This Week in the Civil War: Aug 27-Sep 2, 1862

Posted on September 3, 2012 by WalterCoffey

Wednesday, August 27: In Virginia, the Federals under General John Pope withdrew from the Rappahannock River after being outflanked by advancing Confederates. Pope shifted his troops north toward the railroad junction at Manassas, where General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson’s Confederates were destroying Federal supplies. Pope was confused about Jackson’s purpose, and at the same time General Robert E. Lee was moving north with the rest of his Confederate Army of Northern Virginia to join Jackson. President Abraham Lincoln had no communication with Pope because all telegraph lines to Washington had been cut, and half of Lee’s army was between Pope and the Federal capital. Meanwhile, General George McClellan’s Federal Army of the Potomac began trickling into Washington from the Virginia Peninsula. In Tennessee, skirmishing intensified as Confederate General Braxton Bragg began an excursion to recover eastern Tennessee and Kentucky, as well as to counter the Federal threat to Chattanooga.

Thursday, August 28: In Virginia, Confederates under “Stonewall” Jackson withdrew to positions west of the old Bull Run battlefield, while John Pope’s Federals arrived at Manassas to find Jackson gone. Pope received conflicting reports about Jackson’s whereabouts, so he decided to concentrate at Centreville, erroneously thinking Jackson was there. When a Federal division accidentally clashed with Jackson at Groveton, Pope believed Jackson was retreating and redirected his forces against him. In Tennessee, Braxton Bragg’s Confederates advanced into central Tennessee.

Friday, August 29: In Virginia, John Pope’s Federals attacked “Stonewall” Jackson’s Confederates concentrated in a railroad cut north of Groveton and the Warrenton Turnpike. The Federals were dispersed and tired from hard marching in the heat, and their piecemeal attack was ineffective. Pope blamed General Fitz John Porter, whose corps failed to attack because Porter claimed that the Confederate corps under General James Longstreet had arrived and outnumbered him. Meanwhile, Federal General-in-Chief Henry W. Halleck continued urging George McClellan to hurry his troops to reinforce Pope. President Lincoln telegraphed his commanders three times, “What news?” with no response. In the Confederacy, P.G.T. Beauregard succeeded John C. Pemberton as commander of the Department of South Carolina and Georgia. In the Union, Frederick Steele assumed command of the Army of the Southwest.

Saturday, August 30: In Virginia, John Pope attacked “Stonewall” Jackson’s left flank, erroneously thinking Jackson was retreating. However, James Longstreet counterattacked on Pope’s right with 25,000 troops in the largest mass assault of the war. Combined attacks by Jackson and Longstreet compelled Pope to withdraw by nightfall, and the major fighting in the Battle of Second Bull Run was over. Pope’s Federals established defenses at Centreville; they were defeated but not routed. George McClellan’s feeble efforts to reinforce Pope had failed. Robert E. Lee was victorious, he had relieved Federal pressure on Richmond, but he had not destroyed Pope as hoped. In Kentucky, Confederates under General Edmund Kirby Smith attacked at Richmond, compelling the Federals to retreat toward Louisville. This small but impressive Confederate victory began the invasion of Kentucky. In Washington, President Lincoln anxiously awaited news from both Virginia and Kentucky.

Sunday, August 31: In Virginia, John Pope concentrated his defeated Army of Virginia on the heights of Centreville. Two corps from the Army of the Potomac finally arrived to reinforce Pope, but they were too late to reverse the defeat. The Confederates moved to turn the Federal right, with “Stonewall” Jackson moving west of Chantilly and James Longstreet following the next day. The Federals abandoned Fredericksburg, leaving behind many supplies. On the Tennessee River, the Federal transport W.B. Terry was captured by Confederates after being grounded on the Duck River Sucks. In the Union, many were alarmed by the recent Confederate successes. The Army Surgeon General called for women and children to scrape lint for bandages.

Monday, September 1: In Virginia, the last major fighting in the Second Bull Run campaign took place at Chantilly or Ox Hill. Robert E. Lee sent “Stonewall” Jackson’s corps around the Federal right. After severe fighting in heavy rain, the Federals withdrew. Federal General Philip Kearny was killed in the fight, and his death was mourned in both North and South. John Pope’s troops held off the Confederate advance, then withdrew closer to Washington during the night. In Washington, President Lincoln conferred with Henry Halleck and George McClellan about the military situation in Virginia. In the Union, General Ormsby M. Mitchel, famed astronomer and lecturer, was assigned to command the Department of the South. In the Confederacy, General J.P. McCown assumed command of the Department of East Tennessee.

Tuesday, September 2: In Virginia, John Pope pulled his defeated Army of Virginia back to the Washington area, ending the Second Bull Run campaign. In the fighting of 27 Aug-2 Sep, the Federals lost 1,724 killed, 8,372 wounded, and 5,958 missing (16,054 total casualties) from about 75,000 engaged. The Confederates lost 1,481 killed, 7,627 wounded, and 89 missing (9,197 total casualties) from about 48,500. President Lincoln restored George McClellan to full command in Virginia and around Washington, a decision opposed by cabinet members Edwin Stanton and Salmon Chase. The Confederates gathered near Chantilly to prepare for their next campaign. In Minnesota, the Dakota Sioux uprising continued as the Indians besieged a Federal detachment at Birch Coulee. In Kentucky, Edmund Kirby Smith’s Confederates occupied Lexington. Business was suspended and citizens began drilling in Cincinnati, fearing that Smith would invade Ohio. Meanwhile, Confederates under Braxton Bragg continued moving north from Chattanooga. In the Union, Flag Officer Louis M. Goldsborough was relieved of command of the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron. President Lincoln wrote “Meditation on the Divine Will,” in which he stated, “In great contests each party claims to act in accordance wit the will of God. Both may be, but one must be wrong. God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time.”

Primary Source: The Civil War Day by Day by E.B. Long and Barbara Long (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1971)

Civil War Events Feature Minstrel Song Revival – ABC News

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Daniel Sauerwein

Civil War Events Feature Minstrel Song Revival – ABC News.

Pretty interesting article on a revival of Civil War era music via reenacting. I had the opportunity to listen to the 97th Regimental String Band while at Pipestone, MN a few weeks ago and they were a great group.

While I understand some of the discomfort over some of the lyrics used in the songs, we must remember that society was different 150 years ago and did not subscribe to the same values and attitudes that we might. Such events must be understood in their proper historical context and they can serve a purpose for reflecting upon the past to hopefully open a civil and honest debate about the issues of slavery and race in America’s past.

Liftoff! World’s First Manned Civil War Balloon Replica Begins Public Flights on July 4

Posted on July 3, 2012 by Daniel Sauerwein

NEWS RELEASE

Liftoff! World’s First Manned Civil War Balloon
Replica Begins Public Flights on July 4

Intrepid Cleared to Launch at Genesee Country Village & Museum

MUMFORD, N.Y., July 3 — During the past week, residents of Western New York may have seen an unfamiliar object rise into to the sky, only to disappear from the horizon after a few minutes. Now, following a series of test launches, the Intrepid – the world’s first replica of a manned Civil War balloon – has been cleared for public flights beginning Wednesday, July 4 at Genesee Country Village & Museum (GCV&M; www.gcv.org).

Weather permitting, the balloon will take guests – up to four at a time – approximately 300 feet (32 stories) into the sky, simulating what the world’s first military pilots (aeronauts) experienced 150 years ago over Civil War battlefields.

GCV&M, located between Rochester and Buffalo, is the largest living history museum in New York State, and maintains the third largest collection of historic buildings in the United States.

First announced this past February, the Intrepid project has captured the imagination of families, educators, historians and aviation enthusiasts across North America. Renowned documentary filmmaker Ken Burns, adventure balloonist and Virgin Group Chairman Sir Richard Branson, and the Smithsonian Institution National Air and Space Museum’s senior curator of Aeronautics, Tom D. Crouch, Ph.D., have praised the reconstruction.

“The Intrepid was the predecessor to modern-day military aviation, foreshadowing the future of military reconnaissance communications,” said Peter Arnold, GCV&M’s CEO and president. “The pilot would send intelligence information – troop movements, artillery compensation instructions, and more – to soldiers on the ground via telegraph. It was a remarkably innovative concept at the time.”

Conceived by Professor Thaddeus Lowe, the Union Army Balloon Corps was personally approved by President Abraham Lincoln in June 1861. Like the genuine seven gas balloons used during the Civil War, the Intrepid is tethered to land for optimal convenience and safety.

GCV&M’s Intrepid utilizes helium instead of hydrogen, which was easily generated in the 1860s using iron filings and acid. A generous donation from Macy’s, Inc. during the current nationwide helium shortage allowed the project to carry forward on schedule.

Fifteen-minute flights cost $10 for GCV&M members or $15 for non-members in addition to standard Museum admission rates. Tickets are available on-site, and cannot be pre-ordered due to weather-dependent flight scheduling.

In addition to the balloon, GCV&M has constructed a permanent Civil War encampment at the launch site, which is open to all Museum guests.

A team of prominent advisors is assisting with the project, including Dr. Crouch; Jim Green, director, Planetary Science Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and Rob Shenk, director, Internet Strategy & Development, Civil War Trust. The Intrepid was built by AeroBalloon Inc. of Hingham, Mass., and painted by illustrator Todd Price of Elk Creek, Va.

Malcolm Spaull, chair of Rochester Institute of Technology’s School of Film and Animation, is shooting a documentary about the project. The film is expected to air on PBS later this year.

The initiative’s total estimated cost of nearly $400,000 has been partially offset by a number of generous donations. GCV&M will continue to seek additional financial support for the project.

For more information, visit www.gcv.org, call 585-538-6822 or follow the museum on Twitter at @GCVMuseum.

# # #

About Genesee Country Village & Museum

Genesee Country Village & Museum (www.gcv.org) helps visitors understand the lives and times of 19th-century America through interactive programs, events and exhibits. It is the largest and most comprehensive living history museum in New York State and maintains the third largest collection of historic buildings in the United States. The 700-acre complex consists of 68 historic structures furnished with 15,000 artifacts to provide an authentic 19th-century environment in which visitors can interact with knowledgeable, third-person historic interpreters in period-appropriate dress.

Media Contact:

Katie Corbut, McDougall Travers Collins for Genesee Country Village & Museum
kcorbut@mcdougalltc.com
phone: 585-210-9585 or 716-464-4713

Book Review of Spain and the American Civil War

Posted on June 26, 2012 by William Young

Wayne H. Bowen. Spain and the American Civil War. Shades of Blue and Gray Series. Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, 2011. ISBN 978-0-8262-1938-1. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. v, 188. $40.00.

Few historians of the American Civil War focus on the international history of the conflict. Most Civil War studies are about political and military leaders, military campaigns, and battles. By comparison there has been just a trickle of studies over the last fifty years devoted to the subject of diplomatic affairs. And, yet, most historians agree that foreign intervention, by way of mediation or military action, would have greatly influenced the outcome of the war.

There are several modern surveys of Union and Confederate diplomacy. These studies include Howard Jones’ recently published Blue and Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations (2010), Dean B. Mahin, One War at A Time: The International Dimensions of the American Civil War (1999), and the older David Paul Crook, The North, the South, and the Great Powers, 1861-1865 (1974) as well as his briefer version Diplomacy during the American Civil War (1976). Early Union diplomacy is examined in Norman B. Ferris, Desperate Diplomacy: William H. Seward’s Foreign Policy, 1861 (1976) and The Trent Affair: A Diplomatic Crisis (1977). Confederate diplomacy is covered in Frank L. Owsley’s classic King Cotton Diplomacy (1931) and the more recent Charles M. Hubbard, The Burden of Confederate Diplomacy (1998). Union relations with Britain are the focus of many studies, including Brian Jenkins’ two-volume Britain and the War for the Union (1974-80), Howard Jones, Union in Peril: The Crisis over British Intervention in the Civil War (1991), and Philip E. Myers, Caution and Cooperation: The American Civil War in British-American Relations (2008). French foreign policy concerning the American Civil War is examined in Lynn Marshall Case and Warren F. Spencer, The United States and France: Civil War Diplomacy (1970) and Daniel B. Carroll, Henri Mercier and the American Civil War (1971). French policy in Mexico is considered in Alfred Jackson Hanna and Kathryn Abbey Hanna’s Napoleon III and Mexico: American Triumph over Monarchy (1971) and Michele Cunningham’s revisionist study Mexico and the Foreign Policy of Napoleon III (2001). Little has been written on Spain’s involvement in the conflict other than James W. Cortada’s study Spain and the American Civil War: Relations at Mid-Century, 1855-1868 (1980).

Dr. Wayne H. Bowen, Professor and Chair of the Department of History at Southeast Missouri State University, delivers us the most recent diplomatic history of the American Civil War. In Spain and the American Civil War Professor Bowen explores Spanish foreign policy and Spain’s relations with the Union and Confederacy. He stresses that efforts by the Confederacy to attract support from Spain has received little attention by historians “despite the advantages to both states that mutual assistance could have brought” (p.5).

Bowen describes how Spain, under the leadership of Prime Minister Leopoldo O’Donnell (1856, 1858-63), a former general, was in the midst of a political, economic, and military revival in the late 1850s. O’Donnell was attempting to use the revived military and naval power of Spain to restore Spain’s prestige as a Great Power. Spain had lost most of its American possessions in the Spanish American Wars of Independence (1808-33). It had also survived two civil wars, the First Carlist War (1833-39) and Second Carlist War (1846-49) which challenged Queen Isabel II’s (1833-68) rule of Spain. All that was left of the once extensive Spanish Empire was Spain, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam. By the late 1850s, Spain’s military revival resulted in an active duty army of 115,000 troops with a reserve of another 85,000 men (p.38). Madrid was also rebuilding its naval fleet, which had 170 new ships in the 1860s. Most of these vessels were steamships with sails that were built in Britain, France, and the United States. By 1860, Spain was the 4^th largest naval power in the world in terms of firepower and displacement (p.47).

In the late 1850s and early 1860s, Spain was pursuing an aggressive foreign policy and flexing its muscles. Spain opted not to assist France and Britain in the Crimean War, but it sent six frigates and 1,000 troops from Manila to assist France in Cochin China in 1857. Then, in 1859-60, O’Donnell deployed 38,000 troops to northwest Africa to defeat Morocco. Next, in April 1861, the Spanish government sent 3,000 troops from Cuba to occupy Santo Domingo (the eastern half of the island of Hispaniola). Spain officially annexed the territory two months later, and increased the military strength in Santo Domingo to 20,000 troops by 1862. In 1861-62, during the first year of the American Civil War, Spain joined Britain and France in a punitive military expedition against Mexico, forcing the Benito Juárez government to make good on its international debts. The initial allied force consisted of 6,200 Spanish troops from Cuba, under the command of General Juan Prim y Prats, alongside 700 British and 2,000 French troops. Spanish and British forces withdrew from Mexico after a few months, although French troops stayed, and eventually took Mexico City and established the Mexican Empire.

Bowen believes that the Confederate States of America and Spain were “natural allies.” He expounds that Spain was a more likely ally for the South than Britain or France. Spain had kept slavery in its Caribbean territories while Britain rejected slavery in 1833 and France in 1848. Spain and the United States had poor relations dating back to the American support for Spanish American Wars of Independence in the early nineteenth century. The Monroe Doctrine (1823) was aimed at preventing Spain from reclaiming lost Latin American states. Spain feared American expansionism, as well as US efforts to dominate Latin America and seize Spain’s remaining colonies of Cuba and Puerto Rico. The Spanish government was pleased to see the breakup and weakening of the United States in 1861. Some of the Spanish elite, including Queen Isabel II, Prime Minister O’Donnell, aristocrats, and military leaders, were sympathetic to the Southern cause. Spanish plantation owners in Cuba and business leaders identified with and supported the South. Spanish newspapers cheered Confederate battlefield victories. Spanish seaports in Cuba and Puerto Rico provided safe harbor for Confederate smugglers and blockade runners.

The Confederate States of America looked to Britain, France, and Spain to gain diplomatic recognition and possibly intervention during the American Civil War. Spain, like Britain and France, declared neutrality in the American struggle, but gave belligerent rights to the South in June 1861.

Why wouldn’t Spain openly side with the South? First, Madrid refused to grant diplomatic recognition and establish an alliance with the Confederate States unless Britain and France took the first step (p.75). Spain, despite its growing economic and military strength, was too weak to take unilateral action against the North in support of the South. Madrid would need to reply on much superior British and French economic, military, and political power. As Bowen writes: “Defeating Morocco alone was one thing, taking on the United States, even as an ally of the Confederacy, was a task beyond the capacity of Spain in 1861” (p.60). Spain, depending on French and British leadership in foreign policy, would take a wait-and-see approach. Secondly, the author points out that there was mistrust between the Confederacy and Spain throughout the American Civil War. Spanish leaders realized that the primary arguments for United States acquisition of Cuba in the 1850s had come from Southern politicians, the same men that were in charge of the Confederate government in the 1860s. Southern politicians had frequently mentioned that “after the South broke from the Union, Cuba, Mexico, and Central America would naturally join or be joined to the new Confederacy as slave states . . .” (p.71). As such, Spain, not trusting the South, kept its newest naval ships and best army regiments stationed in Cuba (p.76). Third, Madrid had overstretched its military and naval resources, especially with the occupation of Santo Domingo. An insurgency against Spanish rule in Santo Domingo broke out in 1862-63, and Spain had to keep 25,000 troops there fighting a costly guerrilla war for the next three years (p.99). The conflict, the most important issue in Spanish foreign policy at the time, led to the downfall of the O’Donnell government. And, finally, Union naval power and military strength, especially after 1862-63, deterred Spain from openly siding with the Confederacy. The United States Navy could deploy a couple of ironclad warships and destroy Havana (p.118).

By late 1863, the Confederate States had lost realistic hope of European intervention in the American conflict. The South shifted its primary diplomatic efforts from Britain to Emperor Napoleon III of France. But, France, like Spain, was tied down in a conflict, the Franco-Mexican War (1861-67) and had other diplomatic concerns in the Polish Uprising (1863-64) and Schleswig-Holstein Crisis (1863-64). Moreover, United States naval and military strength, along with battlefield victories in 1863 and afterwards, allowed the North to make diplomatic threats against France and Spain that needed to be and were taken seriously.

In Spain and the American Civil War Professor Bowen provides a much needed examination of Spanish foreign policy during the American crisis. Most diplomatic studies of the American Civil War ignore Spain and its influence in the Caribbean Region. The author stresses the mid-century revival of Spanish power and how Madrid became strategically overextended while trying to regain influence as a Great Power. In doing so, he shows that Spain would have been of limited assistance to the South unless Britain and/or France diplomatically recognized and allied with the Confederate States. This is an interesting study and should be on the reading list of every student and scholar interested in the American Civil War and international diplomacy in the mid-nineteenth century. It is based on both primary and secondary sources.

Dr. William Young
University of North Dakota

Webinar on the Seven Days Battles

Posted on June 16, 2012 by Daniel Sauerwein

Today (Saturday, June 16), from 9am-noon (since it is in Massachusetts, I am assuming it is Eastern Time) the American College of History and Legal Studies will be live-streaming a round table discussion on the Seven Days Battles. It will be led by our founding dean, Civil War Historian and Pulitzer prize nominee Michael Chesson.

You can either check it out via this link, or through the embed provided below.

http://www.ustream.tv/embed/11285871

Streaming Live by Ustream

Below is to participate in the chat:

http://www.ustream.tv/socialstream/11285871

More information is available here.

Apologies on the short notice, but I did not find out about this until two days ago and have been busy packing and traveling to Illinois to visit my folks, but I hope some of you are able to take in this interesting event.

Bringing the Civil War to Ellen Hopkins Elementary School

Posted on May 18, 2012 by Daniel Sauerwein

On Wednesday, May 16, members of the 5th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry (Joe Camisa, Stuart Lawrence, Den Bolda, and I), also known as the Fort Abercrombie Garrison, brought some of our gear and presented on the Civil War to an eager group of fifth grade students at Ellen Hopkins Elementary School in Moorhead, MN. Special thanks to Mrs. Cheri Puetz for allowing us the opportunity to come and talk with her students. It was a beautiful day and we were situated in the shade. We set up a tent, as well as our colors, and a small ground cloth with some soldier equipment on display. We also dressed and wore some of our gear. It was a lot of fun and we had kids from the lower grades coming up to us and asking us questions for an hour after school let out, which was really awesome. They were really excited by our stuff and if we did not need to return to Grand Forks so soon, we would have stayed longer. There were some good questions posed and the students came away with a great introduction to their study on the war. Below are photos taken from that day, courtesy of Mrs. Puetz.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Fun on St. Patrick’s Day

Posted on March 19, 2012 by Daniel Sauerwein

On Saturday (St. Patrick’s Day), several of us in the 5th Minnesota, Company D, also known as the Fort Abercrombie Garrison, participated in the Fargo (ND) St. Patrick’s Day Parade. It was a great time, as the weather was very nice, with the high in the low 70s, which for those of you not from the Dakotas is quite warm for March (usually we are dealing with snow still on the ground in some way and have had storms adding to the pack). Stuart and I drove down to rendezvous with our colleague Joe Camisa, who is in graduate school with us at UND and then on to meet up with the rest of the crew. Joe was quite a trooper, as he had driven all night from central Michigan and still managed to march with us.

The crowd was quite big and we marched behind the pipe and drum band, which was cool, especially when they played “The Minstrel Boy”, as we were “technically” going to portray the Irish Brigade (we’ll do that next time). We did a great job keeping our line tight at shoulder to shoulder and were able to keep in step most of the time. This was my first parade as a reenactor, but I participated in marching band in high school, so I am versed in marching for a parade. It was a good time and I look forward to doing this in the future. Below are some great pictures from the day (thanks to all who were able to take pictures).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Happy Birthday, Mr. Lincoln

Posted on February 12, 2012 by Daniel Sauerwein

Though it is almost the end of the day, February 12 is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. Though opinions on him range quite a bit, depending on one’s views on the war, it cannot be denied that he was one of our greatest presidents, facing a daunting challenge and seeing the nation through our bloodiest war, only to be cut down by an assassin’s bullet within days of the war’s conclusion (at least for the most part). The interest and scholarship recently blossomed on his 200th birthday in 2009, but there are still many who are interested in the life and accomplishments of this man from Illinois. In any event, Happy Birthday, Mr. Lincoln.

Update to Texas Confederate license plate controversy

Posted on November 29, 2011 by Daniel Sauerwein

Thanks to some of my intrepid readers, who followed up on this story and commented to my earlier post on the controversial proposed SCV license plate in the Lone Star State. Initial stories on the situation indicated opposition to the plate by prominent Democratic politicians in the state, which led me to believe that there might be more to this than moral opposition to the Confederate flag and Confederacy.

However, I learned from one commenter (hat tip to David Woodbury, blogger at of Battlefields and Bibliophiles) that Gov. Rick Perry expressed opposition to the plate as well. This definitely changed the situation for the future of the proposal, as he holds great sway in the state and on the commission that determined its fate, which contained several Perry appointees. This held true, as the commission rejected the plate proposal, choosing instead to honor the Buffalo Soldiers National Museum, which is certainly an institution and group of soldiers worth honoring with a license plate. However, this issue is likely not dead, as SCV will likely sue to have the plates issued. The group has successfully litigated in other southern states before on the plate issue.

My thoughts on this would be for the commission to communicate to the SCV the option for a Civil War license plate that is neutral, commemorating appropriately the 150th anniversary of the war with the silhouette of a soldier and the wording of the anniversary and the war. It would allow citizens to take their own meaning from the plate and the proceeds could be directed to preservation of Civil War related items and land, which would hopefully satisfy the SCV.

Thoughts on the Texas Confederate license plate controversy

Posted on October 26, 2011 by Daniel Sauerwein

Recently, several legislators in Texas came out against a proposed license plate in Texas designed to denote a member of Sons of Confederate Veterans.Their opposition revolves around the organizational logo of SCV, which features the battle flag, and is used in the plate design. Keep in mind that our modern conception of the Confederate flag is actually the naval jack (you can see this in a 19th century engraving of the CSS Albemarle from the US Navy’s history website on Confederate vessels).

The SCV states that the proceeds from the plates will go to marking Confederate soldier graves, build monuments, and preserve artifacts. Texas considered the idea as we are beginning the 150th anniversary of the war, but the board that approves plate designs is deadlocked in a 4-4 tie, with another vote coming on Nov. 10. Several other states in the South have such plates and while attempts have been made to stop them, SCV has successfully sued and received approval.

Now, as a descendant of a Union veteran and a member of Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War (SUVCW), I am wondering how many states now have or would adopt plates for our organization, as I would like to have one. I have no real problem with an SCV plate, so long as it is done in good taste, which looking at the design seems so. While Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee calls the flag a “symbol of intimidation”, it is an object and is only intimidating if used in that way and allowed to be intimidating. I do find it interesting that those speaking out against the plates seem to be only Democrats. What are their motivations for opposition beyond political disagreement?

While some aspects of the SCV do annoy me, they have the right to be recognized and share pride in their organization. I seriously doubt that too many people are going to pay that close of attention to an SCV license plate, as they should be focusing on the road. I hope other states will consider adopting some sort of commemorative plate for the 150th anniversary. What are your thoughts on this?