byron ed
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2020
- Messages
- 873
- Reaction score
- 296
CW "Women Soldiers" and "Black Confederate" soldiers are of similar bias in that
(a) the actual verifiable numbers of each doesn't exceed 200 or so (much less than 1 percent of all combatants in that war, even if you combine the types).
(b) the main intent of promoting that either of these types were more common is to support a long post-war political precept that had never occurred to those people who had actually lived the CW.
The "Women soldiers" thing is used to support the long post-war political precept of empowering women and girls, while the "Black Confederate" soldier thing is to support the long post-war political precept that the CW wasn't over slavery "because even slaves fought for the Confederacy." It's not that either of these modern precepts is either "right" or "wrong," but rather let's calmly identify them as constructed history, one mere step below alternate history, and move on.
Opinions?
(a) the actual verifiable numbers of each doesn't exceed 200 or so (much less than 1 percent of all combatants in that war, even if you combine the types).
(b) the main intent of promoting that either of these types were more common is to support a long post-war political precept that had never occurred to those people who had actually lived the CW.
The "Women soldiers" thing is used to support the long post-war political precept of empowering women and girls, while the "Black Confederate" soldier thing is to support the long post-war political precept that the CW wasn't over slavery "because even slaves fought for the Confederacy." It's not that either of these modern precepts is either "right" or "wrong," but rather let's calmly identify them as constructed history, one mere step below alternate history, and move on.
Opinions?