Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Legend of a 'noble South' rises again
Sun Movie Critic ^ | February 16, 2003 | Chris Kaltenbach

Posted on 02/17/2003 10:41:15 AM PST by stainlessbanner

Director says 'Gods' has Southern slant, but 'full humanity'

The North may have won the Civil War, but in Hollywood, the South reigns triumphant.

That was certainly true in 1915, when D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation portrayed the conflict as a war of Northern aggression where order was restored only by the arrival of the Ku Klux Klan. It was true in 1939, when Gone With the Wind looked back on the antebellum South as an unrivalled period of grace and beauty never to be seen again. It was true when Clint Eastwood played The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), a Confederate war veteran who has run afoul of Northern "justice."

(Excerpt) Read more at sunspot.net ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: confederate; dixie; generals; gg; gods; kkk; macsuck; maxwell; movie; robertbyrd; robertkkkbyrd; robertsheetsbyrd; senatorsheets; south; tedturner
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-534 next last

1 posted on 02/17/2003 10:41:15 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
I'll be taking my family to the preview here in Charlotte on Tuesday. I know people from all over who will be going to see this fine movie dressed in 1860's garb (blue or grey, although mostly grey) in honor of our ancestors and our heroes.

Deo Vindice!
2 posted on 02/17/2003 10:47:44 AM PST by safisoft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
I plan to see the movie. There were slaves who were devout christians who put the love of others above their own selves. That sounds sick to some but it's true. Pierre Toussaint, a black slave up for canonization, decided to remain a slave and take care of his master's family after his master died. I guess people don't understand that concept of selfless love of others too much. What's wrong with showing both sides? I think Gods and Generals will be a great movie in terms of showing a more balanced portrayal of these men's lives.
3 posted on 02/17/2003 10:50:35 AM PST by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg; safisoft
Another G&G Link: VMI hosts premiere of Civil War film
4 posted on 02/17/2003 10:52:44 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
I'm not sure which is more pathetic -- the southerners who want to forget that the south fought to maintain slavery, or the black leftists who think they are owed reparations.

Well guess what, the past is the past. The evils were committed and those that did it and their victims are all long dead and gone.

Get over it.
5 posted on 02/17/2003 11:02:20 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
I didn't see anywhere where it said that it was mandatory to read this post... if you don't like history don't visit historical based posts!... some of us enjoy the history of the Northern War of Aggression is that okay with you?
6 posted on 02/17/2003 11:07:11 AM PST by arly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Don't limit your poll to just two categories. Idiots like you are quite pathetic, if one can overcome one's urge to vomit in their presence, and show some sympathy.
7 posted on 02/17/2003 11:09:37 AM PST by Treebeard (Zees seely rabbit....she may be back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Or the pathetic Northerners who think everyone in the North was against slavery and wanted equal right for blacks also.
8 posted on 02/17/2003 11:11:09 AM PST by TXBubba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TXBubba
right=rights
9 posted on 02/17/2003 11:11:52 AM PST by TXBubba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: arly
No we're all supposed to bow down and worship the lincoln. Or didn't you get the memo? G&G bump!!
10 posted on 02/17/2003 11:12:01 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TXBubba
Just today the History Channel had a story on the draft riot of 1863 in NYC. Turned into anti black riots. Black homes were torched and 12 free blacks were lynched.

Federal troops had to restore order.

11 posted on 02/17/2003 11:14:08 AM PST by n.y.muggs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: billbears
...or Minnesota libertarian atheists who think people give a $hit what their Romanian surname means.
12 posted on 02/17/2003 11:14:20 AM PST by Treebeard (Zees seely rabbit....she may be back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Dixie Bump! I can hardly wait for the movie to play here..
13 posted on 02/17/2003 11:17:01 AM PST by TomServo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Perhaps you should read the entire article. I think you missed this part:
"Perhaps the real lesson here is that those who depend on popular fiction to teach them history need to re-think their strategy."

The intent of G&G is not to claim who is right and who is wrong. Nor is it intended to be a record of authority for historical means.

Do your own research.

14 posted on 02/17/2003 11:30:12 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
"..it's been necessary to downplay the issue of slavery"

We used to have slaves?!! Oh...that's right. You just never hear about the slavery that once existed here.

"Historians have been debating for decades whether the South and North came to blows more because of slavery or state's rights"

The South could have peacefully seceeded, without resistance from ther North; if only they had freed their slaves.

Yea...sure.

It was about individual & states rights vs federal government rule. The North prevailed, and we have been sliding into socialism ever since.

Why does the North call it a "Civil War" when the South had no interest in ruling them?

After forcibly dragging the South back into the fold, why does the North refer to this country as "United"?

Such total deceptions of history serve a purpose. What purpose is served? Why do liberal socialists almost never admit to being such. Hmmmm....

15 posted on 02/17/2003 11:58:12 AM PST by laotzu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Some people can't recognize that it's possible to respect the valor of the confederate soldiers without respecting the cause.
16 posted on 02/17/2003 12:03:42 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
One can respect confederate soldiers without liking slavery and the social ills that come along with such an institution. Why do people get so upset at movies like Gods and Generals? It's not as if it's a KKK movie.
17 posted on 02/17/2003 12:07:15 PM PST by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
I must admit my ignorance here. I often wonder if the common soldier on either side knew what they were fighting for. Information and education were scarce. I could imagine that the confederates for the most part, were defending their homes and protecting their families.
My heritage is Native American and Irish so both sides of my family knows what it is to fight for your land and be less than successful.
18 posted on 02/17/2003 12:09:56 PM PST by j_k_l
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j_k_l
I must admit my ignorance here. I often wonder if the common soldier on either side knew what they were fighting for.

I think you could say that about most wars. As to whether the Civil War was about slavery or not, Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" sets the record straight. In it, he offered all states who would return to the Union the right to keep slaves. He additionally stated that any states that remained in rebellion would be returned to the Union by force and the slaves freed.

Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit: "That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
It's clear from the text of the Proclamation that he was giving Confederate states approximately 90 days to return to the Union, with the promise that the right of the state to keep slavery as a legal institution would be preserved.
19 posted on 02/17/2003 12:24:14 PM PST by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: n.y.muggs
Just today the History Channel had a story on the draft riot of 1863 in NYC. Turned into anti black riots. Black homes were torched and 12 free blacks were lynched. Federal troops had to restore order.

New York City in the 1860s was a Democratic enclave. Nobody ever pretended that the North was solidly Republican.

20 posted on 02/17/2003 12:25:33 PM PST by SpringheelJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: j_k_l
I often wonder if the common soldier on either side knew what they were fighting for.

They sure did.

The majority of the common Union soldiers were fighting to "Save the Union".

The majority of Southern soldiers were fighting to defend their States from invasion.

After the Seven Days Battles, General George MacClellan, Commander of the Army of the Potomac who was dealy loved by his troops dispite of his military incompetence, gave Lincoln unsolicited political advice and urged him not to make the abolishment of slavery a war aim.

During the war, Julia Grant, the wife of General U.S. Grant, would often visit him at his Union Headquarters and bring their young son, Jesse, along. Along with Jesse Grant came his caretaker "Black Julia" who was Mrs. Grant's slave.

It is now Politically Correct to view the Civil War as a simple a matter of Slavery versus Abolition. However, except for certain units such as the 54th Massachussets, such simplifications are historical revisionism.

The Northern forces, after all, called themselves "Union" forces.....not "Abolition" forces.

21 posted on 02/17/2003 12:32:53 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: n.y.muggs
The death toll was actually over 500, and could have been as high as 1,000. Union army troops entering NYC to restore order announced that anyone on the streets would be shot. See www.republicanbasics.com.

22 posted on 02/17/2003 12:48:10 PM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: j_k_l
"I often wonder if the common soldier on either side knew what they were fighting for..."

There was a very strong conviction among the Confederates that they fighting a war against Northern imperialism. Documentary accounts bear out the intensity of this feeling.

The Northern soldiers were closer to a conscript army with less intensity of feeling about the meaning of the War. Among the Northern officers, however, there were very strong convictions about the rightness of preserving the Union.

The mere fact that Southern combatants in G&G are not protrayed as wild-eyed pro-slavery fanatics should not cause this movie to be contraversial. That is not why the South fought, in large measure.

The issue of what really motivated the Civil War is becoming a hot one in historical circles. The fact that other issues besides Slavery are receiving due attention (the Tarriff issue) is long overdue. The South's motivations in the conflict are far more nuanced than has been presented in movies to date. G&G looks as if it is giving the two sides a more balanced treatment.
23 posted on 02/17/2003 12:48:52 PM PST by ggekko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ggekko
Actually, only 6% of Union soldiers were conscipts, compared to 100% for the Confederates. Over 30% of rebels were drafted into the Confederate army -- for limited terms of enlistment -- but once in, their terms were extended by the CSA government to the duration of the war. So, all Confederates became draftees. In contrast, when their 3-year enlistments expired in the summer of 1864, Union soldiers were free to go, but three-quarters of them re-enlisted -- voluntarily -- for the duration, while only one-quarter went home. See www.republicanbasics.com.
24 posted on 02/17/2003 12:53:42 PM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Your knowledge of history is pathetic.

I guess you've spent too much time on Lake Wobegon.
25 posted on 02/17/2003 12:54:35 PM PST by mgstarr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

self-ping
26 posted on 02/17/2003 12:56:36 PM PST by dpa5923 (More than a man, less than a god.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
As Ulysses Grant put it: "The rebels fought valiantly, but in the worst cause for which men ever fought."
27 posted on 02/17/2003 12:58:30 PM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
It was true in 1939, when Gone With the Wind looked back on the antebellum South as an unrivalled period of grace and beauty never to be seen again.

I'm glad it's never been seen again; what utter saccharine tripe.

28 posted on 02/17/2003 1:03:25 PM PST by Pahuanui (When a foolish man hears about the Tao, he laughs out loud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
"Actually, only 6% of Union soldiers were conscipts, compared to 100% for the Confederates...."

If those numbers are correct that certainly puts things in a different light.

I still contend, however, that there has been a historical distortion of our understanding of Lincoln and his motives fostered by many Lincoln biographers. Many of these biographers have overemphasized and even distorted Licoln's concern with the slavery so as to render him in the most sympathetic possible light.

Lincoln was, I believe, most concerned with preserving the Union; slavery was a secondary issue. While I believe Lincoln was right in his war aim, it should not be attributed primarily to ending slavery.
29 posted on 02/17/2003 1:20:12 PM PST by ggekko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ggekko
I agree with you, though Lincoln's opposition to slavery hardened throughout the war.
30 posted on 02/17/2003 1:24:27 PM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
You're right. The business about GWTW is on page 6 of the book.
31 posted on 02/17/2003 1:25:44 PM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
I dunno about that. Rhett's handling of that brat Scarlett is not without some redemption...lol

"I'm just not going to think about it right now...tommorrow is another day".....man even today's Belles down here have some level of that passive-aggressiveness in them...trust me. Old habits die hard.

32 posted on 02/17/2003 1:33:05 PM PST by wardaddy (That's right....I don't give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: laotzu
Why does the North call it a "Civil War" when the South had no interest in ruling them?

It is officially called "The War of the Rebellion".

33 posted on 02/17/2003 1:35:33 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine (those who unilaterally beat their swords into plowshares wind up plowing for those who don't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
Yep, that sums it up. If Democrats had a brain in their head (thank God they don't) they would use that in talking about the confederate flag issue. Instead, they try to demonize everything about the South in the Civil War.
34 posted on 02/17/2003 1:54:25 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
You state about "Gone With The Wind:"

I'm glad it's never been seen again; what utter saccharine tripe.

Did you even see the movie? Saccharine! It is full of scenes capturing the horror of the War, followed by the horror of reconstruction in a ruined South. What are you talking about? Is it hatred--yours--for the cultivated, refined South that was smashed in the war--the South of Jefferson, Madison, the Lees, and their deep southern counterparts--that you are venting?

On the other hand, "Gone With The Wind" was one of Hollywood's last balanced efforts, in which a fair vision of the old South was presented. What followed World War II, was a vicious assault on Southern culture. If this new movie really does present a fair view, it will have been very long over-due.

The use of the movies against the South, and to promote antagonism between the races and sections, over the past half-century, has been so vicious, that I used it as the major example in the essay, just posted, on The Persuasive Use Of Images. Perhaps your attitude was forged by those hateful images, referred to. Perhaps not. But there is nothing "saccharine" about "Gone With The Wind."

William Flax

35 posted on 02/17/2003 1:56:16 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
"It is officially called "The War of the Rebellion"

Who is this 'official'?

Must be 'officially' kept a secret. It has never been expressed, either verbally or literally, as such around me.

As oppossed to 'Civil War', how often have you heard it referred to as 'The War of the Rebellion'?

36 posted on 02/17/2003 2:05:12 PM PST by laotzu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ggekko
Lincoln was, I believe, most concerned with preserving the Union; slavery was a secondary issue.

But what was the splitting issue in the "union?" It was none other than slavery.

Since the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision legalized slavery in all states and territories (meaning escaped slaves remained property across all state lines) there wasn't a direct way to eliminate slavery. Abolishionist advocates instead sought other means to limit and burden slaveholding. The slave holding states rebelled because of that. So yes, it was about slavery.

37 posted on 02/17/2003 2:09:18 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Man, I bet you had a cow while watching "Roots."
38 posted on 02/17/2003 2:11:13 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Once again you rise above the flotsam with clarity and lucidity and reasonableness.

I would like to personally apologize for any harm that might have been caused by General Morgan's ill fated raid through your beloved state.
39 posted on 02/17/2003 2:12:35 PM PST by wardaddy (And just what region of this country did most of the more prominent framers come from?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Do you prostrate yourself at the altar of guilt over the ill treatment of the Amerindians by your kinfolks as well Mr Minnesota?


Actually, I like Minnesotans but in your case I'll make an exception.
40 posted on 02/17/2003 2:15:47 PM PST by wardaddy (And just what region of this country did most of the more prominent framers come from?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
"The slave holding states rebelled because..."

Slavery was introduced from, and practiced by the North. Your referring to the South as 'the slave holding states' is deceptive. Why decieve us?

" So yes, it was about slavery"

Why did the North maintain their slaves after conquering the South, and freeing her slaves? It seems odd that those willing to fight & die to abolish slavery, would return home & continue its practice.

Are you purporting that had the South freed their slaves, the North would have had no objection to seccession?

41 posted on 02/17/2003 2:33:25 PM PST by laotzu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
It has been a long time since I saw "Roots," but the focus there, as I remember, was on a family tracing its roots back to Africa. Why would that cause me to "have a cow?"

While the story, as I recall, turned out to be fiction, the idea of a family tracing their roots is a very Conservative theme. If you have read the essay, I just cited The Persuasive Use Of Images, you would know that I attribute to African roots, the wonderful Uncle Remus stories, that were the subject of "Song Of The South," the last major Southern friendly, Hollywood movie.

Incidentally, while the Haley story may have been fictionalized, there is very strong evidence that there was a positive benefit to Southern Negroes, who did retain a sense of their roots. It is a good thing for all people to be aware of whence they sprang, etc..

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

42 posted on 02/17/2003 2:38:10 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
There is nothing to apologize for. Morgan's raid was a legitimate wartime event.

I do not know much about this new movie; but I will be amazed if it really does picture the South fairly. Hollywood really has a tremendous bias against the South, which we have discussed in a number of places--in addition to the new essay on images.

Incidentally, I found the other day that there is actually a group actively trying to get Disney to reissue "Song Of The South." If the present management were not Leftist oriented, they would naturally do so, if for no other reason than to give many Southerners a reason to end the boycott by Southern Baptists and others. But a management, that turns their "family oriented" theme parks over to deviants on selected days each year, is not apparently just driven by sound business decisions.

Keep fighting, my friend. Those willing to speak truth, with a sense of proportion, today, are terribly needed.

William Flax

43 posted on 02/17/2003 2:50:19 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
"I'm just not going to think about it right now...tommorrow is another day".....man even today's Belles down here have some level of that passive-aggressiveness in them...trust me. Old habits die hard."

Well...being a lifelong belle myself, I can honestly say that I often repeat Scarletts words to myself and act them out. Sometimes we just need a break from life.



44 posted on 02/17/2003 2:54:47 PM PST by FreepLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Do you prostrate yourself at the altar of guilt over the ill treatment of the Amerindians by your kinfolks as well Mr Minnesota?

My gramps was a peasant man who arrived here at the turn of the 20th century -- long after the Indian wars.

And no, there is nothing proud about the treatment of Minnesotan government toward the Indians of old. However, unlike some southerners trying to play the victim (kinda like the Japanese now only remember being victims of the A-bomb) any attempt by fellow Minnesotans to paper over such past evils would get condemnation from me.

There was nothing noble about slaughtering the Indians just as there is nothing noble about being slave holders.

45 posted on 02/17/2003 3:00:43 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
"But what was the splitting issue in the "union?" It was none other than slavery...."

I belive the tariff issue was of greater importance than the slavery. The slavery issue was important but is was not the driving issue; the tariff issue was.

The Morill tariff bill was passed in 1860 and was signed into law by Lincoln shortly after his election. This bill nearly doubled tariff levels on most products. This bill further exacerbated the inequity in the Federal tax system to the point where most Federal revenue came from the South and most Federal spending occurred in the North. Immediately before the start of Civil War the South was paying 87% of all Federal Taxes!

The tariff issue was explosive. Southern ports were beginning to undercut the Port of New York and Southern exporters were beginning to buy the bulk of their manufacturing imports from Europe. The size of the tariff increase in the Morrill bill was designed to forestall these trends. In several speeches Lincoln threatened to enfore the new tariff regime by force.

The threat of facing a naval blockade and having the economic lifeblood choked out of them was too grave a threat for several sates which then began seccession planning.
46 posted on 02/17/2003 3:10:38 PM PST by ggekko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ggekko
The Morrill Tariff was passed on March 2, 1861 -- after, not before, seven states had already seceded. Only the walkout of all those Democrats from the Confederate states made its passage possible. As for tariffs or anything other than slavery being a reason for secession, it is all revisionist nonsense. Each of the eleven Confederate states published declarations of secession. Every word of every one of them is about slavery and the need to keep blacks people down.

47 posted on 02/17/2003 3:23:08 PM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: laotzu
The National Archives designates it that way.
48 posted on 02/17/2003 3:28:53 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine (those who unilaterally beat their swords into plowshares wind up plowing for those who don't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

I think it was Longstreet who said "We should have freed the slaves first, then fired on Sumter."

The war would have happened with or without the institution of slavery. It was about the rule of the Federal Govt who did not believe (through their dictator Lincoln), that the South had the right to secede. Might doesn't make right, it only makes you in charge. But it won't last forever.

49 posted on 02/17/2003 3:30:02 PM PST by Leatherneck_MT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
It's officially called the war of Yankee Aggression.
50 posted on 02/17/2003 3:31:39 PM PST by Leatherneck_MT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-534 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson