacks,
    alike.  We had to drag our muskets out of the van several times to pose
    for pictures with Black children and adults, too.
    
    In Richmond - really little more than a suburb of Washington, D.C. now
    - and Atlanta - notorious for being Northern-ized - we were stared at,
    cursed at, targeted by bits of thrown garbage, and refused service in
    a restaraunt.
    
    I don't what to make of this, but it is interesting, don't you think?
    
    
    Wess

    re: .26
    
    	Speaking as an Atlantan, quite the opposite may be true.  I
    can't speak for Richmond, but I know that the Greater Atlanta 
    Area is home to a few high-profile racist hate groups that have
    been mentioned earlier.  While we downplay their numbers, they
    get alot of media attention. 
    	Remember the Forsythe County marches that came just two 
    years ago?  Forsythe County is two miles from the Atlanta Customer
    Support Center (CSC).  I would say that the presence of Yankee
    transplants in inconclusive.  The presence of a half a dozen guys
    with hoods and a burning cross (and a rebel flag) is enough to
    make any reasonable human being less inclined to be "reasonable".
    	You were treated rudley and unfairly on your visit to Atlanta.
    However, given certain realities, sometimes it is better to be
    WISE than RIGHT.
    
     2
    r 

    Wess,
    
    Richmond is at a crossroads right now. At the beginning od the Civil
    War it was one of the 3 largest cities in the South along with New
    Orleans and Atlanta. Had war not occured or if Virginia had remained
    in the Union, there is every reason to believe that Richmond could have
    grown, economically, to the stature of other major US cities. 
    
    However, following the war, there was a stigma attatched to the city.
    It remained a symbol of a bygone era and hub of the "Cause" for many
    Southerners while symbolizing the worst of the war and it's causes to
    many Northerners. It had a difficult time coming to grips with it's
    role and stature. It remained a rallying point for hundreds of
    Confederate reunions into the 20th Century which reinforced the
    indignity of many in the North.
    
    Memorials sprang up throughout the city glorifying the "Cause". No
    other city in America pays homage to the Confederacy like Richmond. Our
    Monument Avenue has marvelous statues of Lee, Jackson, Davis and
    Stuart. Schools are named after Confederate generals and statemen. 
    
    Yet, as the city turned the corner towards integration in the 50's and
    60's, residents asked themselves about this cannonization. Blacks felt
    bitter about a beautiful boulevard adorned with men who, in their
    minds, fought for a system that would have them in chains. 
    
    Richmond retreated. It felt uneasy with it's past and struggled to
    justify it's continued salute to the past that was and is so repugnant
    to some. It felt a low profile was best. It polarized like few cities
    have done. 
    
    But then something strange happened. Ken Burns did more for Richmond
    than hundreds of well meaning politicians have. He kindled interest in
    the Civil War. And Richmond has more to offer within 50 miles than any
    other city. A black cab driver told the city council that was debating
    funding for tourism, "Heck, 1 out of 3 people I pick up at the train
    station or airport ask about Civil War sites. Why don't we take
    advantage of our past, publicize it, learn about it, understand it and
    then capitalize on it."
    
    Richmond now proudly boasts at being the Capital of the Confederacy.
    The city seal has a picture of Stuart riding on his horse. But it still
    struggles to equally recognize those who fought for the rights of the
    black man. Much debate has ensued to enshrine black educators and civil
    rights activists on Monument Ave. This has once more polarized the
    city. 
    
    I fear, Wess, that you were in Richmond amidst one of those periods of
    transition. As they continue to occur, Richmond will continue to fight,
    reason and overcome adversity. 
    
    (Richmond a suburb of DC? I take that as in insult, suh! Other than the
    maniacal support of the Redskins, most of us folks abhor anything
    associated with the capital - other than Wilder's dreams of gradeur)
    
    Rich
    

re: .28

> Yet, as the city turned the corner towards integration in the 50's and
> 60's, residents asked themselves about this cannonization.

I thought the cannons stopped in 1865.


Ben

    Wes, your essay on the Confederate battle flag was excellent.  I hope
    you can educate people.  But bear in mind that you are fighting an
    uphill battle - and Rich's comment about reaction to the swastika is at
    the core of the reason.
    
    Why?  Not because the Confederacy is like Nazi Germany, but because a 
    _symbol_ is NOT reality.  It _stands_ for some reality, but that 
    connection exists in the minds and attitudes of both those who display 
    the symbol and those who see it - and thus it is a means of communication.
    (Words are only symbols, too, remember.)
    
    I have an edition of Kipling's works published in about 1911.  On the
    cover of each book is an elephant - and a swastika.  But in 1911,
    NObody associated the swastika with Nazi extermination and hatred,
    since those events were in the future.  Today, I would expect many
    people to react negatively in looking at those books, because the Nazis
    took what was an honorable symbol (still is, I think, for Navajos), and
    gave it a new meaning in the eyes of almost everyone who sees it.  The
    new meaning is _so_ widespread and _so_ strong that I would not advise
    a group of Navajos to parade through town displaying what to them is an
    honorable symbol - they will simply not be communicating clearly to a
    lot of people.
    
    A similar problem has muddied the meaning of the Confederate battle
    flag.  What was originally a symbol of honorable combat in defense of
    home and land (like most other battle flags), has been given a
    different meaning in the minds of many because certain groups have
    appropriated it as a symbol of bigotry - and _that_ impression is the
    most recent, common one for lots of people.  (Not everyone, as the Ole
    Miss football example shows!)  Sadly, as long as vocal groups parade
    the flag in a context of hate, it will not have a clear meaning - just
    like words that begin to be widely used with a modified or blurred
    meaning.
    
    To show how blurred meanings can cause communication trouble, take the
    words "imply" and "infer".  Most folks today use them interchangeably,
    but their meanings originally were different - and we might get into an
    argument over whether or not I "implied" something in a note, when we
    might readily agree that you had rationally "inferred" it from the
    note.  :^)
    
    MikeR

    Actually, I was in Richmond in '89 and '90 (or the spring of 64 
     and spring of '65.)  I used to work for Xerox, though, and they have
    an international training center in Leesburg.  In driving around
    northern Virginia, I was absolutely amazed at how FEW Virginians
    I met!  That ...CITY... on the north side of the Potomac has spread 
    out and infected the Old Dominion.
    
    re: .30
    
    Mike, I agree with you completely on symbols and emotions.  My quarrel
    is not with those who don't understand the flag.  After all, they only
    know what they were told in school.  Not everyone has a passion for
    historical research.  My quarrel is with those who have usurped the
    flag and turned used it as a symbol of hate and oppression.
    
    re:  Monument Avenue in Richmond
    
    After the 125th anniversary reenactment of Wilderness and Spotsylvania,
    my unit took part in a Memorial Day parade from BAttle Abbey to
    Hollywood Cemetery.  We went right up Monument Ave.  It was fantastic
    for us!  Those statues seemed almost alive as we marched past them, in
    uniform and under arms.  The crowds along the sidewalk were very
    friendly and cheered us along.  The Federals followed us in the order
    of march, and from what I heard, they were just as well treated.
    
    Near the Cemetery, though, we passed near some stern-looking buildings
    that one of our officers said was a college.  The closer we got to the
    college, the more surly and unfriendly the crowds got.  There was one
    entire block where the sidewalks were lined with people - Black and
    White - who turned their backs to us as we marched by.
    
    The cure to such unfriendliness is education.  We can't blame poorly
    educated people for having wrong ideas about flags.  If I can touch
    just a few people and show them a different perspective than what they
    learned in school - and get them to really *LOOK* at that perspective,
    I'll consider myself a roaring success as a historian.   That's why 
    my unit never turns down an opportunity to speak to a school.
    
    
    Wess
    

    Wess,
    
    That college would be Virginia Commonwealth University - the college
    with the largest student body in the state. A city campus with a mostly
    white middle class backround. 
    
    Hollywood Cemetary, if you follow the signs, is in one seedy part of the 
    city. When I visited it some months back I was in awe over the sheer
    numbers of graves but disappointed at the state of disrepair of the
    grounds. Another thing, Wess, I noticed. On several stones there was an
    emblem that resembled the Klan Kross or whatever those people call it.
    Inscriptions such as "In memory of a fallen comrade in gratitude from
    the Imperial ???? of (Name your Confederate State Here)." Did these
    emblems exist when you visited? They looked fairly new. Because a
    downpour was pending, I took the wife and kids out quick. But, if these
    graves are, indeed, adorned with KKK emblems, I can very well
    understand how some individuals, living in close proximity to the
    cemetary, might be offended by a group of people in Confederate
    uniforms.
    
    Rich
    

    Rich, we didn't have time to do much touring in the cemetery, but I've
    never noticed such a device on Confederate stones.  It seems to me
    that the emblem of the United Confederate Veterans was a cross with
    rays coming from it.  I'll look that up!
    
    When we were there, I was impressed at  how pretty the grounds were. 
    It's possible they had just been cleaned up for the occasion.
    
    
    Wess

    My great Grandfather was a sargent in the CSA.  On my mother's side I
    had family that died for the South.  My great Grandfather became a 
    state senitor in North Carolina after the war.  I was taught that the
    war was fought over many different reasons.  Only one of which was 
    slavery.  Slavery alone was not what caused the war or else the war
    would have started when Jim Brown made his moves.  The main cause
    of the war was states rights.  That is why you see the word "imperal 
    state of..." on graves.  The KKK did not start until after the war.
    Nathanel Beford started the KKK.  The KKK took on the symbols of 
    the CSA when it is started after the war.  
      
    
    
                                Marshall

    
    re .34
    
    Jim Brown played football, John Brown played havoc.
    
    
    To be serious now:
    
    Here I am a nice Jewish boy who is also a Libertarian with anarchic
    tendencies.  
    
    In the first role I detest slavery. My ancestors were slaves to Pharo
    in Egypt and we not only remember the exodus on Passover, but 3 times a
    day every day. 
    
    On the other hand I am a Libertarian and who can disagree with the idea
    of throwing off the heavy hand of centralized government. As a good
    Jeffersonian I an very well sympathize with the Confederate Cause
    insofar as it was an attempt to avoid centralized government.
    
    I see the WBTS as a justly caused revolution which also defended an
    undefendable institution.
    
    As far as the characters of the Confederate leadership is concerned;
    who could not admire a man such as Robert E. Lee. He was more palatable
    to me as a man than the leading general of the winning side U.S. Grant
    who by the way introduced anti semetism in the Western Theatre by
    forbidding entrance of Jews into the area of his command (Jews were
    permitted northward travel but we given a hard time in the opposite
    direction).  Meanwhile the secratary of war for the Conferderacy was
    none other than Benjamin Judah, one of mine.
    
    So the Libertarian half of me is a Rebel Sympathizer and the anti
    slavery half of me is not. That leaves me a somewhich schizoid war
    buff.
    
    

I was born in Birmingham but we moved to Marietta (north metro Atlanta) when
I was a little over a year old. Other than a couple of years in the Air Force
I've lived in the area since. I now live on the west side of Marietta, 
surrounded by Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield. One of my great-great
grandfathers was killed on or around Kennesaw mountain in defense of Atlanta.
 
A number of times friends who have moved here from the north (and there are
quite a lot of them) have asked me why southerners are still concerned, to
some degree at least, about a war that occured over a hundred years ago. I
explained the obvious things to them. We are surrounded by reminders of the
war. Since it was pretty much fought in the south that's where the battle-
fields are. A far larger percentage of people in the south were directly
affected by the war than in other parts of the country, etc. etc.

But the major factor is the most difficult to explain, the emotional
resonance over the years of being a conquered nation. The whole concept is
difficult to grasp without having lived it. It permeates our culture but
seldom overtly. As long as I can remember there has been a feeling of
second class citizenship if you're from the south. The stereotypes of
southerners from the Beverly Hillbillies to big-bellied southern sherrifs
have predominated the media. It's not as overt as it once was but it's
still there. There are so many small things that, while insignificant in
themselves, are cumulitive. You cannot simply name a few of them and expect
someone who hasn't spent thier life with them to understand.

It's not so much that we cling to the Civil War as that it clings to us.
And yet we are proud of our ancestors role in the war, what else can we
be?


Randy