The Confederacy Prepares to Rise Again … I Saw It On The Internet
When I was a boy my father and I would play “Civil War” in the backyard. We were both armed with the best toys one could buy during the Civil War Centennial, including cap pistols and a fine Parris Rifle (no swords were allowed … my father was sure someone would poke out an eye, right, Ralphie?). As one might surmise, I represented the mighty Yankees while my father gallantly portrayed the inevitably ill-fated Confederates. As the Union prevailed once more along the creek that was once Coverts Pond (a battlefield which has resisted development efforts, although the people who bought our house installed a pool), my father would stand up for one last declaration of the faith. “Save your Confederate money, boys! The South shall rise again!” Then it was time for dinner.
My father’s a wise man, but now I know that way back in the 1960s he was smarter than I then thought … although, of course, “the Confederacy” is not, contrary to opinion that’s popular in some quarters, the same thing as “the South.” Historical fact has a way of testing our prejudices and finding them wanting.
I think the website needs a little work … or maybe reconstruction.
Note: It’s worth noting that the management software for this site allows me to identify people posting from the same account/IP using multiple fake names. As I’ve suggested in the comments, Mr. Bob Redman, who has made a practice of cyberstalking me over the years, has decided to use this thread to carry on his vendetta (supposedly on behalf of George H. Thomas) through assuming multiple fake identities. I’ll handle the consequences as they arise. General Thomas deserves better.
Cash wrote:
Notice the huge fund raising link. I bet some wily Yankee’s behind it all as a ploy to get rich by exploiting the South.
Posted on 28-Nov-09 at 11:24 am | Permalink
Bill wrote:
I noticed the link to the Constitution doesn’t work…I guess the part about negro slavery doesn’t go over too well with the general public.
Posted on 28-Nov-09 at 7:46 pm | Permalink
Rea Andrew Redd wrote:
Went to the website. If you want to become a citizen, you must send in $50 in U.S. currency.
I suspect that if one wishes to be a slave in the New Confederacy, one would have to send in $30 which is 3/5 of the full citizenship price.
Posted on 30-Nov-09 at 12:48 pm | Permalink
Charles Lovejoy wrote:
Brooks I don’t mean to brag but when I was 8 I received a Marx Civil War play set for Christmas. I used the Golden Book of the Civil War in setting up my battles. The Yanks won some and the Rebs won some. During my teenage years in went up missing.
Christmas 2002 my wife found and gave me a Re-issue 1964 Marx Civil War play set. Almost like the original. I keep it put up but I you ever make it to Atlanta and stop by ill get it out and we can set it up:-), I also have a 1960’s vintage GI Joe collection.
Posted on 03-Dec-09 at 7:56 pm | Permalink
toby wrote:
This guy is the Chief Justice, & this is a comment from a Texas Independence website.
Beaudreau states: “Strong evidence now surfaces that not only were Karl Marx and Frederick Engels corresponding and conspiring with many Americans for destruction of the Southern Confederacy, but Karl Marx actually wrote several letters to Abraham Lincoln. Tens of thousands of German Hessians migrated to this country after the collapse of the Communist/Boshevik attempt to take over Germany and France was crushed. These Marxist trained Hessians were major supporters of Lincoln and made up a substantial portion of the Union army.” ” ‘Save the Union’ was their cry. Later in history, this same group and their descendants ’saved the union’ in Russia when their Red army destroyed the White army and created the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).”
Posted on 04-Dec-09 at 9:44 am | Permalink
David Woodbury wrote:
The last thing I read on the subject of the South rising was back in 2000 — apparently this long-awaited event has been postponed indefinitely. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28559
Posted on 07-Dec-09 at 9:36 pm | Permalink
Bob Redman wrote:
Just received today Simpson’s monumental collection of Sherman’s correspondance (”Sherman’s Civil War”). I checked to see if my favorite Sherman letter of 11 Feb. 1864 to his brother is included (referred to on pg. 178 of The White Tecumseh by Hirshson, footnoted Sherman Family Papers, Notre Dame, reel 7). Sherman is complaining to his brother in a disgusting display of self-pity and treachery about not receiving a Thanks of Congress resolution for his performance at Chattanooga. We needn’t go into the magnitude of his failure there. Here is a choice passage from this letter: “The truth is General Thomas a particular friend of mine did not go outside the entrenchments of Chattanooga at the time of Battle or after. I was with my men all the time.” This letter is not in Simpson’s collection. Thomas didn’t have much choice in Chattanooga, having to ride herd on Grant to keep him from doing too much damage, but Thomas was literally at the front in many a battle. Moreover, Sherman wasn’t very far forward at Missionary Ridge, making his slur of Thomas all the more hypocritical. Was this letter too ugly for you, Mr. Simpson?
Posted on 08-Dec-09 at 3:35 pm | Permalink
Will Hickox wrote:
It always amazes me to see how angrily confrontational some Thomas fans can be.
Posted on 08-Dec-09 at 5:23 pm | Permalink
Brooks Simpson wrote:
Well, Will, that’s how Mr. Redman can be (especially as his note has nothing to do with the topic of this thread). At least Mr. Plezia made an effort to link his comment to something posted here.
Actually, if I had to do it all over again, I would have included the letter in question. Frankly, I just didn’t think it was all that important. In preparing a volume about Sherman, one’s going to leave out something that someone else (especially someone obsessed about Thomas) might put in, especially since I thought Sherman’s writings about the nature of war, the role of the press, race, and so on were of more interest to the general reader. Given that the volume contains plenty of correspondence that does not present Sherman in the best light, however, I find Mr. Redman’s conclusion bizarre as to why the letter was not included (and I wonder whether he also plans to harass the coeditor). Indeed, it was not until after the Sherman and Grant books were out that I understood that there were people who not only worshipped Thomas but did so by bitterly denouncing Grant and Sherman as well as anyone who did not share their view of Thomas: they are certain that this must be a nefarious plot against their hero. I had seen this in some biographies of Thomas, but now I realize that such fanboys exist, and that they tend to project their own motivations onto the people they attack.
One can understand why Mr. Redman thinks this letter’s important … although the book’s been available for ten years, and the fact that the letter wasn’t there is well-known to the Thomas fanboys out there. He offers a peculiar interpretation of what happened at Chattanooga, one that reflects his own ignorance of what Thomas did on November 25, for Thomas did indeed ride forward to the crest … and so, contrary to what Sherman said, Thomas did go outside the entrenchments after the battle. Even Bobrick, 212, says as much, and Mr. Redman’s quite fond of Mr. Bobrick’s effusive celebration of Thomas. Thus it comes as some surprise to me that I find Mr. Redman to be concealing Sherman from criticism on that score, possibly because of his ignorance of Thomas’s activities during the battle. You’ll have to ask him why he’s shielding Sherman and denigrating Thomas. That I mention how Sherman was incorrect in this fashion suggests that I have no desire to defend Sherman, unlike Mr. Redman.
Poor George Thomas. He deserves better.
Posted on 08-Dec-09 at 6:01 pm | Permalink
Bob Redman wrote:
I am crushed by professor Simpson’s erudite rejoinder. However, I am comforted by the knowledge that it is better to be a fanboy of Thomas than a toyboy of Grant.
Posted on 09-Dec-09 at 6:26 am | Permalink
Marc Ferguson wrote:
“Poor George Thomas. He deserves better.” With friends like this…
Posted on 09-Dec-09 at 9:49 am | Permalink
Charles Lovejoy wrote:
Question? If I sign up and become am official citizen can I build a Casino on some of the land I own? You know like some of the Native Americans?
Posted on 09-Dec-09 at 11:34 am | Permalink
BrookS D. Simpson wrote:
As I’ve said before, Mr. Redman’s something of a stalker (by his own admission), and he’s not much of a talker. He accepts that he’s uninformed about Thomas at Chattanooga, and I find that satisfactory. Mr. Redman believes that anyone who disagrees with him is issuing a diatribe, which, I’d suggest, is exactly the sort of projection I’ve suggested and which his posts illustrate.
The unfortunate thing for Thomas is that some people react to these absurd arguments and come down hard on Thomas. That tends to blur historical understanding even more. The need for some of Thomas’s admirers to find a conspiracy against their hero behind every footnote or editorial decision simply leads to less than productive exchanges and hampers an effort to develop a better understanding of Thomas.
Posted on 09-Dec-09 at 1:40 pm | Permalink
Marc Ferguson wrote:
“Fact 1: The letter is not in Simpson’s book. He confirms it.
Fact 2: The omission was intentional. Simpson confirms it.”
And this conclusively demonstrates… what?
1. The letter is not in the book.
2. Prof. Simpson confirmed that, for editorial reasons, he omitted it.
Brilliant!
Posted on 09-Dec-09 at 1:55 pm | Permalink
BrookS D. Simpson wrote:
Well, of course, it’s Simpson and Berlin’s book. Chalk up another error for Mr. Redman. I’m waiting to see whether he stalks Berlin, too.
And, of course:
3. Simpson says that now he would have included the letter, if for no other reason than to deflate Mr. Redman.
Posted on 09-Dec-09 at 2:43 pm | Permalink
Charles Lovejoy wrote:
I would like to find a good book about Sherman’s pre-Civil War history and his time spent in Florida.
Posted on 09-Dec-09 at 5:46 pm | Permalink
Brooks Simpson wrote:
Charles … there’s no book that’s simply on Sherman’s pre-CW career. And I don’t think anyone would devote a book to his time in Florida. Georgia, maybe.
Posted on 10-Dec-09 at 12:11 am | Permalink
toby wrote:
“…if thanks are voted to the rest & the Army of the Tennessee left out I must construe it as personal and quit. I want the Army of the Tennessee to have its share of official recognition (for doing very little) but for myself I ask nothing.”
Sounds like a tired man venting to this brother after a few difficult months at the office. I, for one, do not see a “pretty sick” (in the way it was intended) man here.
Posted on 10-Dec-09 at 6:28 am | Permalink
Charles Lovejoy wrote:
Brooks, guess im the only one around that would spend countless hours studying Sherman’s pre-war life and his military adventurers in Florida. I find Sherman’s life as a whole interesting.
Posted on 10-Dec-09 at 8:48 am | Permalink