Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

civilwarwest · CWWT Discussion Group

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 718
  • Category: Civil War
  • Founded: Aug 7, 1999
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Messages 14037 - 14066 of 47301   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#14037 From: FLYNSWEDE@...
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 1:29 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
FLYNSWEDE@...
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 10/2/2002 1:18:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hickoryflatoutlaws@... writes:


<< I wish I had my husband, but I lost him in March.>>

I am so sorry to hear that Rose Mary.  Despite my cracking jokes and being a smart ass, for which I aologize,  I do welcome you to the group.  We have some mighty intellectual individuals within this group and a very few that are so biased in their convictions, they too will  make an ass out of themselves.

Wayne,  who lives in FL and tries to understand the reasons behind both sides.   Swedes are neutral you know.   <g>
 




#14038 From: "theme_music" <theme_music@...>
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 5:54 pm
Subject: Re: Question About the 44th Indiana and the Hornets nest...Shiloh
theme_music
Send Email Send Email
 
I too noticed the features I believe you speak of during my last
visit to Shiloh.  I had intended to ask the Park Ranger about it but,
I pulled a Lew Wallace, taking the long way back to my car, and
didn't get back to the visitors center till after dark.

These sunken roads form from wagon ruts and erosion.  Eventually, if
not maintained or improved, they become unusable.  The farmer then
makes a new road, and the old one becomes overgrown.  There are quite
a few examples of this on my uncle's farm in Pennsylvania.

Though I have no evidence to back this up, this is what it looked
like to me.  The battlefield continued to be used as farmland for
about 40 years, IIRC, until it was turned over to the Park Service.
Over that period of time, it is very likely an already sunken road
would either be abandoned, unless it had been improved to keep it
usable.  So I think undoubtedly, the road had changed from it's
condition on the day of the battle.  The Park Service then went about
restoring the area to how they believe it was during the battle, with
the assistance of many participants and locals.

Anyway....

Eric

--- In civilwarwest@y..., "slippymississippi"
<slippymississippi@y...> wrote:
> --- In civilwarwest@y..., Matt Meador <historyb@b...> wrote:
> > sift mounds.... Three to be exact.... And then there was a
> continuous
> > mound off to the left and behind the line mound.... My question
> is....
> > Was there any record of "digging in" on a battlefield that early
in
> the
> > war?  I have seen the four inland campaign battle fields in
> Virginia as
> > well as peninsula and cold harbor... I know what the trenches
look
> like
> > as well as rifle pits... And that is what these made out to be..
> > Seeing there were numerous attacks on the hornets nest through
out
> the
> > battle I woud think that the flank would be a little more
> protected...
> >
>
> Those are likely burial mounds, where they dumped the Confederate
> dead in trenches five bodies deep.
>
> I don't believe there was ever any time to "dig in" at the Hornets
> Nest.  Prentiss fell back to that position after the first assault,
> and the fighting was more or less continuous after that point.

#14039 From: Aurelie1999@...
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 2:03 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
laurarose1886
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 10/2/02 11:18:21 AM, hickoryflatoutlaws@...
writes:

<< Thank you for the welcome.  I wish I had my husband, but I lost him in
March.  I do have 2 sons and 4 grandchildren to yell at though!!!! >>

Grandparenting is my greatest gift.  Wish I had a few more.  Welcome Rose
Mary.

Connie Boone

#14040 From: "ACES_DUGOUT" <acesdugout@...>
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 6:01 pm
Subject: Re: Distant relative.
acesdugout2003
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi Y'all
 there is a nether few sites also that may be able to help you.
these can help in the history and units that they were involved in.
 Hope this helps
Yours in service
James
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Distant relative.

Brad,
 
There are two websites that may be able to help you.  One is the MO-CW-L@... the other is
 
You can ask your question there, and I would be willing to bet you might find your answer.  Besides, they are have a lot of interesting facts on them.  I have learned quite a bit from them. 
 
Rose Mary Lankford
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:56 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Distant relative.

Among my many hobbies including civil war studies, is geneaology. I found parole papers for my great-great-great grandfather, and wondered if it is not beyond the scope of this discussion, if those of you more learned in the war than I am could help me track down where my relative was, as I think this would be faily interesting. Here's what I have:

        Simon Peter Collins Sr.
       enlisted January 1 1863
       Served in  Company C 10th regiment Missouri Cavalry under Col. Wm. T. Barry where he attained the rank of private.

       He surrendered to Maj. Gen. E.R.S. Canby on May 26 1865, and was paroled on June 7 1865 in Shreveport LA

On an interesting (and probably common) side note, His son Simon Peter Collins Jr. married a girl whose father fought for the union. My Grandmother remembers them, and says the two fought like cats and dogs their entire life (not a blissful joining of the North and South I guess) and always voted opposite one another in political elections.

I'm not trying to turn this into a family tree hunt but if any of you could provide info I would be grateful, if this is beyond the scope of the discussion the I'll pipe down.

Thanks,
       Brad


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

#14041 From: FLYNSWEDE@...
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 12:32 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
FLYNSWEDE@...
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 10/1/2002 2:46:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kywddavid@... writes:


According to Carl Sandburg's biography, Lincoln wanted
Nevada admitted as a state because its voters were
staunchly republican and Lincoln could count on the
state of Nevada ratifying an amendment to the
Constitution outlawing slavery.


One only has to remember that Nevada was highly explored and settled by conservative Mormans.   No wonder they went towards the Republicans.

Wayne

#14042 From: "carlw4514" <carlw4514@...>
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: Interesting article on CW
carlw4514
Send Email Send Email
 
are you joking, as in today Republicans are conservative?
Actually, if it is true that the Mormons were pro-Union and
pro-Republican in those days, why so? There was almost a war between
them and the USA, as we just learned, just previous to the ACW.
Anybody able to answer this one?
Carl

--- In civilwarwest@y..., FLYNSWEDE@A... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/1/2002 2:46:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kywddavid@y... writes:
>
>
> > According to Carl Sandburg's biography, Lincoln wanted
> > Nevada admitted as a state because its voters were
> > staunchly republican and Lincoln could count on the
> > state of Nevada ratifying an amendment to the
> > Constitution outlawing slavery.
> >
>
> One only has to remember that Nevada was highly explored and settled by
> conservative Mormans.   No wonder they went towards the Republicans.
>
> Wayne

#14043 From: "the lankfords" <hickoryflatoutlaws@...>
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 9:28 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
outlaw72532
Send Email Send Email
 
Thank you Connie, and everyone.  I noticed your last name was Boone.  Any relation to Daniel Boone?  I am in contact with some of his relatives.  They rode with Quantrill in Missouri, who contrary to what most believe fought for the Confederacy.
 
Rose Mary
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Interesting article on CW


In a message dated 10/2/02 11:18:21 AM, hickoryflatoutlaws@...
writes:

<< Thank you for the welcome.  I wish I had my husband, but I lost him in
March.  I do have 2 sons and 4 grandchildren to yell at though!!!! >>

Grandparenting is my greatest gift.  Wish I had a few more.  Welcome Rose
Mary.

Connie Boone


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

#14044 From: FLYNSWEDE@...
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 4:43 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
FLYNSWEDE@...
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 10/2/2002 3:19:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, carlw4514@... writes:


Actually, if it is true that the Mormons were pro-Union and
pro-Republican in those days, why so? There was almost a war between
them and the USA, as we just learned, just previous to the ACW.
Anybody able to answer this one?


Carl,
One of the things that the Morman's felt very strongly against was slavery.  Yes, the feelings towards the government were not the highest in the positive nature, however they felt very strong against slavery.  I cannot remember the exact wording from the Book of Morman, but it does preach against slavery. 

Wayne

#14045 From: David Kowalski <kywddavid@...>
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 9:00 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
kywddavid
Send Email Send Email
 

The initial settlement of Nevada was by both prospectors and Mormons,  The first town dates to 1851, either Dayton or Genoa (ths Post Office recognized Genoa in a 1951 commemorative stamp but the state leans towards Dayton citing an unpublished Masters thesis that relied on the letters sent to Brigham Young),  In any case, nearly all the settlement came as a result of the discovery of the Comstock Lode in 1859.  These settlers came from California and "back east."  The Hearst family fortune dates from this period.  Southerners played a part but apparently not a major part.  Virginia City was named for Thomas Finney, nicknamed "Old Virginny", possibly the state's first full-time white settler.

In the 1860's the Republican Party was not conservative.  It advocated internal improvements financed by the government, federal funding of education (the Morrill Act), and a public-private partnership to build a transcontinental railroad.(financed by the RR company sale of government land grants to the RRs).  Oh yes, the Republicans also believed in a federal income tax.  Lincoln who believed in all these things was actually more moderate than many members of his party.

What little I know about Mormon politics indicates that initially they favored the Democrats (due to the role of Polk in the settlement/financing of Utah through Mormon participation in the Mexican War).  See Bernard deVoto's comments in 1846: The Year of Decision for this.

This is western history after all.

David

 carlw4514 wrote:

are you joking, as in today Republicans are conservative?
Actually, if it is true that the Mormons were pro-Union and
pro-Republican in those days, why so? There was almost a war between
them and the USA, as we just learned, just previous to the ACW.
Anybody able to answer this one?
Carl

--- In civilwarwest@y..., FLYNSWEDE@A... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/1/2002 2:46:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kywddavid@y... writes:
>
>
> > According to Carl Sandburg's biography, Lincoln wanted
> > Nevada admitted as a state because its voters were
> > staunchly republican and Lincoln could count on the
> > state of Nevada ratifying an amendment to the
> > Constitution outlawing slavery.
> >
>
> One only has to remember that Nevada was highly explored and settled by
> conservative Mormans.   No wonder they went towards the Republicans.
>
> Wayne



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo!

#14046 From: herpvetminson@...
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 5:17 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
herpvetminson@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Heck even in parts of Oklahoma "yankee" is still only half a word.

#14047 From: herpvetminson@...
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 5:18 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
herpvetminson@...
Send Email Send Email
 
I'm relatively new to this list as well, and I'm already firmly hooked, welcome,

Brad

#14048 From: herpvetminson@...
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 5:24 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
herpvetminson@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Seems to me that in Missouri there was a law that said Mormons could be shot on site. (I was told this in Highschool history so it's been awhile) Seems I also was under the impression that they were against slavery but that could be just me dredging through the cobwebs in the attic of my brain.

Brad

#14049 From: herpvetminson@...
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 5:26 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
herpvetminson@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Rose Mary,

       I thoguht it was common knowledge that they fought for the South? They raided the Union towns of Kansas did they not? Isn't it the actions of Quantrill and his men that earned Kansas the nickname "Bloody Kansas"?

Brad

#14050 From: "Dan Cone" <dan_cone@...>
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 10:13 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
guitarmandanga
Send Email Send Email
 
>IMHO, it was Reconstruction that brought upon the hatred of the North by
>the
>South a lot more than the war itself.  At least during the war and
>following,
>troops that fought felt a strong comraderie between for each other, but the
>South as a whole, felt nothing but contempt for the North.
>In many ways, that contempt is still felt and expressed today.

And vice versa.  I remember the week before 9/11 there was an article in the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution from a New York columnist who suggested that
either the country should go the way of the Czech Republic and Slovakia
(mutually go their separate ways) or else the
North should itself secede.  The writer listed several reasons, including
(rough paraphrase) the fact that "Southerners complain so much about big
gov't, even though they are glad to get more money from
that big gov't than any other section of the country", that Southern
reenactors won't let the war die, that die-hard Confederates hold on
tenaciously to visible symbols of the Lost Cause, etc.  His conclusion
(rough paraphrase once again) is that the South "is a gangrenous limb that
should have been lopped off long ago"; he then listed educational,
health, poverty, and crime statistics to support this.  His only reason for
pause was the two-thousand odd nuclear weapons in place in Southern states;
he suggested either offering to rebuy them, or failing that, to
keep the North's nuclear arsenal in place "just in case".  Needless to say,
there was very little of that after 9/11, but it shows that more than
likely, the mutual antipathy will never die.

Dan

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

#14051 From: FLYNSWEDE@...
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 7:10 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
FLYNSWEDE@...
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 10/2/2002 5:04:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kywddavid@... writes:


The initial settlement of Nevada was by both prospectors and Mormons,


Yes and the State Capitol, Carson City (named after Kit Carson of course) was also founded by the Mormans.

Wayne

#14052 From: FLYNSWEDE@...
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 7:17 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
FLYNSWEDE@...
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 10/2/2002 5:28:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, herpvetminson@... writes:


Isn't it the actions of Quantrill and his men that earned Kansas the nickname "Bloody Kansas"?



I believe the nickname Bloody Kansas was a result of fighting between Missourians who believed in slavery and Kansas red legs that did not prior to the Civil War.  That was when Kansas was still a territory and attempts were being made to have it a slave state by Missourians and Arkansasians (Arkansasians  -  is there such a word)
But then I again, I could be very wrong on this one.  <g>

Wayne

#14053 From: domus1000@...
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2002 12:37 am
Subject: Re: MORMONS,LINCOLN & REPUBLICANS
domus1001
Send Email Send Email
 
I don't ever comment but being native to Utah and sympathetic to my neighbors I
feel I must participate.  Mormons (LDS people) held slaves when they settled in
the Salt Lake Valley.  They were not freed from bondage until the time that all
slaves were freed in northern states and territories which did not rebel.  It is
a mistake to assume that the Utah Territory sided with the north because of
feelings about slavery.  Brigham Young did not want the trouble between his
people and the US government to continue and escalate.  He, as in all things in
the territory regarding his people, made the decision to side with the north as
a sign of good faith (put simply) to the government and Lincoln in the hope that
differences could be settled somehow.  Lincoln asked Brigham Young to mount
troops to protect the territory as all the US soldiers had been removed.  Camp
Floyd, in fact, was the largest US military installation in the world before the
ACW and that shows how very fearful the government was of great 'MORMON'
equation.  Those who were stationed at this camp just miles south of Salt Lake
City, reads like a who's-who of Civil War luminaries from both North and South. 
(We even have a Confederate Cemetary at the top of Soldiers Summit in Utah - so
named because of the men who died in a spring snow storm there on their way to
join the Confederacy in April of 1861)  Brigham did not want such a huge
continguent of military to once again return to Utah to watch over him and his
people.  He expressed on many occassions a disdain for the conflict between
North and South and basically said that he didn't really care if they all killed
each other and left him alone.  He was a leader of power and intelligence and he
reigned much like a king over the people of the Utah Territory.  There are great
divisions between Mormon and non-Mormon still today in my home state which stem
from his time and decisions.  If Brigham Young wanted his people to side with
Union and Lincoln they that is what they would do for to not follow him
was....really deadly.  At the time of Statehood in 1898 the Mormons quite
literally divided each and every church (ward) in half (this half are democrats
this half republican) so to say that the Territory was pro republican is also a
mistake.  They did not care and wanted only to keep to themselves.  Thank you
for allowing me to participate.  I love following the entries.
Tracie Fielden

#14054 From: "Nathan Corzine" <nmc79@...>
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2002 12:37 am
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
nmc79@...
Send Email Send Email
 
I'm new to the group, just wanted to say "Hey all!"
 
Wayne,
 
I believe you are right. As I've always understood it, "Bleeding Kansas" came about due to the slavery question as you have articulated.
 
I also thought it was usually assumed that  William Clarke Quantrill (aka "Charlie Hart") was fighting on the side of the Confederacy, though I doubt it was for any political or moral reason. He had orginally been a Jayhawker in Kansas but while raiding with some Kansas men he had ridden ahead to warn a local that the raiders were coming, resulting in those raiders's deaths. Crossing over into Missouri, he had claimed the raiders were responsible for the death of his brother and his treachery was an act of revenge. From that point on he was on the side of the Missourians. His assault on Jim Lane's base of Lawrence, Kansas is among the most vicious acts in the Civil War. I also recall some speculation that, at the time of his death in Kentucky, Quantrill was on his way to D.C. with plans to assassinate Lincoln...though I cannot say how much reality there is to that.
 
Regards
NMC
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Interesting article on CW

In a message dated 10/2/2002 5:28:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, herpvetminson@... writes:


Isn't it the actions of Quantrill and his men that earned Kansas the nickname "Bloody Kansas"?



I believe the nickname Bloody Kansas was a result of fighting between Missourians who believed in slavery and Kansas red legs that did not prior to the Civil War.  That was when Kansas was still a territory and attempts were being made to have it a slave state by Missourians and Arkansasians (Arkansasians  -  is there such a word)
But then I again, I could be very wrong on this one.  <g>

Wayne

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

#14055 From: Aurelie1999@...
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 9:04 pm
Subject: Re: Re: MORMONS,LINCOLN & REPUBLICANS
laurarose1886
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 10/2/2002 7:40:51 PM Central Daylight Time, domus1000@... writes:


I don't ever comment but being native to Utah and sympathetic to my neighbors I feel I must participate. 


Excellent Tracie and thank you very much.

Connie Boone

#14056 From: FLYNSWEDE@...
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 10:20 pm
Subject: Re: Re: MORMONS,LINCOLN & REPUBLICANS
FLYNSWEDE@...
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 10/2/2002 8:40:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, domus1000@... writes:


At the time of Statehood in 1898 the Mormons quite literally divided each and every church (ward) in half (this half are democrats this half republican) so to say that the Territory was pro republican is also a mistake.


Tracie,
As for 1898, you mentioned half and half, but then there was the group that refused to stop polygamy and went to Mexico where they were able to practice it  (and they still do) without interference. 

Wayne

#14057 From: FLYNSWEDE@...
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 10:30 pm
Subject: Re: Re: MORMONS,LINCOLN & REPUBLICANS
FLYNSWEDE@...
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 10/2/2002 8:40:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, domus1000@... writes:


I don't ever comment but being native to Utah and sympathetic to my neighbors I feel I must participate.  Mormons (LDS people) held slaves when they settled in the Salt Lake Valley.


Tracie,  I too want to thank you for your excellent post.  I am quite surprised however that they held slaves.  The majority of those that traveled with Brigham and afterwards, was from New York and the New England states.  Being at Navoo, they would not have any slaves since Illinois law prevented slavery.  Matter of fact, a Southerner could not even bring a slave into Illinois for his own personal use without being arrested.  I read the Book of Morman about fifty years ago and somehow do remember that within it, there were passages that opposed slavery.  If my memory is correct, then Michael would be having a fit knowing that they had slaves.   Dadgummit, forgot the name of the town in New York where Joseph found the tablets and talked with Michael.    Getting too many senior moments with the memory.

But like Wakefield, I too could be wrong.

Wayne

#14058 From: "Chad" <kct1863@...>
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2002 3:15 am
Subject: Re: Re: MORMONS,LINCOLN & REPUBLICANS
josh125th
Send Email Send Email
 
Wayne,
 
  The town in New York was Palmyra.  The angel's name was actually Moroni, not Michael.
 
  Tracie,
 
  I am very interested in the information about Latter Day Saint settlers in Utah owning slaves.  I've read extensively on Church history and have never come across that.  Actually, I thought that their abolitionist leanings had much to do with their troubles in Missouri.  Could you elaborate on the subject of slave-holding among Mormon settlers?
 
  Thanks very much.
 
  Respectfully,
  Chad Teasley
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: MORMONS,LINCOLN & REPUBLICANS

In a message dated 10/2/2002 8:40:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, domus1000@... writes:


I don't ever comment but being native to Utah and sympathetic to my neighbors I feel I must participate.  Mormons (LDS people) held slaves when they settled in the Salt Lake Valley.


Tracie,  I too want to thank you for your excellent post.  I am quite surprised however that they held slaves.  The majority of those that traveled with Brigham and afterwards, was from New York and the New England states.  Being at Navoo, they would not have any slaves since Illinois law prevented slavery.  Matter of fact, a Southerner could not even bring a slave into Illinois for his own personal use without being arrested.  I read the Book of Morman about fifty years ago and somehow do remember that within it, there were passages that opposed slavery.  If my memory is correct, then Michael would be having a fit knowing that they had slaves.   Dadgummit, forgot the name of the town in New York where Joseph found the tablets and talked with Michael.    Getting too many senior moments with the memory.

But like Wakefield, I too could be wrong.

Wayne


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

#14059 From: Detweiller Carlos <carlos_detweiller@...>
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2002 3:41 am
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
carlos_detwe...
Send Email Send Email
 

Burns definitely had an agenda, evident from Episode 1 right through to the end. 

Reconstruction wouldn't fit in to his portrayal of the Noble North.

 

 FLYNSWEDE@... wrote:

In a message dated 9/30/2002 4:35:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jfepperson@... writes:


While I think Burns can
be forgiven for not doing Reconstruction in detail  ---  hell,
it laster longer than the War did  ---  I think he could/should
have made some passing reference to the gains of the war being
lost in the "peace" that followed.



IMHO, it was Reconstruction that brought upon the hatred of the North by the South a lot more than the war itself.  At least during the war and following, troops that fought felt a strong comraderie between for each other, but the South as a whole, felt nothing but contempt for the North.
In many ways, that contempt is still felt and expressed today.
Wayne

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo!

#14060 From: Aurelie1999@...
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2002 11:46 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
laurarose1886
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 10/2/2002 10:42:25 PM Central Daylight Time, carlos_detweiller@... writes:


Burns definitely had an agenda, evident from Episode 1 right through to the end.  Reconstruction wouldn't fit in to his portrayal of the Noble North.  



What specifically convinces you that Burn's was biased in favor of errors in history?

Connie

#14061 From: Detweiller Carlos <carlos_detweiller@...>
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2002 3:52 am
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
carlos_detwe...
Send Email Send Email
 

Nobody said he made errors, even the casual observer would admit that he presented from the North's point of view.

He chased points of view and perspectives that generally favored the North.

Prime example was his presentation of the Ft Pillow battle as a Forrest ordered  massacre of black soldiers attempting to surrender.

 Aurelie1999@... wrote:

In a message dated 10/2/2002 10:42:25 PM Central Daylight Time, carlos_detweiller@... writes:


Burns definitely had an agenda, evident from Episode 1 right through to the end.  Reconstruction wouldn't fit in to his portrayal of the Noble North.  



What specifically convinces you that Burn's was biased in favor of errors in history?

Connie


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo!

#14062 From: "the lankfords" <hickoryflatoutlaws@...>
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2002 6:19 am
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
outlaw72532
Send Email Send Email
 
The word you are seeking is Arkansans.  Some used to say Arkansawyers or Arkies, but most frown on that.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Interesting article on CW

In a message dated 10/2/2002 5:28:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, herpvetminson@... writes:


Isn't it the actions of Quantrill and his men that earned Kansas the nickname "Bloody Kansas"?



I believe the nickname Bloody Kansas was a result of fighting between Missourians who believed in slavery and Kansas red legs that did not prior to the Civil War.  That was when Kansas was still a territory and attempts were being made to have it a slave state by Missourians and Arkansasians (Arkansasians  -  is there such a word)
But then I again, I could be very wrong on this one.  <g>

Wayne

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

#14063 From: "the lankfords" <hickoryflatoutlaws@...>
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2002 6:16 am
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
outlaw72532
Send Email Send Email
 
You would be surprised, most people didn't think they had a goal so to speak.  Bloody Kansas already had the name because they were fighting with Missourians 4 years before the Civil War.  They actually fought for 8 years. 
 
Most of Quantrill's men were young farm boys.  They were in the upper northwest corner of Missouri and were cut off from the Confederate Army.  The Confederate generals sent recruiting officers into the area.  Some of the men fought in Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Indian Territory, and Kentucky.  They spent a winter in Texas. 
 
Yes, I've read where they intended to capture Lincoln, but was stopped at Kentucky.
 
Rose Mary
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Interesting article on CW

Rose Mary,

       I thoguht it was common knowledge that they fought for the South? They raided the Union towns of Kansas did they not? Isn't it the actions of Quantrill and his men that earned Kansas the nickname "Bloody Kansas"?

Brad


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

#14064 From: herpvetminson@...
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2002 1:10 am
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting article on CW
herpvetminson@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Wayne,
      
       I wasn't sure (it's been a long time since Highschool history class) but that sounds right now that you mention it.

Brad

#14065 From: herpvetminson@...
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2002 1:13 am
Subject: Re: Re: MORMONS,LINCOLN & REPUBLICANS
herpvetminson@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Tracey,

       Interesting and thoughtfull insight into the territory history, thank you.

Brad

#14066 From: FLYNSWEDE@...
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2002 1:28 am
Subject: Re: Re: Quantrill Story
FLYNSWEDE@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Read and enjoy

Wayne

December 19, 1992
Following, is a transcription of a tape recording made by Timothy Ray BAUER of Leona Diantha LYNCH ( Wile of Edward John BAUER, mother of Edgar William BAUER, Grandmother of Timothy Ray BAUER) on December 20, 1972: This transcript has been edited and arranged for clarity.
"Well Tim, you asked me to tell you again about my Mother & Father, it was during the Civil War, 1861 to 1865 and it was early in 1862 during the battle of Pea Ridge in Arkansas.
It was every able bodied man. All that was left there was the old men, the sickly or to old to go to the war. My mother, Melissa Shuum, was 6 years old, her brother was Alonzo Shrum, he was 8 and they and their mother, her name was Mary Ellen [DeWHITT] Shrum, and she was 32 years old in 1862. Her husband [William L. Shrum] had gone off to war like the others and they lived alone like the others.
My Grandmother wore a little flag pinned to her dress, it wasn't stars like they have in the flags nowadays, but it was about an inch to inch and a half wide and two inches long and it was just the red, white, and blue stripes. She wore that pinned on her dress everyday of her life after my grandfather went to war. Incidentally, he was still in training when he got pneumonia, called lung fever in those days and died. That was in 1862.
Quantrill and his gang of thieves were roaming the countryside. They lived in a little town, it was called Eagle Rock. Just a small town 90 miles from Springfield, Missouri where the (Union) headquarters were stationed.
One day a wounded soldier was hiding in the tall grass in the back of their house and watched the house. He didn't know whether the occupants of that house were friend or foe. Along towards evening he knocked on her door and he saw the flag pinned on her dress. He told "her "I see you're a friend and I'm wounded and I was sent to carry a verbal message to the army headquarters and wondered if you could take it?" So she and a neighbor lady, could only find an old horse and an old mule to ride, rode to Springfield and my grandmother gave the message to the army.
On the return trip, in sight of their homes (it was my mothers turn to ride the mule), the road was just a faint road, no hi ways like today and it was rocky and her mule stumbled on a rock and fell and my grandmother's leg was broken with the bone going into the ground. The woman that had went with her rode to get help and the men pulled her leg from the ground, and as well as they could, since all the doctors nearby had been taken into the army, set the leg and put wooden splints around it to hold it and got her home. She remained crippled the rest of her life.
Probably a week or so after my grandmother had taken the message (to Springfield), she saw Quantrill and his gang a riding up to their house. Quantrill and another man threw their bridals over the picket fence and stormed into the house, the other men waited outside.
He said "I heard you took a message to Springfield, what was it?" My mother, had her arm around her mother on one side and uncle Lon had his arm around her, standing on the other side by the window and she never answered Quantrill at all and he cursed her and demanded to know.
Now this wasn't the first time that he had robbed my grandmother and her mother. A few years before that he had come in and there was a loose board in the floor which squeaked when he stepped on it. He opened it up and took what little prize possessions that they had had.
He kept threatening my grandmother and she never spoke and neither did the chldren, they just stood there and he told her "we'll be back by here this evening and if your not out of your house and gone or either tell me what the message was, I'll burn your house down!"
Along towards evening, the children saw him coming again and they both ran to each side of their mother, probably to protect her. So again he came in and he cursed her and tried to find out the message. She never spoke.
In those days matches were hard to come by so they used to take long pieces of paper and roll them up real tight and give them a twist and when they lit the fire in the fireplace under the mantel they would put the used paper back up on the mantel.
He (Quantrill) grabbed the featherbed off the bed and stuck it in the fireplace and took one of the rolled up papers and lit it from the oil lamp she had burning. He went over to the fireplace and again he urged her to tell and again she never spoke. After he had cursed her for a long time and tried to force it out of her he lit the featherbed and turned around and looked at them and neither the children or my grandmother spoke. He pushed the fire off with his hand and he threw the burning paper down and he looked at her (grandmother) and said, "you're to damn brave to die" and left.
It was after this that she got word that her husband had died. So, the relatives took her and her sisters and brothers in. My mother and brother, after their mother died, were brought up by some uncles.
I've told this all many times to all of you children, and I know I've told it to you like all grandmothers tell their children things that are really historical and should be remembered by children and their grandchildren and this story) has been recorded and its in the State Historical Library in Topeka, Kansas.
My mother married Tim Lynch and a big friend of the Lynch family was Susie Berry the superintendent of schools in Neosho County, Kansas. My mother had told her this story and she asked that mother repeat it again for her because she thought it should be in the State Historical Library in Topeka. I have the letter my mother received telling her it was an interesting event and she sure was a brave woman.
In later years when we had children (by Edward John Bauer), your father, Tim, his name is Edgar Bauer and my older son Bernard Bauer, and my daughter Kathleen Bauer, her name is Hills now, she married Jim Hills, and my sister Clara and her husband Major Every and their son Max Every who is about the same age as Bernard and little daughter Marie Every (my other children weren't born at this time yet) went to Springfield. In the Kansas City paper we had read an event of a robbery and a murder right near where their home was in Eagle Rock (Missouri). The son and daughter were the ones that were robbed and so my mother recognized the name and she wanted to go there and ask them if her mother had ever told their mother what the message was that had been taken to headquarters for the wounded soldier and they said no, but their mother had often wondered what the message was but my grandmother had never repeated it.
I hope you will always remember this (story) Tim and tell it to your own children when you get married. And so, God love you - Goodbye.
Note: Grandma Leona Diantha (Lynch) Bauer was 79 years old when she recorded this history.
Leona Diantha Bauer died January 26, 1980 at the age of 89.


Messages 14037 - 14066 of 47301   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help