The rumor/reason/explanation I’d heard in that regard was during WWI, some general got annoyed at how long and complex post and camp names were getting and set forth the rule that new posts would be no more than 4-5 characters long.
True or not, it does sound like a flag level officer.
On top of this, Ft. Hood does have something of a sour reputation, so perhaps the name is quite apt when viewed in hindsight.
I would have swapped my right arm to attend lectures at the War College. My eyesight precluded me from serving. I currently hold one master’s in behavioral science and I’m within striking distance of finishing my second in clinical mental health counseling (interning right now).
Human behavior is a fascinating thing to watch, and nowhere is that more evident than watching statecraft, armed or not.
This is a riveting discussion, y’all. I hope we keep this civil enough to keep it going forward. I’m learning a ton, here.
Have you read Dave Grossman’s On Killing?
It’s been referenced upthread already and it’s a must read in my opinion to anyone interested in the subject at hand.
I second that one. Read it years ago when my son returned from Iraq. It helped.
This thread has prompted me to read “I flew for the Feuhrer” again. Feels like you are reading his dairy sometimes. Its a great book to go along with flying the 109 against B-17s.
Do you have the same feelings about Washington and Jefferson and Madison and the rest? The US was literally built on treason. Jefferson himself endorsed revolution as a legitimate course of action when change from within seems to be either too slow or impossible. The Founding Fathers are literally the most famous and most revered traitors in Western history…to the British Crown. Less than 100 years later, the South did the same thing to the gov’t they had created.
As always, the historical view of what happens is based on who emerges the victor. Had the South defeated the North, it would have been the Confederate War for Independence.
Rebelling against the gov’t you support is treason, against the one you are opposed to is heroism because it’s done for “principles” or whatever. It is understood if you fail you will die and be reviled, but if you win you will get the accolades and rewards.
So I personally prefer to revere or deplore someone based on what they stood/fought for, rather than who they were for/against because their opinion of who they’re rebelling against may not be the same as ours in hindsight. Many traitors have failed that I feel should have succeeded. Many have succeeded that I wish had failed. Sometimes the traitors are no better than those they rebel against, history has proven that, but like so much else saying the issue is straightforward in a world that never is doesn’t hold up.
If they believed they were fighting for their homes, that the North was coming in to destroy them, I can sympathize, although I am glad they lost because they were deluded. If they fully realized they were fighting to perpetuate the practice of slavery, then I certainly do not sympathize. How many militaries have fought without knowing the true reasons for the conflict they’re in?
One observation that is missing in this discussion regarding the South’s “traitors” is how people viewed nationalism at the time . They viewed themselves as Virginians , or Carolinians , or Texans , and not as Americans . As Shelby Foote pointed out , it took the Civil War to make the phrase the “the United States is”
instead of the “the United States are” …
I too have often thought that the South ultimately won the war , as the outsized influence the South had on our nation’s politics at it’s inception has continued almost uninterrupted to this very day , and to our detriment (and i am a Southerner) .
Replying mainly to Jedi:
To me, it is simpler. The US revolution was correct because I am a descendant of that revolution. If I were British and still cared enough to have an opinion I would probably think the revolution was needless bloodshed incited by British citizens who had very unrealistic expectations for what the crown could do for them. Both perspectives are totally right. But as a southerner I look at the southern revolution much the same way that most Germans view the 3rd Reich. It was wrong pure and simple. As a Southerner I was taught that the “war between the states” was mostly about states’ rights. Slavery was just a tangential issue among many that frustrated Southerners. But of course we know that’s a whitewash revision of a conflict based entirely on slavery. Most of the boys fighting in grey had no hope of ever owning slaves, or perhaps even land. For them, maybe it was cultural or the fear of some Northern bogeyman. But the leaders knew exactly what they were fighting for: An agrarian economy built on the foundation of humans as chattel. There is no “it’s just a matter of perspective” wiggle room here. The US revolution was arguably right or arguably wrong. The southern revolution was plain wrong.
I agree totally on the leadership. I just wonder at what level the various “names” were at.
Obviously the ones who owned slaves and such were fully aware. The rank and file soldiery may have believed in the cause of slavery, or they may have even then been brainwashed into thinking that it wasn’t about that but the “evil gov’t in Washington” (which interestingly enough is still in play today–as if an elected official in your own state is somehow immune but once they get to that city are indoctrinated into the cult).
The parallel with what is heard on the news in these last days is merciless.
One of the better books I’ve ever read regarding the southern mindset prior to the American Civil War, during the civil war and after the civil war was this book. Well researched and much of the material was taken from diaries and correspondence to friends, family etc. I would highly recommend. It looks at their mindsets, focusing on the elite plantation owners and the regular workers etc. Delves deep into the economy of the south and how it was set-up and worked.
