Posted on 04/10/2015 5:03:22 PM PDT by lqcincinnatus
One hundred-fifty years after Appomattox, many Southerners still won’t give up.
One hundred fifty years ago, on April 9th, 1865, Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House and the Union triumphed in the Civil War. Yet the passage of a century and a half has not dimmed the passion for the Confederacy among many Americans. Just three weeks ago, the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) appeared before the Supreme Court arguing for the right to put a Confederate flag on vanity license plates in Texas. Just why would someone in 2015 want a Confederate flag on their license plate? The answer is likely not a desire to overtly display one’s genealogical research skills; nor can it be simplistically understood solely as an exhibition of racism, although the power of the Confederate flag to convey white supremacist beliefs cannot be discounted.
Rather, displaying the Confederate flag in 2015 is an indicator of a complex and reactionary politics that is very much alive in America today. It is a politics that harks back to the South’s proud stand in the Civil War as a way of rallying opinion against the federal government—and against the country’s changing demographic, economic, and moral character, of which Washington is often seen as the malign author. Today’s understanding of the Confederacy by its supporters is thus neither nostalgia, nor mere heritage; rather Confederate sympathy in 2015 is a well-funded and active political movement (which, in turn, supports a lucrative Confederate memorabilia industry).
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Lincoln birthed Fed-Zilla. Never before had the US Government accrued so much power over so many people. Much subsequent federal expansion was the consequence of Lincoln trail blazing the way in that direction.
Much of our current troubles are the direct descendants of Lincoln's Legacy.
As opposed to a dishonest hypocrite like you.
The Confederate side are waxing poetic about its historical accuracy. What Union battle in mid-1863 was close enough to the sea to ship all those bodies home by ship via New York?
You obviously know nothing about film or fiction. That movie is one of the best that Scorcese turned out - a NYer who knows his history. I don’t watch Eastwood movies.
You make a good point about the lack of patriotism in new immigrants. One of the problems Custer had when he was assigned west was that he didn’t know what to do with the wild Irish and German immigrants assigned to the 7th Cavalry. It brought out the martinet in his character and may have contributed to his fall at the Little Big Horn.
Yes, the riot happened. But you were talking about the conscription on the docks, which did not.
You also miss the point of conscripting immigrants. They hadn't yet had time to develop a patriotism for their new country. Those who were born here and who were citizens have certain obligations that foreigners do not have.
Except that hundreds of thousands of immigrants volunteered for the US army before conscription ever began, despite the fact that "they hadn't yet had time to develop a patriotism for their new country."
Ah, so you can change your opinion according to what you want to believe. Sorry but I’m following this thread not just catching up to the last post. Some of you are changing your facts to fit your argument.
I would ask some of you to knock off accusing others of getting their history from Hollywood movies. Not that Hollywood movies don’t recreate the past and encourage the reading of history. If you check my tagline, you will see that after studying the Civil War as a youth, I now study medieval English history. And I don’t get my facts from The White Queen.
I have never blamed the country’s ills on Lincoln. That is stupidly reductive. Lincoln preserved the union and was matchless in determination and intelligence. I don’t agree with all of his actions during the war but I TRY TO DISTANCE MYSELF from the Civil War and see it as brothers tragically fighting each other with staggering losses unseen until WWI. I like the south, I like the north. I visit battlefields the way other women visit the Bahamas.
“You are aware it’s a work of fiction, right?”
Cute. You are aware that it’s historical fiction based on real events, right? Star Wars isn’t, just so you know.
The Leo DiCaprio character is a complete fiction. The real Bill the Butcher was dead almost a decade before the riots. The Old Brewery was torn down even before that. Unlike the movie, there were virtually no Chinese in New York until after the Civil War. And that's just a start of what the movie gets completely wrong.
Frankly, serious historians don't put much stock in Asbury's book, The Gangs of New York , either. He was more of a journalist cranking out pop nonfiction than he was a historian.
Not even in the upper half.
When I was a kid, I read Egyptian history books because I was growing up on Hollywood depictions of that era. I never believed that Victor Mature or Anne Blythe represented the royal family of Egypt! The important thing about these movies is to encourage interest.
Oh, go away, film critic. I run across you people everyday on FB with your stupid movie critiques.
Pelham: we need to stop talking to stupid people.
You asked me "Does the United States follow natural law when it suits its interests, but reject it when it doesn't?" In what way is my answer hypocritical? All rebellions are built on the rejection of written law in favor of resorting to the Natural Right of Rebellion.
It wasn't a house, it was mounds of Rock
It was a structure built and inhabited by men. Your continual efforts to make it seem like shelling it and setting it on fire was no big deal to the guys inside because, hey, no one actually died as 4000 guns fired on them for 34 hours, is the height of disingenuousness.
That was an epic blunder and it cost them the moral high ground.
Now who's being hypocritical? You can't on one hand say that it wasn't that big a deal because no one died, then say that it cost them the moral high ground.
Please point out what opinion you believe I have changed.
And yet we have people here holding up scenes from the movie as accurate depictions of events. You liked the movie? Fine. I didn't think it was great Scorsese, but then I think Scorsese hasn't made a great movie since about Casino.
I never held up any particular scene as an accurate depiction of events. What I think is fine about the film is the creation of atmosphere that truly existed in NYC at the time - particularly relating to the Draft Riots and evils of Tammany Hall and the slums of 5 Points. That is accurately portrayed if my book of mug shots from the 19th century is anything to go on. Also, I live in NYC as has my family since mid-19th century so I have a slightly atavistic attitude towards both the movie and those times.
Well...there was a New York...and there was a riot over the draft...but other than that I don't recall much in the way of historical fact.
Then I suggest you watch the movie for it's acting and it's direction, but not for it's history. Which is why I watch "Lincoln", as well as "Goodfellas" and "The Departed". I like Spielberg and Scorcese but I don't look to them for my history lessons.
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.