A question for Civil War buffs

[Dr. Cheese]

A few weeks ago, I was watching Jonah Hex on HBO (a really bad comic book movie,) and a line in one scene got my attention. Hex is buying bullets from a gun shop which had a Black proprietor. The black guy said,"I know the you only fought for the Confederacy because you wouldn't let the government tell you what to do!" This struck me as goofy on multiple levels: first, the Confederacy was certainly a government too; second, so what; third, why is it that a Confederate always has to be introduced as somehow not supporting slavery?

Seriously, the Confederate economy depended on slavery for its most valuable products, and the Confederate planter and business classes were heavily invested in slaves. That is why uncompensated emancipation was so ruinous to them.

I seriously hope the country has matured enough that admitting a simple truth about the economics of the Confederacy can be acknowledged without a bunch of weird caveats.

[Relic]

No argument from me. I had posted a thread about the civil war a couple of weeks ago. I personally believe that the Civil War WAS a war against slavery by default. On the surface it was about state's rights but when you delve into it, it becomes clearer. That said, not everyone who lived in the Southern states was a slave owner, and not every Confederate soldier was virulent racist - that's the stereotype that endures. It helps to be reminded sometimes that not all of our popularly held stereotypes are true, I guess.

[nutdog]

I'm more of a general history buff,war in particular. I live in a town where the Confederate army camped in the winter of 1864 (the valley in the foreground of this photo).



Chattanooga is in the distance. Sherman's army was there.

All along the top of the ridge is a rock wall built by the Confederates. I was up there with my boys last week.



Sherman wanted to come down that gap between the ridges. But it was heavily fortified. Instead, he sent a faint attack on the ridge (I feel sorry for those boys) and the main force went south through the forest. When Johnston realized it he pulled back and there was a battle at Resaca. It's recreated every year. Then Sherman's army proceeded to Atlanta and the rest is history.

I say all this because the history of the war is part of where I live. I was fascinated by it particularly when I was younger, may be 9-12 years old.

Even then I knew the south was fighting for something that was wrong (slavery). I was, and am, more interested in the military aspect than the political.

I won't try to defend the political commentary from a really bad comic movie.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

A few weeks ago, I was watching Jonah Hex on HBO (a really bad comic book movie,) and a line in one scene got my attention. Hex is buying bullets from a gun shop which had a Black proprietor. The black guy said,"I know the you only fought for the Confederacy because you wouldn't let the government tell you what to do!" This struck me as goofy on multiple levels: first, the Confederacy was certainly a government too;

Well... that was one of the big problems the confederacy did have. They really weren't a government in the sense that the Union was - they were a very loose confederacy of states.

Confederates states were regularly threatening to secede from the CSA due to disagreements.

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

third, why is it that a Confederate always has to be introduced as somehow not supporting slavery?

They don't... but when you're making a comic book movie where the protagonist is supposed to be a "good guy", it kinda makes sense.

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

Seriously, the Confederate economy depended on slavery for its most valuable products, and the Confederate planter and business classes were heavily invested in slaves. That is why uncompensated emancipation was so ruinous to them.

I think one needs to differentiate between "planter" and "plantation owner".

[boynamedsuse]

I think the statement would be a valid and reasonably accurate opinion in a conversation that took place in those days. Prior to the Civil War, cotton was king in the South. They wanted to do things their own way, because in the technology of those years, an economy based on growing cotton is run differently than one based on manufacturing. Further, the Southern states correctly understood that their interests were not properly supported by the government in DC. The less populous Southern states had fewer representatives than the Northern states, so whether they were right or wrong, they really had no power to affect the federal government.

[sneha1965]

Not sure why the writers would go for that unless they were trying to portray the confederate perspective or that the movie character was to sympathize with the south. It's weird living in VA. I grew up in CA where the culture is a bit different. I recently heard someone refer to the Civil War as The War of Yankee Aggression.

[Smokin' Toaster]

I'll be glad when the country had matured enough so as not to base their conception about how groups of people think based on a line from a "bad comic book movie".

[cassanova]

I do believe the Unions initial intention was to keep the nation intact as one. I think freeing the slaves was an after thought. They weren't freed until after the war had started.

I'm sure the south didn't want to part with their slave labor, but I'm also fairly certain that not everyone that fought for the confederacy owned and/or supported the idea of slavery.

[guitar ed]

Let's not forget that slaves fought on the side of the Confederacy. And for the Union. Why, I don't know.

edg

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by aborgman

I think one needs to differentiate between "planter" and "plantation owner".

No you don't. In virtually all of the literature I have seen, planter is a synonym for plantation owner. Farmer or yeoman is a term usually used for a smallholder.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by guitar ed

Let's not forget that slaves fought on the side of the Confederacy. And for the Union. Why, I don't know.

edg

That has nothing to do with my question. It's pretty hard to find a war where people don't end up on sides where you think they don't belong.

[BassChuck]

Southerners who didn't own slaves were still a part of an economy that needed slave labor to survive as it was. Of course England, who was in need of cotton for the textile mills was also dependent on slave labor and in fact, came close to joining in with the Southern cause.

[john turner]

for what it's worth, jonah hex is a dc character with a 40 year history/backstory. this wasn't some trendy civilwar apologist, it was written into his story that he himself was sold to apaches as a child by his father in exchange for his own freedom. part of the character's primary backstory was focused on his own indenture to the apache chief.

now, i've never seen the movie, but i imagine any anti-slavery stance taken by the character in the movie would come from that perspective as opposed to any kind of political correctness. at least it would if they were making even the slightest effort to remain true to the source material.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by john turner

for what it's worth, jonah hex is a dc character with a 40 year history/backstory. this wasn't some trendy civilwar apologist, it was written into his story that he himself was sold to apaches as a child by his father in exchange for his own freedom. part of the character's primary backstory was focused on his own indenture to the apache chief.

now, i've never seen the movie, but i imagine any anti-slavery stance taken by the character in the movie would come from that perspective as opposed to any kind of political correctness. at least it would if they were making even the slightest effort to remain true to the source material.

Thanks, I did not know that.

[john turner]

that's not to say that they didn't artificially play up that angle in the movie - like i said, i didn't see it, and knowing hollywood they would not miss a chance to "make points" but at least there is something of an existing plot reason behind it.

[UnfortunateTony]

John Malkovich was the only good part of that movie. End of discussion.

[Smokin' Toaster]

If someone tried to isolate the ONE reason WWII was fought, or WWI was fought, or Vietnam, or the American Revolution, the effort would be dismissed as ridiculous, because there is almost always multiple reasons for which wars are fought. But, in the name of Political correctness, the American Civil War must be different and have only one cause, history be dammed. Slavery was certainly a key element among the causes of the war. But to dismiss all the other causes and reasons the two sides fought is intellectually dishonest. No matter what your agenda is.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by Smokin' Toaster

If someone tried to isolate the ONE reason WWII was fought, or WWI was fought, or Vietnam, or the American Revolution, the effort would be dismissed as ridiculous, because there is almost always multiple reasons for which wars are fought. But, in the name of Political correctness, the American Civil War must be different and have only one cause, history be dammed. Slavery was certainly a key element among the causes of the war. But to dismiss all the other causes and reasons the two sides fought is intellectually dishonest. No matter what your agenda is.

Slavery was the major reason the war was fought. The other reasons were all related to slavery, IMO. The other wars you mentioned were different and more complicated, although from the Vietnamese point of view, their war was about independence for their country.

It's not about political correctness, it's about historical honesty and accuracy. Too often, I see people who say are proud of their heritage but who are not willing to take an honest look at their ancestors.

If people are proud of their ancestry, that is their right. My problem is when people try to downplay the parts of that heritage that are no longer seen as acceptable to modern people. Dodging those facts is just as much a form of political correctness as anything associated with those seen as liberal.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

Slavery was the major reason the war was fought. The other reasons were all related to slavery, IMO. The other wars you mentioned were different and more complicated, although from the Vietnamese point of view, their war was about independence for their country.

It's not about political correctness, it's about historical honesty and accuracy. Too often, I see people who say are proud of their heritage but who are not willing to take an honest look at their ancestors.

If people are proud of their ancestry, that is their right. My problem is when people try to downplay the parts of that heritage that are no longer seen as acceptable to modern people. Dodging those facts is just as much a form of political correctness as anything associated with those seen as liberal.

To be honest Doc, far too often I see just the opposite - the focus almost solely being on the negative aspects of one's heritage to the extent of anything positive being overshadowed. Big time.
I find that as ridiculous as white-washing, or not admitting at all the stains on one's past. There's got to be a balance somewhere.

[Smokin' Toaster]

So...you saw a comic book movie weeks ago with a line about fighting the civil war over an issue other than slavery, and stewed over it's historical innacuracy for weeks, then felt compelled to post in Talkbass in order to correct said historical inaccuracy from a movie?

That's remarkable.

I will say that you are going to be a very busy man if you are that dedicated to correcting hollywood's historical inaccuracies.