What does the SCV stand for

[Admiral_Porter]

Your unnecessary sarcasm promotes disharmony upon this board.

Disharmony is created whenever we see these bogus ideas that the Confederacy was the torch bearer of liberty and freedom.

NBForrest said it best:

"The SCV's goal of educating the public that the South was politically right is self-defeating...it only makes the SCV enemies."

[thea_447]

Is this your idea of "macho" talk, with terms such as "puking icon"? Frankly, that is not only repulsive, but you are deliberately trying to have an argument, rather than a debate. I suggest you look up the terms.

And for the rest of you who have joined in this "Boys' Locker Room" talk, if you think you are going to run any real women off this board with this 7th grade banter, I suggest you try a new tactic.

The attacks made here on the SCV show nothing but hatred for something you cannot understand, a loyalty to one's ancestors who fought and died for what they believed in.

You have the right to honor your dead, we should have the same right, although looking at the numbers, apparently we honor ours a bit more than you do yours.

Good evening, Mr. Porter.

[sgtcsa]

Thea,
Well said. It's too bad that the ignorance that pervades the thoughts of far too many people, rears it's ugly head here upon this board. The mere thought of the Southern soldier fighting for anything other than slavery, is totally foreign to much too many, and something that they cannot seem to comprehend.

But, let them rave, for they know not what they rave about.

Respectfully,
SgtCSA

[unionblue]

Thea, sgtcsa, Admiral Porter,

If the SCV was only about preserving the memory of the Confederate soldier, I doubt if there would be many protests or debates on the subject. Many of the projects the SCV engages in, recognizing and restoring memorials and monuments and caretaking of Confederate graves is a worthy project.

Even the idea that the Confederate soldier fought for other things other than slavery, is not in itself an unworthy act. There are countless stories of bravery in defense of one's land, home and family that must and should be told.

It is the attempt to rewrite sections of history to satisfy a modern agenda that I protest and am always wary of. It seems to me that there are some in the SCV who go far beyond honoring their ancestors and do their dead-level best to erase large portions of history. They detract in their stated goals of preserving the memory and history of the Confederate soldier and do great damage to the cause they say they cherish.

It seems to me that some in the SCV want to flee back to the past and stay there and not admit to the changes that have happened over the last 150 years, for good or for ill. The greatest wrong is to erase history, to deny that it happened or that the reason an event took place, even to consider it as merely a part of that event, is unreasonable at best, destructive at worst.

You seem to claim there is an extreme view being presented when some at this board, myself included, claim that slavery was a major factor in bringing on the Civil War. In my opinion, the other extreme view is to deny that slavery had nothing to do with the war. Ignoring history or refusing to consider historical events, does not increase the memory of those who fought for the South. It diminishes their history and their memory, as those who advocate their cause in this century have something to hide. It increases resistance because it appears those very same advocates are advocating a return to the past because they see nothing wrong with it.

And thus, in another opinion of my own, is the real reason for the Civil War. One section advancing into an unkown future while another section tried desperately to cling to the familiar past. In a few more generations, the past will be in the past and those trying to forget it or transform it into something it was not, will be forgotten right along with it.

This will be the real shame and heartbreak of those trying to honor their ancestors. The fight will be remembered but the brave men of that time will be obscured and forgotten over the present-day tactics used to press a modern-day political agenda.

Unionblue

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by sgtcsa

Thea,
Well said. It's too bad that the ignorance that pervades the thoughts of far too many people, rears it's ugly head here upon this board. The mere thought of the Southern soldier fighting for anything other than slavery, is totally foreign to much too many, and something that they cannot seem to comprehend.

But, let them rave, for they know not what they rave about.

Respectfully,
SgtCSA

SgtCSA,

Hope you don't consider me a 'raver'!

I certainly don't believe that the ordinary Southern soldier fought only for slavery. I believe (and I may be mistaken) that most of them were not even slaveholders.

I think most fought for 'home and hearth' more than any thing else as they felt threatened.

However, I must say that I also believe that they were taken advantage of, so to speak, by the powerful slave-holding oligarchy and politicians who controlled the government and pulled the strings.

It truly was a 'rich man's war, poor man's fight' for both the North and the South.

[ami]

ok guys, getting some complaints about mud slinging.

knock it off or the thread goes down.

Ami

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by ami

ok guys, getting some complaints about mud slinging.

knock it off or the thread goes down.

Ami

Is my post, the last one before yours, considered "mud slinging"?

Sam

[samgrant]

Guess I'd better get this in before the thread is killed!

Does the SCV hold that 'slavery' had nothing to do with the cause of the WBTS?

[Fifth Iowa]

If I discovered I had a Confederate ancestor, I'd be just as proud to join the SCV as I am to be a life member of the SUVCW. I honestly believe that the majority of men in both armies served with courage, faith and sincere (and unselfish) belief in their own cause. The majority of the veterans themselves recognized this fact in their post-war reconciliations.

[gary]

Now, back to my question. I know the UDC does some publishing, but has the SCV? If so, what have they published?

I'm not anti-SCV but only interested in finding more sources from which I could draw my research. I'm a professional student (and still dumb).