What is the Story Behind "Sweet Home Alabama"?

[MrNylon]

It was a reply song to Neal Young's song "Southern Man".

[Bender 4 Life]

I apologize if I ruffled anyones feathers, I DO get a bit too worked up about that particular subject....my Fathers ancestral family was literally torn in two along the Missouri/Kansas border, my Mothers ancestors all joined the armies of Virginia and North Carolina, and the very home I live in is on what was the property of "Ten Oaks Plantation" which Gen. Beauregard used for his headquarters when the war swept through N.E.Alabama, the plantation mansion is still here and is still a residence.

"The Gallant Pelham" Maj. John Pelham is buried 1/2 mile from my home, as are the Forney brothers, who were 3 Generals in the Army of Northern Va., John Forney being the most prominent.

our town square was used as an open air hospital after the battle of Ten Islands, and the destruction of the Janney Iron Furnace which was the ONLY steam engine bellowed furnace in the entire Confederacy....it's 8 miles from my home.

Mrs.B. & I were involved in the early stages of the initial archaeological digs at the Janney site conducted by our local University.

 

 

just wanted to explain why I seemed a bit rabid in my last post.

[Daryl M]

I apologize if I ruffled anyones feathers, I DO get a bit too worked up about that particular subject....my Fathers ancestral family was literally torn in two along the Missouri/Kansas border, my Mothers ancestors all joined the armies of Virginia and North Carolina, and the very home I live in is on what was the property of "Ten Oaks Plantation" which Gen. Beauregard used for his headquarters when the war swept through N.E.Alabama, the plantation mansion is still here and is still a residence.

"The Gallant Pelham" Maj. John Pelham is buried 1/2 mile from my home, as are the Forney brothers, who were 3 Generals in the Army of Northern Va., John Forney being the most prominent.

our town square was used as an open air hospital after the battle of Ten Islands, and the destruction of the Janney Iron Furnace which was the ONLY steam engine bellowed furnace in the entire Confederacy....it's 8 miles from my home.

Mrs.B. & I were involved in the early stages of the initial archaeological digs at the Janney site conducted by our local University.

 

 

just wanted to explain why I seemed a bit rabid in my last post.

 

I'm with you, Bender. I am a direct descendant of Col. William M. Shy, commander of the Tennessee 20th Infantry who was killed during the battle of Nashville on what is still known as 'Shy's Hill'.

 

I do think many non-southern people don't understand the notion of being a 'Proud Southerner'. It's really not unlike the pride felt by people from Texas, or even the American Indian of their heritage. There are foods, music, sayings, customs and traditions that originated here and are completely foreign outside of the south. It's those inherently Southern things, not the war, that still bind us together as a unique people.

[milod]

As I've noted before, if you knew my full name, you'd be able to check records in Vermont showing I was born there in 1842. Left home as a teen and headed west; enlisted in an Illinois infantry unit in '62. If you knew where to check on the web, you'd find what is apparently pretty much a final diary from the war. The infantry unit had a pretty nasty casualty rate and yet... not one bad word about the opposing side. Not one.

 

Where I live was not yet at all settled. The "Civil War" did have several engagements here but ... not North and South of what remains "the U.S." Instead it was an "offense is the best defense" to defend the territorial capital and other early settlement against various Sioux tribes. Interestingly although substantial numbers were involved on both sides, the documentation of any of it compared to most of what was going on "back east" is really, really amateurish.

 

And yeah, the territorial capital "city" (more of a village at the time) literally had a defensive earthen berm built and civilians as its defense force.

 

<grin> One thing I think that "southerners" when I lived in Memphis never managed to understand is when I'd say that from my perspective, everybody east of the Mississippi is a bunch of Easterners... I think the stuff happening on the northern plains in that time period simply is so unknown compared to the more direct stuff happening, the conceptual paradigm was "north and south" as opposed to any idea that other stuff was going on too - and was a lot more personal to folks here than "there's a war goin' on back east."

 

m

[Searcy]

You know... I must say I'm rather impressed that this discussion has stayed on the up and up and not turned nasty. I didn't think this group had it in them to talk about such matters without it turning personal and nasty. Well done folks.

[milod]

Searcy...

 

Yup... I was thinking the same thing yesterday. We haven't had the mods dropping in as mods in quite a while - and that's a good thing for everyone.

 

m

[NightTimeConcealmentX91]

Neil Young wrote a song called Free Bird and no one liked it.

[Daryl M]

You know... I must say I'm rather impressed that this discussion has stayed on the up and up and not turned nasty. I didn't think this group had it in them to talk about suck matters without it turning personal and nasty. Well done folks.

 

It's because we're gentlemen here. Some of us 'Southern Gentlemen', some are gentlemen from other areas, but all gentlemen just the same.

[milod]

Daryl...

 

Yahbut...

 

As a customer service guy, for heaven's sake, don't forget the ladies! They're not usually as mouthy ... Uhhhhh.... talkative ... as us guys, but there are some very nice ladies here too.

 

Although I'm sure they may figure they're getting into a boys club of some sort given the predominance of males...

 

Hadda get that one in. <grin>

 

m

[FirstMeasure]

Actually, I don't believe you can make definite statements about HOW a war should be fought, or what the objectives should be.

 

2 extremes: WW2 and Hitler, the European conflict were a continuation of WW1 in a sense. The sense being, it was the oppression of the winning side that caused the losing side to want to come back and win "the war". The oppression of the losing side caused the desire for war. It was definitely not a result of failing to destroy them completely, or bring it to conclusion.

 

On the other extreme, the war (or conflict) between the Isrealites and the Palistinians. The stated objective claimed by both sides being Isreal's right to exist. To spite actually WINNING the wars, none were ever brought or allowed to come to a conclusion, and therefore, unless the claims are withdrawn OR the war allowed to be fought to a conclusion, "oppression" is an unavoidable result regardless of who is on the winning side oppressing the other.

 

Generally, "all out" means everything at your disposal to obtain an objective, not nessesarily determining what that objective is. The objective could mean gaining a surrender, or elimination one's ability to fight, or taking back/gaining land, or genocide, either total or partial. Or whatever.

 

I think, regardless of what is written, and regardless of culture, what constitutes the concept of a war crime is whether or not what a side is doing has an effect or chance on reaching the objective. If it is nessesary for an objective, or an attempt. Granted, it is the winning side that gets to determine that. But mainly, if it is felt to be a lie, the losing side doesn't accept it. The concept of a 'court' to determine that might be nothing more than an effort to convince of a perception.

Actually, I'd say your WWII example is a good example of what I'm talking about. Had England and France turned Germany into a Territories of England and France instead of punishing the survivors with oppression the European Conflict may never have taken place. No matter what happens, the loser is going to feel like they're being treated unfairly, even in a court.

 

Garnering a surrender and taking away the ability to fight are very temporary results, and that's not fair to those that died fighting for that result.

 

Q."Why did my son die?" A."So we could take Kaiser Wilhelm's guns away from him and make him settle down."

 

Q."Why did my son die?" A."So this would never happen again."

 

This modern notion that there's a civilized version of war only serves to propagate war, and has led Western Civilization into a time when War is part of the world economy because it's so constant and expected. If there wasn't a war brewing at all times there would be no market for it.

[stein]

Actually, I'd say your WWII example is a good example of what I'm talking about. Had England and France turned Germany into a Territories of England and France instead of punishing the survivors with oppression the European Conflict may never have taken place. No matter what happens, the loser is going to feel like they're being treated unfairly, even in a court.

 

Garnering a surrender and taking away the ability to fight are very temporary results, and that's not fair to those that died fighting for that result.

 

Q."Why did my son die?" A."So we could take Kaiser Wilhelm's guns away from him and make him settle down."

 

Q."Why did my son die?" A."So this would never happen again."

 

This modern notion that there's a civilized version of war only serves to propagate war, and has led Western Civilization into a time when War is part of the world economy because it's so constant and expected. If there wasn't a war brewing at all times there would be no market for it.

I get your thoughts, and I don't think they are wrong. But I would say that your solutions are based on premises that don't exist.

 

England and France didn't exactly "cause" the war, I suggest it was the policies they enforced, and the lack of prosperity suffered as a RESULT of those that caused the possibility, and the conditions, that led to the Nazi party and the things they used to gain power. Whether or not the were made a "territory" I don't see that would be different. Killing every man, woman and child, or kicking them out, I don't see as an option.

 

I would argue, that it is more true than not that war is avoided, and the threat of war as it is is more than enough to prevent them without having to make war worse than it is. In nearly all cases that I am aware of, when a war becomes unwinnable, or the ability to wage war is lost, that side backs out. Going to war when it is unwinnable is something that RARELY happens, and surely not on purpose. Losing is always costly.

 

I might argue that when a side looses and feels treated unfairly, they likely are. I would mainly argue that when a side loses and they feel they HAVE been treated fairly, they accept the defeat with more dignity, and often adopt the winning side as being in the right.

[FirstMeasure]

I get your thoughts, and I don't think they are wrong. But I would say that your solutions are based on premises that don't exist.

 

England and France didn't exactly "cause" the war, I suggest it was the policies they enforced, and the lack of prosperity suffered as a RESULT of those that caused the possibility, and the conditions, that led to the Nazi party and the things they used to gain power. Whether or not the were made a "territory" I don't see that would be different. Killing every man, woman and child, or kicking them out, I don't see as an option.

 

I would argue, that it is more true than not that war is avoided, and the threat of war as it is is more than enough to prevent them without having to make war worse than it is. In nearly all cases that I am aware of, when a war becomes unwinnable, or the ability to wage war is lost, that side backs out. Going to war when it is unwinnable is something that RARELY happens, and surely not on purpose. Losing is always costly.

 

I might argue that when a side looses and feels treated unfairly, they likely are. I would mainly argue that when a side loses and they feel they HAVE been treated fairly, they accept the defeat with more dignity, and often adopt the winning side as being in the right.

I don't mean to say that the winner of war should kill or exile all the losers. But if they were assimilated into the winners society (perhaps as a territory) instead of punished with sanctions and trade restrictions then future conflict would be much less likely. Don't kill the people, kill the culture. If they made Germany and English Territory after WWI, taught their children English, flew the English flag, sold Bangers for breakfast in the restaurants, all the while sharing the prosperity of free trade with England there would have been no Hitler because Germany wouldn't have had a leader.

[4Hayden]

It's just a song and there's nothing racist about it,go to a Alabama football game and you'll here it at least five times.Simple song about people that like where they live,anything with the words Alabama in it = REDNECK by some people.Just facts

[milod]

Almost any aftermath of major war will bring some major changes both to winner and loser. Both of what I prefer to call the two American civil wars, that of the 1770s and that of the 1860s, brought major change in ways both to winner and loser.

 

We seldom note, either in the US or in the UK, how the loss of those US colonies brought some interesting changes in the UK; the War of 1812 ditto. In fact, it's almost a miracle in ways that there's not residual hatred on both sides except that our common language and governmental heritage are awfully strong - far stronger than any commonality with Francophones or with other Northern European language groups. I find that intriguing, btw.

 

The aftermath of the 1860s war inevitably was going to bring some bleak economic, if not political, circumstances into the losing region. It's politically incorrect, but true, to note that emancipation and other "taking" of various southern properties likely brought the largest taking by government in adjusted dollars in Anglophone history.

 

That loss of capital and end of various war-related industries and changes in various marketplaces, added to combatants losing voting privileges, would inevitably have brought a horrid aftermath even without some of the harsher political consequences from the "radical republicans" of the time.

 

But...

 

I think that current southern apologists also ignore the unexpected, if not unintended, consequences on the rest of U.S. territory from Maine to California following the war that affected everyone then and continue to do so today.

 

The casualties among all Americans brought major cultural changes including increasing women numbers in the workplace and eventually the vote; major changes in politics including factionalization of the Republicans of the era that tends to be ignored; a total change in manufacturing and industrial innovation; and not least, centralization of capital and emigration from populated states and foreign immigrants into the vast emptiness of "the west."

 

Loss of much ad hoc industry in the south was not a good thing in terms of economics, but in the north, in ways a similar rapid change is seldom mentioned as a result of the war. The manufacturing base had learned to create a million steel rifle barrels, interchangeable firelock parts, revolving pistols and repeating rifles. They had learned to make a million pair of pants and hundreds of millions of bullets.

 

More than that, they'd learned and developed increasingly efficient modes of distribution both technically and administratively.

 

The machines and machinists and businessmen, and not only in the U.S., turned all that knowledge into an entirely new technological world. Unfortunately much of that true revolution in the "south" was overshadowed by other cultural, economic and political factors.

 

One might note that it wasn't just the south that suffered from the aftermath, but its difficulties are far better documented as such than one might find in, say, Vermont and New Hampshire and communities in the north that had their cultures changed radically by the economic and transportation changes - not to mention the more obvious technological changes.

 

So... in ways I'd prefer not to ascribe a value judgment to any of the changes in North America and worldwide any more than the aftermath of the English Civil War and how the economy and culture in all the UK changed so much over the next 50 years compared to prior trends - and in very unexpected ways.

 

Note that our views of history change as 10 years turn to 50, 50 to a century... and more...

 

m

[Bender 4 Life]

I just looked up the title and author of a really great little book that tells a great deal about the early reconstruction period in my very own town and county in Alabama. the main story is about a mass lynching incident that to this day holds the shameful state record for number of people lynched at one time.

it also prefaces with a fine description of the area and the effects of the war and rebuild and details the invasion of federal troops during the investigation into the lynching, and details the outcome of the trial and what life resumed back into afterward.

 

Milo, and anyone else that might enjoy a short read about the realities of what transpired in "the heart of dixie" in 1870, I think you'll like it

i've read it 4 times and visited all of the actual locations of these events

 

 

Title: "Death at Cross Plains, an Alabama reconstruction tragedy"

author: Gene L Howard

 

[zigzag]

I don't know who said, "The South will rise again," but the South has already risen. As unions became prevalent in the north, many industries moved south to find cheaper labor and take advantage of other economic incentives. With that movement, Yankees followed, spawning the observation that a Yankee is someone who comes from the north, but a damn Yankee is someone who comes from the north and stays. The South has lost much of its identity over the last 30 to 40 years.

 

As for the rebel flag, we Southerners must remember that we are not allowed to choose what the image of that flag represents as it means different things to different people. I'm a proud Southerner, born and bred, but I am also aware of all of the connotations, positive and negative, associated with that symbol.

 

As for what First Measure said in his initial post referring to the victor and the spoils, it is impossible to stamp out a culture without stamping out the people and their ideas. What Yankees did to the south during and after the war was horrendous and not what you do to a people in your own nation with whom you expect to be unified. States rights was an issue deliberated by the forefathers, and when James Madison introduced the tenth amendment, it was destined to become a major issue. The War of Northern Aggression in the South was just that, and was the test of power of the federal goverment over the power of state goverments. Slavery was a sad contradiction, and would have, at some point, been made illegal in the US. But at the time, it was an economic expediency in the south, the south being mostly rural with an agrarian economy. Inexpensive labor is an economic necessity.

[milod]

Bender...

 

Yup - I should read it and may when I can get to some outside reading.

 

I have to admit, though, that most of my personal interest in the period after 1865 is on the Northern Plains, both military and civilian. It's generally unknown except for the Custer debacle - and that nowadays even includes the Fetterman massacre that current political correctness calls a "fight," but even a troop-following dog was killed. Warfare on the plains was one in which prisoners seldom were taken.

 

I find it interesting that "the west" is so often ignored in discussion of that post-war period other than mention of railroads and telegraphs and a few "Indian" situations. OTOH, in roughly 25 years from 1865 the frontier was declared closed by the US Census. That's a huge change on a continental basis coming in just one generation.

 

Also, perhaps my "western" emphasis also pushes as much recognition of major upgrades of civilian market logistics as it does the general technological innovation that came largely courtesy of the firearms industry once the war demands were over, but all these new machines and machinists were available.

 

The "South" had some really difficult times - and in ways still has difficult circumstances - that showed up after the war, but I think if there had been an 1861 full capitulation and divestiture of all slavery complete to federal payment for loss of "capital," the region would have been in nearly as bad shape economically.

 

It had horrid infrastructure that wasn't really improved all that much after the war - and likely also would have taken longer for development than in the "North" east of the Mississippi. The Ohio River and Great Lakes were a major determinant in an east-west travel tradition furthered by the railroad both UP and NP lines and then associated emphasis of spreading out to population centers. In the "South," that simply didn't happen to that degree because of more difficult terrain in ways - no equivalent of the Ohio and the Gulf wasn't near sufficient population centers to make much difference to the eastern seaboard.

 

Without the war - horrid as it was - in the North and the rest of the nation, development simply would have gone much, much more slowly toward the logistical and technical upgrades and may actually have fallen well behind Europe instead of chugging up to meet, then exceed much of the European developments.

 

Yeah, I know I sound cynical and not "people oriented" or even "humane" as tends to be the current theme in history study. I simply try to look at various trends and try to figure "what ifs" on occasion.

 

Lest I sound too "gee the CW was good overall for the nation and probably even Canada," I'd add that the weakness to much of the tech and logistical development left all ag and raw materials regions of the nation, the south and much of the "midwest" and eastern slope Rockies western regions, as virtual mercantile colonies of urban and "capital" interests. That seems to be also the current pattern except that some regions of the South seem to have joined "the North" with urbanization and heavy centralization of capital.

 

m

[FirstMeasure]

I don't know who said, "The South will rise again," but the South has already risen. As unions became prevalent in the north, many industries moved south to find cheaper labor and take advantage of other economic incentives. With that movement, Yankees followed, spawning the observation that a Yankee is someone who comes from the north, but a damn Yankee is someone who comes from the north and stays. The South has lost much of its identity over the last 30 to 40 years.

 

As for the rebel flag, we Southerners must remember that we are not allowed to choose what the image of that flag represents as it means different things to different people. I'm a proud Southerner, born and bred, but I am also aware of all of the connotations, positive and negative, associated with that symbol.

 

As for what First Measure said in his initial post referring to the victor and the spoils, it is impossible to stamp out a culture without stamping out the people and their ideas. What Yankees did to the south during and after the war was horrendous and not what you do to a people in your own nation with whom you expect to be unified. States rights was an issue deliberated by the forefathers, and when James Madison introduced the tenth amendment, it was destined to become a major issue. The War of Northern Aggression in the South was just that, and was the test of power of the federal goverment over the power of state goverments. Slavery was a sad contradiction, and would have, at some point, been made illegal in the US. But at the time, it was an economic expediency in the south, the south being mostly rural with an agrarian economy. Inexpensive labor is an economic necessity.

Actually, part of the point I was trying to make (and didn't make very well), was that what happened between the North and South after the war was exactly what shouldn't have been done. It was all forms of punishment instead of reunification, even if it was labeled as reunification. I hate to use the term "Winning the hearts and minds", but that's what the North needed to do after winning the war, and that's exactly what they didn't do. Instead the punished the losers with occupation and destitution. Effectively stamping out the culture with kindness, as children are born into a decent school system and a decent work place they'd lose their animosity toward Damn Yankees and start thinking that maybe the war was a bad idea in the first place.

[Aster1]

Realizing this isn't music or topic related, and trying to look at it completely objectively. I'd say the North didn't kick the South's *** hard enough. They beat them, then let them be. They should have taken away their entire civilization, as they knew it. They should have made them get rid of thier flags, accents, clothing styles, food choices, education system, and remade that lost land using New York and Massachusetts as a model.

 

That's the way war used to be fought and won, letting the losers return to their way of life and rebuild what they lost is kinda stupid from the winners perspective.

 

Yeah, Right on! Those guys deserved having their women raped, home/fields burned to the ground and treated like crap for 20 yrs or so.

 

NOT!!

 

Left them alone? Which history book re-write have you been reading?

 

To many still believe all the tripe that the Civil War was really about slavery. It was about taxes 80% or so. The North was totally ripping off the Southern states. Many esp. these days, try to make the slavery issue the primary cause of the war. Was slavery the right thing to have. H_ll NO. But it wasn't the reason. I never have know anyone from my years of relatives & friends in Tenn, Virg, & Georgia, as looking to the Reb flag as being a symbol of endorsing slavery. If Lincoln would have been left alive after the war the treatment of the South would not have been to defame them but to include them back in and with benefits to being part of a "Union." Oh yeah, It would have also included a return to Africa for all the slaves that were torn away from their home. Had already started but both ended with his early death. Another "truth" thing not taught about those days, these days. Not P.C. I guess.

 

I do remember all those days of the 60's & 70's and don't have bad feelings for things that were a process of evolving into a free nation. The South hated the North for a long time, as I remember some real old timers in TN that remembered as a kid, being mistreated in many ways by the "officials" that were sent here to squash them. Even more that my Mom & Aunts/Uncles, & Grandfather knew that had even served in the Conf. army that remembered the "after war" life and hated the North for the punishments they took for years.

 

Aster

[milod]

Actually in ways I think southern leadership ignored a very, very important happenstance by our first president, a Virginian, in the face of a tax rebellion.

 

Old George saddled up, gathered an army and headed out to end the so-called Whiskey Rebellion. Okay, that's way simplified, but... Much of the argument by the "rebels" at the time were not dissimilar to those used by folks favoring secession 70 years later in the southern states.

 

But...

 

I think this has been a great thread to get folks thinking more about the incredibly rich and unique history on this continent north of the Rio Grande.

 

Ah, such great fun this is - almost as much fun as pickin'.

 

m

[FirstMeasure]

Yeah, Right on! Those guys deserved having their women raped, home/fields burned to the ground and treated like crap for 20 yrs or so.

 

NOT!!

 

Left them alone? Which history book re-write have you been reading?

 

To many still believe all the tripe that the Civil War was really about slavery. It was about taxes 80% or so. The North was totally ripping off the Southern states. Many esp. these days, try to make the slavery issue the primary cause of the war. Was slavery the right thing to have. H_ll NO. But it wasn't the reason. I never have know anyone from my years of relatives & friends in Tenn, Virg, & Georgia, as looking to the Reb flag as being a symbol of endorsing slavery. If Lincoln would have been left alive after the war the treatment of the South would not have been to defame them but to include them back in and with benefits to being part of a "Union." Oh yeah, It would have also included a return to Africa for all the slaves that were torn away from their home. Had already started but both ended with his early death. Another "truth" thing not taught about those days, these days. Not P.C. I guess.

 

I do remember all those days of the 60's & 70's and don't have bad feelings for things that were a process of evolving into a free nation. The South hated the North for a long time, as I remember some real old timers in TN that remembered as a kid, being mistreated in many ways by the "officials" that were sent here to squash them. Even more that my Mom & Aunts/Uncles, & Grandfather knew that had even served in the Conf. army that remembered the "after war" life and hated the North for the punishments they took for years.

 

Aster

When I said "Let them be", I meant left them to rebuild without any help. In fact the North hindered any rebuilding efforts they came across.

 

Of course the best possible turn of events would have been no war at all, but since war was fought it should have been fought to a finish, not just an end of conflict, but and end to what started the conflict. That's a dirty and disgusting end, as war should be dirty and disgusting. Fried Po' Boy sandwiches should have been replaced with Philly Cheese Steaks because of who won, not because of who deserved to win.

 

I'm looking at it as a war, just a war. Not a right side and a wrong side, just as a war. If the North had lost then they would have had no influence in the South, Yanks would have been rounded up and hung, and all that was Northern would have been expunged form the culture (to varying degrees of success). That's what war is, it's winner take all or it shouldn't be fought. It's Texas Hold 'em and the South went all in and lost. Just as Germany went all in and lost. Just as Napoleon went all in and lost. Just as Genghis Khan went all in and Won. It's not about who "Should have won" it's simply a matter of who won and who lost.

 

If someone were to ask me "Who should have won the American Civil War", I'd say the people should have won by not having a war. Our government (or Governments) of the time obviously failed to do that. So my opinion on who should have won is moot, there were no "Winners".

 

Everybody wants to play nice after the war, where was that attitude before the war?