WSJ published my op-ed piece about the Great Reunion

AlanSimon

Cadet
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Location
Phoenix, AZ
If you are a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal, tonight (Friday) the online edition pre-published an op-ed piece I wrote about the Great Reunion and the 100th anniversary that is supposed to be published in tomorrow's weekend print edition. The online link is:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323566804578554101719758608.html

So if you do subscribe to the WSJ check out the article, either online right now or in print tomorrow...just in the for the 100th anniversary of the encampment grounds opening.
 
If you are a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal, tonight (Friday) the online edition pre-published an op-ed piece I wrote about the Great Reunion and the 100th anniversary that is supposed to be published in tomorrow's weekend print edition. The online link is:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323566804578554101719758608.html

So if you do subscribe to the WSJ check out the article, either online right now or in print tomorrow...just in the for the 100th anniversary of the encampment grounds opening.


Thanks.

I read the article with interest.

Why do you suppose only 16% of the participating veterans were former Confederates?
 
Thanks.

I read the article with interest.

Why do you suppose only 16% of the participating veterans were former Confederates?

John -

That's a good question and when I looked at the state-by-state table of attendees in the official report as well as the totals, I was surprised. The pictures from the event always gave me the impression the attendees were about 50-50 Union/Confederate but I had figured even if the totals were weighted towards the North because of Pennsylvania and New York in particular, it would be more like 60-40.

I've never found any definitive explanation about the 5-1 difference but from a numbers perspective, it is largely because so many of the attendees were from Pennsylvania (more than 20,000) and then another 8,500 from New York. Most other states, North and South, had attendees number in the hundreds or for states west of the Mississippi, less than 100. So without the New York and Pennsylvania delegations the totals would have been balanced...but then probably not quite so "great" of a reunion with half as many attendees.
 
My usual question; any participation by USCT members? I know Chicago had at least one all Black GAR post - probably more than one - that was still existent into the 1920's. I imagine other big cities had the same. But at the 1913 Reunion?
 
Congrats, always root for one of our own here on CWT. I don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal however. That is not anything against the publication, just that there is not a lot to recommend the paper to the average Hillbilly like me.:smile coffee:
 
Congrats! And yes, that makes a ton of sense on why the predominance of Union antendees- travel would have been a lot more of an issue in those days, as in how dificult it was. Gettysburg with what, 10 roads leading straight in, as easy as anything was to get to in those days. Must have been an awful lot of Confederate veterans who stayed home, would have come if it were possible.
 
My usual question; any participation by USCT members? I know Chicago had at least one all Black GAR post - probably more than one - that was still existent into the 1920's. I imagine other big cities had the same. But at the 1913 Reunion?

I did a blog post last week in response to someone's question: the short, surprising answer is "nobody really knows for certain." I found a scholarly paper from Gettysburg College that addresses why the uncertainty.

The blog post is at http://gettysburg1913.wordpress.com...-civil-war-veterans-attend-the-great-reunion/

and there is a link to the paper in there. Good question and I was very surprised to learn that nobody can answer that question with any certainty.
 
I ran across an article about some old Confederate Veteran -- don't ask when or why -- but he was literally collecting donations from UCV chapters to get him there. I suspect both money (scarce in the South) and distance colluded to reduce the number of Confederates. I mean, those of us getting on in years know how time and travel effect the old body. :smile:
 
Back
Top