Media Portrayal of Union Troops

In the silent movie era, but nothing recent. I’d never heard about it until recently. Although Von Ryan’s Express could be seen as kinda similar
There's also a novelization I read 10 years ago, but I didn't see it mentioned in the wikipedia page.
 
!!!!! have you not seen:
latest





Incidentally, there's a fantastic Train Chase in Buster Keaton's "The General"

0r4GdXB.gif



Culminating in the most expensive stunt ever on film, (At the time)


636d70a87bf44688862050a4b11dca86.gif


Its Fuckin-A.



And:
Confederates don't have monopoly on positive portrayals in film.

Fair enough, I didn’t accurately state what I meant. I meant more in the sense that the average Confederate soldier has traditionally received more depictions in film and fiction than the average Union soldier. Not that the Union as a whole is seen as historically worse. There are just more depictions of, say, individual Confederate enlisted or officers in fiction than people who fought for the Union. Basically I want more movies like Glory, only focusing on other units and events of the war.
 
If you're not too wary of exposing your identity to a discrete reader, are either of those published? I would be very interested to read.(1)

Crazily enough, the only person I personally know (a mother of a school friend from China) who lived through the Cultural Revolution speaks very, very positively of it and of Mao i.e. "everyone had what they needed," "it was a time of peace and equity," etc. and it legitimately caught be off-guard. (2)

1. Nothing good ever comes from revealing a public face in a private forum. Sorry.

As well, there is a lot of good literature on the Cultural Revolution out there. I recommend on looking into the Cultural Revolution in Tibet for a really tragic example of a clash of ideologies.

Spoiler alert: When feudalism, Buddhism, and shamanism met the culmination of radical Maoism, the results were unfortunate.

2. There was a great book written about some of the nostalgia of the older generation about the Cultural Revolution. I'll try to find the name of it when I get back to China.

Comments like: "We were all so close..." and "Made such good friends..." to "Life was simpler then..." maybe a "Beating the schoolteachers was fun, shame about the ones we lynched though..." a lifelong friend of mine whom I met while she was getting her PHD, and is something of an anarchist herself, would admit the revolution is bad, but liked the whole "cause" though her view as a small town girl from Sichuan.

For personal disclosure I also know a few, hmm, generation X'ers I suppose whose grandparents were part of the "bourgeoisie" and met very sad and unjust ends.

The incredible modernization of China also left a lot of people behind, especially in the countryside, and a few of those left behind might opine about the past...

That should no more distract from the truth though than the truth about the antebellum south.

Mao willfully destroyed Chinese culture, what remained of the intellectuals, and most of the history, monuments, and the lives of millions upon millions of people for his desire too see the "old ways" disappear, to force all sense of living out of life, and perhaps worst of all to assure his place as a contemporary god of China.
 
Certainly, certainly, but all the justifications the south had aside, or ridiculous justifications an Atzlan enthusiast might have about the Aztecs, all people's have their excuses for barbarism.

The South's were and are more compelling than say, the Aztec empire, however, while it is material that we understand the culture and time put tremendous strain on the acceptance of slavery, that slavery can now be seen as awful, and was just as awful at the time no matter what the excuses.

1. The people who fooled themselves into owning other people based on past history? Not awful by definition.

- Therefore -

2. The reality of owning other people? Awful by definition today and at the time.

An "Appeal to Tradition" where because something was seen as part of nature or that blacks were inferior and therefore acceptable at the time to keep them as chattel does not work.

They are partly excused from innocence, but, when faced with the truth they did not accept that slavery had reached a logical end. (Interesting about Christianity and slavery. Christianity does not condone slavery, however, says not to rebel against it. A lot of modernists wail and gnash their teeth about that, but the time was the time, and the point as Paul went to pangs to explain was that God is in the business of the soul, not justice of the society, that is the business of the City of Man that should be brought to something more "holy" per converting the world of Caesar to be something more like the City of God.)

The South as we know fought to expand the bloody business.

That can be understood, and as I mentioned we can empathize and even sympathize with some good/mislead Confederates, but we can not excuse what slavery was.

No we can't. But there were also many other factors including tariffs and government coercion that led to the ultimate secession by the South. A lot of the tension was of course underlined by slavery, but it was never Lincoln's intention to end it, only western expansion.

You see, Lincoln received no Southern votes when he was elected. He ran as a Republican candidate who championed mercantilism, while wanting to limit slavery. The pro-slavery extremists were sure the Republicans would win control of Congress and the Supreme Court. They thought that ultimately, the Constitution would be changed or bypassed to outlaw slavery everywhere.

Even if this did not happen, southerners were worried. Unless slavery could spread, the slave population in the South would become too large. In time, blacks and whites would battle for control. A great rebellion would occur and/or one or the other would be destroyed.

So, the Southern fear was that the Republicans were going to change their way of life and there was nothing they could do about it.

This is what led to secession by 7 of the Southern states.

It was thought of as a necessary evil by many.
 
Fair enough, I didn’t accurately state what I meant. I meant more in the sense that the average Confederate soldier has traditionally received more depictions in film and fiction than the average Union soldier. Not that the Union as a whole is seen as historically worse. There are just more depictions of, say, individual Confederate enlisted or officers in fiction than people who fought for the Union. Basically I want more movies like Glory, only focusing on other units and events of the war.
Have you seen Gettysburg? It does actually follow Joshua Chamberlain and his Maine regiment. That along with Gods and Generals was very well done. I wish they would have done the other one that was supposed to follow.
 
No we can't. But there were also many other factors including tariffs and government coercion that led to the ultimate secession by the South. A lot of the tension was of course underlined by slavery, but it was never Lincoln's intention to end it, only western expansion.

You see, Lincoln received no Southern votes when he was elected. He ran as a Republican candidate who championed mercantilism, while wanting to limit slavery. The pro-slavery extremists were sure the Republicans would win control of Congress and the Supreme Court. They thought that ultimately, the Constitution would be changed or bypassed to outlaw slavery everywhere.

Even if this did not happen, southerners were worried. Unless slavery could spread, the slave population in the South would become too large. In time, blacks and whites would battle for control. A great rebellion would occur and/or one or the other would be destroyed.

So, the Southern fear was that the Republicans were going to change their way of life and there was nothing they could do about it.

This is what led to secession by 7 of the Southern states.

It was thought of as a necessary evil by many.

I think our discussion speaks for itself and any other disagreements would be quibbling.

We can certainly agree that history is complicated, and when making judgments the more we know about whatever happened helps us understand, and hopefully to give an honest picture of the past.
 
Have you seen Gettysburg? It does actually follow Joshua Chamberlain and his Maine regiment. That along with Gods and Generals was very well done. I wish they would have done the other one that was supposed to follow.
I have, but I confess I wasn’t paying the closest attention. We watched parts of it in school, but that class had some girls I liked in it :oops:
 
I think our discussion speaks for itself and any other disagreements would be quibbling.

We can certainly agree that history is complicated, and when making judgments the more we know about whatever happened helps us understand, and hopefully to give an honest picture of the past.
True.

Also, the whole idea of secession was not a cut and dry concept at that time. Even then, its legality was disputed and it still is to this day. It all depends on your interpretation of the Constitution. That's another thing that makes the Civil War so controversial and interesting. So much of it is based on interpretation.

I love the subject though.
 
I have, but I confess I wasn’t paying the closest attention. We watched parts of it in school, but that class had some girls I liked in it :oops:
lol

You should watch it again. Chamberlain was an amazing soldier and man. He is one of my favorite people that that war produced. A true officer and gentleman.
 
I think our discussion speaks for itself and any other disagreements would be quibbling.

We can certainly agree that history is complicated, and when making judgments the more we know about whatever happened helps us understand, and hopefully to give an honest picture of the past.
BTW, I'm not disagreeing with you, simply trying to give you some perspective.
 
lol

You should watch it again. Chamberlain was an amazing soldier and man. He is one of my favorite people that that war produced. A true officer and gentleman.
I certainly will, I’m glad that you reminded me about it, as it didn’t come up in my memory of movies
 
If you're not too wary of exposing your identity to a discrete reader, are either of those published? I would be very interested to read.

Crazily enough, the only person I personally know (a mother of a school friend from China) who lived through the Cultural Revolution speaks very, very positively of it and of Mao i.e. "everyone had what they needed," "it was a time of peace and equity," etc. and it legitimately caught me off-guard.
Wow. I could only see this being the case if you were on fertile enough land, your local authorities were smart enough not to inflate their rice quotas, and you had plenty of wood to burn.
 
I'd never heard that story but I agree it would make for a great movie "based on real events".

I think the other point is interesting too, we don't get a lot of romanticizing of the Union even though they won the war. Is Hollywood full of Confederacy sympathizers?
Interestingly enough, for a long time it kinda was. The lost cause narrative held a firm grip on popular culture for quite a while.
 
Wow. I could only see this being the case if you were on fertile enough land, your local authorities were smart enough not to inflate their rice quotas, and you had plenty of wood to burn.

Yeah I’ve only ever heard the opposite. My wife’s family lived through the cultural revolution; they and all of their friends have very opposite perspectives.
 
Fair enough, I didn’t accurately state what I meant. I meant more in the sense that the average Confederate soldier has traditionally received more depictions in film and fiction than the average Union soldier. Not that the Union as a whole is seen as historically worse. There are just more depictions of, say, individual Confederate enlisted or officers in fiction than people who fought for the Union. Basically I want more movies like Glory, only focusing on other units and events of the war.

Glory Was a great fucking Movie. When I look at films like that I think, That's our people, that's us!

I also think Ron Maxwell did a great job with his Civil War Movies. And Ron Maxwell is a Democrat.

But no shit, check: "The General" Its a fine piece of film making. Keaton is so under rated as a film maker.

He's essentially telling the story you mention in reverse.
 
Set aside plenty of time. its 3 hours plus...but I didn't want it to end.
I just thought of another point that led me to create this thread that you may be interested in. One of the other big things that I think affects this is that southerners have a better idea of their state’s heritage in the war. The people I’ve met from Georgia, and other southern states, have a good idea if their relatives served, or which units in their hometown were involved at different battles. I only found out, while reading about a different unit, that the town I currently live in, way up north, was the primary recruiting center for a division’s sharpshooters. They fought at Gettysburg and several other key battles. I thought that was amazing history to learn, but there aren’t any plaques or pieces in the historical society about it. No one knows that history. It’s sad.
 
I just thought of another point that led me to create this thread that you may be interested in. One of the other big things that I think affects this is that southerners have a better idea of their state’s heritage in the war. The people I’ve met from Georgia, and other southern states, have a good idea if their relatives served, or which units in their hometown were involved at different battles. I only found out, while reading about a different unit, that the town I currently live in, way up north, was the primary recruiting center for a division’s sharpshooters. They fought at Gettysburg and several other key battles. I thought that was amazing history to learn, but there aren’t any plaques or pieces in the historical society about it. No one knows that history. It’s sad.
Yes it is.

Oh yeah, many people down here are very aware. Not everyone, but many are. I'm in Alabama by the way.

For instance, since we are discussing Gettysburg. Joshua Chamberlain led the 20th Maine which was assigned to protect the far left flank on Little Round Top, on the second day of battle. The main force impinging on his regiment was the 15th Alabama, led by Lt. William C. Oates. He was from Pike County as were most of the men in his regiment. His brother was killed that day and the 15th Alabama was repulsed. Chamberlain showed incredible valor by commanding a bayonet charge after his men were out of ammo. Luckily for him, the 15th Alabama was about out of ammo too and was in the process of a retreat to regroup. The 20th Maine rushed down and not only repulsed the 15th Alabama, but took many prisoners.

BTW, Lt. Oates lost a leg in the war and returned to later be elected Governor of Alabama.

My 3rd great grandfather was in the 9th Alabama Cavalry, Malone's Rangers. I have another 4th great grandfather who was in the 23rd Georgia Infantry. Crazy thing was, the one who was in the 23rd Georgia, had two brothers who also served. One in the Confederacy and the other in a Tennessee company that stayed loyal to the Union. All of them made it through. I bet that was an interesting family reunion!

Also, another cool part of history here is in my hometown, Montgomery, the First White House of the Confederacy. Also the office building still stands where the order to bombard Fort Sumter was given.

Again, the vast majority of the war took place in the south, so battlefields and landmarks are more abundant.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top