Posted on 06/15/2013 2:53:18 PM PDT by BigReb555
A highlight of the reunion was the Confederate Veterans walk on the path of Gen. George Pickett’s charge that was greeted, this time, by a handshake from the Union Veterans.
(Excerpt) Read more at huntingtonnews.net ...
Do you think that distinction makes a difference? /smh
If you think I am a racist bigot then go f yourself.
More love from one of your compatriots, calling people bigots. Feel the love.
I don't know where it might be written but I'm calling BS on this part of the account. In the first place, there were no Black Union troops present at Gettysburg. In the second place, there were no Black Confederate troops present at Gettysburg. So why would either show up at a reunion of the battle? And while I wouldn't be surprised if all the hotels in the area were segregated at the time I would be surprised that white Southerners would be any more racially tolerant or enlightened than white Northerners were and share their lodgings with them. Why would they do something in Pennsylvania that would not have been tolerated in Virginia or Mississippi?
More than 53,000 Union and Confederate veterans from 47 states converged on the battlefield for the June 29-July 4 festivities, making it perhaps the biggest such military reunion in American history. Despite the segregation and racism of the time, black veterans from both the Union and Confederacy were also among the attendees.
Another newspaper sory using the "It was written" source that can't be verified? At least this one isn't claiming the rebel vets welcomed the black vets into their lodgings with open arms.
The union troops were segregated so no black regiments were there. The blacks were imbedded on Confederate Regiments, so they were there.
Rather than rely on your revisionism, why not go straight to the horse's mouth, so to speak, as to what the figures depicted on the monument actually represent? This is a book that the United Daughers of the Confederacy, the organization who funded the monument, had to say about it. After all, who would know better than the UDC on what message they were trying to portray? Link
"But our sculptor, who is writing history in bronze, also pictures the South in another attitude, the South as she was in 1861-1865...Then the sons and daughters of the South are seen coming from every direction. The manner in which they crowd enthusiastically upon each other is one of the most impressive features of this colossal work. There they come, representing every branch of the service, and in proper garb; soldiers, sailors, sappers and miners, all typified. On the right is a faithful negro body-servant following his young master, Mr. Thomas Nelson Page’s realistic “Marse Chan” over again.
The artist had grown up, like Page, in that embattled old Virginia where “Marse Chan” was so often enacted... And there is another story told here, illustrating the kindly relations that existed all over the South between the master and the slave — a story that can not be too often repeated to generations in which “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” survives and is still manufacturing false ideas as to the South and slavery in the “fifties.” The astonishing fidelity of the slaves everywhere during the war to the wives and children of those who were absent in the army was convincing proof of the kindly relations between master and slave in the old South.Still to the right of the young soldier and his body-servant is an officer, kissing his child in the arms of an old negro “mammy.” Another child holds on to the skirts of “mammy” and is crying, perhaps without knowing why."
It makes no sense to keep your cooks and body servants and laborers and teamsters in separate regiments, does it? So of course the rebel army kept them close at hand to the white men they were servicing.
I suppose a sarcasm tag would have helped.
Okay. I didn't like the characters enough to care about what happened to them, though.
And shows like Boardwalk Empire or Deadwood or Rome or Mad Men (at least at the beginning) seemed to be real passion projects, inspired by real love for the past.
Copper came across as more of a commercial concoction intended to exploit the trend. The real passion was Marty Scorsese's when he created Gangs of New York, which probably inspired Copper.
If you think about it, Copper has the same formula or template as Ripper, another better than average show on the same network: early police force, pioneering detective suffering after the disappearance of his wife/daughter, cynical/hotheaded sidekick straddling the line between law and crime, marginal/disgraced but brilliant medical examiner, romantic triangle, egotistical rich people, lowlifes, prostitutes.
I'll be watching anyway, though.
There were a few episodes available online so I checked it out - awfully talky for my taste. Yes, I did see the similarity to Gangs but never developed any connection to any of the characters.
“Tis all a matter of taste...”
Scorsese is supposed to be developing his own Gangs of New York series. If he gets HBO money it's bound to be more convincing than Copper (on the other hand, it could just be a 19th century rip off of Boardwalk Empire, which Scorsese also worked on).
Ripper (London, 1889) is another good series on BBC America. I wish they'd put their brains together and come up with one excellent series rather than two so-so ones, but I guess it's to be expected from television.
That movie footage is really remarkable. The technology was in its infancy when the reunion took place. Amazing to see men who participated in an 1863 battle on film.
Justified is the kind of show where you need to invest time in getting to know the characters and the writing. The dialog is sharp and witty, and characters all have a depth that you don't see in ordinary shows. I agree it isn't for everyone, but like The Sopranos it has characters that you just hate to love. Raylan Givens is not my favorite character, I'm a Boyd Crowder fan. I loved the Mag Bennett and Mykelti Williamson as Elstin Limehouse was great. There are gems in just about every episode.
“If you were a 20 year old, why would you think you had no prospects of ever owning a slave? Why wouldn’t they think they could become prosperous and own slaves some day?”
That’s a fair question. I would reply that, given the conditions that then existed, it would be unreasonable for a poor 20-year-old to think that he would become that prosperous.
“And yet that’s exactly what thousands of them did.”
I actually think that constitutes demonizing the southerners.
Would you go to war solely to protect slavery?
Our history of the period was full of examples of men who started out poor and became that prosperous. Andrew Jackson. Thomas Jackson. Abraham Lincoln.
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.