PDA

View Full Version : OT..Just seen 'Gods & Generals' about US Civil War.



MB_Avro_UK
12-30-2006, 05:42 PM
hi all,

Viewed 'Gods & Generals' DVD about the US Civil War.

It was lent to me by a fellow Brit who has a far greater knowledge than me of this period of history.

The movie was IMHO a masterpiece as it explained clearly the motives and beliefs of those involved.

The battle scenes were clearly explained but did not diminish the horrific effects on both sides.

The Southern side remarked twice that the war was 'The second war of Independence'.

The scene where two Irish regiments fought against each other was memorable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

I did not realise that General Lee was asked by the US Government to lead the North but turned it down as he was a Virginian.

How could the smaller South have expected to win against the Northern States who outnumbered them in size and industrial resources?

Maybe I should research more.

We Brits had our own Civil War in 1642 and it divided the nation.


Best Regards and a Happy New Year to All,
MB_Avro.

MB_Avro_UK
12-30-2006, 05:42 PM
hi all,

Viewed 'Gods & Generals' DVD about the US Civil War.

It was lent to me by a fellow Brit who has a far greater knowledge than me of this period of history.

The movie was IMHO a masterpiece as it explained clearly the motives and beliefs of those involved.

The battle scenes were clearly explained but did not diminish the horrific effects on both sides.

The Southern side remarked twice that the war was 'The second war of Independence'.

The scene where two Irish regiments fought against each other was memorable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

I did not realise that General Lee was asked by the US Government to lead the North but turned it down as he was a Virginian.

How could the smaller South have expected to win against the Northern States who outnumbered them in size and industrial resources?

Maybe I should research more.

We Brits had our own Civil War in 1642 and it divided the nation.


Best Regards and a Happy New Year to All,
MB_Avro.

p-11.cAce
12-30-2006, 06:06 PM
Be sure to see "Gettysburg" - it was actually filmed first and its popularity led to Gods and Generals being made. Much of the same cast and writing team participated in both movies. I agree that G&G is a masterpiece, as is Gettysburg, both giving a great deal of background and humanizing information to this horrific conflict. Unfortunatly just about any American on the street believes the war was about slavery, as all the propaganda since the 1870's has dictated. Fortunatly these movies make clear that slavery was only a part of a greater struggle between two economic and social structures that were on a collision course - namely a stratified class structure based on land ownership and agrarian production versus a stratified class structure based on capital ownership and industrial production. The republic survives in name only - and the federal tyrany which the south feared and fought against has long since become reality.

Zeus-cat
12-30-2006, 06:25 PM
Gettysburg is great. I picked up Gods and Generals but haven't watched it yet.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Zeus-cat

My Campaigns:
Straight Shot (9 missions in the Japanese Seaplane - A6M2-N "Rufe")
Straight Into an Icy Hell (14 missions for the Rufe in the Aleutians)
Straight Down (26 dive-bombing missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight Down Some More (19 more missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight and True (30 torpedo bomber missions in an IL-2T)

My campaign page at Miision4Today
http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&c=22

SeaFireLIV
12-30-2006, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
How could the smaller South have expected to win against the Northern States who outnumbered them in size and industrial resources?

Maybe I should research more.



Best Regards and a Happy New Year to All,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the americans took on the British empire and won, perhaps after that, anything seemed possible. Of course, i know very little about the civil war so I could be wrong. It is an interestingly bloody and bitter period similar to the English civil war...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LIVeyes.jpg
"If it burns, it is confirmed."

Ivan Lukich Zvyagin

Akronnick
12-30-2006, 07:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
How could the smaller South have expected to win against the Northern States who outnumbered them in size and industrial resources?

MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The South knew that it could not defeat the North through military action, Their hope was that the North would not have the political will to sustain a large military campaign. Both sides thought the other would fold after the first battle, when that didn't happen, the South was able to hold off the North (At least in the East) for the first two years. After a series of failure on the part of the Union, public opinion in the North in late spring 1863 was overwhelmingly against the War. The war was about the bitter political differences between North and South, and if Col. Joshua L. Chamberlain and the 20th Maine Vols. hadn't held Little Round Top on July 2, 1863, I don't like to think how history would have turned out...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

NAFP_supah
12-30-2006, 08:07 PM
With music by my great hero, bob dylan! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://supah.chaotic.nl/profiles/profile-sig.jpg (http://supah.chaotic.nl)

georgeo76
12-30-2006, 08:41 PM
Bob Dyan? maybe this movie is worth watching after all. His music sure was the best thing in "lady in the Water".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
With music by my great hero, bob dylan! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You guys keep speaking about the War of Northern Aggression as if it's over. I live in S. Carolina, so I know better. And sooner or later some of the usual suspects will show up w/ their bitter denunciations and diatribes to illustrate my point. IBTL<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/georgeo76/buck2.gif
Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.

BfHeFwMe
12-30-2006, 09:30 PM
The South bloody well did believe it could win, or they would never have launched the Gettysburg drive into the Yank heartland. Up until that moment they were winning nearly all the battles, but that move cost the war.

You never strike at a half hearted opponent who has the potential to destroy you if you miss. The South learned this lesson, as well as Germany at Stalingrad and Japan in Pearl, your enemy becomes whole hearted real fast when attacked directly.

The South ran an absolutly brilliant offensive series of battles on it's own border territory. Entering deep Northern territory was a mistake, they no longer had any moral impetuous as regular people defending their own lands, they were now the invader.

They also tasted what the Union was saddled with in the logistics required to carry a fight into enemy land and lose, the cost couldn't be absorbed or made up.

Lee was out of his element as a commander by late war, he never did adapt well to the developing tactics of modern logistical support and seige warfare, which probably explains his constant use of the offensive battle as a defensive strategy means.

When it came time to mount a real defense, they failed miserably.

Yup, you have to get Gettysberg, very well done movie. IIRC there's a third movie in the series yet to be done. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Valencia, returning in his shot-up but airworthy Hellcat after his harrowing February 1944 mission over Truk, summed up the thoughts of many pilots about Hellcats: ?If they could cook, I?d marry one.?

bun-bun195333
12-30-2006, 09:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:

Maybe I should research more.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're interested get Shelby Foote's three-part history of the Civil War.

Civil War:A Narrative (http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Narrative-Set/dp/0307290468/sr=1-1/qid=1167539799/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2055461-3216103?ie=UTF8&s=books)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.comcast.net/~argylestransom/Pics/A10Bun.jpg (http://www.sluggy.com/)

LEBillfish
12-30-2006, 09:52 PM
It was "not" North against South persay, in that no matter where you lived the issues instigating the war would find both supporters and detractors. Discussions as to leaving the Union had been held by probably most states at one time or another as the country was relatively new, and peoples of states would question the value of remaining within it vs. breaking off and starting their own little country.

Slavery as well was a point of heated debate no matter where you would go, and was NOT exclussive to the south.......The nation, states, towns and even families were often divided, and would indeed fraction up to fight for what they thought was right. It truly was a brother against brother conflict more often then you think, and you'd find people from New York fighting for the South and those from Georgia the North.

So naturally, to say "the South could not win", as said above it was most likely never intended to go as far as it did and naturally the "excitement & glory" of war temds to inspire many to rush in. Yet once it started, it would snow ball....They're invading our land, they're oppressing us, they're tearing apart the country, they're abusing human beings, etc. etc.....and once the first person is killed naturally 10 more from his side want revenge.

There were "good" reasons to fight for both sides, and a lot of bad ones....In the end simply growing pains of a new nation, that would help "begin" to stop a number of injustices, yet the ramifications of the war still linger to this day though are fading.

Like all wars stupid.....Like all wars for good reason, the reasons only varied by the side you're on, and in the end, those not fighting it often suffering the most.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">"Does this make my Hien look big?"
"I love my Ha-40's"
"She loves teh Swallow"
"Don't call me cho-cho san"
</span>

Treetop64
12-30-2006, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Well the americans took on the British empire and won, perhaps after that, anything seemed possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, we had a little outside help from the French in that endeavour, who were no doubt more than willing to help any cause that hurts the British. Especially after Nelson recently handed theirs, and the Spaniard's, asses to them off Trafalgar.

Nevertheless, one could still argue that some colonial rabble took on the mightiest empire in the history of the world at that point, and won. Perhaps that's how the Southerners saw themselvles during the Cival War - as a fiesty group of fighters taking on the big boss.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
"It breaks my heart, but I am almost certain that raaaid will get the Nobel Prize in physics before we get the Avenger in PF."
-- Zeus-cat
------------------------------

Akronnick
12-30-2006, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:

Especially after Nelson recently handed theirs, and the Spaniard's, asses to them off Trafalgar.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trafalgar happened in 1805, 22 years after the American Revolution ended.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

leitmotiv
12-30-2006, 10:47 PM
GODS AND GENERALS is a brilliant film, but it is not everybody's cup of tea. Some contemporary viewers cannot believe that once people could be as profoundly devout and sentimental as the Cromwellian General Jackson or the other people depicted in the film. The film is that rarest item for the present day, a paen to old Virginia, and would never have been made without Ted Turner, a Southerner, bankrolling it. One of the film's paradoxes is Jackson's avowed displeasure with "the peculiar institution" of slavery. Both he and Lee were anti-slavery, but they believed they had to defend their homeland, Virginia, against Lincoln's army. I think it is a magnificent film, and, curiously, the only one about Jackson. Note that Jackson, ever the realist, was all for slaughtering Union prisoners ("raise the black flag"). He was Old Testament right down the line.

huggy87
12-30-2006, 10:49 PM
Not to poo poo anyone's opinion. The subject matter is fascinating, but the movie was a bloated bore. The critics really slammed the movie, but I had to see for myself. They were right.

Akronnick
12-30-2006, 10:57 PM
Thomas J. Jackson is to the 19th century as George S. Patton is to the 20th century.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

leitmotiv
12-30-2006, 11:26 PM
Interestingly, for decades the standard study of Jackson's campaigns was written by a famous English military historian (G.F.R. Henderson, 1898) who was exceedingly impressed by Jackson's mobile operations with his "foot cavalry" in the Shenandoah Valley. Jackson is highly regarded by the British Army tacticians to this day, as well he should be. He "wrote the book" on speed and surprise as the most essential elements of tactical success. If he had been at Gettysburg---hooooo boy.

Unfortunately, for contemporary audiences accustomed to constant action, quick cuts, zero character development, and mind-numbing cacophony, a film like GODS AND GENERALS, with its leisurely development, is completely toxic. It is not cinema of the first rank, but it is one of the most interesting interpretations of Civil War history on film, and it remains the only film about Jackson and Lee worth a hang.

Treetop64
12-30-2006, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:

Especially after Nelson recently handed theirs, and the Spaniard's, asses to them off Trafalgar.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trafalgar happened in 1805, 22 years after the American Revolution ended. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Pie in face...

I knew that, BTW. Not that it helps now, though.

How embarrasing... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
"It breaks my heart, but I am almost certain that raaaid will get the Nobel Prize in physics before we get the Avenger in PF."
-- Zeus-cat
------------------------------

Akronnick
12-31-2006, 12:06 AM
That's OK. Issues arrising from the Napoleanic Wars did lead to the War of 1812, but AFAIK, The US and the French were not allies then.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

RCAF_Irish_403
12-31-2006, 05:50 AM
Read the novel Gettysburg by Michael Sahra. This was the original source for the film. Fantastic stuff.....the novel even won a Pulitzer Prize.

The American Civil War was really the precurser to the 20th century.....industrialized slaughter fueled by ideology.

Isn't it ironic that America's top two military leaders (Lee and Jackson) got their reputations trying to destroy the Union<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. A 108:0 kill ratio is insignificant next to the power of the Force

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

SeaFireLIV
12-31-2006, 06:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:


You guys keep speaking about the War of Northern Aggression as if it's over. I live in S. Carolina, so I know better. And sooner or later some of the usual suspects will show up w/ their bitter denunciations and diatribes to illustrate my point. IBTL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I`m curious by this. What do you mean? "the War of Northern Aggression"? I suppose you`re saying that attitudes are still very polarised to this day?

Or perhaps this is one of those questions that a foreigner shouldn`t ask Americans over the dinner table...

moq1
12-31-2006, 06:23 AM
________________________________________________
Read the novel Gettysburg by Michael Sahra. This was the original source for the film. Fantastic stuff.....the novel even won a Pulitzer Prize.
________________________________________________
Its Micheal Shaara and the novel is called The Killer Angels. After his passing his son began writing novels in the same style. I have read all the civel war books, the american revolution books, the ww1 book, (exellent flying chapters) and have just finished tje ww2 book. I highly recomend all. Here is a link to his web sight. http://www.jeffshaara.com/books.html

Check them out they realy are great.

Moq

RCAF_Irish_403
12-31-2006, 08:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by moq1:
________________________________________________
Read the novel Gettysburg by Michael Sahra. This was the original source for the film. Fantastic stuff.....the novel even won a Pulitzer Prize.
________________________________________________
Its Micheal Shaara and the novel is called The Killer Angels. After his passing his son began writing novels in the same style. I have read all the civel war books, the american revolution books, the ww1 book, (exellent flying chapters) and have just finished tje ww2 book. I highly recomend all. Here is a link to his web sight. http://www.jeffshaara.com/books.html

Check them out they realy are great.

Moq </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thx for correcting that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. A 108:0 kill ratio is insignificant next to the power of the Force

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

georgeo76
12-31-2006, 09:39 AM
Opinions are polarized. And people get very emotional about it to this day. Maybe this is true up North, I can only speak for where I live. Really touchy subjects are Gen. Sherman, Andersonville, and the Lincoln's hero status (essp. as far as emancipation is concerned).

As far as the "War of Northern Aggression" I just use that term a little tong-in-cheek. That's what it was called @ the time by some, an illustration of the propaganda value in names that persists to this day. It wasn't called "The Civil War" until later.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:

I`m curious by this. What do you mean? "the War of Northern Aggression"? I suppose you`re saying that attitudes are still very polarised to this day?

Or perhaps this is one of those questions that a foreigner shouldn`t ask Americans over the dinner table... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/georgeo76/buck2.gif
Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.

zoinks_
12-31-2006, 10:34 AM
interesting topic here. georgeo76 is correct about opinions and emotions. i have lived both north and south, born/raised in illinois and moving to mississippi.

i saw a couple episodes of G and G. but not enough to pass judgement. all of my southern friends were disappointed with the movie when it came out.


unfortunately, most Americans are clueless about our own civil war. when asked, the popular response is slavery. and the confederate flag is directly related to slavery.



some fun crazy American facts most don't know:

- republican party was formed in 1854. oddly, republicans = liberal and democrats = conservative. opposite of today.

- Abe Lincoln did not appear on the ballot in every southern state.

- Abe Lincoln imprisoned people without trial.

- congress then was not getting along too well link (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm)

- after the battle of Gettysburg, all men were declared equal, about 2 years after the war started. some say Lincoln believed it was the right thing to do while others think it was a political move to get Great Britian to stop aiding the south as they had abolished slavery just 35 years prior and would be aiding the only pro-slave nation, the CSA. (women could not vote for about another 55 years)

- Ulysses Grant's wife was a slave owner before, during, and after the war ended. she would visit her husband on military bases with them.

- most confederate soldiers did not own slaves.


slavery was a big issue, but not THE issue. its sad we americans are ignorant of our own history. reading the politics leading up to the civil war gives a better understanding of why it happened. some believe the war was more about state rights - state laws that the federal government wanted to override. but what do i know. i'm an ignorant American, lol...just wanting the truth then and now.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
learning curve: about 2 hours (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/review.html)

LEBillfish
12-31-2006, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
Opinions are polarized. And people get very emotional about it to this day. Maybe this is true up North, I can only speak for where I live. Really touchy subjects are Gen. Sherman, Andersonville, and the Lincoln's hero status (essp. as far as emancipation is concerned).

As far as the "War of Northern Aggression" I just use that term a little tong-in-cheek. That's what it was called @ the time by some, an illustration of the propaganda value in names that persists to this day. It wasn't called "The Civil War" until later.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:

I`m curious by this. What do you mean? "the War of Northern Aggression"? I suppose you`re saying that attitudes are still very polarised to this day?

Or perhaps this is one of those questions that a foreigner shouldn`t ask Americans over the dinner table... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Originally from E.Tennessee, and from up in the mountains where few (used to) dare to go due to the clannish nature of many there, and originally of the "white trash" end of the hollow.....I can tell you this SeaFire...

It's just like when you hear of any other peoples hatred of another, due to something long past that never affected them in any way. That's now....However even up until the early 80's much of the South was still economically depressed compared to much of the North. The reasons for that varied, yet basically the high paying industries that were about the rust belt, and financial powerhouse of the N.E. had not flooded south.

Yet in truth as well, a LOT of that had to do with folks wanting to hang on to nostalgic idea's and ways of being, whether they were working or not.

Things have changed however, for the most part though any bit of the south lacking in relation to the north still due to the latter issue of above........Plus like I stated even further up that long held "now" unjustified anger over something even few southerners could tell you little about.

It's natural to want to hang onto traditions, culture & things one grew up with which binds us to our past.....The trick is however to not fight against the very thing you want for yourself, and worse still hold onto those bits that are pointless bias due to the lesser parts of that culture.

For some however the way will be hard till they pass however. It much like saying "I insist on plowing my field with a mule refusing to use a tractor....Yet find it unfair I can't produce as much because of it".....

Lastly, there is still a LOT of old prejudices held simply because it "IS" PC for the region...Few having little to no reason to act that way, just simply the culture they grew up in....

Finally, before you ask "Well why don't Southerners change then?"...Let me say this, "What makes you think I was talking just about the South?" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Really much of it pointless, the old south gone just like the old north even that from my time there....It's NOT coming back, and wouldn't of slipped away if a different way had not been chosen by the very people embracing the old.

Yet still persists......Think of your nation and it's prejudices and hates of old long past....Same same.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">"Does this make my Hien look big?"
"I love my Ha-40's"
"She loves teh Swallow"
"Don't call me cho-cho san"
</span>

Zeus-cat
12-31-2006, 11:26 AM
"Not to poo poo anyone's opinion. The subject matter is fascinating, but the movie was a bloated bore. The critics really slammed the movie, but I had to see for myself. They were right."

This is one of the reasons I haven't watched the movie yet. I bought it for $5 or do at Wallymart. I did read both Gettysburg and Gods and Generals. Gettysburg was a better book IMO. Gettysburg was written by the father and Gods and Generals and the third book were written by his son after the father died.

My wife and I disagree about the battle of Gettysburg. She thinks Lee made a big mistake in attacking on the third day. I think Lee knew his only chance of ending the war favorably (notice I didn't say the Confederacy would win) was for Lee to drive through the Union forces and send them off in defeat.

The threat of a massed Confederate force so close to the Union capitol would hopefully cause Lincoln to sue for peace. At this point in the war Lee could see that he had men and materials for one last push. After Gettysburg, regardless of loss or victory, the Confederates couldn't maintain their military at a level needed to hold off the Union forces. It was do or die for Lee around the time of Gettysburg and he knew it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Zeus-cat

My Campaigns:
Straight Shot (9 missions in the Japanese Seaplane - A6M2-N "Rufe")
Straight Into an Icy Hell (14 missions for the Rufe in the Aleutians)
Straight Down (26 dive-bombing missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight Down Some More (19 more missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight and True (30 torpedo bomber missions in an IL-2T)

My campaign page at Miision4Today
http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&c=22

DuxCorvan
12-31-2006, 11:27 AM
Well, I have no idea what it means for an US citizen, but for most foreigners, Ol' Dixie stuff is mostly a collection of Hollywood cliches.

You know, Scarlett O'Hara, Mardi Gras, cotton fields, runaway slaves, ladies in cute dresses, Buster Keaton riding the General, cool grey and blue uniforms, Gettysburg and Bull Run re-enactings, and the like.

As a historian, it's hard for me to have a closer and realistic look at that period of USA history, since most literature and media that you produce -even scholarly stuff- is very 'dyed' with romantic and emotional tones that forces me to 'swim' thru a sea of often antagonic distorted views.

I guess it's rather similar to what happens with our own -more recent- Spanish Civil War, or some events of Spanish history which are likely to be looked from a local nationalistic bias. It is curious that I often have to resource on foreign sources to have a fairly objective, not passionate view on my own country's history.

SeaFireLIV
12-31-2006, 11:45 AM
Thanks for the responses. To be honest, they`re pretty much what I thought. I also understand how it is hard to lose a way of being (even if you know it is correct) and sometimes change for change`s sake is not always good either.

Still, I did learn a long time ago not to expect a nation to be in reality the way it likes to portray itself to outsiders.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LIVeyes.jpg
"If it burns, it is confirmed."

Ivan Lukich Zvyagin

ploughman
12-31-2006, 11:57 AM
"The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there."
L. P. Hartley

I thought Gods and Generals was a bad film about a fascinating subject. The bit where Jackson executes southern deserters resonates through the ages though. War consumes people.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

zoinks_
12-31-2006, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:

My wife and I disagree about the battle of Gettysburg. She thinks Lee made a big mistake in attacking on the third day. I think Lee knew his only chance of ending the war favorably (notice I didn't say the Confederacy would win) was for Lee to drive through the Union forces and send them off in defeat.

The threat of a massed Confederate force so close to the Union capitol would hopefully cause Lincoln to sue for peace. At this point in the war Lee could see that he had men and materials for one last push. After Gettysburg, regardless of loss or victory, the Confederates couldn't maintain their military at a level needed to hold off the Union forces. It was do or die for Lee around the time of Gettysburg and he knew it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

one of those hindsight deals for sure.

especially for a war that was originally thought to last a few weeks, it could've been over after the first major battle - Manassas/Bull Run.

after the rebs routed the yanks in what was thought to be a glorious battle to decide everything, the rebs could've marched straight into washington unopposed. except the rebs thought it was over and alot of soldiers just went home.

no one thought it would last more than a few weeks and it lasted over 4 years.

pretty bizzare.


read about the first battle. the people who went to watch it and have a picnic. the different uniforms - the confusion of who was on which side - rebs wearing blue and yanks wearing gray, along with all other assorted colors. the mindset of that first battle really shows how unaware what was about to happen in America.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
learning curve: about 2 hours (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/review.html)

Zeus-cat
12-31-2006, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">read about the first battle. the people who went to watch it and have a picnic. the different uniforms - the confusion of who was on which side - rebs wearing blue and yanks wearing gray, along with all other assorted colors. the mindset of that first battle really shows how unaware what was about to happen in America. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

zoinks,

I have never read a full account of the battle of Manassas/Bull Run, but I was aware that many people went to view the battle and that there was mass confusion over the lack of standards in uniforms and flags.

However, the comment you made "no one thought it would last more than a few weeks and it lasted over 4 years" applies to almost all wars in the sense that they never go the way people think they will. However, would the leaders of either side avoided this war if they had been told it would take 4 years and hundreds of thousands of lives - I doubt it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Zeus-cat

My Campaigns:
Straight Shot (9 missions in the Japanese Seaplane - A6M2-N "Rufe")
Straight Into an Icy Hell (14 missions for the Rufe in the Aleutians)
Straight Down (26 dive-bombing missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight Down Some More (19 more missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight and True (30 torpedo bomber missions in an IL-2T)

My campaign page at Miision4Today
http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&c=22

zoinks_
12-31-2006, 12:23 PM
yep, i doubt it too.

edit: and that's why we still war. humans are pretty stupid.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
learning curve: about 2 hours (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/review.html)

MB_Avro_UK
12-31-2006, 01:12 PM
hi all,

As the OP I must say thanks for your responses and links http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I now have the movie 'Gettysburg' from my colleague but have yet to view it. I now also have 'Rough Riders' about the US / Spanish war 1898.

The English Civil War was fought between 1642 and 1651.It was between the King and a reformist Parliament.The King (Royalists) lost and the King was executed.

I don't want to go OT here but the result a few years later was that another King was reinstated on the throne and a semblance of democracy was created.

Were there any positive political/social benefits as a result of the US Civil War?

Happy New Year to all,
MB_Avro.

WWSensei
12-31-2006, 01:36 PM
Grew up in Louisiana and now live in Virginia so you can say that the Civil War was often talked about. If there is any lingering resentment over the war left in the South it has more to do with events AFTER the war rather than during it (Sherman's campaign aside).

Most of the animosity comes from the Reconstruction era and the subsequent "punishing" of the South by the North--something similar repeated in Versailles just a few years later at the end of WWI.

Oddly enough, had Lincoln not been assasinated he most likely would have prevented much of the northern retribution and the nation would have healed much sooner.

There is still a lot--and I mean a lot--of sterotypical prejudice from Northerns against Southerns. I can't count the number of times I've seen eyes roll or heard "Oh, you're from the south, I'm sorry" when I mention my background. Especially from Ivy League school MBA competitors in business.

That's usually right before they find out I've outdone them on a job and taken their clients. No bigger advantage than to be underestimated. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Positive benefits from the war? Well, obviously ending slavery was a good thing. It did preserve the Union as a whole allowing the US to grow. Had it split into two seperate nations there is good reason to believe they would never have become as economically successful as it has.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------
"A lady came up to me on the street, pointed to my leather flight jacket and said, "Don't you know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" I replied menacingly, "I didn't know I left witnesses. Now, I'll have to kill you too."

mandrill7
12-31-2006, 03:06 PM
Ok, my 0.02 as well, I guess. I couldn't sit through the movie. I'd read a lot of ACW history as I've been figure wargaming that and other periods since the late 70's. The movie was a straight adaptation of the book which in turn was a straight adaptation of history (with a CSA slant). So the movie was a little like sitting thru a history class for the fourteenth time (with nice uniforms). Gettysburg was a little more watchable as it dealt with a single, focussed event. The movies are not as personalized, as fast-moving or as intense as modern action movies are wont to be and that likely disappointed the critics.

Did the CSA think it could win?? Sure it did. The South is always driven by its own mythology - even to this day. Much of the popular writing in the South in the 1850's was quite racist and portrayed the Southerners as superior to the Northern whites. This superiority complex was reinforced by the early victories and "almost-victories", such as Bull Run #1 and #2 and Shiloh. The South also believed its cause was just and that God was on its side. Most of the Southen leaders were extremely devout and believed that the Divine Will would manifest itself in some way to the benefit of their cause.

Would Lee attacking/ not attacking on the third day at Gettysburg have made a difference? Not unless Lee was a far better general than he was. Great at pre-battle maneuvre. Totally incompetent once he hit the battlefield. We're talking basic mistakes like not working out his artillery plan competently before sending in attacks. Napoleon would have laughed his *** off watching the pathetic screw-ups that Lee pulled off.

And by the third day the Union army was in too strong a position to be worth attacking anyway. Pickett's Charge would never have worked, even if a decent general had sent it in. You'd never have caught Wellington pulling stuff like that.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello, Little Friends. So glad you decided to join us.
http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&c=19

MB_Avro_UK
12-31-2006, 03:47 PM
hi all,

I'm an outsider here. I was the OP and I've learned a lot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

But the US Civil War was relatively recent. We Brits had our Civil War about 400 years ago.

Time is such a healer to the extent that most kids in England have no knowledge or understanding of what happened in our Civil War.

Maybe or not that's a good thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Akronnick
12-31-2006, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Were there any positive political/social benefits as a result of the US Civil War?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.

The Thirteenth ended slavery.

The Fourteenth defines US Citizenship and guarantees Due Process and Equal Protection under the law.

The Fifteenth prevents the denial of voting rights on the basis of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Sadly, not all of the rights guaranteed by these amendments were respected until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, nearly a century after the end of the war.

The issue of what the name of the Civil War has been issued, and there are many names by which this conflict is known.
The Civil War
The War of Rebellion
The War Between the States
Mr. Lincoln's War
and yes, The War of Northern Agression.

the Official name that the US Government recognises is the War of Rebellion, but since a lot of people (and therefore a lot of Electoral College Votes) live in States that were members of the Confederacy, most people in Government and politics use "The Civil War" as that's the most neutral term for the conflict.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

zoinks_
12-31-2006, 05:06 PM
its been a while since i've seen this 9 episode do***entary by Ken Burns, but i remember it was very good.
http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/

i first saw it on tv, but it is on vhs tapes at our library.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
learning curve: about 2 hours (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/review.html)

Copperhead310th
12-31-2006, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Be sure to see "Gettysburg" - it was actually filmed first and its popularity led to Gods and Generals being made. Much of the same cast and writing team participated in both movies. I agree that G&G is a masterpiece, as is Gettysburg, both giving a great deal of background and humanizing information to this horrific conflict. Unfortunatly just about any American on the street believes the war was about slavery, as all the propaganda since the 1870's has dictated. Fortunatly these movies make clear that slavery was only a part of a greater struggle between two economic and social structures that were on a collision course - namely a stratified class structure based on land ownership and agrarian production versus a stratified class structure based on capital ownership and industrial production. The republic survives in name only - and the federal tyrany which the south feared and fought against has long since become reality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said Sir. well said indeed. and far more eloquntly than i could muster. it will never be forgon what those ppl did in Atlanta. Old, Cripples, Women & childreen butcherd in the streets like anaimals. White, Black & Native alike. Free men of Color were forced to join the union ranks and butcher thier own kin. Many out of fear, and some out of deafeat believeing one white master might be better than another.
Indeed the true history of the War of Norhern Agression has long been manipulated by northern schollors aND POLITICIANS ALIKE. After all, in any conflict history is dictated by the victor.

FYI it was also known as the war of Southern inedpndance.

And as for the Southern supiriority thing.....
All Southenrers are far supirior to them damn yankees. No matter what racre, religion,creed, or color. if your southern your alway better than a yankee.

Here i'll prove it.
Southerners:
Hank Aaron
Tallulah Bankhead
Lucas Black
Jimmy Buffett (raised in Mobile,Alabama)
Brett Butler
Truman Capote (raised in Monroeville, Alabama)
Nat King Cole
Marva Collins
Courteney Cox Arquette
Bobby Denton
Zelda Fitzgerald
Fannie Flagg
Louise Fletcher
Shirley Ann Grau
Winston Groom
W. C. Handy
Emmylou Harris
Nall Hollis
Kate Jackson
Dr. Mae Jemison
Percy Lavon Julian
Helen Keller
Coretta Scott King
Harper Lee
Carl Lewis
George Lindsey
Joe Louis
Willie Mays
Robert McCammon
Jim Nabors
Jesse Owens
Rosa Parks
Sam Phillips
Wilson Pickett
Martha Reeves
Condoleeza Rice
David Satcher
Percy Sledge
Sun Ra
T.S. Stribling
Toni Tennille
George Wallace
Hank Williams
Tammy Wynette

and all of those ppl are justfrom MY state. lol

Bula
12-31-2006, 06:16 PM
Zoinks wrote: "after the battle of Gettysburg, all men were declared equal, about 2 years after the war started. some say Lincoln believed it was the right thing to do while others think it was a political move to get Great Britian to stop aiding the south as they had abolished slavery just 35 years prior and would be aiding the only pro-slave nation, the CSA."

If by pro-slavery you mean countries in which slavery was still legal, then you're forgetting Brazil.

What's interesting to me is that slavery ended peacefully in the 19th century everywhere in the Western Hemisphere except the United States (the violent end of slavery in Haiti occurred in the late 18th century). Some folks think it would've ended peacefully in the South, too, as it did in Brazil, had certain elements in the North allowed for it. Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" is a compelling read in this respect.

Copperhead310th
12-31-2006, 07:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bula:
Zoinks wrote: "after the battle of Gettysburg, all men were declared equal, about 2 years after the war started. some say Lincoln believed it was the right thing to do while others think it was a political move to get Great Britian to stop aiding the south as they had abolished slavery just 35 years prior and would be aiding the only pro-slave nation, the CSA."

If by pro-slavery you mean countries in which slavery was still legal, then you're forgetting Brazil.

What's interesting to me is that slavery ended peacefully in the 19th century everywhere in the Western Hemisphere except the United States (the violent end of slavery in Haiti occurred in the late 18th century). Some folks think it would've ended peacefully in the South, too, as it did in Brazil, had certain elements in the North allowed for it. Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" is a compelling read in this respect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Again slavery was almost a non issiue. It only afected 10% of the entire population at the time. and most ppl were so poor in the south that they could barely aford to feed thier families. If a man had no land he had to "Share-Crop". and most plantations had slaves. no need to pay a man for a job when you have ppl on hand who do it for room and board.
but lets play rvitionist history for a moment.

Robert Lee dipised slavery. So much so that he forced his wife to free any one that she had claim to. While he was no Abolistionist, he was a very deeply religios man and found it to be an abomonation against God the Almighty, and against good Christain teachings.
Had things gone diferntly Slavery would have ended in the south eventually, and possibly far more "peacfully" than it did.
Reason. Had Lee deafeted the North, or at least forced them to abaondon thier invation, and they remained 2 seperate countires, Lee would have been Elected presiodent as soon as Davis's six year term was up. Slavery is/was an economic va***e. and some of the southern govement knew it. It would have ended in due time.

Abolition was strongly oposed by the Northen population. They would loose a lot of jobs when cheaper labor started pouring in from the south. which is what haoppned in the end.

But rest assured the south would ahve ended the practice of it's own fee eill in time.

Sadly my own race (Celts) would be affected by Endenturement, another form of slavery, even aftwer the Emancipation Proclomation. And the Scots/Irish are the main reason this coubntry is what it is today. No 40 Acres or Mule required.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/ubisig.jpg
Former CO of 310thVFS, (Retired) now part time
190 jock & full time target drone for JG27
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//2006-02-23_012924_pilot11.gif Flying on line as JG27_Copperhead

|^^^^^^^^^^^^|
| JG27_Copperhead | '|""";.., ___.
|_..._...______===|= _|__|..., ] |
"(@ )'(@ )""""*|(@ )(@ )*****(@
"Keep on Truck'n!"

DuxCorvan
12-31-2006, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
The English Civil War was fought between 1642 and 1651.It was between the King and a reformist Parliament. The King (Royalists) lost and the King was executed.

I don't want to go OT here but the result a few years later was that another King was reinstated on the throne and a semblance of democracy was created.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

English Civil War rose to power a military dictatorship devoted to an extremist puritan religious doctrine. Lord Protector Cromwell led no less than a despotic government and a 'rump' Parliament devoid of decision.

The king reinstated to the throne after a political turn of screw, soon did let down all those who believed that the Stewarts could abandon their atavic absolutist tendences. His catholic son never understood nor practiced the delicate game of religion and politics necesary to retain the throne; he lost it and ran to France -starting 60 years of Jacobite resistance against the now elected dinasties of England, the first one formed by his daughter Mary II and William III of Orange, the protestant stadtouder of the Low Countries, guarantee of the Parliament rights.

1688, Glorious Revolution.

THEN started that "semblace of democracy". The English CW was just the start of half a century of repression and commotion.

SeaFireLIV
12-31-2006, 07:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:



English Civil War rose to power a military dictatorship devoted to an extremist puritan religious doctrine. Lord Protector Cromwell led no less than a despotic government and a 'rump' Parliament devoid of decision.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you must be from the `negative` camp of Cromwell. I think Cromwell did what he did because he really believed in what he was doing. I think he really wanted England to be a better place and in his view it would be better if ALL men were answerable to God not just some.

His belief went a long way to driving his quite amazing successes. I mean he knew nothing of the military and won battles continuously from the age of 40s, I think, which is pretty old to start learning how to lead and win battles. He was instrumental in these battles and he gained the respect of his troops from it.

At the same time it was ironic that he almost became king himself in the end, but he did actually refuse the `King` post itself. And of course he was at fault in some cases, especially in Ireland.

BfHeFwMe
01-01-2007, 12:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:

Were there any positive political/social benefits as a result of the US Civil War?

MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it fueled the industrial revolution into hyper drive and forced a migration westward. Within 40 years the entire country was accessable with developed rail and transport networks and massive amounts of room for new immigrants. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The 1890's were known as the roaring 90's, one of the first real economic booms, and all that without an income tax. Go figure! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Valencia, returning in his shot-up but airworthy Hellcat after his harrowing February 1944 mission over Truk, summed up the thoughts of many pilots about Hellcats: ?If they could cook, I?d marry one.?

BoCfuss
01-01-2007, 12:27 AM
Having lived in the South for a short while, it is still a little backwards, but not as messed up and elitist as the north (only visited the North). This is coming from one who lives in the West. Take away California and the west is the place to be.

I have always felt the civil war was a bit foreign to me, as my relatives were already west before the war. I've always felt that the North was right and the South was right, but no one was 100 percent right.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Chuck Norris originally appeared in the "Street Fighter II" video game, but was removed by Beta Testers because every button caused him to do a roundhouse kick. When asked bout this "glitch," Norris replied, "That's no glitch."

ViktorViktor
01-01-2007, 06:04 AM
Interesting stuff. Can anyone, by the way, tell me what the best (PC) Civil War game is ?

zoinks_
01-01-2007, 08:12 AM
i really liked the sid mieir's series, but it is so dated and doesn't work on winxp without a patch.

will this ever get done?
http://www.walkerboystudio.com/html/wbts.html

http://www.madminutegames.com/
norb and adam have made 2 games. the first is based on the first battle of manassas. and their second is based on the second battle of manassas, which was my first run-in with securom. they are always active in the forum.



Bula, didn't know about Brazil. i thought the US was the last country and most people agree that slavery would have naturally ended like everywhere else.

the thing that bothers me most is that the south said they would secede if Lincoln was elected in 1860 which is why he wasn't on any ballots for that election. from everything i've studied, it just seems that our government completely failed from 1854 to the start of the war.



http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Blue-Gray-William-Sanders/dp/1587156482
this is a fun read. the best part of the book is when he gets shot down behind enemy lines.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
learning curve: about 2 hours (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/review.html)

DuxCorvan
01-01-2007, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I think you must be from the `negative` camp of Cromwell. I think Cromwell did what he did because he really believed in what he was doing. I think he really wanted England to be a better place and in his view it would be better if ALL men were answerable to God not just some.

His belief went a long way to driving his quite amazing successes. I mean he knew nothing of the military and won battles continuously from the age of 40s, I think, which is pretty old to start learning how to lead and win battles. He was instrumental in these battles and he gained the respect of his troops from it.

At the same time it was ironic that he almost became king himself in the end, but he did actually refuse the `King` post itself. And of course he was at fault in some cases, especially in Ireland. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cromwell? Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about General Franco. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

All your statements are appliable to him. Except for nearly being annointed a catholic cardinal, not king. A fascist dictator, nonetheless.

Believing in an ideal is right, imposing your ideal through tiranny and repression, that's what makes these men both angels and monsters.

The only thing that saves Cromwell is that the feared absolutist system he helped to avoid wasn't better at all. But his intolerant politics just revived a religious and social confrontation that was mining the common English citizen rights since the times of the late Tudors, involuntarily putting the bases for catholic and absolutist reaction.

It's 1688 revolution and its internal consequences on the long term which really helped Britain to build an Empire.

georgeo76
01-01-2007, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well Again slavery was almost a non [issue]. It only [affected] 10% of the entire population at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's just not true. Slavery was about more than just economics. But even on that level I disagree w/ you. Think about what you posted. A share-croper has no economic interest in abolition?

Which market forces explain or correct segregation, Jim Crow, or the klan?

I don't know if the Civil War was the best way to end slavery, but I do know that's what it took.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/georgeo76/buck2.gif
Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.

Copperhead310th
01-01-2007, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well Again slavery was almost a non [issue]. It only [affected] 10% of the entire population at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's just not true. Slavery was about more than just economics. But even on that level I disagree w/ you. Think about what you posted. A share-croper has no economic interest in abolition?

Which market forces explain or correct segregation, Jim Crow, or the klan?

I don't know if the Civil War was the best way to end slavery, but I do know that's what it took. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No that's a historical fact. Not an opinion.
Durring the period of 1850-1865 Slavery only involved 10%-12% of the nations population DIRECTLY. It indirectly affected the population in other ways, such as massive unemployment throught the southern states. And in the north the Ex-slaves who had made it via the underground railroad threatend labor markets there as well by bring labor prices down and compeating with a lagely uncompetative laborforce. witch enraged labor workers up north.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
Think about what you posted. A share-croper has no economic interest in abolition? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The answer is no. Southern Share Croppers got the sh*ty end of the stick. Not as bad as the enslaved portion of the population, but they certanly had it pretty bad. Look at it like this. While slavery was leagal, unemployment was high, after abolishment the labor market becomes flooded with cheap labor. Again keeping the economically downtrodden portion of the southern population in poverty. add to that the affects of "reconstruction" and the economic and socail injustices of the northen states, reaks havok on the southern economy for decades. up into the late 1970's and early 1980's.
I'll stick with the economics because it's what i know the most about. I live it everyday. And so dose every other southener, regardless or race, creed, or religion. Ask your self this. why does an Electricain in New york make tree times that of an Electricain in Alabama? Simple, Economic segregation. and it efeects everyone here. Poverty knows no color of skin.
and all the poverty today and economic injustices can be laid on the doorsteps of yankee politicians and yankee big buisniess.

As far as Jim Crow goes..i'm not really sure who he is. but i'll look him up.
as for the Klan, thier only good for one thing.
Targets at the end of a public fireing range.
But if you do manage to catch a bunch of Klansmen at a fireing range, please call me first so i can sight in the deer riffle early for next season.

As for segregation it's self, it was just as moraly wrong and as injust as slavery it's self. But as i stated above , this country has enterd into a new kind of segregation,one not based upon the color of your skin, but based entirely upon where you live, and what you do.
And it devides to types of ppl. the Haves & the Have Nots.

But yes your right slavery was not only about economics. It was much more. i chose economics for two reasons, it's what i know the most about and it was the underlining cause of the War of Northen Agreesion it's self. The Morality issues of slavery i'll leave to persons better educated on the subject than I.

I also refuse to call it a "Civil War".
As we all know there is absoulutly NOTHING civil about war. I despise the term civil war for that very reason.

BillyTheKid_22
01-01-2007, 10:49 PM
http://robola.wordpress.com/files/2006/08/civil-war-battle.jpg



Howdy!! My great great great grandfather is Lt. Col. Nelson and Civil War, Blue 7th Cav. and Shierff and buggy with horse, Big farmer. My great great great grandfather's 14 children!!! Greer country, Oklahoma. Greer Musum, Mangum, Oklahoma. My great great great grandfather is good man!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/bkid/pacificfighters/p39.jpg

.................................................. ..............

"All I got was a bellyful of English Channel."

Blutarski2004
01-02-2007, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Be sure to see "Gettysburg" - it was actually filmed first and its popularity led to Gods and Generals being made. Much of the same cast and writing team participated in both movies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Gettysburg was a great film except for the ludicrously prissy and effeminate portayal of R E Lee by that doorknob of an actor Martin Sheen. OTOH, Sam Eliot did an under-appreciated job as Buford.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Unfortunatly just about any American on the street believes the war was about slavery, as all the propaganda since the 1870's has dictated. Fortunatly these movies make clear that slavery was only a part of a greater struggle between two economic and social structures that were on a collision course - namely a stratified class structure based on land ownership and agrarian production versus a stratified class structure based on capital ownership and industrial production. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Absolutely agree. IMO, no one can truly understand the motivating factors behind the ACW unless and until he understands the nature of the international cotton trade and the deep involvement of the American South therein. Slavery was a direct and distinct appendage of "King Cotton".



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The republic survives in name only - and the federal tyrany which the south feared and fought against has long since become reality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Touche'. As a consequence of the ACW, the very concept of "states' rights" as a counter-balance to the threat of centralized federal power was eradicated.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
01-02-2007, 02:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
How could the smaller South have expected to win against the Northern States who outnumbered them in size and industrial resources?

Maybe I should research more.



Best Regards and a Happy New Year to All,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the americans took on the British empire and won, perhaps after that, anything seemed possible. Of course, i know very little about the civil war so I could be wrong. It is an interestingly bloody and bitter period similar to the English civil war... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The victory of the colonists against Great Britain in the War of the American Revolution would never have been possible without the massive military and financial support provided by France. The Americans survived the Revolution; the French won it for the Americans.

The South was never able to attract similar support or official recognition from any of the European powers during the ACW

It's also worth noting that the War of the American Revolution was more than a colonial revolt against Great Britain. That war actually became a global conflict with the intervention of France, Spain, and the Netherlands. Britain found itself fighting not only in North America, but also in the West Indies, the Mediterranean, and India.

A fascinating war - one that Great Britain arguably lost.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
01-02-2007, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
Bob Dyan? maybe this movie is worth watching after all. His music sure was the best thing in "lady in the Water".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
With music by my great hero, bob dylan! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You guys keep speaking about the War of Northern Aggression as if it's over. I live in S. Carolina, so I know better. And sooner or later some of the usual suspects will show up w/ their bitter denunciations and diatribes to illustrate my point. IBTL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... My buddy and I drove down from Massachusetts (home of the most extreme abolitionist sentiments during the ACW) to a miniature wargame convention in Raleigh NC. Without question, we were warmly received and treated. But we were officially introduced to the attendees by the convention leadership as the "official Yankees" for the weekend.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
01-02-2007, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
Not to poo poo anyone's opinion. The subject matter is fascinating, but the movie was a bloated bore. The critics really slammed the movie, but I had to see for myself. They were right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Sure. "Pearl Harbor" with Ben Affleck was MUCH better. &lt;sarcasm off&gt;.

Perhaps not your cup of tea, but a refreshingly honest cinema drink for me.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
01-02-2007, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
That's OK. Issues arrising from the Napoleanic Wars did lead to the War of 1812, but AFAIK, The US and the French were not allies then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... You got the battle wrong, but the sentiment entirely correct. French intervention in the American Revolution had a lot to do with the French defeat in the 7 Years' War, which was 20 years prior to the AR.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
01-02-2007, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Finally, before you ask "Well why don't Southerners change then?"...Let me say this, "What makes you think I was talking just about the South?" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I'm from Massachusetts. What LE says is more than true. Some New Englanders travel down to the South and are surprised to find a functioning civilization there.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
01-02-2007, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Were there any positive political/social benefits as a result of the US Civil War?

Happy New Year to all,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... It eliminated a politically contentious and potentially deadly power struggle and permitted the US to press ahead with its Westward expansion.

Interesting to not that it not NOT really end slavery as an institution, except for a bried period of about 10 years immediately after the war of the end. Slavery was just modified by a politically resurgent post-war South into the institution of "share-cropping". Share cropping remained until mass mechanization of the highly labor-intensive of southern commercial agriculture eliminated the necessity for such a massive cheap labor force.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

WWSensei
01-02-2007, 02:33 PM
I have a virulent anti-Southern co-worker who is convinced that Virginia is surely the borderlands of uncivilized jungle.

He once remarked that "the South if rife with racism." I answered, "Compared to what? Those bastions of racial tolerance like Detroit, new York, Philly, Boston, Chicago or LA? Lord, knows they've never had racial problems right?"

He then asked, "OK, so what major US cities are in the south?"

I answered the only answer I could give....

"All of them."

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------
"A lady came up to me on the street, pointed to my leather flight jacket and said, "Don't you know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" I replied menacingly, "I didn't know I left witnesses. Now, I'll have to kill you too."

zoinks_
01-02-2007, 02:46 PM
i grew up on the south side of chicago. way worse than the south. i like the south.

pretty gals
pick'n and grin'n
pretty gals
bluegrass
pretty gals


edit: bass fishin'<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
learning curve: about 2 hours (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/review.html)

zoinks_
01-03-2007, 05:57 PM
i'm not a historian nor does my education qualify me to accurately answer that question.

Grant's wife, Julia, owned slaves. she brought those slaves into federal camps. Grant's son owned a slave. i find it difficult to believe any man would allow this if he was fighting to end slavery.

it is possible Grant was fighting to preserve the Union by suppressing a rebellion. he may just have been following orders as most generals do.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
learning curve: about 2 hours (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/review.html)

carguy_
01-03-2007, 06:17 PM
Interesting thread.

The clash of two "sides" of this discussion is interesting too.Although Mr.Copperhead talks like a lunatic,pretty much the same as this "BY THE ALLMIGHT GOD HIMSELF" southern US crowd I`ve always seen in the movies.

As for an ignorant Yurp citizen I musssay I was always "with" the Union.I simply never could understand why would southerners think of the white race as being superior to black in anything.Such doctrine deserves to be destroyed and forgotten once and for all.

I also watched the movie.Was pretty boring.Quite biased in favor of Lee`s soldiers too.


Carry on,chaps.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sigjzg23upgraded.jpg
Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002
: Badsight.:"increased manouverability for bf-109s was satire" :
Please bring back 3.01 dots!

SkyChimp
01-03-2007, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
And i'm sure for the yankee point of view this is a good thing. Now don't get me wrong. i am an American. And will defend this country. it is my home. But i live and bleed for Alabama.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bet a lot of people don't think you've bled enough.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

WWSensei
01-03-2007, 08:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I simply never could understand why would southerners think of the white race as being superior to black in anything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My only to pick on this is that is NOT a "southern" thought process. It is a racist one and one shared by many on the north. Again, name me one northern city that isn't reeking of racism. To think the "southerners" thought this is simply turning a blind eye to the very real racial problems that facing ALL Americans.

The race riots of Watts and LA didn't happen in the South.

The sterotypical TV bigot, Archie Bunker, was portrayed living in Queens for a reason.

Boston was the city that rioted over forced integration and busing.

Chicago and Detroit are where two of the biggest racial riots have ever occurred.

Tell me, what is the percentage of African Americans living in those northern states of tolerence like New Hampshire, Vermont, Conn and Maine? 1%? 2% even?

Not saying there aren't problems in the South as well, but to think that somehow being from the North makes one "holier-than-thou" is just a crock.

As a Southern raised Hispanic male married to an African-American female I can fill you in on all the racial problems you can face in various cities. The most tolerent place I've lived in the US has been Virginia. Belgium and Cote D'Ivoire would have to rate as the most tolerent countries I've lived in.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------
"A lady came up to me on the street, pointed to my leather flight jacket and said, "Don't you know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" I replied menacingly, "I didn't know I left witnesses. Now, I'll have to kill you too."

Copperhead310th
01-03-2007, 09:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
And i'm sure for the yankee point of view this is a good thing. Now don't get me wrong. i am an American. And will defend this country. it is my home. But i live and bleed for Alabama.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bet a lot of people don't think you've bled enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that would be thier opinion Skychimp.
I Personally do not feel as i have done enough.
It troubles me greatly that young men and women are dying EVERY DAY so that have the right to say what i belive in free without retribution. So that i can lay safely tucked in my bed at night, while their out on the fence keeping me and mine safe & free and free from harm. I was raised that there are prioities in life.

God

Fmily, Freinds and Nabors (msot of these are here in Alabama)

Country

This has been the beleif of myself and my family for the almost 200 years since my great great great grandfather got of the boat from Scotland. And while i may have persoannly never "Bleed Enough" there are plenty in my family whom have. A member of my family has fought (and some died) in every major war this country has undertaken sice we arived upon is's shores. My Paternal grandparents EACH LOST A BROTHER @ NORMANDY. My mothers father served in the CBI & Korea. My Uncle Morris, Korea, my father, and 2 cousins in Veit Nam. and 3 more 2nd cosins were in Gulf war 1 and we have one in Iraq right now. So my family has done thier f*cking part. And if the DoD calls me tommorow to report i'll pack a bag and be on the 1st bus to Ft. Beening, or Leonerd Wood, or wherever they order me to go. But @ age 35 and being the only caregiver for a mentally disabled briother that ain't likely to happen. So in the mean time i'll just keep sending $40 care packages to Iraq and Afganastan every month like i have for the last 4 years.
Finaslly Skychimp....Never mistake my love of my Home state for a lack of natioanl patriotism. EVER. But my prioitis are, and have always been God Almighty, State & Country.
In clossing Skychimp, if you don't like it...you can kiss my Alabama @ss.

Worf101
01-04-2007, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I simply never could understand why would southerners think of the white race as being superior to black in anything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My only to pick on this is that is NOT a "southern" thought process. It is a racist one and one shared by many on the north. Again, name me one northern city that isn't reeking of racism. To think the "southerners" thought this is simply turning a blind eye to the very real racial problems that facing ALL Americans.

The race riots of Watts and LA didn't happen in the South.

The sterotypical TV bigot, Archie Bunker, was portrayed living in Queens for a reason.

Boston was the city that rioted over forced integration and busing.

Chicago and Detroit are where two of the biggest racial riots have ever occurred.

Tell me, what is the percentage of African Americans living in those northern states of tolerence like New Hampshire, Vermont, Conn and Maine? 1%? 2% even?

Not saying there aren't problems in the South as well, but to think that somehow being from the North makes one "holier-than-thou" is just a crock.

As a Southern raised Hispanic male married to an African-American female I can fill you in on all the racial problems you can face in various cities. The most tolerent place I've lived in the US has been Virginia. Belgium and Cote D'Ivoire would have to rate as the most tolerent countries I've lived in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed, this is NOT an issue that is tied to any particular race or culture. Men and women of all races, cultures and ethinc and religious backgrounds have owned slaves throughout history. Nor is racism the single provence of one race or culture. I know of the South through going there as a child almost every Summer with my mother. I know of the North from living "up here" most of my adult life. I worked in New Berne, N.C. for a couple of years. Racisim exists whenever and wherever people don't "KNOW" one another.

By "know" I mean work with, interact with, deal with. In both north and south I've known bigots of all stripes, colors, hues, religions and sexes. I remember the when a gay friend told me that the "F" word was as offensive to him as the "N" bomb was to me, I don't use either, not in jest nor for fun.

I've always been fascinated by the Southern Generals, particularly Clayburn (sp) an Irish ex-pat who fought for the South but who detested slavery and petitioned Jefferson Davis to free all Slaves who'd fight for "States Rights". Southern Generals, their dash, their elan, what kid wouldn't be fascinated by them. I can admire Lee's brilliance as a defensive battlefield genius and still despise the Southern Cause.

Da Worfster<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v366/Worf101/My%20Pics/FortheGloryoftheEmpire1mod.jpg

Blutarski2004
01-04-2007, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
Boston was the city that rioted over forced integration and busing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I would never claim that Boston is an oasis of total racial harmony, but neither has it been a racist hotbed.

I'm a 58 yr old white guy who grew up in Roxbury MA in the 50s and worked avery summer from age 15 to 20 in Roxbury. One-third of the student body at my elementary school was African-American. Play and friendships were color-blind. Our local gang of playmates included whites, blacks, Irish Catholics, and Jewish kids. We used to attend each other's birthday parties. Perhaps I was too young to see it back then, or maybe my parents had a different outlook on race, but racism was not a part of my childhood.

From a strictly anecdotal point of view, I tend to connect the rise of the racism problem in Boston to the great influx of African-Americans from the southern states, which began sometime around 1960 or so. But I'm not sure how much of that was connected with color and how much was connected with a profound difference in cultural attitudes among those immigrants.

Finally, the struggle over bussing was not strictly a racial matter. Race was without question an important component, but resentment of federal intervention into local affairs, even plain xenophobia played strong roles as well.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

zoinks_
01-04-2007, 07:18 AM
folks, let's keep this thread educational.

In the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln did not hesitate to dispel the notion that he was a champion of racial equality: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. Inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white man."


racism exists everywhere. it saddens me to realize that people will never change. look at the recent events here following hurricane Katrina.

the first president of the US to get impeached was Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's vice-president who took office after his assassination, for his vetoes of civil rights bills. he was acquitted, like Bill Clinton - the 3rd US president to be impeached.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
learning curve: about 2 hours (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/review.html)

Akronnick
01-04-2007, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zoinks_:
he was acquitted, like Bill Clinton - the 3rd US president to be impeached. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if Johnson was the 1st president Impeached, and Clinto was the 3rd, who was the 2nd?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

zoinks_
01-04-2007, 08:17 PM
Richard Nixon for the watergate scandal. he actually resigned before his impeachment which was inevitable, so i am incorrect to say there were 3.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
learning curve: about 2 hours (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/review.html)