Question about an English term

Malte279 · **on:** March 05, 2009, 04:23:47 PM

Hi,
for now my knowledge of the English language is forsaking me same as all the dictionaries I consulted, so I am turning to the native speakers with one language related question (not sure if you can help me though as it may be a matter of interpretation rather than translation).
As some of you know I'm writing my final university essay at the moment. It is about the coverage of the US Civil War in German newspapers of that time. In the English language secondary literature which I'm consulting too I keep reading that after the shelling of Fort Sumter which started the war the conditions for the surrender of the garrison allowed them to take their "sidearms" along with them.
What I'm wondering about is whether in this case the term sidearm would describe any arm that could be carried (including such regular weapons as muskets and rifles) or if it would be limited to prestigious officer weapons such as pistols, revolvers and swords.
As every book I read in which the point is mentioned just uses that term "sidearms" I'm at a loss about the exact extend of what the garrison was permitted to take along and what was considered contraband of war to be seized by the confederates. Can you tell me with certainty what the term "sidearms" is referring to in this context?

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #1 on:** March 05, 2009, 04:32:23 PM

A sidearm is a firearm that is held and fired with one hand. A huge rifle doesn't count. Neither does a knife or any other weapon besides one that can be shot with one hand. Hope that helps.

DarkWolf91 · **Reply #2 on:** March 05, 2009, 04:40:58 PM

I was under the impression that it was a small weapon carried at the waist or in the belt, and could also be some kind of sword. I don't know for certain, though.

raga · **Reply #3 on:** March 05, 2009, 04:50:41 PM

I agree with LBTL that a sidearm cannot refer to a large gun such as a rifle, but I think it can refer to a sword. Although firearms always means a gunpowder based weapon (a gun) arms can mean any kind of weapon, its just that in a majority of cases arms is used in place of firearms. The word is two part; side (secondary) arm (weapon), so it basically means secondary weapon. As I said in recent wars (the last century or so) this would always have been a handgun, but in the civil war this could have refered to those swords that officers often wore at their hips.

Just as I thought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_arm

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #4 on:** March 05, 2009, 04:56:00 PM

It's true that a sidearm used to include weapons such as knives and swords, but once small hand guns were invented the term changed. Unless you're using this term in the context of before the invention of handguns, I wouldn't use the term except to refer to a gun that can be fired with one hand.

DarkWolf91 · **Reply #5 on:** March 05, 2009, 04:56:30 PM

Ah, yes, it definitely would have included swords in the Civil War era then, I'm pretty certain. Swords were heavily used then, I think. Good info, Raga.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #6 on:** March 05, 2009, 05:00:06 PM

The problem with dictionaries is the fact that they refer to what things mean NOW. What you need to look in is a historical dictionary Malte. That'll be able to give you the answer much better than we can.

raga · **Reply #7 on:** March 05, 2009, 05:11:08 PM

yes, a historical dictionary would give a definite answer, unfortunatly that wont be easy to find.

Kor · **Reply #8 on:** March 05, 2009, 06:07:29 PM

Here the term means a pistol. They didn't use melee weapons to often except for knives and bayonets I would assume. As for swords like sabers I always read those were more of an officer's weapon. Though I'm likely wrong.

Malte279 · **Reply #9 on:** March 06, 2009, 05:52:22 AM

Thank you everyone. I suppose then the term would have covered the officers' swords and pistols, but not the guns of the privates.
There is a somewhat funny story about the shelling of Fort Sumter which may not be widely known. When during the shelling the flagstaff of the fort was hit and the Stars and Stripes went down as a consequence it caused some confusion on whether or not that was a signal from the garrison that they meant to surrender. So although the shelling from both sides continued southern general Beauregard send a delegation to discus the terms of surrender.
However, by that time another delegation without any official sanction was on the way already. Louis Wigfall, a former US Senator from Texas apparently wanted to get some of the glory and also got to the island Fort Sumter was located on in a small boat. When he arrived there he claimed to be a Colonel authorized by Beauregard to discuss the terms of surrender (not only did he not hold any military rank whatsoever, but he hadn't even seen Beauregard for days). He was told that the flag had not been taken down deliberately, but as the ammo of the Fort was running low the commander Robert Anderson agreed to discuss the terms for a surrender. In his overeagerness Wigfall made rather generous terms (apart from the already mentioned permission to walk away freely and take sidearms along it was also permitted to hoist the flag again to lower it with a 100 guns salute (ironically it was during that salute that the exploding of a cannon when it was fired caused the only federal casualties at Fort Sumter) and take it home).
Shortly after these terms had been agreed upon and Wigfall departed the real delegation arrived causing first some confusion and then anger when they had to admit that Wigfall hadn't had any authority to discuss or decide anything. Robert Anderson was so angry about this that he threatened to continue the fight. The real delegation was so embarrassed that they finally accepted the terms which Wigfall had offered even though they might have insisted on stricter terms had it not been for the unauthorized negotiations of the ex-Senator

Malte279 · **Reply #10 on:** March 31, 2009, 02:07:35 PM

Once again a question came up during the work on my final university papers. This time it is less of a vocabulary question than something about government concepts. I don't know if anyone can help me out on this one, but if so, any help would be really appreciated.
Thing is that I now read about a Confederate congressman (Henry S. Foote) making a proposal to enter peace negotiations with the North in September 1862. The proposal was made (here comes the tricky term) in a private congressional session.
What does that mean? Are there private sessions as in not open to the public or private sessions as in not officially summoned?
It can't have been too secret a meeting if German newspapers reported about it in October, but on the other hand there was a somewhat conspirative air about the whole thing (apparently Foote had assembled a group of congressmen disagreeing with the government's policy trying to put an end to the war against the intentions of Jefferson Davis. A bit more than two years later Foote was caught trying to sneak across federal lines once again with the intention to start unauthorized peace negotiations). Do you know or think to know what this "private" in the term private congressional session is saying?

Nick22 · **Reply #11 on:** March 31, 2009, 03:04:15 PM

Thats is known as a "closed session" where the Senate and House consducts business behind closed doors. they don't televise such proceedins ansdd such proceeding are not open to the public..

raga · **Reply #12 on:** March 31, 2009, 05:49:14 PM

Ya, what Nick said. German newspapers would have known about it becaused closed sessions are announced, even their topics are made public knowledge. What is actually said, and any information presented, is kept secrete though. The house of reps has only had a handful of closed sessions, while the senate has had quite a few, something like 50 or 60. Could be wrong about how rare they are though, I actually don't take a social studies class anymore so I'm trying to remember from last year.