Mick LaSalle hits it out of the park on Southern History ...

[rubato]

http://www.sfchronicle.com/movies/artic ... 403446.php

They say that history is written by the victors, but the Civil War has been the rare exception. Perhaps the need for the country to stay together made it necessary for the North to sit silently and accept the South’s conception of the conflict. In any case, for most of the past 150 years, the South’s version of the war and Reconstruction has held sway in our schools, our literature and, since the dawn of feature films, our movies.

In his memoirs, 20 years after the events they describe, Gen. Ulysses Grant wrote that upon accepting the surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House, he felt no joy “at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly ... for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.”

Grant’s assessment was fair. Individual Southern soldiers may have been valiant, but as a cause, the Confederacy was morally indefensible. They were fighting, not only to perpetuate slavery, but also to advance it — first into the West, then into the Caribbean and Central America, and then, if all went as planned, into South America. The slave-holding class would have ruined the United States in pursuit of an evil vision, which would have brought tyranny and misery to millions.

Such a flat assertion of the historical record should not be a matter for controversy. But as early as the 1890s, a revisionist version had overtaken the narrative. In this new rendering, the Civil War had not been an effort to destroy the United States over the issue of slavery. Rather, it had been a mighty quarrel between two equally worthy points of view, and the Confederacy was a noble lost cause.

According to these pro-Confederate historians, the war was caused by a dispute over “states’ rights.” (Really? Then why did the South become inflamed when Northern states wouldn’t enforce the Fugitive Slave law?) And by the way, the slaves didn’t have it that bad, according to this myth. Aside from a few bad apples, the slaveholders were OK guys, and the slaves liked them a lot, even loved them.

This kind of pernicious nonsense persisted for three generations. At least until the late 1960s and mid-1970s, when I was in elementary and junior high school, you could always count on impressing your teachers by saying, “Actually, the Civil War was not fought about slavery, but economics.” It sure was — the economics of slavery.

Movies were part of this mythmaking and mostly served the Southern cause until the turn of the millennium. The American cinema’s first blockbuster, 1915’s “The Birth of a Nation” (original title: “The Clansman”), was a glorification of the Ku Klux Klan, and led to the group’s rebirth in the 1920s. And when Buster Keaton wanted to tell a Civil War story, “The General” (1927), he chose to make his hero work for the Confederate side.

The biggest box office success of all time (adjusted for inflation), “Gone With the Wind,” romanticizes plantation life and depicts the slave, Mammy (Hattie McDaniel), as devoted to her mistress, Scarlett O’Hara, even after the end of the war. McDaniel won the supporting actress Oscar for her portrayal of Mammy, and in 1948, James Baskett won a special Oscar for his portrayal of the former slave Uncle Remus in “Song of the South.” The fantasy of the happy slave seemed to please North as well as South.

The height of Southern mythmaking came with “Tennessee Johnson” (1942), starring Van Heflin in a biopic about Andrew Johnson, the 17th president. The movie took the Southern view of Reconstruction, presenting Johnson, one of our worst presidents — a boorish racist and a disaster for civil rights — as a worthy successor to Abraham Lincoln. It also made Thaddeus Stevens, the Radical Republican who made civil rights his life’s work, into a mean-spirited villain. Stevens was portrayed by Lionel Barrymore in a workout for his performance as Mr. Potter in “It’s a Wonderful Life.”

In the years since, the movies have either gone out of their way to avoid passing judgment — like Ken Burns’ epic television documentary, “The Civil War” — or been pro-Confederate.

The 271-minute film “Gettysburg” took a neutral view, while the follow-up film “Gods and Generals” (2003) made heroes out of Confederate Gens. Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, who came closer to destroying the United States than anyone before or since.

Over the past couple of decades, scholars such as Eric Foner and Bruce Levine have overturned most of the myths surrounding the Civil War and Reconstruction, but it took the British director Steve McQueen to put the truth about the horrific plantation era onto the screen and before the public, in “12 Years a Slave.” Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained,” the year before, was a big step in the right direction.

Recently, the mass killing in South Carolina and the subsequent outcry over the Confederate flag flying over statehouses brought the Civil War back into the national conversation, and for once public figures found the courage to say what that flag really means, and to repudiate it and its history.

It may be that in these past few weeks, we have finally turned a page, and the Confederacy will not rise again. If this is so, the truth will benefit the entire country, but especially the South. This is a region with a disproportionate number of our greatest writers, and most of our best soldiers. It has delicious cuisine, gracious women and a tradition of hospitality that is real and sincere. The musical traditions of the South, both white and black, are among the nation’s cultural glories. And America’s best raconteurs are from the South.

The South no longer needs — and never did need — the Confederacy as the organizing principle of its pride. It has many things to be proud of, and despite what the movies have tried to tell you, the Confederacy was never one of them.

Mick LaSalle is The San Francisco Chronicle’s movie critic. E-mail: mlasalle@sfchronicle.com. Twitter: @MickLaSalle

[wesw]

this (italics) moron is still fighting the civil war.....

don t be surprised when the people you constantly attack fight back.....

[MajGenl.Meade]

I enjoyed reading that - especially his highly flattering evaluation of Southern contributions to US society, and to the world, that have nothing to do with the War of the Rebellion.

It was a little odd that he did not mention "Glory" which of all movies did not flinch from issues of slavery and racism but found time for Tarantino's spaghetti-Southern blood-fest "Django Unchained" (which I enjoyed tremendously as a comedy spoof).

In trying to make a very valid argument and a conclusion with which I agree, there is a degree of inaccuracy and unfairness in some of the multitude of darts tossed out. For example, Keaton's "The General" was a romantic comedy set in the midst of the Andrews Raid.

As such (and in my view quite rightly), Keaton concentrated on the very interesting and very real train conductor, William Fuller who chased "The General" on foot, on handcars and eventually on another engine. Keaton gave him a fictional motive - to rescue his girl who had been accidentally abducted by the raiders along with the engine. A horrible box office failure at the time, "The General" has become recognized as one of the most important films of the 20th century and has a place among the best of all time. Keaton did not choose to make his hero a rebel - the man was a rebel (albeit a civilian one). Had he chosen to make Andrews his hero, the capture and subsequent execution of the man would not have been much of a romance or a comedy.

Also this is just sloppy thinking: "

According to these pro-Confederate historians, the war was caused by a dispute over “states’ rights.” (Really? Then why did the South become inflamed when Northern states wouldn’t enforce the Fugitive Slave law?)

I do not have to subscribe to the "states' rights" as a cause of the war in order to point out that the South became inflamed when Northern States wouldn't enforce the Fugitive Slave law BECAUSE that refusal was a violation of the Southern states' rights to the protection of law. "States' rights" did not mean the right of each state to arbitrarily make and enforce its own rules - it meant the right of States within the Union to equal application of the Constitution and Federal law.

wesw, I doubt you read the entire article. I doubt that you can see much beyond your grey-tinted lenses to admit the truth of what this chap wrote (despite the occasional hiccups as above). Slavery was the cause of the war - the rebel flag is not a matter for pride - true southern heritage is a matter for pride. The war is over and its time for the minority southern ignoramuses to stop fighting it

[wesw]

I didn t read one word of the article. I was not talking about the article or its writer.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ah. That's a pity

[wesw]

fine. I am (italics) sorry that I called rube a moron. that was wrong. he is not a moron. he is a bit deranged is all, probably has a demon.

unfortunately, his past history of posting material from unreliable sources, and of posting silly graphs charts and surveys, has conditioned me to ignore his postings of material from others.

I do read the posts that he composes, unless of course it is one of his, out of the blue, bombastic blatherings berating republicans.

I read the first bit of your reply, enough to see a positive comment, then skipped down to the part where you addressed me.

...and there it lies.

[MajGenl.Meade]

At least you can justify your ignorance. Many can't.

[Big RR]

Meade--admittedly, it is difficult to discuss the issue of the antebellum south and not include slavery because it is such an endemic part of what the south was. Vast amounts of capital were tied up in the slaves, and southerners feared their slaves being taken away by a strong federal government (bolstered by the northern states who resented southerners messing up their issues like big tariffs to protect their industry) as much as pre revolutionary war colonials feared loss of their prioperty to the crown. And so the series of compromises were launched in the early 19th century, aimed at keeping the status quo and balance in congress, and when the south felt that was threatened, the matter proceeded to secession.

As for the commentary about the films, I agree with many of them (but I thought Gods and Generals was an interesting film that showed what it was like to be fighting on an ultimately doomed side (and perhaps even knowing that)). But I do disagree about the teaching--I was always taught that the war was pretty much solely about slavery and that the valiant northerners marched in to teach those slaveholding rebels a lesson (just as I was taught that the american Indians were generally treated fairly and that the Mexican war was not a land grab). Hell, I was in high school before I realized that the Emancipation Proclamation freed no one as it applied only to the southern territories not under the control of Lincoln, and that many slaves were held in the northern states throughout the war and were not freed until after it as the Proclamation did not apply to them. Of course I was in the northeast and perhaps the writer was raised in the south.

As for the fugitive slave act, I think the southern reasoning was "we don't care whether a state permits slaves to be held or not" (which is roughly equivalent to states rights), but when my property is taken to another state, that state's laws cannot deprive me of it. Not that I agree with humans being considered property, but that was the way things were.

[wesw]

yeah RR, I was taught, in elementary school, that the war was only about slavery too.

I was taught that the white man pretty much swindled the Indians with beads, alcohol and broken treaties tho. they left out the death marches and genocides ...

the Alamo was about all we were taught about the Mexican American war.....

[dgs49]

As someone who has more than a passing interest in Constitutional law, I'm appalled at the fact that history books generally ignore the fact that the southern states had a strongly arguable right to secede from the Union. The very idea that "preservation of the Union" was a cause that justified the hundreds of thousands of deaths, dismemberments, and the destruction of billions in property is preposterous.

And of course, Lincoln was a racist whose main motivation for "proclaiming" the emancipation of (some of) the slaves was gaining favor from potential European allies.

Was the ending of slavery a sufficient justification for the carnage? Maybe. But if the young men of the North had been clearly told that Abolition was the cause for which they were called to fight, we would have learned the answer to the question posed by certain airheads during Vietnam: "What would happen if they called a war and nobody came?"

[MajGenl.Meade]

Try to develop a passing interest in history, too. Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation to win the favour of .... oh just say England and France and have done with it. He wrote the thing and discussed it in Cabinet long before the battle of Antietam and he saw it as a clear war measure.

He had no Constitutional right to free any slaves at all in states not in rebellion. The south had thrown off the Constitution of the US and since slaves were clearly "property", the Federal government had every right to deprive the enemy of property that gave aid and comfort to them. The property could vote with their feet on the issue of emancipation.

The secondary war aim was to make it impossible for England and France to intervene on the side of the Confederacy. Hence the proclamation was held quiet until it could be issued without seeming like the drowning man was clutching at straws. Despite all that McClellan could do to lose at Antietam, that victory enabled the proclamation to be issued from a position of strength and not weakness.

Whether or not the deep south states had a "right" to secede is entirely irrelevant to anything. They attacked Federal property and thus put the "right" to the test. They lost. Newsflash: they still lost.

The National government did not go to war to free any slaves - everyone was clear on that. The southern rebels did go to war to perpetuate and expand slavery. Everyone was clear on that. The very idea that the preservation of chattel slavery was a cause that justified upwards of 700-800,000 deaths, millions of wounds and billions of dollars - let alone the loss to the USA of future brilliant citizens - is preposterous.

And almost all white men were racists then, of one kind and another. But only certain kinds thought that people were property just because they were black and held them in bondage.

[Big RR]

The very idea that the preservation of chattel slavery was a cause that justified upwards of 700-800,000 deaths, millions of wounds and billions of dollars - let alone the loss to the USA of future brilliant citizens - is preposterous.

As is the idea that the forced repatriation and punishment of the seceding states

was a cause that justified upwards of 700-800,000 deaths, millions of wounds and billions of dollars - let alone the loss to the USA of future brilliant citizens

. Freeing persons held in chattel slavery bondage might well have been an idea/policy worth that cost, but as you stated, such was not the reason the US went to war.

[MajGenl.Meade]

See Big RR - he already said that. I was turning his words on their head. No real need for you turn them back - that ship sailed.

Is there something foggy about who attacked who? Is there confusion over who started confiscating which property first? Is insurrection to be meekly accepted by the national governing authority?

"Erring sisters depart in peace" was crap when it was coined and it still is.

[Big RR]

I'm not going to get into this argument again; all I am saying is that the IMHO the civil war was a tremendous waste of life and resources from the point of view of the unions aims and goals. That you disagree with that conclusion is something you have made clear, and there is no sense to argue it again. I still maintain that the USA would have been better off then, and today, if it had just let the southern states depart, negotiated transfer back of federal territories within the new nation, and set up defensible borders for both sides without significant armed conflict. But this was something Lincoln and many in Congress could not accept, and so we went to war instead.

As for

No real need for you turn them back - that ship sailed.

I'll choose when I respond and when I'll refrain from doing so. But thanks for letting me know that you see my response as merely turning back a ship that sailed. it shows me what you chose to read.

[MajGenl.Meade]

As you wish - that's a different argument based upon 20/20 hindsight and historic revisionism. It may be that had everyone known for a fact of the huge losses that would be involved.... well, either there would have been no secession or no fight against it.

What dead Dave wrote: The very idea that "preservation of the Union" was a cause that justified the hundreds of thousands of deaths, dismemberments, and the destruction of billions in property is preposterous . . . Was the ending of slavery a sufficient justification for the carnage? Maybe

What I wrote: The very idea that the preservation of chattel slavery was a cause that justified upwards of 700-800,000 deaths, millions of wounds and billions of dollars - let alone the loss to the USA of future brilliant citizens - is preposterous

What you wrote: As is the idea that the forced repatriation and punishment of the seceding states ... above quote inserted... Freeing persons held in chattel slavery bondage might well have been an idea/policy worth that cost, but as you stated, such was not the reason the US went to war

What you added to what dgs wrote: ___________________


So I guess I chose to read what you wrote. Just didn't quite see the point of rehashing what he'd just said. But as you put it, that's your look out. Just as replying as I choose to do is mine.

[wesw]

seems to me that the only ones still fighting the civil war are the people who constantly denigrate a section of our society, the southern section...

the ones who seek to divide instead of unite.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's what you don't get. With the exception of a bigot like rubato, it's not "the southern people" that are denigrated. It's ignorant arseholes with their total lack of knowledge about the confederate flag, history and southern culture who pretend that flag means something nice and cuddly.

[wesw]

love your neighbor

[Scooter]

I'm not going to get into this argument again; all I am saying is that the IMHO the civil war was a tremendous waste of life and resources from the point of view of the unions aims and goals. That you disagree with that conclusion is something you have made clear, and there is no sense to argue it again. I still maintain that the USA would have been better off then, and today, if it had just let the southern states depart, negotiated transfer back of federal territories within the new nation, and set up defensible borders for both sides without significant armed conflict. But this was something Lincoln and many in Congress could not accept, and so we went to war instead.

I don't want to re-argue it with you either, especially since I absented myself from the earlier discussion, but I think there are a few things you might not be considering.

First I think there is the fundamental question of whether a democracy plants the seeds of its own destruction in its very establishment. I firmly believe in self-determination, but to say that any subset of a nation can unilaterally declare its independence by right, without having to fight for it, would be anarchy. Oh but it could only be states, because they were sovereign. Really? A group of states announced they were no longer bound by the U.S. Constitution. So what if Peoria announces that it is no longer bound by the constitutions of the U.S. and Illinois, because individual citizens are also sovereign, and the citizens of Peoria were claiming their sovereignty. Should there be a Free City of Peoria?

I get the parallels to the American Revolution, but as much as I might sneer a bit at some of the exaggerations in the Declaration of Independence, there were real grievances; there were fundamental liberties under both natural and British law that were being denied to American colonists. And yet, they had to fight a war to assert their independence; signing a piece of paper wasn't enough. With the benefit of hindsight, I think the UK should have put forward a concept of self-government that would have worked well enough to keep you in the fold, like the later self-governing dominions, if that were possible.

But independence of some sort became necessary because the UK had created an unjust situation. Nothing of the sort existed in the pre-CW era. It was all about what worst case scenario might happen if slavery were not permitted to expand further into the territories than already permitted. Which through the combined results of the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and a Supreme Court decision that was partisan beyond belief, was all of them. It's fine to claim Lincoln should have said, secede and go with God, but what terms would have satisfied the South, and would that have been the end of it? Remember that the entire basis of the states rights mantra was that the states owned the territories and the federal government was just the janitor. Would a Confederate government that was hoping to annex Cuba and Nicaragua as slave states have agreed to leave with no U.S. territory? Would the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by five secessionists and two doughfaces have permitted the Confederacy to continue promoting the expansion of slavery into territories they left behind, and then agitate for their annexation? That was how Texas was annexed as a slave state despite the explicit prohibition of slavery under Mexican law.

And speaking of Dred Scott, having forbidden Congress from placing any restrictions on slavery in the territories, how long would it have taken for that or a similarly pro-slavery Court to extend the same 5th Amendment argument to the free states, saying they could not prohibit the possession of slaves in their borders? Dave wonders if Union soldiers would have fought to achieve abolition; well, racism cuts both ways. Even without an explicit extension to the states, Dred Scott had implied that slaveowners could reside pretty much indefinitely in a free state while retaining ownership of their "property". The notion of free states becoming de facto slave states would have appalled many northern whites who didn't want their state overrun with n-gg-rs. If slavery had to be abolished to prevent that, they would have gotten behind it.

With the benefit of hindsight, the wars I judge worth the expense and the loss of life are few indeed. It is clear that neither side expected the CW to be more than a brief disturbance, so to judge the wisdom of their decision with the same benefit is rather unfair. But whichever rationale one goes with, preserve union or end slavery, neither question was going to be resolved short of a war. And both seem to have been answered definitively, so at least it was a two for one deal.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That sound? Nail being hit on the head