Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Well, If we were to eliminate (or discount) cherry-picking letters, there would be several contributors who would be rendered ,virtually, voiceless on this thread, before Cash.
Cash, you still haven't grasped my point. Either that, or you still have a slightly different opinion. I'll keep trying after a pause for rest. Tim is getting closer. One out of two ain't bad. Tim's description earlier of the situation in Tennessee, by the way, is very well done and coincides closely with my impression of the facts and events concerning the war locally.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Anyone have an opinion about how effective the press was in sculpting opinions in soldier's minds about the war and the reasons for the conflict? I suspect the private soldier formed many of his opinions from the amount of lead in the air around his head?
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
How much influence did the press have? I'd venture that it depended on the timing. Pre-secession, the press was quite vocal in feeding the sectional fires. During secession, the northern press was all over the place with opinions -- divided among fear, anger, and pontification.
During the shooting war, the press was barely relevant for news--mostly propaganda. Billy and Johnny knew better.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
During the shooting war, the press was barely relevant for news--mostly propaganda. Billy and Johnny knew better.
Generally speaking, soldiers in war seem to become professional skeptics very quickly.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Cash, you still haven't grasped my point. Either that, or you still have a slightly different opinion. I'll keep trying after a pause for rest. Tim is getting closer. One out of two ain't bad. Tim's description earlier of the situation in Tennessee, by the way, is very well done and coincides closely with my impression of the facts and events concerning the war locally.
In just about any large group of people, you will find differences of opinion.
When it comes to individuals, like soldiers in an army, there will be a difference betwen the reason they are there and the overall motivation that put them there.
So John Jones, private in a TN regiment, might be there because he grew up in TN and feels he is a Tennessean. Or because he saw his friend killed, or his folks farm burned, or his preacher gave a good sermon, or something else. It might be he owned slaves or wanted to, or wanted to be sure the slaves weren't freed whether he owned one or not. There could be, and would be, plenty of reasons.
But the people of that day were no smarter or dumber than we are, on average. They were still people. They might have had less education and less access to information (no computers, Internet, TV, radio, telephone, cars, etc.) Fewer libraries and books available, travel harder, less exposure to different points of views. But they could still think for themselves, and they had a lot of time to think and talk to each other.
So whatever they might say was their individual motivation, I am pretty sure they understood that the war was essentially about slavery. The longer the war dragged on and the more they thought about it, the more they probably understood it. Union troops came to understand that and worked to destroy the institution actively. Confederates probably didn't bother to talk about slavery as a cause much, because no good could come of it. But I imagine individuals saw a difference betwen their own motivation and their understanding of what the war was about.
Also, the BS detector of soldiers tends to be pretty good. When politicians came through and glad-handed them, when the fancy speeches were made, when far-off editors opined in newspapers, I'd be pretty sure they ignored a lot of what was said.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Tim, as you wrote earlier, opinions do differ. Slavery wasn't that big a deal to many of the folks involved. Others, perhaps more so. The phrase 'kill them yanks' had to have been based on more than slavery?
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
I am not so sure; protecting ones 'property' was considered proper and necessary, even it it required lethal force, to do so. Especially in the south of the 1860's.
There were many more newspapers in the 19th century then today, being the sole source of news, opinion and advertising. However many newspapers were very closely tied to party organizations and while faithfully transmitting the party message, were less faithful about covering stories. They were more like political blogs today--closely identified with a point of view. Consider that in deciding how folks learned about the outside world in the 1860s.
Tim, as you wrote earlier, opinions do differ. Slavery wasn't that big a deal to many of the folks involved. Others, perhaps more so. The phrase 'kill them yanks' had to have been based on more than slavery?
That phrase requires nothing more than being in a place where the bullets were flying. I'd bet the guys on the other side were saying "kill them rebs", too. Like being told you'll be hanged in the morning, being in the middle of a firefight probably focuses the mind wonderfully.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Southern Aristocracy 
Linear Mode
