Gods and Generals

ATLANTASKI

ATLANTASKI

Active member
the best movie ever made about the south and the civil war...watching this movie will truly make you re-evaluate you see the true war of northern aggression...any other fans out there
 
The war was fought over the federal governments hypocrisy- By not allowing the south to do what their forefathers in 1776 did and modify or dispose of an unjust and overbearing government, the union set out to destroy the south's infastructure, causing ramifications that still resonate in the south today
 
get off your high horse, the north was equally if not more bigoted than the south in regards to black people, the north had more slave owners than the south and more slaves lived above the mason dixon line than south of it. The only reason the north gets heralded as the courageous knights of all that is noble and just is because of a brilliant move planned by Lincoln's advisors- The Emancipation Proclamation. What is overlooked is that the emancipation proclamation held no weight in the south, where it said all slaves were suddenly freed at the signature of Abraham Lincoln. Ironic how slavery went unabated in the north until 1865, while in 1863 The Emancipation Proclamation was written for the south.

There were injustices on both sides, the south wanted the right for states to govern themselves and vehemtaley opposed the Federal government having soldiers march an army against their own people, who were doing the same things and championing the same rights as the delegates from the 13 colonies in 1776
 
Dude im not on a high horse, relax your body.

Correct me if im wrong.

The South wanted to succede in order to retain supreme state power. If memory serves, the south was looking for a loosly affiliated interstate relationship under the guise of a united country, while the north was looking to give the federal side of things legitimate power in response to the changing world and the perceived need for a united front.

But come on, lets be serious. The steriotype of the biggoted southerner isnt pure folly, there is truth there, and its not hard to see where the "all southerners are racist" ideology comes from.

I come from the south, I understand that labeling the whole south racist is a huge and falicous leap that the 'high-horsers', as you so eloquently put it, like to make. Lets not go so far as to make the North look like big bad bruisers. While its true that winners write the history, were all copasetic now, and i dont think that distorted history is what our school system is trying to teach.
 
if memory serves me right, the south started being labeled bigots and rascists after the north completely ransacked georgia, and obliterated the south's infastructure.... Shermans march to the sea, set Georgia at least back 100 years, much of the rest of the south still hasnt full recovered, and the sociological scars from how the north treated the south from 1865-1900 remain.......In a sense the north managed to fuck over the black people who they claimed to be fighting for. Newly freed slaves had no where to go, after having the fields they helped cultivate burned, and their master's families livliehood destroyed. With no proper way to feed or pay for the former slaves(who most slave owners had a deep appreciation and mutual respect for) the outcome was either indentured servitude(which is worse than slavery), poverty, and crime.

Seceding from the union was idealistic, but at the same time about honor and duty to ones home state. Robert E Lee did not choose to fight because he hated the union, neither did Stonewall Jackson,they did it out of love and honor for their families and way of life.
 
This sounds like liberal bullshit to me.

On another not, we can blame eli whitney for slavery. Without the cotton gin slavery would have been inefficient.
 
who most owners had a deep and mutual respect for their slaves ...listen to what you're saying

mutual respect

IF THEY FUCKING RESPECTED THEIR SLAVES THEY WOULDN'T BE SLAVES
 
Ya dude im not really sure what your talking about. Shermans march happened in the latter half of the conflict. It was an act of war, the south considered itself a seperatist nation, and as such any actions taken by the boys in blue were justified in my eyes.

I dont understand why you're getting so mad at me, im not telling you you're wrong, I just think the verison of the Civil war you subscirbe to is a real life story of Grendel.
 
haha rednecks still put confederate flag bumper stickers on their pickup trucks here in upstate NY. Go to Alabama and bitch about how you want more slaves, you just look like a tool up here.
 
except the biggest misconception there is is that slavery was mainly for cotton, whereas its greatest use was in the sugar fields...the cotton thing didnt happen till VERY late in the history of slavery.

oh, and you're calling want andrew is saying liberal bullshit? thats kind of funny...
 
You make it sound like the north started the war. I always thought it was the south that seceded from the union. The south was lucky the rebellion lasted as long as it did. McClellan couldnt make a decision and all of Lee's huge gambles payed off early in the war.
 
We talked about this in world history class, my teacher is the bomb. Anyway, in the north and in the south, the facts of the war are tought differently, the south calls it the war of northern agression in tere textbooks, the north is the civil war, this is still happening to this day. IN the south they make it sound like the war was made by the north being some ccrazy government of doom, and the north makes it soound like it was because the south wanted to succeed from the union and have millions of slaves and such. its hard to find the truth anymore. I dont know anyone who really knows. even historians tell it differently in the north or south, because the stories that were around during the war, held up on both sides until today.
 
Not getting into the debate, but Gods and Generals is a great movie. Gettysburg was one of my favorite movies growing up, so when Gods and Generals came out, I saw it in the theatres right away. Solid flick if you like history/war movies.
 
I wrote a really long essay on why the North was in the wrong during the Civil War that my fucking teacher gave me a D on becuase she was a socialist lesbian bitch. I cant find it though shit.
 
i think what you have to remember is that it is a movie, and although based on fact is really just a story that has altered or stretched the facts in favor of whoever is telling the story. movies are meant to entertain and i think that some discretion is needed when interpreting it as fact.
 
they did, there were several regiments of freed blackmen in the south that fought for the south, along with an all jewish regiment also
 
The movie "Gettysburg" is much better. God's and Generals was too long and had too much of just Stonewall Jackson praying and dying. Seriously, his slow death took like 20 minutes of the movie.
 
You don't seriously believe that, do you? You seriously believe there were more slaves in the northern states than the southern states? That is probably the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

I would like to see some proof backing up your claim of more slaves in the north than south, because there is absolutely no way that is true.

Also, "The War of Northern Aggression?" You do know that the South were the ones who fired the first shots on Fort Sumter, right? The south was angry about Lincoln's election (although Lincoln actually favored containment of slavery, rather than abolition of it) so the south succeded and attacked. Sounds more like Southern Aggression to me.
 
read a history book

the whole premise of the war was the federal governments willingness to invade their whole land which was lawfully approved to secede by the state legislature.

In regards to ft sumter, the South Carolina Militia asked to federal troops to leave, and would give them full quarter and allow them to return to their homes...once the federal troops rejected this, they fired upon the fort
 
I believe that everything you've said so far is true, but if the south was this mecca for positive interacial relationships in the US, why was it the nexus of civil rights hostilities? The historical discontenuity just doesnt add up.
 
yeah i've never heard of slaves being in the north. i'm sure there were some, but to say that there were more in the north than in the south is stretching it. that would mean that everything that we've been taught about the civil war since the 3rd grade has been wrong, and it would be some kind of big government cover up conspiracy. i think not.
 
I've read extensively on this subject. Your claim of more slaves north of the mason dixon line is ridiculous and every single scholarly source I've ever encountered agrees.
 
This kind of ignorant disreguard for the actual truth is exactly the reason why many southerns are labelled as racists and bigots. Southerners today are trying to rewrite history to justify their sins of the past.

You justify slavery by saying that the slaves lived more comfortable lives in servitude.

Then you blame the problems of the south on the devestation of a war 141 years ago. For one thing, the northern intervention in the south did not extend 35 years from 1865 to 1900. Congressional Reconstruction lasted from 1866-1877 and if you read a textbook you'd find that it was during this period that the 13th, 14th, and 15th ammendments were passed to protect blacks.

By the compromise of 1877 though, it had become obvious some bigots never change, so the north withdrew to let southerners reconstruct as they saw fit- and within a few years blacks were disenfrancised, repressed, and persecuted once again. The inauguration of Hayes in 1877 was the end of major carpetbagging. Don't blame the problems of your region on a period of northern intervention from 1878-1900 that never happened.

Southerners were called racist long before Shermans march from atlanta to savannah.
 
How about this; if you don't like the south, stay out of the south. If you don't like the north, stay out of the north. No amount of arguing will change history, because to be blunt; it's HISTORY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top