Hey all.
Im working on a tune about the American Civil war.
As Im not from the US I dont want to offend any one.
Is the word "Yanky" seen as offensive.
Thank you in advance.
Usually spelled "yankee", and sometimes shortened to "yank".
I don't find it offensive.
It has been used offensively by the confedertes during the war, and by other countries when referring to americans.
Outside of the civil war it's sometimes used as a name for Americans.
Some more info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee
Rob,
Quote:
Is the word "Yanky" seen as offensive.
EVERTHING over here is offensive to someone since political correctness has run amok, so don't worry about it. And by the way, it's spelled "Yankee". 
What bobcflatpicker said.
Use it in New York and they'll just think you're talking about the baseball team.
To my estimation it's roughly equivalent to Aussie, Canuck, Brit or Tommy, as the British soldiers were called in WWII. It certainly doesn't offend me. The accompanying tone and body language could easily turn them into insults, however.
The term has a Dutch origin according to respected authorities from the combination of John (Yon) and Cheese (Kees).
Source: Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YankeeEven the term damnyankee was found in American literature as a non offensive descriptive term. (qv).
During WWII, "Yank" was a term of endearment for all American soldiers and Americans in general.
I'd say: "Go for it!" But, thanks for asking us.
Quote:
Even the term damnyankee was found in American literature as a non offensive descriptive term. (qv).
A modern southern joke:
What is the difference between a yankee and a d*mn yankee?
A yankee comes down south for a week’s vacation, spends lots of money and then goes back home.
A d*mn yankee comes down south for a week’s vacation and never leaves! 
Hey guys.
Thanks, you have put me at ease.
I feel its best to be cautious when writing about another countries history.
And to Bob thanks for the joke very funny.
“Cliff Notes for an Australian on the Civil War”
The Civil War was a very sad but fascinating time in American history. “Brother against brother” isn’t a cliché, … it actually happened.
1. Let me start by saying slavery is an abomination and should NEVER be tolerated.
2. The south had already lost the war before the first shot was ever fired. The rural Confederates were much better soldiers because they used guns to hunt and fend off “varmints”, but they were outnumbered 3 to 1 by the more urban Yankees, many of whom had never seen a gun. The north also had logistics and communication, (railroads and telegraphs), on their side. Railroads and telegraphs were virtually nonexistent in the south. The railroads provided fresh soldiers and supplies and the telegraphs gave the all-important “intel” to the north.
Whether you use the conservative estimate of 6% or the liberal estimate of 20% of the Confederates who owned slaves, the simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of them didn’t own slaves. Most had never even seen a black person.
Your average Confederate soldier wasn’t fighting for slavery! They were fighting to protect their homes and families from the invasion, rape, pillaging and murder from the north. (All of these things occur when an area is invaded by an opposing force, … sad but true).
The Confederate leaders were the landowners and politicians, (aka slave owners), who "sold" the war to the average southerner as a “States Rights” issue. Many in the south still believe that today, but it’s obviously not true. It was about slavery. As in all wars, the leaders lied to the men on the lines.
The south was ravaged for decades after the war by the Union troops and the defeat in the war. And since history is written by the victors in EVERY war, it’s colored by the Union historians input.
The History Channel has some great documentaries on the Civil War and you may want to check some of those out.
On a lighter note, good luck with your song! Hehe.
I have a book called Company Aytch written by a Confederate private named Sam Watkins.
The sub title is A Side Show of the Big Show . Very interesting reading, I highly recommend it.
I also have a book written by a yankee private, Elisha Hunt Rhodes who later became the governor of Rhode Island.
It is entitled All For the Union . Both men fought in every battle of their respective outfits. The war as seen by the common soldier demonstrates the vast waste of life that it was.
Don S.
Don,
Quote:
vast waste of life
That says it all !!! I'd like to check out the books you mentioned. Thanks for the heads up.
The so-called Civil War in the US still holds the record for the most Americans killed in battle. Hands down.
Men who risk and give their lives for what they believe in are not lives wasted.
--Mac
Mac,
Quote:
Men who risk and give their lives for what they believe in are not lives wasted.
Great point. I just think the Civil War could have been averted with a little patience. Slavery was obviously an abomination, so I think if the average Joe in the south had realized that was what the war was actually about, he would would have stood up and opposed slavery.
But since the poor sucker thought he was opposing invasion from the north, he fought back. As would you or I.
The tendency to underrate the understanding of men who lived in the past is often exaggerated.
Especially by academic writers...
--Mac
Quote:
The tendency to underrate the understanding of men who lived in the past is often exaggerated.
Especially by academic writers...
Okay Mac, … You know me pretty well. I’m obviously not an academic writer.
If you tell me “those suckers are comin’ to get us.”, I’ll jump in to defend us.
But if you said “those suckers are comin’ to get us because we own slaves”, I'd say “What slaves?”
I just think the Confederate soldiers were duped by their leaders.
It happens to us all the time!
I had two great grandfathers in that war. One died at Vicksburg of diarrhea. The other was from S.E. Missouri which was largely sympathetic to the south. He joined the federal army and was soon captured when he returned home on leave. He was in a stockade in Iuka, MS where his brother from the rebel army would kill squirrels with a slingshot and pass them to the fence to him. As a matter of survival, he went into the southern army. He deserted before the battle of Corinth, MS. His sergeant wrote, "Gone to the yanks, is and always has been one. He finished up in the U.S. Cavalry in S.W. MO. He developed what was then called piles and bled to death at a relatively young age. His widow drew his pension until 1910.
Yes, the cause was just, but I don't know what to call the death of 600,000 Americans as anything more than a vast waste. Wasted for a cause, but wasted nonetheless.
Don S.
And how sad is it that the biggest industry in the south after the war was selling "wooden legs"?
If you got shot in the leg, they cut it off!
We don't need to forget the atrocities of the Civil War. We need to remember them so we don't repeat them!
Rob if you're interested in the Civil War watch the documentary by Ken Burns. It's long but it's brilliant.
Quote:
We don't need to forget the atrocities of the Civil War. We need to remember them so we don't repeat them!
WWI marked the lsat of that type of warfare where men would face off in straight lines and fire at each other. People finally realizewd just how futile that situation was, but as always, only after the fact.
Army generals are said to always be fighting the "last war" in engineering circles, meaning that technologie that are brought about generally languish while old curmudgeons keep on trying to do that which they know well while exhibiting untoward prejudice about new inventions, techniques and such.
The Polish Army in WWII was still putting all of their faith in the horse cavalry when Hitler's planes and tanks hit them. Just one example, there are many more from just about every nation.
The US "Civil War" history is replete with an outstanding example of this kind of buffoonery in the then new technology of the repeating rifle. Union generals, after extensive so-called "testing" refused to go with the early manual action repeating rifle designs, stating that their reason was that it "wasn't a musket" and "couldn't be fired from the prone position" simply because the early exampes of that new technology were lever-action. Apparently the concept of simply turning the rifle 90 degrees to ***** the lever eluded them.
But it did not elude the Confederacy, which purchased and used repeating rifles to great advantage. The Stevens lever action rifle became a symbol of the victorious Confederate armies for a while. (The Confederacy literally dominated the Union army for quite some time at the start through middle of this war.)
In our times, today's technologies have literally reshaped everything about the subject. Semi-Autonomous, Autonomous and Tele-Operated Drones, Missiles that can deliver payloads with literal pinpoint accuracy repeatedly, 3rd and 4th generation Night Vision capabilities, Air Power that, when implemented properly without idiotic ROE's, can attain complete Air Superiority over an enemy in a matter of hours, "Eye in the Sky" sattelites coupled with aircraft battle management, and, of course, the fact that we no longer employ drafted civilians for the task.
BTW -- the .50 and .60 caliber, slow-moving lead "Minie Ball" fired by the outdated muskets used during the Civil War was the thing most directly responsible for all the amputations, because the system resulted in crushed and broken bones that even today might represent a surgical repair challenge with low success in the result. The Geneva Convention addressed that problem directly and that is why we all can banter the term, "Full Metal Jacket" about ammo, though I doubt most really know what that really means or entails, or why it is even there at all.
War is not a "nice" thing.
But sometimes we have to do things that are not nice in order to survive what someone else intends for us.
--Mac
A very important thing to understand is that the American Civil war was probably the most political war that was every fought on this planet. The underlying divisions are still there and there is a cultivated point of view for both sides of the issue so that even to this day you can look at certain catch phrases and know which side of the issue a person is on. One of the ways that both sides forced loyalty from their citizns was to define the war as North against South and invoking sectional loyalty but that only went so far to motivate those who did not want to participate. There were far more men conscipted into military service than there were who volunteered for such duty.
Quote:
I had two great grandfathers in that war. One died at Vicksburg of diarrhea.
One of the things that the U.S. Civil War had in common with all other wars until the more modern era is that more men died from diseases that they contracted in camp, than died on the battlefield. Nearly 2 men died from illness for every one man killed in battle.
One of the best narratives on the Civil War is Shelby Foote's trilogy on the subject. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know about the Civil War but doesn't want to read the typical history books about.
If you enjoy music of the Civil War they are beautifully chronicled by Tom Roush on YT.
I think of the old James Stewart movie Shenandoah where his two sons choose to fight on opposite sides during that war and the pain felt by many real-life parents of that era. It told of a very ugly side of the Civil War.
Johnny Cash summed up the futility of war in this 6-minute musical tribute:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM80_377AF4&feature=relatedThe beautiful Yankee song Lorena was carried home to the South by returning Rebel soldiers. The song was soon outlawed by both sides because, upon hearing it, soldiers on both sides would lay down their arms and go home. It has long been a personal favorite from the war era. Simply beautiful. Enjoy.
A lot of beautiful music sprang from that war of brother against brother, father against son. We can't imagine the depth of emotions involved. It's impossible.
Time for a wee bit o' levity:
A college student of American History inquired of his professor: "Sir, why is it that all of the major battles of the Civil War were fought in National Parks?"
The whole North/South rivalry can still be found to one degree or another, even today, though usually it's in the form of good natured ribbing.
Originally from the North, I was attending a 2 yr NY Community College where I had a Physics Professor from Tennessee with a pronounced Southern drawl.
Surrounded by Yankees, he seemed to feel the need to devise unusually hard reading assignments and even found some perverse pleasure when most of the class did poorly on his tests.
Since Community Colleges were more affordable than the 4 yr Ivy League colleges, they were often attended by older kids who had served in the military (Vietnam was chewin' them up and spittin' them out back then) using the VA Bill to finance their education.
One such young guy was a "Yankee" named John Green, who always attended class in his green army shirt and carrying his books in an old army knapsack.
On the day of our final Physics test, the Southern Prof passed out the tests and stood back grinning, as though waiting for something.
It arrived as a unanimous groan rose from the class when we saw how unbelievably difficult he'd made it.
He then said, in his slow Southern drawl, "Well...I guess the South's gonna rise again."
To which John Green immediately loudly replied, "Yeah, Crap Floats!" (cleaned up version)
Needless to say we all broke out laughing.
Needless to say the the Physics Bell Curve scores took a huge hit to the negative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2sCOqhyEywTwilight Of The Confederacy - A fair assessment of the Civil War (about 1 hour)
Quote:
Hey all.
Im working on a tune about the American Civil war.
As Im not from the US I dont want to offend any one.
Is the word "Yanky" seen as offensive.
Thank you in advance.
If the tune is about the civil war, and you want the lyrick to be authentic ( like it was written in the 1860s, then it is not offensive to my uppinion.
The only thing that offends me is "people who get offended".
Later,
My southern relatives have a special nuance for the word "yankee" that is hard to duplicate
.
Don S.
When I was growing up the only time you ever heard about the Civil War was in history class or in a movie. It was never a topic of conversation.
When my sales territory was changed to include Roanoke and Richmond,VA areas, I then saw life sized portraits of Robert E. Lee for the first time.
It was also where I got my first lecture about “States Rights”. A customer In Roanoke, VA who had a LARGER than life portrait of Robert E. Lee in his office was telling me about going in to see his kids “Yankee” teacher to set her straight about the Civil War. He was upset because the teacher had told the class that the Civil War was about slavery.
I told him that I had always thought that was what the war was about.
Bad move on my part.
I spent the next 2 hours getting a history lesson from his point of view!
Bob, is it not true that the issue of slavery was never thrown out on the table by Lincoln until the third year of the War? The South had it's back broken and he was trying to draw support for a War-ending death stroke from Southern blacks.
The documentary, Twilight Of The Confederacy tends to confirm that the Civil War was not over the issue of slavery, per se, but Lincoln's spin doctors used it to their great advantage.
Don,
Quote:
Bob, is it not true that the issue of slavery was never thrown out on the table by Lincoln until the third year of the War?
I honestly don’t know. I’m definitely NOT a Civil War scholar.
I only have two hard and fast opinions on the Civil War.
1. Slavery was an abomination and HAD to be stopped.
2. After the “Yankees” gained the upper hand toward the end of the war, they became nothing more than thugs as they raped, pillaged and murdered their way across the south.
I think it's sad that most Americans think that everyone in the Confederacy had slaves and were repugnant. The vast majority of the Confederates were just people trying to protect their homes and families from the invasion from the north.
Don,
As far as the concept of “States Rights”, … I’m all for it!
I’m not a fan of the “Feds” in any way, shape or form! I just don’t know enough about the minutiae of the Civil War to know how that all fits in to a discussion on the Civil War, … or as it’s known in the south, … “The War”.
Quote:
I think it's sad that most Americans think that everyone in the Confederacy had slaves and were repugnant. The vast majority of the Confederates were just people trying to protect their homes and families from the invasion from the north.
I agree Bob, but I also can't believe that all yankee soldiers were rapists and Georgia Bummers.
Don S.
The other Don,
Quote:
I agree Bob, but I also can't believe that all yankee soldiers were rapists and Georgia Bummers.
I agree. I don't know what a "Georgia Bummer" is, but it's NOT my opinion that rape, pillaging and murder were widespread AND tolerated by the leadership of the Yankees, ... it's an historical fact.
A very sad one.
If my great, great grandmother was raped by the Yankees, the homestead was burnt to the ground and my great, great grandfather came home to a pile of ashes with one leg, ... or not at all, … I’d probably have a portrait of Robert E. Lee too! LOL.
Quote:
it's NOT my opinion that rape, pillaging and murder were widespread AND tolerated by the leadership of the Yankees, ... it's an historical fact.
A very sad one.
The subject of rape by union forces during the Civil War has been something a number of historians have worked on, and the general consensus is that it was not widespread, was not condoned Sherman or his officers, and was mainly committed by stragglers. I believe that there was something on the order of one dozen documented rapes during Shermans March and those soldiers were court martialded and hanged. That is hardly being tolerated.
Lets get straight on the slavery issue. A person did not have to own slaves to support the institution any more than you need to own a company or stocks to support capitalism. The entire Southern Economy was based on salvery. Slaves made your shoes, cleaned the streets, picked up waste, etc. Most people owed their livlihood to slavery even if they didn't own them.
On top of that, those who did own slaves kept people stirred up in their hate of Yankees and fear of free blacks. Non slave owners were constantly told by the slave owners that the Yankees wanted balcks to kill southerners in their beds at night and rape their women. Shortly before the outbreakd of the Civil War, it was dangerous for a Yankee to travel in the south. There are numerous accounts from the time perioed of Northerners being attacked in by mobs while they were traveling in the south.
Quote:
I believe that there was something on the order of one dozen documented rapes during Shermans March and those soldiers were court martialded and hanged.
Who exactly were the women supposed to report it to since all the men were fighting the war?
Let’s not forget that rape was considered to be shameful on the women!
I don't think that number is even REMOTELY close to the truth and it flies in the face of everything I've ever read and the documentaries I've seen.
Accounts seem to suggest that BLACK women in the South made up a much larger group of rape victims than whites. Perhaps soldiers simply felt it easier to get away with or more opportunities were presented. Or maybe racism made them (and their officers?) feel less guilty about it.
Quote:
I don't think that number is even REMOTELY close to the truth and it flies in the face of everything I've ever read and the documentaries I've seen.
Unless you have confined your reading and viewing to literature and videos approved and blessed by the League of the South,it is hard to believe that EVERYTHING you have encountered says otherwise. The is a considerable body of work out there that says otherwise.
We needn't go back 150 years to find rape and torture to be common among so-called "civilized" people but we need not go there. I have mentioned it on these forums several times before and it only serves to keep old wounds open. The scary fact is...it's still happening today!
Conquerors have always considered the enemy's women as fair game, the so-called "spoils of war," but history books avoid those facts as unsuitable reading for their "more civilized" audiences. Poppycock, given the slightest provocation, those same readers have turned into bloodthirsty animals. Since nearly 95% of rapes are never reported, according to psychologists, if you have exposed a hundred, that's but the tip of the iceberg.
Imagine a soldier, charged-up on adrenaline and testosterone, capturing Atlanta and, lacking any command restraints or conscience, and possibly just moments before seeing his best friend decapitated, he finds the women of the enemy. He feels compelled to humiliate his enemy even further by a wrathful act against his women.
It's a sad fact of life known as "war hysteria." Anyone wanting proof that mass rape of innocent, defenseless women, perpetrated by "civilized people" is going on full tilt and totally unabated, things censored from your nightly news, is welcome to PM me for details.
There has been rape in all war but it is Confederate Propoganda that Sherman encouraged it to happen in the ACW. There is sa ton of unfounded myth passed around now as fact ever since the kennedys wrote The South is right, which is the biggest single piece of propaganda trash ever written.
Keith,
Quote:
Unless you have confined your reading and viewing to literature and videos approved and blessed by the League of the South,it is hard to believe that EVERYTHING you have encountered says otherwise.
I have no reason to lie about that Keith, especially since I totally reject the Confederate assertion that secession was about States Rights. It was because the Confederate leaders were trying to further spread the abomination of slavery.
It’s not like I’ve been studying the Civil War, so I hadn’t encountered the view that rape was rare in the CW until today. I googled “rape in the American Civil War” and sure enough there are those who are trying to perpetuate that idea, (although, ... with all due respect, it's a ridiculous idea).
I also ran across an interesting article in the New York Times entitled “Rape and the Civil War” from 3 years ago. I doubt if the NYT is approved by the “League Of The South”, but here’s an excerpt:
Quote:
In fact, the University of North Carolina historian writes, “hundreds, perhaps thousands of women suffered rape” during the war, with many assaults likely unreported. But her focus is less rape itself than the threat of sexual predation by northern troops. Did reality match the fear of assault felt by Scarlett O’Hara in “Gone With the Wind”?
Feimster explores an 1862 order by the Union Gen. Benjamin Butler, decreeing that any New Orleans woman showing contempt for his occupying troops “shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation” — i.e., the city’s outspokenly Confederate belles were to be treated as prostitutes. Feimster sifts evidence that the order was a green light for Union soldiers to threaten sexual violence if not commit rape itself.
After President Abraham Lincoln ignored calls to rescind the order and it was applied beyond the city, she concludes, its geographical reach “ensured that the threat of sexual violence and the fear of rape were common to southern women and central to how they experienced the Civil War.”
I had forgotten about the "Beast Butler", (aka Union Gen. Benjamin Butler), until reading the article this morning, but recalled it from a documentary on the History Channel.
Obviously we could both post opposing excerpts, but for me it comes down to the fact that I find it inconceivable that rape wasn’t widespread, especially during the Union’s implementation of the “Total War” strategy.
So I guess we need to agree to disagree.
Take care.
Wow!!
All I can say is that Im overwhelmed at the results to the question posed.
I would like to thank you all for keeping cool heads in regards to differing opinions.
Thank you also for the great response and spirited points of view.
Rob,
Look what you stirred up!
The CW was over about 150 years ago, but opinions about it are alive and well!
Just make sure you write a d*mn good song! Hehe.
Quote:
Rob if you're interested in the Civil War watch the documentary by Ken Burns. It's long but it's brilliant.
Hello Sundance.
I have seen that documentary twice now and that is what sparked my interest in the Civil War.
What I most enjoyed about the documentary was the stories from the simple regular soldier on the ground from both sides.
Stories from woman, slaves and the beautiful tunes that where written and rewritten for the times.
There has never been a civil war in my country and Im thankful for that.
Lets hope it all leeds to better times in the future although war never seems to become outdated.
If I continue with this project I hope I have your permission to draw on some of your ideas.
Ive decided to try and write this song from the perspective of the regular soldier and maybe based around the battle of Bullrun as that seems to be the battle that kicked it all off.
If I cant do it justice I wont continue on with the project.
Thank you all for your wonderful stories and feelings.
Please continue with your post as you are helping to develop the feel of the song.
Regards Rob
Rob,
Quote:
Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces fired on a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a volunteer army from each state to recapture federal property, which led to declarations of secession by four more slave states. Both sides raised armies as the Union seized control of the border states early in the war and established a naval blockade. Land warfare in the East was inconclusive in 1861–62, as the Confederacy beat back Union efforts to capture its capital, Richmond, Virginia, notably during the Peninsular Campaign. In September 1862, the Confederate campaign in Maryland ended in defeat at the Battle of Antietam, which dissuaded the British from intervening.[3] Days after that battle, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which made ending slavery a war goal.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
That Wiki page is a great source of information.
I've actually seen this referenced by the Leauge of the South. They love this stuff.
Quote:
In fact, the University of North Carolina historian writes, “hundreds, perhaps thousands of women suffered rape” during the war, with many assaults likely unreported. But her focus is less rape itself than the threat of sexual predation by northern troops. Did reality match the fear of assault felt by Scarlett O’Hara in “Gone With the Wind”?
Feimster explores an 1862 order by the Union Gen. Benjamin Butler, decreeing that any New Orleans woman showing contempt for his occupying troops “shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation” — i.e., the city’s outspokenly Confederate belles were to be treated as prostitutes. Feimster sifts evidence that the order was a green light for Union soldiers to threaten sexual violence if not commit rape itself.
After President Abraham Lincoln ignored calls to rescind the order and it was applied beyond the city, she concludes, its geographical reach “ensured that the threat of sexual violence and the fear of rape were common to southern women and central to how they experienced the Civil War.”
You chose not to include the sentence right before this which shoots down your claim that everything you ever read says otherwise, since we encounter a reference to those DO who say otherwise:
Quote:
But in the academic journal Daedalus, Crystal N. Feimster begs to differ with historians who “have accepted without question the idea that Union soldiers rarely raped southern women, black or white, and have argued that sexual violence was rare during the Civil War.
The reference to General Butler's order in New Orleans is often quoted and delibertely mistinterepted to make the union look bad. Butler had ordered his men to be respectful and treat the women of New Orleans as ladies. The women of New Orleans however did not return that respect. What riled Gen Butler was one day when a woman threw the contents of a chamber pot on him. His orders were that when women behaved like that, they were not to be treated as ladies but like the common whores on the street. That didn't mean they were supposed to rape them as the propogandists would have us believe, but that they were not to be shown the common manners and courtesy due to a lady. Unless you think that it was okay to rape prositutues. That certainly wasn't the case either.
Jeez Keith! Did you miss the part where I suggested that we agree to disagree???
Rob, I am anxious to hear your musical interpretation of the American CW. I suggest that you follow the links to Tom Rouch's music along with those of Stephen Foster to get a feel for the somber mood of the period. Foster's I Dream Of Jeannie tugged at the heartstrings of both sides.
Quote:
Jeez Keith! Did you miss the part where I suggested that we agree to disagree???
Nope. I was still disagreeing. I thought we agreed to do that.
Quote:
Quote:
Jeez Keith! Did you miss the part where I suggested that we agree to disagree???
Nope. I was still disagreeing. I thought we agreed to do that.
As Larry the cable guy would say, "now that's funny I don't care who you are".
Later,
Quote:
Quote:
Jeez Keith! Did you miss the part where I suggested that we agree to disagree???
Nope. I was still disagreeing. I thought we agreed to do that.
Danny's right. That was funny.
Warning: The CCC (Crazy Cantankerous Canuck) is awake already and spoiling for trouble.
It's hard not to love the guy. Maybe just ignore him and he'll crawl back into his hollow log until medication time.