Archives For history


Confederate soldiers, sailors and marines, that fought in the civil war, were made U.S. Veterans by an act of Congress in 1957, U.S. Public law 85-425 sec 410 approved 23 May 1958. This made all confederate Army, Navy, Marine veterans equal to U.S. Veterans, additionally, under U.S. Public law 810 approved by the 17th congress on 26 February 1929, the war department was directed to erect headstones and recognize confederate grave sites as U.S. War grave sites. So in essence, when you remove or desecrate a confederate statue, monument, or headstone, you are in fact desecrating or removing a statue, monument, or headstone of a U.S. veteran. And I highly doubt people would be similarly apathetic to the desecration of Revolutionary War or Vietnam War memorial sites.

Secondarily lets look at the time frames most of these monuments were erected. Most of these civil war memorials were constructed around the times of two particular anniversaries them being the 50th (1915) and 100th (1965). Moreover most Civil War veterans were coming to the end of their lives around the early 1900s with the oldest one living until 1958. To me at least it seems a bit foolish to equate a statue dedicated to war veterans with hostility or white supremacy simply by existing. Why would they take the time and money to build statues and memorials to display something that didn’t need to be displayed? They had no reason to display their feelings of white superiority since that was standard belief nationwide in the early 20th century.

I can understand the calls for public removal of them but I fear this to be a far more serious movement. I cannot in good faith believe that these activists who demand their removal will cease their actions if all the statues are removed from public grounds. Nor do I think these activists even have a firm grasp on US History in general for that matter. I think we are experiencing a problem with our modern interpretation of historical events, in particular our wars. Wars often times lead toward magnanimity directed at enemies, which included admiration for their bravery, the purity of their motives, and their willingness to sacrifice themselves for a cause. There is often, moreover, a brotherhood of sorts among veterans, for they shared a common experience of walking through the valley of the shadow of death. This doesn’t just apply to civil war vets but the shared experiences between German and American soldiers or the Japanese. This sort of understanding seems completely lost in today’s discourse. People often don’t grasp that the South after the Civil War was completely destroyed. Thousands of young men were killed and defeated with nothing being accomplished. This is where the romantic movement during that late 19th century period started and why it was more pervasive in the South and not the North. The victors didn’t have to explain their motivations or come to grips with defeat.

Weapons and Warfare

A period illustration of the Battle of Crécy. Anglo-Welsh longbowmen figure prominently in the foreground on the right, where they are driving away Italian mercenarycrossbowmen.

Our picture of arms and armour in medieval England is dominated by images of archery. The English war-bow was about 6ft (1.83m) long, made from a self stave, that is a naturally occurring stave with no gluing or laminating. This bow was used with a long draw; the largest group of the arrows found on the Mary Rose suggest a draw of about 30in (c.760mm). Modern replicas of these bows made from similar woods to those available to the medieval bowyers have a draw weight up to maybe 170lb. These bows were able to launch heavy arrows (about 2¼ oz or 64g min) up to about 270yd (c.247m) if the performance of modern replicas is any guide. We have very little…

View original post 2,661 more words

Weapons and Warfare

Warlord Games

All three kingdoms, England, Scotland, France, used the same types of arms and armour; it was just that each favoured the use of some particular types more than others. This came from each of three kingdoms having different types of soldier as the core of their armies. Archers, for example, were raised by English, Scottish, French, Gascon and Burgundian captains, but the most sought after were the English and Welsh. Why? They certainly had more experience and had lived in a country which had actively encouraged military archery for at least three generations by the time of Verneuil. But England and Wales were not the only countries which developed some tradition of hand bow archery. William Wallace had archers from Ettrick Forest at the Battle of Falkirk, although it was their absence rather than their presence that had an effect on the outcome of the battle. The Counts…

View original post 3,293 more words

“All these guys were abandoning everything they had, any worldly possessions, to get on the boat and get out, because they didn’t want the boats to get weighed down with their cameras,” says Delaney. “You’d expect it’d be the Army who would save the civilians, in this case it was the civilians who saved the Army.”