| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:29 pm Post subject: Civil War--The Long Recall (update) |
 |
|
There's a nifty new project at http://www.the-american-interest.com/ called 'The Long Recall'.
"At The American Interest, we have decided to use the opportunity of the Civil War Sesquicentennial to reflect on the war and its consequences. Over the next few years both our online and print editions will feature articles about this defining conflict. To kick off this venture we are publishing The Long Recall: An Aggregator of the Civil War. We are not sure yet how our commemoration will evolve; for now we will present a daily digest of the news and commentary that an intelligent American might have had accessible 150 years ago." Complete intro here:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/civilwar/the-project/
It's a spiffy idea, although I wish they'd re-type the news articles--some of them are hard to read. And it isn't all just war, war, war. There's even an article about fashion.
Last edited by Ya-ta Boy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:50 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*wipes tear from eye*
This is beautiful.
I really hope they get the Confederate papers like The Charleston Mercury to show one extreme and others like the Richmond Whig to show the diverse range of Confederate opinion.
One of the remarkable things about the Civil War is how much it was discussed and argued over by everyday people. Whether it was in books, or music or newspapers or fireside conversations or sermons at church the issue of secession was the dominant topic and discussed in great depth.
Perhaps if we had had that level of discourse certain ill-advised wars would not have occurred. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| very interesting. The new York times has been running a series of articles on the buildup to the war. One of the most interesting was about a speech by jefferson Davis and the bashing given to him by the newspaper in Vicksburg Mississippi which called him a bloodthirsty idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I meant to mention that the anniversary of secession is tomorrow (Monday), Dec. 20. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tomorrow (Tuesday) is the anniversary of the start of the war. It reminded me of an article I read not long ago that puts an important poem in an entirely different light.
Like most of us, I read Longfellow's 'Paul Revere's Ride' in junior high and was told it wasn't historically accurate, yada, yada, yada. When I was teaching I passed along that information.
Then I read Jill Lepore's article in the NYT where she put the poem in its historical context--it was published on the same day South Carolina seceded. The poem is not about the Revolution; it was written as a call to arms for the coming Civil War. That is so cool.
From Lepore's article:
"Yet Longfellow�s abolitionist zeal didn�t abate. He secretly spent money he earned from his best-selling poems, like �The Song of Hiawatha,� to buy slaves their freedom. In 1856, when Sumner gave his famous �Crime Against Kansas� speech in the Senate, Longfellow congratulated him: �At last the spirit of the North is aroused.� That speech nearly cost Sumner his life � it so incensed a South Carolina representative, Preston Brooks, that he beat Sumner with a cane on the Senate floor."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Lepore.html
Around the same time we read Longfellow in junior high we also read 'The Man Without a Country', Edward Everett Hale's short story. It was decades before I learned it was published during the Civil War as a rallying cry for the Union and is connected to Vallandigham's bit of treason.
Darn those crummy lit teachers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^
Interesting report.
I was only 11 and all that stuff went right over my head. What I remember is Life magazine's maps, photographs, and paintings of people and events I'd never heard of. It was fascinating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is the editorial the Chicago Tribune ran at the outset of the Civil War:
War Inaugurated!
| Quote: |
By the act of a handful of ingrates and traitors, war is inaugurated in this heretofore happy and peaceful Republic! While we write, the bombardment of Sumter is going on; and the blood of the few gallant defenders of the glorious old flag which yet, we hope, floats over that fortress is being poured out for their fidelity to the Constitution as it is, and the Union as our fathers made it!
The people know the cause of the fratricidal strife. The party, which, in the interests of a barbarous institution, has governed the country for the last 40 years, was beaten in the November election. The verdict of the people which does not touch a single one of the rights of any man, guarantied by the fundamental law, forbids the extension of that barbarous institution into national territory as yet uncursed by its blighting presence. This is the cause of the rebellion which months of effort has ripened into the bloody strife this day commenced! This and nothing else � this determination of a meagre minority to rule a powerful majority � this deification of Human Slavery as the guiding principle and polar star of a free people � are the dragon's teeth which, sown in a pestilent soil, have produced armed men.
While we write, the issue of the conflict, which is yet going on, is doubtful. Major Anderson contends against fearful odds. His men are few and weary of prolonged confinement, and perhaps awed by the portentous preparations of the enemy. The fleet has not come to his aid. Only the Harriet Lane is in the offing. The accounts of the fray are from the traitors, in whose hands the telegraph is. They represent that a breach has been made of the fortress and that two of its great guns have been already dismounted. Tomorrow will tell us more; meanwhile we pray that treason may have its reward.
The duty of the Government from this moment is plain. The resources of the Republic must be put forth with no grudging or tardy hand. The strife must be short � the war quick, sharp and decisive. Whatever ample means, courageous men and universal patriotism can do, must be done at once. Our fathers fought seven long years that the Constitution might be framed. We, their descendants, can afford any sacrifices, any exertion, that their labor may be preserved to the world for the blessing of mankind. Now, men of the North, for the struggle! |
If it isn't obvious: Barbarous Institution = Slavery. There was no equivocation as to the reason for the war in the north; it was about slavery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
^
Interesting report.
I was only 11 and all that stuff went right over my head. What I remember is Life magazine's maps, photographs, and paintings of people and events I'd never heard of. It was fascinating. |
Prior to reading that British academic's article, the only thing I had ever heard of the Civil War Centennial was an old Peanuts cartoon from the early 1960s, which had a rather obligatory joke about it. I read this in the the mid 1970s.
I do remember the 1976 Bicentennial quite well. Mad Magazine featured a parody supplement, which was supposed to be an edition of Mad from 1776. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
| very interesting. The new York times has been running a series of articles on the buildup to the war. One of the most interesting was about a speech by jefferson Davis and the bashing given to him by the newspaper in Vicksburg Mississippi which called him a bloodthirsty idiot. |
That's one thing about the civil war. The southern leaders voted to secede when the majority of southerners would have been against it if there was a referendum. The secession was not democratic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Perhaps if we had had that level of discourse certain ill-advised wars would not have occurred. |
I was with you till you said this. Didn't this level of discourse still lead to the bloodiest war in US history? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Madigan wrote: |
| If it isn't obvious: Barbarous Institution = Slavery. There was no equivocation as to the reason for the war in the north; it was about slavery. |
Ah, so if the South had seceeded over a disagreement about foreign trade agreements, the North wouldn't have invaded? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Madigan wrote: |
| If it isn't obvious: Barbarous Institution = Slavery. There was no equivocation as to the reason for the war in the north; it was about slavery. |
Ah, so if the South had seceeded over a disagreement about foreign trade agreements, the North wouldn't have invaded? |
Ummm...how do you invade your own country? The Constitution of 1787 established us as one people. A minority of people in one area claimed, illegally, to have the right to secede. The month before they started seceding they took part in a presidential election for the president of the whole country. When they didn't like the outcome of the election they (many) decided to change the game--if we aren't guaranteed to win then we ain't playin'. The union armies didn't 'invade' anywhere. They went about the country putting down a rebellion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Ummm...how do you invade your own country? |
How does one area invade another area? By sending a military force into it with the purpose of subjugation. What dictionary are you using that caused you this confusion?
| Quote: |
| They went about the country putting down a rebellion. |
So we're in agreement then that the reason given for secession was irrelevant to the North's decision to invade? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
