44 replies to this topic

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I thought they were the bad guys, yet they seemed to be viewed sympathetically somehow in movie, tvs and literature, and the confederate flag seems for some reason to be an icon.
why is this? Or is it my imagination?

[Ullman]

I think it depends on several factors. Such as which side of the Mason-Dixon line you're from, the colour of your skin and whether you're a fan of Lynyrd Skynyrd.

[Stevo]

The phrase "bad guys" should warn me away from this thread ;-) but I'll put a few suggestions out there anyway...

Because secession from Government/ rebellion against the state/ crown remains one of white America's founding stories - so the Confederacy has an innate appeal for people who hold to that view of their nation's history.

Because of the large number of Confederacy's population that died (30% of the male population from the southern states were killed during the war) and the burning/ destruction of Atlanta and Charleston, etc. - not hard to concieve that this would leave a powerful emotional imprint in the culture.

Because state's rights are still a key political issue in the US and to a certain extent state's rights were what the US Civil War was about.

[fieldofclothofgold]

I think it depends on several factors. Such as which side of the Mason-Dixon line you're from, the colour of your skin and whether you're a fan of Lynyrd Skynyrd.

Lynyrd Skynyrd showed their true colours with their reaction to Neil Young's "Southern Man" and one or two other's "Alabama" ?

[bowes]

Lynyrd Skynyrd showed their true colours with their reaction to Neil Young's "Southern Man" and one or two other's "Alabama" ?

Think I heard somewhere Skrewdriver had covered Sweet Home Alabama but not sure if they changed the lyrics (forget whether it were youtube when I listened to the Lynyrd Skynyrd version or someone at work). Not sure if that's what you meant by 1 or 2 others?

I think one factor in this is that the South was historically much poorer than the rich industrial north east so they felt they were exploited (though of course they were exploiting their slaves at a far, far worse level). At the time the Northern economy wanted a national market for their industrial products whereas the South were mostly exporting agricultural products especially cotton. So for the South the splitting of the Union mattered much less than the north, so while the North's legitimate hatred of slavery did play a part it wasn't the only reason they wanted to take the South back over.

Historically the Republicans as the party of big business were big in the North East and more socially liberal than the Democrats. The Democrats were more left wing economically but were huge down South and (ironically given their current president) the white supremacist party who supported segregation and even blocked many anti-lynching laws.

Edited by bowes, 11 December 2010 - 12:01 PM.

[Northern Sol]

I thought they were the bad guys, yet they seemed to be viewed sympathetically somehow in movie, tvs and literature, and the confederate flag seems for some reason to be an icon.
why is this? Or is it my imagination?

Most people love the romance of a doomed struggle against the odds. I always like to play Confederates if I ever play a North vs South type computer game for this reason.

The war (as most of them were / are) was mostly bad guys against other bad guys. The South was worse but the North was hardly liberal.

[Trojan]

The point is that the economy and way iof life of the states who formed the Confederacy was unsustainable without slavery. They didn't go to war to protect slavery, but to protect their right to have slavery, they believed that they were sovereign states within a Union and had the right to secede. When the votes of the large population states of the North East and Mid-West elected a president who was known to be anti slavery, the Southern States rebelled. Thus the war was not about emanicpation initially. The emancipation of the slaves was only passed during the civil war-not before it.
The Confederacy was at an economic disadvantage compared to the rich Northern and Mid-Western states. It needed backing from France and the UK. It therefore decided, rather than just defending its territory that it needed a victory on Northern soil to give it credibililty with the European powers. The bloodbaths at Gettysburg and Antietam were the result. The Confederacy never recovered from these reverses, but bravely fought on against the increasingly powerful Union in a state of virtual starvation. It is this bravery, plus their gallantry in battle that IMO persuades those who write fiction about the American Civil War to portray the South as heroic - I supposed in their own way they were.
As "1066 and all that" says of our own civil war, the Cavaliers (South in US terms) were "wrong but romantic," the Roundheads (North in US terms) were "right but revolting"

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Most people love the romance of a doomed struggle against the odds. I always like to play Confederates if I ever play a North vs South type computer game for this reason.

The war (as most of them were / are) was mostly bad guys against other bad guys. The South was worse but the North was hardly liberal.

that much I know NS

still seems odd though. To me the confederate flag has extremely sinister connotations

[l'angelo mysterioso]

The point is that the economy and way iof life of the states who formed the Confederacy was unsustainable without slavery. They didn't go to war to protect slavery, but to protect their right to have slavery, they believed that they were sovereign states within a Union and had the right to secede. When the votes of the large population states of the North East and Mid-West elected a president who was known to be anti slavery, the Southern States rebelled. Thus the war was not about emanicpation initially. The emancipation of the slaves was only passed during the civil war-not before it.
The Confederacy was at an economic disadvantage compared to the rich Northern and Mid-Western states. It needed backing from France and the UK. It therefore decided, rather than just defending its territory that it needed a victory on Northern soil to give it credibililty with the European powers. The bloodbaths at Gettysburg and Antietam were the result. The Confederacy never recovered from these reverses, but bravely fought on against the increasingly powerful Union in a state of virtual starvation. It is this bravery, plus their gallantry in battle that IMO persuades those who write fiction about the American Civil War to portray the South as heroic - I supposed in their own way they were.
As "1066 and all that" says of our own civil war, the Cavaliers (South in US terms) were "wrong but romantic," the Roundheads (North in US terms) were "right but revolting"

thanks geoff
I'd forgotten that you know about these things

[Northern Sol]

that much I know NS

still seems odd though. To me the confederate flag has extremely sinister connotations

In the USA too but I just view it as a flag of regional pride.

[Bulletproof]

There was a film out a while back which took the form of a documentary by British television about the Confederate States after they had won the war. CSA it was called. It was a little naive and naturally it linked a lot of todays events with how they would have happened had the CSA been at the helm, like the moon landings and WW2 even though theres a likelyhood the world would have been very different and nothing would have happened in the same vein that it did.

However, it was a good insight into the workings of the confederacy and the world they might have left behind. Slavery and subjugation, right wing closer to the nazis than the republicans. They did actually have plans to take south america after the war and the film plays this as if they did.

Its also intersperced with advert breaks for products which are all pretty racist, and at the end of the film it reveals they were all real products back in the day. Quite shocking.

I think all the "South will rise again" nonsense comes from people resentful that the country is being ran from the north rather than a wish to bring back the slavery of the south or any sense of injustice over the civil war. It is a fascinating period of history though,the world would certainly have been very different if they'd have won. And at one point north america could easily have been a collection of independent states rather than the massive countries you see today.

[timtum]

that much I know NS

still seems odd though. To me the confederate flag has extremely sinister connotations

To me too, although I know a current CofE minister with the stars and bars tattooed on his upper arm.

Something (the war, not my former chum) that I should take the time to look into. The apocalyptic nature of the losses and the continued ante/post bellum attitudes are fascinating.

[tonyXIII]

Firstly, I'm no expert so treat my ramblings with care.

Many years ago, I watched a fascinating documentary about the development of weapons. In particular, the programme I remember showed how the development of rifling altered the way in which wars were fought. Prior to rifling, guns were so inaccurate, they were useless beyond about 50 yards. This meant that you got one shot off before the enemy, running forward, were on top of you before you could reload. Thus, warfare was largely a hand-to-hand affair. With the development of rifling, guns were far more accurate over a greater distance. This meant that the enemy were kept at a greater distance (until the generals, in their wisdom, ordered "Charge!") and led to a more entrenched form of fighting. The development of the modern bullet, as opposed to powder and shot, enhanced the effect of fighting at distance because it meant faster reloading. The documentary suggested that the American Civil War was the first "modern" war in this sense.

If any of you are fans of the spaghetti westerns of Sergio Leone, you may like to check out the boxed set of 6 DVDs (3 of the films and 3 with "extras"). The "extras" for The Good, The Bad and The Ugly have a number of interviews with experts who point out that Leone had researched the Civil War in depth and that his version, as portrayed in the film, is actually quite accurate. Modified for the story, but fundamentally accurate. (By the way, I love those films )

And I used to hate History at school. Now I find much of it truly fascinating.

[Trojan]

The best and most accurate TV thing I've seen was the Ken Burns documentary, broadcast as a series in the early nineties. The thing about the American Civil War is that photography (Dageurrotype) had just been invented so there are loads of photographs. By arranging these photos, with suitable soundtrack it became almost as though the events had been filmed. I'd recommend anyone who's interested the American Civil War to try and obtain a copy.

[Tiny Tim]

The war (as most of them were / are) was mostly bad guys against other bad guys. The South was worse but the North was hardly liberal.

Disagree with you there, mostly (like so many wars) it is ordinary men fighting ordinary men, so often with war bad and cruel things happen and are carried out by these ordinary men exposed to such extreem situations.


Bernard Cornwell's Starbuck series (3 or 4 books) gives an interesting insight into the US civil war, generally his books are well researched and altough works of fiction do base themselves on fact.

[Millman]

Most people love the romance of a doomed struggle against the odds. I always like to play Confederates if I ever play a North vs South type computer game for this reason.

Big shock.

[Northern Sol]

Big shock.

ROFL.

Yeah, I take my uber right-wing politics out on computer games. I wish someone would write a Genghis Khan game so I could alleviate my secret need to massacre the Chinese peasantry.

[Northern Sol]

Disagree with you there, mostly (like so many wars) it is ordinary men fighting ordinary men, so often with war bad and cruel things happen and are carried out by these ordinary men exposed to such extreem situations.


Bernard Cornwell's Starbuck series (3 or 4 books) gives an interesting insight into the US civil war, generally his books are well researched and altough works of fiction do base themselves on fact.

When I said "bad guys" and "even badder guys" I really meant the people running the show. The average southener had no slaves at all. It is unlikely that so many ordinary members of society died just so that rich white people could own black people.

[Millman]

ROFL.

Yeah, I take my uber right-wing politics out on computer games. I wish someone would write a Genghis Khan game so I could alleviate my secret need to massacre the Chinese peasantry.

I was referring to the revelation that you play computer games. If the cap fits though.

[Northern Sol]

I was referring to the revelation that you play computer games.

I do. Not that much these days though. I haven't played a North vs South one since I was about 17-18. I would still play the south given a choice.

Edited by Northern Sol, 13 December 2010 - 11:54 AM.