Them Yankees Sure Were Mean. - Cold Mountain (2003) Discussion

[–] sjg9 15 years ago

I disagree with this. The film is a story told by the point of view of two Southerners. The Union soldiers were just as bad as the Confederate ones, and I really don't see how it's unbelievable that a group of Union soldiers would mistreat a baby and rape a woman. And at the same time, I know that Confederate soldiers did the exact same thing. What's the "dirty obnoxious hatred" toward the North? I sincerely doubt that the filmmakers wanted to spread Confederate propaganda; I think that the movie assumes that the viewers are intelligent enough to understand that it's just looking at the horrors of war (any war) from the viewpoint of a particular side. Sorry if you didn't make the cut.

And for the record, Confederates weren't a group of racist, violent riffraff any more than the Yankees were. The Civil War being about slavery and racism is more or less a myth. It was more about states vs. federal rights and a (Southern) way of life.

reply

[–] GhostOfHistory 15 years ago

''The Civil War being about slavery and racism is more or less a myth. It was more about states vs. federal rights and a (Southern) way of life.'' - Sig9

To quote confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, he declared that slavery was the natural condition of blacks and the foundation of the confederacy.

''Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.'' - Alexander Stephens

I ain't trying to hash out the whole Civil War but that quote looks pro slavery in my eyes. I'm sure Alexander Stephens, was by no means the great spokesmen of the south but this might help me prove a point.

''What's the "dirty obnoxious hatred" toward the North?'' - Sig9

I know it's only one movie and only so much can fit in one movie. Though the fact that they give you this one picture. Yes the North was down south to conquer. I'm not gonna be naive and say rape didn't happen. Though why just pick this one aspect? See what I did with that Alexander Stephens quote? It's so easy to just pick one subject one instant and paint a whole lot of people in a certain color. That to me anyway, seemed to be what this movie did.

Maybe the south has gotten similar treatment from Hollywood but not at that level.

reply

[–] SpikeHat 15 years ago

What Yankees? I hardly noticed them. To the film's credit, ColdMt kept focus on interactions between its compelling characters, without being overshadowed by the Civil War. After my years of US History classes, I'm glad this film didn't beat me over the head with the War like North&South for example.
Y'know who was overly mean in this film...? That albino-looking guy from the Matrix, who shot Jude Law at the end. His character was a real bastard.

reply

[–] robertclinton865 10 years ago

Many, many people in the North Carolina and East Tennessee mountains were AGAINST slavery and supported the Union in the war. Being from East Tennessee, my direct ancestors proudly fought on the Union side, while others branches of this same family (who lived further west) fought for the south. Maybe, just maybe - this is proof that not everyone who currently lives in the south should qualifies in your mind as racist, backward, or despicable. Most of us just want to be left alone, and stay out of all of the political ridiculousness that consumes America and Hollywood. But these rants deserved an answer.

Everyone should also keep in mind that not every movie intends to send a political message. This is not a film that can be used as an excuse to lecture us on how things were (or as some think, 'are') in the south - a topic in which most are obviously NOT versed, and one in which they bring their own personal bias into any such discussion of the times. So jeez, talk about an agenda - look at yourselves.

This movie clearly does not take a position on slavery, nor should it. It is simply another chronicle in the ageless story of how war(s) takes it's toll - not only on the actual fighters - but on the people (from BOTH sides) left behind, back home. It brings to mind an old saying: "The only thing harder than being a soldier? Being married to one..."

reply

[–] Triple-G 15 years ago

Well they did burn Atlanta and unrecorded is how many civilians were killed due to exposure and starvation.

Then of course there is General Bernard "Beast" Butler and how he treated New Orleans.

I could go on but the fact is, people on both sides were mislead by their government, religous leaders, and newspaper (the media) and so much distrust started from the 1850's that in a short time it lead to Civil War.

Geez...that sounds so familiar.

reply

[–] yatman56 14 years ago

Well, first off, you don't win a war by being a bunch of pussies, whether it is the American Civil War, World War II, or any other war for that matter. And if you were offended by how the Yankee soldiers in this movie were presented take comfort that many of the southern women were depicted as whores and sluts, and many of their men folk (the home guard) left much to be desired also. FYI: Atlanta was just a small part of it. Just about everywhere the Federals went, both army and navy, the southern civilian infrastructure suffered.

reply

[–] IronBrig4 13 years ago

I realize that I'm replying to a thread that hasn't had a new message in over a year, but I must address some things because I'm a history grad student.

The Confederates conducted invasions of their own, such as in Maryland (stopped at Antietam), Pennsylvania (stopped at Gettysburg), and New Mexico (stopped at Glorietta Pass). They also conducted raids throughout the pro-Union part of Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania again. In fact, they burned down the city of Chambersburg when it couldn't come up with a ransom.

Sherman's Atlanta campaign and his subsequent March to the Sea were brilliant because they finally brought war home to the Deep South. Destruction of Georgia and South Carolina infrastructure crippled the Southern war effort, demoralized troops from those states who were serving in northern Virginia, and convinced Southerners that the Confederate government could not protect them. It was an utterly BRILLIANT campaign because it shortened the war. Imagine what it would have been like if the war had dragged on for another year, with more battles like The Wilderness or Spottsylvania Court House.

Contrary to what you might see on "Gone with the Wind," Union soldiers mostly behaved themselves. There was a good deal of restraint while the destruction was focused on the South's industrial capability. Cotton gins, railroads, foundries, etc. were fair game but private homes were usually spared. Murders and rapes did occur, but were largely the exception rather than the rule.

That still didn't stop Southerners from exaggerating stories of Yankee "atrocities." It seems like every family in the South has a legend of how their great-great-great-grandfather lost his house to Sherman's troops, even though Sherman's March was hundreds of miles away.

reply

[–] Jakezen 9 years ago

And for the record, Confederates weren't a group of racist, violent riffraff any more than the Yankees were. The Civil War being about slavery and racism is more or less a myth. It was more about states vs. federal rights and a (Southern) way of life.

Your statement is the myth being repeated. Go read "The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States" which at least 5 states, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, created to declare why they were seceding from the Union.

Read those documents and then come back and explain how slavery was NOT the primary reason.

Also, in these documents you will find the correct argument re: states rights, which has nothing to do with state versus federal. The southern states argued the northern states were not adhering to Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Fugitive Slave Clause, which explains the northern states were required to return escaped slaves and the northern states were not doing that.

Finally, do some reading on the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas–Nebraska Act. One of the primary reasons for the Union going into the Civil War was it could not let the south become an independent nation. The rest of the western half of the country would become battlegrounds fighting over whether to be free/Union or slave holding/Confederate states.

reply

[–] fan_de_fanny 9 years ago

Excellent comment. *tips hat*

reply

[–] Foster (878) a year ago

The ONLY state right the South didn't want to lose was the ability to own slaves

The war was about slavery --- ALL about slavery

You're argument doesn't hold up

reply

[–] shogun96 15 years ago

I think the movie was more concerned with showing the inhumanity of war than with portraying the Union army as savages, although the story was told from a Confederate point of view.

If you want a movie that really makes the North look bad, watch The Good, The Bad & The Ugly.

reply

[–] GhostOfHistory 15 years ago

''If you want a movie that really makes the North look bad, watch The Good, The Bad & The Ugly.''- shogun96

Do you mean the prison camp scenes? I've seen the movie recently. That's the only thing that comes to mind as being harsh. But the guy who ordered those beatings Angel Eyes, had his own motives, the war cause meant nothing to him.

''I think the movie was more concerned with showing the inhumanity of war''-shogun96

There's no saints in war I understand that. The issue of war has so many levels though, I don't think you can say it's this or that. I understand too that it's mainly a love story during a war. The movie shows war's ugly face but how many movies have done that in the past? Countless. The movie shows no new philosophy in that subject. I took issue with that. Why show that war's grossly inhumane just for the sake of it? That baby scene didn't seem to have a purpose other then to give justification to the lead male character so he could go and kill a few more guys.

''The story was told from a Confederate point of view. ''- shogun96

I have never seen a movie where the south get's painted badly like this movie did to the Yankees. Most modern big name Civil War movies I've seen Gettysburg, Gods and Generals and a few others the south gets shown respectfully.

Regards.

reply

[–] shogun96 15 years ago

I was not referring to the camp scenes, although I would note that Angel Eyes was a member of the Union army. His affiliation and rank are explained in one of the deleted scenes. In fact, the movie makes a lot more sense if you watch all of the deleted scenes. In any event, it's telling that the villain of the film (helpfully identified as the "Bad") is a member of the Union army.

There are numerous other scenes depicting the Union army engaging in war crimes. One confederate prisoner is shot by a Union firing squad at point blank range. Another is tied to a train's pilot (what I've always called a "cow catcher"), where he is exposed to the elements.

An article I found about treatment of prisoners during the American Civil War says:

"General Orders No. 100 governed the treatment of Confederate prisoners of war. Article XLVI 'A prisoner of war is subject to no punishment for being a public enemy.' This article also outlawed abuse of prisoners. Article LXXII stated 'Money and other valuables on the person of a prisoner... are regarded as private property.' Article LXXVI specified that 'Prisoners of war shall be fed on plain and wholesome food where practicable, and treated with humanity.'"

http://us-civil-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/treatment_of_prisoners_in _the_civil_war

The article also said the Confederate army treated Union prisoners worse than the Union army treated confederate prisoners.

The Confederacy does tend to be portrayed as gentlemanly, which glosses over the fact that they were fighting for a reprehensible cause. Of course, the real villain in Cold Mountain is Teague, who is a Southerner, and not a very gentlemanly one at that.

reply

[–] Peterter 11 years ago

Thanks for speaking up Shogun ... your last 4 paragraphs help me to feel better (and that's never a bad thing lol)

reply

[–] Scypinsk 15 years ago

Honestly they made the confederates look just as awful as the union troops. Brutally murdering an entire family, and then torturing the mother and leaving her to die is at least equal to what two union soldiers did. the third one at least tried to help, but unfortunately he was too chicken to tell his commanding officer to stop.
also, Sherman had a clear shot at liberating all those malnourished and starving Union POWs at Andersonville, but instead chose to march to Savannah, leaving as many as 10,000 prisoners there to tie up local rebel resources.

reply

[–] Phazzle 15 years ago

I do not feel that Union troops were unfairly portrayed in the movie. The only scene of significance is the attempted rape scene and the director was sure to inclde one sympathetic character who tried to care for the baby and was shot for his trouble.

I do, however, agree that Hollywood has had told Civil War stories from a confederate point of view since "Gone With The Wind." Which, if you think about it, makes some sense. By the end of the war the south was in ruins and the north was relatively untouched (history buffs please correct me if I am wrong). It makes for a much more compelling story to reflect on the percieved injustices inflicted on the southern population. If you told a story about the union homefront it would probably be a pretty boring one.

BTW...If you really want to see a movie that demonizes the Union check out "The Outlaw Josey Wales."

reply

[–] GhostOfHistory 14 years ago

''By the end of the war the south was in ruins and the north was relatively untouched'' - Kennedy-Brandon_m.

Yeah the majority of Northern states didn't see much war up close. Though confederates did do raids as far north as Vermont. And New York had a bloody draft riot.

''It makes for a much more compelling story to reflect on the percieved injustices inflicted on the southern population''

I understand that. But doesn't Hollywood understand the south shot guns and cannon, just as well as the north did. Notice how the movie doesn't show the killing of wounded or surrendered black troops by rebel soldiers at the Crater? Just look at the death totals from the war. The North got beat more times then not. The south wasn't weak and innocent in the functions of war.

I mentioned the draft riots in New York. Where angry Mobs of Immigrants probably murdered near 100 blacks on New York streets. The North didn't have anymore humanity then the south did. But the south put their hands in the fire first by firing the first shots.

reply

[–] Terrapin2212 13 years ago

Gangs of New York also made the North look very bad. First of all it showed racist lynchings of blacks and Irish people and I think Italians too happening in New York. It also showed how the North forced immigrants to fight in the war nad serve on the front lines, and massacred civilians when the Draft Riots broke out, when Lincoln began the first draft in US history because the Union army was being decimated and they needed more soldiers.

More Union soldiers were killed than Confederates if you read about the statistics. While the South was eventually subjugated it was very costly for the North to win the war. People who like to say "you lost get over it" should understand this. Northerners need to not be so arrogant about how they fought the war. The southern soldiers were fighting for their homes and families, most of them did not own slaves. The Union soldiers were goons and thugs who fought mercilessly yet incompetently in many cases like at Manassas. I have visited the Stonewall Jackson memorial shrine in Virginia and saw a carload of Massachusetts tourists laughing and mocking him that was very disgusting and dishonorable behavior.

Oh yes and in the movie how the yankees cowardly set explosives under the Confederates that really happened historically and like the film shows it backfired on them and they were slaughtered in that battle. If the Confederacy won at Gettysbury, Lincoln would probably have sued for peace, or the Union voters would have forced him to.

reply

[–] bethebestforthejob 10 years ago

Jesus on a frickin cross.

I don't care how old this post is. How shamefully DUMB.

Terrapin2212

Lincoln began the first draft in US history because the Union army was being decimated

Confederacy passed the Conscription Act in April 1862 http://blog.encyclopediavirginia.org/2012/04/16/this-day-first-draft-e dition/, the United States Congress passed the Enrolment Act in March 1863.

So yeah, history buff, you are 100% wrong.

The southern soldiers were fighting for their homes and families

Wrong again! Southern soldiers did NOT fight for their homes and families per se; Southern soldiers fought for the right of their families and their property to remain in the NEW Country, the Confederacy, which would be carved our of the carcass of the United States. and yes, it is by all means attack from within on their country of origin, and yes, such an action meets all requirements of the word Treason.

More Union soldiers were killed than Confederates if you read about the statistics.

The opposite. Source; Drew Gilpin Faust The Republic of Suffering http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17957712

The Union soldiers were goons and thugs who fought mercilessly yet incompetently in many cases

Hate to state the obvious, but the United States Army won the war. Obviously there were doing something right.

If a)

the Union army was being decimated and they needed more soldiers.

and b)

More Union soldiers were killed than Confederates if you read about the statistics

were true, there could be no

c) The Union won the War!

So try again, genius!

Don't explain with malice what you can explain with stupidity

reply

[–] Terrapin2212 13 years ago

Actually for ONCE they did not vilify the South with the usual propaganda. The Yankees indeed did these things. I hope how many of yall have seen Gone With the Wind which was made back in 1930 but by those standards was impressive in showing how the Union forces pillaged and rampaged across the South. They burned entire cities to the ground and raped and killed women and children. General Sherman was quoted as saying he was not just fighting the Confederate army, he was fighting an entire society, this was how he justified what he did. Also Native Americans did fight for the south, at did Jewish southerners, the Confederate secretary of state, Judah Benjamin was a Jew. All this goes against the liberal media's and liberal Hollywood and especially the liberal teachers and black racists agenda to say it was all about slavery.

I still disagree when they said it was all about slavery which was more complicated but this is a rare film to not villify and mock Southerners. I loved the beginning and end scenes of the idyllic life in a small rural mountain town it seemed like heaven.

reply

[–] sheepdog07 12 years ago

I'm late in reading these posts, I just decovered the movie.

The northern leaders cared no more for slaves than The South(the famous Mason-Dixon line was about northern slaves). The War goes to the north speeding towards the industrial sides of business, while The South was deeply invested into agriculture. The time honored tax issues came up, the north wanted to fund it's tycoon's industry by The South's farms. Much like issues of today, slavery was a sensational topic and the media printed about it often. Like today, they push gun control when the real issue is poverty and our violent culture. The point in that comparison is simply that to fix real problems, ending just one aspect of it is foolish. That is not to say that I support slavery, but the majority of The South did not own slaves. The South and her people felt that their was ground being lost to the north and felt something had to be done. While still in negotians over several issues, Lincoln started to send raiding parties, and that led to The South wanting freedom from the corruption. What corruption? Like Lincoln not winning a single state in The South and only got 40% of the popular vote. The South warned they would sucede if Lincoln was pushed into office, and they kept their word. Former POTUS G.W.Bush is disliked because he declared war on a hostile nation. POTUS #16 declared war on this nation and he is celebrated.

The fact is, we were raised on stories of the northern aggression and reconstruction. We are taught to not trust the yankees. My Grandfather was a member of the democratic party until the day he died. He was very conservative, voted for republicans and even donated to the GOP. Lincoln was a republican, so my "Paw paw" would never claim any allegence to that man's party. You better believe that the northern soilders, being paid henchmen, took liberties while invading. Once you leave our cities and get to the country land and our plains, the heart of The South, you will find destain from the locals for the union and yankees. The most of us have manners, so you may not notice that we don't care for the north states. That level of destain does not come from thin air.

Finally, I think loving the usa and supporting it's politicans is not being patriotic. I think it is wide spread mass stockholm syndrome .

reply

[–] GhostOfHistory 12 years ago

''The northern leaders cared no more for slaves than The South''

So let's say the Civil War was just about states rights, slavery has nothing to do with it. But magically this fact appears out of nowhere, slavery ends in 1865. Though neither side cares much about slavery according to you but still it ends. There shouldn't be any big fuss about it right? After all who really cared? The killing of thousands of blacks and segregation after the war in the south that must have been made up by some Yankee who had nothing better to do with his time.

Why have Jim Crow laws for 100 years after the Civil War? Can't keep our slaves so let's hang and lynch, kill with no pain, hide neath a hood and make America look like s**t. And you personally feel scorn towards the North for what now?

''You better believe that the northern soilders, being paid henchmen, took liberties while invading.''

Paid henchmen, oh the south would never do such things. Whether it be in 1863 or 1963 the south didn't do any bad stuff man. From lot's of accounts Lincoln, was going to go very easy on the south after the war was over. But we don't know thanks to sore losers like booth.

reply

[–] sheepdog07 12 years ago

I do not denie that slavery happened, my point is that politicians used it as the scapegoat. Clearly, slavery was/is horrible and it is something that shames us, even to this day. The great emancipator himself was pro-slavery and racist. It is on record that he thought of blacks as substandard humans. This did not stop him from using the issue for political gaines, not any humanitarian reasons. The system that replaced slavery was sharecropping, it didn't change much. Early sharecropping was just a bureaucratic name change.

Both the north and The South had the same pool to draw from to be soldiers, the human race. All men have in them the ability to do evil. Again, the north were drafted and paid soldiers, whereas The South was defending their homes. While the northern citizens read in the papers about what was happening in the war, The South lived it. Everyday. People that had never owned a slave had to live in fear of the war coming to the front porch. As is the custom of all wars, both sides sent in their poor to die for the causes of the rich.

My family settled in South Alabama, from Scotland, in the 1840s. By time of the war, they had created wealth and property for themselves. Being Confederate Nationalist, all of what they earned was stripped by a carpet bagging northern bank. That gives me reason for scorn, that property was taken from all of my family that came after the war. Including myself. My grandfather was raised during the end of reconstruction and his father, my great grand father was raised in the thick of reconstruction. My great great grand father was an officer in The Confederacy. I sat on my great grand father's knee, while he shared tales of the yanks after the war. I have found no evidence that my family owned slaves, but had their homes burned to the ground. My family hired the Irish for labor, still having the bitterness of being slaves to the English, themselves. Hiring Irish labor was still going on after the war, my mother was my grandfathers maid's daughter.

As far as the men in hoods, their are three different versions of The Klan. The first being the men after the war. The purpose it was formed was to menace carpet baggers and make plans to rebuild in secrecy. Most people of that time were racist, so I'm sure that the lines of good and evil were crossed. That being a vigilante crossed over to being a terrorist more times than not.

The second wave of the group is in the late 1910s and 1920s. That was mainly a secret society sociel club, with members from all over the country. It had people from the north and The South, and ties all the way up to the white house. They waived old glory, not The Battle Flag. Again, most of the country was racist so I'm sure it played a part.

The last popped during the civil rights era and is the same mold that is still around today. They are a bunch of idiots that we don't even want to claim, and brings with it nothing but shame and embarrassment.

Now, I do not care about the klan in anyway. I think all three are stupid, no matter what they claim as justification for their cowardly tactics.

Mr. Booth is a Confederate American Patriot, and is held in high regard in my household. Crow Laws did not effect my family, so no I don't care.

Bottom line, my people were conquered. Their side, good, bad or worse, does not matter very much. Just like the conquered people of the The Roman Empire, my family and myself have served this nation in arms. That doesn't mean we have to forget. Also, I don't care what happens north of Virginia. The South is to the north, as South Africa used to be to the English.

reply

[–] GhostOfHistory 12 years ago

'' The great emancipator himself was pro-slavery and racist. It is on record that he thought of blacks as substandard humans.''

Strange, because he's also on record saying when he saw a barge full of slaves going to New Orleans he said, he felt sickened by the sight. Also in his last speech, Lincoln seemed to support the idea of enfranchising the former slaves and allowing some degree of voting after the war.

And your ''great confederate American patriot'' said after hearing that speech ''That means ****** citizenship. Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever give''

Just comparing these two men by quotes and their actions, who's the pro slavery racist? You see booth as a American Patriot. But I rather see the man who freed nearly 4 million the greater Patriot. Not the guy who shot a other man in the back of the head while he was sitting next to his wife watching a play.

''My great great grand father was an officer in The Confederacy. I sat on my great grand father's knee, while he shared tales of the yanks after the war. I have found no evidence that my family owned slaves, but had their homes burned to the ground.''

You ever see the old Bugs Bunny cartoon ''Southern Fried Rabbit''? Yosemite Sam is dressed as a confed in it and there's a part in it where Bugs says ''The Civil War ended over 80 years ago'' and Sam shouts ''I ain't no clock watcher!'' That kind of reminds me of you hehe.

I have no family history in America going back to the Civil War era not even WW2. None in the Armed Forces either. So your passion for the past will be greater then mine. That gives you a advantage over me in this argument. But being a Yankee I see the Civil War in the North's point of view as you see it in the south's point of view. You feel scorn. Me, I have nothing to be scornful about. I'm just a Civil War buff. But I don't want to start the d@mn war over again!

reply

[–] sheepdog07 12 years ago

We all have our points of reference, history is open to interpretation of the storyteller. It is difficult to know the motivations of politicians today, much less a hundred years ago. Without knowing everything that was said and/or written between the two sides and to know in what context the author of those words had meant them to have...History requires some flexibility by it's very nature. The same event, as we have here, can be viewed many different ways. The story, who tells it, and how it is told plays a major factor in how these events are remembered. War is never a good thing, not starting another is a counterpoint that I will concede every time. As a supporter of history, I can appreciate anyone that takes an interest in learning it. After all, united we stand...

reply

[–] bethebestforthejob 10 years ago

sheepdog07

The story, who tells it, and how it is told plays a major factor in how these events are remembered.

Yup, did you ever question how this story was retold to you? Because you seem to hold on to hell of a lot of resentment and self-pity.

Don't explain with malice what you can explain with stupidity

reply

[–] bethebestforthejob 10 years ago

Oh, hell, I've got time, I may as well:
sheepdog07

The great emancipator himself was pro-slavery and racist.

Well, ain't it a paradox then he was called a great emancipator!

Both the north and The South had the same pool to draw from to be soldiers, the human race.

No, the South had the human race + the slaves. They chose to draw "only" from the human race. The slaves voluntarily joined the effort of United States Army to crush their previous masters and their allies - non slaveholding yeomen - who fought for the right to keep them in bondage for all eternity. It was a pretty decent cause, I would say!

The South lived it

I understand you claim the Confederacy never made a raid north of the Mason-Dixon line into U.S. territory.

My family settled in South Alabama, from Scotland, in the 1840s. By time of the war, they had created wealth and property for themselves.

So.........let me get this straight; your family were immigrants who escaped their own country of origin and settled in the experimental land called the United States, that offered more freedom to its citizens/residents that any European country at the time. Sometime into their residency they decided to join the effort to dismantle the country that welcomed them. Sweet.

After their treasonous rebellion failed they decided to not accept responsibility for their actions, nurse hatred to the same country that decided to restore all their rights, - and ultimately their goal in life became passing down to their grandchildren this bitter mixture of self-pity, hatred, resentment and prejudice.

And all this is excused, in your eyes, because you have no proof they own slaves?????.

Well... were they trading in slaves? Were they overseers on the plantations? Were they in the militia responsible for chasing down runaway slaves? Did they rent slaves and paid rent to their slave masters?

Because you know; these were all career options open to those who did not own slaves!

Bottom line, my people were conquered.

Your people were conquered while in Scotland, man. Jesus Christ, how do you graduate High School, your lot.

Your people were native to Scotland, were landowners in Scotland, they were terrorised by the British and eventually escaped them for the only country that was free at the time: United States. They, the newly settled immigrants (yes, your folk still!) decided to join the rebellion to dismantle this country that welcomed them, because this terrible oppressive government may limit their right to exploit African American labor.

Settled Americans, those who lived here for generations prior to the Civil War committed treason, but your lot: recent immigrants who escaped their own bondage and took arms against the country that welcomed you and allowed you to build wealth in a period of only 20 years - you present a new high of as.sholdom my friend.

Carry on.

Don't explain with malice what you can explain with stupidity

reply

[–] bethebestforthejob 10 years ago

The northern leaders cared no more for slaves than The South

No, not exactly true. The North would NEVER begin the war over slavery: unfortunately the South cared about Slavery so obsessively much that they forcibly dragged the North into it. The North tried to appease the South prior to War, during the War even a year into the War: nothing. The South was hell-bent on destroying the country their forefathers built if it meant preserving slavery. If it ain't a passionate, obsessive kind of love for the institution I don't know what is.

I am afraid you cannot present your previous statement

The northern leaders cared no more for slaves than The South

and this one

Much like issues of today, slavery was a sensational topic and the media printed about it often.

in the same argument and claim it makes sense; if the North cared nothing about slavery, then who exactly was printing and buying those newspapers? You mean; rich benefactors were printing them at a loss? Since 1833? I am sorry, you either have an audience hungry for Anti-Slavery rhetoric or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

the majority of The South did not own slaves

It didn't matter. The majority of the South fought for the right to live in the country that gave them the right to own slaves (just like today you fight for the right to own weapons). There would be no abolition for anyone, ever. No free blacks, no equal rights, no competition, no accountability for the slaveowner, and it was all in Confederate Constitution.

This was every white Southener's American dream.

The South and her people felt that their was ground being lost to the north and felt something had to be done.

First of all - this line is worthy of a Harlequin novel, second of all: what?????????????? What are you talking about?

Lincoln started to send raiding parties, and that led to The South wanting freedom from the corruption

What are you talking about, again? Honestly, what kind of incoherent babble is this? Secret raids???????? Organised by Abraham Lincoln during presidential campaign of 1860? Again: w-h-a-t?????

The South warned they would sucede if Lincoln was pushed into office

?????Are you aware of the fact that Abraham Lincoln was elected President in democratic elections? Do you claim the Confederacy disputed the legitimacy of the elections? Like: they suspected fraud and that is why they seceded? I mean; huh?????

POTUS #16 declared war on this nation

Wasn't it the other way around????????? Aren't you getting just a tad bit too creative with the facts?

The fact is, we were raised on stories of the northern aggression and reconstruction.

I have absolutely no problem with the fact that you were raised on those stories: I have a problem with the fact that throughout your whole life you seemed never to have picked up a history book that was not handed to you by a parent. You seem not to have developed a single independent thought and you confuse elementary, absolutely elementary facts and finally appear as if you have absolutely no idea what are you talking about.

Which is shameful because I love a good discussion.

Also, unquestioned idealisation of one's parents and grandparents is usually a phase children go through, but adolescents grow out of and become independent-thinking individuals. And you seem not to have done that. Makes me wonder how old are you and secretly hope the answer is: 10.

You better believe that the northern soilders, being paid henchmen, took liberties while invading.

Why should I believe that? Because an adult told me so? Show me a source, show me a proof and I will accept it as fact. I do not need to believe that.

The most of us have manners, so you may not notice that we don't care for the north states. That level of destain does not come from thin air.

You mean you live in a community that built its identity on resentment over what happened over 150 years ago? While refusing any responsibility for unleashing this violence on the U.S? And having absolutely no reflection on own role in preservation of slavery? Perpetuating racism and condoning violence?

You seem also to be proficient producers of incoherent conspiracy theories: I do not blame you, I assume you have learned what you repeat here from someone; and I guess you believe that repeating such nonsense is a sign of your devotion to your community.

I am guessing none of your folk recognise the heroism of African American sacrifice for the War, their bravery in fighting the enemy despite having inferior arms training, guarantee of being slaughtered without mercy or sold back into bondage and tortured?

Now; would you pick up arms against such odds?

Because you know; having nothing, coming from nothing, and being overall - "inferior" - they could have easily remained in refugee camps, wait for the government handouts and never hurt a fly.

There was never an African American Draft Act, think about it. They chose to fight and die - nobody made them nor expected them to.

Today, despite decades of victimisation and horrific injustice (for which you should be really ashamed of, by the way) they don't seem to hold as much grudge as your community!

Your people just cannot let go of the fact that "stupid United States" did not go along with the brilliant idea of dismantling the country, setting up a new one in which they would be free to perform all kinds of atrocities on their slaves for all eternity. Now wasn't that a worthy cause!

Don't explain with malice what you can explain with stupidity

reply

[–] Ilikequiche101 9 years ago

It's told from the perspective of several people from the South, so of course the North is not going to come across as super likable- they are the enemy. They are one of the biggest obstacles preventing Inman from going home. However, they don't exactly spare the "Southern gentlemen" either, who are constantly trying to murder Inman and other men who don't want to fight in the war anymore. "Gone With the Wind" doesn't exactly paint the Union soldiers in a positive light either. I'm sure if the movie was about a Union soldier trying to get back to the woman he loves, it would show the Confederates as heartless jerks. Perspective really dictates who the heroes and villains are.

reply

[–] doubl3 9 years ago

I guess OP doesn't like truth in movies. lol.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7251) a year ago

I thought the gang were Southerners who took advantage of the absence of Southern men because of the war.

It's funny how OP's criticism is also made of Gone With The Wind.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7986) a year ago

Well in Gone with the wind, I am pretty sure they were making a nod to Sherman's men who did rape some women. While I abhor his men doing that and other horrible things I do agree with Sherman wanting to destroy factories, railroads, and supply depots in order to make the south surrender. It's just terrible he couldn't seem to make his men do what he wanted them to.

reply

[–] Hydracubus (791) a year ago

Historically The Confederate home guard was pretty brutal. They were basically gangs left unattended by any military law enforcement. Free State of Jones does the best justice to how it was.

reply

[–] Zarkoff (2395) 14 days ago

Some pretty savage things happened during the war and afterwards. Things like looting, rape and murder were a problem. Some bad men took advantage of the chaos. That's historically accurate.

It's not like the movie depicted men in general as monsters.

reply