Summary of "The Wound Dresser" - "War of the Rebellion"?

earlofwess · Post by **earlofwess** » August 27th, 2011, 2:28 am

I'd just like to point out that the summary of "The Wound Dresser" by Walt Whitman refers to the American Civil War as "The War of the Rebellion." I would suggest changing this for two reasons. 1) Few people know what it means; and 2) It is offensive to many Southerners.

If, for some reason, this term is important then I suggest putting it in quotation marks and adding an explanatory note, such as "as Whitman called the American Civil War."

Post by **annise** » August 27th, 2011, 3:03 am

Hi
One of the things about the Librivox policy of using the text as is , is that there are things written that upset others . And any war stories of any description will be written by one side . Checking the text source shows that the full title of the book is

The Wound Dresser
A Series of Letters Written from the Hospitals in Washington during the War of the Rebellion

So that is what Walt Witman called it. We would welcome another point of view , as long as it PD in America. I am at the moment MCing a British History and French History of the same era and am finding the different points of view about the same events quite eye opening.

Anne

earlofwess · Post by **earlofwess** » August 27th, 2011, 3:39 am

If that is what Whitman called the war, then fine. That tells us more about Whitman than it does about the war - that he was a man of the times, caught up in the events of the times. I just think that the summary is not very clear. As far as it being offensive, I don't thank that there are many LibriVox users who would mind too much - and those that would go looking for a Walt Whitman work are even fewer.

Post by **annise** » August 27th, 2011, 4:02 am

Maybe (and I know very little about the author) the title could have been added by the publisher - at the time it was published I suspect only one side would have bought it. It takes a lot of courage to go against popular sentiment in times of war.

Anne

neckertb · Post by **neckertb** » September 2nd, 2011, 4:22 am

earlofwess wrote:If that is what Whitman called the war, then fine.

Incidentally, that is the name of the war in other languages too (at least two that I know of).

Post by **annise** » September 2nd, 2011, 4:37 am

It wasn't a description I had heard used for it - it was always referred to as a civil war but I suppose it is like one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter - or all the war memorials to people who died for God, King and Country in every European language

earlofwess · Post by **earlofwess** » September 6th, 2011, 1:13 am

When it comes to the American Civil War (or, as I would put it, The War Between the States) people's collective opinion is strangely inconsistent. When the various Yugoslav republics broke away and were invaded by the Federal Yugoslavian Army people generally considered it at act of aggression - forcing a people to remain in a Federation to which they do not wish to belong was not okay. The war was seen as being between Croatia and Yugoslavia.

However, when the Confederate states withdraw from the United States this results in a "War of Rebellion" or a "Civil War," even though they joined the Federation voluntarily and, at the time, it was implicitly understood that members of a voluntary union may withdraw. Massachusetts, at least once, bullied the rest of the Union into passing legislation by threatening to seceed if it wasn't passed, then, a few decades later, invaded the South because secession was "illegal."

RuthieG · Post by **RuthieG** » September 6th, 2011, 3:47 am

Getting perilously close to controversial topics, I think.

Ruth

earlofwess · Post by **earlofwess** » September 6th, 2011, 4:34 am

You're right. I've edited my comment to remove the last two points. If people object further, I can edit further.

Post by **chocoholic** » September 6th, 2011, 6:01 am

I didn't see the two points you removed, but what remains is not objectionable to me.

FWIW I have lived in the South all my life (born and raised in SC) and I have no problem with "War of the Rebellion," although nobody I know calls it that.

Post by **TriciaG** » September 6th, 2011, 6:48 am

I guess the final consensus is that it was titled that way, so for the sake of history, we'll leave it that way. (It's like other controversial words that have changed meaning over the years.)

If there's a good suggestion on how to make it more clear that that was actually part of the title, I'd be happy to change it.

earlofwess · Post by **earlofwess** » September 6th, 2011, 8:41 am

Glad to hear that what remains of my original post isn't offensive.

As far as the summary goes, I'm fine with it as it is. I'm all for original titles and leaving documents the way they were originally. It's important so that we can more accurately understand the thoughts of those who have gone before us.

RuthieG · Post by **RuthieG** » September 6th, 2011, 2:09 pm

That's just fine, earlofwess. I wasn't offended by any of it, but I know these things can be a bit contentious.

Ruth