What Civil War myth would you like to correct most?

kepi

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2015
Location
United States of America
In my short time as a member here, I have looked over quite a few past posts and found several conversations and exchanges relating to myths about the Civil War or facts people just have wrong. This got me to thinking about which myth or incorrect bit of information people here may find the most troublesome, so here is my question for the group:

What Civil War myth, legend, or generally incorrect information would you like to dispel most in American popular culture? (YOU MAY ONLY PICK ONE)

Let us PLEASE be nice to each other, as I have seen this topic can get out of hand.
Thank You.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought the south's military tradition include an interest in militia service, not just service in the (very small) regular army. In that case, they literally were practicing in the woods--well, maybe the fields--behind the house, or more likely in front of the houses in some central green.

Your thoughts on militia service south vs north? Too much like social clubs and not military enough to count?

Not only militia service gave them experience but also slave patrol duty did as well. Horses were also used for hunting.

Hopkin's Farm is only about a mile or so from my home, it is also the site of an early trading post as well as a militia mustering ground.

Grady McWhiney in Cracker Culture quotes the president of Yale College who was visiting South Carolina, "In New England horse racing is almost and cock fighting absolutely unknown."

Photo27763.jpg


Photo27765.jpg
 
Vote Here:
I thought the south's military tradition include an interest in militia service, not just service in the (very small) regular army. In that case, they literally were practicing in the woods--well, maybe the fields--behind the house, or more likely in front of the houses in some central green.

Your thoughts on militia service south vs north? Too much like social clubs and not military enough to count?
My thoughts are that we have been reading propaganda for so long we don't know truth from horse shoes.
VMI was more like a school for boys. In fact looking at the few class bios from West Poinf we see some students were 12 years old when they were admitted ! Many resigned after graduation to tke up a trade.
I would not think that a social club would be a substitution for military service, but then I never belonged to the tea sipping clich.
Now if someone were to show that many Southern men volunteered for service in European armies then that would make sense. If we re to believe that by dressing up with a designer uniform, attending balls and calling each other Col. makes a military tradition the. So be it.
To me it just sounds like an elite golf country club.
 
Vote Here:
Not only militia service gave them experience but also slave patrol duty did as well. Horses were also used for hunting.

Hopkin's Farm is only about a mile or so from my home, it is also the site of an early trading post as well as a militia mustering ground.

Grady McWhiney in Cracker Culture quotes the president of Yale College who was visiting South Carolina, "In New England horse racing is almost and cock fighting absolutely unknown."

Photo27763.jpg


Photo27765.jpg
Word of caution here, I once posted the "C" word and was severly beaten about the head and shoulders in bright red letters all in CAPS!
So those things that come in boxes that you eat with tea and soup? Those are evil and the word is bad!
 
Vote Here:
Oh, so you're arguing that using a wagon made someone a "good horseman"? I assumed you were using that term as it was used in the time period, to refer to someone who rode a horse well.
Are you saying it's easier to ride one horse the it is to drive a team?
What I am saying is that there was probably parity in the topic. Many Southern men were farmers, probably had more uncommon with a Iowa dirt farmer then with a New Orleans cotton broker.
 
Vote Here:
Are you saying it's easier to ride one horse the it is to drive a team?
What I am saying is that there was probably parity in the topic. Many Southern men were farmers, probably had more uncommon with a Iowa dirt farmer then with a New Orleans cotton broker.
I've done both and I believe both are difficult in different ways. However, that's not the point. The point is that the word doesn't mean that, nor does driving ability translate in any way to riding ability, which is what cavalry use.
 
Vote Here:
My thoughts are that we have been reading propaganda for so long we don't know truth from horse shoes.
VMI was more like a school for boys. In fact looking at the few class bios from West Poinf we see some students were 12 years old when they were admitted ! Many resigned after graduation to tke up a trade.
I would not think that a social club would be a substitution for military service, but then I never belonged to the tea sipping clich.
Now if someone were to show that many Southern men volunteered for service in European armies then that would make sense. If we re to believe that by dressing up with a designer uniform, attending balls and calling each other Col. makes a military tradition the. So be it.
To me it just sounds like an elite golf country club.

I can see what your saying, but isn't it true, that while the northern states had long established peace with Indians for the most part following the War of 1812, much of the south was still Indian lands. The establishment of useful and real militias was very real as late as the early 1850s in the south. Creek War, Seminole War, Mexican War, Texas War for Independence - all of these relied more heavily on militia forces than those of Federal forces. Most every member of the regiment I study had fathers and grandfathers that fought Indians, in the War of 1812 and many of the above named conflicts.

If the myth was that the south had a "long military tradition," I would agree. If the myth was that the south had a long history of professional soldiery - I would disagree. But, there is no doubt that more conflicts took place in the south in the years following the Revolution and War of 1812 than did in the north. Thus, it's safe to say that other than Federal forces participating in the conflicts, the LOCAL resources would have provided the real man-power to accomplish the military goals. That was a role that was principally filled by militias. Granted, by the mid to late 1850s that role was more diminished, and they were considered more like social clubs?
 
Vote Here:
Word of caution here, I once posted the "C" word and was severly beaten about the head and shoulders in bright red letters all in CAPS!
So those things that come in boxes that you eat with tea and soup? Those are evil and the word is bad!

Well if I didn't list the source I'd get abused as well. As far as the "C" word, it really doesn't bother me. I don't insist on politically correct speech unless it comes from one who espouses it.
 
Vote Here:
Ha! Ha! I believe many of us here understand that the actual reasons weren't the reasons used to motivate enlistment and acceptance of going to war. Being involved in politics I thought you'd be well schooled in propaganda and other types of misinformation and would no exactly what we meant.
Ah, yes, the usual attack on my profession rather than a response to anything I actually wrote. At least you're predictable. Incidentally, "propaganda" does not mean, "That which dvrmte personally disagrees with."

and Jeff Shaara.:smile coffee:
Eh, not really, at least not so far as the movie goes; Shaara himself criticized the movie, which mostly ignored his book save for the sequence of events and characters themselves. That's not so say that there aren't a large number of issues with Shaara's novel as well, but they're different issues than the ones with the movie.
 
Vote Here:
Ah, yes, the usual attack on my profession rather than a response to anything I actually wrote. At least you're predictable. Incidentally, "propaganda" does not mean, "That which dvrmte personally disagrees with."


Eh, not really, at least not so far as the movie goes; Shaara himself criticized the movie, which mostly ignored his book save for the sequence of events and characters themselves. That's not so say that there aren't a large number of issues with Shaara's novel as well, but they're different issues than the ones with the movie.

Gosh, you're so sensitive...or is it that you can dish it out but can't take it? Anyway there was no intent to attack your 'profession', maybe you're just paranoid.

Seriously, you misread or misinterpreted what I wrote in the first place, so I have no desire to address anything you've wrote that doesn't address what I actually wrote.

Do Yankees have a problem remembering things?

Remember Fort Sumter

fort-sumter-flag-21-242x300.jpg


Remember the Maine
upload_2015-3-3_18-10-58.jpeg


Remember the Lusitania

upload_2015-3-3_18-11-44.jpeg
 
Vote Here:
On the other hand the CW was the first war to use machine guns although they where not a significant factor has it was a brand new technology but one has to start somewhere. It was the first war to show the possibility of submarine warfare although the Huntly had some minor glitchs such has sailor do not survive missions but again new technologies have teething pains. The CW was the first war where Mexican-Americans served . It was the first war where Asian and African -American troops could formally serve. It was the first war where the US Army and Navy formally conducted joint operations.
Leftyhunter
machineguns - No. If lost of shots, fast but long reload is accepted as a machine gun then you can find them back in the 16th century. and the danish army used an early one version in 1848-51... and in larger numbers.(then the Gatling)

The Gatling was manually fired and reloaded so depending on how you define it.... the Gatling was just a collection of breachloaders that was reloaded by hand. just like a Henry is reloaded by hand.
I would argue that the Maxi was the first real machine gun since this is where we get a weapon that reloaded automatically and where you just pulled a trigger...

One prototype that sank is irrelevant in a global historical perspective.
Also Didn't the "colonists" try something with a sub against the British during the revolution? or is that just a myth?

The skin color of the soldiers is irrelevant to the question. Hispanic or black soldiers have been fighting for thousands of years. Just because the US was and is discriminating against a specific skincolor or sex don't mean that the rest of the world did/do.
And lastly The romans did combined operations... so nothing new about that.
 
Vote Here:
Yes Kurds live in Iran. I am not sure if the Confederacy is a nation since their culture and heritage is the same as the North. The only difference is one side had slaves and the other not so much. Southerners that did not own slaves often fought against the CSA. So I would argue the CSA was a break away portion of the USA but their is no real difference between them and Northerners Same race same language . The music is a bit different I will give you that.
Leftyhunter
Was the culture of a SC slave owner the same as a rich guy in new york?
I don't think so and I don't believe they thought so.
(off cause the word "culture" is also very problematic in it self, making it a bit hard to actually debate it)

When the British COL in the movie Gettysburg mention that the south have different dreams than the north... is he wrong?
(yes I know it is a movie based on a historical novel and not a historical source, but you get my point)

Did the people in west Virginia feel they belonged to the same nation as the rest of the state?



Is the USA one nation today? I would say off cause not. If nothing else because of the surviving "natives"
(if that is not the "politically correct" word please say so)
This article ague that the USA is 10 nations + the "first nation". (might be seen as modern politics, but I do think he have a point, and one that can also be used to ague that the Union in 1860 was not One nation but many)) http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html
 
Vote Here:
It's true everyone spoke the same language and had the same basic culture but were the southern planters really the 'same' as the descendants of the Scotch Irish? Or the German farmers? Or the descendants of the transported convicts in Georgia? Or those who might be part Native?
 
Vote Here:
If we want to break it down finely enough, no country I can think of is purely homogenous, but that raises questions on how finely is useful to answer the questions above (which I'm not suggesting not be asked).
 
Vote Here:
Gosh, you're so sensitive...or is it that you can dish it out but can't take it? Anyway there was no intent to attack your 'profession', maybe you're just paranoid.
Dissembling again, I see. You frequently attack other posters personally because you can't tell the difference against disagreement with things you just made up and an actual personal affront. I responded to what you actually wrote, to which you responded - not for the first time - by attacking my profession and trying to change the subject. That you are now pretending otherwise - or worse yet, that you honestly believe that isn't what you did - despite your words being available in this very same thread, is a familiar tactic to anyone who has had the temerity to disagree with your almost-constant inaccuracies.

I'm done being nice; you have absolutely no idea what my profession actually is, nor is it the least bit relevant to this discussion, and I would appreciate it if you would for once act like an adult and address my words and not your (false) interpretation of my person.

Your stated premise has been that the firing on Ft. Sumter was bizarrely the fault of the side on the receiving end of that fire, and you have frequently truncated and reinterpreted period statements, omitted contradictory evidence, and actively attacked the intellect, personal attributes, and histories of anyone who dares to point out knowledge and evidence which you actively ignore in crafting your arguments. In that light, your comparisons to other historical incidents of what you believe to be "propaganda" by "Yankees" (another word you apparently don't know the definition of) was non sequitorial at best. Since, however, you apparently didn't understand my response, allow me to clarify:

I never stated that specific items in your (and RobertP's) list(s) were not used for the purposes of what you call propaganda - or, for that matter, for actual propaganda. What I initially pointed out was that your grasp of history was, as ever, appallingly weak, in that you were comparing incidents that bore no relation to each other whatsoever. The firing on Fort Sumter by insurrectionists was the direct catalyst for American participation in a war. The other three incidents I pointed out - your mention of the sinking of the Lusitania and Robert P's invocation of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the students evacuated from in Grenada - were not. None of those incidents resulted in the US entering a war. One preceded US participation by two years, one led to an escalation of involvement in a war in which we were already participants, and the third was a side-note that was both irrelevant to the invasion itself and included among a whole host of other causes, nor was the US part of an actual war in that particular case.

I did not address the sinking of the Maine (an incident that really was almost purely used for propaganda purposes) in any way, and your invocation of it despite my omission is, again, dissembling. Your habit of contradicting things other people never said is really quite surreal.

As for the Lusitania, I find it interesting that your lack of knowledge about that incident's relation to US participation in World War I - two whole years later - is so stunning that you presented as evidence of "Yankee" propaganda a recruiting poster for the British army.
 
Vote Here:
I can see what your saying, but isn't it true, that while the northern states had long established peace with Indians for the most part following the War of 1812, much of the south was still Indian lands. The establishment of useful and real militias was very real as late as the early 1850s in the south. Creek War, Seminole War, Mexican War, Texas War for Independence - all of these relied more heavily on militia forces than those of Federal forces. Most every member of the regiment I study had fathers and grandfathers that fought Indians, in the War of 1812 and many of the above named conflicts.

If the myth was that the south had a "long military tradition," I would agree. If the myth was that the south had a long history of professional soldiery - I would disagree. But, there is no doubt that more conflicts took place in the south in the years following the Revolution and War of 1812 than did in the north. Thus, it's safe to say that other than Federal forces participating in the conflicts, the LOCAL resources would have provided the real man-power to accomplish the military goals. That was a role that was principally filled by militias. Granted, by the mid to late 1850s that role was more diminished, and they were considered more like social clubs?

So the indian wars in Iowa. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Kansas, etc. never happened? The Blackhawk War?
Again I will state, the men who did the dying on both sides were more alike then we think today.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
Okay, another myth I'd like to see corrected was that there was just one major turning point of the Civil War (usually cited as Gettysburg and Vicksburg). Both were important but I've been made to understand that both of their respective importance had a lot more to do with Northern morale than anything tangible. I believe a historian covered that.
 
Vote Here:
I'm not sure on the second half.

It's definitely debatable- though I think (if I remember correctly) that the Union did before the capture of Vicksburg already have control of much of the Mississippi river. There was a thread about that, I believe. And Gettysburg, well, Lee retreated and his army was bled but it was on the whole rather inconsequential. But that's beside my main point.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top