Media Portrayal of Union Troops

[Roaming East]

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.

Gods and Generals was such Lost Cause BS that it made me not watch the movie all the way thru. This as a southern raised VMI graduate.

 

[unimackpass]

To the OP, the Confederate point of view makes for a much better story. When telling the Civil War from the North's POV, they're putting down a strong but ultimately hopeless rebellion led by a sympathetic character (Lee, not Davis). That makes the North a shit hero, dramatically-speaking. Reluctantly stomping an underdog who just wants to leave. Glory was an underdog story within a story that worked beautifully- and in that story, the North was actually the bad guy. It's the insurmountable power structure. Nobody ever roots for that.

It appeals to the feels, always makes a better story. It worked pretty good for the "History Channel".

https://spectator.org/33770_history-channel-gets-vikings-precisely-wrong/

"This is not in any way an accurate depiction of the political system of the Vikings. Rather, it’s an expression of the tropes to which lazy contemporary scriptwriters are prone. Every story has to be about some dynamic young person (who wants freedom) in conflict with a hidebound old conservative, who lives by oppression."

 

[Trotsky]

He actually revolutionized the way war was conducted. The gentleman's tactics were scrapped for a total war type of "shock and awe" tactics.

As a Southerner, of course I hate what he did, destroying property, killing innocent people, etc, but at the same time, he was effective.

Revolutionized? How do you figure? I don't have a horse in the race, and I always thought the march to the sea was really bad ass, but total war tactics had been around for millennia at that point.

Hell, 4000 years earlier, the Assyrian empire dissuaded resistance by slaughtering villages and people and then stacking their severed heads into huge piles for others to see. Or skinning alive their enemies and hanging their skins.

Then 2000 years earlier the Mongols practiced some of the same ruthless total war tactics.

Also, don't you think that civil war is a particularly inappropriate theater for total war in the first place? Engaging in total war against a people you are then going to have to integrate into your political system and whose rebuilding process you're going to have to subsidize with your taxes just seems stupid.

 

[The Diplomat]

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.

@Captain Davis and I have had debates regarding the civil war, causes and reactions, etc. a few times. Even though I live in the south, I was brought up with a northern mindset, felt that the right side won, SC seceded over the very issue of slavery and caused a chain reaction. The south fired the first shot at Ft. Sumter. Lincoln played dirty politics, but at the end of the day, the ends justified the means.

I think one of the reasons I've gotten so bad at shitposting lately, is because I've had so many of the same conversations and debates on this very forum over the years, with numerous different people and ideologies, that it all becomes meaningless. And I want to be a contrarian and play devil's advocate just in spite. *EVEN IF I AGREE WITH YOU* lol. Same goes with @HomerThompson @Jack V Savage @Fawlty etc. They know I've debated guys like TCK, rip, etc. countless times over the years. But it's so pointless at this point.

Fucking sherdog.

 

[7437]

Americas rapid rise in the world economy was due to sevral factors, unending land and an abundance of resources and potential; but it wouldnt have happened without slavery, a resource the Europeans mostly used abroad.

The country as a whole and its position internationally benefitted greatly from slavery. The Norths complicity in the system is often left out, also the unwillingness of Northerners to actually fight, also the Norths unwillingness to accept a giant population of newly freed black people.

America's Civil War is misunderstood by both sides in my opinion.

What was at stake wasnt the dissolution of slavery for moral reasons, though there was plenty of pressure from this direction, and enough to use it as a motivator; but because the national economic system itself was being revamped to a wage based system.

Making modern media depicting this period of history is really tricky, imo, and somehow glorifying (because that is what ultimately happens when something is turned into a film) independent moments or stories from that war is sure to enflame.

the american industrial revolution happened before the civil war, it is a big part of why the south lost. industrialiation is why the USA became such a power.

 

[Captain Davis]

Revolutionized? How do you figure? I don't have a horse in the race, and I always thought the march to the sea was really bad ass, but total war tactics had been around for millennia at that point.

Hell, 4000 years earlier, the Assyrian empire dissuaded resistance by slaughtering villages and people and then stacking their severed heads into huge piles for others to see. Or skinning alive their enemies and hanging their skins.

Then 2000 years earlier the Mongols practiced some of the same ruthless total war tactics.

Also, don't you think that civil war is a particularly inappropriate theater for total war in the first place? Engaging in total war against a people you are then going to have to integrate into your political system and whose rebuilding process you're going to have to subsidize with your taxes just seems stupid.

By revolutionized, I mean during the Mexican War and beginning of the Civil War, the Generals were very gentleman-like. They made extra effort not to engage non combatants.

Sherman threw that out the window and destroyed everything in sight.

 

[Captain Davis]

Gods and Generals was such Lost Cause BS that it made me not watch the movie all the way thru. This as a southern raised VMI graduate.

What did you think about "Field of Lost Shoes?"

 

[unimackpass]

Well, when you are bored, I'd urge you to read more on the man.



You live in China, yes?

I hesitate to call Zedong a monster, just on the basis that I think that his attempts at reform, even if reckless and incompetent, were from a place of genuine desire to serve the greater good, whereas Stalin's were primarily motivated by power.

For instance, Mao's economic experiments with instituting a fixed wage for agriculture. It was a bold experiment meant to provide security for Chinese people, what with the country's climate and unpredictable crop output. However, it was stupid and, even if it only caused a marginal decrease in agricultural output, that marginal decrease hurt millions.

Help me to understand. Are you saying no matter the amount of destruction if a persons motives were good it negates it?

 

[Strychnine]

I mean, we joke about Sherman burning down the south again, if that's not positive I don't know what is.

But really though, you don't need to try and sway people's opinions when you're seen in the history books as the good guys. The confederacy apologists are trying to do image control, the Union is already widely acknowledged as being the force for good.

Speaking of, do we need to send Sherman down there again?

Only to Alabama.

 

[Trotsky]

Help me to understand. Are you saying no matter the amount of destruction if a persons motives were good it negates it?

No. I'm not sure how you could get that from what I said.

I fully believe that Mao was a negative figure in history. I said that Mao's policies which caused that destruction were (from what I have read) largely from a place of incompetence as opposed to malice. His bumbling indifference did contrast from, say, Stalin's vicious antipathy.

EDIT: Also, fantastical statements like "he murdered 70 million people" are what detract from having a rational conversation about the topic. Most persons who died in China died from an unprecedented famine across the East (which, as I said, Mao's fixed wage policy aggravated), and even including those persons who were killed by famine, the total doesn't even reach 50 million. For an undeveloped agrarian country, 3% of your population dying during a horrible famine isn't unprecedented considering usual turnover from usual death rates, nor should it be imputed as "murder" upon the leader at that time. Even during the worst periods of the Great Leap Forward, the yearly death rates were not uncommon for poor countries in the East. See: the attached graph for death rates (per 100,000) during Mao's reign

@InternetHero do you more or less agree with this, or do you have an addition or detraction?

 

[unimackpass]

No. I'm not sure how you could get that from what I said.

I fully believe that Mao was a negative figure in history. I said that Mao's policies which caused that destruction were (from what I have read) largely from a place of incompetence as opposed to malice. His bumbling indifference did contrast from, say, Stalin's vicious antipathy.

EDIT: Also, fantastical statements like "he murdered 70 million people" are what detract from having a rational conversation about the topic. Most persons who died in China died from an unprecedented famine across the East (which, as I said, Mao's fixed wage policy aggravated), and even including those persons who were killed by famine, the total doesn't even reach 50 million. For an undeveloped agrarian country, 3% of your population dying during a horrible famine isn't unprecedented considering usual turnover from usual death rates, nor should it be imputed as "murder" upon the leader at that time. Even during the worst periods of the Great Leap Forward, the yearly death rates were not uncommon for poor countries in the East. See: the attached graph for death rates (per 100,000) during Mao's reign

@InternetHero do you more or less agree with this, or do you have an addition or detraction?

Seriously looking for more light than heat here both ways. Not convinced about malice not being a major component here.

Interesting book review.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html

Mao Zedong, founder of the People's Republic of China, qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world history, an expert who had unprecedented access to official Communist Party archives said yesterday.

Speaking at The Independent Woodstock Literary Festival, Frank Dikötter, a Hong Kong-based historian, said he found that during the time that Mao was enforcing the Great Leap Forward in 1958, in an effort to catch up with the economy of the Western world, he was responsible for overseeing "one of the worst catastrophes the world has ever known".

Mr Dikötter, who has been studying Chinese rural history from 1958 to 1962, when the nation was facing a famine, compared the systematic torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants to the Second World War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in China over these four years; the worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55 million.


Mr Dikötter is the only author to have delved into the Chinese archives since they were reopened four years ago. He argued that this devastating period of history – which has until now remained hidden – has international resonance. "It ranks alongside the gulags and the Holocaust as one of the three greatest events of the 20th century.... It was like [the Cambodian communist dictator] Pol Pot's genocide multiplied 20 times over," he said.

Between 1958 and 1962, a war raged between the peasants and the state; it was a period when a third of all homes in China were destroyed to produce fertiliser and when the nation descended into famine and starvation, Mr Dikötter said.

His book, Mao's Great Famine; The Story of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, reveals that while this is a part of history that has been "quite forgotten" in the official memory of the People's Republic of China, there was a "staggering degree of violence" that was, remarkably, carefully catalogued in Public Security Bureau reports, which featured among the provincial archives he studied. In them, he found that the members of the rural farming communities were seen by the Party merely as "digits", or a faceless workforce. For those who committed any acts of disobedience, however minor, the punishments were huge.

State retribution for tiny thefts, such as stealing a potato, even by a child, would include being tied up and thrown into a pond; parents were forced to bury their children alive or were doused in excrement and urine, others were set alight, or had a nose or ear cut off. One record shows how a man was branded with hot metal. People were forced to work naked in the middle of winter; 80 per cent of all the villagers in one region of a quarter of a million Chinese were banned from the official canteen because they were too old or ill to be effective workers, so were deliberately starved to death.

Mr Dikötter said that he was once again examining the Party's archives for his next book, The Tragedy of Liberation, which will deal with the bloody advent of Communism in China from 1944 to 1957.

 

[jonharrison]

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.

See this is exactly what I mean! I wish there was more interest in this sort of history in the north. I know my father’s, grandfather’s, and great grandfather’s units and where they served, but all I have is a picture of a guy in a Union uniform after that. Not the level of detail that your family has preserved. That’s pretty amazing.

 

[Roaming East]

What did you think about "Field of Lost Shoes?"

much the same. The fact that the key cast were all anti-slavery 'friend of the coloureds' is kinda BS. Virginians in general and the military caste in particular were ardent white supremecist and pro-slavery and being even a whiff of an abolitionist amongst the rank and file of the cadet corps would have been grounds for ostracization. kinda hoaky with the slow motion usage and the 'quips casually in the midst of chaos' kinda thing. 2/5

The best civil war movies are still going to be Gettysburg, Glory, and if youre lucky to see it, Ride with the Devil since its one of the few civil war movies to focus on something other than the major battles and/or post war outlawishness. i WILL state that Gods and Generals was extremely well produced though.

 

[Fluffernutter]

with all but the civilian raiders being awarded the Medal as well.

Civilians and military did the same job.

Did the civilians get a medal, citation, certificate, or amazon gift card too?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I only recently became aware of this historic incident from the Civil War. I apologize if others know about it, however I never had, despite being fairly well read on the subject of military history:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Locomotive_Chase

To sum up the story of Andrew’s Raiders: A group of 22 civilian spies and Union troops infiltrated over 200 miles behind Confederate lines. Their objective was to steal a locomotive, ride it North towards Chattanooga, and destroy the rail lines connecting Atlanta with Chattanooga, preventing the Confederate troops there from being resupplied, allowing the city to be captured by the Union. The raiders successfully captured the train and began the process of demolishing tracks, cutting telegraph lines, and burning resupply stations. The Confederates in the area commandeered their own train and gave chase. Just outside Chattanooga, the raiders ran out of gas and were forced to abandon their own locomotive and scatter. The men were captured with several being executed for espionage. Eight of the raiders, fearing execution themselves, managed to escape the Confederate prison and make it back to Union lines. Their activities managed to disrupt Confederate supplies, waste valuable resources rebuilding track, and had a psychological effect on Confederate feelings of safety behind their own lines. The first ever awarded Medal of Honor was awarded to Jacob Parrot, a raider who had been tortured during his captivity, with all but the civilian raiders being awarded the Medal as well.

————————-

Now, why is this a WR topic? This story is incredible, it has a little bit of everything, so it lends the question, why is it not more well known? By all rights some recent filmmaker (there was a 1950s movie about it) should have released a major block buster about it. It should be something talked about in schools as a source of Union pride. Why does the Confederacy have a monopoly on positive media coverage? From The Outlaw Josey Wales, to any portrayal of Jesse James, to Hell on Wheels, or any of a dozen other Westerns or Civil War movies, it always seems like the Union is portrayed as the villains. Glory is a notable exception, but I can’t think of many others.

I will be frank, I’m a pretty patriotic guy. I’m at least fifth generation US military, with ancestors who fought for the Union. I can’t help but dislike that stories of heroic, patriotic Americans go untold, while stories of those who wished to leave our nation, and killed men flying the Stars and Stripes get the glory. It is my opinion that media depicting heroic American soldiers fighting for the union of our nation, showing men willing to die to preserve the country our forefathers created, would serve as a unifying and healing force in divisive times. Do others feel this way? Or would that just cause further division, demonizing the proud Southern man, and lead to further unrest? Could changing our lens of the Civil War to focus on the Union, rather than the South, help to bring us together, or divide us? Discuss.

You think it was honorable to fight to preserver the country? What did you do when you gf broke up with you - make her come back by force?

The war brought about a noble outcome, but neither side fight for noble reasons.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

much the same. The fact that the key cast were all anti-slavery 'friend of the coloureds' is kinda BS. Virginians in general and the military caste in particular were ardent white supremecist and pro-slavery and being even a whiff of an abolitionist amongst the rank and file of the cadet corps would have been grounds for ostracization. kinda hoaky with the slow motion usage and the 'quips casually in the midst of chaos' kinda thing. 2/5

The best civil war movies are still going to be Gettysburg, Glory, and if youre lucky to see it, Ride with the Devil since its one of the few civil war movies to focus on something other than the major battles and/or post war outlawishness. i WILL state that Gods and Generals was extremely well produced though.

You realize that there was very little slavery in the western portion of VA?

That's not to say that there weren't slaves in the area, but it wasn't common.

Edit: And Lee didn't own slaves.

 

[jonharrison]

Civilians and military did the same job.

Did the civilians get a medal, citation, certificate, or amazon gift card too?

Not as far as I know.

 

[Captain Davis]

You realize that there was very little slavery in the western portion of VA?

That's not to say that there weren't slaves in the area, but it wasn't common.

Hence probably why West Virginia (Western Virginia at the time) stayed loyal to the Union.

 

[Captain Davis]

much the same. The fact that the key cast were all anti-slavery 'friend of the coloureds' is kinda BS. Virginians in general and the military caste in particular were ardent white supremecist and pro-slavery and being even a whiff of an abolitionist amongst the rank and file of the cadet corps would have been grounds for ostracization. kinda hoaky with the slow motion usage and the 'quips casually in the midst of chaos' kinda thing. 2/5

The best civil war movies are still going to be Gettysburg, Glory, and if youre lucky to see it, Ride with the Devil since its one of the few civil war movies to focus on something other than the major battles and/or post war outlawishness. i WILL state that Gods and Generals was extremely well produced though.

I thought Field of Lost Shoes was a bit hokey, but I didn't know the story of New Market. It was interesting.

I also liked the point that was made on the train ride scene.

Freedom certainly didn't mean anything that resembled equality.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Hence probably why West Virginia (Western Virginia at the time) stayed loyal to the Union.

Yes and no. The southern parts of WV wanted to go with the south, it was the northern counties that wanted to stay in the union.

Basically union troop locations made the boundary between southern WV and southwest VA.

Stonewall Jackson was even from present day WV.