*
There is a classic book, Eric Sloane’s ‘An Age of Barns’, that discusses this. It is hand illustrated (Sloane was an artist of international fame on three subjects:Aircraft, the sky, and Early Americana, Farm Buildings in particular.) He shows illustrations of where the trees were placed, turned upside down when the roof went on, and found there hundreds of years later. I would do it as a gesture of thanks and respect. Respect for all those who went before us in building our great nation, and thanks for still having the basic freedoms. Regards, Buck.
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Skim-coating with joint compound covers texture, renews old drywall and plaster, and leaves smooth surfaces ready to paint.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
*
We have yet to recover from said visit!
*General Gordon, for whom Fort Gordon in Georgia is named, was commanding the Confederate forces. General Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Professor of Bowdoin College in Maine, hero of Little Round Top at Gettysburg, later President of Bowdoin College, and several term Governor of Maine, was in charge of receiving the surrender for the Union. When he brought the Union troops to Present Arms, General Gordon, who had been the picture of defeat, came alive as a soldier, returned the salute, and took command of his men. I quarrel with the terms. All should have been allowed to keep one weapon, each should have been handed some US Currency as Muster Pay, and all should have been provisioned for the march home. Buck
*
Nicely written. Interesting: being a civil war, the generals all trained together at West Point! It seems that the South got all the best generals, if not the best cause.
*As for the custom of placing a tree after framing, is it not ironic that in order to pay homage to the "tree spirit" we kill yet another tree for purely decorative purposes? As for the quality of Generals in the civil war, the Generals in the South, for the most part, rose to their positions through proven leadership. The North, however, had many that were political appointees. Fairly clueless in strategic and tactical maneuvering, tea-sipping, powdered and perfumed idiots. They were the ones who floundered miserably. Eventually "real" leaders were recognized and were given charge. Just in time. My opinion.
*Many strange and disappointing things happened in the Northern army's command. The war should have been won by the North, and over at Antietam. Gen. McClellan should have gone across the river, gave a short chase to Lee, and wiped out the Southern army right there on the spot. Lee was severely outnumbered, his men too weary to fight, and he was desparate, and nervous. He thought for sure McClellan would come across the river. McClellan didn't follow. When his own officers asked why he didn't pursue, he gave no reasonable response other than "his army needed rest". This really pissed off Abe Lincoln to no end.Now I say all of this as a true Southerner, and with great Southern pride. If McClellan had done his job, and ended the war right then and there, many tens of thousands of men would not have died later in the rest of the war.What I really want to know is this: If all of the Generals (and other officers) all went to West Point, and were all taught the same classes on warfare and strategy, how could one army be decisive over the other? Shouldn't each army know and anticipate what the other was going to do? I would've thrown out all the West Point lessons and fought like a crazy man. Do what they would least expect, and when they would least expect it. Neither side did this. They fought textbook battles, with textbook strategies. Only an idiot couldn't have figured out what they were doing. One thing I did find quite interesting about how uneducated and how the lack of real communication back then spurred rumors and half truths... there was a regiment from Texas fighting for the South. Whenever they would rush into a skirmish, or into battle, they would yell "Remember the Alamo". Some of the uneducated, uninformed Northern soldiers actually thought these guys had fought at the Alamo (even though the Alamo was about 27 years or so before this). Rumors had spread through their ranks, and they did not know the difference (plus the battles probably scared the heck out of them, and kept them on edge anyway). These soldiers thought that these Texans had fought at the Alamo, and had managed somehow to survive. Now they were here fighting them. It scared them enough that the Northern soldiers would take off in the opposite direction screaming bloody murder. (These accounts were documented by numerous reporters during the Civil War. Their writings are on display at the Smithsonian Inst.)Just my thoughts...James DuHamel
*I tend more towards political and social history than military, but my basic impression is that the North repeatedly tried to overcome the enemy by its sheer might, while the South used its limited forces more efficiently, emphasizing speed and strategy. Lincoln fancied himself a bit of a military strategist, too, and if he hadn't he might have been quicker to replace loser generals than to prop them up.Union casualties were staggering, just stunning given all the advantages they had. The South, seeing the war as a fight for survival on its home turf, probably also had a much higher quality of recruits; in the North, there was a lot of indifference about the war and people did anything to escape the draft -- and for a few bucks you could. Stonewall Jackson probably would have caused a lot more of this blitz-type damage if not for his, er, unfortunate accident.
*Slots to West Point were then, and remain today, political appointments. Since the early 20th century, however, it is more of a hardcore military place than the gentleman's education that it used to be. It is still, as you point out, ironic that with the essentially the same education, performance in the field can be quite varied.Goes along not only with what I saw during my time in service, but also in life. We all process info, all react differently. Some can be decisive regardless of risk, some fear the responsibility of risk and choose the shelter of the safe bet.I'm not even close to knowing all about the Civil War. I have minimal general knowledge at best. It is quite frustrating, however, to view the overall campaign (monday morning quarterback!) and realize what possibly could have been had "difficult" decisions been made. Not just decisions that seem obvious looking back today, but decisions that seemed obvious to the players at that time as well. Fear of failure is often one of the biggest causes of failure.
*James,The war should have been over at Bull Run with the south taking washington. But Lee didnt want to attack the North only to defend the South. Boy did we get a little sidetracked.Rick Tuk
*It's not chess -- taking Washington wouldn't have been the end of it any more that the north taking Richmond. In fact, Washington is to this day up for grabs, if anyone wants it.* "Many of the stories about Lincoln in the Civil War period center about his impatience with dilatory tactics of the Union General George B. McClellan. Watchful waiting was the keystone of McClellan's policy. At one point President Lincoln became so impatient with him that he dispatched him the following note: "My dear McClellan: If you don't want to use the Army, I should like to borrow it for a while. Yours respectfully, Abraham Lincoln."* "One of the earliest legends about Abraham Lincoln is an episode that occurred in 1832, when he was the newly appointed captain of the Bucktail Rangers. His troop, marching in platoons, was confronted by fence with a gate that was tightly locked. Captain Lincoln had no idea of the proper order, but his wit did not desert him. "The company is dismissed for two minutes," he ordered. "Then it will fall in on the other side of the fence." From The Pocket Book of War Humor, edited by Bennett Cerf, 1944.(came across these in a Web search for some reason ... I've often heard the first one)
*Lee was not at the first battle of Manassas(bull run to you northerners) in command of the southern forces were J. Johston and P.T.G. Beauregard July 21 1861. Lee didn't take command till J.Johston was wounded at the battle of fair oaks June 1, 1862. "It is well that war is so terrible- we should grow too found of it"R.E.Lee Dec 13, 1862. God bless the men in gray.Bill
*
Nominations to West Point (and the other four federal academies) are made by Members of the House of representatives, U.S. Senators, the Secretary of The Army (in the case of West Point), the Secretary of Defense (in the cases of West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy), The Vice President of the U.S, and the President of the U.S. There are also allowances for the Children of Deceased Veterans. ALL nominees must have the requisite academic background, SAT scores, and personal references. The must also pass a Physical Aptitude Test. Many, Many, MANY Nominees never see the academy. They are not qualified to attend. They do not attend. In many instances, qualified applicants come along that are interested and highly qualified, but do not have nominations. We (I'll explain that in a bit) got nominations for them from Congressmen who had open spaces at the Academy, but had no qualified applicants. Each Congressman has eight 'slots' at West Point, and those he doesn't fill are awarded to others who have qualified applicants. The academic requirements to enter West Point have been very rigid for well over a century, and are not getting any easier. Also, contrary to popular belief, only about ten percent of cadets are the children of career military officers. I was a Field Admissions Officer for West Point for four years. Buck
*The professional officer corps of the U.S. Army at the outbreak of the war was predominantly Southern. The professional NCO corps of the Army was largely Northern. Both were very small. The South was honeycombed with small private, state, and church run military academies. They churned out southern men who could handle a horse, a saber, and a firearm. (Those colleges were still there in the 1960's when I went on Active Duty in Georgia.) The North didn't have those resources. The officers were tested by fire. (Many got burned!) The South had more than its fair share of disasters. One good example being Dick "Baldy" Ewell at Gettysburg. (I served under his Grandson in Viet Nam. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree!) You can get a lot of Southerners exercised to this day, by suggesting that Joe Johnston (Sp?) should have had Lee's job. They'll swear that Jeff Davis lost them the war by favoring Lee. The short answer is that the South got most of the professionally trained officers, and a handful of brilliant ones in the right places: R.E. Lee, Nathan B. Forrest, Stonewall Jackson, John Bell Hood, A.P. Hill, JEB Stuart, etcetera.Buck
*You could say the same of Meade's unwillingness to pursue Lee after Gettysburg, and cut him off before he got to the Potomac. He just didn't do it. And he could have. The troops weren't so exhausted that it was impossible. But he didn't have what you and I have:20-20 hindsight. We look at the maps and say, "It was all there!" He looked across those fields, and saw fog. He imagined a half dozen traps that could be sprung on him. He was immobilized by his victory. The war went on for two more years.Reference "all" the officers being from West Point - They weren't they were from a lot of sources, and like human beings, most thought differently. Fighting like a crazy man and throwing away the book sounds like a great idea, except for the realities of finding the enemy on favorable ground, getting all the weapons, shot, shell, powder. food and water you need at the right place at the right time, and getting everybody reading of the same sheet of music. Otherwise - DISASTER! General Dan Sickles threw the book away at Gettysburg, ran his men down into the Peach Orchard and attacked. Isolated his unit, lost much of it, had to retreat through the Devil's Den under fire, and got his arm shot off. The things in the "textbooks" are there for a reason. For the most part, they work. The South fought almost the whole war on the defensive ( a numerical advantage in and of itself), and on interior lines. To get from Vicksburg to Charleston, they walked, rode, or took a train from Vicksburg to Charleston. The Union had to float all the way round the Confederacy to do the same thing. To shift troops from the Army of the West to the Army of the Potomac took months and miles. The South could do the same in a week or two. To win the War, the North had to conquer the South. To win the War, the South did not have to conquer the North, only keep the North at bay. The Numerical superiority and industrial might of the North finally won the war, we just had to find the generals who had the will to use it. Basically, they were Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan. Buck
*Pierre Gustave Toutaint (Sp ?) Beauregard saved the South's Bacon at First Bull Run. It started out as a Union sweep. He got some units straightened out and countered. For the Union, it turned into the Mannassas - D.C Marathon. Buck
*
Now Buck, I don't if speaking authoritatively is consistent with the ethic of the board!
2 questions: WHY was the rate of Northern casualties so mortifyingly high? (I suspect it has to do with being on the offensive.) (2) The touchy one: Were Lee, Jackson, and the others traitors or patriots? What do they say at West Point to the future officers?
*
They don't teach the civil war as traitors and patriots but as examples of leadership, from whichever quarter. Patriotism is encouraged through unit loyalty, rites and rituals, chain of command observance, articles of war and the geneva convention. RHIP, RHIR.
Chris
*
I'll take a slightly different tack on this thread, since it started out about old traditions regarding the use of wood and it is getting near halloween time. I had always wondered how it was that witches came to be pictured riding broomsticks. An obscure reference I ran accross may have helped me sort it out. Any additional elucidation would be appreciated.
WARNING: This post contains adult themes, a reference to witchcraft, and correct medical terminology...
It seems, not unlike some of the people I knew in Berkeley, witches in the times of the Druids were into drugs, particularly the "magic mushroom" varieties. When they got stoned on these, they actually believed that they had out-of-body experiences and the ability to fly through the air to do their witchcraft. The association with the broomstick is that these ladies found that they got a more rapid and intense high by applying the mushroom pieces directly to their cervix by placing them on the end of a broom handle which was inserted into the vagina and into contact with the cervix. Thus did the "flying on a broomstick" tradition arise...
*
We've always called it "topping out". Back east, even in the middle of Manhattan, when a new skyscraper gets its roof, the crew hoists a whole little pine tree to the top and celebrates. The tree is supposed to bring good luck or good fortune to the building's inhabitants, I think.
What I really need to know is the origin of this tradition. Is it German? Maybe Scandinavian? We'll be topping out our house (at last!) probably tomorrow and no one out here has ever heard of the pine tree thing. I'd like to explain (and properly celebrate!) Wasn't it originally accompanied by some sort of blessing (like the blessing of the fleet at the start of offshore fishing seasons?)
Anyone out there got any info?
*Is that a cow or a bull? (just call me Gringo) I guess it's a bull. Man, he doesn't look to have missed too many meals!!! Is his name "Brownie", (browniebig.jpg) or #19? I thought you wern't supposed to name em!?Sorry I didn't answer your question.PS: What type of floors did you decide to put in the "Rnach House"?
*I had just assumed that it came from the Druids (or maybe just the Celts) paying homage to the tree spirits that had dwelt in the trees that were cut down - sort of a peace offering so they wouldn't raise havoc with your house. But I guess I have no firm basis for that. Many early people believed in tree spirits and paid homage to them, so it could have been a part of many traditions. (That's probably why some of you guys are having trouble with your building - your not appeasing the woodspirits -woodsprites?- the correct way, you need to treat 'em right with a good old pagan ritual...)I thought maybe I could find something on the web, but either it is not there or I didn't guess the right descriptors. I did find lots of stuff on comtemporary pagans, witches, and wiccans (did you know that witches have a "witches anti-discrimination league?" ). Also found a page on gargoyles, grotesques, and chimeras (Always wanted one for my house, but I had always thought that gargoyles were the ones that spouted water and the others were called grotesques, but this site claims that the ones not spouting water are called "chimeras" which I thought was only those things with a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpents tail - not to be confused with a griffon, which has the head of an eagle and the body of a lion...)Anyway, your house probably needs a good gargoyle, so you can get some ideas at (probably better ones out there, but I'll search for them later):http://www.geocities.com/Nashville/9349/gargoyles.htmlor maybe carve yourself a good wood spirit like these done by these commercial carvers:http://www.pivot.net/~whitwood/drift.html and http://www.hopebc.com/peteryan/treespirits.html BTW, is "browniebig" PG, or do you really raise them that wide? (definitely time to set aside the keyboard and do some useful work...)
*TinaCasey hit it pretty close. An offering to the trees that gave there lives for your house, and an offering to their spirit that resides in it.Scott
*Tina,Could have been worse. You could have posted a picture of a sheep. Townies on the board think they're kept as sex toys. I seem to recall seeing an explanation of the Pine bough in one of my old timber framing books but I cant locate it. Nice looking cow. Reminds me of my old favorite, Red Sonia, a milking shorthorn.JonC
*Christmas, as I've heard it, was a PR move by late middle ages christians to draw in (pre-germanic?) pagans who were already used to winter solstice celebration featuring ... thus the tree spirit thing. It was not much of a christian holiday before that. Most of modern christmas "tradition" doesn't go back far at all -- notice how all the pictures and such are of Victorian Christmases -- nothing older. Not much to be sentimental about in late-20th century Christmas...
*Thanks for the info. I only had time last night to post the question and run (lots out four-legged mouths to feed), and all my tried-and-true oddball reference books are still back at former ranch in Calif. Thought it had a Druid/pagan origin...makes sense.And HER name is Brownie. She was very pregnant at the time of photo (a doublewide?) (delivered next day). Her origins are unknown, probably some Gelbvieh. Is now about 14 years old and pregnant again, such a good ol' girl, very tame, eats out of your hand. And yes, many of us do name our cows...seems to me it's easier to remember a name than a random number. Also helps keep track of bloodlines... e.g. Brownie's heifer calf is Cupcake. Heathbar's calves are named after candy bars (her latest is Lollipop because she was just a little sucker...). Milkshake's calves named after milk products/desserts. And then my line of Longhorns are all named after family members and their offspring...and so it goes.We have lots of pinion an juniper, so we'll cut a nice one and raise her today...thanks everyone.MATT G -- floors will probably progress from most abused to least abused...starting at entry and mud room with ceramic tile or slate, then probably sheet Solarian vinyl for kitchen and baths (easier on feet and dishes than tile in kitchen, warmer and softer, too, for baths), then maybe floating cork panels on rest of floors (living, dining, bedrooms) or hardwood. No laminate...too many dogs. End block just seemed to get too complicated and too $$ in materials and labor for our budget right now. But it's not over til it's over...so we'll see...
*Tina - I think that is supposed to be HORSE urine to age a copper roof. (and how the heck you get Brownie up there?) But anyway, congratulations on "topping out". - jb
*Hey Crazy Legs -- you any relation to the late (great) Sandy Blodgett?
*I can't speak to the origins of the roof tree, but when I nailed one to the peak of our old new house (makes sense to me) in NJ, the mason, an immigrant from Ukraine by way of Poland, told me that it was common practice there, too.Andy
*We're missing a bit of data here -- Tina, how did you go from the mega-city called "East Coast" to the thin-air aeries of the Rockies? There must be a story here.
*A writer by the name of Micheal Pollan( "A Place of My Own") wrote a book that followed the "education of an amateur builder". It was short on the actual building and long on architectural history. He gave lengthy treatment to the topping off subject if anyone is still interested. I rememeber part of the book showing up in the Sunday NY Times Magazine as well. Bottom line, paying reverence to the trees, I used to do it but got yelled at and called a freak (which I probably deserved), actually once you explain it even the most crusty of curmudgeons sort of like the idea. Must be something there.
*Andrew -- that's a most dangerous question! Think the answer properly belongs in the woodshed -- especially since I'm descended from a UNION general --- Robert E. Who?
*Oh, I was born a Connecticut Yankee, and the reference is ironic. Now living in a town where the high schools, highways, etc. are all named for ... uh, traitors? Don't forget what that Union did to his place -- buried their dead all the way up to the front door, to ensure no one ever lived there again. Now it's one one of our most revered cemeteries. Go figure.But let's not start THAT war all over again (for many southerners it never ended). I'm just starting to understand the southern perspective. An excellent recent book on this: Confederates in the Attic.
*There is a classic book, Eric Sloane's 'An Age of Barns', that discusses this. It is hand illustrated (Sloane was an artist of international fame on three subjects:Aircraft, the sky, and Early Americana, Farm Buildings in particular.) He shows illustrations of where the trees were placed, turned upside down when the roof went on, and found there hundreds of years later. I would do it as a gesture of thanks and respect. Respect for all those who went before us in building our great nation, and thanks for still having the basic freedoms. Regards, Buck.
*About the Civil War, I saw a great show on the History Channel about the end of the war, and how all through history conquering armies would do all kinds of awful things to the vanquished and how the Southern Armies had to turn in their wepons to the Northern Armies.Well, this one Southern Army showed up to turn in their guns and swords, etc. and this Northern group were standing there, kind of waiting for the South to walk by in revue.The amazing thing is though, that instead of the Northern victors doing anything mean, like taunting or throwing or any kind of disrespect, they SALUTED. They showed respect and allowed the proceeding to take place with dignity, and this went on for a long time. They held their salute until the whole bunch of them had marched by and turned in their wepons.Made me kind a proud, that such a little thing, that could symbolize so much, happened like that.
*Funny you should ask. My family and I attended the first ever "Blodgett dysfunctional Family Reunion" in New Hampshire this summer and we spent a few hours pouring over the geneology charts that my uncle spent many hours putting together, and sure enough, there was nobody named "Sandy" anywhere on that chart! Who the heck is "Sandy Blodgett"? - jb
*Much of the myth of the stony resentful South and the carpetbagger despoiling North has been cooked up by revisionists. The true story is, as it always is, much more complicated. Many Southerers were anti-Confederacy, or at least ambivalent.If anything, the North went too easy on the South -- the Reconstruction was such a disaster -- but there was a lot of pressure to get on with things, and the country suffered annother string of weak Presidents. (Abe was a tough act to follow!) The topic wasn't revisited until the 50's.Another interesting book: Lies My Teacher Told Me, about the teaching of history in American high schools.
*Andrew...be careful what you say about those presidents that followed Lincoln. One of them was my great great grandfather!
*Crazy Legs -- Sandy Blodgett was married to a woman named Frenchie. They had many 2 or three sons and I think a daughter. Were very close friends of my parents (we called then Aunt and Uncle..). Uncle Sandy died a few years ago after routine knee surgery (they never asked him if he took a daily aspirin, as many folks do, just asked him about any "prescription" drugs he took. So he bled to death unnecessarily.)
*Which, if you're so proud? Not Harrison, I hope (died about 3 mos. after inauguration). Sorry, I don't remember any interesting ones until Teddy, but my grasp of 19th century history is poor.
*Andrew -- begins with a G and not Grant. Almost as short a term as Harrison and a much more colorful way to go.
*Garfield? I happen to live on Garfield St., named for the president and not that (&^%! cat. His name would not have even occurred to me as among the select few assassinated. But he was a pro-Union Republican, back when being Republican was cool.All the same, he is consistent with my point -- his brief tenure was not a big splash in the pond of American history.... (I'm sure he would have been great!) My most interesting (alleged) ancestor is John Paul Jones ... asked to surrender, said "I have not even begun to fight!"
*
Tracy Kidder covers this practice (topping out) in his book "House."