Civil War Drama Field of Lost Shoes Argues No Confederates Were Racist

The Village Voice ^ | Wednesday, Sep 24 2014 | By Nick Schager

[11th_VA]

Rewriting history to egregious ends, Field of Lost Shoes recounts the true-life saga of seven Virginia Military Institute cadets who in 1864 died in service to the Confederate Army during the Battle of New Market.

Awash in phony-looking facial hair and clichéd period drama, Sean McNamara’s drama defines those brave boys via their love of black people, their embrace of Jews, and their desire to fight so that they might protect their homeland from “foreign invaders,” uphold their “traditions,” and preserve their “future.” Save for a brief prologue, there isn’t a pro-slavery Southern man to be found in this fantasyland vision of the Civil War, only kind-hearted, open-minded progressives who want to be with their love-at-first-sight gals, or pursue sculpting careers, or liberate their oppressed African American brethren.

That counterfeit romantic portrait is contrasted with the contemptuous depiction of Ulysses S. Grant (Tom Skerritt) as a “butcher” and the Union as a bunch of child-murderers led by a goofily mustached David Arquette.

[jmacusa]

Or General George Patton or General Tommy Franks? Would you say that of those men? War isn’t a game of cricket. Sherman wanted to end the ability of the treasonous bastards who started the war in the first place to continue fighting it and end the damned war itself and fast.

[2ndDivisionVet]

More Than 10,000 Jews Fought For The Confederacy
http://www.rense.com/general26/morethan10000.htm

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

To let you know, in case you didn’t, the south had few factories, and were mostly agricultural, thus they had to import most of their stuff. That’s why when Lincoln blockaded the south during the war it was so effective.

Which still doesn't explain what imported goods (to the exclusion of domestic goods) that the south, with a quarter of the population, was consuming in such quantity that they were paying the bulk of the tariff.

I don’t have time to analyze every subcategory of every item on your list, but I do know that when it came to building and repairing infrastructure, the North got a disproportionate amount of the benefits.>

In other words, you expect me to accept your say-so instead of actually using data, even when I've laid it in front of you.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You do know today the tariff enacted by the confederate congress in February, 1861, was exactly the same as the 1857 tariff rates, right?

[LeoWindhorse]

HK Edgerton here was a friend of mine , one upon a time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp3pRiw9aQk

DV

[MountainYankee]

Village Voice = fish wrap

[DoodleDawg]

You really don’t get it. It also meant British goods would be 38% less. Just do the math.

I guess I don't see the point you're trying to make, if there is one. In the first place there would have been a tariff on the few British goods that the Confederacy imported since one of their first acts was to adopt the pre-Morrill tariff rates. In the second place, that same tariff, which was not a uniform 10% by the way, would also apply to any goods that the Confederacy bought from the U.S. so it would increase the price of goods they used to get duty free. So where was any of this impacting the U.S.?

[DoodleDawg]

I was talking about the mainstream history books, many of which were written by flaming liberals, which you have obviously been reading

I picked up my love of Civil War history from my dad, who was a fanatic on the subject. However, I also consider myself to be pretty conservative so I'd appreciate it if you could identify all those historians you say are flaming liberals and why you think they are. Don't want to accidentally contaminate myself.

[DoodleDawg]

...and were mostly agricultural, thus they had to import most of their stuff.

Like what?

That’s why when Lincoln blockaded the south during the war it was so effective.

Prior to the war the South didn't need to import arms and ammunition and other war supplies. Nor did they need to import items they used to buy from the North. You're talking apples and oranges here.

I do know that when it came to building and repairing infrastructure, the North got a disproportionate amount of the benefits.

How disproportionate? If the South had 20% of the population and say, for the sake of argument, 80% of the government spending was in the rest of the country then is that disproportionate?

[Roman_War_Criminal]

McClellan sure did waste chances. IMHO, the biggest gamble that paid off in the Civil War was Chancellorsville for Lee. I don’t think the tactical genius and timing of everything that happened there can ever be replicated.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

You have basically espoused the cause of the character Tavington from the movie The Patriot. He was eager to get all those “treasonous b*****ds” to surrender to the Crown by going after their families. Yes, there are rules in civilized warfare. You don’t burn homes, kill civilians at random, or rape women. You can say, “well Sherman was just trying to end the war fast.” But you can look at a lot of things that people like Hitler did in their wars and say the same thing. Doesn’t make it right.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Good God man, have you ever read about the Tariff of Abomination for example? You definitely haven't read all the history books you claim to have read if you don't know what I'm talking about here. Look it up. That tariff was designed to protect Northern industry. The South could get most manufactured goods from oversea at a rate cheaper than many Northern companies wanted to sell by. So they raised the tariff so high that now the Northern goods were cheaper. It was all to benefit the North at the expense of the South. Go read a history book please!!!!

And about you list that you posted earlier. The big problem with it is that it may say what the money is mostly being spent on, but it doesn't say where it is being spent. So thus it is pretty useless.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Oh goodness, there are too many modern day ones to list. You know how liberals always put their spin on history, especially in history books in the public schools. The older the books, the better, but even that is not a guarantee because there were liberals back then too. I usually tend to shy away from the liberal sort of books, and there are literally thousands of books written on the civil war, so if you wanted a complete list, I’m sorry. But a good judge is if the author is promoting or justifying government expanse or unconstitutional measures, while condemning people standing up for constitutional rights, then you can guess which side of t he line they are on. :-)

[DoodleDawg]

Oh goodness, there are too many modern day ones to list.

How about half a dozen or so?

But a good judge is if the author is promoting or justifying government expanse or unconstitutional measures, while condemning people standing up for constitutional rights, then you can guess which side of t he line they are on. :-)

I suspect that your classification is a bit more elementary than that. If they appear to support the Confederate point of view, conservative. If they appear to support the Union, liberal. If they hate Lincoln with a passion, conservative. If they don't consider Lincoln evil incarnate, liberal. Am I close?

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Like what? Like almost everything that doesn't grow on a farm. Please don't play dense with me lol.

When the North blockaded the South, they no longer could get as many war supplies as they needed, like powder. But they could also not get any of the other things they needed. Like medicine and certain food. That's one reason why so many men died in Andersonville. The south sent a delegation of released Andersonville prisoners to Lincoln to beg that medicine and food be sent to support his men in Andersonville with the promise that it was for his men only. But he didn't listen.

Regarding the North getting more benefits:

Senator Benton said in 1828 that the South "may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction--it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream."

George Lunt, author of Origins of the Late War, noted,

"In 1833 there as a surplus revenue of many millions in the public treasure which by an act of legislation unparalleled in the history of nations was distributed among the Northern States to be used for local public improvements."

President James Buchanan's message to Congress declared,

"The South has not had her share of money from the treasury, and unjust discrimination has been made against her."

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

I haven’t wasted my time reading most of those books since I was a teenager. So of course I don’t remember the names. But probably half the ones at your local book store are that type. They give the image of the South was all evil and the North was all good as if things were that simple, and they often try to promote a sense of white guilt for slavery. Everything Lincoln did was good, all Southerners were racists and all Northerners supported abolition. While most don’t take it quite to this extreme, some do (I remember reading them as a child), and many come pretty close.

[trubolotta]

I think you are mistaken, particularly regarding Lincoln. I do not fault him for taking action during a war to win that war. But lets not forget Lincoln was railroad lawyer before going into politics. I think he would have made peace with a seceding south but his northern commercial and industrial patrons wouldn’t have it.

I also think if Lincoln had lived, we would never have seen that shameful period in American history called Reconstruction. I do believe he was sincere about reuniting the nation while most Republicans saw the south as a conquered territory to be plundered and politically manipulated for own gain.

[DoodleDawg]

But lets not forget Lincoln was railroad lawyer before going into politics. I think he would have made peace with a seceding south but his northern commercial and industrial patrons wouldn’t have it.

Lincoln was a lawyer lawyer before becoming president. He handled some cases for railroads, yes. But they were not the major source of his practice. Not that that has anything to do with his positions to begin with.

And when Lincoln was inaugurated, seven states had seceded and had already seized all the federal forts, mints, and other facilities they could. They had two federal garrisons surrounded and at least one, Sumter, on the verge of being starved into surrender. The Confederacy were building their army and their intent was clear. There were no peaceful intent in any of that, and short of surrendering completely to every Confederate demand then there was nothing Lincoln could have done to perserve peace. Though he certainly tried.

I also think if Lincoln had lived, we would never have seen that shameful period in American history called Reconstruction. I do believe he was sincere about reuniting the nation while most Republicans saw the south as a conquered territory to be plundered and politically manipulated for own gain.

There is a lot of merit in that claim, but like everything else we'll never know. The Radical Republicans were very powerful and were out for vengeance. Regardless of how easy Lincoln might have wanted to be on the South they may well have had the numbers to force through most of their agenda.

[rockrr]

They give the image of the South was all evil and the North was all good as if things were that simple, and they often try to promote a sense of white guilt for slavery.

I've read a great deal on the subject as well and have yet to come across a volume such as this. Can you provide even a single title?

[trubolotta]

Lincoln did quite well as a railroad lawyer. He managed to get his hands on some prime land as a result of his railroad work. I’m not saying he was any more or less scrupulous than any other railroad lawyer.

As for federal facilities, do you think the new United States would have acquiesced to the British maintaining military and government facilities in the US? They actually tried to do that to collect on debts owed to English citizens but in the end, the facilities were denied and the cases settled in court.

Lincoln was trying to negotiate peace. He was persuaded to break it off and use Fort Sumter to force a confrontation. To SC, this was a foreign fortress in the middle of their most important harbor. Sumter could have been evacuated but that was not put on the table.

I will agree we can’t know if Lincoln’s post-war policies would have been implemented despite Radical Republican opposition. I can only go by his stated intentions and give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being honest.

The victor always rewrites history to make his cause look just and the enemy deserving of every punishment inflicted. That applies to Reconstruction as well, which I blame for more racial animus than any other single cause.