News and Notes, June 13, 2012

You might find something interesting here.  Then again, maybe not.

  • Several news outlets announced an effort to identify several children whose images were recovered from Civil War battlefield dead.
  • I understand the need for a catchy phrase, but to call David Ross Locke the Stephen Colbert of the Civil War (and Reconstruction) tends to misunderstand Locke’s brand of political humor.  Set aside this awkward comparison and learn more about Locke.
  • Alonzo Cushing deserved the Medal of Honor, and he might just get it after all.
  • Seems there’s been a call to denounce “Confederate Flag porno blogging,” whatever that is; failure to do so, we are told, means “Silence Equals Consent.”  So this is evidence that I haven’t been silent (I have no idea what this is about).  I haven’t seen “Confederate Flag porno blogging” denounced by the Virginia Flaggers (see this FB group), so I guess they are expressing consent.  I’m afraid to ask why certain folks are so excited by this “issue.”  Maybe they’re interested in new images for their ever-changing cover art.  The same blogger insists that the Virginia Flaggers are achieving great things, only we don’t know about them.  I’d say they are well-kept secrets.   Of course, this is the same person who has already testified about the ineffectiveness of Confederate heritage groups.  The war within continues.
  • This story about the recovery of a dead body at Waterloo is fascinating in its own right, but I found equally interesting the news that at Waterloo, as at Gettysburg, efforts are being made to restore the field to its original condition, and that involves removing various intrusions, such as restaurants and parking lots.

4 thoughts on “News and Notes, June 13, 2012

  1. Cushing had the misfortune to actually get himself killed while performing “above and beyond”. Until the 20th century most awards were made to recipients who survived combat. If Alonzo had been around to lobby, we wouldn’t be dealing with this in 2012. Better late than never, though.

    • I don’t see what makes the characterization “repulsive,” although I have to admit I haven’t read much of Locke’s work. The Disunion piece certainly made the case; they were/are both comedic social commentators who used the persona of an outspoken conservative to advance liberal causes. I must be dumb because yet another instance in which your conclusions and apparent outrage leave me shaking my head. As someone who is apparently well-versed in Locke’s writings, what specifically makes the piece “repulsive?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s