In a recent showing of "The American Experience" on public television, I watched a biography about Ulysses S. Grant. If all you knew about the American Civil War was gleaned strictly from watching this documentary, you would have a pretty good view of why the war was fought.... from the Yankee perspective! I must say I have a greater respect for ole "Unconditional Surrender" than I did before watching it. It seems rumors of his drunkenness were exaggerated by newspaper men of the day. Simple logic should tell that he couldn't have been a complete alcoholic and waged such a successful war against the South. The press of that time also accused him of being a butcher. I still agree with that notion. I saw nothing in the documentary to dissuade me from that opinion, despite it's efforts. Any man who could have so little regard for civilians... we're talking about the elderly, the infirmed, the starving women and children in Vicksburg (and so many other towns)who were reduced to living in caves and eating rat and mule meat... who could listen to the anguished moans of his enemy AND his own injured men lying in a battlefield for four days (yes, FOUR DAYS, y'all!) and nights and not agree to a ceasefire to attend wounded... who burned every home, every crop and every item of value that was not of immediate use to him and his army... has much earned the right to be called "butcher". Burning civilians' homes (particularly neutral homesteaders trying to eek out a meager existence, living already hand to mouth) does not win wars.

His remarks at the end of the war (I wish I could quote them, but I'd just mangle them) were to this effect:
Never has an army fought more valiantly and heroically than these rebels, and never has an army fought for so useless and unworthy a cause.

If the War Between the States was fought just over slavery, than I could completely agree with that statement. But it wasn't. No, I don't care what you're history books said, it wasn't. It was about State's rights. Say it with me... "State's rights". Very good. It is my considered and not so humble opinion that the South would have done away all on her own with the evil institution of slavery. Why is it, that the history books choose to exclude the fact that there were many Southern abolitionists? Because the victors write the history books, that's why. General Lee himself did NOT believe in slavery, nor was he fighting for his right to own slaves (Well before succession began, he'd freed the few he'd own that came into his possession by marriage to his wife, Mary Custis Lee). He fought for his home, for Virginia, and to preserve a way of life... to preserve the prosperity of his people. He fought and led the Confederate Armies because he felt that the United State's government had much overstepped it's bounds. General John Singleton Mosby aka the "Gray ghost" (another Confederate gentleman to admire) was no friend of the evil institution either.

One thing that gives me great pride in my fellow Southerners is the first part of Grant's remarks after seeing General Lee on his way after Appomattox... back tracking here... 'Never has an army fought more valiantly and heroically...'. Again, not a direct quote. Of course they were valiant and heroic! Many were a bit disappointed with General Lee for surrendering, even if they were weary and starving and barefoot. They'd have fought right on, until the last one of them was dead. But they saw the futility of it as well. They'd continually, even in their very weakened state, affected many more casualties than they sustained. I believe this to be because of their stock. Many Southerners, even to this day, are of Celtic descent. In North and South Carolina, you will find many Scots/Americans and many Irish/Americans. In Virginia as well. Simply pick up a phone book and find names like McDonald, McLeod, Johnston, Maxwell, Campbell and Ghrahm and Kenan. Many Irish and Scottish immigrants came ashore in these parts, and then travelled down into Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi... the Southern states were and are filled with people of Celtic origins, even if they are not aware of their heritage.

Have you ever noticed how similar the Confederate Stars and Bars is to Scotland's own Saltier? It is no mere happenstance. No coincidence either that the armies of the CSA would charge forth suddenly, boldly and all at once with their patented "rebel year", so similar to the cry of the Celts. This cry made many a Yankee's blood run cold, and made him stare helpless, wide-eyed and frozen as hordes of butternut-clad wild men charged his fortifications and overcame these earthen obstacles like a horse clearing a too low fence. Probably much like the Roman soldiers of old who sat stiff and awestruck at the sight of painted, fierce Celtic warriors defending their homeland from further invasion.

Like the ancient Celt, the Southern man was loathe to lay down his arms and surrender. They did surrender at General Lee's behest, but were they ever defeated? Not in my opinion. Any native Southerner worth the salt in his blood and tears will tell you that the fighting spirit did not surrender; the CSA merely laid down it's arms. That is all. Not even the period of ruthless reconstruction was able to accomplish this. General U.S. Grant did not defeat the South, he merely brought about an end to the War Between the States, and an uneasy peace resulted for many, many long decades. There is still, even to this day, a bitterness that abides.

Addendum of June 27, 2005- I've just looked at the numbers of Irishmen who died in the War Between the States. It's shameful. This was truly brother fighting brother, and no sooner had some of them gotten off of the boat than a gun was pushed into their hands. Starving back home may have been a more pleasant death... take a look at this song:

I think all native Southerners still feel a little twinge everytime a Northerner starts a discussion on the so called "Civil War" as they are want to call it. If they are wise, they'll not venture into the subject at all, because it seems they'll never get it. There is still a lot of bitterness.