GDG- Gettysburg Digest, Vol 18, Issue 22

Sharon Caba sharoncaba at comcast.net
Sun Jan 22 19:26:22 CST 2012


As per religious aspects -- Message 5 -- there were several such incidents.
On the Confederate side too.  Rev. McKim conducted a service before
Johnson's div. left the Lady Farm along Hanover Road, using Benner's Ridge
to a block Union observation, as they sought to capture Culp's Hill and gain
control of the Baltimore Pike. Of Course, the GOAL was the road tactically,
not a rugged wooded hill. The large flat rock seen along the Hanover Road
between the stone house and red barn was said to be used by McKim. As my
late Uncle Steve, an original 504 paratrooper of 82nd Airborne in World War
II use to put it, "When you jump into that night sky, only the Lord is there
and hopefully you will be lucky." The old "sergeant" made it through all
jumps and battles; he always attended Church barring any and all
interruptions till he died at 82.  Civil War vets were pretty much the same
character.  "Tenderest are the bravest; the loving are the daring ...."
Bayard Taylor

Craig Caba

-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com]
On Behalf Of gettysburg-request at arthes.com
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 1:00 PM
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Gettysburg Digest, Vol 18, Issue 22

Send Gettysburg mailing list submissions to
	gettysburg at arthes.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	gettysburg-request at arthes.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
	gettysburg-owner at arthes.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Gettysburg digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (Jack Lawrence)
   2. Re:  FW:  CW Discrencies (Dave Glorioso)
   3. Re:  Southern Generals Birthdays (Nancy Householder)
   4. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (George Connell)
   5.  Relgion at the battle of Gettysburg (Nancy Householder)
   6. Re:  FW:  CW Discrencies (joadx1 at netscape.net)
   7.  I love Shelby Foote - but (Dennis Lawrence)
   8. Re:  FW:  CW Discrencies (Jack Lawrence)
   9. Re:  FW:  CW Discrencies (George Connell)
  10. Re:  FW: CW Discrencies (John Grim)
  11. Re:  FW: CW Discrepancies (joadx1 at netscape.net)
  12. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (Batrinque at aol.com)
  13. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (George Connell)
  14. Re:  FW:  CW Discrencies (John Lawrence)
  15. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (John Lawrence)
  16. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (John Lawrence)
  17. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (Margaret D. Blough)
  18.  Chamberlain brothers (128thpa at comcast.net)
  19. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (George Connell)
  20. Re:  FW: CW Discrepancies (Tom Barrett)
  21. Re:  FW:  CW Discrencies - Shelby Foote (Tom)
  22. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (keith mackenzie)
  23. Re:  FW:  CW Discrencies - Shelby Foote (keith mackenzie)
  24. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (George Connell)
  25. Re:  FW:  CW Discrencies - Shelby Foote (Tom)
  26.  Tom Chamberlain (Tom)
  27. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (Bill Speer)
  28. Re:  FW:  CW Discrencies - Shelby Foote (keith mackenzie)
  29. Re:  FW:  CW Discrencies (ATMackeyJr at aol.com)
  30. Re:  FW:  CW Discrencies (ATMackeyJr at aol.com)
  31. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (ATMackeyJr at aol.com)
  32. Re:  FW:  CW Discrencies (Charles T. Joyce)
  33. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (atmackeyjr at aol.com)
  34. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (joadx1 at netscape.net)
  35. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (joadx1 at netscape.net)
  36. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (Kerry Webb)
  37. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (Tom Ryan)
  38. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (Tom Ryan)
  39. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (John Lawrence)
  40. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Phil brick
      (John Lawrence)
  41. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (John Lawrence)
  42. Re:  I love Shelby Foote - but (Matt Diestel)
  43. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (George Connell)
  44. Re:  Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
      (Batrinque at aol.com)
  45. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (George Connell)
  46. Re:  FW:  CW Discrencies (cameron2 at optimum.net)
  47. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (CWMHTours at aol.com)
  48. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (atmackeyjr at aol.com)
  49. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (Charles T. Joyce)
  50. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (CWMHTours at aol.com)
  51. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (George Connell)
  52. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (atmackeyjr at aol.com)
  53. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (Clarence Hollowell)
  54. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (CWMHTours at aol.com)
  55. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (Charles T. Joyce)
  56. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (Robert Lawrence)
  57. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (Dennis Lawrence)
  58.  NAACP Hook (Dennis Lawrence)
  59. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (Robert Lawrence)
  60. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (Robert Lawrence)
  61.  Farnsworth (CWMHTours at aol.com)
  62.  : NAACP and Battleflag (Robert Lawrence)
  63.  Education - Hook (Dennis Lawrence)
  64.  NCAAP - Hook (Dennis Lawrence)
  65.  NCAAP - Hook (Dennis Lawrence)
  66.  R v Wade - Hook (Dennis Lawrence)
  67.  HOOK (CWMHTours at aol.com)
  68.  Is we is or is we ain't a Union? (Dennis Lawrence)
  69. Re:  Shelby's Foote in His Mouth (John Lawrence)
  70. Re:  (no subject) (CWMHTours at aol.com)
  71.  The Flags (Robert G Pielke)
  72. Re:  Is we is or is we ain't a Union? (Matt Diestel)
  73. Re:  HOOK (Batrinque at aol.com)
  74. Re:  2nd Del and John Brooke (CWMHTours at aol.com)
  75. Re:  Is we is or is we ain't a Union? (joadx1 at netscape.net)
  76. Re:  Is we is or is we ain't a Union? (atmackeyjr at aol.com)
  77. Re:  Is we is or is we ain't a Union? (atmackeyjr at aol.com)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:44:54 -0600
From: "Jack Lawrence" <jlawrence at kc.rr.com>
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID: <379B940E0B7B467C8668231EF0D52AF7 at jackPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original

Hi Margaret.
But people do that (drink themselves to death) all the time.
I think a better explanation might be is that war changes all whom it 
touches, and different individuials handle it differently.
We just put a name on it now.

Regards,

Jack

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Margaret D. Blough" <mdblough1 at comcast.net>
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> Michael-
>
>
> I think it would be very tough, in the absence of ability to ask follow up

> questions, to distinguish between the fact that being in combat changes a 
> person (also complicated in the Civil War by the fact that, in some cases,

> the person might be years older than when hen left) and an incapacitating 
> mental disorder. One case in which I know it's suspected is Tom 
> Chamberlain, Joshua's younger brother. Tom drank himself to death.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Margaret
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael DiLauro" <madpd2001 at yahoo.com>
> To: gettysburg at arthes.com
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:07:07 PM
> Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
>
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> At the risk of going off-topic let me try this...
>
> Having handled about a 1/2 dozen NGRI cases over the years the challenge 
> always is having your expert shrink or psychologist reconstruct the 
> defendant's state of mind at the time the crime was committed. (Although I

> had a case once where the client went to see a shrink somewhere between 
> the 1st and 3rd murders. As an expert witness he was allowed to opine 
> about the defendant's condition at the time he examined him but could not 
> render an opinion on the ultimate issue of NGRI.)
>
> The 'lookback' is done via a psychiatric examination which includes 1) 
> interviewing the defendant 2) reviewing prior treatment records if they 
> exist 3) talking to friends and family members about D's behavior 4) 
> sometimes neuropsychological testing and MRI. With an adequate evidentiary

> foundation and properly qualified expert he/she can speak to D's state of 
> mind at the time of the crime and the ultimate issue of whether D meets 
> legal criteria for NGRI. And I'm pretty sure that PTSD is a recognized 
> psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM IV.
>
> Now for our ACW friends alot of this stuff is impossible due to the 
> passage of time and lack of technology. Also what was the state of medical

> record keeping at the time of the ACW and thereafter? If decent then there

> could be alot of good information that would speak to the issue of PTSD. 
> And of course any recollections of friends, family members, co-workers, 
> etc. would be very valuable, as it is today.
>
> From a legal standpoint a historian would not be qualified to speak to the

> issue. But a shrink or psychologist with an interest in history would 
> certainly be qualified to speak to the issues involved in any serious 
> treatment of the issue.
>
> Finally, my physicians assistant is an ACW buff and got me involved in the

> RICWRT. I will ask him the next time I'm in to see him with my annual 
> winter sinus infection.
>
> Mike DiLauro
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com

>  -to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com

>  -to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> 





------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:46:26 -0500
From: Dave Glorioso <glory at zbzoom.net>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies
Message-ID: <CA91A13C-EB79-4402-8F69-DB2E2AE4459E at zbzoom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=us-ascii

My first memory of rebel yell was the Billy idol song and crazy fraternity
nights
Second memory is my civil war studies and wondering what it sounded like
After watching those videos of the vets doing the rebel yell, the Billy idol
song sounds different in my head:
The first 'more' is a short yip
The second 'more' with a short bark
The third 'more' is a prolonged yip

Now if it can be done in concert with thousands of fans we can send them
damn yank-carpetbaggers back north


Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 21, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Dennis Lawrence <denlaw at gojade.org> wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> Nominated for posting of the year!
> 
> At 02:20 PM 1/20/2012, you wrote:
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>> In the midnight hour she cried- "more, more, more"
>> With a rebel yell she cried- "more, more, more"
>> In the midnight hour babe- "more, more, more"
>> With a rebel yell- "more, more, more"
>> More, more, more.
>> 
>> Billy Idol "Rebel Yell"
> 
> 
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:02:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Nancy Householder <pipecreek1430 at yahoo.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Southern Generals Birthdays
Message-ID:
	<1327172555.72304.YahooMailNeo at web125506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

He was protesting because had Confederate flags, and were honoring
confederate leaders. 

I forgot to mention that he was black. It was actually kind of? sad, a one
man protest.
However, I think he was trying to get publicity for his protest.

Nancy Householder



________________________________
 From: "ccote at zoominternet.net" <ccote at zoominternet.net>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: GDG- Southern Generals Birthdays
 
Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
Ok I'll bite - what were they protesting
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Householder <pipecreek1430 at yahoo.com>
Sender: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:47:41 
To: GDG<gettysburg at arthes.com>
Reply-To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Southern Generals Birthdays

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
In Baltimore, MD, near Johns Hopkins Univ. There are two equastrian statues
next to each other, of
Gen Lee? and Gen Jackson. They were erected in the 1930's. For years the
SCV, and the United Daughters
of the Confederacy used to have? a wreath laying ceremony there around the
anniversary of their birthdays.
I went one year with an older gentleman from our CW Round Table, who was in
the SCV.
It was actually very nice, with quite a few people in period dress,
including me. They had a small band playing 

music.? The year I went there was? man standing in the street, yelling at us
the whole time, protesting.
It was very cold and windy that day and I was glad that they were serving
refreshments after.

Afterwards we went over to? a building, across the street, at Johns Hopkins
were the UDC served hot drinks and food.

I think it was two years ago that the JH University announced that they were
no longer going to allow
the UDC to serve their refreshments in a university building? for this
event, due to protests.

I don't know if they are still having this event, if they did it would be
this weekend.
The man that I attended this event with, who had been going to it for years,
is now dead.


Nancy Householder




________________________________
From: William Richardson <general.jackson at yahoo.com>
To: Gettysburg Group <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 3:27 PM
Subject: GDG- Southern Generals Birthdays

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:


?Sending out a hardy Happy Birthday to 2 of the South's greatest Generals.
Robert E. Lee (January 19th) and Stonewall Jackson (January 21st)


Respectfully,

? ? ?William Richardson
? ? ?Mount Gilead, North Carolina

" The direct cause of the outbreak of the War Between The States was
slavery; the direct object of the prosecution of the war was the
preservation of the Union. "
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:10:30 -0500
From: George Connell <georgeconnell at mac.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID: <72205460-47B8-43A0-82E4-EBF016C590A8 at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII

And some of them drink themselves to death.

Regards,

George
Currently thinking about our Birthday Boy, Stonewall

On Jan 21, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Jack Lawrence wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> Hi Margaret.
> But people do that (drink themselves to death) all the time.
> I think a better explanation might be is that war changes all whom it
touches, and different individuials handle it differently.
> We just put a name on it now.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jack
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret D. Blough"
<mdblough1 at comcast.net>
> To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:02 AM
> Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
> 
> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>> Michael-
>> 
>> 
>> I think it would be very tough, in the absence of ability to ask follow
up questions, to distinguish between the fact that being in combat changes a
person (also complicated in the Civil War by the fact that, in some cases,
the person might be years older than when hen left) and an incapacitating
mental disorder. One case in which I know it's suspected is Tom Chamberlain,
Joshua's younger brother. Tom drank himself to death.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> 
>> Margaret
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael DiLauro" <madpd2001 at yahoo.com>
>> To: gettysburg at arthes.com
>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:07:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
>> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>> At the risk of going off-topic let me try this...
>> 
>> Having handled about a 1/2 dozen NGRI cases over the years the challenge
always is having your expert shrink or psychologist reconstruct the
defendant's state of mind at the time the crime was committed. (Although I
had a case once where the client went to see a shrink somewhere between the
1st and 3rd murders. As an expert witness he was allowed to opine about the
defendant's condition at the time he examined him but could not render an
opinion on the ultimate issue of NGRI.)
>> 
>> The 'lookback' is done via a psychiatric examination which includes 1)
interviewing the defendant 2) reviewing prior treatment records if they
exist 3) talking to friends and family members about D's behavior 4)
sometimes neuropsychological testing and MRI. With an adequate evidentiary
foundation and properly qualified expert he/she can speak to D's state of
mind at the time of the crime and the ultimate issue of whether D meets
legal criteria for NGRI. And I'm pretty sure that PTSD is a recognized
psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM IV.
>> 
>> Now for our ACW friends alot of this stuff is impossible due to the
passage of time and lack of technology. Also what was the state of medical
record keeping at the time of the ACW and thereafter? If decent then there
could be alot of good information that would speak to the issue of PTSD. And
of course any recollections of friends, family members, co-workers, etc.
would be very valuable, as it is today.
>> 
>> From a legal standpoint a historian would not be qualified to speak to
the issue. But a shrink or psychologist with an interest in history would
certainly be qualified to speak to the issues involved in any serious
treatment of the issue.
>> 
>> Finally, my physicians assistant is an ACW buff and got me involved in
the RICWRT. I will ask him the next time I'm in to see him with my annual
winter sinus infection.
>> 
>> Mike DiLauro
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> 
> 
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives




------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:27:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Nancy Householder <pipecreek1430 at yahoo.com>
To: Gettysburg Discussion <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: GDG- Relgion at the battle of Gettysburg
Message-ID:
	<1327177675.34500.YahooMailNeo at web125502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

?I have been reading a book on the Religious Life of the Civil War Soldiers,
and it is very interesting.
While many people know of Father Corby of the Irish Brigade, giving
absolution to his men, just 

before they go into battle , I read of another story of praying during the
battle.

After the repulse of Picketts Charge on July 3, 1863,? the major of the 64th
NY requested Chaplain
John Stuckenberg of the 145th PA? to hold services in his regiment. " The
men were behind their 

breastworks," Stuckenberg wrote in his diary that night. " I stood in front
of them. Brisk skirmishing
was going on all the time, rebels and our men.. could be seen running and
firing. A rebel flag was 

?also seen? at the edge of the woods. Worship at such a place and time, with
fearful scenes just
enacted and being enacted, was very solemn.? I thanked God that we had been
spared, prayed for
the many wounded, and remembered the relatives and friends of the killed.
The soldiers felt deeply
and were moved to tears."

Nancy Householder


------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:42:12 -0500 (EST)
From: joadx1 at netscape.net
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies
Message-ID: <8CEA69449B5BFB2-2234-183E5 at webmail-d132.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I'm not Al Mackey and I don't play him on the Gettysburg Discussion Group.
I don't think I've ever stayed at a Holiday Inn either. :>)

But I'll hazard a response of my own.

First, I am an avid reader and re-reader of Foote's epic three volume
history of the Civil War.  He has a marvelous voice and a wonderful
narrative technique.  His writing is always crystal clear, and while he
certainly has his favorite side, he is fair to the Union, and is actually a
fan of Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant.  He is also particularly keen on giving
full attention to the Western theater of the war (which is probably why he
likes Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant: all, like J. Davis, whom Foote likes very
much, being Westerners).  In short, I like the man and his work.

But I do see problems, in his books and in his Burns commentary (which is
very largely not only based on his books but is actually often quotational).

Problems: 

Foote repeats the now outdated mortality figures that make it look like the
north had at least twice the battle dead as the south.  Not true.  Battle
mortality was pretty close (especially considering the numbers on the
field); the big discrepancy comes in deaths by sickness.

He also insists that the outcome of the war was inevitable.  As I have
argued before here, I do not think that it was inevitable at all, but I
won't reiterate my argument.

He insists that Forrest was a great man as well as an effective soldier.
No, there is a difference between human greatness and ferocity.  Forrest was
a masterful leader in battle, with a personal ferocity and killer instinct
second to none, but for Foote (and Burns) to make him one of the featured
heroes of the documentary (the man did, after all, found the Ku Klux Klan:
this is not an urban myth) and play down the Fort Pillow atrocity, was
simply wrong in a moral sense.

In his books, Foote acts as if Chamberlain did not exist at Gettysburg or
anywhere else.

Foote's constant apologia for Davis's many mistakes (mistakes that Davis's
own contemporaries hated him for) are also highly problematic.

One could go on, but this is a start.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: George Connell <georgeconnell at me.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 21, 2012 8:54 am
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies


Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
Al,

Could you please document that assertion?

Regards,

George

On Jan 21, 2012, at 11:40 AM, ATMackeyJr at aol.com wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> 
> 
> In a message dated 1/21/2012 11:33:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> CWMHTours at aol.com writes:
> 
> I   was amazed at 
> Shelby being wrong.
> --------------
> Shelby was usually wrong in that series.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Al Mackey
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com

-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to 
unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

 


------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:52:27 -0600
From: Dennis Lawrence <denlaw at gojade.org>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: GDG- I love Shelby Foote - but
Message-ID: <20120121125242.D8871B3A at dm0206.mta.everyone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 02:42 PM 1/21/2012, you wrote:
>One could go on, but this is a start.
Hello,

     Foote  also referred to the war as when his ancestors stood up 
to Lincoln.

   And when he listed the positives that came out of the war, he gave 
two: everyone agreed that it was better that the union was preserved, 
and everyone agreed that both sides  fought bravely.

Notably missing is   - everyone agreed that  the end of slavery was a 
good thing?

Burns was all about setting up differences, and Barbara Fileds  and 
Shelby Foote were suitable foils.  One a  black female northern 
academic, and the other an aging white novelist with deep 
familial  roots in Mississippi.

Take Care

Dennis




------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:53:50 -0600
From: "Jack Lawrence" <jlawrence at kc.rr.com>
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies
Message-ID: <83671A78D7E643ED95B18D8C8C861021 at jackPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <joadx1 at netscape.net>
To: <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: GDG- FW: CW Discrencies


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> I'm not Al Mackey and I don't play him on the Gettysburg Discussion Group.

> I don't think I've ever stayed at a Holiday Inn either. :>)
>
> But I'll hazard a response of my own.
>
> First, I am an avid reader and re-reader of Foote's epic three volume 
> history of the Civil War.  He has a marvelous voice and a wonderful 
> narrative technique.  His writing is always crystal clear, and while he 
> certainly has his favorite side, he is fair to the Union, and is actually 
> a fan of Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant.  He is also particularly keen on 
> giving full attention to the Western theater of the war (which is probably

> why he likes Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant: all, like J. Davis, whom Foote 
> likes very much, being Westerners).  In short, I like the man and his 
> work.

>
> But I do see problems, in his books and in his Burns commentary (which is 
> very largely not only based on his books but is actually often 
> quotational).
>
> Problems:
>
> Foote repeats the now outdated mortality figures that make it look like 
> the north had at least twice the battle dead as the south.  Not true. 
> Battle mortality was pretty close (especially considering the numbers on 
> the field); the big discrepancy comes in deaths by sickness.
>
> He also insists that the outcome of the war was inevitable.  As I have 
> argued before here, I do not think that it was inevitable at all, but I 
> won't reiterate my argument.
>
> He insists that Forrest was a great man as well as an effective soldier. 
> No, there is a difference between human greatness and ferocity.  Forrest 
> was a masterful leader in battle, with a personal ferocity and killer 
> instinct second to none, but for Foote (and Burns) to make him one of the 
> featured heroes of the documentary (the man did, after all, found the Ku 
> Klux Klan: this is not an urban myth) and play down the Fort Pillow 
> atrocity, was simply wrong in a moral sense.

>
> In his books, Foote acts as if Chamberlain did not exist at Gettysburg or 
> anywhere else.
>
> Foote's constant apologia for Davis's many mistakes (mistakes that Davis's

> own contemporaries hated him for) are also highly problematic.
>
> One could go on, but this is a start.
>
>
Hello.

I also like Foote, but his lack of footnotes do leave him open to criticism.
His greatest strength is his abillity to narrate and interpet for those 
unfamiliar with a the war.

In short, he is a great salesman for civil war history.
When I finished volume three, I was sorry it was over.

Less so for Burns, but the same applies.

I think Forrest was a vile, evil man who had an innate instinct for war 
coupled with an instinct for murder.

Parerntghetocally, the statye in Memphis is why I always make sure I drive 
THROUGH Memphis.

He did not actually found the Klan though. He united the various 
organizations that had sprung up after thr war into the United Klan (in 
Missourri, they were called baldknobbers).

In typical Forrest fashion, ala Ft. pillow, he later disavowed what he 
claimed they had turned into.

Regards,

Jack


>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Connell <georgeconnell at me.com>
> To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
> Sent: Sat, Jan 21, 2012 8:54 am
> Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies
>
>
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> Al,
>
> Could you please document that assertion?
>
> Regards,
>
> George
>
> On Jan 21, 2012, at 11:40 AM, ATMackeyJr at aol.com wrote:
>
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 1/21/2012 11:33:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> CWMHTours at aol.com writes:
>>
>> I   was amazed at
>> Shelby being wrong.
>> --------------
>> Shelby was usually wrong in that series.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Al Mackey
>>
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
> -to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com

>  -to
> unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>
>
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com

>  -to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> 





------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:55:08 -0500
From: George Connell <georgeconnell at mac.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies
Message-ID: <BC9CB5F1-E2AB-439B-8DFC-AE7FFF8F562F at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Thank you, joadx1.

My comment to Al was partially tongue-in-cheek since Al once said much of
the same thing to me--albeit in much stronger terms.

On a serious note though, by saying "usually wrong" Al has made sweeping
assertion that should be backed up by lots of evidence. The  word "usually"
(not "sometimes" or "occassionally") requires that.

While I thank you for your useful comments, I note you have presented three
facts and two opinions. As you say, this is a start, and a good one, but
it's going to require a lot more facts before I'll accept "usually."

Regards,

George
26?11'56"N   81?48'19W"

On Jan 21, 2012, at 3:42 PM, joadx1 at netscape.net wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> I'm not Al Mackey and I don't play him on the Gettysburg Discussion Group.
I don't think I've ever stayed at a Holiday Inn either. :>)
> 
> But I'll hazard a response of my own.
> 
> First, I am an avid reader and re-reader of Foote's epic three volume
history of the Civil War.  He has a marvelous voice and a wonderful
narrative technique.  His writing is always crystal clear, and while he
certainly has his favorite side, he is fair to the Union, and is actually a
fan of Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant.  He is also particularly keen on giving
full attention to the Western theater of the war (which is probably why he
likes Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant: all, like J. Davis, whom Foote likes very
much, being Westerners).  In short, I like the man and his work.
> 
> But I do see problems, in his books and in his Burns commentary (which is
very largely not only based on his books but is actually often quotational).
> 
> Problems: 
> 
> Foote repeats the now outdated mortality figures that make it look like
the north had at least twice the battle dead as the south.  Not true.
Battle mortality was pretty close (especially considering the numbers on the
field); the big discrepancy comes in deaths by sickness.
> 
> He also insists that the outcome of the war was inevitable.  As I have
argued before here, I do not think that it was inevitable at all, but I
won't reiterate my argument.
> 
> He insists that Forrest was a great man as well as an effective soldier.
No, there is a difference between human greatness and ferocity.  Forrest was
a masterful leader in battle, with a personal ferocity and killer instinct
second to none, but for Foote (and Burns) to make him one of the featured
heroes of the documentary (the man did, after all, found the Ku Klux Klan:
this is not an urban myth) and play down the Fort Pillow atrocity, was
simply wrong in a moral sense.
> 
> In his books, Foote acts as if Chamberlain did not exist at Gettysburg or
anywhere else.
> 
> Foote's constant apologia for Davis's many mistakes (mistakes that Davis's
own contemporaries hated him for) are also highly problematic.
> 
> One could go on, but this is a start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Connell <georgeconnell at me.com>
> To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
> Sent: Sat, Jan 21, 2012 8:54 am
> Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies
> 
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> Al,
> 
> Could you please document that assertion?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> George
> 
> On Jan 21, 2012, at 11:40 AM, ATMackeyJr at aol.com wrote:
> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>> 
>> 
>> In a message dated 1/21/2012 11:33:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
>> CWMHTours at aol.com writes:
>> 
>> I   was amazed at 
>> Shelby being wrong.
>> --------------
>> Shelby was usually wrong in that series.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Al Mackey
>> 
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com

> -to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to 
> unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> 
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives




------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:23:11 -0500
From: John Grim <jgrim1941 at gmail.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- FW: CW Discrencies
Message-ID:
	<CAHUpNb12A0R12bx7r4kzTvtKULEDd68iWVbg=BsVtVFGVgmRjw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Esteemed Members

History tells us that the Klan was formed on Dec. 24, 1865 in Pulaski,
Tennessee by six well educated former Confederate soldiers.  Forrest joined
up later and was the most recognizable name to be associated with the Klan
and its activities.  He became the Grand Wizard and the Klan's national
leader.  Despite wanting to organize themselves under one leadership most
Klan units even withing states acted autonomously.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 3:55 PM, George Connell
<georgeconnell at mac.com>wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> Thank you, joadx1.
>
> My comment to Al was partially tongue-in-cheek since Al once said much of
> the same thing to me--albeit in much stronger terms.
>
> On a serious note though, by saying "usually wrong" Al has made sweeping
> assertion that should be backed up by lots of evidence. The  word
"usually"
> (not "sometimes" or "occassionally") requires that.
>
> While I thank you for your useful comments, I note you have presented
> three facts and two opinions. As you say, this is a start, and a good one,
> but it's going to require a lot more facts before I'll accept "usually."
>
> Regards,
>
> George
> 26?11'56"N   81?48'19W"
>
> On Jan 21, 2012, at 3:42 PM, joadx1 at netscape.net wrote:
>
> > Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> > I'm not Al Mackey and I don't play him on the Gettysburg Discussion
> Group.  I don't think I've ever stayed at a Holiday Inn either. :>)
> >
> > But I'll hazard a response of my own.
> >
> > First, I am an avid reader and re-reader of Foote's epic three volume
> history of the Civil War.  He has a marvelous voice and a wonderful
> narrative technique.  His writing is always crystal clear, and while he
> certainly has his favorite side, he is fair to the Union, and is actually
a
> fan of Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant.  He is also particularly keen on
giving
> full attention to the Western theater of the war (which is probably why he
> likes Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant: all, like J. Davis, whom Foote likes
> very much, being Westerners).  In short, I like the man and his work.
> >
> > But I do see problems, in his books and in his Burns commentary (which
> is very largely not only based on his books but is actually often
> quotational).
> >
> > Problems:
> >
> > Foote repeats the now outdated mortality figures that make it look like
> the north had at least twice the battle dead as the south.  Not true.
>  Battle mortality was pretty close (especially considering the numbers on
> the field); the big discrepancy comes in deaths by sickness.
> >
> > He also insists that the outcome of the war was inevitable.  As I have
> argued before here, I do not think that it was inevitable at all, but I
> won't reiterate my argument.
> >
> > He insists that Forrest was a great man as well as an effective soldier.
>  No, there is a difference between human greatness and ferocity.  Forrest
> was a masterful leader in battle, with a personal ferocity and killer
> instinct second to none, but for Foote (and Burns) to make him one of the
> featured heroes of the documentary (the man did, after all, found the Ku
> Klux Klan: this is not an urban myth) and play down the Fort Pillow
> atrocity, was simply wrong in a moral sense.
> >
> > In his books, Foote acts as if Chamberlain did not exist at Gettysburg
> or anywhere else.
> >
> > Foote's constant apologia for Davis's many mistakes (mistakes that
> Davis's own contemporaries hated him for) are also highly problematic.
> >
> > One could go on, but this is a start.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Connell <georgeconnell at me.com>
> > To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
> > Sent: Sat, Jan 21, 2012 8:54 am
> > Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies
> >
> >
> > Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> > Al,
> >
> > Could you please document that assertion?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > George
> >
> > On Jan 21, 2012, at 11:40 AM, ATMackeyJr at aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> >>
> >>
> >> In a message dated 1/21/2012 11:33:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> >> CWMHTours at aol.com writes:
> >>
> >> I   was amazed at
> >> Shelby being wrong.
> >> --------------
> >> Shelby was usually wrong in that series.
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Al Mackey
> >>
> >> ----------------
> http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
> > -to unsubscribe
> >> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> >
> > ----------------
> http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to
> > unsubscribe
> > http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> >
> >
> > ----------------
> http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to
> unsubscribe
> > http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>
>
> ----------------
> http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to
> unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>


------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:32:14 -0500 (EST)
From: joadx1 at netscape.net
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- FW: CW Discrepancies
Message-ID: <8CEA69B46F7C00A-2234-188FF at webmail-d132.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


 I stand corrected.

But this is a good example of the sliding scale involved when analyzing
historical accuracy.  I repeated the common mistaken assumption that Forrest
"founded" the KKK.  That was an error, but a very different one if the fact
was that Forrest never had anything to do with the KKK at all.  The facts,
given here, that he pulled the organization together into a national one and
was a Grand Wizard and national leader of the KKK, actually underscores what
my real point was, because if Forrest had actually founded the KKK and then
seen it turn into something he didn't intend, that would be less heinous
than his joining up and building the organization into a national power.

To repeat the main point: details matter, and facts matter.  But some facts
matter more than others, and in the end it is the meaning of the facts that
matters most.  And with Forrest, that meaning is quite clear.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Grim <jgrim1941 at gmail.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 21, 2012 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: GDG- FW: CW Discrencies


Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
Esteemed Members

History tells us that the Klan was formed on Dec. 24, 1865 in Pulaski,
Tennessee by six well educated former Confederate soldiers.  Forrest joined
up later and was the most recognizable name to be associated with the Klan
and its activities.  He became the Grand Wizard and the Klan's national
leader.  Despite wanting to organize themselves under one leadership most
Klan units even withing states acted autonomously.


 


------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:38:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Batrinque at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID: <eb7f.63f9787a.3c4c8a4b at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"



In a message dated 1/21/2012 1:45:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jlawrence at kc.rr.com writes:

But  people do that (drink themselves to death) all the time.
I think a better  explanation might be is that war changes all whom it 
touches, and  different individuials handle it differently.
We just put a name on it  now.
 
 
One of the points of that paper I mentioned about health  costs associated 
with CW veterans that stress from their experience fed  into adopting 
unhealthy behaviors such as drinking too much.  It would be  difficult to
prove 
that any particular individual did or did not drink himself  to death as a 
direct result of the war, but looking at a larger population  something 
statistically significant would emerge.

Bruce  Trinque
Amston, CT


------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:57:38 -0500
From: George Connell <georgeconnell at mac.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID: <09450694-86C4-46D0-BC96-90CB56B90C01 at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Wait! Drinking too much is unhealthy? And you tell me this on Saturday an
hour before martini time?

"Killick, Killick there! Rouse out a dozen of the claret."

"Which I got 'em already in my hands, don't I?"

Regards,

George
26?11'56"N   81?48'19W"

On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Batrinque at aol.com wrote:

> One of the points of that paper I mentioned about health  costs associated

> with CW veterans that stress from their experience fed  into adopting 
> unhealthy behaviors such as drinking too much.  It would be  difficult to
prove 
> that any particular individual did or did not drink himself  to death as a

> direct result of the war, but looking at a larger population  something 
> statistically significant would emerge.
> 
> Bruce  Trinque
> Amston, CT
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives




------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:50:34 -0600
From: John Lawrence <jlawrence at kc.rr.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies
Message-ID: <r1uxarx8lawxd4pkkk6jlsxo.1327164634420 at email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

I think Shelby got it absolutely right.
You cannot record an octogenarian wheezing out a remembered yell and claim
you have heard the full throated roar of a 22 year old about to disappear,
possibly forever, into a swirl of smoke and blood.
I thought that when I saw the episode in its original airing and I think so
now.

Regards,
Jack

CWMHTours at aol.com wrote:

>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>Well Hi Leo-
> 
>I made the original post.  Someone had put up a video of  the vets at the 
>1938 Gettysburg reunion.  These old guys shake hands over  the stone wall
at 
>CH.  They start yipping and one turns to the camera and  says "That's the 
>Rebel Yell" with a grin.
> 
>Ken Burns had the film in his last episode.
> 
>My point was that earlier in the series Shelby Foote is  talking about the 
>Rebel Yell and says no one knows what it sounds  like.
> 
>But I remember the first time I saw the series and saw the old  vets 
>yipping I was amazed that Shelby Foote was wrong.
> 
>It is very hard tracing down the truth in history.  And I  was amazed at 
>Shelby being wrong.
> 
>That's it.
> 
>"Just  the facts, ma'am." 
>
>Your Most Obediant Servant
>Peter  
>
> 
>In a message dated 1/21/2012 11:27:02 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
>mayapple at embarqmail.com writes:
>
>Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
>Having not been following this thread, I just have  one question:  what are

>discrencies?
>Leo McGuire  
>
>
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m
>  -to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
>
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m -to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:53:12 -0600
From: John Lawrence <jlawrence at kc.rr.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID: <xk93mccx0bb9vqlgvil78x76.1327175592995 at email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Stonewall didn't drink himself to death. He was dragged.

Regards,
Jack

George Connell <georgeconnell at mac.com> wrote:

>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>And some of them drink themselves to death.
>
>Regards,
>
>George
>Currently thinking about our Birthday Boy, Stonewall
>
>On Jan 21, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Jack Lawrence wrote:
>
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>> Hi Margaret.
>> But people do that (drink themselves to death) all the time.
>> I think a better explanation might be is that war changes all whom it
touches, and different individuials handle it differently.
>> We just put a name on it now.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Jack
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret D. Blough"
<mdblough1 at comcast.net>
>> To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:02 AM
>> Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
>> 
>> 
>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>> Michael-
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think it would be very tough, in the absence of ability to ask follow
up questions, to distinguish between the fact that being in combat changes a
person (also complicated in the Civil War by the fact that, in some cases,
the person might be years older than when hen left) and an incapacitating
mental disorder. One case in which I know it's suspected is Tom Chamberlain,
Joshua's younger brother. Tom drank himself to death.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Margaret
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Michael DiLauro" <madpd2001 at yahoo.com>
>>> To: gettysburg at arthes.com
>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:07:07 PM
>>> Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
>>> 
>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>> At the risk of going off-topic let me try this...
>>> 
>>> Having handled about a 1/2 dozen NGRI cases over the years the challenge
always is having your expert shrink or psychologist reconstruct the
defendant's state of mind at the time the crime was committed. (Although I
had a case once where the client went to see a shrink somewhere between the
1st and 3rd murders. As an expert witness he was allowed to opine about the
defendant's condition at the time he examined him but could not render an
opinion on the ultimate issue of NGRI.)
>>> 
>>> The 'lookback' is done via a psychiatric examination which includes 1)
interviewing the defendant 2) reviewing prior treatment records if they
exist 3) talking to friends and family members about D's behavior 4)
sometimes neuropsychological testing and MRI. With an adequate evidentiary
foundation and properly qualified expert he/she can speak to D's state of
mind at the time of the crime and the ultimate issue of whether D meets
legal criteria for NGRI. And I'm pretty sure that PTSD is a recognized
psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM IV.
>>> 
>>> Now for our ACW friends alot of this stuff is impossible due to the
passage of time and lack of technology. Also what was the state of medical
record keeping at the time of the ACW and thereafter? If decent then there
could be alot of good information that would speak to the issue of PTSD. And
of course any recollections of friends, family members, co-workers, etc.
would be very valuable, as it is today.
>>> 
>>> From a legal standpoint a historian would not be qualified to speak to
the issue. But a shrink or psychologist with an interest in history would
certainly be qualified to speak to the issues involved in any serious
treatment of the issue.
>>> 
>>> Finally, my physicians assistant is an ACW buff and got me involved in
the RICWRT. I will ask him the next time I'm in to see him with my annual
winter sinus infection.
>>> 
>>> Mike DiLauro
>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m -to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

------------------------------

Message: 16
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:17:19 -0600
From: John Lawrence <jlawrence at kc.rr.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID: <i8q85fulhhtpip2861ufwc2o.1327183912019 at email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Bruce,
First we would have to define drinking yourself to death.
Second, you would have yo define what it was in the 19th century.
Third, we would need a common denominator to equalize the two disparate
figures

I am not sure it would mean anything.

I mean the different alcohol consumption rates alone would be
insurmountable, wouldn't they?
Regards,
Jack


Batrinque at aol.com wrote:

>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
>In a message dated 1/21/2012 1:45:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
>jlawrence at kc.rr.com writes:
>
>But  people do that (drink themselves to death) all the time.
>I think a better  explanation might be is that war changes all whom it 
>touches, and  different individuials handle it differently.
>We just put a name on it  now.
> 
> 
>One of the points of that paper I mentioned about health  costs associated 
>with CW veterans that stress from their experience fed  into adopting 
>unhealthy behaviors such as drinking too much.  It would be  difficult to
prove 
>that any particular individual did or did not drink himself  to death as a 
>direct result of the war, but looking at a larger population  something 
>statistically significant would emerge.
>
>Bruce  Trinque
>Amston, CT
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m -to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

------------------------------

Message: 17
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:31:27 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Margaret D. Blough" <mdblough1 at comcast.net>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID:
	
<570770106.375351.1327185087868.JavaMail.root at sz0190a.westchester.pa.mail.co
mcast.net>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Jack- 


I agree with you. In any individual, you have to start with who they were
before they went to war. Joshua was college-educated, a teacher, a married
man, a father, an established person in the community. He already clearly
had a very strong sense of self. Tom, before the war, was a grocery store
clerk, the only Chamberlain brother not to attend college. During the war,
he rose from private to Lieutenant-Colonel and had a distinguished war
record, apart from his brother. His diligence and judgment upon learning of
his brother's critical wound at Petersburg, including bringing the 20th
Maine's surgeon with him as he searched for Joshua, is justly credited with
a major, if not the but for factor besides Joshua's own determination, in
Joshua surviving what most believed to be a mortal wound. From all accounts,
unlike Joshua, Tom never found his place in the post-war world. Even now,
for people dealing with depression and other mental illnesses, heavy alcohol
consumption is a form of self-medication, an attempt to numb pain,
psychological and/or physical. So, in the case of the Joshua and Thomas
Chamberlain, you have two brothers, so, other than birth order, you don't
have radical differences for nature and/or nurture. Both saw major combat
during the war. So there are still mysteries as to why they had such
radically different post-war lives. 


Regards, 


Margaret 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Lawrence" <jlawrence at kc.rr.com> 
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 1:44:54 PM 
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick 

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
Hi Margaret. 
But people do that (drink themselves to death) all the time. 
I think a better explanation might be is that war changes all whom it 
touches, and different individuials handle it differently. 
We just put a name on it now. 

Regards, 

Jack 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Margaret D. Blough" <mdblough1 at comcast.net> 
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:02 AM 
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick 


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> Michael- 
> 
> 
> I think it would be very tough, in the absence of ability to ask follow up

> questions, to distinguish between the fact that being in combat changes a 
> person (also complicated in the Civil War by the fact that, in some cases,

> the person might be years older than when hen left) and an incapacitating 
> mental disorder. One case in which I know it's suspected is Tom 
> Chamberlain, Joshua's younger brother. Tom drank himself to death. 
> 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> 
> Margaret 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Michael DiLauro" <madpd2001 at yahoo.com> 
> To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:07:07 PM 
> Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick 
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> At the risk of going off-topic let me try this... 
> 
> Having handled about a 1/2 dozen NGRI cases over the years the challenge 
> always is having your expert shrink or psychologist reconstruct the 
> defendant's state of mind at the time the crime was committed. (Although I

> had a case once where the client went to see a shrink somewhere between 
> the 1st and 3rd murders. As an expert witness he was allowed to opine 
> about the defendant's condition at the time he examined him but could not 
> render an opinion on the ultimate issue of NGRI.) 
> 
> The 'lookback' is done via a psychiatric examination which includes 1) 
> interviewing the defendant 2) reviewing prior treatment records if they 
> exist 3) talking to friends and family members about D's behavior 4) 
> sometimes neuropsychological testing and MRI. With an adequate evidentiary

> foundation and properly qualified expert he/she can speak to D's state of 
> mind at the time of the crime and the ultimate issue of whether D meets 
> legal criteria for NGRI. And I'm pretty sure that PTSD is a recognized 
> psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM IV. 
> 
> Now for our ACW friends alot of this stuff is impossible due to the 
> passage of time and lack of technology. Also what was the state of medical

> record keeping at the time of the ACW and thereafter? If decent then there

> could be alot of good information that would speak to the issue of PTSD. 
> And of course any recollections of friends, family members, co-workers, 
> etc. would be very valuable, as it is today. 
> 
> From a legal standpoint a historian would not be qualified to speak to the

> issue. But a shrink or psychologist with an interest in history would 
> certainly be qualified to speak to the issues involved in any serious 
> treatment of the issue. 
> 
> Finally, my physicians assistant is an ACW buff and got me involved in the

> RICWRT. I will ask him the next time I'm in to see him with my annual 
> winter sinus infection. 
> 
> Mike DiLauro 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com

> -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com

> -to unsubscribe 
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> 



----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe 
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 


------------------------------

Message: 18
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:01:18 +0000 (UTC)
From: 128thpa at comcast.net
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: GDG- Chamberlain brothers
Message-ID:
	
<138066892.1183150.1327186878109.JavaMail.root at sz0069a.westchester.pa.mail.c
omcast.net>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8



<<Even now, for people dealing with depression and other mental illnesses,
heavy alcohol consumption is a form of self-medication, an attempt to numb
pain, psychological and/or physical. So, in the case of the Joshua and
Thomas Chamberlain, you have two brothers, so, other than birth order, you
don't have radical differences for nature and/or nurture. Both saw major
combat during the war. So there are still mysteries as to why they had such
radically different post-war lives. >> 


I would also add that Tom had to live in his older brother's shadow which
loomed large over post civil war history.? ?Besides the alcholism - he did
suffer from respiratory ailments as did his brother John (people forget that
there were 3 brothers at Gettysburg) who died shortly after the war.?? Tom
married John's widow.? ? Their brother Horace died of lung disease earlier
.? This was a family with a lot of health issues.? Tom had a lot to contend
with which led to his death at the age of 55. 



Paula

------------------------------

Message: 19
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:01:25 -0500
From: George Connell <georgeconnell at mac.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID: <CE2B446C-2A20-4DF4-8BA3-86CAB5FC4AAD at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

I think scientific experimentation is called for!

Regards,

George
26?11'56"N   81?48'19W"

On Jan 21, 2012, at 5:17 PM, John Lawrence wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> Bruce,
> First we would have to define drinking yourself to death.
> Second, you would have yo define what it was in the 19th century.
> Third, we would need a common denominator to equalize the two disparate
figures
> 
> I am not sure it would mean anything.
> 
> I mean the different alcohol consumption rates alone would be
insurmountable, wouldn't they?
> Regards,
> Jack
> 
> 
> Batrinque at aol.com wrote:
> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>> 
>> 
>> In a message dated 1/21/2012 1:45:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
>> jlawrence at kc.rr.com writes:
>> 
>> But  people do that (drink themselves to death) all the time.
>> I think a better  explanation might be is that war changes all whom it 
>> touches, and  different individuials handle it differently.
>> We just put a name on it  now.
>> 
>> 
>> One of the points of that paper I mentioned about health  costs
associated 
>> with CW veterans that stress from their experience fed  into adopting 
>> unhealthy behaviors such as drinking too much.  It would be  difficult to
prove 
>> that any particular individual did or did not drink himself  to death as
a 
>> direct result of the war, but looking at a larger population  something 
>> statistically significant would emerge.
>> 
>> Bruce  Trinque
>> Amston, CT
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives




------------------------------

Message: 20
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:07:32 -0500
From: "Tom Barrett" <tbarrett21 at cox.net>
To: "'GDG'" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- FW: CW Discrepancies
Message-ID: <382B62D55C8848579378C884CFB88BA1 at BIFF>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"


This is also a good reason I stick with the GDG.  I've had a lot of mistaken
assumption pointedly corrected by this group, many of which I've simply
followed and not commented about. It's about learning.  

(Along with learning the lyrics to the rebel yell.)

Regards,

TB

-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com]
On Behalf Of joadx1 at netscape.net
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 4:32 PM
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- FW: CW Discrepancies

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:

 I stand corrected.

But this is a good example of the sliding scale involved when analyzing
historical accuracy.  I repeated the common mistaken assumption that Forrest
"founded" the KKK.  That was an error, but a very different one if the fact
was that Forrest never had anything to do with the KKK at all.  The facts,
given here, that he pulled the organization together into a national one and
was a Grand Wizard and national leader of the KKK, actually underscores what
my real point was, because if Forrest had actually founded the KKK and then
seen it turn into something he didn't intend, that would be less heinous
than his joining up and building the organization into a national power.

To repeat the main point: details matter, and facts matter.  But some facts
matter more than others, and in the end it is the meaning of the facts that
matters most.  And with Forrest, that meaning is quite clear.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Grim <jgrim1941 at gmail.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 21, 2012 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: GDG- FW: CW Discrencies


Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
Esteemed Members

History tells us that the Klan was formed on Dec. 24, 1865 in Pulaski,
Tennessee by six well educated former Confederate soldiers.  Forrest joined
up later and was the most recognizable name to be associated with the Klan
and its activities.  He became the Grand Wizard and the Klan's national
leader.  Despite wanting to organize themselves under one leadership most
Klan units even withing states acted autonomously.


 
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4757 - Release Date: 01/21/12




------------------------------

Message: 21
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:11:29 -0500
From: Tom <bunco973 at optonline.net>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies - Shelby Foote
Message-ID: <71C300F9CEF84CEDB2736FD1A00C4538 at TomPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

   There is a great interview video of Shelby Foote (3 hours plus) In the C
Span Video Library (and he is one of the few folks I could listen to for 3
hours ;_D). Link below if interested:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Foote&showFullAbstract=1

Regards,
Tom B.









-----Original Message----- 
From: joadx1 at netscape.net 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 3:42 PM 
To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
Subject: Re: GDG- FW: CW Discrencies 

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
I'm not Al Mackey and I don't play him on the Gettysburg Discussion Group.
I don't think I've ever stayed at a Holiday Inn either. :>)

But I'll hazard a response of my own.

First, I am an avid reader and re-reader of Foote's epic three volume
history of the Civil War.  He has a marvelous voice and a wonderful
narrative technique.  His writing is always crystal clear, and while he
certainly has his favorite side, he is fair to the Union, and is actually a
fan of Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant.  He is also particularly keen on giving
full attention to the Western theater of the war (which is probably why he
likes Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant: all, like J. Davis, whom Foote likes very
much, being Westerners).  In short, I like the man and his work.

But I do see problems, in his books and in his Burns commentary (which is
very largely not only based on his books but is actually often quotational).

Problems: 

Foote repeats the now outdated mortality figures that make it look like the
north had at least twice the battle dead as the south.  Not true.  Battle
mortality was pretty close (especially considering the numbers on the
field); the big discrepancy comes in deaths by sickness.

He also insists that the outcome of the war was inevitable.  As I have
argued before here, I do not think that it was inevitable at all, but I
won't reiterate my argument.

He insists that Forrest was a great man as well as an effective soldier.
No, there is a difference between human greatness and ferocity.  Forrest was
a masterful leader in battle, with a personal ferocity and killer instinct
second to none, but for Foote (and Burns) to make him one of the featured
heroes of the documentary (the man did, after all, found the Ku Klux Klan:
this is not an urban myth) and play down the Fort Pillow atrocity, was
simply wrong in a moral sense.

In his books, Foote acts as if Chamberlain did not exist at Gettysburg or
anywhere else.

Foote's constant apologia for Davis's many mistakes (mistakes that Davis's
own contemporaries hated him for) are also highly problematic.

One could go on, but this is a start.









------------------------------

Message: 22
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:14:35 -0800 (PST)
From: keith mackenzie <bluzdad at yahoo.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID:
	<1327191275.49596.YahooMailNeo at web112714.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

There's an official martini time?
K.

"Hello! I'm The Doctor."
(Dr. Who)
 

________________________________
 From: George Connell <georgeconnell at mac.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
  
Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
Wait! Drinking too much is unhealthy? And you tell me this on Saturday an
hour before martini time?

"Killick, Killick there! Rouse out a dozen of the claret."

"Which I got 'em already in my hands, don't I?"

Regards,

George
26?11'56"N?  81?48'19W"

On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Batrinque at aol.com wrote:

> One of the points of that paper I mentioned about health? costs associated

> with CW veterans that stress from their experience fed? into adopting 
> unhealthy behaviors such as drinking too much.? It would be? difficult to
prove 
> that any particular individual did or did not drink himself? to death as a

> direct result of the war, but looking at a larger population? something 
> statistically significant would emerge.
> 
> Bruce? Trinque
> Amston, CT
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives


----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

------------------------------

Message: 23
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:23:15 -0800 (PST)
From: keith mackenzie <bluzdad at yahoo.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies - Shelby Foote
Message-ID:
	<1327191795.13613.YahooMailNeo at web112718.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

I? am a fan of Shelby Foote. He's on my life time "People to Meet"
list.?(Before anyone gleefully educates me,?I know he's dead). Anyway,?I
seem to recall an interview where he specifically denied the charge of being
a historian. With foot notes.
Man, could he tell a story.
K.? 

________________________________
 From: Tom <bunco973 at optonline.net>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies - Shelby Foote
  
Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
?  There is a great interview video of Shelby Foote (3 hours plus) In the C
Span Video Library (and he is one of the few folks I could listen to for 3
hours ;_D). Link below if interested:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Foote&showFullAbstract=1

Regards,
Tom B.









-----Original Message----- 
From: joadx1 at netscape.net 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 3:42 PM 
To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
Subject: Re: GDG- FW: CW Discrencies 

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
I'm not Al Mackey and I don't play him on the Gettysburg Discussion Group.?
I don't think I've ever stayed at a Holiday Inn either. :>)

But I'll hazard a response of my own.

First, I am an avid reader and re-reader of Foote's epic three volume
history of the Civil War.? He has a marvelous voice and a wonderful
narrative technique.? His writing is always crystal clear, and while he
certainly has his favorite side, he is fair to the Union, and is actually a
fan of Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant.? He is also particularly keen on giving
full attention to the Western theater of the war (which is probably why he
likes Lincoln, Sherman, and Grant: all, like J. Davis, whom Foote likes very
much, being Westerners).? In short, I like the man and his work.

But I do see problems, in his books and in his Burns commentary (which is
very largely not only based on his books but is actually often quotational).

Problems: 

Foote repeats the now outdated mortality figures that make it look like the
north had at least twice the battle dead as the south.? Not true.? Battle
mortality was pretty close (especially considering the numbers on the
field); the big discrepancy comes in deaths by sickness.

He also insists that the outcome of the war was inevitable.? As I have
argued before here, I do not think that it was inevitable at all, but I
won't reiterate my argument.

He insists that Forrest was a great man as well as an effective soldier.?
No, there is a difference between human greatness and ferocity.? Forrest was
a masterful leader in battle, with a personal ferocity and killer instinct
second to none, but for Foote (and Burns) to make him one of the featured
heroes of the documentary (the man did, after all, found the Ku Klux Klan:
this is not an urban myth) and play down the Fort Pillow atrocity, was
simply wrong in a moral sense.

In his books, Foote acts as if Chamberlain did not exist at Gettysburg or
anywhere else.

Foote's constant apologia for Davis's many mistakes (mistakes that Davis's
own contemporaries hated him for) are also highly problematic.

One could go on, but this is a start.







----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

------------------------------

Message: 24
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:26:34 -0500
From: George Connell <georgeconnell at mac.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID: <00912748-8535-4CE6-A4B7-197427112AC4 at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

6PM and its well underway!

George
26?11'56"N   81?48'19W"

On Jan 21, 2012, at 7:14 PM, keith mackenzie wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> There's an official martini time?
> K.
> 
> "Hello! I'm The Doctor."
> (Dr. Who)
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: George Connell <georgeconnell at mac.com>
> To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 4:57 PM
> Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> Wait! Drinking too much is unhealthy? And you tell me this on Saturday an
hour before martini time?
> 
> "Killick, Killick there! Rouse out a dozen of the claret."
> 
> "Which I got 'em already in my hands, don't I?"
> 
> Regards,
> 
> George
> 26?11'56"N   81?48'19W"
> 
> On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Batrinque at aol.com wrote:
> 
>> One of the points of that paper I mentioned about health  costs
associated 
>> with CW veterans that stress from their experience fed  into adopting 
>> unhealthy behaviors such as drinking too much.  It would be  difficult to
prove 
>> that any particular individual did or did not drink himself  to death as
a 
>> direct result of the war, but looking at a larger population  something 
>> statistically significant would emerge.
>> 
>> Bruce  Trinque
>> Amston, CT
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> 
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives




------------------------------

Message: 25
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:27:42 -0500
From: Tom <bunco973 at optonline.net>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies - Shelby Foote
Message-ID: <CA05AD8BE70142588941F395DF9969CF at TomPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
	reply-type=original

  Is that a pun, Keith ? >>>> With foot notes <<<<<<

Regards,
Tom B.





-----Original Message----- 
From: keith mackenzie
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:23 PM
To: GDG
Subject: Re: GDG- FW: CW Discrencies - Shelby Foote

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
I  am a fan of Shelby Foote. He's on my life time "People to Meet" list. 
(Before anyone gleefully educates me, I know he's dead). Anyway, I seem to 
recall an interview where he specifically denied the charge of being a 
historian. With foot notes.
Man, could he tell a story.
K.

________________________________
From: Tom <bunco973 at optonline.net>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies - Shelby Foote

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
   There is a great interview video of Shelby Foote (3 hours plus) In the C 
Span Video Library (and he is one of the few folks I could listen to for 3 
hours ;_D). Link below if interested:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Foote&showFullAbstract=1

Regards,
Tom B.













------------------------------

Message: 26
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:37:34 -0500
From: Tom <bunco973 at optonline.net>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: GDG- Tom Chamberlain
Message-ID: <9B61D28021BB4960833642946150A2D3 at TomPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Could Tom's problems after the War have been caused by post-traumatic
stress?

This is a bit too easy and simple an explanation, although doubtless it did
have a part to play, as it did with many, or even most, of those men who
fought in the Civil War and survived to try to build a new life afterwards.
But Tom had problems before the War: he was not content with his situation
and may have been actively unhappy. After the War, his existing tendency to
take reverses badly was compounded by his drinking and poor physical health.
All of these factors might well have come into play regardless of the War;
in fact, there's an argument for saying that this might have happened sooner
without the War, during which he was well motivated and in control of his
life (if he was drinking then, it was not enough to affect his work). It's
also worth remembering that he survived for another thirty years and, while
we discover more about the bad times, there were unquestionably good times
as well for him, when his personal relationships were happy and his career
going along okay. It doesn't always get us anywhere to see the complexities
of a man's life in terms of a syndrome.



Above quoted from FAQ?s on the following website:

http://joshualawrencechamberlain.net/research.html



Regards, Tom B.


------------------------------

Message: 27
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:52:06 -0500
From: "Bill Speer" <bspeer at compassnet.com>
To: "'GDG'" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID: <000001ccd8a0$110e2b50$332a81f0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

It was quite clear to me that Henry Robinett BEFORE the war maintained his
"character" during the war and after...more's the pity.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com]
On Behalf Of Margaret D. Blough
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 5:31 PM
To: GDG
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
Jack- 


I agree with you. In any individual, you have to start with who they were
before they went to war. Joshua was college-educated, a teacher, a married
man, a father, an established person in the community. He already clearly
had a very strong sense of self. Tom, before the war, was a grocery store
clerk, the only Chamberlain brother not to attend college. During the war,
he rose from private to Lieutenant-Colonel and had a distinguished war
record, apart from his brother. His diligence and judgment upon learning of
his brother's critical wound at Petersburg, including bringing the 20th
Maine's surgeon with him as he searched for Joshua, is justly credited with
a major, if not the but for factor besides Joshua's own determination, in
Joshua surviving what most believed to be a mortal wound. From all accounts,
unlike Joshua, Tom never found his place in the post-war world. Even now,
for people dealing with depression and other mental illnesses, heavy alcohol
consumption is a form of self-medication, an attempt to numb pain,
psychological and/or physical. So, in the case of the Joshua and Thomas
Chamberlain, you have two brothers, so, other than birth order, you don't
have radical differences for nature and/or nurture. Both saw major combat
during the war. So there are still mysteries as to why they had such
radically different post-war lives. 


Regards, 


Margaret 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Lawrence" <jlawrence at kc.rr.com>
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 1:44:54 PM
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick 

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
Hi Margaret. 
But people do that (drink themselves to death) all the time. 
I think a better explanation might be is that war changes all whom it
touches, and different individuials handle it differently. 
We just put a name on it now. 

Regards, 

Jack 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Margaret D. Blough" <mdblough1 at comcast.net>
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick 


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> Michael-
> 
> 
> I think it would be very tough, in the absence of ability to ask 
> follow up questions, to distinguish between the fact that being in 
> combat changes a person (also complicated in the Civil War by the fact 
> that, in some cases, the person might be years older than when hen 
> left) and an incapacitating mental disorder. One case in which I know 
> it's suspected is Tom Chamberlain, Joshua's younger brother. Tom drank
himself to death.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael DiLauro" <madpd2001 at yahoo.com>
> To: gettysburg at arthes.com
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:07:07 PM
> Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> At the risk of going off-topic let me try this... 
> 
> Having handled about a 1/2 dozen NGRI cases over the years the 
> challenge always is having your expert shrink or psychologist 
> reconstruct the defendant's state of mind at the time the crime was 
> committed. (Although I had a case once where the client went to see a 
> shrink somewhere between the 1st and 3rd murders. As an expert witness 
> he was allowed to opine about the defendant's condition at the time he 
> examined him but could not render an opinion on the ultimate issue of 
> NGRI.)
> 
> The 'lookback' is done via a psychiatric examination which includes 1) 
> interviewing the defendant 2) reviewing prior treatment records if 
> they exist 3) talking to friends and family members about D's behavior 
> 4) sometimes neuropsychological testing and MRI. With an adequate 
> evidentiary foundation and properly qualified expert he/she can speak 
> to D's state of mind at the time of the crime and the ultimate issue 
> of whether D meets legal criteria for NGRI. And I'm pretty sure that 
> PTSD is a recognized psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM IV.
> 
> Now for our ACW friends alot of this stuff is impossible due to the 
> passage of time and lack of technology. Also what was the state of 
> medical record keeping at the time of the ACW and thereafter? If 
> decent then there could be alot of good information that would speak to
the issue of PTSD.
> And of course any recollections of friends, family members, 
> co-workers, etc. would be very valuable, as it is today.
> 
> From a legal standpoint a historian would not be qualified to speak to 
> the issue. But a shrink or psychologist with an interest in history 
> would certainly be qualified to speak to the issues involved in any 
> serious treatment of the issue.
> 
> Finally, my physicians assistant is an ACW buff and got me involved in 
> the RICWRT. I will ask him the next time I'm in to see him with my 
> annual winter sinus infection.
> 
> Mike DiLauro
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arth
> es.com
> -to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arth
> es.com
> -to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> 



----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for
Archives
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for
Archives




------------------------------

Message: 28
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:18:31 -0800 (PST)
From: keith mackenzie <bluzdad at yahoo.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies - Shelby Foote
Message-ID:
	<1327198711.29634.YahooMailNeo at web112716.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

No.?
?
K.

"Hello! I'm The Doctor."
(Dr. Who)
 

________________________________
 From: Tom <bunco973 at optonline.net>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies - Shelby Foote
  
Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
Is that a pun, Keith ? >>>> With foot notes <<<<<<

Regards,
Tom B.





-----Original Message----- From: keith mackenzie
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:23 PM
To: GDG
Subject: Re: GDG- FW: CW Discrencies - Shelby Foote

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
I? am a fan of Shelby Foote. He's on my life time "People to Meet" list.
(Before anyone gleefully educates me, I know he's dead). Anyway, I seem to
recall an interview where he specifically denied the charge of being a
historian. With foot notes.
Man, could he tell a story.
K.

________________________________
From: Tom <bunco973 at optonline.net>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:? CW Discrencies - Shelby Foote

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
? There is a great interview video of Shelby Foote (3 hours plus) In the C
Span Video Library (and he is one of the few folks I could listen to for 3
hours ;_D). Link below if interested:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Foote&showFullAbstract=1

Regards,
Tom B.











----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

------------------------------

Message: 29
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:45:09 -0500 (EST)
From: ATMackeyJr at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies
Message-ID: <4a6c.103c69ff.3c4ce045 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Example:  Shelby claimed that it was the Civil War that caused the  
grammatical change from referring to "the United States are" to "the United
States 
is."  That's pure hogwash.  It was part of the evolution of  American 
English from British English.  "United States" is a collective  noun.  Even 
today, British English refers to collective nouns in the  plural, such as
"the 
team are playing tomorrow."  In American English, we  now refer to
collective 
nouns in the singular, such as "the team is playing  tomorrow.
 
Best Regards,
Al Mackey
 
 
In a message dated 1/21/2012 11:54:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
georgeconnell at me.com writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
Al,

Could you please document that  assertion?

Regards,

George

On Jan 21, 2012, at 11:40 AM,  ATMackeyJr at aol.com wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>  
> 
> In a message dated 1/21/2012 11:33:44 A.M. Eastern Standard  Time,  
> CWMHTours at aol.com writes:
> 
> I    was amazed at 
> Shelby being wrong.
> --------------
>  Shelby was usually wrong in that series.
> 
> Best  Regards,
> Al Mackey
> 
>  
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives

----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives



------------------------------

Message: 30
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:46:03 -0500 (EST)
From: ATMackeyJr at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies
Message-ID: <4aab.d52d916.3c4ce07b at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"



In a message dated 1/21/2012 12:00:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
CWMHTours at aol.com writes:

I  thought that was a very surprising statement.  I've  read half of  his 
trilogy and watched all his interviews on Burns and that is the   only 
thing I 
ever noticed where he was just plain wrong.  I am a big  fan of  his and 
wished he was still around.
---------------
 
Much of what he says in the Burns series is wrong.
 
Best Regards,
Al Mackey



------------------------------

Message: 31
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:49:39 -0500 (EST)
From: ATMackeyJr at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID: <4bbd.f73ed96.3c4ce153 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"

A Jack Aubrey reference should always be on topic anywhere.  : )
 
Best Regards,
Al Mackey
 
 
In a message dated 1/21/2012 4:58:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
georgeconnell at mac.com writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
Wait! Drinking too much is unhealthy? And you tell  me this on Saturday an 
hour before martini time?

"Killick, Killick  there! Rouse out a dozen of the claret."

"Which I got 'em already in my  hands, don't I?"

Regards,

George
26?11'56"N    81?48'19W"

On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Batrinque at aol.com  wrote:

> One of the points of that paper I mentioned about  health  costs 
associated 
> with CW veterans that stress from their  experience fed  into adopting 
> unhealthy behaviors such as  drinking too much.  It would be  difficult 
to prove 
> that  any particular individual did or did not drink himself  to death as 
a  
> direct result of the war, but looking at a larger population   something 
> statistically significant would emerge.
> 
>  Bruce  Trinque
> Amston, CT
>  
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives


----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives


------------------------------

Message: 32
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:18:22 -0500
From: "Charles T. Joyce" <CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com>
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies
Message-ID: <2744848B-567E-4921-840D-06ECD7160A3C at spearwilderman.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

His vaunted "Stars in their Courses" is chock full of errors. A folksy guy
but no Catton, much less a Coddington.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 21, 2012, at 10:46 PM, "ATMackeyJr at aol.com" <ATMackeyJr at aol.com>
wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> 
> 
> In a message dated 1/21/2012 12:00:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> CWMHTours at aol.com writes:
> 
> I  thought that was a very surprising statement.  I've  read half of  his 
> trilogy and watched all his interviews on Burns and that is the   only 
> thing I 
> ever noticed where he was just plain wrong.  I am a big  fan of  his and 
> wished he was still around.
> ---------------
> 
> Much of what he says in the Burns series is wrong.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Al Mackey
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives



------------------------------

Message: 33
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:57:09 -0500 (EST)
From: atmackeyjr at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <8CEA6D96E2A5663-1B1C-11DEC at Webmail-d125.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


All from the Burns series:

1. "When he had to choose between the nation and Virginia there was never
any doubt about what his choice would be. He went with his state. He said 'I
can't draw my sword against my native state' or as he often said, 'my
country.'"
------
I have not found a single instance of Lee referring to Virginia as his
"country." Not only did he NOT often say Viginia was "my country," but he
never said it, as far as I can determine.

2. "Southerners would have told you they were fighting for self-government.
They believed the gathering of power in Washington was against them. When
they entered into that Federation they certainly would never have entered
into it if they hadn't believed it would be possible to get out. And when
the time came that thy wanted to get out they thought they had every right."
---
This is baloney. If you read the ratification debates, it's clear they knew
they were going into a nation they couldn't leave at a whim. Look at Patrick
Henry's speeches. He said very clearly that once they ratified the
Constitution there was no way out, and not a single person contradicted him.
I have not seen a single instance of someone during the secession
conventions making the claim that their state wouldn't have ratified the
Constitution if they couldn't secede whenever they wanted. Disunion was a
hated concept in the south through most of the antebellum era. See Elizabeth
Varon's book, Disunion.

3. The story of Forrest, having been shot by a musket (.58 caliber,
remember), riding along and then picking up a Union soldier (with one hand)
and holding that soldier behind him as a shield is unbelievable. That
soldier couldn't get away even though he was being held with one hand? He
couldn't punch, claw, or scratch? And a wounded Forrest picking up a 140-150
lb. soldier with one hand and maneuvering him to the back of his saddle? I
want to see the primary source evidence for that one. Until I do, I will
maintain it didn't happen.

4. His claiming that when you saw a dead soldier with their clothes in
disarray it was from the soldiers themselves searching for where they were
wounded. Yeah, right. They pulled out their pockets because the bullet might
have fallen into their pockets, right? They were robbed.

5. "The answer a southerner would give you as to why are you fighting, if
you were a northerner, he would say, 'I'm fighting because you're down
here.' He was being invaded and he fought as he thought to defend his home."
---
Slavery was a driving factor, even for many nonslaveholding white
southerners in the confederate states. This is borne out by James
McPherson's For Cause & Comrades, Chandra Manning's What This Cruel War Was
Over, and Aaron Sheehan-Dean's Why Confederates Fought. That doesn't
preclude additional motives, such as protecting a home against invaders. But
his de-emphasis of slavery as a motivating factor is pure lost cause.  "Some
of the boys [Union soldiers] asked them [confederate soldiers] what they
were fighting for, and they answered, 'You Yanks want us to marry our
daughters to the n----rs.' " [Chauncey Cook to parents, May 10, 1864, quoted
in James M. McPherson, _For Cause & Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil
War, p. 109]  Joe Glathaar's book on the Army of Northern Virginia tells us
that 40% of the ANV was made up of soldiers from slaveowning families.

6. His claim that it was the Civil War that caused Americans to no longer
refer to the United States as "the United States are" and rather refer to
the United States as "the United States is" ("It made us an 'is'.") is more
poppycock. That was part of the normal evolution of American English away
from British English. British English, even today, refers to collective
nouns in the plural. For example, a Brit would say, "The team are getting
ready to play." American English evolved away from that by referring to
collective nouns in the singular. For example, "The team is getting ready to
play." "United States" is another collective noun, referred to in the plural
in British English and in the singular in American English.

"A similar search comparing the frequency of the phrases 'United States are'
and 'United States is' reveals that, contrary to Foote's assertion that the
former was the preferred usage in the decades before the war, the two
phrases were actually used about equally through the first few decades of
the Republic. That began to change in the 1840s, when 'United States is'
(shown in red) began gradually to pull away from 'United States are' (in
blue) in printed usage. By the beginning of the war (shown here as a green
bar), 'United States is' was solidly more common in usage--though not
greatly so--than 'United States are' "

http://www.civilwarmonitor.com/front-line/it-made-us-an-is

7. "Lincoln needed to unite the North and he did it in two ways. The
Republic must be preserved, not split into two. The other he gave them as a
cause the freedom of the slaves."
---
More lost cause nonsense. Lincoln knew the EP would be a very controversial
measure. "If anything, Northern public opinion remained loudly and
frantically hostile to the prospect of emancipation, much less emancipation
by presidential decree." [Allen C. Guelzo, Lincoln's Emancipation
Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, p. 6] Does that sound like
something that would unite "the North" to support the war? Not to me.

8. "Gettysburg was the price the South paid for having R. E. Lee. That was
the mistake he made, the mistake of all mistakes."
---
Again, more lost cause nonsense.

"I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." George Pickett
on why the confederates lost at Gettysburg.
Not a Lee mistake, not the fault of his subordinates. The confederates were
outfought and Lee was outgeneraled. 

9. "He felt that he had failed." [Lincoln at the Gettysburg Address]
---
Lincoln knew he hadn't failed. "Lincoln's text was polished, his delivery
emphatic, he was interrupted by applause five times. Read in a slow, clear
way to the farthest listeners, the speech would take about three minutes. It
is quite true that the audience did not take in all that happened in that
short time--we are still trying to weigh the consequences of that amazing
performance. But the myth that Lincoln was disappointed in the result--that
he told the unreliable Lamon that his speech, like a bad plow, 'won't
scour'--has no basis. He had done what he wanted to do, and Hay shared the
pride his superior took in an important occasion put to good use." [Garry
Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America, p. 36]

10. His claim that "the North fought that war with one arm tied behind its
back" and that "the South didn't have a chance" is, once again, you guessed
it, lost cause poppycock. The confederacy encompassed a huge area that had
to be conquered. They had the advantage of the defensive and interior lines.
Their armies, being smaller, were more maneuverable. They could win the war
by not losing. They didn't have to defeat the Union, they just had to keep
from losing. The confederacy had a very good shot at winning. 

11.  Nor is Shelby Foote persuasive when he suggests (perfectly consistent
with the film's spirit) that the war came 'because we failed to do the thing
we really have a genius for, which is compromise.' He says nothing about
what might have been compromised, but those who lived at the time,
especially blacks, knew very well what would have been the basis for any new
sectional compromise. Shelby Foote is an engaging battlefield guide, a
master of the anecdote, and a gifted and charming story teller, but he is
not a good historian. He seems to have little idea as to what gave meaning
to this 'enormous catastrophe' other than the valor of the combatants."
[Leon F. Litwack, "Telling the Story: The Historian, the Filmmaker, and the
Civil War," in Robert Brent Toplin, ed., Ken Burns's The Civil War:
Historians Respond, p. 137] 

12.  Here's Shelby in another forum:
"The flag is a symbol my great grandfather fought under and in defense of. I
am for flying it anywhere anybody wants to fly it. I do know perfectly well
what pain it causes my black friends, but I think that pain is not necessary
if they would read the confederate constitution and knew what the
confederacy really stood for. This country has two grievous sins on its
hands. One of them is slavery - whether we'll ever be cured of it, I don't
know. The other one is emancipation - they told 4 million people, you're
free, hit the road, and they drifted back into a form of peonage that in
some ways is worse than slavery. These things have got to be understood
before they're condemned. They're condemned on the face of it because they
take that flag to represent what those yahoos represent as - in their
protest against civil rights things. But the people who knew what that flag
really stood for should have stopped those yahoos from using it as a symbol
of what they stood for. But we didn't - and now you had this problem of the
confederate flag being identified as sort of a roughneck thing, which it is
not."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june00/flag_5-29.html

So he thinks if African Americans read the confederate constitution they
wouldn't oppose display of the confederate battle flag.  And emancipation of
the slaves was a sin.  The slaves drifted into peonage with no agency among
southern whites whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?


------------------------------

Message: 34
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:12:11 -0500 (EST)
From: joadx1 at netscape.net
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <8CEA6DB8827D5EE-11E0-13380 at webmail-m019.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

You see, I knew there was a lot more to it. :>)

Very nice piece of documentation.  Particularly nice catch on Garry Wills.
I didn't know this.

I can add one little bitsy piece that is directly relevant to Gettysburg.
Foote gave an invited speech at Gettysburg in which he insisted that the
confederate soldiers buried there should be honored exactly as the Union
soldiers were.  As Mr. Mackey documents, this represents a severe
misunderstanding of what the Gettysburg address was all about.  Maybe Foote
needs to read the confederate constitution.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: atmackeyjr <atmackeyjr at aol.com>
To: gettysburg <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 21, 2012 8:57 pm
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth


Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:

All from the Burns series:

1. "When he had to choose between the nation and Virginia there was never
any 
doubt about what his choice would be. He went with his state. He said 'I
can't 
draw my sword against my native state' or as he often said, 'my country.'"
------
I have not found a single instance of Lee referring to Virginia as his 
"country." Not only did he NOT often say Viginia was "my country," but he
never 
said it, as far as I can determine.

2. "Southerners would have told you they were fighting for self-government.
They 
believed the gathering of power in Washington was against them. When they 
entered into that Federation they certainly would never have entered into it
if 
they hadn't believed it would be possible to get out. And when the time came

that thy wanted to get out they thought they had every right."
---
This is baloney. If you read the ratification debates, it's clear they knew
they 
were going into a nation they couldn't leave at a whim. Look at Patrick
Henry's 
speeches. He said very clearly that once they ratified the Constitution
there 
was no way out, and not a single person contradicted him. I have not seen a 
single instance of someone during the secession conventions making the claim

that their state wouldn't have ratified the Constitution if they couldn't
secede 
whenever they wanted. Disunion was a hated concept in the south through most
of 
the antebellum era. See Elizabeth Varon's book, Disunion.

3. The story of Forrest, having been shot by a musket (.58 caliber,
remember), 
riding along and then picking up a Union soldier (with one hand) and holding

that soldier behind him as a shield is unbelievable. That soldier couldn't
get 
away even though he was being held with one hand? He couldn't punch, claw,
or 
scratch? And a wounded Forrest picking up a 140-150 lb. soldier with one
hand 
and maneuvering him to the back of his saddle? I want to see the primary
source 
evidence for that one. Until I do, I will maintain it didn't happen.

4. His claiming that when you saw a dead soldier with their clothes in
disarray 
it was from the soldiers themselves searching for where they were wounded.
Yeah, 
right. They pulled out their pockets because the bullet might have fallen
into 
their pockets, right? They were robbed.

5. "The answer a southerner would give you as to why are you fighting, if
you 
were a northerner, he would say, 'I'm fighting because you're down here.' He
was 
being invaded and he fought as he thought to defend his home."
---
Slavery was a driving factor, even for many nonslaveholding white
southerners in 
the confederate states. This is borne out by James McPherson's For Cause & 
Comrades, Chandra Manning's What This Cruel War Was Over, and Aaron 
Sheehan-Dean's Why Confederates Fought. That doesn't preclude additional 
motives, such as protecting a home against invaders. But his de-emphasis of 
slavery as a motivating factor is pure lost cause.  "Some of the boys [Union

soldiers] asked them [confederate soldiers] what they were fighting for, and

they answered, 'You Yanks want us to marry our daughters to the n----rs.' " 
[Chauncey Cook to parents, May 10, 1864, quoted in James M. McPherson, _For 
Cause & Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, p. 109]  Joe Glathaar's
book 
on the Army of Northern Virginia tells us that 40% of the ANV was made up of

soldiers from slaveowning families.

6. His claim that it was the Civil War that caused Americans to no longer
refer 
to the United States as "the United States are" and rather refer to the
United 
States as "the United States is" ("It made us an 'is'.") is more poppycock.
That 
was part of the normal evolution of American English away from British
English. 
British English, even today, refers to collective nouns in the plural. For 
example, a Brit would say, "The team are getting ready to play." American 
English evolved away from that by referring to collective nouns in the
singular. 
For example, "The team is getting ready to play." "United States" is another

collective noun, referred to in the plural in British English and in the 
singular in American English.

"A similar search comparing the frequency of the phrases 'United States are'
and 
'United States is' reveals that, contrary to Foote's assertion that the
former 
was the preferred usage in the decades before the war, the two phrases were 
actually used about equally through the first few decades of the Republic.
That 
began to change in the 1840s, when 'United States is' (shown in red) began 
gradually to pull away from 'United States are' (in blue) in printed usage.
By 
the beginning of the war (shown here as a green bar), 'United States is' was

solidly more common in usage--though not greatly so--than 'United States
are' "

http://www.civilwarmonitor.com/front-line/it-made-us-an-is

7. "Lincoln needed to unite the North and he did it in two ways. The
Republic 
must be preserved, not split into two. The other he gave them as a cause the

freedom of the slaves."
---
More lost cause nonsense. Lincoln knew the EP would be a very controversial 
measure. "If anything, Northern public opinion remained loudly and
frantically 
hostile to the prospect of emancipation, much less emancipation by
presidential 
decree." [Allen C. Guelzo, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of 
Slavery in America, p. 6] Does that sound like something that would unite
"the 
North" to support the war? Not to me.

8. "Gettysburg was the price the South paid for having R. E. Lee. That was
the 
mistake he made, the mistake of all mistakes."
---
Again, more lost cause nonsense.

"I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." George Pickett
on 
why the confederates lost at Gettysburg.
Not a Lee mistake, not the fault of his subordinates. The confederates were 
outfought and Lee was outgeneraled. 

9. "He felt that he had failed." [Lincoln at the Gettysburg Address]
---
Lincoln knew he hadn't failed. "Lincoln's text was polished, his delivery 
emphatic, he was interrupted by applause five times. Read in a slow, clear
way 
to the farthest listeners, the speech would take about three minutes. It is 
quite true that the audience did not take in all that happened in that short

time--we are still trying to weigh the consequences of that amazing
performance. 
But the myth that Lincoln was disappointed in the result--that he told the 
unreliable Lamon that his speech, like a bad plow, 'won't scour'--has no
basis. 
He had done what he wanted to do, and Hay shared the pride his superior took
in 
an important occasion put to good use." [Garry Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg:
The 
Words That Remade America, p. 36]

10. His claim that "the North fought that war with one arm tied behind its
back" 
and that "the South didn't have a chance" is, once again, you guessed it,
lost 
cause poppycock. The confederacy encompassed a huge area that had to be 
conquered. They had the advantage of the defensive and interior lines. Their

armies, being smaller, were more maneuverable. They could win the war by not

losing. They didn't have to defeat the Union, they just had to keep from
losing. 
The confederacy had a very good shot at winning. 

11.  Nor is Shelby Foote persuasive when he suggests (perfectly consistent
with 
the film's spirit) that the war came 'because we failed to do the thing we 
really have a genius for, which is compromise.' He says nothing about what
might 
have been compromised, but those who lived at the time, especially blacks,
knew 
very well what would have been the basis for any new sectional compromise. 
Shelby Foote is an engaging battlefield guide, a master of the anecdote, and
a 
gifted and charming story teller, but he is not a good historian. He seems
to 
have little idea as to what gave meaning to this 'enormous catastrophe'
other 
than the valor of the combatants."  [Leon F. Litwack, "Telling the Story:
The 
Historian, the Filmmaker, and the Civil War," in Robert Brent Toplin, ed.,
Ken 
Burns's The Civil War: Historians Respond, p. 137] 

12.  Here's Shelby in another forum:
"The flag is a symbol my great grandfather fought under and in defense of. I
am 
for flying it anywhere anybody wants to fly it. I do know perfectly well
what 
pain it causes my black friends, but I think that pain is not necessary if
they 
would read the confederate constitution and knew what the confederacy really

stood for. This country has two grievous sins on its hands. One of them is 
slavery - whether we'll ever be cured of it, I don't know. The other one is 
emancipation - they told 4 million people, you're free, hit the road, and
they 
drifted back into a form of peonage that in some ways is worse than slavery.

These things have got to be understood before they're condemned. They're 
condemned on the face of it because they take that flag to represent what
those 
yahoos represent as - in their protest against civil rights things. But the 
people who knew what that flag really stood for should have stopped those
yahoos 
from using it as a symbol of what they stood for. But we d
 idn't - and now you had this problem of the confederate flag being
identified 
as sort of a roughneck thing, which it is not."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june00/flag_5-29.html

So he thinks if African Americans read the confederate constitution they 
wouldn't oppose display of the confederate battle flag.  And emancipation of
the 
slaves was a sin.  The slaves drifted into peonage with no agency among
southern 
whites whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to 
unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

 


------------------------------

Message: 35
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:14:59 -0500 (EST)
From: joadx1 at netscape.net
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <8CEA6DBEBD8C694-11E0-13398 at webmail-m019.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Excuse me, needed, not needs.  I know that he died a few years ago, a very
charming man to the end.
 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: joadx1 <joadx1 at netscape.net>
To: gettysburg <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 21, 2012 9:13 pm
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth


Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
You see, I knew there was a lot more to it. :>)

Very nice piece of documentation.  Particularly nice catch on Garry Wills.
I 
didn't know this.

I can add one little bitsy piece that is directly relevant to Gettysburg.
Foote 
gave an invited speech at Gettysburg in which he insisted that the
confederate 
soldiers buried there should be honored exactly as the Union soldiers were.
As 
Mr. Mackey documents, this represents a severe misunderstanding of what the 
Gettysburg address was all about.  Maybe Foote needs to read the confederate

constitution.

 

 

 


 


------------------------------

Message: 36
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:12:51 +1100
From: Kerry Webb <kwebb at grapevine.com.au>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID: <4F1BD313.9080307 at grapevine.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 22/01/12 11:26 AM, George Connell wrote:
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> 6PM and its well underway!
>

Jack Aubrey, of course, would have spelled it "under way".

Kerry
(an opponent of damned Whiggish spelling)


-- 
Kerry Webb
Canberra, Australia



------------------------------

Message: 37
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:24:26 -0500
From: "Tom Ryan" <pennmardel at mchsi.com>
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <LDECKGPDMLODKMMFANMBGEOADGAA.pennmardel at mchsi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

<<8. "Gettysburg was the price the South paid for having R. E. Lee. That was
the mistake he made, the mistake of all mistakes."
---
Again, more lost cause nonsense.

"I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." George Pickett
on why the confederates lost at Gettysburg.
Not a Lee mistake, not the fault of his subordinates. The confederates were
outfought and Lee was outgeneraled.>>

I agree that Pickett had it right.  I would add, however, that Lee was
outgeneraled to a great extent because the Union command had much better
intelligence.  And, unlike at Chancellorsville where Hooker had better
intelligence than Lee in the early part of the battle and failed to act on
it, during the Gettysburg Campaign both Hooker and Meade as well as some of
the subordinate AoP generals actually acted on this intelligence to gain the
upper hand and win a great victory.

The downside for Meade and the AoP was failing to heed the intelligence in
the aftermath of the three-day battle in order to make the victory at
Gettysburg more complete.

Regards, Tom Ryan






------------------------------

Message: 38
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:54:31 -0500
From: "Tom Ryan" <pennmardel at mchsi.com>
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <LDECKGPDMLODKMMFANMBAEOBDGAA.pennmardel at mchsi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

<<So he thinks if African Americans read the confederate constitution they
wouldn't oppose display of the confederate battle flag.  And emancipation of
the slaves was a sin.  The slaves drifted into peonage with no agency among
southern whites whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?>>

For what it is worth, I attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on Saturday
hosted by a local Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have gotten to know
the commander of the Camp well, and he has participated with me in a local
CW presentation.

This past July, this SCV Camp was invited to take part in our town July 4
parade.  The Camp agreed, but later withdrew when they were informed by the
parade officials that they could not display the Confederate flag.

On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp commander, and asked
him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered displaying the Confederate
national flag, rather than the battleflag, at public events -- which would
be much less controversial.

The commander's response was immediate and adamant that he would not
compromise his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of the
heritage of those who fought under its banner.  Once he got onto this
subject, frankly it was difficult to divert him to something more amenable
and less controversial.

It is difficult to find a reasonable solution or compromise on this issue.
Our CWRT displays both the American and Confederate flags at our meetings.
At a public ceremony in our town hall last April in commemoration of the
beginning of the CW, both flags were on display.

However, officials remain reluctant to have the battleflag on display in
outdoor events, for fear of a backlash.

Not sure what the answer to this problem is, but it certainly does exist.

Regards, Tom Ryan





------------------------------

Message: 39
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:15:34 -0600
From: John Lawrence <jlawrence at kc.rr.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID: <1931q6dlw33tkffemnvwupcd.1327191334074 at email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Hello Margaret.
I guess my comment would be that all brothers are different.
Though there is some indication that the older brother tends to deplete the
gene pool, resulting in slightly depleted siblings.
Regards,
Jack


"Margaret D. Blough" <mdblough1 at comcast.net> wrote:

>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>Jack- 
>
>
>I agree with you. In any individual, you have to start with who they were
before they went to war. Joshua was college-educated, a teacher, a married
man, a father, an established person in the community. He already clearly
had a very strong sense of self. Tom, before the war, was a grocery store
clerk, the only Chamberlain brother not to attend college. During the war,
he rose from private to Lieutenant-Colonel and had a distinguished war
record, apart from his brother. His diligence and judgment upon learning of
his brother's critical wound at Petersburg, including bringing the 20th
Maine's surgeon with him as he searched for Joshua, is justly credited with
a major, if not the but for factor besides Joshua's own determination, in
Joshua surviving what most believed to be a mortal wound. From all accounts,
unlike Joshua, Tom never found his place in the post-war world. Even now,
for people dealing with depression and other mental illnesses, heavy alcohol
consumption is a form of self-medication, an attempt to numb pain,
psychological and/or physical. So, in the case of the Joshua and Thomas
Chamberlain, you have two brothers, so, other than birth order, you don't
have radical differences for nature and/or nurture. Both saw major combat
during the war. So there are still mysteries as to why they had such
radically different post-war lives. 
>
>
>Regards, 
>
>
>Margaret 
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jack Lawrence" <jlawrence at kc.rr.com> 
>To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
>Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 1:44:54 PM 
>Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick 
>
>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
>Hi Margaret. 
>But people do that (drink themselves to death) all the time. 
>I think a better explanation might be is that war changes all whom it 
>touches, and different individuials handle it differently. 
>We just put a name on it now. 
>
>Regards, 
>
>Jack 
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Margaret D. Blough" <mdblough1 at comcast.net> 
>To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
>Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:02 AM 
>Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick 
>
>
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
>> Michael- 
>> 
>> 
>> I think it would be very tough, in the absence of ability to ask follow
up 
>> questions, to distinguish between the fact that being in combat changes a

>> person (also complicated in the Civil War by the fact that, in some
cases, 
>> the person might be years older than when hen left) and an incapacitating

>> mental disorder. One case in which I know it's suspected is Tom 
>> Chamberlain, Joshua's younger brother. Tom drank himself to death. 
>> 
>> 
>> Regards, 
>> 
>> 
>> Margaret 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Michael DiLauro" <madpd2001 at yahoo.com> 
>> To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:07:07 PM 
>> Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick 
>> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
>> At the risk of going off-topic let me try this... 
>> 
>> Having handled about a 1/2 dozen NGRI cases over the years the challenge 
>> always is having your expert shrink or psychologist reconstruct the 
>> defendant's state of mind at the time the crime was committed. (Although
I 
>> had a case once where the client went to see a shrink somewhere between 
>> the 1st and 3rd murders. As an expert witness he was allowed to opine 
>> about the defendant's condition at the time he examined him but could not

>> render an opinion on the ultimate issue of NGRI.) 
>> 
>> The 'lookback' is done via a psychiatric examination which includes 1) 
>> interviewing the defendant 2) reviewing prior treatment records if they 
>> exist 3) talking to friends and family members about D's behavior 4) 
>> sometimes neuropsychological testing and MRI. With an adequate
evidentiary 
>> foundation and properly qualified expert he/she can speak to D's state of

>> mind at the time of the crime and the ultimate issue of whether D meets 
>> legal criteria for NGRI. And I'm pretty sure that PTSD is a recognized 
>> psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM IV. 
>> 
>> Now for our ACW friends alot of this stuff is impossible due to the 
>> passage of time and lack of technology. Also what was the state of
medical 
>> record keeping at the time of the ACW and thereafter? If decent then
there 
>> could be alot of good information that would speak to the issue of PTSD. 
>> And of course any recollections of friends, family members, co-workers, 
>> etc. would be very valuable, as it is today. 
>> 
>> From a legal standpoint a historian would not be qualified to speak to
the 
>> issue. But a shrink or psychologist with an interest in history would 
>> certainly be qualified to speak to the issues involved in any serious 
>> treatment of the issue. 
>> 
>> Finally, my physicians assistant is an ACW buff and got me involved in
the 
>> RICWRT. I will ask him the next time I'm in to see him with my annual 
>> winter sinus infection. 
>> 
>> Mike DiLauro 
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com

>> -to unsubscribe 
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com

>> -to unsubscribe 
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
>> 
>
>
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m -to unsubscribe 
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives 
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m -to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

------------------------------

Message: 40
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:19:55 -0600
From: John Lawrence <jlawrence at kc.rr.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Phil brick
Message-ID: <0jsxm0ag9t32ehgsvqf7bmwk.1327191595615 at email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

certainly. You need a watch with international tines to know who you are
toasting. I think it is a Geneva convention or something. Like, here is a
toast to whatever time it is in Geneva!
Regards,
Jack 


keith mackenzie <bluzdad at yahoo.com> wrote:

>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>There's an official martini time?
>K.
>
>"Hello! I'm The Doctor."
>(Dr. Who)
> 
>
>________________________________
> From: George Connell <georgeconnell at mac.com>
>To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
>Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 4:57 PM
>Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
>  
>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>Wait! Drinking too much is unhealthy? And you tell me this on Saturday an
hour before martini time?
>
>"Killick, Killick there! Rouse out a dozen of the claret."
>
>"Which I got 'em already in my hands, don't I?"
>
>Regards,
>
>George
>26?11'56"N?  81?48'19W"
>
>On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Batrinque at aol.com wrote:
>
>> One of the points of that paper I mentioned about health? costs
associated 
>> with CW veterans that stress from their experience fed? into adopting 
>> unhealthy behaviors such as drinking too much.? It would be? difficult to
prove 
>> that any particular individual did or did not drink himself? to death as
a 
>> direct result of the war, but looking at a larger population? something 
>> statistically significant would emerge.
>> 
>> Bruce? Trinque
>> Amston, CT
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m -to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m -to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

------------------------------

Message: 41
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:00:21 -0600
From: John Lawrence <jlawrence at kc.rr.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <dg26amxydau7qxmn8cgcv5wg.1327237221276 at email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

What foes the American Battle Flag look like?
Regards,
Jack


Tom Ryan <pennmardel at mchsi.com> wrote:

>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
><<So he thinks if African Americans read the confederate constitution they
>wouldn't oppose display of the confederate battle flag.  And emancipation
of
>the slaves was a sin.  The slaves drifted into peonage with no agency among
>southern whites whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?>>
>
>For what it is worth, I attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on Saturday
>hosted by a local Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have gotten to know
>the commander of the Camp well, and he has participated with me in a local
>CW presentation.
>
>This past July, this SCV Camp was invited to take part in our town July 4
>parade.  The Camp agreed, but later withdrew when they were informed by the
>parade officials that they could not display the Confederate flag.
>
>On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp commander, and asked
>him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered displaying the
Confederate
>national flag, rather than the battleflag, at public events -- which would
>be much less controversial.
>
>The commander's response was immediate and adamant that he would not
>compromise his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of the
>heritage of those who fought under its banner.  Once he got onto this
>subject, frankly it was difficult to divert him to something more amenable
>and less controversial.
>
>It is difficult to find a reasonable solution or compromise on this issue.
>Our CWRT displays both the American and Confederate flags at our meetings.
>At a public ceremony in our town hall last April in commemoration of the
>beginning of the CW, both flags were on display.
>
>However, officials remain reluctant to have the battleflag on display in
>outdoor events, for fear of a backlash.
>
>Not sure what the answer to this problem is, but it certainly does exist.
>
>Regards, Tom Ryan
>
>
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m -to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

------------------------------

Message: 42
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 05:34:45 -0800
From: Matt Diestel <agatematt at gmail.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- I love Shelby Foote - but
Message-ID:
	<CA+i57zZPWnPPrhuHSYYSfLNAy=K2tAnT4qXvXu1yCVZmEXkvdQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>
> Esteemed GDG Member Dennis Lawrence Contributes:
>
>  One could go on, but this is a start.
>>
> Hello,
>
>    Foote  also referred to the war as when his ancestors stood up to
> Lincoln.
>
>  And when he listed the positives that came out of the war, he gave two:
> everyone agreed that it was better that the union was preserved, and
> everyone agreed that both sides  fought bravely.
>
> Notably missing is   - everyone agreed that  the end of slavery was a good
> thing?
>
> Burns was all about setting up differences, and Barbara Fileds  and Shelby
> Foote were suitable foils.  One a  black female northern academic, and the
> other an aging white novelist with deep familial  roots in Mississippi.
>
> Take Care
>
> Dennis
>
>      In evaluating Shelby Foote and the part he has played in the general
> population's interest and understanding of the Civil War --- largely
> through his writings and appearance (one hour of  on screen time in the 11
> hour film) in Ken Burns' documentary "The Civil War"--- several  factors
> need to be taken in to consideration.

      First, Foote was a novelist and not a historian. This is a fact he
was always quick to point out. That is one of the reasons why his landmark
--- and massive --- work is called "The Civil War: A Narrative" and not
"The Civil War: A History." Indeed, Foote on numerous occasions --- most
famously during the three-hour C-SPAN "In-Depth" interview --- related that
in writing the narrative he did not do any primary source research but
relied entirely on published works in which he basically, summed up other
author's relaying of historical events, interpretations and opinions with
his own take on the subject in his own writing style (One which was
distinctive as was his speech pattern.)
    Second: Foote, was born in 1916, in Greenville, Miss.---  and while
growing up lived in various places in the South --- came to maturity in an
era when many a Confederate veteran was still alive and UCV reunions were
annual celebrations. And along with those veterans, Foote came to knowmany
of  the civilians who had been adults or had grown up during the war and
the Reconstruction Period that followed.
    Although, never specifically stated by Foote, but certainly implied, it
is only logical to assume that much of the foundation of his outlook on the
era in general --- and the war in particular --- was laid through those
contacts. After all, as a child he lived for a good while in Vicksburg ---
a city that never celebrated the Fourth of July --- the date the city
surrendered to the besieging army led by Grant in 1863 --- until 1944 and
the midst of World War II.
     Third: While a narrative writer and novelist, Foote nevertheless
managed to sum up the importance of the Civil War in terms as well --- if
not far more direct and succinct --- as  any historian when noting that the
Civil War is "central to our lives" as Americans.
     That is something, perhaps, at least we can all agree upon.
        With regards,
           Chet


------------------------------

Message: 43
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:35:49 -0500
From: George Connell <georgeconnell at me.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID: <18891352-99E9-44D9-B3D1-364E26890184 at me.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Aubrey would have spelled it several ways and relied on Stephen to choose
the most common one!

Regards,

George

On Jan 22, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Kerry Webb <kwebb at grapevine.com.au> wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> On 22/01/12 11:26 AM, George Connell wrote:
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>> 6PM and its well underway!
>> 
> 
> Jack Aubrey, of course, would have spelled it "under way".
> 
> Kerry
> (an opponent of damned Whiggish spelling)
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kerry Webb
> Canberra, Australia
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives



------------------------------

Message: 44
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:48:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Batrinque at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Now: CW PTSD was: Custer: G'burg, LBH & Philbrick
Message-ID: <25ca4.7ad7f6dd.3c4d6d99 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"



In a message dated 1/21/2012 10:50:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
ATMackeyJr at aol.com writes:

A Jack  Aubrey reference should always be on topic anywhere.  :  )
 
 
There's not a moment to lose.

Bruce  Trinque
Amston, CT


------------------------------

Message: 45
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:51:22 -0500
From: George Connell <georgeconnell at me.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <E041B953-8F49-4AA0-B997-4DB1149A7027 at me.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Al,

Thank you for the time you put into your response. Some of the examples are
fact and others some opinion, but each is interesting and could be a good
discussion topic by it self.

You have pointed out things that require consideration, but I still think
that to say "usually wrong" is perhaps over the top. 

Regards,

George

On Jan 21, 2012, at 11:57 PM, atmackeyjr at aol.com wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> 
> All from the Burns series:
> 
> 1. "When he had to choose between the nation and Virginia there was never
any doubt about what his choice would be. He went with his state. He said 'I
can't draw my sword against my native state' or as he often said, 'my
country.'"
> ------
> I have not found a single instance of Lee referring to Virginia as his
"country." Not only did he NOT often say Viginia was "my country," but he
never said it, as far as I can determine.
> 
> 2. "Southerners would have told you they were fighting for
self-government. They believed the gathering of power in Washington was
against them. When they entered into that Federation they certainly would
never have entered into it if they hadn't believed it would be possible to
get out. And when the time came that thy wanted to get out they thought they
had every right."
> ---
> This is baloney. If you read the ratification debates, it's clear they
knew they were going into a nation they couldn't leave at a whim. Look at
Patrick Henry's speeches. He said very clearly that once they ratified the
Constitution there was no way out, and not a single person contradicted him.
I have not seen a single instance of someone during the secession
conventions making the claim that their state wouldn't have ratified the
Constitution if they couldn't secede whenever they wanted. Disunion was a
hated concept in the south through most of the antebellum era. See Elizabeth
Varon's book, Disunion.
> 
> 3. The story of Forrest, having been shot by a musket (.58 caliber,
remember), riding along and then picking up a Union soldier (with one hand)
and holding that soldier behind him as a shield is unbelievable. That
soldier couldn't get away even though he was being held with one hand? He
couldn't punch, claw, or scratch? And a wounded Forrest picking up a 140-150
lb. soldier with one hand and maneuvering him to the back of his saddle? I
want to see the primary source evidence for that one. Until I do, I will
maintain it didn't happen.
> 
> 4. His claiming that when you saw a dead soldier with their clothes in
disarray it was from the soldiers themselves searching for where they were
wounded. Yeah, right. They pulled out their pockets because the bullet might
have fallen into their pockets, right? They were robbed.
> 
> 5. "The answer a southerner would give you as to why are you fighting, if
you were a northerner, he would say, 'I'm fighting because you're down
here.' He was being invaded and he fought as he thought to defend his home."
> ---
> Slavery was a driving factor, even for many nonslaveholding white
southerners in the confederate states. This is borne out by James
McPherson's For Cause & Comrades, Chandra Manning's What This Cruel War Was
Over, and Aaron Sheehan-Dean's Why Confederates Fought. That doesn't
preclude additional motives, such as protecting a home against invaders. But
his de-emphasis of slavery as a motivating factor is pure lost cause.  "Some
of the boys [Union soldiers] asked them [confederate soldiers] what they
were fighting for, and they answered, 'You Yanks want us to marry our
daughters to the n----rs.' " [Chauncey Cook to parents, May 10, 1864, quoted
in James M. McPherson, _For Cause & Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil
War, p. 109]  Joe Glathaar's book on the Army of Northern Virginia tells us
that 40% of the ANV was made up of soldiers from slaveowning families.
> 
> 6. His claim that it was the Civil War that caused Americans to no longer
refer to the United States as "the United States are" and rather refer to
the United States as "the United States is" ("It made us an 'is'.") is more
poppycock. That was part of the normal evolution of American English away
from British English. British English, even today, refers to collective
nouns in the plural. For example, a Brit would say, "The team are getting
ready to play." American English evolved away from that by referring to
collective nouns in the singular. For example, "The team is getting ready to
play." "United States" is another collective noun, referred to in the plural
in British English and in the singular in American English.
> 
> "A similar search comparing the frequency of the phrases 'United States
are' and 'United States is' reveals that, contrary to Foote's assertion that
the former was the preferred usage in the decades before the war, the two
phrases were actually used about equally through the first few decades of
the Republic. That began to change in the 1840s, when 'United States is'
(shown in red) began gradually to pull away from 'United States are' (in
blue) in printed usage. By the beginning of the war (shown here as a green
bar), 'United States is' was solidly more common in usage--though not
greatly so--than 'United States are' "
> 
> http://www.civilwarmonitor.com/front-line/it-made-us-an-is
> 
> 7. "Lincoln needed to unite the North and he did it in two ways. The
Republic must be preserved, not split into two. The other he gave them as a
cause the freedom of the slaves."
> ---
> More lost cause nonsense. Lincoln knew the EP would be a very
controversial measure. "If anything, Northern public opinion remained loudly
and frantically hostile to the prospect of emancipation, much less
emancipation by presidential decree." [Allen C. Guelzo, Lincoln's
Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, p. 6] Does that
sound like something that would unite "the North" to support the war? Not to
me.
> 
> 8. "Gettysburg was the price the South paid for having R. E. Lee. That was
the mistake he made, the mistake of all mistakes."
> ---
> Again, more lost cause nonsense.
> 
> "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." George Pickett
on why the confederates lost at Gettysburg.
> Not a Lee mistake, not the fault of his subordinates. The confederates
were outfought and Lee was outgeneraled. 
> 
> 9. "He felt that he had failed." [Lincoln at the Gettysburg Address]
> ---
> Lincoln knew he hadn't failed. "Lincoln's text was polished, his delivery
emphatic, he was interrupted by applause five times. Read in a slow, clear
way to the farthest listeners, the speech would take about three minutes. It
is quite true that the audience did not take in all that happened in that
short time--we are still trying to weigh the consequences of that amazing
performance. But the myth that Lincoln was disappointed in the result--that
he told the unreliable Lamon that his speech, like a bad plow, 'won't
scour'--has no basis. He had done what he wanted to do, and Hay shared the
pride his superior took in an important occasion put to good use." [Garry
Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America, p. 36]
> 
> 10. His claim that "the North fought that war with one arm tied behind its
back" and that "the South didn't have a chance" is, once again, you guessed
it, lost cause poppycock. The confederacy encompassed a huge area that had
to be conquered. They had the advantage of the defensive and interior lines.
Their armies, being smaller, were more maneuverable. They could win the war
by not losing. They didn't have to defeat the Union, they just had to keep
from losing. The confederacy had a very good shot at winning. 
> 
> 11.  Nor is Shelby Foote persuasive when he suggests (perfectly consistent
with the film's spirit) that the war came 'because we failed to do the thing
we really have a genius for, which is compromise.' He says nothing about
what might have been compromised, but those who lived at the time,
especially blacks, knew very well what would have been the basis for any new
sectional compromise. Shelby Foote is an engaging battlefield guide, a
master of the anecdote, and a gifted and charming story teller, but he is
not a good historian. He seems to have little idea as to what gave meaning
to this 'enormous catastrophe' other than the valor of the combatants."
[Leon F. Litwack, "Telling the Story: The Historian, the Filmmaker, and the
Civil War," in Robert Brent Toplin, ed., Ken Burns's The Civil War:
Historians Respond, p. 137] 
> 
> 12.  Here's Shelby in another forum:
> "The flag is a symbol my great grandfather fought under and in defense of.
I am for flying it anywhere anybody wants to fly it. I do know perfectly
well what pain it causes my black friends, but I think that pain is not
necessary if they would read the confederate constitution and knew what the
confederacy really stood for. This country has two grievous sins on its
hands. One of them is slavery - whether we'll ever be cured of it, I don't
know. The other one is emancipation - they told 4 million people, you're
free, hit the road, and they drifted back into a form of peonage that in
some ways is worse than slavery. These things have got to be understood
before they're condemned. They're condemned on the face of it because they
take that flag to represent what those yahoos represent as - in their
protest against civil rights things. But the people who knew what that flag
really stood for should have stopped those yahoos from using it as a symbol
of what they stood for. But we didn't -
> and now you had this problem of the confederate flag being identified as
sort of a roughneck thing, which it is not."
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june00/flag_5-29.html
> 
> So he thinks if African Americans read the confederate constitution they
wouldn't oppose display of the confederate battle flag.  And emancipation of
the slaves was a sin.  The slaves drifted into peonage with no agency among
southern whites whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives



------------------------------

Message: 46
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:55:32 +0000 (GMT)
From: cameron2 at optimum.net
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- FW:  CW Discrencies
Message-ID: <e65cb2a3180e4.4f1c2364 at optonline.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

<<  Example: Shelby claimed that it was the Civil War that caused the 
grammatical change from referring to "the United States are" to "the United
States 
is." That's pure hogwash. It was part of the evolution of American 
English from British English. "United States" is a collective noun. Even 
today, British English refers to collective nouns in the plural, such as
"the 
team are playing tomorrow." In American English, we now refer to collective 
nouns in the singular, such as "the team is playing tomorrow.

Best Regards,
Al Mackey  >>

The language was (as it always is) in a state of flux.  Reading newspaper
and other publications of the time you'll find such usages as "The enemy are
approaching", but also what we would now consider the more correct "the
enemy is approaching."
There's the story of the New York newspaper editor (I forget which one) who,
wedded to the collective plural usage, would ask the reporters in his
newsroom "Are there any news?"   To which one of his reporters would always
reply, "No, not a single new."

Jim Cameron  


------------------------------

Message: 47
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:37:08 -0500 (EST)
From: CWMHTours at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <12331.61c1c49.3c4d8723 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

RE:  The Conf battle flag.
 
The NAACP is insane and out of touch with  reality.
 
Apparently their big bug is that the flag was used as a symbol  of white 
supremacy - particularly by the Ku Klux Klan.
 
But the Klan also used the Bible as the same symbol.   They used the cross 
for the same also.  They also used the American  flag.  They also used bed 
sheets.
 
So why don't they regard the Bible the ssame way?
 
Or the cross?
 
Or the  
 
"Just  the facts, ma'am." 

Your Most Obediant Servant
Peter  

 
In a message dated 1/22/2012 7:54:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
pennmardel at mchsi.com writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
<<So he thinks if African Americans read the  confederate constitution they
wouldn't oppose display of the confederate  battle flag.  And emancipation 
of
the slaves was a sin.  The  slaves drifted into peonage with no agency among
southern whites  whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?>>

For what it is worth, I  attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on Saturday
hosted by a local Sons of  Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have gotten to know
the commander of the  Camp well, and he has participated with me in a local
CW  presentation.

This past July, this SCV Camp was invited to take part in  our town July 4
parade.  The Camp agreed, but later withdrew when they  were informed by the
parade officials that they could not display the  Confederate flag.

On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp  commander, and asked
him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered  displaying the 
Confederate
national flag, rather than the battleflag, at  public events -- which would
be much less controversial.

The  commander's response was immediate and adamant that he would not
compromise  his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of the
heritage of  those who fought under its banner.  Once he got onto this
subject,  frankly it was difficult to divert him to something more amenable
and less  controversial.

It is difficult to find a reasonable solution or  compromise on this issue.
Our CWRT displays both the American and  Confederate flags at our meetings.
At a public ceremony in our town hall  last April in commemoration of the
beginning of the CW, both flags were on  display.

However, officials remain reluctant to have the battleflag on  display in
outdoor events, for fear of a backlash.

Not sure what the  answer to this problem is, but it certainly does exist.

Regards, Tom  Ryan



----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives




------------------------------

Message: 48
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:39:48 -0500 (EST)
From: atmackeyjr at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <8CEA733354B0992-C70-15D85 at webmail-m065.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


George,

When one considers that the first eleven items were most of the time he was
speaking in the series, I think "usually wrong" fits nicely.  It seems that
every time I watch the Burns series I find another error with Shelby.


Best Regards,
Al Mackey



-----Original Message-----
From: George Connell <georgeconnell at me.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 22, 2012 8:52 am
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth


Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
l,
Thank you for the time you put into your response. Some of the examples are
fact 
nd others some opinion, but each is interesting and could be a good
discussion 
opic by it self.
You have pointed out things that require consideration, but I still think
that 
o say "usually wrong" is perhaps over the top. 
Regards,
George



------------------------------

Message: 49
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:43:38 -0500
From: "Charles T. Joyce" <CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com>
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <66D45C01-030F-45D1-9B02-E41401AA4AFF at spearwilderman.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

With respect, it's not just "the NAACP" that finds itself uncomfortable with
Governmental sponsorship of the Confederate Flag, i.e., the Navy Jack. Let's
get back to the Gettysburg Campaign?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:38 AM, "CWMHTours at aol.com" <CWMHTours at aol.com> wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> RE:  The Conf battle flag.
> 
> The NAACP is insane and out of touch with  reality.
> 
> Apparently their big bug is that the flag was used as a symbol  of white 
> supremacy - particularly by the Ku Klux Klan.
> 
> But the Klan also used the Bible as the same symbol.   They used the cross

> for the same also.  They also used the American  flag.  They also used bed

> sheets.
> 
> So why don't they regard the Bible the ssame way?
> 
> Or the cross?
> 
> Or the  
> 
> "Just  the facts, ma'am." 
> 
> Your Most Obediant Servant
> Peter  
> 
> 
> In a message dated 1/22/2012 7:54:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> pennmardel at mchsi.com writes:
> 
> Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
> <<So he thinks if African Americans read the  confederate constitution
they
> wouldn't oppose display of the confederate  battle flag.  And emancipation

> of
> the slaves was a sin.  The  slaves drifted into peonage with no agency
among
> southern whites  whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?>>
> 
> For what it is worth, I  attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on Saturday
> hosted by a local Sons of  Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have gotten to
know
> the commander of the  Camp well, and he has participated with me in a
local
> CW  presentation.
> 
> This past July, this SCV Camp was invited to take part in  our town July 4
> parade.  The Camp agreed, but later withdrew when they  were informed by
the
> parade officials that they could not display the  Confederate flag.
> 
> On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp  commander, and asked
> him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered  displaying the 
> Confederate
> national flag, rather than the battleflag, at  public events -- which
would
> be much less controversial.
> 
> The  commander's response was immediate and adamant that he would not
> compromise  his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of the
> heritage of  those who fought under its banner.  Once he got onto this
> subject,  frankly it was difficult to divert him to something more
amenable
> and less  controversial.
> 
> It is difficult to find a reasonable solution or  compromise on this
issue.
> Our CWRT displays both the American and  Confederate flags at our
meetings.
> At a public ceremony in our town hall  last April in commemoration of the
> beginning of the CW, both flags were on  display.
> 
> However, officials remain reluctant to have the battleflag on  display in
> outdoor events, for fear of a backlash.
> 
> Not sure what the  answer to this problem is, but it certainly does exist.
> 
> Regards, Tom  Ryan
> 
> 
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
>  -to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
> 
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives



------------------------------

Message: 50
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:43:59 -0500 (EST)
From: CWMHTours at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <12622.664b76ee.3c4d88bf at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

I have a combination of a very sensitive laptop and stupid  fingers.  My 
cat didn't do that.
 
Anyway...
 
They don't object to the American flag.
 
They don't even object to bedsheets and even use them in their  homes.
 
Does that make any sense at all?.
 
People who give a robotron red flag response to the battle  flag are just 
ignorant.
 
One more pathetic sign of our lousy education  system.
 
As long as the flag is not being used to promote white  supremacy it should 
allowed to fly and proudly.
 
I am willing to bet you that many of the rascists who fly the  battle flag 
also fly Old  Glory right beside it.
 
"Just  the facts, ma'am." 

Your Most Obediant Servant
Peter  

 
In a message dated 1/22/2012 7:54:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
pennmardel at mchsi.com writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
<<So he thinks if African Americans read the  confederate constitution they
wouldn't oppose display of the confederate  battle flag.  And emancipation 
of
the slaves was a sin.  The  slaves drifted into peonage with no agency among
southern whites  whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?>>

For what it is worth, I  attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on Saturday
hosted by a local Sons of  Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have gotten to know
the commander of the  Camp well, and he has participated with me in a local
CW  presentation.

This past July, this SCV Camp was invited to take part in  our town July 4
parade.  The Camp agreed, but later withdrew when they  were informed by the
parade officials that they could not display the  Confederate flag.

On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp  commander, and asked
him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered  displaying the 
Confederate
national flag, rather than the battleflag, at  public events -- which would
be much less controversial.

The  commander's response was immediate and adamant that he would not
compromise  his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of the
heritage of  those who fought under its banner.  Once he got onto this
subject,  frankly it was difficult to divert him to something more amenable
and less  controversial.

It is difficult to find a reasonable solution or  compromise on this issue.
Our CWRT displays both the American and  Confederate flags at our meetings.
At a public ceremony in our town hall  last April in commemoration of the
beginning of the CW, both flags were on  display.

However, officials remain reluctant to have the battleflag on  display in
outdoor events, for fear of a backlash.

Not sure what the  answer to this problem is, but it certainly does exist.

Regards, Tom  Ryan



----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives




------------------------------

Message: 51
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:45:22 -0500
From: George Connell <georgeconnell at mac.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <C7E235ED-06E6-4055-8418-2DD0F312B89F at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Well, I understand your point.

Regards,

George


On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:39, atmackeyjr at aol.com wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> 
> George,
> 
> When one considers that the first eleven items were most of the time he
was speaking in the series, I think "usually wrong" fits nicely.  It seems
that every time I watch the Burns series I find another error with Shelby.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Al Mackey
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Connell <georgeconnell at me.com>
> To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
> Sent: Sun, Jan 22, 2012 8:52 am
> Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
> 
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> l,
> Thank you for the time you put into your response. Some of the examples
are fact 
> nd others some opinion, but each is interesting and could be a good
discussion 
> opic by it self.
> You have pointed out things that require consideration, but I still think
that 
> o say "usually wrong" is perhaps over the top. 
> Regards,
> George
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives



------------------------------

Message: 52
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:46:16 -0500 (EST)
From: atmackeyjr at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <8CEA7341C60914E-C70-15DEA at webmail-m065.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


Strange thing to say if one is dedicated to "just the facts."

The CBF was also used as a symbol of opposition to racial integration in the
1960s as well as the symbol of the Dixiecrat Party dedicated to maintaining
segregation.  The KKK has adopted the CBF because it has had no other
political use than as a symbol of protest against racial equality and as a
symbol for the soldiers whose victory would result in the perpetuation of
slavery.  The Bible and the Cross have no such distinction.  The victory of
the troops that fought under the US Flag meant the destruction of slavery.
The National Guard troops who enforced integration were under the US Flag.

Seems the NAACP may have it about right.

Best Regards,
Al Mackey


-----Original Message-----
From: CWMHTours <CWMHTours at aol.com>
To: gettysburg <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 22, 2012 10:37 am
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth


Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
E:  The Conf battle flag.

he NAACP is insane and out of touch with  reality.

pparently their big bug is that the flag was used as a symbol  of white 
upremacy - particularly by the Ku Klux Klan.

ut the Klan also used the Bible as the same symbol.   They used the cross 
or the same also.  They also used the American  flag.  They also used bed 
heets.

o why don't they regard the Bible the ssame way?

r the cross?

r the  

Just  the facts, ma'am." 
Your Most Obediant Servant
eter  
 



------------------------------

Message: 53
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:48:44 -0500
From: Clarence Hollowell <antietam33 at hotmail.com>
To: <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <SNT137-W28143AD9A393E8D93F666AC0850 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


Charles is 100 % correct, The NAACP wont deal with real issue that has
destroyed familiesbecause they know they cant change the culture so they
have to go after the white man 100 yrs ago.plus it helps with the cash
flow.............you may not like what I'm saying but its the truth
Clarence Hollowell      > From: CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com
> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:43:38 -0500
> To: gettysburg at arthes.com
> Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> With respect, it's not just "the NAACP" that finds itself uncomfortable
with Governmental sponsorship of the Confederate Flag, i.e., the Navy Jack.
Let's get back to the Gettysburg Campaign?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:38 AM, "CWMHTours at aol.com" <CWMHTours at aol.com>
wrote:
> 
> > Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> > RE:  The Conf battle flag.
> > 
> > The NAACP is insane and out of touch with  reality.
> > 
> > Apparently their big bug is that the flag was used as a symbol  of white

> > supremacy - particularly by the Ku Klux Klan.
> > 
> > But the Klan also used the Bible as the same symbol.   They used the
cross 
> > for the same also.  They also used the American  flag.  They also used
bed 
> > sheets.
> > 
> > So why don't they regard the Bible the ssame way?
> > 
> > Or the cross?
> > 
> > Or the  
> > 
> > "Just  the facts, ma'am." 
> > 
> > Your Most Obediant Servant
> > Peter  
> > 
> > 
> > In a message dated 1/22/2012 7:54:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> > pennmardel at mchsi.com writes:
> > 
> > Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
> > <<So he thinks if African Americans read the  confederate constitution
they
> > wouldn't oppose display of the confederate  battle flag.  And
emancipation 
> > of
> > the slaves was a sin.  The  slaves drifted into peonage with no agency
among
> > southern whites  whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?>>
> > 
> > For what it is worth, I  attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on Saturday
> > hosted by a local Sons of  Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have gotten to
know
> > the commander of the  Camp well, and he has participated with me in a
local
> > CW  presentation.
> > 
> > This past July, this SCV Camp was invited to take part in  our town July
4
> > parade.  The Camp agreed, but later withdrew when they  were informed by
the
> > parade officials that they could not display the  Confederate flag.
> > 
> > On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp  commander, and
asked
> > him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered  displaying the 
> > Confederate
> > national flag, rather than the battleflag, at  public events -- which
would
> > be much less controversial.
> > 
> > The  commander's response was immediate and adamant that he would not
> > compromise  his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of
the
> > heritage of  those who fought under its banner.  Once he got onto this
> > subject,  frankly it was difficult to divert him to something more
amenable
> > and less  controversial.
> > 
> > It is difficult to find a reasonable solution or  compromise on this
issue.
> > Our CWRT displays both the American and  Confederate flags at our
meetings.
> > At a public ceremony in our town hall  last April in commemoration of
the
> > beginning of the CW, both flags were on  display.
> > 
> > However, officials remain reluctant to have the battleflag on  display
in
> > outdoor events, for fear of a backlash.
> > 
> > Not sure what the  answer to this problem is, but it certainly does
exist.
> > 
> > Regards, Tom  Ryan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
> >  -to unsubscribe
> > http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
> > 
> > 
> >
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> > http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
 		 	   		  

------------------------------

Message: 54
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:53:19 -0500 (EST)
From: CWMHTours at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <12a42.67ef66f0.3c4d8aef at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

As an urban resident I would be really pleased if the NAACP  would get 
young black men to lift their pants up over their butts.  Most of  them in
the 
city have them close to their knees.  I find it incredibly  offensive and it

is disgusting to ride behind them on an up escalator in the  subway.  Yet 
they have time to bitch about the battle flag.
 
NAACP is best ignored.
 
"Just  the facts, ma'am." 

Your Most Obediant Servant
Peter  

 
In a message dated 1/22/2012 10:49:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
antietam33 at hotmail.com writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:

Charles is 100 % correct, The NAACP wont deal  with real issue that has 
destroyed familiesbecause they know they cant change  the culture so they
have 
to go after the white man 100 yrs ago.plus it helps  with the cash 
flow.............you may not like what I'm saying but its the  truth
Clarence 
Hollowell      > From:  CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com
> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:43:38  -0500
> To: gettysburg at arthes.com
> Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's  Foote in His Mouth
> 
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>  With respect, it's not just "the NAACP" that finds itself uncomfortable 
with  Governmental sponsorship of the Confederate Flag, i.e., the Navy Jack.

Let's  get back to the Gettysburg Campaign?
> 
> Sent from my  iPhone
> 
> On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:38 AM, "CWMHTours at aol.com"  <CWMHTours at aol.com> 
wrote:
> 
> > Esteemed GDG Member  Contributes:
> > RE:  The Conf battle flag.
> >  
> > The NAACP is insane and out of touch with  reality.
>  > 
> > Apparently their big bug is that the flag was used as a  symbol  of 
white 
> > supremacy - particularly by the Ku Klux  Klan.
> > 
> > But the Klan also used the Bible as the same  symbol.   They used the 
cross 
> > for the same also.   They also used the American  flag.  They also used 
bed 
> >  sheets.
> > 
> > So why don't they regard the Bible the  ssame way?
> > 
> > Or the cross?
> > 
> >  Or the  
> > 
> > "Just  the facts, ma'am."  
> > 
> > Your Most Obediant Servant
> >  Peter  
> > 
> > 
> > In a message dated  1/22/2012 7:54:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> >  pennmardel at mchsi.com writes:
> > 
> > Esteemed  GDG  Member Contributes:
> > <<So he thinks if African Americans  read the  confederate constitution 
they
> > wouldn't oppose  display of the confederate  battle flag.  And 
emancipation 
>  > of
> > the slaves was a sin.  The  slaves drifted into  peonage with no agency 
among
> > southern whites   whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?>>
> > 
> > For what  it is worth, I  attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on 
Saturday
>  > hosted by a local Sons of  Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have  gotten 
to know
> > the commander of the  Camp well, and he has  participated with me in a 
local
> > CW  presentation.
>  > 
> > This past July, this SCV Camp was invited to take part  in  our town 
July 4
> > parade.  The Camp agreed, but later  withdrew when they  were informed 
by the
> > parade officials  that they could not display the  Confederate flag.
> > 
>  > On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp  commander, and  
asked
> > him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered   displaying the 
> > Confederate
> > national flag, rather  than the battleflag, at  public events -- which 
would
> > be  much less controversial.
> > 
> > The  commander's  response was immediate and adamant that he would not
> >  compromise  his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of  
the
> > heritage of  those who fought under its banner.   Once he got onto this
> > subject,  frankly it was difficult to  divert him to something more 
amenable
> > and less   controversial.
> > 
> > It is difficult to find a reasonable  solution or  compromise on this 
issue.
> > Our CWRT displays  both the American and  Confederate flags at our 
meetings.
> > At  a public ceremony in our town hall  last April in commemoration of  
the
> > beginning of the CW, both flags were on   display.
> > 
> > However, officials remain reluctant to  have the battleflag on  display 
in
> > outdoor events, for fear  of a backlash.
> > 
> > Not sure what the  answer to  this problem is, but it certainly does 
exist.
> > 
> >  Regards, Tom  Ryan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
>  >  -to unsubscribe
> >  http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
>  > 
> > 
> >  
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> >  http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>  
>  
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives

----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives




------------------------------

Message: 55
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:54:16 -0500
From: "Charles T. Joyce" <CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com>
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <DB8F8B2B-D9FE-4DF8-9409-468307145318 at spearwilderman.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

And the Family Research Council would lose a huge "cash cow" if Roe v. Wade
was overturned. So what? Again, can we return to the summer of 1863, please?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:49 AM, "Clarence Hollowell" <antietam33 at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> 
> Charles is 100 % correct, The NAACP wont deal with real issue that has
destroyed familiesbecause they know they cant change the culture so they
have to go after the white man 100 yrs ago.plus it helps with the cash
flow.............you may not like what I'm saying but its the truth
Clarence Hollowell      > From: CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com
>> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:43:38 -0500
>> To: gettysburg at arthes.com
>> Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
>> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>> With respect, it's not just "the NAACP" that finds itself uncomfortable
with Governmental sponsorship of the Confederate Flag, i.e., the Navy Jack.
Let's get back to the Gettysburg Campaign?
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:38 AM, "CWMHTours at aol.com" <CWMHTours at aol.com>
wrote:
>> 
>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>> RE:  The Conf battle flag.
>>> 
>>> The NAACP is insane and out of touch with  reality.
>>> 
>>> Apparently their big bug is that the flag was used as a symbol  of white

>>> supremacy - particularly by the Ku Klux Klan.
>>> 
>>> But the Klan also used the Bible as the same symbol.   They used the
cross 
>>> for the same also.  They also used the American  flag.  They also used
bed 
>>> sheets.
>>> 
>>> So why don't they regard the Bible the ssame way?
>>> 
>>> Or the cross?
>>> 
>>> Or the  
>>> 
>>> "Just  the facts, ma'am." 
>>> 
>>> Your Most Obediant Servant
>>> Peter  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In a message dated 1/22/2012 7:54:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
>>> pennmardel at mchsi.com writes:
>>> 
>>> Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
>>> <<So he thinks if African Americans read the  confederate constitution
they
>>> wouldn't oppose display of the confederate  battle flag.  And
emancipation 
>>> of
>>> the slaves was a sin.  The  slaves drifted into peonage with no agency
among
>>> southern whites  whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?>>
>>> 
>>> For what it is worth, I  attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on Saturday
>>> hosted by a local Sons of  Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have gotten to
know
>>> the commander of the  Camp well, and he has participated with me in a
local
>>> CW  presentation.
>>> 
>>> This past July, this SCV Camp was invited to take part in  our town July
4
>>> parade.  The Camp agreed, but later withdrew when they  were informed by
the
>>> parade officials that they could not display the  Confederate flag.
>>> 
>>> On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp  commander, and
asked
>>> him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered  displaying the 
>>> Confederate
>>> national flag, rather than the battleflag, at  public events -- which
would
>>> be much less controversial.
>>> 
>>> The  commander's response was immediate and adamant that he would not
>>> compromise  his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of
the
>>> heritage of  those who fought under its banner.  Once he got onto this
>>> subject,  frankly it was difficult to divert him to something more
amenable
>>> and less  controversial.
>>> 
>>> It is difficult to find a reasonable solution or  compromise on this
issue.
>>> Our CWRT displays both the American and  Confederate flags at our
meetings.
>>> At a public ceremony in our town hall  last April in commemoration of
the
>>> beginning of the CW, both flags were on  display.
>>> 
>>> However, officials remain reluctant to have the battleflag on  display
in
>>> outdoor events, for fear of a backlash.
>>> 
>>> Not sure what the  answer to this problem is, but it certainly does
exist.
>>> 
>>> Regards, Tom  Ryan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
>>> -to unsubscribe
>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>> 
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>                         
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives



------------------------------

Message: 56
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:04:41 -0800
From: Robert Lawrence <lawrence at rwlcpa.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <8E74CEB7-E14F-48B1-962B-B0FC0A8A56C7 at rwlcpa.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

HOOK!!!!!' responses by private email ONLY


Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2012, at 8:53 AM, "CWMHTours at aol.com" <CWMHTours at aol.com> wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> As an urban resident I would be really pleased if the NAACP  would get 
> young black men to lift their pants up over their butts.  Most of  them in
the 
> city have them close to their knees.  I find it incredibly  offensive and
it 
> is disgusting to ride behind them on an up escalator in the  subway.  Yet 
> they have time to bitch about the battle flag.
> 
> NAACP is best ignored.
> 
> "Just  the facts, ma'am." 
> 
> Your Most Obediant Servant
> Peter  
> 
> 
> In a message dated 1/22/2012 10:49:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> antietam33 at hotmail.com writes:
> 
> Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
> 
> Charles is 100 % correct, The NAACP wont deal  with real issue that has 
> destroyed familiesbecause they know they cant change  the culture so they
have 
> to go after the white man 100 yrs ago.plus it helps  with the cash 
> flow.............you may not like what I'm saying but its the  truth
Clarence 
> Hollowell      > From:  CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com
>> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:43:38  -0500
>> To: gettysburg at arthes.com
>> Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's  Foote in His Mouth
>> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>> With respect, it's not just "the NAACP" that finds itself uncomfortable 
> with  Governmental sponsorship of the Confederate Flag, i.e., the Navy
Jack. 
> Let's  get back to the Gettysburg Campaign?
>> 
>> Sent from my  iPhone
>> 
>> On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:38 AM, "CWMHTours at aol.com"  <CWMHTours at aol.com> 
> wrote:
>> 
>>> Esteemed GDG Member  Contributes:
>>> RE:  The Conf battle flag.
>>> 
>>> The NAACP is insane and out of touch with  reality.
>>> 
>>> Apparently their big bug is that the flag was used as a  symbol  of 
> white 
>>> supremacy - particularly by the Ku Klux  Klan.
>>> 
>>> But the Klan also used the Bible as the same  symbol.   They used the 
> cross 
>>> for the same also.   They also used the American  flag.  They also used 
> bed 
>>> sheets.
>>> 
>>> So why don't they regard the Bible the  ssame way?
>>> 
>>> Or the cross?
>>> 
>>> Or the  
>>> 
>>> "Just  the facts, ma'am."  
>>> 
>>> Your Most Obediant Servant
>>> Peter  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In a message dated  1/22/2012 7:54:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
>>> pennmardel at mchsi.com writes:
>>> 
>>> Esteemed  GDG  Member Contributes:
>>> <<So he thinks if African Americans  read the  confederate constitution 
> they
>>> wouldn't oppose  display of the confederate  battle flag.  And 
> emancipation 
>>> of
>>> the slaves was a sin.  The  slaves drifted into  peonage with no agency 
> among
>>> southern whites   whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?>>
>>> 
>>> For what  it is worth, I  attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on 
> Saturday
>>> hosted by a local Sons of  Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have  gotten 
> to know
>>> the commander of the  Camp well, and he has  participated with me in a 
> local
>>> CW  presentation.
>>> 
>>> This past July, this SCV Camp was invited to take part  in  our town 
> July 4
>>> parade.  The Camp agreed, but later  withdrew when they  were informed 
> by the
>>> parade officials  that they could not display the  Confederate flag.
>>> 
>>> On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp  commander, and  
> asked
>>> him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered   displaying the 
>>> Confederate
>>> national flag, rather  than the battleflag, at  public events -- which 
> would
>>> be  much less controversial.
>>> 
>>> The  commander's  response was immediate and adamant that he would not
>>> compromise  his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of  
> the
>>> heritage of  those who fought under its banner.   Once he got onto this
>>> subject,  frankly it was difficult to  divert him to something more 
> amenable
>>> and less   controversial.
>>> 
>>> It is difficult to find a reasonable  solution or  compromise on this 
> issue.
>>> Our CWRT displays  both the American and  Confederate flags at our 
> meetings.
>>> At  a public ceremony in our town hall  last April in commemoration of  
> the
>>> beginning of the CW, both flags were on   display.
>>> 
>>> However, officials remain reluctant to  have the battleflag on  display 
> in
>>> outdoor events, for fear  of a backlash.
>>> 
>>> Not sure what the  answer to  this problem is, but it certainly does 
> exist.
>>> 
>>> Regards, Tom  Ryan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
>>> -to unsubscribe
>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>> 
>> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
>  -to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
> 
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> 

------------------------------

Message: 57
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:05:13 -0600
From: Dennis Lawrence <denlaw at gojade.org>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <20120122080516.D8732997 at dm0226.mta.everyone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed


>Hook
>
>The NAACP is insane and out of touch with  reality.
>





------------------------------

Message: 58
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:05:47 -0600
From: Dennis Lawrence <denlaw at gojade.org>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: GDG- NAACP Hook
Message-ID: <20120122080548.D87021DE at dm0227.mta.everyone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed






------------------------------

Message: 59
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:05:25 -0800
From: Robert Lawrence <lawrence at rwlcpa.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <32E6CE21-8247-4E5C-B034-771C23E32FE3 at rwlcpa.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

HOOK WE NEVR,NEVER DISCUSS CURRENT POLITICS HERE


Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2012, at 8:54 AM, "Charles T. Joyce" <CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com>
wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> And the Family Research Council would lose a huge "cash cow" if Roe v.
Wade was overturned. So what? Again, can we return to the summer of 1863,
please?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:49 AM, "Clarence Hollowell"
<antietam33 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>> 
>> Charles is 100 % correct, The NAACP wont deal with real issue that has
destroyed familiesbecause they know they cant change the culture so they
have to go after the white man 100 yrs ago.plus it helps with the cash
flow.............you may not like what I'm saying but its the truth
Clarence Hollowell      > From: CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com
>>> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:43:38 -0500
>>> To: gettysburg at arthes.com
>>> Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
>>> 
>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>> With respect, it's not just "the NAACP" that finds itself uncomfortable
with Governmental sponsorship of the Confederate Flag, i.e., the Navy Jack.
Let's get back to the Gettysburg Campaign?
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:38 AM, "CWMHTours at aol.com" <CWMHTours at aol.com>
wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>>> RE:  The Conf battle flag.
>>>> 
>>>> The NAACP is insane and out of touch with  reality.
>>>> 
>>>> Apparently their big bug is that the flag was used as a symbol  of
white 
>>>> supremacy - particularly by the Ku Klux Klan.
>>>> 
>>>> But the Klan also used the Bible as the same symbol.   They used the
cross 
>>>> for the same also.  They also used the American  flag.  They also used
bed 
>>>> sheets.
>>>> 
>>>> So why don't they regard the Bible the ssame way?
>>>> 
>>>> Or the cross?
>>>> 
>>>> Or the  
>>>> 
>>>> "Just  the facts, ma'am." 
>>>> 
>>>> Your Most Obediant Servant
>>>> Peter  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In a message dated 1/22/2012 7:54:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
>>>> pennmardel at mchsi.com writes:
>>>> 
>>>> Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
>>>> <<So he thinks if African Americans read the  confederate constitution
they
>>>> wouldn't oppose display of the confederate  battle flag.  And
emancipation 
>>>> of
>>>> the slaves was a sin.  The  slaves drifted into peonage with no agency
among
>>>> southern whites  whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?>>
>>>> 
>>>> For what it is worth, I  attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on
Saturday
>>>> hosted by a local Sons of  Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have gotten to
know
>>>> the commander of the  Camp well, and he has participated with me in a
local
>>>> CW  presentation.
>>>> 
>>>> This past July, this SCV Camp was invited to take part in  our town
July 4
>>>> parade.  The Camp agreed, but later withdrew when they  were informed
by the
>>>> parade officials that they could not display the  Confederate flag.
>>>> 
>>>> On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp  commander, and
asked
>>>> him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered  displaying the 
>>>> Confederate
>>>> national flag, rather than the battleflag, at  public events -- which
would
>>>> be much less controversial.
>>>> 
>>>> The  commander's response was immediate and adamant that he would not
>>>> compromise  his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of
the
>>>> heritage of  those who fought under its banner.  Once he got onto this
>>>> subject,  frankly it was difficult to divert him to something more
amenable
>>>> and less  controversial.
>>>> 
>>>> It is difficult to find a reasonable solution or  compromise on this
issue.
>>>> Our CWRT displays both the American and  Confederate flags at our
meetings.
>>>> At a public ceremony in our town hall  last April in commemoration of
the
>>>> beginning of the CW, both flags were on  display.
>>>> 
>>>> However, officials remain reluctant to have the battleflag on  display
in
>>>> outdoor events, for fear of a backlash.
>>>> 
>>>> Not sure what the  answer to this problem is, but it certainly does
exist.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards, Tom  Ryan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
>>>> -to unsubscribe
>>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>>> 
>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>> 
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> 

------------------------------

Message: 60
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:06:13 -0800
From: Robert Lawrence <lawrence at rwlcpa.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <A2BD3A6E-CDDA-459F-A10E-B48C9063D418 at rwlcpa.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

HOOK RESPONSES BY PRIVATE EMAIL ONLY


Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2012, at 8:49 AM, "Clarence Hollowell" <antietam33 at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> 
> Charles is 100 % correct, The NAACP wont deal with real issue that has
destroyed familiesbecause they know they cant change the culture so they
have to go after the white man 100 yrs ago.plus it helps with the cash
flow.............you may not like what I'm saying but its the truth
Clarence Hollowell      > From: CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com
>> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:43:38 -0500
>> To: gettysburg at arthes.com
>> Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
>> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>> With respect, it's not just "the NAACP" that finds itself uncomfortable
with Governmental sponsorship of the Confederate Flag, i.e., the Navy Jack.
Let's get back to the Gettysburg Campaign?
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:38 AM, "CWMHTours at aol.com" <CWMHTours at aol.com>
wrote:
>> 
>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>> RE:  The Conf battle flag.
>>> 
>>> The NAACP is insane and out of touch with  reality.
>>> 
>>> Apparently their big bug is that the flag was used as a symbol  of white

>>> supremacy - particularly by the Ku Klux Klan.
>>> 
>>> But the Klan also used the Bible as the same symbol.   They used the
cross 
>>> for the same also.  They also used the American  flag.  They also used
bed 
>>> sheets.
>>> 
>>> So why don't they regard the Bible the ssame way?
>>> 
>>> Or the cross?
>>> 
>>> Or the  
>>> 
>>> "Just  the facts, ma'am." 
>>> 
>>> Your Most Obediant Servant
>>> Peter  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In a message dated 1/22/2012 7:54:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
>>> pennmardel at mchsi.com writes:
>>> 
>>> Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
>>> <<So he thinks if African Americans read the  confederate constitution
they
>>> wouldn't oppose display of the confederate  battle flag.  And
emancipation 
>>> of
>>> the slaves was a sin.  The  slaves drifted into peonage with no agency
among
>>> southern whites  whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?>>
>>> 
>>> For what it is worth, I  attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on Saturday
>>> hosted by a local Sons of  Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have gotten to
know
>>> the commander of the  Camp well, and he has participated with me in a
local
>>> CW  presentation.
>>> 
>>> This past July, this SCV Camp was invited to take part in  our town July
4
>>> parade.  The Camp agreed, but later withdrew when they  were informed by
the
>>> parade officials that they could not display the  Confederate flag.
>>> 
>>> On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp  commander, and
asked
>>> him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered  displaying the 
>>> Confederate
>>> national flag, rather than the battleflag, at  public events -- which
would
>>> be much less controversial.
>>> 
>>> The  commander's response was immediate and adamant that he would not
>>> compromise  his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of
the
>>> heritage of  those who fought under its banner.  Once he got onto this
>>> subject,  frankly it was difficult to divert him to something more
amenable
>>> and less  controversial.
>>> 
>>> It is difficult to find a reasonable solution or  compromise on this
issue.
>>> Our CWRT displays both the American and  Confederate flags at our
meetings.
>>> At a public ceremony in our town hall  last April in commemoration of
the
>>> beginning of the CW, both flags were on  display.
>>> 
>>> However, officials remain reluctant to have the battleflag on  display
in
>>> outdoor events, for fear of a backlash.
>>> 
>>> Not sure what the  answer to this problem is, but it certainly does
exist.
>>> 
>>> Regards, Tom  Ryan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
>>> -to unsubscribe
>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>> 
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>                         
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> 

------------------------------

Message: 61
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:06:59 -0500 (EST)
From: CWMHTours at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: GDG- Farnsworth
Message-ID: <12f50.42949037.3c4d8e23 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

I know Farnsworth was an ADC to Pleasanton preceding  Gtysbg.
 
What exactly did Custer do during the mountains cavalry  campaigns in those 
days?  Where was he?
 
What was Merritt doing?
 
FOOTNOTE:  Both Pleasanton and Andrew Humphreys are  buried in DC's 
gorgeous Congressional cemetery.  It is almost a necessity  if you want to
see 
Civil War in Wash DC.
 
"Just  the facts, ma'am." 

Your Most Obediant  Servant
Peter

------------------------------

Message: 62
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:09:35 -0800
From: Robert Lawrence <lawrence at rwlcpa.com>
To: "gettysburg at arthes.com" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: GDG- : NAACP and Battleflag
Message-ID: <9E981509-B487-49E3-BD96-7A5621C7BB90 at rwlcpa.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"



> 
> 
> We are NOT going to get into a discussion on either here. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone

------------------------------

Message: 63
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:12:19 -0600
From: Dennis Lawrence <denlaw at gojade.org>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: GDG- Education - Hook
Message-ID: <20120122081221.D87329EC at dm0226.mta.everyone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 09:43 AM 1/22/2012, you wrote:
>One more pathetic sign of our lousy education  system.





------------------------------

Message: 64
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:12:41 -0600
From: Dennis Lawrence <denlaw at gojade.org>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: GDG- NCAAP - Hook
Message-ID: <20120122081243.D88990A2 at dm0201.mta.everyone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 09:46 AM 1/22/2012, you wrote:
>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>Strange thing to say if one is dedicated to "just the facts."
>
>The CBF was also used as a symbol of opposition to racial 
>integration in the 1960s as well as the symbol of the Dixiecrat 
>Party dedicated to maintaining segregation.  The KKK has adopted the 
>CBF because it has had no other political use than as a symbol of 
>protest against racial equality and as a symbol for the soldiers 
>whose victory would result in the perpetuation of slavery.  The 
>Bible and the Cross have no such distinction.  The victory of the 
>troops that fought under the US Flag meant the destruction of 
>slavery.  The National Guard troops who enforced integration were 
>under the US Flag.
>
>Seems the NAACP may have it about right.
>
>Best Regards,
>Al Mackey
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: CWMHTours <CWMHTours at aol.com>
>To: gettysburg <gettysburg at arthes.com>
>Sent: Sun, Jan 22, 2012 10:37 am
>Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
>
>
>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>E:  The Conf battle flag.
>
>he NAACP is insane and out of touch with  reality.
>
>pparently their big bug is that the flag was used as a symbol  of white
>upremacy - particularly by the Ku Klux Klan.
>
>ut the Klan also used the Bible as the same symbol.   They used the cross
>or the same also.  They also used the American  flag.  They also used bed
>heets.
>
>o why don't they regard the Bible the ssame way?
>
>r the cross?
>
>r the
>
>Just  the facts, ma'am."
>Your Most Obediant Servant
>eter
>
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m 
>-to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives





------------------------------

Message: 65
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:13:18 -0600
From: Dennis Lawrence <denlaw at gojade.org>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: GDG- NCAAP - Hook
Message-ID: <20120122081320.D886C717 at dm0206.mta.everyone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 09:53 AM 1/22/2012, you wrote:
>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>As an urban resident I would be really pleased if the NAACP  would get
>young black men to lift their pants up over their butts.  Most 
>of  them in the
>city have them close to their knees.  I find it incredibly  offensive and
it
>is disgusting to ride behind them on an up escalator in the  subway.  Yet
>they have time to bitch about the battle flag.
>
>NAACP is best ignored.
>
>"Just  the facts, ma'am."
>
>Your Most Obediant Servant
>Peter
>
>
>In a message dated 1/22/2012 10:49:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>antietam33 at hotmail.com writes:
>
>Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
>
>Charles is 100 % correct, The NAACP wont deal  with real issue that has
>destroyed familiesbecause they know they cant change  the culture so 
>they have
>to go after the white man 100 yrs ago.plus it helps  with the cash
>flow.............you may not like what I'm saying but its 
>the  truth  Clarence
>Hollowell      > From:  CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com
> > Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:43:38  -0500
> > To: gettysburg at arthes.com
> > Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's  Foote in His Mouth
> >
> > Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> >  With respect, it's not just "the NAACP" that finds itself uncomfortable
>with  Governmental sponsorship of the Confederate Flag, i.e., the Navy
Jack.
>Let's  get back to the Gettysburg Campaign?
> >
> > Sent from my  iPhone
> >
> > On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:38 AM, "CWMHTours at aol.com"  <CWMHTours at aol.com>
>wrote:
> >
> > > Esteemed GDG Member  Contributes:
> > > RE:  The Conf battle flag.
> > >
> > > The NAACP is insane and out of touch with  reality.
> >  >
> > > Apparently their big bug is that the flag was used as a  symbol  of
>white
> > > supremacy - particularly by the Ku Klux  Klan.
> > >
> > > But the Klan also used the Bible as the same  symbol.   They used the
>cross
> > > for the same also.   They also used the American  flag.  They also
used
>bed
> > >  sheets.
> > >
> > > So why don't they regard the Bible the  ssame way?
> > >
> > > Or the cross?
> > >
> > >  Or the
> > >
> > > "Just  the facts, ma'am."
> > >
> > > Your Most Obediant Servant
> > >  Peter
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated  1/22/2012 7:54:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > >  pennmardel at mchsi.com writes:
> > >
> > > Esteemed  GDG  Member Contributes:
> > > <<So he thinks if African Americans  read the  confederate
constitution
>they
> > > wouldn't oppose  display of the confederate  battle flag.  And
>emancipation
> >  > of
> > > the slaves was a sin.  The  slaves drifted into  peonage with no
agency
>among
> > > southern whites   whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?>>
> > >
> > > For what  it is worth, I  attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on
>Saturday
> >  > hosted by a local Sons of  Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have  gotten
>to know
> > > the commander of the  Camp well, and he has  participated with me in a
>local
> > > CW  presentation.
> >  >
> > > This past July, this SCV Camp was invited to take part  in  our town
>July 4
> > > parade.  The Camp agreed, but later  withdrew when they  were informed
>by the
> > > parade officials  that they could not display the  Confederate flag.
> > >
> >  > On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp  commander, and
>asked
> > > him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered   displaying the
> > > Confederate
> > > national flag, rather  than the battleflag, at  public events -- which
>would
> > > be  much less controversial.
> > >
> > > The  commander's  response was immediate and adamant that he would not
> > >  compromise  his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of
>the
> > > heritage of  those who fought under its banner.   Once he got onto
this
> > > subject,  frankly it was difficult to  divert him to something more
>amenable
> > > and less   controversial.
> > >
> > > It is difficult to find a reasonable  solution or  compromise on this
>issue.
> > > Our CWRT displays  both the American and  Confederate flags at our
>meetings.
> > > At  a public ceremony in our town hall  last April in commemoration of
>the
> > > beginning of the CW, both flags were on   display.
> > >
> > > However, officials remain reluctant to  have the battleflag on
display
>in
> > > outdoor events, for fear  of a backlash.
> > >
> > > Not sure what the  answer to  this problem is, but it certainly does
>exist.
> > >
> > >  Regards, Tom  Ryan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m
> >  >  -to unsubscribe
> > >  http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
> >  >
> > >
> > >
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m 
>-to unsubscribe
> > >  http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> >
> >
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m 
>-to unsubscribe
> > http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m
>   -to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
>
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m 
>-to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives





------------------------------

Message: 66
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:13:32 -0600
From: Dennis Lawrence <denlaw at gojade.org>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: GDG- R v Wade - Hook
Message-ID: <20120122081333.D879E460 at dm0220.mta.everyone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 09:54 AM 1/22/2012, you wrote:
>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>And the Family Research Council would lose a huge "cash cow" if Roe 
>v. Wade was overturned. So what? Again, can we return to the summer 
>of 1863, please?
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:49 AM, "Clarence Hollowell" 
><antietam33 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> >
> > Charles is 100 % correct, The NAACP wont deal with real issue 
> that has destroyed familiesbecause they know they cant change the 
> culture so they have to go after the white man 100 yrs ago.plus it 
> helps with the cash flow.............you may not like what I'm 
> saying but its the truth  Clarence Hollowell      > From: 
> CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com
> >> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:43:38 -0500
> >> To: gettysburg at arthes.com
> >> Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
> >>
> >> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> >> With respect, it's not just "the NAACP" that finds itself 
> uncomfortable with Governmental sponsorship of the Confederate 
> Flag, i.e., the Navy Jack. Let's get back to the Gettysburg Campaign?
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:38 AM, "CWMHTours at aol.com" 
> <CWMHTours at aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> >>> RE:  The Conf battle flag.
> >>>
> >>> The NAACP is insane and out of touch with  reality.
> >>>
> >>> Apparently their big bug is that the flag was used as a symbol  of
white
> >>> supremacy - particularly by the Ku Klux Klan.
> >>>
> >>> But the Klan also used the Bible as the same symbol.   They 
> used the cross
> >>> for the same also.  They also used the American  flag.  They 
> also used bed
> >>> sheets.
> >>>
> >>> So why don't they regard the Bible the ssame way?
> >>>
> >>> Or the cross?
> >>>
> >>> Or the
> >>>
> >>> "Just  the facts, ma'am."
> >>>
> >>> Your Most Obediant Servant
> >>> Peter
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In a message dated 1/22/2012 7:54:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> >>> pennmardel at mchsi.com writes:
> >>>
> >>> Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
> >>> <<So he thinks if African Americans read the  confederate 
> constitution they
> >>> wouldn't oppose display of the confederate  battle flag.  And 
> emancipation
> >>> of
> >>> the slaves was a sin.  The  slaves drifted into peonage with no 
> agency among
> >>> southern whites  whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?>>
> >>>
> >>> For what it is worth, I  attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on
Saturday
> >>> hosted by a local Sons of  Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have 
> gotten to know
> >>> the commander of the  Camp well, and he has participated with 
> me in a local
> >>> CW  presentation.
> >>>
> >>> This past July, this SCV Camp was invited to take part in  our 
> town July 4
> >>> parade.  The Camp agreed, but later withdrew when they  were 
> informed by the
> >>> parade officials that they could not display the  Confederate flag.
> >>>
> >>> On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the 
> Camp  commander, and asked
> >>> him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered  displaying the
> >>> Confederate
> >>> national flag, rather than the battleflag, at  public events -- 
> which would
> >>> be much less controversial.
> >>>
> >>> The  commander's response was immediate and adamant that he would not
> >>> compromise  his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of
the
> >>> heritage of  those who fought under its banner.  Once he got onto this
> >>> subject,  frankly it was difficult to divert him to something 
> more amenable
> >>> and less  controversial.
> >>>
> >>> It is difficult to find a reasonable solution or  compromise on 
> this issue.
> >>> Our CWRT displays both the American and  Confederate flags at 
> our meetings.
> >>> At a public ceremony in our town hall  last April in commemoration of
the
> >>> beginning of the CW, both flags were on  display.
> >>>
> >>> However, officials remain reluctant to have the battleflag on  display
in
> >>> outdoor events, for fear of a backlash.
> >>>
> >>> Not sure what the  answer to this problem is, but it certainly 
> does exist.
> >>>
> >>> Regards, Tom  Ryan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
> >>> -to unsubscribe
> >>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com

> -to unsubscribe
> >>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> >>
> >> 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com

> -to unsubscribe
> >> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
> >
> > 
>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com

> -to unsubscribe
> > http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m 
>-to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives





------------------------------

Message: 67
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:16:45 -0500 (EST)
From: CWMHTours at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: GDG- HOOK
Message-ID: <132e3.3c4d85fe.3c4d906d at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

You gentlemen show a lot of courage and integrity by doing  HOOKs before 
noontime.  Must be very diffcult.
 
Personally I hate doing anything unpleasant before  noontime.
 
;-)    !!!!
 
"Just  the facts, ma'am." 

Your Most Obediant  Servant
Peter

------------------------------

Message: 68
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:20:41 -0600
From: Dennis Lawrence <denlaw at gojade.org>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: GDG- Is we is or is we ain't a Union?
Message-ID: <20120122082043.D885BF10 at dm0205.mta.everyone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed


>   In American English, we  now refer to collective
>nouns in the singular, such as "the team is playing  tomorrow.
>  Hello,

      Teaching collective nouns and agreement with its  verb was 
always difficult for me.

  If it is as an action being done  as a single unit, "the team is 
playing tomorrow" is correct.  However, if it is done individually, 
it would be" the team are showering."

Rather awkward to the ear so usually we  see "the team members are
showering."

So while Foote  may not be right about when the change  occurred, 
grammatically he was right on target with the significance.  Acting 
as a unit the correct grammar is  "the United States is", which is 
what  Lincoln claimed.  Acting as individual entities, "the United 
States are", which is what secessionists claimed

After the Civil War, Reconstruction of the union was accompanied by 
Reconstructing the grammatical connections :-)

Take Care

Dennis  

------------------------------

Message: 69
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:02:25 -0600
From: John Lawrence <jlawrence at kc.rr.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
Message-ID: <uwg0dj37wbtpk4e4cl98kh66.1327248145498 at email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Cm on guys.
Why don't you talk about your favorite monument and why.

"Charles T. Joyce" <CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com> wrote:

>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>And the Family Research Council would lose a huge "cash cow" if Roe v. Wade
was overturned. So what? Again, can we return to the summer of 1863, please?
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:49 AM, "Clarence Hollowell" <antietam33 at hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>> 
>> Charles is 100 % correct, The NAACP wont deal with real issue that has
destroyed familiesbecause they know they cant change the culture so they
have to go after the white man 100 yrs ago.plus it helps with the cash
flow.............you may not like what I'm saying but its the truth
Clarence Hollowell      > From: CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com
>>> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:43:38 -0500
>>> To: gettysburg at arthes.com
>>> Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
>>> 
>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>> With respect, it's not just "the NAACP" that finds itself uncomfortable
with Governmental sponsorship of the Confederate Flag, i.e., the Navy Jack.
Let's get back to the Gettysburg Campaign?
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:38 AM, "CWMHTours at aol.com" <CWMHTours at aol.com>
wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>>> RE:  The Conf battle flag.
>>>> 
>>>> The NAACP is insane and out of touch with  reality.
>>>> 
>>>> Apparently their big bug is that the flag was used as a symbol  of
white 
>>>> supremacy - particularly by the Ku Klux Klan.
>>>> 
>>>> But the Klan also used the Bible as the same symbol.   They used the
cross 
>>>> for the same also.  They also used the American  flag.  They also used
bed 
>>>> sheets.
>>>> 
>>>> So why don't they regard the Bible the ssame way?
>>>> 
>>>> Or the cross?
>>>> 
>>>> Or the  
>>>> 
>>>> "Just  the facts, ma'am." 
>>>> 
>>>> Your Most Obediant Servant
>>>> Peter  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In a message dated 1/22/2012 7:54:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
>>>> pennmardel at mchsi.com writes:
>>>> 
>>>> Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
>>>> <<So he thinks if African Americans read the  confederate constitution
they
>>>> wouldn't oppose display of the confederate  battle flag.  And
emancipation 
>>>> of
>>>> the slaves was a sin.  The  slaves drifted into peonage with no agency
among
>>>> southern whites  whatsoever.  Really, Shelby?>>
>>>> 
>>>> For what it is worth, I  attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on
Saturday
>>>> hosted by a local Sons of  Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have gotten to
know
>>>> the commander of the  Camp well, and he has participated with me in a
local
>>>> CW  presentation.
>>>> 
>>>> This past July, this SCV Camp was invited to take part in  our town
July 4
>>>> parade.  The Camp agreed, but later withdrew when they  were informed
by the
>>>> parade officials that they could not display the  Confederate flag.
>>>> 
>>>> On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp  commander, and
asked
>>>> him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered  displaying the 
>>>> Confederate
>>>> national flag, rather than the battleflag, at  public events -- which
would
>>>> be much less controversial.
>>>> 
>>>> The  commander's response was immediate and adamant that he would not
>>>> compromise  his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of
the
>>>> heritage of  those who fought under its banner.  Once he got onto this
>>>> subject,  frankly it was difficult to divert him to something more
amenable
>>>> and less  controversial.
>>>> 
>>>> It is difficult to find a reasonable solution or  compromise on this
issue.
>>>> Our CWRT displays both the American and  Confederate flags at our
meetings.
>>>> At a public ceremony in our town hall  last April in commemoration of
the
>>>> beginning of the CW, both flags were on  display.
>>>> 
>>>> However, officials remain reluctant to have the battleflag on  display
in
>>>> outdoor events, for fear of a backlash.
>>>> 
>>>> Not sure what the  answer to this problem is, but it certainly does
exist.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards, Tom  Ryan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
>>>> -to unsubscribe
>>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>>> 
>>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>>                         
>>
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m -to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives

------------------------------

Message: 70
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:33:56 -0500 (EST)
From: CWMHTours at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- (no subject)
Message-ID: <1393f.55554b63.3c4d9474 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Second Delaware by Rose farm.
 
A friend invited me to join the 2nd Del reenactors in  1988.  Which is way 
cool.  I got to be a Yankee and shoot up Pickett's  Charge.  I got gunpowder

on my face.
 
And then I found out that 2nd Del was partly responsible for  all those 
dead Rebs by the woods on the farm from Frassanito.
 
Pretty neat.  It's quite a story.
 
And then they were skirmishers on 7/3 and have another  monument behind the 
northen dogleg of the stone wall near the  copse. 
 
"Just  the facts, ma'am." 

Your Most Obediant Servant
Peter  

 
In a message dated 1/22/2012 11:27:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jlawrence at kc.rr.com writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
Cm on guys.
Why don't you talk about your  favorite monument and why.

"Charles T. Joyce"  <CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com> wrote:

>Esteemed GDG Member  Contributes:
>And the Family Research Council would lose a huge "cash  cow" if Roe v. 
Wade was overturned. So what? Again, can we return to the  summer of 1863, 
please?
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On  Jan 22, 2012, at 10:49 AM, "Clarence Hollowell" 
<antietam33 at hotmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>  
>> Charles is 100 % correct, The NAACP wont deal with real issue  that has 
destroyed familiesbecause they know they cant change the culture so  they 
have to go after the white man 100 yrs ago.plus it helps with the cash  
flow.............you may not like what I'm saying but its the truth
Clarence 
Hollowell      > From:  CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com
>>> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:43:38  -0500
>>> To: gettysburg at arthes.com
>>> Subject: Re:  GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
>>> 
>>> Esteemed GDG  Member Contributes:
>>> With respect, it's not just "the NAACP"  that finds itself 
uncomfortable with Governmental sponsorship of the  Confederate Flag, i.e.,
the Navy 
Jack. Let's get back to the Gettysburg  Campaign?
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>  
>>> On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:38 AM, "CWMHTours at aol.com"  <CWMHTours at aol.com> 
wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
>>>> RE:  The Conf battle  flag.
>>>> 
>>>> The NAACP is insane and out of  touch with  reality.
>>>> 
>>>> Apparently  their big bug is that the flag was used as a symbol  of 
white  
>>>> supremacy - particularly by the Ku Klux  Klan.
>>>> 
>>>> But the Klan also used the  Bible as the same symbol.   They used the 
cross 
>>>>  for the same also.  They also used the American  flag.  They  also 
used bed 
>>>> sheets.
>>>>  
>>>> So why don't they regard the Bible the ssame  way?
>>>> 
>>>> Or the  cross?
>>>> 
>>>> Or the   
>>>> 
>>>> "Just  the facts, ma'am."  
>>>> 
>>>> Your Most Obediant  Servant
>>>> Peter  
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> In a message dated 1/22/2012 7:54:58  A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
>>>> pennmardel at mchsi.com  writes:
>>>> 
>>>> Esteemed  GDG Member  Contributes:
>>>> <<So he thinks if African Americans  read the  confederate 
constitution they
>>>> wouldn't  oppose display of the confederate  battle flag.  And 
emancipation  
>>>> of
>>>> the slaves was a sin.   The  slaves drifted into peonage with no 
agency among
>>>>  southern whites  whatsoever.  Really,  Shelby?>>
>>>> 
>>>> For what it is worth,  I  attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on 
Saturday
>>>>  hosted by a local Sons of  Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have gotten  
to know
>>>> the commander of the  Camp well, and he has  participated with me in a 
local
>>>> CW   presentation.
>>>> 
>>>> This past July, this  SCV Camp was invited to take part in  our town 
July 4
>>>>  parade.  The Camp agreed, but later withdrew when they  were  
informed by the
>>>> parade officials that they could not  display the  Confederate flag.
>>>> 
>>>>  On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp  commander, and  
asked
>>>> him whether he and other SCV Camps had  considered  displaying the 
>>>>  Confederate
>>>> national flag, rather than the battleflag,  at  public events -- which 
would
>>>> be much less  controversial.
>>>> 
>>>> The  commander's  response was immediate and adamant that he would not
>>>>  compromise  his standards about displaying the battleflag in honor of 
 the
>>>> heritage of  those who fought under its  banner.  Once he got onto this
>>>> subject,  frankly  it was difficult to divert him to something more 
amenable
>>>>  and less  controversial.
>>>> 
>>>> It is  difficult to find a reasonable solution or  compromise on this  
issue.
>>>> Our CWRT displays both the American and   Confederate flags at our 
meetings.
>>>> At a public ceremony in  our town hall  last April in commemoration of 
the
>>>>  beginning of the CW, both flags were on  display.
>>>>  
>>>> However, officials remain reluctant to have the  battleflag on  
display in
>>>> outdoor events, for fear of  a backlash.
>>>> 
>>>> Not sure what the   answer to this problem is, but it certainly does 
exist.
>>>>  
>>>> Regards, Tom  Ryan
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
>>>>  -to unsubscribe
>>>>  http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for   Archives
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>>>>  http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
>>> 
>>>  
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>>>  http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
>>                 
>>  
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/  for  Archives
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m  -to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives




------------------------------

Message: 71
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:42:20 -0800
From: "Robert G Pielke" <rpielke at ca.rr.com>
To: "'GDG'" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: GDG- The Flags
Message-ID: <004501ccd924$cf8c9a10$6ea5ce30$@ca.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

I've always thought that the battle flag should be less controversial. It
clearly represented the soldiers, whereas the national flag just clearly
represented the Confederate ideology that supported slavery. 

I don't recall seeing any display of either flag in the films of the 50th
and 75th reunions at Gettysburg, but it would be interesting to know how the
flag situation was handled at that time. Anyone know????

Bob Pielke
http://www.robertgpielke.com


-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com]
On Behalf Of Tom Ryan
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:55 AM
To: GDG
Subject: Re: GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth


On Saturday, I discussed this incident with the Camp commander, and asked
him whether he and other SCV Camps had considered displaying the Confederate
national flag, rather than the battleflag, at public events -- which would
be much less controversial.





------------------------------

Message: 72
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:19:08 -0800
From: Matt Diestel <agatematt at gmail.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Is we is or is we ain't a Union?
Message-ID:
	<CA+i57zZNTDv3tbaPmxFrv02MhNdXzKW=JqwRY2FqA470Ed5OUw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>
> Esteemed GDG Member Dennis Lawrence Contributes:
>
>   In American English, we  now refer to collective
>> nouns in the singular, such as "the team is playing  tomorrow.
>>  Hello,
>>
>
>     Teaching collective nouns and agreement with its  verb was always
> difficult for me.
>
>  If it is as an action being done  as a single unit, "the team is playing
> tomorrow" is correct.  However, if it is done individually, it would be"
> the team are showering."
>
> Rather awkward to the ear so usually we  see "the team members are
> showering."
>
> So while Foote  may not be right about when the change  occurred,
> grammatically he was right on target with the significance.  Acting as a
> unit the correct grammar is  "the United States is", which is what
Lincoln
> claimed.  Acting as individual entities, "the United States are", which is
> what secessionists claimed
>
> After the Civil War, Reconstruction of the union was accompanied by
> Reconstructing the grammatical connections :-)
>
> Take Care
>
> Dennis


    As a veteran newspaper editor, let me digitally applaud your
grammatical abilities. One of the constants I have had to correct with
reporters --- especially newly minted ones from the nation's grandest
universities --- is that there exists this wonderful part of the English
language called the collective singular and, thus, it takes a singular
verb.
    Your use of "team" is a fine example, indeed. Other collective
singulars like city council, the Congress and, of course, the United States
of America, take singular verbs such as "is," "did" or "has" instead of
"are," "does" or "have."  As I like to tell my youthful journalistic
charges, "We are all Americans but American is one nation."
     And Mr. Foote was, indeed, most correct in his use of verbs.
                 With regards,
                       Chet


------------------------------

Message: 73
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:28:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Batrinque at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- HOOK
Message-ID: <4236f.1fe0750d.3c4da130 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"



In a message dated 1/22/2012 11:17:15 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
CWMHTours at aol.com writes:

You  gentlemen show a lot of courage and integrity by doing  HOOKs before  
noontime.  
It all depends on what bait is used.

Bruce  Trinque
Amston, CT


------------------------------

Message: 74
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:29:22 -0500 (EST)
From: CWMHTours at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- 2nd Del and John Brooke
Message-ID: <14fab.1eabacbc.3c4da172 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

As a footnote the 2nd Del was in the 4th Brgd under Gen John  Brroke.  4th 
Brgd, 1st Div II Corps.
 
I've been to his grave 100s of times  Oddly enough in a  cluster on the top 
of the hill S of Arlington House is quite a number of  Gettysburg people.  
John Gibbon, Roy Stone, Gabe  Paul, John Brooks,  and Mc Dougall of the 
111th NYVI.  Trying to recall some  others.
 
"Just  the facts, ma'am." 

Your Most Obediant Servant
Peter  

 
In a message dated 1/22/2012 11:34:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
CWMHTours at aol.com writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
Second Delaware by Rose farm.

A friend  invited me to join the 2nd Del reenactors in  1988.  Which is way 
 
cool.  I got to be a Yankee and shoot up Pickett's   Charge.  I got 
gunpowder 
on my face.

And then I found out that  2nd Del was partly responsible for  all those 
dead Rebs by the woods  on the farm from Frassanito.

Pretty neat.  It's quite a  story.

And then they were skirmishers on 7/3 and have another   monument behind 
the 
northen dogleg of the stone wall near the  copse.  

"Just  the facts, ma'am." 

Your Most Obediant  Servant
Peter  


In a message dated 1/22/2012 11:27:36 A.M.  Eastern Standard Time,  
jlawrence at kc.rr.com  writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
Cm on guys.
Why  don't you talk about your  favorite monument and why.

"Charles T.  Joyce"  <CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com> wrote:

>Esteemed GDG  Member  Contributes:
>And the Family Research Council would lose a  huge "cash  cow" if Roe v. 
Wade was overturned. So what? Again, can  we return to the  summer of 1863, 
please?
>
>Sent from my  iPhone
>
>On  Jan 22, 2012, at 10:49 AM, "Clarence Hollowell"  
<antietam33 at hotmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
>>  
>> Charles is 100 %  correct, The NAACP wont deal with real issue  that has 
destroyed  familiesbecause they know they cant change the culture so  they 
have  to go after the white man 100 yrs ago.plus it helps with the cash   
flow.............you may not like what I'm saying but its the  truth   
Clarence 
Hollowell      > From:   CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com
>>> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012  10:43:38  -0500
>>> To: gettysburg at arthes.com
>>>  Subject: Re:  GDG- Shelby's Foote in His Mouth
>>>  
>>> Esteemed GDG  Member Contributes:
>>> With  respect, it's not just "the NAACP"  that finds itself 
uncomfortable  with Governmental sponsorship of the  Confederate Flag, 
i.e., the Navy  
Jack. Let's get back to the Gettysburg  Campaign?
>>>  
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>  
>>> On  Jan 22, 2012, at 10:38 AM, "CWMHTours at aol.com"  <CWMHTours at aol.com> 
 
wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Esteemed  GDG Member  Contributes:
>>>> RE:  The Conf battle   flag.
>>>> 
>>>> The NAACP is insane and out  of  touch with  reality.
>>>> 
>>>>  Apparently  their big bug is that the flag was used as a symbol  of  
white  
>>>> supremacy - particularly by the Ku  Klux  Klan.
>>>> 
>>>> But the Klan also  used the  Bible as the same symbol.   They used the 
cross  
>>>>  for the same also.  They also used the  American  flag.  They  also 
used bed 
>>>>  sheets.
>>>>  
>>>> So why don't they  regard the Bible the ssame  way?
>>>> 
>>>>  Or the  cross?
>>>> 
>>>> Or  the   
>>>> 
>>>> "Just  the  facts, ma'am."  
>>>> 
>>>> Your Most  Obediant  Servant
>>>> Peter   
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> In a  message dated 1/22/2012 7:54:58  A.M. Eastern Standard Time,   
>>>> pennmardel at mchsi.com  writes:
>>>>  
>>>> Esteemed  GDG Member   Contributes:
>>>> <<So he thinks if African  Americans  read the  confederate 
constitution  they
>>>> wouldn't  oppose display of the  confederate  battle flag.  And 
emancipation   
>>>> of
>>>> the slaves was a sin.    The  slaves drifted into peonage with no 
agency  among
>>>>  southern whites  whatsoever.   Really,  Shelby?>>
>>>> 
>>>> For  what it is worth,  I  attended a Lee-Jackson Day ceremony on  
Saturday
>>>>  hosted by a local Sons of   Confederate Veterans Camp.  I have gotten 
 
to  know
>>>> the commander of the  Camp well, and he  has  participated with me in 
a 
local
>>>>  CW   presentation.
>>>> 
>>>> This  past July, this  SCV Camp was invited to take part in  our town  
July 4
>>>>  parade.  The Camp agreed, but later  withdrew when they  were  
informed by the
>>>>  parade officials that they could not  display the  Confederate  flag.
>>>> 
>>>>  On Saturday, I discussed  this incident with the Camp  commander, and 
  
asked
>>>> him whether he and other SCV Camps had   considered  displaying the 
>>>>   Confederate
>>>> national flag, rather than the  battleflag,  at  public events -- 
which  
would
>>>> be much less   controversial.
>>>> 
>>>> The   commander's  response was immediate and adamant that he would  
not
>>>>  compromise  his standards about displaying  the battleflag in honor 
of 
the
>>>> heritage of  those  who fought under its  banner.  Once he got onto  
this
>>>> subject,  frankly  it was difficult to  divert him to something more 
amenable
>>>>  and  less  controversial.
>>>> 
>>>> It is   difficult to find a reasonable solution or  compromise on this 
  
issue.
>>>> Our CWRT displays both the American  and   Confederate flags at our 
meetings.
>>>> At  a public ceremony in  our town hall  last April in commemoration 
of  
the
>>>>  beginning of the CW, both flags were  on  display.
>>>>  
>>>> However,  officials remain reluctant to have the  battleflag on  
display  in
>>>> outdoor events, for fear of  a  backlash.
>>>> 
>>>> Not sure what  the   answer to this problem is, but it certainly does  
exist.
>>>>  
>>>> Regards, Tom   Ryan
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>   
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
>>>>   -to unsubscribe
>>>>   http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for    Archives
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
   -to unsubscribe
>>>>   http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for   Archives
>>> 
>>>   
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
   -to unsubscribe
>>>   http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for   Archives
>>               
>>   
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
   -to unsubscribe
>>  http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/  for   Archives
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
m   -to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/  for   Archives
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/  for   Archives


----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives




------------------------------

Message: 75
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:40:26 -0500 (EST)
From: joadx1 at netscape.net
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Is we is or is we ain't a Union?
Message-ID: <8CEA7440EE2C88B-788-1D208 at Webmail-d109.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


 And as a veteran university professor, I can say that the situation is
hopeless.  Consider the question of noun-pronoun agreement.  Everyone in
this country now simply uses the plural pronoun "they" for all purposes, as
in "when someone goes to the store, they buy milk."  I grant that there is
some wiggle room in grammatical convention, but sometimes you get ludicrous
statements like "when Sally went to the store, they bought milk."  I know
where this comes from: a desire to avoid gender-weighted pronouns
(traditionally, the masculine personal pronoun was used for all indefinite
singular purposes), but I ask my students to try to avoid glaring
mismatches.  I also try to explain the difference between "it's" and "its,"
and "there," "they're," and "their," to little avail.  Now I see "where"
being used when the writer means "were," even among professional
journalists.  Such is the effect of a spell checker that cannot discern
context.

When I get my first "+1" in an essay when the writer means "I agree," it may
be time to retire.

Not really.  There are worse things in the world to contend with (or should
I say, "with which to contend").

 

 



    >As a veteran newspaper editor, let me digitally applaud yourgrammatical
abilities. One of the constants I have had to correct withreporters ---
especially newly minted ones from the nation's grandestuniversities --- is
that there exists this wonderful part of the Englishlanguage called the
collective singular and, thus, it takes a singularverb.    Your use of
"team" is a fine example, indeed. Other collectivesingulars like city
council, the Congress and, of course, the United Statesof America, take
singular verbs such as "is," "did" or "has" instead of"are," "does" or
"have."  As I like to tell my youthful journalisticcharges, "We are all
Americans but American is one nation."     And Mr. Foote was, indeed, most
correct in his use of verbs.                 With regards,
Chet< 


------------------------------

Message: 76
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:43:59 -0500 (EST)
From: atmackeyjr at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Is we is or is we ain't a Union?
Message-ID: <8CEA7448E74CD81-C70-16779 at webmail-m065.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"



In his use of verbs he was correct, but he was talking about a historical
event causing verb usage, in which case he was not correct.

 
Best Regards,
Al Mackey




-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Diestel <agatematt at gmail.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 22, 2012 12:19 pm
Subject: Re: GDG- Is we is or is we ain't a Union?


Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:

 Esteemed GDG Member Dennis Lawrence Contributes:

   In American English, we  now refer to collective
> nouns in the singular, such as "the team is playing  tomorrow.
>  Hello,
>

     Teaching collective nouns and agreement with its  verb was always
 difficult for me.

  If it is as an action being done  as a single unit, "the team is playing
 tomorrow" is correct.  However, if it is done individually, it would be"
 the team are showering."

 Rather awkward to the ear so usually we  see "the team members are
 showering."

 So while Foote  may not be right about when the change  occurred,
 grammatically he was right on target with the significance.  Acting as a
 unit the correct grammar is  "the United States is", which is what  Lincoln
 claimed.  Acting as individual entities, "the United States are", which is
 what secessionists claimed

 After the Civil War, Reconstruction of the union was accompanied by
 Reconstructing the grammatical connections :-)

 Take Care

 Dennis

   As a veteran newspaper editor, let me digitally applaud your
rammatical abilities. One of the constants I have had to correct with
eporters --- especially newly minted ones from the nation's grandest
niversities --- is that there exists this wonderful part of the English
anguage called the collective singular and, thus, it takes a singular
erb.
   Your use of "team" is a fine example, indeed. Other collective
ingulars like city council, the Congress and, of course, the United States
f America, take singular verbs such as "is," "did" or "has" instead of
are," "does" or "have."  As I like to tell my youthful journalistic
harges, "We are all Americans but American is one nation."
    And Mr. Foote was, indeed, most correct in his use of verbs.
                With regards,
                      Chet
---------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to 
nsubscribe
ttp://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives




















------------------------------

Message: 77
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:46:54 -0500 (EST)
From: atmackeyjr at aol.com
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Is we is or is we ain't a Union?
Message-ID: <8CEA744F693B280-C70-167C3 at webmail-m065.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


Though as I think on it, had he said we could use this as a metaphor, I
think he would be more correct.

Best Regards,
Al Mackey



-----Original Message-----
From: atmackeyjr <atmackeyjr at aol.com>
To: gettysburg <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 22, 2012 12:44 pm
Subject: Re: GDG- Is we is or is we ain't a Union?


Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:

n his use of verbs he was correct, but he was talking about a historical
event 
ausing verb usage, in which case he was not correct.
 
est Regards,
l Mackey



------------------------------

You may unsubscribe at
http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com

End of Gettysburg Digest, Vol 18, Issue 22
******************************************
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4759 - Release Date: 01/22/12




More information about the Gettysburg mailing list