'Gods and Generals' ... and an angry Mayor Dow

Mobile Register ^ | 10/13/03 | Jim Van Anglen

[gatex]

"...but don't rewrite history. It makes you look foolish..."

Link to Emancipation Proclamation ---Emancipation Proclamation

Quote from below Emancipation Proclamation ---"On Jan. 1, 1863, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln declared free all slaves residing in territory in rebellion against the federal government. This Emancipation Proclamation actually freed few people. It did not apply to slaves in border states fighting on the Union side; nor did it affect slaves in southern areas already under Union control. Naturally, the states in rebellion did not act on Lincoln's order."

[carton253]

It did... it's supposed to be in the director's cut.

[Moby Grape]

I should rephrase and say perhaps Gods and Generals tried to show why each side thought themselves to be on God's side.

I have not seen the movie as of yet, and cannot offer an "educated" opinion. However, I have read some reviews by people I trust that thought very highly of the movie, and the usual "liberal" suspects all hated it. Apart from the attempt by some to suggest that slavery had little to do with the war ( a silly proposal), and those on the other end of the spectrum who believed it ONLY about slavery (also a simplistic view), there is, in my opinion, resistance by liberals to have the South portrayed in any fashion other than shoe-less racist uneducated hicks who lynch for sport. They cannot tolerate a southern General who was educated, read a Bible, and spoke with eloquence.

[Lee Heggy]

So? Next time I will provide you with a bibliography. Still it does not invalidate the material. Get over it.

[carton253]

Thought you might be interested in it.

[stainlessbanner]

In his review, Ewert takes the wrong perspective for the movie. He critiques issues that the movie did not even address and the issues he tries to tackle are baseless claims.

I appreciate your informative posts and comments. Keep it up!

[laotzu]

"Slavery started in North America in Florida, grew in Virginia"

The Union, & slavery, existed before there was such a thing as the Confederacy.

"I can hardly sum it up better than Alexander Stephens, vice president of the confederacy, did: "

And, of course, Stephens argument was rejected by the Confederacy. All of those presidents he spoke of were part of the Union. The Confederacy did not exist when they were elected. But, of course; you knew that.

I cannot join you in pretending to not know the difference between a point on a compass, and the Confederacy. Really, why don't you bring Bolivia into this? They are from the south too.

"So it would appear that it was the Federal Government of the South, not the North, who nurtured..."

Because of an argument rejected by the Confederacy?!!

And now you alledge that the South attempted to seceed from itself. Quite the gymnast. The "South" is the Confederacy, the south is a point on a compass.

[laotzu]

"Actually, you had responded to my question..."

I know. Clear enough now?

[Graybeard58]

"I don't know why you're getting mad at me. I only asked you to clarify your statement, which you have now made clear you can't".


...You are right Paul, slavery was the only "states rights" the south was fighting to defend. There is and was no justification for slavery.
...Folks may nit pick about who introduced slavery and who held on to it the longest and that doesn't change the fact that the civil war was about slavery- the most horrendous evil ever introduced to this nation until 1973.

[laotzu]

"Ah.... more word games. By the Union do you mean..."

I mean the Union. The United States.
(that would be all states prior to the Confederacy being formed)

How many meanings do you think there are?

[PaulJ]

Okay, I'll bite. What happened in 1973?

[Graybeard58]

'72 or '73, I'm not real good with dates but I was referring to Roe Vs Wade

[laotzu]

"Lincoln's decision to exclude the North from the emancipation proclaimation can be explained in any number of ways..."

No doubt.

For whatever reasons one may choose to argue; none of them alter the fact that the Union was excluded from the Emanipation Proclaimation.

"You make it sound as if the North kept its slaves into the 1950s."

Do I really? Where?

"I think there is mis-representation on both sides."

I would agree. However, because 'they were doing it too' is hardly a reason to not question misrepresentation.

Why, do you think, is such a mis-representation(United States) called for?

[ladtx]

....but how the war effected the soldiers that fought it.

Bingo! Too bad so many here do not want to acknowledge that fact.

[carton253]

And even then, the movie really only focuses on two soldiers... Jackson and Chamberlain.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Confederacy did not exist when they were elected. But, of course; you knew that.

And when the confederacy was proclaimed it went out of it's way to include in its constitution protection of the institution of slavery and the very slave trade that you profess to condemn. But, of course; you knew that, too.

[Non-Sequitur]

Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and Delaware.

Try again. Missouri and Maryland ended slavery by January 1865. Kentucky and Deleware lost their slaves in December 1865, the same time that the parts of the southern states not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation did.

Under what authority could Lincoln have ordered the freeing of slaves in the North?

[Held_to_Ransom]

?For whatever reasons one may choose to argue; none of them alter the fact that the Union was excluded from the Emanipation Proclaimation

That's true. Lincoln laid the groundwork for the continuation of slavery after the war, though he did it because he believed it necessary to prevent widespread murder and crime in the south. In any case, Thaddeus Stevens saw to it that Americans of African heritage were freed by federal law despite Lincoln's comparatively sophisticated gambit. Sadly though, Thaddeus died before he could rule the south long enough with an iron fist to prevent the savage genocide of Americans of African heritage that followed his death.

[AnAmericanMother]

It's not quite that simple an issue here.

This guy is an employee of a city that has just had a terrible time dealing with "Southern heritage" issues. He wrote an article over his title as a city employee without the permission of his boss, reigniting the very issues that the city had finally managed to put a lid on.

He certainly is free to say anything he wants, but not to use his city title to give some sort of imprimatur to his speech. And by doing that without permission, he has put himself in a bit of a jam from an employment standpoint.

"Free speech" doesn't mean "speech without consequences", especially when you do something without permission that harms your employer.

[carton253]

What genocide would that be and when did it happen?