Hatred

m14msgt

Private
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
One thing that I have wondered about is the amount of violence both sides visited upon each other. During the CW, both sides were, for the most part, white, anglo-saxons who had similar religious values and spoke the same language. Was ideology alone the reason why men from the same area of the country could do the things they did to one another? Has anyone explored this?
Edited by Moderator.
 
One thing that I have wondered about is the amount of violence both sides visited upon each other. When you think of WWII, one can understand the reason there was such hatred and violence meted out to enemy combatants. I would say that is was largely due to differing race. I think that if given the choice, most American soldiers would have preferred capture by a German than a Japanese soldier. On the other hand, German soldiers literally ran into the arms of Americans as Russians closed in on Berlin. Yet, during the CW, both sides were, for the most part, white, anglo-saxons who had similar religious values and spoke the same language. Was ideology alone the reason why men from the same area of the country could do the things they did to one another? Has anyone explored this?
Yes, sociologists and psychologists for decades--it's called human nature. When threatened or angry, humans react. Ideology helps explain some conflict but it doesn't carry the entire or even a large bit of the load.
 
One thing that I have wondered about is the amount of violence both sides visited upon each other. When you think of WWII, one can understand the reason there was such hatred and violence meted out to enemy combatants. I would say that is was largely due to differing race. I think that if given the choice, most American soldiers would have preferred capture by a German than a Japanese soldier. On the other hand, German soldiers literally ran into the arms of Americans as Russians closed in on Berlin. Yet, during the CW, both sides were, for the most part, white, anglo-saxons who had similar religious values and spoke the same language. Was ideology alone the reason why men from the same area of the country could do the things they did to one another? Has anyone explored this?
There was definitely quite a bit of white Southern on white Southern violence between Unionists and Confederate supporters in the South. I cover that in my thread Union vs CSA Guerrillas. Names such has Newt Knight and Tinker Dave Beatty on the Union side and Champ Feurgason and Samuel Hildetbrand ,Bloody Bill Anderson on the Confederate side just to name a few.
Class warfare is a motivating factor.
Good books on this subject is "Bitterly divided the South's inner Civil war " David Williams thenswpress.com.
"Bushwackers the Civil War in the Mountains " William Trotter.
Leftyhunter
 
Yes, sociologists and psychologists for decades--it's called human nature. When threatened or angry, humans react. Ideology helps explain some conflict but it doesn't carry the entire or even a large bit of the load.
And for various reasons, these same attitudes often continue for generations after the original combatants had long since
" kissed and made up ".

Modern websites are often platforms for those that try to rehash old conflicts in an attempt to push their modern agendas.

There's also the Howler Monkey phenomenon.

Not necessarily hate or politics, but a natural tendency for some that just love to scream/argue about the same topics . . . at the same time . . . every day.

@ole summed it up best:

In that work, he would mention howler monkeys which bear much similarity with this board. The different groups would spend their day finding food and scratching and going about their business. At a certain hour, they'd gather and scream at each other. Then they'd return to what they were doing before.

Sound familiar?
 
Last edited:
One thing that I have wondered about is the amount of violence both sides visited upon each other. During the CW, both sides were, for the most part, white, anglo-saxons who had similar religious values and spoke the same language. Was ideology alone the reason why men from the same area of the country could do the things they did to one another? Has anyone explored this?
Edited by Moderator.
By your inquiry ,I would say that are rather a true hard cord Stoic type of individual? You must be a able to disregard your emotions when things of a hostile situation comes your way or with someone you are close to,that with anyone else over a period of time would cause negative arousement and a desire for harm to be fall these people .IF you study or just the ancient history of the A/S you may find that these people were not the communal peaceful people your seen to see them as. Jesus even turn over the tables and spoke in anger to the money changers.
 
Humans, as a whole, are not particularly blood thirsty, homicidal monsters. They have to be made to perceive that the "other side" is composed of bad people whose intentions and policies will harm them . By the late 1850's both Northern and Southern leaders and media were doing a very good job of presenting to each side a vision of their opponents as really bad, dangerous enemies out to "get you", the filthy, greasy mechanics image and the Uncle Tom's Cabin scenario. A couple generations before that the Sons of Liberty did an equally good job of persuading American colonists to see the British people, the monarch and the Redcoats, as inimical to Colonial interests and that was before the war broke out and George III was blamed for every calamity to hit the Colonies in the 18th Century short of plague. I am certain the British press did the same thing presenting American demands as the product of ungrateful, spoiled brats who needed to be chastised for their obtuseness. Fanning the flames of hatred is a necessary element in getting people to kill each other and there has never been any shortage of people willing to do that.

One of the reasons for the widespread fraternizing between Northern and Southern soldiers in the war was that when interfacing with their enemies they discovered Billy Yank from Indiana was not all that different from Johnny Reb from Tennessee. Despite all the stories about the beastly Hessians in the Revolutionary War, they turned out not to be such monsters when they fell into American hands at Trenton and Saratoga. They in turn were startled to discover that Americans were not killing the wounded,mutilating their dead and eating them for breakfast. The Christmas Truce of 1914 was frightening to both the Allied and Central Powers' high commands because, as the soldiers intermingled with their opponents, they again discovered they were not the caricatured monsters they had been persuaded they were. I swear that if the media and government were given free rein to do it, they could convince the entire populace to enlist in the army of Lucifer by making the angels of light look bad.

I am not naïve about this. There really are bad people who come to power and then try to do evil things to us and our neighbors and they must be resisted by force of arms, but I feel that just as Wall Street has accurately forecast ten of the last three recessions, that in our history, both American and Western History, governments and media have created enemies where they did not really exist, propelling us into wars, unnecessary wars, for goals and ends not worth the cost in blood to those who must fight them. Yes, people can be bamboozled and goaded into killing each other, but to pull that off requires unscrupulous, conscienceless demagogues fanning the flames of hatred and, as I stated above, there has never been a lack of such individuals.
 
Humans, as a whole, are not particularly blood thirsty, homicidal monsters. They have to be made to perceive that the "other side" is composed of bad people whose intentions and policies will harm them . By the late 1850's both Northern and Southern leaders and media were doing a very good job of presenting to each side a vision of their opponents as really bad, dangerous enemies out to "get you", the filthy, greasy mechanics image and the Uncle Tom's Cabin scenario. A couple generations before that the Sons of Liberty did an equally good job of persuading American colonists to see the British people, the monarch and the Redcoats, as inimical to Colonial interests and that was before the war broke out and George III was blamed for every calamity to hit the Colonies in the 18th Century short of plague. I am certain the British press did the same thing presenting American demands as the product of ungrateful, spoiled brats who needed to be chastised for their obtuseness. Fanning the flames of hatred is a necessary element in getting people to kill each other and there has never been any shortage of people willing to do that.

One of the reasons for the widespread fraternizing between Northern and Southern soldiers in the war was that when interfacing with their enemies they discovered Billy Yank from Indiana was not all that different from Johnny Reb from Tennessee. Despite all the stories about the beastly Hessians in the Revolutionary War, they turned out not to be such monsters when they fell into American hands at Trenton and Saratoga. They in turn were startled to discover that Americans were not killing the wounded,mutilating their dead and eating them for breakfast. The Christmas Truce of 1914 was frightening to both the Allied and Central Powers' high commands because, as the soldiers intermingled with their opponents, they again discovered they were not the caricatured monsters they had been persuaded they were. I swear that if the media and government were given free rein to do it, they could convince the entire populace to enlist in the army of Lucifer by making the angels of light look bad.

I am not naïve about this. There really are bad people who come to power and then try to do evil things to us and our neighbors and they must be resisted by force of arms, but I feel that just as Wall Street has accurately forecast ten of the last three recessions, that in our history, both American and Western History, governments and media have created enemies where they did not really exist, propelling us into wars, unnecessary wars, for goals and ends not worth the cost in blood to those who must fight them. Yes, people can be bamboozled and goaded into killing each other, but to pull that off requires unscrupulous, conscienceless demagogues fanning the flames of hatred and, as I stated above, there has never been a lack of such individuals.
If you need an example may I suggest , Iago from Shakespeare"s Othello .If the felling may not even be there but one negative act or statement then all it takes is for another person to find the means to cause that person to act contrary to the way they know not to react.
 
Further study might be between the Canadians and the iirc the 9th Panzer around Carentan, France. What was war turned mean.
You see on t.v. of nice army guys tossing candy to the kids. You don't get to see it being thrown as hard as possible to hurt the kids...true story I am sad to say.
 
both sides were, for the most part, white, anglo-saxons who had similar religious values and spoke the same language.

Same with the American Revolution and War of 1812. Some of the Patriot-Loyalist fighting, both during the war and the mob violence before the Revolution was ever bit as ugly as the war of 1861-1865.

It's a mistake to think tribalism exists only on religious, linguistic, and ethnic lines.

The US in 1860 wasn't even monolithic amongst the white population. Yes, they were nearly all Protestant, but the denominations ran a wide range, including views on slavery. Anglo-Saxon is also an oversimplification: Brits, Welsh, Scot-Irish, Scots, Irish Catholics, French (mostly Huguenots), and a wide range of Germans from 48ers to pre-AmerRevolution, Dutch in New York (not to mention the smaller minorities).
 
Same with the American Revolution and War of 1812. Some of the Patriot-Loyalist fighting, both during the war and the mob violence before the Revolution was ever bit as ugly as the war of 1861-1865.

It's a mistake to think tribalism exists only on religious, linguistic, and ethnic lines.

The US in 1860 wasn't even monolithic amongst the white population. Yes, they were nearly all Protestant, but the denominations ran a wide range, including views on slavery. Anglo-Saxon is also an oversimplification: Brits, Welsh, Scot-Irish, Scots, Irish Catholics, French (mostly Huguenots), and a wide range of Germans from 48ers to pre-AmerRevolution, Dutch in New York (not to mention the smaller minorities).
On the US population not being monolithic in religious terms, I used to think that being Protestant meant one got along with all other Protestants (this from a Roman Catholic education). It took me years to come to understand that in the 19th Century about the only thing Protestants agreed on was that they did not like Catholics, that amongst themselves they often had widely differing views (predestination), argued vociferously with each other over doctrinal matters, (infant versus adult baptism) saw their children courting a different sect of Protestant Christianity as almost apostasy, governed themselves differently (episcopal bishoprics, like that of Leonidas Polk to community churches governed by a parish council), training and ordination of their clergy (seminary education and formal ordination by other clergy to simply answering the call). I think some of these differences no longer matter as much, but circa 1860 they seemed matters of cosmic importance.
 
Further study might be between the Canadians and the iirc the 9th Panzer around Carentan, France. What was war turned mean.

I think you're thinking of the 3rd Canadian Division and 12th SS Panzer aka Hitlerjugend. Carentan was on the American end of the beachhead; Caen or Cantigny were in the British-Canadian sector.

We now return to our regularly scheduled war.
 
One thing that I have wondered about is the amount of violence both sides visited upon each other. During the CW, both sides were, for the most part, white, anglo-saxons who had similar religious values and spoke the same language. Was ideology alone the reason why men from the same area of the country could do the things they did to one another? Has anyone explored this?
Edited by Moderator.


Not sure about the language part, ;ot of us still ain't fluent in Yankee. in the 1850's and 60's the Nation was for better or worse segmented regionally and the by state and even by local area then it is now.
 
I think you're thinking of the 3rd Canadian Division and 12th SS Panzer aka Hitlerjugend. Carentan was on the American end of the beachhead; Caen or Cantigny were in the British-Canadian sector.

We now return to our regularly scheduled war.
My point was that it was between two largely Anglo-Saxon forces. And Protestant at that.
And I never mentioned Normandy. I was speaking about the fighting inland around Carententan between the UK forces and I forget what Panzer division that kept tangling with the Canadians.
 
" ... was the price demanded by God for America's original sin of building the republic on the backs of slaves. Lincoln spoke carefully of "American slavery" rather than Southern slavery, and that the price of expiation would not be met till every drop of "blood drawn by the lash" was paid in "another drawn by the sword... " A. Lincoln
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top