Bueller? Bueller??

[SCTiger]

Comrades:

If the WBTS/ACW was a political war, wouldn't the term Unionist-Federal or Confederate serve our purposes better in describing the ideaology that drove the war? For example: Northerners sympathetic to the South, wouldn't automatically qualify as "Yankees"; neither would people like General Geroge H. Thomas, be well described as a "Southerner". If the war was more concerned with the ideas of "States Rights" versus the Lincoln Administrations desire for increased Federalism (or perception of) then the Federal government versus Confederate makes more sense . I have never really thought of the war as purely regional, Southern men were found throughout the Union ranks, on the same token, there were quite a few copperheads that fought for or sympathized with the South. General Bushrod Johnson for example.

The western and far west Americans that fought for the USA could hardly be described as "yankees", neither could the inhabitants of the border states like Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky. It may seem like hair splitting, but when historians degrade each side as purely 'those damn yankees" or as a "filthy southern rebel", I don't think they appreciate the sacrifices made by Northern, Southern or Western people made to each sides war effort. Quite a few "yankees" died defending the Stars and Bars, same holds true for Southerners fighting for the Stars and Stripes. Westerners were found on either side.

While talking to folks about the war, I usually refer to the two forces as the "blue versus the gray" or (Union) Federal versus Confederate, US versus CS,
I just believe it's more accurate to highlight the political differences and less on the regional. I know the period soldier used terms such as "Billy Yank" and "Johnny Reb" but somehow I believe the regional differences were not as
important as the political beliefs, othewise no one would have crossed over to the other side.

Anyways, don't let my idea get you steamed, I just wanted to point the use of the terms in a more modern and accurate way. You can still call me a "Johnny Reb."

[RelicRoomGuy]

Re: Union versus Confederate, better terms?..

...when historians degrade each side as purely 'those damn yankees" or as a "filthy southern rebel"...

Are historians doing that? Seriously?

Contra Shakespeare, a rose by a different name sometimes changes its odor as well - but I am always leery of trying to "standardize" language, especially for political considerations. Let the terms used at the time survive and thrive, from Lee's "those people" right down to "bluebellied devil"!

In a modern discussion of the war - I'm still not for standardization. I use "the Federals" interchangeably with "the Yanks" in informal settings, "Confederate" and "Southern" interchangeably (they did, too, after all!) and even more confusingly, mix up my pronouns - "they" might mean "nineteenth-century people", "that generation", "the Federals", members of any particular unit or any number of other things, while "we" might mean "twentieth...uh, I mean twenty-first century people", or "Americans North and South", or "Southerners", current or historical.

Upon reflection, I think this ambiguity does more good than harm. Not for partisan reasons, but rather because it emphasizes the way the war's legacy is both personal and complex. Otherwise I'd sound like a European talking about the "ACW" (wargamer's abbreviation for "American Civil War"), taking some of the character out of it to consider it more theoretically. There's a place for that...but overall I think it would distance the war even further from most folks' minds to adopt "standard terms". It's too much like rendering a final verdict on "who the soldiers REALLY were" - when all of us are really studying constantly to find out a little more clearly who they (and, as Americans this time, WE...) really were.

[10TnVI]

Re: Union versus Confederate, better terms?..

Personally, I use the terms Union/Federal and sesch/ sessionist. I like the sound of it and have seen it use many times in period letters and journals. Also, being a pro union 'loyal southerner' serving in the Federal army it reflects the most likely period orientation of my persona.

[SCTiger]

Re: Union versus Confederate, better terms?..

Joe:

Good points all around. In a first person environment, I would use the terms they used. I am not advocating any "political correct" speech, I am just advocating a better understanding of what the terms meant. I do have a friend who is from Indiana, her Northern ancestors fought for the Confederacy, when she heard one Confederate reenactor spewing anti-yankee rhetoric in third person, like "death to all yankees", she was a little offended. She's a member of the UDC and you could call her a modern "copperhead." Then you have the droves of Southerners that wore the blue, are they Yankees?

While wearing the blue at one summer event, a Southern woman was passing out lemonade to the CSA reenactors. She stated that she wouldn't serve lemonade to any "yankee scum." But you do serve Southerners?, I asked. "I only serve brave southern men", she replied. "Good, because I am from Tennessee and I fight for ole Abe!" She wasn't amused, but I got my drink.

In some ways I think the ambiguous terms have misled people. All Union soldiers weren't from New England. The South would have been at a extreme loss without the help of thousands of sympathetic copperheads.

I would still use the period terms, but I would explain to visitors and other folks that this doesn't mean that all Yanks are Pro-Lincoln or that all Southerners supported the CSA. I don't think we should extend the regional animosity into the 21st century. Driving aound Ohio and Indiana, you will see a good number of Confederate Battle flags on cars and homes, it's a weird thought many of our northern cousins fought and died for the CSA.

The war didnt' have any neatly defined categories

[RelicRoomGuy]

Re: Union versus Confederate, better terms?..

While wearing the blue at one summer event, a Southern woman was passing out lemonade to the CSA reenactors. She stated that she wouldn't serve lemonade to any "yankee scum." But you do serve Southerners?, I asked. "I only serve brave southern men", she replied. "Good, because I am from Tennessee and I fight for ole Abe!" She wasn't amused, but I got my drink.

Very funny!

Seriously, there's a lot to be said for "complicating" folks' thoughts about the war. Not that they need to have the impression that the atypical WAS typical - I had a grade school class recently inform me that one main aspect ot the War was that many, many women dressed up as men to fight - they didn't even have a "baseline" idea to understand what was unusual if they saw it. But for a more sophisticated audience, it's good to let 'em know things were a bit more "mixed up" than we tend to think. (This definately includes fellow living historians who can appreciate it!)

As for modern animosity - I certainly agree! You know, Lee and Hampton and the various UCV and GAR veterans were big enough men to drop THEIR grudges, and they had MUCH more right to grudges than any descendents have generations later! Do I have any right to pick back up a grudge great-great-granddaddy dropped, and would he really appreciate my doing so on his behalf...? If I really must scratch my (inherited Scotch-Irish) itch to resent somebody , I pick somebody I can blame for his own personal modern beliefs and actions!

On that cheery note -

[SCTiger]

Re: Union versus Confederate, better terms?..

Joe:

The only way we coud inherit a grudge would be through a will, if great-great grandpa passed it down, none of them did that. It's also suprising how many ex-Union soldiers from the North came South to live .

Jefferson Davis even extended hospitality to a former Union soldier at his home Beauvoir in Biloxi, Mississippi after the war. The former GAR man was traveling through and in search of shelter and food. Old Jeff fed his former enemy, gave him clothes, lodging and some money. So if anybody had a right to hold a grudge, Jeff Davis did, but I don't think he ever acted on it.

Another common trait both North and South, were the strong Christian beliefs to forgive your neighbor and to obey the law. If only modern America could find meaning in those values.

Leaving for Charleston, see you on Monday.

[MoFed]

Re: Union versus Confederate, better terms?..

"While wearing the blue at one summer event, a Southern woman was passing out lemonade to the CSA reenactors. She stated that she wouldn't serve lemonade to any "yankee scum."

That would have been a good time to invoke the 1862 Confiscation Act, seize her lemonade, drink your fill and dump the remainder to deprive the enemy of its use. :baring_te

If you're gonna get the grief, you might as well get the gravy.

Charles D. Hoskins

[John of the Skulkers Mess]

Re: Union versus Confederate, better terms?..

FWIW:
I've seen (somewhere) early war useage of 'national' troops for the Union/north, while those with Confederate leanings were secesh or 'butternut' - or just plain Rebels.



John Pillers
TSM

[KentuckyReb]

Re: Union versus Confederate, better terms?..

Yes, I've noticed that too, John. Grant refers to 'the National Army' and 'National Troops' frequently in his memoirs. Confederates, Rebels, Secessionists, Southerners...and I think he's the one where I saw 'disunionists' but don't hold me to it...are the terms he uses just about equally when talking about Confederates. And I've seen it elsewhere, too, just can't think of where at the moment. Personally I use Federal and Confederate when just discussing the War with my buds. At events the Federals are 'Yankees'. I do think Gregory is right...in discussion, when one is not 'in character', Federal and Confederate are probably the most accurate terms. The two main 'camps' were fairly regionalized into North and South, but an abstract like Constitutional interpretation isn't defined by geography. And like he said also, out here in the West the line blurred even more.

[kemper_rifles]

Re: Union versus Confederate, better terms?..

I just believe it's more accurate to highlight the political differences and less on the regional. I know the period soldier used terms such as "Billy Yank" and "Johnny Reb" but somehow I believe the regional differences were not as
important as the political beliefs, othewise no one would have crossed over to the other side.

Anyways, don't let my idea get you steamed, I just wanted to point the use of the terms in a more modern and accurate way. You can still call me a "Johnny Reb."

I agree with everything you have been saying. I'm one of those fellers you have seen in Ohio with the Reb bumper stickers!

However, I was under the impression that "Billy Yank" was a post-war creation, where as the Rebs were often called Johnnies during the war. Of coarse I might be wrong. If so, my bad in advance.

[SCTiger]

Primary (PEC) impressions vs. Secondary roles

Comrades:

Every so often we are treated to the new AC member that wants advice on a specialty impression that is often at odds with the stated goals of campaigners.

Let's nail this down once and for all.

Primary-(PEC) impressions are those of the basic Union or Confedrate soldier, Artillery, Infantry, Medical Corps and Cavalry that were seen more often than any other sub-branch of service. Literally millions of men served in their ranks, both officers and enlisted. The basic "line" soldier was the common experience for many WBTS/ACW vets and although many carried elite and fanciful names such as the "Invincibles" or the 'Palmetto Guards"; except for the very early stages of the war, most of the Infantry soldiers on campaign wore plain, unadorned uniforms and shouldered common, muzzle loading muskets and rifles.

Secondary impressions: This would include all of the support branches (except civilian), to include specialized units such as Engineer's, Chaplains, Sharpshooters, Zouaves, Naval Reenactors, Marines, Musicians (except drummers and buglers), Provost Marshals, Signal Officer's, Rocket Artillery, troops armed with specialty weapons (Henry Rifle, Sharps Carbines etc.), Balloon Operators, Foreign Observers, Partisan Rangers, Scouts, Spies, Military Teamsters, Bridging Units etc. Impressions of personalities Lee, Lincoln, Grant, Jackson (Add any if I have left them out).
Bottom line, although they did exist, but they aren't representative of the majority of troops.

Specialty troops may be required for an event at times and requested, to add to the "backdrop" or to increase the authenticity of a living history or a specific scenario. The numbers of Secondary impressions should never exceed or equal the amount of basic combat troops, unless proven (rarely). By the same token, most civilian impressions are limited to a fractional number. At many times the Union and Confederate troops would exceed any local population of civilians. In Gettysburg, the civilian population was estimated at 2400, versus approx. 150,000+ soldiers who fought the battle. Or a ratio of sixteen soldiers for every civilian present. This scene was often repeated throughout the war. The secondary impression should be relative to the re-created event and well documented. Smart historians won't cheapen their secondary impression by insisting representation at every scenario or event. Too many people want to start with the Specialty impression and refuse to explore the more common roles found throughout a wartime and rural environment.

Develop a primary impression first. Once you are familiar with the common soldier (or civilian common female) and have secured the gear and the experience, I would then invest in a quality secondary impression, that's accurate and in demand for that event or series of events. It could be any common but, low number impression (such as a blacksmith or period sutler). Again the combined amount of specialty impressions should never exceed the Common TIF (Troops in Field). Specialty impressions aren't wrong: they are a nice change from the rigors of soldierly or common civilian life, they can be a good antidote to burnout, they will expand your knowldge of nineteenth century life and culture, they should be used only if conditions warrant, used conservatively and if it enhances the event or experience. Gain approval first from the event organizers, then research your impression as per Curt Heinrich Schmidt's guidelines.

Some impressions are rarely used outside of LH presentations, E.G. a "Marine Corps" impression, so unless you are reenacting a specific event that called for Marines, the usefulness of a Marine impression may be severly limited at most events, versus the "go anywhere" basic infantryman. If the battle or event did involve scores of Marines or Zouaves, is the expense of the impression still worth it? If you are the only "Berdan Sharpshooter" to show up, how could one person represent an entire company or regiment? No one likes the "Lone Zouave" or the "Lone Sharpshooter." If a large number of participants agree to a Secondary impression, then the expense could be justified, but it should not take precedence over the acquiring primary (PEC) gear, even if it's really cool. Beware that some Sutlers will sell you expensive gear that you will seldom use.

Some secondary impressions can really "spice" up an event, too many ruin the entire soup. The hobby really needs large masses of PEC troops to push the hobby forward for everyone. This was the common wartime scene, long lines of indigo and gray-jean clad troops marching through the countryside on campaign.

[Jefferson Guards]

Re: Primary (PEC) impressions vs. Secondary roles

I had thought that this end of the hobby was getting away from the "PEC" model and moving more towards event specific impressions. Personally I agree with the event specific impressions idea. I find that there are a lot of inherent problems with PEC.

A federal 7-rivit bayonet scabbard would be common in 1865, but would it be appropriate for an 1862 impression? In certain units there was a preference for frock coats, others preferred sacks. For confederates, A RD I, II, III, a Tait, Columbus Depot, A Frock...all were common garments in the proper time frame and context. I think it is very important in terms of making a believable impression to remember time frame and context.

"The secondary impression should be relative to the re-created event and well documented. Smart historians won't cheapen their secondary impression by insisting representation at every scenario or event."

I believe all impressions should be relative to a recreated event and well documented. I don't think any impression or event should be cheapened. The information is out there, it might take some digging and will turn up in unexpected places, but it can be found.

I believe the "PEC" idea was created to counteract what is common at mainstream events, namely obviously inappropriate impressions being seen in abundance. I never agreed with trying to counteract mainstream trends, but I let the historical record speak for itself and tailor my impression to history.

I think when we go for "PEC" impressions we are losing something. I thought that research was bringing us beyond a "common" impression to one in which we can actually say "this is what the 40th NY looked like in June 1862" or something like that, not, "this is what a common infantryman looked like." People or organizations were not "common" each had their own identity, their own pride, and their own story and I think relegating them to a "common" impression cheapens what they did and what they were.

[Alamo Guard]

Re: Primary (PEC) impressions vs. Secondary roles

I think Greg hit the nail on the head. How many times have you been at an event and seen the Prussian Military Advisors in ful dress wandering through the camps. Or worse yet the Berdan Sharpshooter at a WESTERN Event.
A good primary impression is so important. However I believe alot of just want to be an individual and stand out in a crowd.
There are many ways to achieve this while mantaining your PEC. My primary impression is western confederate. I try to be PEC but still have some individual impressions by mixing captured federal box with imported english cap box. Just a small subtle diffrence but enough to make me an individual.
Like Greg said its scenerio specific to wear whats needed for an event, and too mant times we see folks who just dont get the large picture.
I wish you could have seen the 15th Texas at Mansfield this last spring for authentic dress it was awesome. Someone told us we supplied 90 percent of the authenticity for the whole event.

[SCTiger]

Re: Primary (PEC) impressions vs. Secondary roles

Brian:

I believe that PEC should reflect accuracy as well, if the unit recreated for the event had brass numerals on their hat, and this was well documented and recorded, then the reenactor could wear the numeral. Obviously there would be guidelines for this.

My statement isn't for the "generic" but, for accurate soldiers and plenty of them, versus the tail wagging the dog effect of numerous civilians and specialists camped alongside a small military force. I know that hundreds of support people accompanied the military but, it should be in appropriate ratios. Maybe event organizers could work out the correct formula.

Then we have the "no where near this" incorrect impression. In other words, did the Army of the X have a brass band at this time and place? Did the 12th Regiment have a Chaplain? If they didn't, then the Chaplain impression, no matter how authentic, is wrong. However; you will have the folks (not pointing fingers here) that will insist that their civilian or support impressions must be featured at every event. Even if it wasn't there or no evidence supports it.

Basically I think we could use more soldiers; however if event X had 100 documented blacksmiths, then the regiment could use two or three, again properly reflecting what was there, proportionate to the number of troops.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Primary (PEC) impressions vs. Secondary roles

I'm seeing this as a two-part thing.

One: The event organizers always control the roles available, based on the specific historic situation and their choice of focus. That's totally up to them, though they know if they're asking for 200 Zouaves in handsewn uniforms who can drill in French, they're going to have a harder time convincing people to fill the roles than if they ask for what most people have in their closets and are used to anyway. If it's a "y'all come" kind of event where the organizers are happy to have Prussian Military Advisors wandering around without any historical basis (or are afraid to tell them not to lest they hurt their feelings) then it's not the kind of event that's the focus of this forum anyway.

Two: Participants pick what they want to purchase and study, so they can fill one or more roles that may be needed. But there are certain consequences. If they pick what's wanted at most events, they'll get to attend more or have a wider selection to choose from. If they pick something that's wanted less often, they'll have less opportunity to attend events, but it may be worth it if the role is what they really want to do.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net