In November of 2012 Steven Spielberg released his latest movie, Lincoln. There have been those who have sung its praises and those who have criticized its historical accuracy. I have yet to see the movie so I will not throw my hat into either ring. What I want to comment on is Michael Cushman’s “outrage” over the showing of a commercial for the movie during the Chic-fil-A Bowl on television the other night. Cushman had this to say about the movie (Which it appears he has not seen the movie as well):
“As noted in multiple reviews posted here on SNN (see here, here and here), the film is a piece of anti-Southern propaganda that rewrites history to glorify the United States’ invasion and conquest of the independent South in the 1860s.”
You will note that his “reviews” include Hunter Wallace who hardly hides his racism on his own blog and the pseudo-historian Tommy DiLorenzo.
He ends his crying spell with…”Shame on the people who decided to accept the offer of sponsorship by the Lincoln promoters. They have insulted the people of Georgia and Southerners and general.”
What I want to know is how does one live in such a world where everything is set against who won and lost in the War of the Rebellion? If I were to do this I would be ranting about Michigan’s loss to South Carolina in the Gator Bowl, that Georgia beat Nebraska or the fact that all the bowls for the most part are held in the south. There are plenty of places in the North to hold bowl games inside domes. But then again I grew up some 20 years ago. So I guess I feel sorry for Michael and his southern nationalists who must always gage their modern lives on events that happened 150 years ago. I feel sorry for people like Tripp Lewis, Billy Bearden and Susan F. Hathaway who spend their time waving the defeated banner of the confederacy at every place they feel is not flying enough of those flags or is not telling their version of the history…whatever that might be.
In the end, football is just a game and “Lincoln” is just a movie. If either one defines your life or causes you to rant on YouTube about a commercial during a football bowl game…then maybe you need to rethink you New Years Resolutions.
and lies are just lies…
Could you please elaborate on what those lies are?
Do you honestly believe the deaths of thousands of noncombatants and the destruction of homes and villages are just “spilt milk”? That’s an incredibly careless and unfeeling remark. All he is doing is reminding us that the version of Lincoln trumpeted by the mainstream media is not the actual individual who conducted a bloody unconstitutional war against people who just wanted to go their own way.
No, what is spilt milk is the fact that the football games are not just “southern” they are National football bowl games that include players and fans from all over the country. “Lincoln” is just a movie that is enjoying a national release and anyone wanting to make money would be stupid not to advertise during a nationally broadcast bowl game. Michael Cushman (aka: Palmetto Patriot) is crying over the fact that these perceived “southern” things are not southern as he wants them to be.
Unconstitutional ? when was the suppression of the rebellion ever ruled such ?? and FYI,not all southerners wanted to go,also many of those civilian deaths,burned homes and towns were the result of the actions of rebel soldiers,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConfederateAtrocities/
If it was constitutional, why didn’t Lincoln go to the Supreme Court before or doing the war and get it declared as such? He didn’t because the Supreme Court would not have done it. Only after the war did it meekly ratify the win of bayonets in a hollow and contrived opinion (I guess the justices didn’t want to be seized by Stanton and thrown into a prison). We see such “legal” justifications of tyranny around the world by leaders today trying to establish a legitimacy they don’t possess–see Egypt and the recent riots.
And I didn’t say there were not Unionists in the South, there were, although most were pushed away by the war crimes committed by the Union Army. Here’s what that war criminal Sherman wrote “There is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished.” Very similar to what he said about the Native Americans: “The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will be here to kill next year.” We must not forget that the Union army that destroyed the South then turned west and committed every known atrocity against the Native people there. Same army, same government, same tyranny.
We must also not forget that there were a many a good southern boy who took the oath of allegiance during the war and went west to kill Indians. We must not forget that it was southerners who wanted land and pushed the Cherokee out west on the trail of tears.
Do I need to go on?
None of which would have happened had not a barbaric army invaded the Southern states.
And nothing that would have happened had the secessionist for slavery had not fired on Ft Sumter…
Just a game and just a movie? Don’t underestimate the power of pop culture. For decades, the left has been using fiction, drama and sports to great effect in their effort to manipulate public opinion, which determines and powers control.. George Orwell was right — “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” …
Ah yes…and Gone with the Wind was a liberal plot to make us think that the south should have won the war only to turn it on its head later in the century….
Nice try Connie…but no go…
Corey, please. One movie is not the entirety of popular culture. Moreover, GWTW (the movie) was filmed and released in the 1930s. The left didn’t begin to manipulate pop culture (and thus public opinion) in earnest until after WWII, and stepped it up in the 1960s. You’re a historian and you don’t know this? Look at the 1955 film Rebel Without a Cause — full of social commentary that foreshadowed the generation gap of the 60s and 70s.
Since the 1960s, pop culture, especially cinema, has been an increasingly valuable tool in the ongoing culture war. Here’s one person’s list of significant political protest/social commentary films: http://voices.yahoo.com/the-50-greatest-political-protest-social-commentary-569965.html?cat=40
And it isn’t just film — it’s education, television, books (fiction and nonfiction), magazines, even comic books, newspapers, sports, toys, crazes and fads…
Despite your eagerness to not see it, or to mischaracterize it, Michael has a point.
Yes Connie…I know the history…I just don’t see it like you do…go figure. It is interesting that in the 1960′s historians began to put the main character of the story back into the story and the south protests. The country tries to give that main character his/her rights and the south (mainly) protests.
And I did see “LINCOLN” earlier today and I will make a post on my thoughts tomorrow.
“We must not forget that it was southerners who wanted land and pushed the Cherokee out west on the trail of tears.”
That’s not entirely true. The federal government was responsible for relocating the Cherokee west — the U.S. Army “accompanied” them on the journey. And the people who settled the freed-up Cherokee lands in north Georgia came from all over the country — and even from foreign countries. But you being a historian and all, I wouldn’t expect you to know this.
Regardless Connie, they were moved off their lands in the south…for southerners by a southern president. It is pretty simple.
They were moved off their lands for people who came from all over the country and from some foreign countries. Deny it how you will. That. Is. What. Happened.
Pingback: Response to Corey Meyer | Confederate Renaissance
“There are plenty of places in the North to hold bowl games inside domes.”
There’s nthoing to prveent a northren domde stdaium from gettnig a bwol gmae.
I can assure you the NCAA is not part of the “neo-Confederate conspiracy.”
Most bowls have been in the South because of the weather. Check the Liberty Bowl. Use to be played in Philadelphia…until players started freezing.
“I feel sorry for people like Tripp Lewis, Billy Bearden and Susan F. Hathaway who spend their time waving the defeated banner of the confederacy at every place they feel is not flying enough of those flags or is not telling their version of the history…”
Then who will fly them? Andy Hall and Rob Baker?…………yuck, yuck, yuck…
I have one (CBF) hanging in by shed,to remind me of my Confederate kin,kind of like the crazy aunt in the attic.I’ll let the grandkids play with it now and then..
Mr.Luther,you really need to read more then just neo-confederate propaganda,I would suggjest contemporary sources.For example ,a good outline of the United States position on the rebellion,see, President Andrew Johnson, Proclamation Announcing that the Rebellion Has Ended, April 2, 1866 .You may also ask yourself if secession was lawful,why didn’t the rebel states go to the courts ? As for the Indian wars,The US Indian policy was NO different after the war then before,that why theres a
“south”,because our folk killed the Indians,drove the rest off and took their lands,that is of course why we also have a north and west,ect.
“There is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished.”,at least you didn’t use the doctored quote.Yes,Sherman was referring to guerrillas he had to deal with,a sentiment shared by many soldiers that have dealt with guerrilla warfare.
“And I didn’t say there were not Unionists in the South, there were, although most were pushed away by the war crimes committed by the Union Army.”
To the latter part,I must reply BS,see here,for atrocities commited against Southern Unionists,some of which were my folk,by CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConfederateAtrocities/
So Sherman’s own words are “Neo-Confederate” (whatever that is) propaganda? I guess those children he advocated killing were very, very bad guerrillas! Like much of the Union army, he was a war criminal, period. Find me one quote from a Confederate General advocating killing Union children. You won’t.
As to your point on the Supreme Court: No one who is acting lawfully goes to court to verify their legal conduct. If I don’t rob a bank this morning, I don’t go to Court to make sure it’s legal not to. If Lincoln wanted to stop his war or at least cloak it in the legitimacy of the law, he would have tried to get some type of verdict from the Court. He didn’t because he couldn’t. As to the “atrocities” committed against Southern Unionists, they were fewer and rarer than those committed by the occupying forces against all Southerners.
You would be hard pressed to get Sherman tried and convicted as a war criminal…the crimes are simply just not there. His comments about killing a certain set of people was simply rhetoric…and I am sure you will disagree but that can be seen in Sherman’s treatment of people along the march to the sea.
I believe old T. J. Jackson was not too sympathetic to the enemy…but then again we are still talking about rhetoric not actual threats.
Corey, Sherman’s crimes were just not there? Sherman himself acknowledge that according to what he’d learned at West Point, he and his men were guilty of war crimes. You don’t get to decide after the fact what was “rhetoric” and what was genuine — for example, Sherman’s orders in October of 1864 to General Louis Watkins, to go to Fairmount, Georgia, “burn ten or twelve houses” and “kill a few at random,” and “let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon…” though no effort was to be made to ascertain that those targeted for burning and killing were the ones who fired on the trains….Was that just rhetoric?
Can you provide me a link to that order Connie…don’t want to take your word for it.
But then again Connie you need to understand how Sherman saw who was responsible for the war and the actions towards Federal troops. You should read Noah Andre Trudeau’s book called Southern Storm: Sherman’s March to the Sea. You might actually learn something more than just pasting quotes from some neo-confederate site without a reference.
Sure, Corey, I can provide you with a link to that order, in the Official Records… Scroll to the bottom of the page:
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar&cc=moawar&idno=waro0079&node=waro0079%3A2&view=image&seq=496&size=100
It sez:
============
HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
In the Field, Rome, Ga., October 29, 1864/
Brigadier-General Watkins, Calhoun, GA.:
Cannot you send over about Fairmount and Adairsville, burn ten or twelve houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random, and let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired on from Resaca to Kingston?
W.T. SHERMAN
Major-General, Commanding.
============
A death penalty for being a “known secessionist”? Known by WHOM? Why, he doesn’t say! What a surprise! Evidence unnnecessary that they were the ones who FIRED on the trains .. just burn their houses and kill ‘em — at random — for being “known” secessionists … but “known” to whom isn’t specified.
What a guy, huh?
(Mr.?) Luther.Cherry picked quotes that only context is your own personal agenda,I would say is propaganda.Maybe the confederates didn’t advocate killing children,they just did it, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConfederateAtrocities/message/18
“No one who is acting lawfully goes to court to verify their legal conduct”,very good point, that would explain why Lincoln didn’t “go to the Supreme Court (what ever that means) as he did nothing unlawful. Have you read the “Prize Case” the Supreme Court up held Lincoln’s actions in suppressing the rebellion as did the Congress and the loyal american people in the 1864 election.
In regards to artocities,there were so many heroic men and acts during our Civil War on both sides,personally, I would rather not dwell on the atrocities,but because you all southron’s have made such a issue of them,I felt the need to study the subject on my own.It seems to me that not all rebel soldiers were sweet little angels nor were the majority of Union soldiers “war criminals”,as you all would have us believe.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConfederateAtrocities/
I guess the link I posted to the OR page expires after a few minutes. To get to the page with the order to kill civilians, go here http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/m/moawar/waro.html
And scroll down to this
———-
Volume XXXIX – in Three Parts. 1892. (Vol. 39, Chap. 51)
Chapter LI – Operations in Kentucky, Southwest Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and North Georgia (the Atlanta Campaign excepted). May 1-November 13, 1864.
Part I – Reports
Part II – Union and Confederate Correspondence, etc.
Part III – Union and Confederate Correspondence, etc.
———-
Choose Part III – Union and Confederate Correspondence, etc.. Select “Title Page” and then use the drop-down menu to go to page 494.
Then go to page 511 to see where they were carried out:
=======
Calhoun, October 30, 1864.
Major-General Sherman:
My men killed some of those fellows two or three days since, and I had their houses burned. Watkins is not here, but I will carry out your instructions thoroughly and leave the country east of the road uninhabitable, if necessary.
E.M. McCook,
Brigadier-General.
=========
Keep in mind that “some of those fellows” were civilians … noncombatants. Murdered.
Connie, do you know if the order was carried out? And they were not civilians…they were secessionists….;)
Sherman was referring to guerrillas? Women? Children? He got to carry out his “banishment” fantasy with the Roswell women — only they weren’t guerrillas, were they? He described guerrilla activity as “nothing but simple murder, horse stealing, arson and other well defined crimes…” which is a marvelously accurate description of his own troops’ “activities” in Georgia and South Carolina.
Yes the orders were carried out. Follow the same link as above and go to page 511.
=======
Calhoun, October 30, 1864.
Major-General Sherman:
My men killed some of those fellows two or three days since, and I had their houses burned. Watkins is not here, but I will carry out your instructions thoroughly and leave the country east of the road uninhabitable, if necessary.
E.M. McCook,
Brigadier-General.
=========
“Keep in mind that “some of those fellows” were civilians … noncombatants. Murdered”
Civilians by day,guerrillas by night.Much like our men in Vietnam,Union troops could never be sure who was or wasn’t the enemy,soldiers under those condition begin to deal harshly with the “civilian” population. I guess Connie your one of those that believe all Vietnam veterans were village burners and baby killers.I have found confederate troops often treaedt their own people as bad or even at times worse then Union troops,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConfederateAtrocities/
Mr. Moon, civilans by day, guerrillas by night? You know this …. how? It’s not mentioned in either Sherman’s or McCook’s correspondence. (Sherman just said “known secessionists” though it isn’t clear known by whom. Maybe there were guerrillas in the area — but how do you know they were the ones McCook’s men murdered? You don’t.
Boys of 14 and 16 were not considered children back then. There were boys that age serving in the Armies.
Why do you guess I’m one of those that believe all Vietnam veterans were village burners and baby killers? Because you’re a bigot?
Yes, there were a few atrocities committed by Confederates, which wouldn’t have happened if the Union’s barbaric army had not invaded the Southern states — with absolutely no legal, moral, logical, political, or any other reason for so doing.
Corey, they were civilians, and Sherman ordered their cold-blooded murder.
So men were ordered killed and those men were secessionists…Sherman considered secessionist traitors and you know the punishment for traitors right. But in the end we…neither one of us…know exactly what men Sherman was really referring to…could have been civilians or bushwhackers. Either way I suppose it is the price one pays for treason or secession.
Sherman’s correspondence wasn’t written with Connie Chastian in mind.I believe they knew who their targets were,by observation and information from spies and informants.Those at that place and time,who were “in the know”,did not need the details you wish for.Thats why McCook replied they had taken care of some of those ‘fellows”,he knew who Sherman was wrting about.I doubt there were any trains shot at for sometime after this order was carried out,hard war.
Interesting Connie,a battle hardened veteran of the civil war could see a difference between these Unionist children and adults,but you can’t,but you have plenty of tears for guerrillias.
Bigot ? I think the definition best fits you..
Only a few confedrate atrocities,hardly,I have collected far more then a few,without even trying,and I believe it’s just the tip of the Iceburg. It would seem to me your excuse for confederates soldiers works the same for Union soldiers.They wouldn’t have been down there but for the actions of the rebel states,what did the rebels think would happen when they fired on Sumter. “They Sow the Wind, and Reap the Whirlwind” ,Hosea 8:1-14.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConfederateAtrocities/
P.S I noticed you joined in with the Corey bashers over at Michael’s SNN blog.It was a hoot to see Pat Hines going on about bloodthirsty yankees,isn’t this the same Pat Hines who wants to make a statement by slaughtering northern school children ?
Sherman said “known” secessionists. Known by whom? It wasn’t up to Sherman to determine who was secessionists/traitors — particularly when he wasn’t even in the same place with those folks he was ordering to be murdered. It is the price people paid for having their sovereign state overrun by a barbaric, invading army that had no business being there. Sherman and his men had absolutely no moral, political, legal or any other authority to be in Georgia killing Georgians. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Connie’s right. Sherman ordered the cold-blooded murder of Southern civilians. He was proud of it. Corey and Jefferson, it’s a shame you’re proud of it too.
He ordered secessionists killed…they were the enemy…what is wrong with that? We don’t know who those secessionist were so it is hard to say what they were…civilians or guerillas…or bushwhackers…
And no, I have no problem defeating my enemies.
Mr. Moon. You *believe* they knew who their targets were, do you? Guess what. I don’t care what you believe. .
I’ve shed no tears for guerrillas. That *you* believe they were guerrillas doesn’t mean they were. Absent proof that they were guerrillas, they were civilians. Murdered.
The union army had no legal or moral reason for invading the South, killing Southerners and laying the place waste for five generations. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
I don’t think Pat Hines wants to slaughter school children. I think he’s either (a) a big, empty talker or (b) an agent provocateur. Someone fairly prominent in the Southern independence movement suspects (b) at least to the point of saying Pat needs to be watched. In my opinion, (a) is far more likely. No current-day Southern nationalist has ever killed school children for their cause, but the yankee army did come South, waged barbaric war, killed civilians, and set in place circumstances that would keep Southerners impoverished for five generations….
And I don’t care what you believe,they were guerrillias and suffered a guerrillias fate.The United states had every right,legal and moral to suppress the rebellion,every RIGHT ,and it did.Five generations,hogwash,theres been rich southerners and poor,same as anywhere else.
Five generation (again),want some cheese with that whine ? if you can’t recover after five generation,somethings wrong with you folk,you seem to be doing pretty good ?? I have NO doubt if you all keeping going on with this propaganda and brain washing of yours,some unbalanced southern nationalist/neo-confederate will carry out Pat Hines plans. Anyone that would bare a unchristian grudge for something that happen a hundred and fifty years ago,has to be unblananced..
Mr. Moon, re: one of your earlier comments — secession was not a rebellion. Not all southerners wanted to go? So? Not all colonists wanted to separate from Britain, either. How many civilian deaths and burned homes and towns were the result of actions of rebel soldiers? “Many” isn’t very specific.
No, they weren’t guerrillas just because you believe they were. There’s nothing in the historical record identifying them as such. Of course, you’re welcome to believe whatever your prejudice leads you to believe, but that doesn’t obligate everyone else to believe what you do.
The South was kept in poverty by economic policies put in place by private companies (the railroads) but permitted by the feds.
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cescott/freight.html
The same freight rate discrimination in textile manufacturing was also in place for steel manufacturing in Birmingham. This policy did not end until 1953, Mr. Moon. And I’ll bet you thought reconstruction ended in the 1870s.
You have no doubt, huh? Do you know how totally irrelevant your doubts, or your no-doubts, are? In case you haven’t noticed, in America, school children are killed by unbalanced Yankees and Left Coasters wigged out on drugs.
Pat Hines doesn’t have a plan. He mouthed off in response to a Facebook post about the anniversary of the Beslan school siege. I doubt he ever even gave it a thought before seeing that post.
There’s a far greater unChristian grudge shown by “good Americans” for Confederates AND Southerners today than the reverse. Most of what Southern nationalists object to is the U.S. government’s actions that violate the Constitution and oppress the people — back then and continuing to today. The greatest “unbalance” existing today is in Washington, D.C.
Jefferson, it’s odd that you would call someone else unchristian and unbalanced when you are here on this forum advocating that the killing of Southern Children was correct and right. Also, I’m not sure what you are calling propaganda. Connie has given you Sherman’s orders verbatim. Where’s the propaganda?
Michael Cushman’s video is nothing but neo-confederate dribble. This is the United States of America not the Confederate States of America.
Stephen Lich, that you dislike Cushman’s statement enough to mislabel it”neo-Confederate dribble” doesn’t make it untrue. That this is the United States doesn’t make it untrue, either.
Michael Cushman states in his video that an ad for the “Lincoln” movie during a college bowl game was an “injustice”, and “anti-southern”…………Give me a break. He talks about the “South” like it’s another country. As I said before neo-confederate dribble.
“advocating that the killing of Southern Children was correct and right’
Explaining Sherman’s quote is not advocating as your fellow southron advocates killing northern school children,here and now..
Secession was rebellion,see Johnson’s proclamation 1866,for the United states postion on this.How many,they haven’t all been counted yet,heres my start http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConfederateAtrocities/ and it’s just a start,not even the tip of the iceberg,it’s just looking at the tip of the iceburg.Railroads ? we have these things called highways now and trucks. I am begining to doubt your honesty,I have travelled thousands of miles through the South and saw a prosperous people,till I came to Mexico.I have no don’t there is poverty in the south, (and drugs,crime,ect ) as there is everywhere and if that is your lot,then I am truly sorry,and encourage you to try and better yourself and your commuity as best you can.
Just because there are durg crazies in the north,doesn’t mean Pat Hines or one of his imps wouldn’t try to carry out his plan to murder northern school children to make a statement about southern nationalism. As to who has the greater grudge,you reek of it.Do you know how totally irrelevant YOU are ???
Luther,The propaganda I was referring to was that of the likes of Pat Hines and his ilk,which Connie has joined in on over at the Southern Nationalist network,not a honest debate on the Civil War.