Vicksburg, 1863: 'Women lined the streets and told the dejected soldiers 'Shame on you!'
June 11th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
One of the annoying things you'll sometimes hear feminists say is that "war is caused by men." In reality, women have always supported war (and fallen for the lies that lead to them) just as much as men have.
Women expect their men to be brave and to fight, and have contempt for them if they don't. If young women decided tomorrow that they would give their love to young men who are pacifists, and withhold their love from young men who are soldiers, war would rapidly become extinct.
I'm certainly not blaming women for war as feminists blame men for war--what I'm saying is that wars happen because societies support them, and that support comes as much from women as from men.
Phil, a reader, recently sent me an example of this from the siege of Vicksburg (pictured) in 1863. He writes:
When the Confederate army that had been defeated at the battles of Champions Hill and Black River retreated into the fortifications of Vicksburg, they were greeted by scornful women. The ladies told the common soldiers that they should be ashamed to have been beaten by the Yankee army.
In Winston Groom's new book Vicksburg: 1863, Winston Groom writes:
Vicksburg's women lined the streets and asked the dejected soldiers, 'What can be the matter? Where on earth are you going,' and 'shame on you!' When the men responded that 'it is all General Pemberton's fault,' the women told them, 'It's all your own fault. Why don't you stand your ground? Shame on you all!'
The women fixed the soldiers dinner anyway for, like Mary Loughborough, they could see that 'they did seem heartily ashamed of themselves. And where these weary worn out men were going we could not tell. I think they did not know themselves.'
Nice ladies.
By the way, my second paragraph above also applies to modern day inner-city gang battles.
I discussed this general subject at length a long time ago in my column Dr. Helen Caldicott Spits on My Grandfather.
"));
19 queries. 0.339 seconds.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
There is a longstanding tradition for this sort of thing. For instance, in Britain during WWI, you had the ignoble the White Feather movement, led by the suffragettes E. Sylvia and Christabel Pankhurst (mother and daughter) in cooperation with the same military establishment they formerly professed to despise. Thus, young females would approach any fighting-age male wearing civilian clothes in public, handing them white feathers and trying to shame them into enlisting to defend "liberated" British and Belgian women from the oh so beastly patriarchal Teutons. Soldiers on leave from the carnage, and occasionally underage lads of 14-15, would also receive this treatment. There were similar movements in other warring countries.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I this sounds mean but if a woman ever tried to shame me after I returned from war I would ever so gently invite her to go with me next time to show me how to act after witnessing and causing such horrible acts of carnage. There is no way in hell I would put up with a woman that didn't go into combat trying to make me feel ashamed after watching friends die, killing people (the Yankees were still human too you know), and listening to the screams of men who were badly injured but not quite bad enough to die quickly. But the sad thing here is that this practice of women shaming men coming home from a losing battle is a good way to expose a good bit of hypocrisy among women (especially women's advocates).
Why is it that people try to hold today's men responsible for a Confederate soldier that abused his wife but no one tries to hold that wife responsible for booing and shaming Confederate soldiers coming home from suffering a loss.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Fast forward to "An Officer and A Gentleman" and the meta-meme is the same, with the washout cadet being repudiated by his gold-digging, lying (about being pregnant) fiancee and committing suicide, while the triumphant warrior publicly claims his woman as his prize- literally carrying her off. Oh my, I think I'm gonna swoon!
June 11th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Recent history.
Last week here in Peru there was a battle in the hIghlands over oil money. The government claim they own the oil in the ground. Highland people claim the same.
Of the roughly 2,500 people that showed up at the fight, many were women. 22 police officers died. 84 citizens died. All men.
On television report (which are totally non-feminists here), I saw a woman screaming at the camera, "This is our land! This is our land!". Waving her arms in protest.
Women even helped seize an airport.
"Meanwhile, about 30 Achuar Indians — including women and children — took over the tarmac of the small Trompetero airport Sunday in the neighboring jungle state of Loreto. The airport is used by Pluspetrol, an Argentine oil company, according to a Pluspetrol official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to the news media."
Feminists claim men are to blame for wars between countries because it is convenient, as for the last 10,000 years not one country was established and governed by women - let alone two countries.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Women did not carry weapons in the Peru fight, but they were not innocent.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
SerenityNow, An Officer and a Gentleman is one of my favorite films. The film's moral was deliberately to show that golddigging women in the film got her comeuppance and the Debra Winger noble heroine was carried away in the end precisely because she didn't pressure Richard Gere to marry her AND dated him despite being the illegitimate child of a soldier. Richard's Gere "prize" wasn't Debra Winger. It was him overcoming his previous personal hardships to make it through basic training. (What doesn't make sense is that he had to have gone through ROTC in college so theoretically he couldn't have been the washout they were portraying.)
The film was pro-male in many ways (going through hardship and taking personal responsibility) AND set a good role model for women (don't golddig, treat men with respect and they'll come back to you.)
June 11th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Excellent article Glenn and you did a great job articulating your point.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
May I also ad please that war is a consequence of sin. Jesus Christ said love your neighbor not make war with him, so war is not the message that the Messiah was wanting but love and forgiveness out of peoples hearts.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I suspect we can blame women for birth to unhealthy or defective babies. It's their body.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Yes women are behind many wars in human history, small village wars to full scale national. Research will show anyone this. They used peer pressure as well as influence to hubby back at home.
It's interesting how feminist society loves to say "Behind every great man...is an even greater woman."
This of course invalidates what the man has accomplished, giving the credit to the woman instead.
But...do you ever hear anyone say "Behind every inhumane tyrant man...is an even more evil woman"?
The message is clear...When a man accomplishes good, positive things...it's only because there's an even better woman behind him.
But when a man does evil such as start an unjust war...no woman is mentioned.
Hmmm.
Have you ever heard a feminist say "Behind every great woman...is an even greater man?" Will you ever?
June 11th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
PK- I meant that Sid was the washout, not Zack. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I note that the movie did not end with Zack's graduation and well-earned salute from Foley (which it easily could have), but rather the scene where he carries Pamela away.
June 11th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
If you watch newsreels of Hitler parading in his car in the Thirties, you can celarly see throngs of women as well as men fawning all over him. In fact in some shots, the women look exactly like when the Beattles would arrive at the airport and the fans went hysterical and tried to touch their hero. German women backed the war effort of their fatherland the same way as the men (within the limits that were imposed at the time), have no illusions and were fawning over der Fuhrer as long as the war was going their way. Today we celebrate the women's contribution to the Allied victory as much as the men's, and rightly so. But feminism has tried, and failed, to make nazism and Germany's war seem like something German women opposed and had no part of...Of course, they could not explained Ravensbruck away...
June 11th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
According to Goebbels, it would typically be the woman in the household that first converted to Nazism; then the children; and finally, when everybody else in the family had been swayed, the man.
June 11th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Five of my family members served from WW2 to Iraq. I've seen first hand what war can do to any human even if they are not physically injured.
mental illness
Its a shame how these people talk badly to our soldiers.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Norseman, can you please cite that?
I want to use that in an essay at some point.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Norseman Says: "According to Goebbels, it would typically be the woman in the household that first converted to Nazism; then finally... the man."
Interesting, the same is said about religion. Mormon or Jehovah's Witness or Catholic, they all note that it's most commonly the woman who takes interest first, with opposition from the husband, then ultimately the husband converting and becoming a member.
This is noted by religions because they recruit people and they want to know the best avenues to use in doing so. Which is almost invariably the wife.
Husbands in fact, are quite influenced by their wife's choices in areas of religion and political.
Personally I believe in a creator or "God", just not into the books or religious groups.
Just noting here that we see the same situations with men/women in religion as we do in politics, namely, women's influence in the household on hubby's beliefs.
Which ultimately points back to the nature of Glenn's point, that women do have the potential to influence men when it comes to war.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Great job Glenn.
76% of women supported the U.S. intervention in the Gulf War.
Women have also been active participants in war. E.g., in the Rwanda genocide, Hutu women played a major role in killing Tutsi men.
“Women of every social category took part in the killings. ... Some women killed with their own hands. ... Women and girls in their teens joined the crowds that surrounded churches, hospitals and other places of refuge. Wielding machetes and nail-studded clubs, they excelled as "cheerleaders" of the genocide, ululating the killers into action.”
African Rights report, Rwanda - Not So Innocent: When Women Become Killers, August 1995.) http://www.gendercide.org/case_rwanda.html
June 11th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Zammo: Just look up "White feather" on Wikipedia. It's got a decent article.
I find it abhorrent that anyone could ridicule a person who's fought in war that hasn't been there themselves. Those of us who are home during the fighting, what do we know of the horrors? Only what we are told and shown through the media. We'll never experience the trauma, physical or mental, that comes with fighting for your very life because the politicians told you that the people you're killing are bad.
Vietnam is another perfect example of veterans returning, only to be ridiculed. All because they fought a war that others didn't believe in. At times I am grateful my grandfather never had to face that. But I'm still very proud of what he achieved in Vietnam. He was awarded a Bronze Star (with "V" device) and a Silver Star. He was a member of the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam (AATTV), and from what I understand, he was very well respected.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
look up video of hillary clinton supporting the war....until the political winds changed and they realized supporting the war would not help them politically.....then for 7 years liberal democrats and media...attacked and complained...and after 7 years of it....got obama voted in......see complaining works....mens groups should try it...and we have real facts to back up our complaining.....feminists and liberal democrats really don;t care about facts too much...they just enjoy political corectness, playing on emotions, and whether we our liked around the world
June 11th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
"Interesting, the same is said about religion. Mormon or Jehovah's Witness or Catholic, they all note that it's most commonly the woman who takes interest first, with opposition from the husband, then ultimately the husband converting and becoming a member."
That's funny, because my understanding is that for Evangelicals, the opposite holds true. If mom is saved, rarely does the rest of the family follow. But if dad becomes a Believer, something like 80% of the time he brings his family to Christ shortly after.
Not trying to start a holy war here, just challenging contrary data.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
There would be no wars if women were the ones who had to fight them.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Jamie - Sorry...defective babies are men's fault...it's all about defective sperm:
http://www.examiner.com/x-5845-Single-Parenting-Examiner~y2009m5d29-Buyer-beware-Human-sperm-subject-to-product-liability-laws
~~~Don't jump on me...that was sarcasm! I think this lawsuit is ludicrous but thought y'all would get a kick out of it in a masochistic sort of way. I think if you use an anonymous sperm donor you take your chances. And I can't imagine ever saying that my child is defective...no matter what difficulties they may have, they are perfect blessings to me.~~~
June 12th, 2009 at 12:50 am
[...] When the Confederate army that had been defeated at the battles of Champions Hill and Black River retreated into the fortifications of Vicksburg, they were greeted by scornful women. The ladies told the common soldiers that they should be ashamed to have been beaten by the Yankee army. [...]
June 12th, 2009 at 9:17 am
12
Louis Says:
June 11th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
If you watch newsreels of Hitler parading in his car in the Thirties, you can celarly see throngs of women as well as men fawning all over him. In fact in some shots, the women look exactly like when the Beattles would arrive at the airport and the fans went hysterical,
----
I've heard a lot of those "swooning beatle fans" shots were staged with people paid to behave that way.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:23 am
SerenityNow and PK at the movies! One Thumb Up, One Down!
SerenityNow says: "I note that the movie did not end with Zack's graduation and well-earned salute from Foley (which it easily could have), but rather the scene where he carries Pamela away."
PK responds: Noted. I would also note that ending is one of the classic movie endings in American cinema. Strangely enough, it's similar to another ending for the film "Pretty Woman" with a similar redemption theme where Gere rides up in a limo with opera blaring and flowers in his hands. I remember reading that video was one of the all time rentals to the unmarried woman demographic.
I remember reading an amazon movie review of the film Casino where a fan asked whether it was really necessarily to have Sharon Stone's character in the film and if she was a distraction. I personally think she stole the show in addition to helping make the film accessable to a female audience. It also ties into this forum: We can't talk about men's rights and issues in a vacuum. Women are part of our lives and it's useful to remember that. Otherwise, Officer and a Gentleman would have been just another basic training film (albeit a good one.) The romances of both men (the washout, and the graduate) adds a dimension that had been previously unaddressed by basic training films such as the hooker plot device where the boy comes of age and moves on.
On the other hand... A Few Good Men was a fantastic thought-provoking film about military justice (or the lack of it) and succeeded without a romance. Demi Moore's character was largely a plot device to push Cruise's character to take an impossible underdog case to trial. She could have just as easily been a man. Perhaps what made this film memoriable and a good date movie was the fantastic plot and the tension between Cruise and Nicholson. The last great military justice film I recall was The Caine Mutiny and women were almost entirely absent from that film.
I was just thinking what had largely been not explored was the difficulties military men face after basic training and outside of war. There's a series on some romance channel called "Military wives" that attempts to fill that gap, but the stories I heard from active duty and retired soldiers are far more eye opening than the stuff I've seen in the films or TV so far. (But they're so unbelievable that it's difficult to make them plausable for the screen.)
June 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Elusive Wapiti Says: "That's funny, because my understanding is that for Evangelicals, the opposite holds true. If mom is saved, rarely does the rest of the family follow. But if dad becomes a Believer, something like 80% of the time he brings his family to Christ shortly after."
Yes it is interesting. My data comes from spending my 20's exploring religions by joining them, going to the churches and becoming all but a member. Church of Christ, Catholic, Methodist, J's Witness, Mormon, Assembly of God...I went to every church I could find in my 20's. I was searching for "truth" and ultimately decided the truth was inside of me and my own intuition was sufficient in deciding there was a God.
The single most common theme in sermons regarding recruitment, was the wife's "example" to the husband and it's common ending in the husband converting.
I don't want a "holy war" either (laughs)...but you have me curious. What is your source of data that it's usually the husband who converts the family? I'm sure there are a number of different marketing/recruitment scams by evangelists out there...
Also, there are a number of scriptures in the Bible that state the wife's common ability to convert the husband by her "godly example" and so on.
That's where I'm coming from on my above statements, the Bible and the hundreds of sermons I listened to in my 20's.
June 12th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Glenn,
Are you saying women should choose namby-pamby pacifists instead of the daring warriors? Unless you turn human evolution and ground realities of this world around, that is a pipe dream. (I know you were just saying that and you weren't actually suggesting that women choose differently.)
Women today, yesterday and days before that had no reason to avoid wars - although once it gets underway and bodybags start coming home, most of them generously consider war to be a bad thing. But till then, they are fully confident, that they themselves - as women - are not going to be directly affected by war. This is why, women do not take much interest in foreign policy politics (except libertarian women like Ms. McElroy), but when it comes to abortion/pro-choice issues, they are all ears!
Like someone said before, if you really want to end wars - send women as soldiers to fight them. The natural chivalry along with generally higher value placed on women's lives will get people to place of sanity much easily. Even better, abolish tax-funded standing armies, instead allowing fully voluntary militias to fight in defensive wars. (self-funded armies usually keep aggression to a minimum, because they have to foot the bills and the boots)
June 14th, 2009 at 11:42 am
"By the way, my second paragraph above also applies to modern day inner-city gang battles" Glenn you are dead on.