OH LAWWD Why???


Oh Lawwd..When can this hea movie end. I pray for ya‘ll who can't watch this hea sorry excuse for a prequel to Gettysburg to thy end..LOL!

Way too much religious preaching and useless speeches in nearly all the non action scenes. Worst still it's one the most extremely PC corrected film in modern times.

I remember the scene in Gettysburg where Col Chamberlain was talking to the 120 Maine men who were under arrest. After his kinda longish talk even he said "Sorry didn't mean to preach" LOL! The irony...:)

Nichole was here.

reply

You need to watch the directors cut and let it sink in. Who the characters were, why they fought and had to do what they did. The tragic tragic truth of how American armies invaded each other on their home soil in a bloody war that lasted five years. Brothers fought brothers, quite literally and thousands of lives were destroyed. Cities like Atlanta and Columbia were burnt to the ground at the end in a vengeance fueled total war tactic General Sherman employed to make the south "never dream of thinking of leaving the Union again". The wounds of this war are still healing- it took place 150 years ago, not long ago at all. Sometimes you need to watch a movie a couple times (with a beer or glass of wine if you want) and you get more out of it every time.

I still think Gettysburg is a better movie though, because it was such a pivotal battle and the script was tight yet full and fleshed out the characters real well. The characters and actors were perfect and channeled the men they portrayed.

I hope "Last Full Measure" gets made soon (with same actors, or maybe Sheen back as Lee)

reply

"The wounds of this war are still healing"

Only because of the inability of white southerners to admit is was foolish cause and even more foolish tactical decision by their ancestors to pick a fight with a far better equipped and larger region.

The South clearly had better military leaders. If the North had someone like Grant running war in the East in 1861 this would have ended within two years.

reply

"If the North had someone like Grant running war in the East in 1861 this would have ended within two years."

I doubt that. Grant was a cleanup guy, the hard stuff like Antietam and Gettysburg were over and the south would never be able to recover after Gettysbrg. It was a slow descent, when you fight for your homes which are getting pillaged and burnt if you are pushed back most tend to fight a little harder. Thats why it took so long to beat the Confederates into a surrender.

What Sherman did/allowed to happen to Columbia, South Carolina and Atlanta, Georgia is inexcusable. But was swept under the disgusting rug of lies and dirty little secrets no one seems to talk about.

reply

"What Sherman did/allowed to happen to Columbia, South Carolina and Atlanta, Georgia is inexcusable. But was swept under the disgusting rug of lies and dirty little secrets no one seems to talk about."

Yeah, because no one has ever heard of the March to the Sea and "Gone with the Wind" completely ignored what occurred with Atlanta. The war ended over a century ago, migration between the regions have changed the demographics of both since 1950. "Still healing" Please, only in the minds of some.

BTW, perhaps you failed to notice that since 1960, 4 of the 10 Presidents were from States part of the Confederacy. Although given that Carter and W Bush were the two worst Presidents we've ever had, I can see why that gets forgetten.

reply

Yes, "Gone with the Wind" was a movie that dealt with the burning of Atlanta. It was one scene, in one movie. A movie that is more about antebellum southern conditions and a far-fetched love story. And if I remember the movie, they left out the mass rapes of southern women by union soldiers drunk off of pilfered booze in Columbia and Atlanta. Especially Columbia, because the union soldiers all believed that South Carolina was the reason for the long bloody five year war (it did start in Charleston, SC with the bombing of Ft. Sumpter). Here is a tip- learn your history from personal research, books, and lectures from doctors who have been studying the facts for their entire scholastc career, not from movies.

I don't know how much education about the true causes of the Civil War, reasons, and political backdrops that forced the bloodiest, most tragic events in our young countries history so I will hold back for now-

Here is one fact you may not have ever considered- Abraham Lincoln was a slave owner. There was slavery and slaves in EVERY SINGLE Northern State until the Emmancipation Proclamation was declared in 1862- and even then, Lincoln refused to free the slaves in the border states like Maryland for fear of Maryland leaving the Union to join the Confederacy. Lincoln ALLOWED slavery until the end of the war, when he was forced to finally end slavery in the Northern states as well.

There were just as many slaves in the Northern states as in the Southern states before, and during the Civil War.

So to make the claim that this war was started because of slavery is ignorant and wrong. To say this war was fought over slavery is tolerable because halfway through the war Lincoln realized that it would be a huge publicity boost for his army and nation to appear in the worlds eyes as "Fighting to free the negro". This is the reason the British did not ally itself with the South. President Lincoln himself held racist views toward blacks, and he believed freed slaves should be colonized in foreign nations- yet this truth is swept under the disgusting rug of lies and half truths. "The historian David M. Potter drew a nice distinction in Lincoln's position between 'what he would do for the slave' and 'what he would do for the Negro.' 'All men are created equal,' he would say, on the authority of the Declaration of Independence, only to add: 'I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.' He opposed allowing blacks to vote, to sit on juries, to marry whites, even to be citizens." (Garraty and McCaughey, The American Nation, p. 413)

"Lincoln spelled out his position with clarity: 'I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, (applause)--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.'" (McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 186)

"The problem with this lofty rhetoric of dying to make men free was that in 1861 the North was fighting for the restoration of a slaveholding Union. In his July 4 message to Congress, Lincoln reiterated the inaugural pledge that he had 'no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists.'" (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 265)

Neither the North, or the South were fighting to free or keep any slaves. The north fought to preserve the union for if the union were split into two countries on one continent we would be half as strong. The south was fighting for their right to govern their own land and not have to answer to a president thousands of miles away. Most men in the south never thought they would see a day when an American president raised an army to invade his own coutry. It was truly, utterly sad.

Slavery was wrong, and its a shame so may had to die for it to finally end in this country but the slaves would have been freed in the south regardless of the war, General Longstreet had been quoted many times saying, "We should have freed the slaves, then fired on Ft. Sumpter.

reply

There were just as many slaves in the Northern states as in the Southern states before, and during the Civil War.

this is completely false. and while the rest of the post above has some thought out points, with that one absolutely blatant lie, you the reader should ignore all of the rest written

reply

learn your history from personal research, books, and lectures from doctors who have been studying the facts for their entire scholastc career, not from movies.


Way to miss the point. He's not arguing that GWTW is historically accurate; he's pointing out that Sherman's March is prominently featured in one of the most popular films ever made. Ergo, it's patently silly to claim that Sherman's March has been "swept under the rug."

Here is one fact you may not have ever considered- Abraham Lincoln was a slave owner


Because it's not a fact. Lincoln's wife's family owned slaves, but a reasonable person realizes that does not extend to Lincoln itself.

So to make the claim that this war was started because of slavery is ignorant and wrong.


What was the underlying cause of all the tensions in antebellum America then? What was the issue that constantly thrust itself into every issue debated in America between 1787 and 1861?

All you've proven with this volumnious quote-mining and Lost Cause sophistry was that Lincoln did not make abolition a stated war aim at the outset. That is different from what caused the war, about which the Southern leadership themselves were plain enough at the time.

Lincoln's racism (to the extent that he was) is pretty much a moot point. One could hold a white supremacist viewpoint and still feel the enslavement of an entire race was wrong. I guess it's a convenient distraction for Lost Causers who apparently love to harp on it.

Additionally, do you really want to cite James McPherson of all people while arguing slavery wasn't the cause of the war? I guess you realized if you mentioned Thomas DiLorenzo you'd get laughed out of the room.

"My child is God to billions of Asians!"

reply

"I doubt that. Grant was a cleanup guy, the hard stuff like Antietam and Gettysburg were over and the south would never be able to recover after Gettysbrg."

I doubt there would have been an Antietam or Gettysburg had Grant been in charge.

Also, some of the hardest fighting of the war took place at the end. He showed there that he didn't have the same flaws as the earlier commanders, so why would you assume he'd perform more poorly had he been in their shoes?

reply

Grant in 1862 was not the Grant of 1864. Shiloh attests to that. Calling the guy who engineered Chattanooga and Vicksburg "the clean-up guy" isn't remotely fair though.

"My child is God to billions of Asians!"

reply

I think what the point that was trying to be got at was if ANYONE but McClelland was in charge of the 90,000+ strong Army of the Potomac that he managed to raise, you would think the Union would at least have been able to take Richmond nice and early and force the Confederacy to relocate its capital if not collapse outright. No general before or since had the overwhelming superiority that McClelland enjoyed and it's hard to argue he didn't waste it.

I suspect the problem is that you have too many paperclips up your nose

reply

Hancock-
"What was the issue that constantly thrust itself into every issue debated in America between 1787 and 1861?"

As long as the North could make its usual profits from slavery there was no war.

Only when that privilege was closed off did you have a war.

reply

Clearly the Southern aristocracy didn't have a problem living with the big bad North until their profits were "threatened" either. Yours is a meaningless statement.

"My child is God to billions of Asians!"

reply

One could hold a white supremacist viewpoint and still feel the enslavement of an entire race was wrong.



fair point, that much..

reply

If the North had someone like Grant running war in the East in 1861 this would have ended within two years.


two years still sounds like a long time, if ur suggesting that Grant would have neutralised the gap in General's skillset and made everything the Union's way....

reply

I thought this was a hundred times better than Gettysburg, (with which I was at release, and still am, terribly dissapointed). I was the civil war kid growing up, and have been fascinated ever since...I SHOULD love these movies...

The combat here was WAY better done, and the acting, directing, editing was better overall.

That said, this was pretty awful at times, oustide of the combat scenes. For instance, I wanted to drop-kick that little girl and Jackson with their f&^%ing Christmas pedo cheese.

My initial thought when I found out she died was "Oh, thank god."

As has been pointed out previously, this WAS the Victorian age, and everyday interactions were rife with off-putingly long winded speeches, but Jeebus! Could we just have a great Civil War movie that isn't physically painful to watch in a single sitting?

Stop with the friendly southern black relations and the little girls and the sobbing wives already! The f*^k?




reply

Definitely one of the lousiest movies I've ever seen. Surprising and disappointing considering how well done Gettysburg is. I dread seeing Gods and Generals again, not out of fear, but boredom.

After all... tomorrow is another day.

reply