What do you call them?

[IcarusPhoenix]

In "The War of Northern Aggression." (lol) , I have always used Union and Confederate.

Incidentally, that's what I was referring to in my very first post, when I mentioned the name of the war itself changing. There are at least two previous threads that address this, but the term "War of Northern Aggression" is actually the perfect example, because it didn't even exist until the 1950s.

 

[Allie]

I've noticed in period reading that the more usual term for the South was "secesh," rather than "Rebel." Or more formally secessionist. Wonder why this term is practically unused in modern discussion?

 

[rhettbutler1865]

Allie, I think because it's slang...

 

[ole]

I tend to calls them as I sees them. In battle, they were yanks and rebs. In another dimension it was the Union and the Confederacy. How is this important anyway?

 

[Allie]

Allie, I think because it's slang...

Yankee was slang too! And "secessionist" was never slang.

 

[Pat Young]

I write about 50,000 words per year for The Immigrants' Civil War blog, so hard and fast rules can go out the door when I see I have written "Confederates" for the seventh time in a blog. Normally, while I will refer to "Southern states", I try to avoid using directional terms which group people based on geography. For example, using the term "Southern army" for those in the Confederate army seems to ignore the fact that tens of thousands of whites from the Southern states and more than 100,000 blacks from those same states fought for the Union.

I tend to use Union/Confederate most often.

 

[Seduzal]

I use Union/Confederate or North/South, depending on the situation. However, I think Union/Confederate is a more accurate description.

Same here for me.
I get confused when posts are in just letters? (US, CS, CSA)

 

[msimmons]

I usually use the terms Union and Confederates or North and South. My GG Grandfather in some of his letters referred to the opposition as "Rebs" or "Butternuts".

 

[hanna260]

I usually tend to use Union and Confederates- though North and South and Yank and Reb get mixed up in there too!

 

[Al Murray]

and by the nineteenth century, the term "Yankee" was a general term for any American from a non-slaveholding state, despite originally referring only to New Englanders.

I have read that "Yankee" was an Indian word used by the Indians in New England to refer to the English there in the 1600s. Is this true?

I might say "bushwhacker" or "partisan" to describe an irregular soldier who is pro-southern or just pro-Missouri, depending on whether I think the person is a bad guy or a good guy.

Around here there were guerrilla bands all over the place, both sides. Sometimes (in the 1860s) the newspapers called them "Swampers." Apparently the populace would call a given group "Swamp Angels" or "Swamp Dragons" depending on how well they liked that group.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

I have read that "Yankee" was an Indian word used by the Indians in New England to refer to the English there in the 1600s. Is this true?

No, actually. That idea came into being in the late-eighteenth century as a merely whimsical fancy and has refused to die ever since. Specifically, it was supposedly an anglicized Cherokee word, but since the alleged Cherokee word doesn't even exist...

I got curious on this myself and went digging, and the simple answer for the world's origins is, "No one knows." There are some fairly solid theories that suggest late-seventeenth or early-eighteenth century anglicization of Dutch words as the origin, but since the alleged origins pre-date the earliest use of the word in print (1758) by at least half-a-century, this is one of those things that can likely never be pinned down.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

Yankee was slang too! And "secessionist" was never slang.

I was only talking about "secesh" ...not Yankee or secessionist.

 

[Al Murray]

this is one of those things that can likely never be pinned down.

Thanks. When I first thought about it I thought it might have been some kind of political or religious reference (like "Covenanter" or "Leveller") but found out that was wrong. Sad thing is I read the supposed "Indian" origin in an actual dictionary!

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

Sad thing is I read the supposed "Indian" origin in an actual dictionary!

I have as well; strangely, lexicographers never seem to consult linguists about such things.

 

[Patrick H]

Al, I can well imagine! I've been reading period newspaper accounts and Union officer reports and orders every night since the anniversary of the war began. Of course, there were no pro-southern newspapers left in business in Central Missouri by this time in the war, so I see some REALLY great pejorative terms. I should add that, by this part of the war, most of the "good" guerrillas were elsewhere. There was a really bad bushwhacker named Jim Jackson operating in the winter of 1864-65 around Boone County and surrounding counties. He was getting a lot of really bad press by this time in the war, and it was well-deserved.

 

[Frederick14Va]

Us and Them.....

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

Us and Them.....

Wouldn't, "Us and us," be more accurate?

 

[civilken]

and you would be right the southern states were not looking to be America but a new country.

 

[James B White]

Just look at the belt buckles. If one side is "US" the other side obviously must be "THEM."

I want to try using the phrase "abolitionist army" the way the southern newspapers did, when talking about the Union army, from anywhere, any state.

Hey, it's an old thread resurrection from 2015, might as well make the most of it.

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

For Snooks North and South, I used "National army" for the Union forces in the early part of the war , then switched to using "Federals" and "Union". Rebels, secesh, yankee all get in there depending on whose voice is being used. Union and Confederate get tired after a while - someone above mentioned needing to change those out in writing sometimes.

Of course, all USians are Jonathans anyway