Civil War - the movie

IVCguy said:
By 1860 the political solutions had been almost entirely exhausted. Many people in the north sensed what was coming, but hoped it wouldn't materialize. Southerners were also of two minds. There were those that were done with political solutions and ready to get on with it and those who felt put upon by the north, but still didn't want to leave the union.

There were some last-ditch peace conferences attempted, but to the South, Lincoln's election took away several key things they wanted and
Click to expand...
Actually, many Northerns were willing to see the South leave.
IVCguy said:
Lincoln saw the war coming and maneuvered carefully to not provoke the South or give them a justified reason to retaliate.
Click to expand...
Actually, Lincoln ordered Fort Sumter be resupplied knowing that South Carolina would have either concede to federal authority by allowing it to happen or intercede militarily.

IVCguy said:
He wanted to make sure the South fired the first shot, so that they would be responsible (in his view, in an almost legal sense) for the misery that followed.

Once southern states began to secede,and, certainly, once Ft Sumpter was fired on, both north and south were galvanized into their sides in the war.
Click to expand...
North Caolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and the all-important Virginia did not secede until after Sumter. What would happen with the slave sates of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and western Virginia wouldn't be decided until later.
 
WJ-OSU-STEELERS said:
Good grief, living in a state of constant fear.

Not counting kids movies (Teen Titans, Sonic, The Invincible's, etc), I haven’t been to a movie theater in 8 or 9 years and probably 3 times in the last 20 years. Maybe I’m missing out on this “Indoctrination Business”.
Click to expand...
A constant state of fear should not be compared with the constant state of preparedness. Parabellum, "if you want peace, prepare for war". Oddly, 9 mm ammo comes in Luger and Parabellum, no difference but one sounds like a weapon of war and I can't wait for Slappy to figure that out.
 
IVCguy said:
It's about a hypothetical American civil war in the present/near future - not the historical civil war. But some posters are making parallel references, which is why the actual civil war is coming up.

Movies used to be about entertainment and making money. In recent years they have been largely about pushing concepts, ideologies, and themes that me and many others despise. They got into the indoctrination business too. They have a right to be in that business, but they have alienated millions of people and a chunk of their potential market share - and that's a costly business to be in.

Seems to me they would want to get as many eyes on their product as possible by not forcing trash and offensive stuff on people while creating stuff with the broadest appeal, but, evidently, I don't understand their brilliant strategy. Lol
Click to expand...
Eye. Roll.
 
WJ-OSU-STEELERS said:
I really shouldn’t ask but I have about 15 minutes - just what has this industry ( I assume you are referring to the movie/Hollywood) done to you and your kind?
Do you have a particular movie as an example and what it has done to you?
Click to expand...
I think that it is extremely obvious that the entertainment industry is very different than even 30 years ago. Now the argument could be that society has changed so much and the entertainment industry is following, or the other side of the argument is that the entertainment industry is leading the change.

I believe the change in our society is led from the top. Businesses, government, and the entertainment industry. I think most sociologists would argue that the entertainment industry has a huge impact on our collective beliefs.
 
Yappi said:
I think that it is extremely obvious that the entertainment industry is very different than even 30 years ago. Now the argument could be that society has changed so much and the entertainment industry is following, or the other side of the argument is that the entertainment industry is leading the change.

I believe the change in our society is led from the top. Businesses, government, and the entertainment industry. I think most sociologists would argue that the entertainment industry has a huge impact on our collective beliefs.
Click to expand...
Careful, you are bordering on cancellation here.
 
chs1971 said:
Actually, many Northerns were willing to see the South leave.

Actually, Lincoln ordered Fort Sumter be resupplied knowing that South Carolina would have either concede to federal authority by allowing it to happen or intercede militarily.


North Caolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and the all-important Virginia did not secede until after Sumter. What would happen with the slave sates of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and western Virginia wouldn't be decided until later.
Click to expand...
Well, people were people in 1860 too, complete with an array of opinions. I was generalizing for time's sake, not trying to be exhaustive. There were Copperheads in the north, prominently including Ohio's own Vallandingham, and there were strong unionists in the south. But these are small exceptions, not the rule. Obviously, none of the minority factions reflected the consensus in their states or regions.

So, Lincoln as CiC reinforced a federal fort on federal property - and that started the war. That's an interesting version of what started the war. Actually, the resupply was turned back. Anderson refused to surrender Sumter and then PGT Beauregard fired on the fort. Anderson held out a few days before surrendering because of a lack of that resupply. Most people would consider lighting a canon fuse as the first act of war but the Lost Cause has its angle.

Yes, notably Virginia was reluctant to secede, but Sumter forced its hand and they declared where they stood. Since a large amount of the war was fought in their state, it's understandable why they were a little late arriving at the Confederate party.

Other buffer states had similar concerns and generally supplied units to both armies.
 
IVCguy said:
Well, people were people in 1860 too, complete with an array of opinions. I was generalizing for time's sake, not trying to be exhaustive. There were Copperheads in the north, prominently including Ohio's own Vallandingham, and there were strong unionists in the south. But these are small exceptions, not the rule. Obviously, none of the minority factions reflected the consensus in their states or regions.

So, Lincoln as CiC reinforced a federal fort on federal property - and that started the war. That's an interesting version of what started the war. Actually, the resupply was turned back. Anderson refused to surrender Sumter and then PGT Beauregard fired on the fort. Anderson held out a few days before surrendering because of a lack of that resupply. Most people would consider lighting a canon fuse as the first act of war but the Lost Cause has its angle.

Yes, notably Virginia was reluctant to secede, but Sumter forced its hand and they declared where they stood. Since a large amount of the war was fought in their state, it's understandable why they were a little late arriving at the Confederate party.

Other buffer states had similar concerns and generally supplied units to both armies.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, interesting take. Correct me if I am wrong but SC was in succession mode way before 1861 due to unfair tariffs and even caused a VP resignation in the 1830s, Jackson administration. Calhoun was an ardent slavery supporter but was pro limited government, low tariffs and constitution nullification...states rights. I believe this to be the ground for many believing in states' rights as the basis of the war. Yet, the national division was in hand prior to Lincoln. Essentially, the Civil War was started with John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859. FYI, RE Lee took Brown into custody after his failed insurrection of an US Armory on behalf of the US government....there is some irony.
 
yj_runfan said:
In the movie the president is serving a third term
Click to expand...
He's referring to FDR.

Frankly I'm surprised with their talk of packing the Court and ending the filibuster the left hasn't been pounding the desk for a return to unlimited presidential terms to try and squeeze Obama back in.
 
Gamma Gobbler said:
Hmmm, interesting take. Correct me if I am wrong but SC was in succession mode way before 1861 due to unfair tariffs and even caused a VP resignation in the 1830s, Jackson administration. Calhoun was an ardent slavery supporter but was pro limited government, low tariffs and constitution nullification...states rights. I believe this to be the ground for many believing in states' rights as the basis of the war. Yet, the national division was in hand prior to Lincoln. Essentially, the Civil War was started with John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859. FYI, RE Lee took Brown into custody after his failed insurrection of an US Armory on behalf of the US government....there is some irony.
Click to expand...
Sure. I mean, you can make an excellent argument that the civil war was germinated when the founders punted on the issue of slavery in order to make the union possible. They end up founding the country on these beautiful themes of freedom - while tolerating the enslavement of millions of people. That contradiction had to be corrected. Many of the founders knew it would have to be, but they kicked that can down the road for another 80 years.

SC seemed to be a particular hotbed for fire-eaters. Calhoun was a piece of work, but check out Virginia's Edwin Ruffin. No one hated all things northern than he. He fired the first shot at Sumter, and when the Confederacy lost the war, he promptly shot himself in the head. I will give him this much, his beliefs were sincere despite being despicable.
 
Sounds like a lot of these questions and speculations will be unanswered. Early reviews say the movie does not delve into the background of the war and avoids any politics. Basically an action, thriller type movie.
 
yj_runfan said:
Sounds like a lot of these questions and speculations will be unanswered. Early reviews say the movie does not delve into the background of the war and avoids any politics. Basically an action, thriller type movie.
Click to expand...
I saw a story about the movie last night on my news feed. The producer said pretty much that - but he did affirm that there is a relationship to present day political division and he hoped that it would get people thinking. He also made some comments indicating that perhaps his views were left - nothing overt. He was careful, but let's just say he didn't communicate his thoughts in the way a conservative would.

He is clearly trying to stay in that neutral lane, but lefties often think they are hiding their bias better than they are. Righties can see it clearly sometimes - or maybe we see it where it isn't or we exaggerate what is there because of the hypersensitivity we have after having them beat us over the head with their worldview for so long. So, I'm interested to see or hear how much of that, if any, is in the movie.
 
IVCguy said:
Sure. I mean, you can make an excellent argument that the civil war was germinated when the founders punted on the issue of slavery in order to make the union possible. They end up founding the country on these beautiful themes of freedom - while tolerating the enslavement of millions of people. That contradiction had to be corrected. Many of the founders knew it would have to be, but they kicked that can down the road for another 80 years.

SC seemed to be a particular hotbed for fire-eaters. Calhoun was a piece of work, but check out Virginia's Edwin Ruffin. No one hated all things northern than he. He fired the first shot at Sumter, and when the Confederacy lost the war, he promptly shot himself in the head. I will give him this much, his beliefs were sincere despite being despicable.
Click to expand...
I know this may be off topic but my perception of your knowledge of the Civil War, pre/post is interesting to me. What is your take on NB Forrest address to the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association. Maybe this should be offline and on a DM but I would appreciate your insight.
 
IVCguy said:
That's not what the confederates said. Lol. Everyone had guns in 1860.

What that they said was that southern men were superior in riding and shooting, and they said that 1 southerner was worth 10 Yankees. They also said the "Yankee race" was inferior to them.

The union forces had massive advantage in population, industry, economy, arms & ammunition, and naval power behind them. Some believe the outcome was inevitable. For sure, the longer the war went, the less likely there was of a southern victory.

But the warfare of the Confederacy vs the Union was radically different than how a hypothetical second American civil war would be fought.

I think what @bigkat is saying is that in a hypothetical Left-Right civil war, he would see an advantage for all those good old country and small town boys who have shot and owned everything from BB guns to AR-15s and have been shooting the eyes out of squirrels since they were 7 years old over limp-wristed metrosexuals who have never touched a gun.

He does have a point. :)
Click to expand...
Most northerners had little to no experienced firing a weapon. Most did not even own a gun.
 
Last edited:
y2h said:
Why would I consider a point of view that claims America is founded in racism, it's a source of evil around the world, the Constitution is invalid because slaves (like existed everywhere else in the world at that time) only whites can be racist and must pay reparations for something no one alive engaged in and no one alive was victimized as a slave, capitalism is evil and must be fundamentally transformed into socialism before blossoming into communism, free speech is only free if you say the officially designated right thing, you have no right to self defense only the government (and criminals) should have guns, we have no border (and thus no sovereignty) and should pay the bills for "newcomers", people of means are evil and much of their earnings should be .confiscated
Click to expand...
Only a fool would not recognize the role played by slavery in the development of our country. Slavery is the epitome of racism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top