MovieChat Forums > The Long Riders (1980) Discussion > The Civil War's Influence - Bank /Train ...

The Civil War's Influence - Bank /Train Robbers of the James/Younger era


Being from the South (Alabama) and having read much of these outlaws and others in this period, I feel that if Civil War had a different ending, these men may not have choen this path. The total obliteration of a way of life, loss of relatives, property and position caused many a Rebel to go wrong. While the Youngers came from a successful reatailing family, the James family sort of fit the lower middle demographics of the period (lots of moving, problems with law enforcement, tragedy, distrust of the federal Govt.)

Somt of this is still true in the NEW SOUTH. While a truly lovely and warm place, we are still a violent very macho culture. Gun ownership in Alabama is second only to Texas. The male and female roles are more clearly defined and traditional and acting out by Southern men is just accepted and even ecouraged.
Up until the last couple of generations it was understood that many Southern men would do some prison or a least county jail time (assualt, DUI, gun charges - just being a good old boy). (In my family it was said that a man was "away on busines for the state") Distrust of the Govt. is still very prevalent in the South.

reply

Thank you for your comments regarding the Civil War and it's horrible aftermath. I feel for the people who have lost land and possessions to the war. War is hell and it's effects last for generations!

reply

[deleted]

Originally from Pennsylvania, I lived in Georgia and Texas from 1975 through 1981. I was shocked how often the Civil War came up. It's never mentioned up North. Even at a bar, if a guy found out I was a Yankee, he'd say something like, "We had better generals than you." Or, he would make a defensive remark against the idea that the South was inferior to the North. Yes, the men were a bit more mannerly but my smart mouth often took them aback. The only man I really got close to was an older fellow from New Mexico.

Neither side of my family was even in the country during the Civil War. That didn't matter; I was from another country.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

reply

Never say ""We had better generals than you" to someone from Ohio.

We'll be more then glad to mention that Generals Grant and Sherman thoroughly spanked the bottom of the South. .

Josh

reply

And don't forget the fellers from the midwest. We acquitted ourselves quite well too.

reply

Given the same resources the Ohio boys were totally inferior to at least a half dozen Confederate generals. Your lack of historical knowledge and buckeye arrogance are showing here.

Sherman is a war criminal and Grant wasn't much better. One of the most corrupt presidential administrations was Grant's.

Revisionist history is a remarkable thing. Covers up the sins but glorifies the alleged and imagined victories. At least Grant had some class in victory, far more than Sherman.

reply

"We'll be more then glad to mention that Generals Grant and Sherman thoroughly spanked the bottom of the South."

There was nothing revisionist about that statement.

Nothing you said refutes the fact that Grant and Sherman stomped the south.


Hitler's armies stomped a$$ too. You can go on about later in the war, the holocaust etc. but the fact remains that they had some major victories.

reply

It's odd that southerners, even though they can be very patriotic, seem to be very proud of their history of treason.

reply

What you say is very well said. The James family was more about resistance than robbery. That is, initially. Later on, not so much.

The thing about the Civil War was that it created economic ruin for the middle and lower classes in small towns. Folks like the James family were treated very badly by Union forces and it is understandable that some would fight back after the war was over.

I visited Suffolk, Virginia last Spring. The history books carefully leave out the full story of how Union forces treated southern towns to include Suffolk. When the Union took hold of Suffolk, they took civilians as hostages and kept them as prisoners just to prevent any kind of resistance. These were innocent people who had their civil rights fully violated just as slaves did. Yet we never hear about that part. We only hear about the slavery.

While slavery was definitely a factor in the war, there was more to it than only that. States have their own rights and their own laws which should be fully respected by the federal government, but the federal government was not going to respect it. The states have a right to secede from the union, should they vote to do so. Yet the feds used an iron fist to get their way. There was no diplomacy whatsoever.

It's no wonder southerners were angry. They lost their jobs, their families and their lives, all because the Union refused to work things out diplomatically.

I think if the Union had instead allowed the southern states to secede and enforced a very heavy embargo against the southern states, the chips would have fallen to the Union side sooner or later. Slavery was doomed, it was going to have to end, and end in a very short time. The world was pressuring them and they would not have been able to continue for much longer. Instead of using restraint and patience, the Union used tactics which were deplorable to the southern states. This was the foundation for southern anger and resentment, which led to other more dirty tactics on their end (racial tensions, etc.) later on. Actions were shameful on both sides.

Either way, the James family and friends stuck together. I think their legendary status lies in not so much as being outlaws, though that is a definite factor, but that it is a large group of family and friends who had a belief and a will to fight back, as a team, as well as to the death, if necessary.

I've really enjoyed your thoughtful commentary!

reply

With all due respect, allow me to point out that the movie takes place in Missouri which stayed in the union before during and after the Civil War, so that the situation with the outlaws would not have measureably changed even if the confederates had won.
Why I like the movie is that it very accurately captured the feelings of some of the people in Missouri who had fought for the confederacy, and their supporters and family members who had been stomped on by union forces from Kansas (read the history of the burnt districts in Missouri to really get a sense of where these men came from).
The fact is, there was border warfare on the Kansas-Missouri border for years before the war and in fact there are those of us who think that the fuse for the war was lit there way before Sumter

reply

Agreed with caaronmd. I'm a Civil War history buff and the Civil
War simply gave these gangs the chance to appear legitimate. The
states of Missouri and Kansas weren't like the rest of the South or
the North at all. They were a lot less civilized and "Bleeding
Kansas" applied to the Western part of Missouri too. If anyone
wants to learn more about the boarder wars that raged a full 6 years
before the start of the Civil War the Wiki on it is pretty good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

reply

I just watched this movie again and decided to go through the message boards. I won't get into the "Generals" debate, although you can probably tell from my name which side I would be on. And yes, the South is the most patriotic part of the country and I don't take very kindly to defending one's home as being "traitorous". We also have a far great percentage of men who have chosen to serve their country and also still have by far the largest amount of U.S. Military Installations. Anyway I just wanted to note that both Missouri and Kentucky had both Confederate and Union governments during the War, so a Confederate victory, in my opinion, would have made a very large difference on how the James, Youngers, and others in the postwar period.

reply