Geico caveman at Civil War reenactment ad

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

I generally can't stand the Geico caveman commercials but last night I saw one that had me laughing. It had a caveman dressed in a Union general's uniform fussing at the other reenactors around the evening campfire for not staying in period. When the pizza deliveryman showed up at the campfire, the general couldn't take it anymore and left.

[Subdeacon Joe]

That had me laughing too. Most especially because the weekend before we had been at a re-enactment near Sacramento, CA and spent some time Friday night with one guys iPad (or something) trying to find the TV clips from that morning.

[Four-Eyed Buck,SASS #14795]

Yeah, he wanted them de-farbed

[Guest Tennessee Stud, SASS# 43634 Life]

It had a caveman dressed in a Union general's uniform...

 

 

Cro-Magnon or Neandethal? I'm lookin' fer authenticity...

 

ts

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

Cro-Magnon or Neandethal? I'm lookin' fer authenticity...

 

ts

I have it from sound authority that most all Union generals were Neanderthals; except for Grant and Sherman.

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

This is why I no longer pet the sweaty things at CW reenactments any more. Or maybe it is sweat the petty things? or small things? or, ah, you're right. Funny commercial!

[Deacon Will]

[Trigger Mike]

I have it from sound authority that most all Union generals were Neanderthals; except for Grant and Sherman.

Neanderthal would have been an improvement for Sherman.

 

the madman did know how to get us to stop though.

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

Neanderthal would have been an improvement for Sherman.

 

the madman did know how to get us to stop though.

Trigger Mike, I didn't want to offend the Neanderthals.

[Doc Windshadow]

It was a funny bit.... I do not understand how they can spend 2 hours talking about Gettysburg and not mention Little Round Top and the 20th Maine....

[Subdeacon Joe]

It was a funny bit.... I do not understand how they can spend 2 hours talking about Gettysburg and not mention Little Round Top and the 20th Maine....

 

I think that they wanted to focus on some of the other unit that maybe get mentioned in passing, if mentioned at all. There was a whole lot more to Gettysburg than LRT and 20th ME. Heck, you hear very little about ieven the 15th Alabama.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

A true study of the War Between The States, will show that Gettysburg overshadowed all of the other battles for what ever reason. Vicksburg fell the day after the Gettysburg battle and was still a foot note, although it was a much larger strategic victory for the North. The battle of Antietam was horrific in it's toll. But the historians captured Gettysburg as the poster battle of that war. I guess this is because the victors get to write the history and it was a true victory in the hard pressed North.

[Subdeacon Joe]

A true study of the War Between The States, will show that Gettysburg overshadowed all of the other battles for what ever reason. Vicksburg fell the day after the Gettysburg battle and was still a foot note, although it was a much larger strategic victory for the North. The battle of Antietam was horrific in it's toll. But the historians captured Gettysburg as the poster battle of that war. I guess this is because the victors get to write the history and it was a true victory in the hard pressed North.

 

It was the emotional and psychological turning point of that war. The federal army had finally managed to stop the unstoppable Lee and drive him from the field. And that changed the "initiative" of the War. So while Vicksburg was more important from a strategic and logistical point of view, Gettysburg was important from a psychological point of view - no longer was Lee the unstoppable genius who was able to consistently defeat, or at least fight to a draw, a stronger opponent.

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

It is generally considered that had Lee defeated the Union and taken Washington DC, France and Great Britain would have recognized the CSA, which would likely secure the statehood of the CSA. Plus, no Union blockade would have stopped the British Navy from trading with and resupplying the CSA.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

It was the emotional and psychological turning point of that war. The federal army had finally managed to stop the unstoppable Lee and drive him from the field. And that changed the "initiative" of the War. So while Vicksburg was more important from a strategic and logistical point of view, Gettysburg was important from a psychological point of view - no longer was Lee the unstoppable genius who was able to consistently defeat, or at least fight to a draw, a stronger opponent.

 

Well, I guess I can agree with part of that Joe, but it took another year for the North to defeat Lee. He continued to deal with Grant at Cold Harbor, the Wilderness and even Petersburg. If he had had the supplies that Grant had, that war might still be going on. But of course he didn't and his options became limited.

 

Aside from the leadership of the two armies, I stand in awe of the men with the rifles on both sides, that

stood shoulder to shoulder and took what ever the other side could throw at them. Those guys had some real cojones.

 

I had the opportunity to visit the battlefield at Vicksburg and also the one at Gettysburg and Petersburg. In all three cases I was in awe of the sites. However, I am still wondering how the Union troops ever took Vicksburg with those steep hills. I must have been murder.

[Subdeacon Joe]

Well, I guess I can agree with part of that Joe, but it took another year for the North to defeat Lee. He continued to deal with Grant at Cold Harbor, the Wilderness and even Petersburg. If he had had the supplies that Grant had, that war might still be going on. But of course he didn't and his options became limited.

 

 

True. But again, the idea of 'initiative' comes into play. The federals now knew that Lee could be defeated, and they were throwing Grant, the winner at Vicksburg, against Lee.

 

If you think about it, the Confederacy lost the war when, rather than cave in and say "Let them to to hell in their own way" after First Manassas, the North got its back up and decided that no uncultured rubes from the South was going to beat it. With the north having at least ten times the production capability of the south, as well as a much greater population, a northern victory was pretty much assured.

 

 

Aside from the leadership of the two armies, I stand in awe of the men with the rifles on both sides, that

stood shoulder to shoulder and took what ever the other side could throw at them. Those guys had some real cojones.

 

 

Again, the psychology of it. Regiments were mostly raised in one town or county. You are there in line with your family, friends, and neighbors. How could you not go forward?

 

I had the opportunity to visit the battlefield at Vicksburg and also the one at Gettysburg and Petersburg. In all three cases I was in awe of the sites. However, I am still wondering how the Union troops ever took Vicksburg with those steep hills. I must have been murder.

 

How? Pretty much starved them out. Bombardment from mortars and other siege guns didn't hurt either.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Well, the first volunteers served with Sam and Harry from down the road. As the war went on, more and more regiments were raised by men from outside the village borders. A lot of the Southern boys just believed that nobody was going to tell them what to do. Most did not own slaves. It was a political issue at the time. Most were poor farmers or share croppers that had problems rubbing two dimes together. Most went to war, as you stated, for a reason. But it was a different reason for the North and for the South.

 

From my viewpoint, in the North there was the concern with expansion and geography. The South got in the way with the Missouri Compromise. The abolitionist were numerous, but by no means the whole of the North. This is evidenced by the treatment of the freed slaves after the war. It took almost a hundred years for the black man or woman to achieve equal status. Not a pretty picture of our history, but still one of facts.

 

I think the South just wanted to be left alone and to grow their crops. It was really two different countries at the time. The wealthy planters saw an opportunity to increase their wealth by selling to the factories of England and Europe and the North saw this as a threat to the mills and factories in the North. Higher prices for cotton brought more money into the south and higher prices for the North. Not a good combination in the eyes of the North. Great idea viewed from the South.

 

Given time and reason, I believe that the two factions could have peacefully worked out the problems. But since when has mankind ever given in to time and reason, when an arsenal is at hand.

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

It is generally considered that had Lee defeated the Union and taken Washington DC, France and Great Britain would have recognized the CSA, which would likely secure the statehood of the CSA. Plus, no Union blockade would have stopped the British Navy from trading with and resupplying the CSA.

That's a huge "if". Sort of like saying "if" Hitler had invaded and occupied England, the war would have been different. Yes it would have, but after that, the possibilities are endless.

 

I'm in the midst of reading "Lincoln and His Admirals". A fascinating account of the Naval war which is something we rarely hear about. It's not so much about the individual battles, but about what and who Lincoln had to deal with. He had "McClellans" in the Navy as well. The book also spends time discussing France and England's positions during the war. Lincoln's strategic vision was often better than that of his commanders, which is what forced him to become a true commander in chief. What a remarkable man.

 

I'll add my own bit of speculation: If Lincoln had not taken the reins of command and left the war to generals like McClellan, and admirals like Goldsborough, the war would have been fought to a draw. It's amazing -- with perfect 20/20 hindsight -- how inept and hidebound military leadership was in the early years of the war.

[Subdeacon Joe]

I think John Adams expressed doubt about how long the Republic could last given the vast cultural differences between north and south.

 

One the economics of the time:

 

The predicament in which both the Government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester [England] can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage...If the importations of the counrty are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the lost of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many huindred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers...Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty-free. The process is perfectly simple... The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North...We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question---one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated powers of the State or Federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad.....We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched. ---New York Times March 30, 1861

The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing....It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No---we MUST NOT "let the South go." ----Union Democrat , Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861

 

From a story entitled: "What shall be done for a revenue?"

 

That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad....If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.....Allow rail road iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railroads would be supplied from the southern ports. ---New York Evening Post March 12, 1861, recorded in Northern Editorials on Secession, Howard C. Perkins, ed., 1965, pp. 598-599.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

with perfect 20/20 hindsight -- how inept and hidebound military leadership was at the beginning of the war.

That seems to be the case with most wars. The leadership at the beginning is not necessarily the leadership you get at the end. At least for the "winning" side. This is I believe the result of a "good ole boy" attitude about the officer corp of just about any military organization. Political considerations make for promotions.

 

 

 

I think John Adams expressed doubt about how long the Republic could last given the vast cultural differences between north and south.

 

One the economics of the time:

I think John was correct. They are still differences of considerable magnitude. And a lot of them are the product of the War Between the States, a mere 150 years ago.

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

That seems to be the case with most wars. The leadership at the beginning is not necessarily the leadership you get at the end. At least for the "winning" side. This is I believe the result of a "good ole boy" attitude about the officer corp of just about any military organization. Political considerations make for promotions.

Ain't that the truth!

[Chief Rick]

I think John was correct. They are still differences of considerable magnitude. And a lot of them are the product of the War Between the States, a mere 150 years ago.

And yet when you look through children's history books, very little is mentioned of the political and economical decisions leading up to the war.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

And yet when you look through children's history books, very little is mentioned of the political and economical decisions leading up to the war.

 

Sadly, so true. According to the current trend, that war was the product of bad men doing mean things to other people. I guess that is the case with every war to some extent, but it was not one of the main reasons for starting it in the first place. I still stand behind my statement that ALL WARS ARE THE PRODUCT OF ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ONE SORT OR ANOTHER.

 

One of the things that struck me was that in the film of Band of Brothers, at the very end, when the troops captured the wine cellar of Goering, that the place was so opulent. I guess I just never stopped to think of all of the wealth that the Nazis stole from the rest of the world. I guess that the spoils do belong to the victor, whoever that is.

 

Sorry to change the subject here.

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

And yet when you look through children's history books, very little is mentioned of the political and economical decisions leading up to the war.

 

It is also sad when children are taught that it was simply the northern states against the southern states in order to free the slaves. No mention is made that each state, except South Carolina, produced at least one regiment to the federal army. It is also not mentioned that many of those southerners fighting in Union units were definitely NOT fighting to free the slaves. This includes my beloved Alabama, which produced the 1st Alabama Cavalry - who, btw, had 21 men selected from its ranks to serve as Gen. Sherman's personal escort when the Army left Atlanta through the end of the war.

 

1st Alabama Cavalry, US Volunteers

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

A true study of the War Between The States, will show that Gettysburg overshadowed all of the other battles for what ever reason. Vicksburg fell the day after the Gettysburg battle and was still a foot note, although it was a much larger strategic victory for the North. The battle of Antietam was horrific in it's toll. But the historians captured Gettysburg as the poster battle of that war. I guess this is because the victors get to write the history and it was a true victory in the hard pressed North.

 

The old dictum that the victors write the history doesn't apply in this instance. It may apply in cases of outright conquest. But Southerners began to write, or more truly, re-write, the history of the Civil War shortly after it ended. The printing presses of the Lost Cause have never been inactive; and now it has the internet!

[Guest Tennessee Stud, SASS# 43634 Life]

And folks who don't know crap 'bout nothin'... who ain't got enuff sense than to pee on a 'lectic fence... will always chime in with some profundity with their own self-inflated knowledge of falsified events.

 

ts

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

And folks who don't know crap 'bout nothin'... who ain't got enuff sense than to pee on a 'lectic fence... will always chime in with some profundity with their own self-inflated knowledge of falsified events.

 

ts

Well I've peed on an 'lectic fence. ............Urine does conduct 'lectricity!

 

Pretty heavy discussion about a caveman in a Union general's uniform.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

Neanderthal would have been an improvement for Sherman.

 

the madman did know how to get us to stop though.

 

As Sherman said on the subject:

 

"Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other."

[Subdeacon Joe]

The old dictum that the victors write the history doesn't apply in this instance. It may apply in cases of outright conquest. But Southerners began to write, or more truly, re-write, the history of the Civil War shortly after it ended. The printing presses of the Lost Cause have never been inactive; and now it has the internet!

 

Actually, the history of the Civil War was re-written when "Honest" Abe issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Then it changed from an invasion to "preserve the Union" (so the South could continue pay for Northern infrastructure through tariffs) to a war to "free the slaves."

 

If, as some claim, the only reason that the seven states of the deep south left the Union was because they feared that slavery would be abolished, then the Corwin Amendment should have brought them back.

 

ADDED -

There are two issues that get conflated here - secession and The War. Between Dec. 1860 and Feb. 1861, seven states, for various reasons, severed their ties with the United States.

 

Then, in April 1861 Lincoln was sending provisions and reinforcements to federal troops in a fortress that commanded a harbor in one of those states. That is the start of The War.

[Guest Tennessee Stud, SASS# 43634 Life]

Well I've peed on an 'lectic fence. ............Urine does conduct 'lectricity!

 

Pretty heavy discussion about a caveman in a Union general's uniform.

 

 

Shore hope you don't think I was referrin' to you... my lernned friend! Without my pal, Birdgun... I'd have nobody to watch gobble down greasie-a$$ porkchops and gravy.

 

Some other folks, though... who criticize the South and accuse them of re-writin' stuff 'bout the oppressive occupation of reconstruction... and critize the South for sufferin' the horrendous slash & burn path extendin sixty-miles wide... all the way from East Tennessee through Georgia down southeast ways... plumb down to the ocean...

 

Those same folks who live in a state that never had a dog in the hunt... and feel high-and-mighty 'cause they read what they want to make-believe.... those same folks generally chime in with them criticizems of me and mine for still defendin' out rights to protect our own.

 

That's what I'm talkin' bout...

 

ts

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

Arguments about post-Civil War analysis of the origins of and reasons for the War are never resolved; at least they are never resolved amongst people who engage in the arguments. To the other 99% of the people, the arguments are over!

 

The best evidence is thus the words and actions of people at the time, unaffected by either the outcome of the War, or post-war events.

 

I do agree with Joe that Secession and War are separate in a sense, but they are otherwise intertwined. Whatever the "reasons for the War" were, the reasons for secession were dominated by slavery; in particular, that it would ultimately be abolished by the North by excluding it from most of the new territories.

 

In the case of Tennessee, let Gov. Isham Harris speak in his own words, when he called the legislature to take up secession:

 

"Harris wasted no time in presenting his reasons for calling the General Assembly into session: “The attempt of the Northern people,” to confine slavery “within the limits of the present Southern States,” to appropriate the whole of the western territory to themselves, and to put slavery on the path of “ultimate extinction” was regarded by the “people of the Southern states as a gross and palpable violation of the spirit and obvious meaning of the compact of Union.”

 

Tennessee Gov. Isham Harris knew the choice was clear: “Abandon it [slavery], we cannot, interwoven as it is with our wealth, prosperity and domestic happiness.” (The quote is taken from today's NYTimes.)

 

Of course, it still took Tennessee a long time to agree to secede, and a large portion of its population remained loyal to the Union.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Sorry Folks,

 

Not even close to funny. (I have told you that Hubby says I have no sense of humor.) The scenario had nothing to do with Geico.

 

Now, the Dirt Devil ad, that is great!

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo