Comments on: A Short Comment About Your Comments http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/29/a-short-comment-about-your-comments/ Where History, Heritage, and Education Intersect Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:35:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/29/a-short-comment-about-your-comments/#comment-5626 Kevin Levin Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:05:09 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=2629#comment-5626 Will do. Thanks for joining the community. Glad to see that you found Robert Moore's (Cenantua) blog. In my mind he is one of the more interesting Civil War bloggers and his focus on southern unionists is right up your alley. Will do. Thanks for joining the community. Glad to see that you found Robert Moore’s (Cenantua) blog. In my mind he is one of the more interesting Civil War bloggers and his focus on southern unionists is right up your alley.

]]> By: victoria bynum http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/29/a-short-comment-about-your-comments/#comment-5625 victoria bynum Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:19:35 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=2629#comment-5625 Kevin, Please call me Vikki. Thanks so much for adding my new blog to your site! I am going to add yours to mine, as well. And I'm sure I'll be in touch about the challenges of blogging. Best, Vikki Kevin,

Please call me Vikki. Thanks so much for adding my new blog to your site! I am going to add yours to mine, as well. And I’m sure I’ll be in touch about the challenges of blogging.

Best,
Vikki

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/29/a-short-comment-about-your-comments/#comment-5621 Kevin Levin Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:43:00 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=2629#comment-5621 Professor Bynum, Thanks so much for stopping by and for the kind words re: the blog. Your next book project looks to be quite interesting. I placed a link to your blog on my sidebar. Good luck with it and feel free to ask me anything about the challenges of blogging. Professor Bynum,

Thanks so much for stopping by and for the kind words re: the blog. Your next book project looks to be quite interesting. I placed a link to your blog on my sidebar. Good luck with it and feel free to ask me anything about the challenges of blogging.

]]> By: Victoria Bynum http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/29/a-short-comment-about-your-comments/#comment-5619 Victoria Bynum Fri, 06 Feb 2009 03:58:28 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=2629#comment-5619 Oops, I mean JosephineSouthern! Oops, I mean JosephineSouthern!

]]> By: Victoria Bynum http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/29/a-short-comment-about-your-comments/#comment-5618 Victoria Bynum Fri, 06 Feb 2009 03:55:56 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=2629#comment-5618 Kevin, I heard you speak at the SHA Civil War luncheon last November, and meant to visit your site long ago; it's great! As someone who writes about southern Unionists, I find the us/you, North/South rants by folks such as JacquelineSouthern ludicrous. While I agree that you want to include as many points of view as possible, I think you're right to moderate judiciously. Ad hominen attacks and irrational anger expressed in immature tantrums have no place in any discussion forum. Kevin,

I heard you speak at the SHA Civil War luncheon last November, and meant to visit your site long ago; it’s great!

As someone who writes about southern Unionists, I find the us/you, North/South rants by folks such as JacquelineSouthern ludicrous. While I agree that you want to include as many points of view as possible, I think you’re right to moderate judiciously. Ad hominen attacks and irrational anger expressed in immature tantrums have no place in any discussion forum.

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/29/a-short-comment-about-your-comments/#comment-5584 Kevin Levin Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:24:27 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=2629#comment-5584 Thanks for chiming in on this issue. I pretty much agree with you, but what concerns me is the extent to which the rants can end up stifling and alienating those who are looking for an intelligent discussion. It seems to me that it is possible to disagree w/o resorting to overly emotional language and insults. I like to think that my blog is open to the comments from a wide range of readers. Thanks for chiming in on this issue. I pretty much agree with you, but what concerns me is the extent to which the rants can end up stifling and alienating those who are looking for an intelligent discussion. It seems to me that it is possible to disagree w/o resorting to overly emotional language and insults. I like to think that my blog is open to the comments from a wide range of readers.

]]> By: Daniel Sauerwein http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/29/a-short-comment-about-your-comments/#comment-5583 Daniel Sauerwein Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:20:17 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=2629#comment-5583 Kevin, With regard to comments, I would say that unless they clearly look like spam, as some do slip by filters, or are over the top with coarse language and racial slurs, that you should post them. While some may say that you would be legitimizing their points of view, you also do not want to get the reputation of someone who only allows comments fitting their views. By allowing all comments, excluding the examples I noted, you offer the opportunity for vigorous debate. If someone posts a rant like that again, let your readers show the higher road of their opinions by countering such rants with reasoned rebuttals, as it will make them look weak and strengthen your blog by showing people that you are willing to let them be heard, but that they may face criticism. That's just my thoughts on it. Kevin,

With regard to comments, I would say that unless they clearly look like spam, as some do slip by filters, or are over the top with coarse language and racial slurs, that you should post them. While some may say that you would be legitimizing their points of view, you also do not want to get the reputation of someone who only allows comments fitting their views. By allowing all comments, excluding the examples I noted, you offer the opportunity for vigorous debate. If someone posts a rant like that again, let your readers show the higher road of their opinions by countering such rants with reasoned rebuttals, as it will make them look weak and strengthen your blog by showing people that you are willing to let them be heard, but that they may face criticism. That’s just my thoughts on it.

]]> By: kevin a kearns http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/29/a-short-comment-about-your-comments/#comment-5569 kevin a kearns Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:55:52 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=2629#comment-5569 who cares what she thinks."you people"could mean northern people,in any case i know people who say sherman should be brought up on war crimes,they call it the war of yankee agression yet who fired 1st-the star of the west in january 61 and then fort sumpter[built by tax payers money]as porter wrote-"deluded people must cave in"or something like that. who cares what she thinks.”you people”could mean northern people,in any case i know people who say sherman should be brought up on war crimes,they call it the war of yankee agression yet who fired 1st-the star of the west in january 61 and then fort sumpter[built by tax payers money]as porter wrote-”deluded people must cave in”or something like that.

]]> By: Sherree Tannen http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/29/a-short-comment-about-your-comments/#comment-5563 Sherree Tannen Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:29:22 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=2629#comment-5563 Anonymous, You are right on target except for one thing: parts of the South were a part of true America before our history was hi-jacked. I see this very clearly now, and will continue to pursue these avenues of thought as long and as far as the hospitality and patience of our host allows. Anonymous, You are right on target except for one thing: parts of the South were a part of true America before our history was hi-jacked. I see this very clearly now, and will continue to pursue these avenues of thought as long and as far as the hospitality and patience of our host allows.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/29/a-short-comment-about-your-comments/#comment-5557 Anonymous Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:09:01 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=2629#comment-5557 Sorry that my earlier post was all over the place. Here is a clearer statement of what I meant to say. Conservative white southern responses to desegregation cast desegregation as a Second Reconstruction, and painted it in terms of a second invasion of the North. In many cases, this also included the accusations that Civil Rights leaders were nothing but Communist puppets. In some instances, this rhetoric was grafted onto the existing Lost Cause mythology (the return of Confederate flags over statehouses). Thus, northern (and southern) liberals could appear both as a second Yankee invasion, as well as Communists. Dragging in Nazi Germany was not meant to compare Nazi Germany to the Confederacy, but to point out a similar instance of how anti-Communist fears led to a particular kind of memory. Former Nazi generals and political leaders could point to their staunch anti-Communism as a way to distract from their crimes. Anti-segregationists could add legitimacy to their cause by painting it as a resistance to Communism instead of packaging it as a purely racist stance. Trotting out the bugaboo of Communism could be used to deflect justice and a more faithful rendering of the historical record. In essence, while a book about Lincoln being a Communist seems ridiculous, it makes perfect sense as to why some people would believe this stance. Think too about arguments that somehow the South remains "true" America; it maintains the religious principles upon which the country was supposedly founded; it maintains what America was before the New Deal made it go socialist. In other words, memory of the Civil War since the 1930s was shaped by a continuing debate about the nature of liberalism and conservatism in the United States, as well as shaped by the Cold War. This point has been acknowledged in scholarship about German memory, but appears far less in studies of the memory of the Civil War, which rarely pushes past the "founding generation" of memory. Sorry that my earlier post was all over the place. Here is a clearer statement of what I meant to say. Conservative white southern responses to desegregation cast desegregation as a Second Reconstruction, and painted it in terms of a second invasion of the North. In many cases, this also included the accusations that Civil Rights leaders were nothing but Communist puppets. In some instances, this rhetoric was grafted onto the existing Lost Cause mythology (the return of Confederate flags over statehouses). Thus, northern (and southern) liberals could appear both as a second Yankee invasion, as well as Communists. Dragging in Nazi Germany was not meant to compare Nazi Germany to the Confederacy, but to point out a similar instance of how anti-Communist fears led to a particular kind of memory. Former Nazi generals and political leaders could point to their staunch anti-Communism as a way to distract from their crimes. Anti-segregationists could add legitimacy to their cause by painting it as a resistance to Communism instead of packaging it as a purely racist stance. Trotting out the bugaboo of Communism could be used to deflect justice and a more faithful rendering of the historical record. In essence, while a book about Lincoln being a Communist seems ridiculous, it makes perfect sense as to why some people would believe this stance. Think too about arguments that somehow the South remains “true” America; it maintains the religious principles upon which the country was supposedly founded; it maintains what America was before the New Deal made it go socialist. In other words, memory of the Civil War since the 1930s was shaped by a continuing debate about the nature of liberalism and conservatism in the United States, as well as shaped by the Cold War. This point has been acknowledged in scholarship about German memory, but appears far less in studies of the memory of the Civil War, which rarely pushes past the “founding generation” of memory.

]]> By: Sherree Tannen http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/29/a-short-comment-about-your-comments/#comment-5555 Sherree Tannen Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:05:31 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=2629#comment-5555 Wado (thank you) for standing up for the Cherokee, Lee. Wado (thank you) for standing up for the Cherokee, Lee.

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/29/a-short-comment-about-your-comments/#comment-5553 Kevin Levin Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:17:19 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=2629#comment-5553 Lee, Excellent point. If you haven't read it already, I highly recommend Mark Grimsley's Hard Hand of War, which places the notion of "hard war" in the context of the evolution of Union military strategy as well as the history of warfare going back to the middle ages. According to Grimsley, the war in 1864 - along with other examples - did not reflect a sudden shift in the rules of war. It's funny how often the Union army is used as the paradigm example of marauding hordes in contrast with a Confederate army that supposedly restrained itself or protected traditional rules of warfare. Tell that to African Americans in Pennsylvania in the summer of 1863 or the people of Chambersburg. Wars often lead to examples of violence that challenge certain sensibilities. Why would the Civil War be any different? Lee,

Excellent point. If you haven’t read it already, I highly recommend Mark Grimsley’s Hard Hand of War, which places the notion of “hard war” in the context of the evolution of Union military strategy as well as the history of warfare going back to the middle ages. According to Grimsley, the war in 1864 – along with other examples – did not reflect a sudden shift in the rules of war. It’s funny how often the Union army is used as the paradigm example of marauding hordes in contrast with a Confederate army that supposedly restrained itself or protected traditional rules of warfare. Tell that to African Americans in Pennsylvania in the summer of 1863 or the people of Chambersburg. Wars often lead to examples of violence that challenge certain sensibilities. Why would the Civil War be any different?

]]>