Fascinating


I stumbled upon this on PBS America and have just finished it. I have to say it was fascinating. As an Englishman born in 1950 I had no idea about the American Civil War, most of what I did know came via Hollywood. I was surprised that it was such a close call. I had always believed that the North was always the superior force but obviously not. I suppose that the victors write history. I could listen to Shelby Foote forever. I wish I had had a history teacher like that when I was at school.

I'm just a bit curious. I've ben to America four times now but never to the South (New Orleans next). The closest was the Arlington Bridge. Is there still antipathy between the North and the South? Do Southerners still quietly yearn for seccesion? I know there is an issue about the rebel flag but I wondered if it was still deep rooted.

reply

.
I grew up in the South (South Carolina), and I was born in 1955. Even during the 50s, 60s, 70s, Southerners still had great antipathy to the North. I used to wonder, before I moved to the North, how "Yankees" (we still called them that) could even have friends, because my parents' generation painted them as being so cold, mean, uncaring, inhospitable, etc.

These days, what with smartphones and social media and forums like this, there is less ignorance and prejudice. But there is still a giant divide politically and racially between the North and the South, as news headlines of the most police shootings of black men should reveal, and the red/blue states or Trump/Clinton states should reveal.

As far as unreconstructed rebels, they have mostly died out LOL -- but there are certainly pockets of such idiocy, and yes, the rebel flag is treasured by some people even though, or sometimes because, it is a symbol of racism. The South is dualistic and contradictory -- but then so is life.

I suppose there is some analogy with the divide between the North and South of England -- but in the reverse. In England (in broad terms), the North is the area that is hard-done-by and downtrodden and working-class, whereas the South is prosperous, educated, and sophisticated.
.

reply

Although my wife was born in the south of England her mother was a staunch Protestant Ulster woman. Every year when they went back to visit on holiday and Helen could never understand why she could play with some of the children but not others. She grew up half believing Catholics ate their own babies. I actually work for a catholic order of nuns and Helen is very glad the her mum died before she had to tell her that.

reply

.
That's sad.

Northern Ireland is indeed a "vexed question".
.

reply

I had always believed that the North was always the superior force but obviously not.

It was more that the South had Lee (one of the greatest generals the world has ever seen), and some other great commanders as well, whereas the North for far too long had a bunch of crap generals and poor old Abe Lincoln was either too patient and kind to fire them or his orders went unheeded.

If Lee had followed his convictions and fought for the North the war would have been over in no time. Kind of odd when you think about it -- such is the price of Southern "honor".
.

reply

Thanks. I was struggling with that. It seemed to me that the North had the superior force but couldn't actually win any battles. I hadn't realised how great a soldier was until this. I suppose it comes back to who writes history. I had heard of Grant, Sherman, Meade and Custer (probably for different reasons) but not many Confederate general, apart from Lee

reply

.
Grant and Sherman were great generals, but they were not called into service as generals until very very late in the game -- after Lee had outwitted every dimwitted and/or cowardly commanding general that was officially in charge of Union forces.
.

reply

[deleted]