MovieChat Forums > Glory (1990) Discussion > So much for "the good old days" !

So much for "the good old days" !


Saw this last night again on a PBS station. Movies like this show us how bad things really were years ago, but the difference was people accepted it and just took in their stride. Life was cheap, medical care primitive, and death was always close at hand. Men were men, women were women, and whatever happened, happened, including wars which were treated as organic, natural events, not the results of secret conspiracies as we see them today. A totally different world, and remember that the level of education was much less, some people did not even know how to read and write. They were like "sheeps to the slaughter" ! Might have more.

RSGRE

reply

Life was cheap, medical care primitive, and death was always close at hand. Men were men, women were women, and whatever happened, happened, including wars which were treated as organic, natural events, not the results of secret conspiracies as we see them today.


TBQH life was never really cheap, and medical care although primitive was very effective for it's time, especially out in the field. The American Civil War had just as much conspiracies as any other war post 19th century. Only 2-4% of Confederates were actual slave owners, sold to them by the Federal Government bought from African trade with stronger tribes and Muslims. The Union didn't really care about the liberation of slaves, nor did they want them in the North. General Sherman was a monster who agreed with the Confederates on a number of things including keeping slavery, but for the greater good, told them the Union had to run this country. He used the scorched earth method and destroyed every city he crossed, killing everyone including freed slaves.

remember that the level of education was much less, some people did not even know how to read and write. They were like "sheeps to the slaughter"


That is true that education was not as far spread, b/c most people were needed to work in factories, not run libraries, leave those jobs for the upper class. Alot of problems arose b/c of this war, like shutting down factories and stalling trade with France until this was all settled. Men needed a paycheck and wanted their land, they knew what the consequences were, but what other choice did they have? I wouldn't say they were "sheeps to the slaughter", b/c times are no different today, even Americans with college degrees struggle against their European counterparts, and are being fooled into believing they only need certain things to succeed.

reply

I think you need to read a history book, Catman, maybe two or three. Especially, you should update your scholarship on slave ownership and General Sherman.

You are partly right about General Sherman. He accepted slavery, though it is a stretch to claim he favored it. He certainly did not believe in "scorched Earth," but in "hard war." It was mostly southerners, Confederate soldiers and southern looters who did the burning.

Demographers have taken another look at slave ownership. I heard the same thing when I was in school 40 to 50 years ago (eww, what a thought), that only single digit percentages of Southerners owned slaves. That got that number by an interesting and very misleading approach. If Joe Smith is a plantation and slave owner, the slaves are almost certainly all in his name. Even if his wife brought slaves to the marriage, they became his. So, his wife and three children were not slave owners. That reduced it from 100 percent of the family owning slaves to 20 percent of that tiny population. If you do a recount and measure it by family, it starts showing up as 30 to 40 or even 60 percent of the families owned slaves, depending on the county.

Still, over the South as an entity only a minority of single individuals or families owned slaves. Nevertheless, one Southern politician after another made explicit statements that they went to war to protect the institution of slavery.

The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.

reply