Gone with the Wind and The Lost Cause

[GAU-8]

"15,000 people were incarcerated without a prompt trial by Lincoln. On balance, their detention almost certainly did not enhance American security nor hasten the Union victory."

08.01.01: The Writ of Habeas Corpus, The Constitution and Abraham Lincoln, War President
Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute--And you know what Southern Lovers they are!

Constitution of the Confederate States of America
Sec. 9 (3) The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

[Shek]

Really? Did Davis lock up as many southerners as Lincoln locked up northerners WITHOUT writ?

Davis' suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is just one example of the curtailment of civil liberties - the proportion of civilian arrests are similar, although Southern records are poor and so these arrests are most likely undercounted. Davis and the South also instituted the first ever draft on the continent and drafted a far greater swath of the population than the North ever did. The South turned around and levied tariffs after complaining about them and ex post arguing that it was a major factor. The South required special passes for traveling the railroads.

So yes, the South, as the "vanguard" of personal liberty curtailed more liberty than did the North.

[Blue]

You can also include that the Southern government curtailed more civil liberties than did the Union during the conflict.

Really? Did Davis lock up as many southerners as Lincoln locked up northerners WITHOUT writ?

[Bigfella]

You can also include that the Southern government curtailed more civil liberties than did the Union during the conflict.

Yes, but all in the name of individual liberty.

[Shek]

shouldn't that read 'except slaves'. A minor historical point.

You can also include that the Southern government curtailed more civil liberties than did the Union during the conflict.

[Bigfella]

Could be worse. At least they didn't call it the "War of Northern Aggression"

That seemed to be pretty much the only piece of the fantasy that was missing.

I especially liked the bit where it blamed Lincoln & Congress for secession because they passed a tarriff bill AFTER 7 states had seceded. My favourite, however, is this:

The Confederate Battle Flag represents all Southern, and even Northern, Confederates regardless of race or religion and is the symbol of less government, less taxes, and the right of the people to govern themselves. It is flown in memory and honor of our Confederate ancestors and veterans who willingly shed their blood for Southern independence.

shouldn't that read 'except slaves'. A minor historical point.

[Gun Grape]

\
If you want an example of how bad history is legitimized, just check out the some of the bad history contained at this site, dixieoutfitters.com - Mission Statement, which uses clothing as a means to gain an audience and then continue the perpetuation of myths.

Could be worse. At least they didn't call it the "War of Northern Aggression"

[Bigfella]

I would submit that one can use fiction to help illuminate the study of history. I know I understood the Law of Land Warfare a lot better when our instructor used Breaker Morant to illustrate his points. I learned about how the amphibious forces operated in World War II by reading and later watching Away All Boats. That exposure got me interested in reading more about the Marine Corps official history of the Pacific.

I think the best thing to ever come out of Gone With The Wind is a wonderful Carol Burnett skit (The bit at 3:30 onward is priceless http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjhtxfSMIWk )

Killer Angels/Gettysburg is a great book and movie but lousy history. But that can also be said for a lot of nonfiction work which has been written.

"Rule .303. We caught 'em & we shot 'em under rule .303.!!!" - take that Jack Nicholson.

Sorry AR, I just had to:)). So few Americans have seen the film. Still has the best 'outburst by a guy in a uniform in a courtroom' for mine. A great film despite the overly sympathetic view of the murderers.

[GAU-8]

I would submit that one can use fiction to help illuminate the study of history.

Shek:
Used as part of the study of history, it can illuminate.

The STUDY of history or popcorn? Which will "illuminate" the most?


--Hot date there Shek! :-)

Shek,

I understand your point. The vast majority of the public doesn't read or understand history. Unfortunately, they also vote. It's a pity that mass entertainment outlets sway public perceptions.

The study of American history has been a life-long pursuit of mine. What I thought I knew in my 30's, I found to be wrong in my 40's. As time goes on and records are uncovered, what I've learned in my 50's has shown me that history is like an onion. It has many layers and you may never see them all in your lifetime. That's why history is a STUDY. It never ends. That's why so many of us love it. It's a pursuit.

A study of facts brings one closer to the chase that a study of fiction. IMHO.

Cheers,

Bill

[Shek]

I would submit that one can use fiction to help illuminate the study of history.

Absolutely, but the context you present is key. Used as part of the study of history, it can illuminate. However, for much of the public, it isn't part of a broader study of a subject, but simply consumed as entertainment. Thus, the reader/viewer is on their own to filter out what is truth and what is fiction, and even when an honest attempt is made, it's still hard to filter out all if the director/author has done a good job (this thread tries to reveal the propaganda effects of imagery alone - http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sta...ropaganda.html). Good entertainment is supposed to blend reality and fiction so that it's tough to separate.

As to illustrating/discussing the law of land warfare, the Battlestar Galactica remake does a great job of exploring the morality of terrorism, suicide bombing, and insurgency by turning the tables and making the robots the good guys and humans the bad guys: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/ar...on/26batt.html. I'm not a big sci-fi guys, but I saw the suicide bombing episode recently and it really challenges you emotionally to reject utilitarianism arguments that erode morality.

[Albany Rifles]

I would submit that one can use fiction to help illuminate the study of history. I know I understood the Law of Land Warfare a lot better when our instructor used Breaker Morant to illustrate his points. I learned about how the amphibious forces operated in World War II by reading and later watching Away All Boats. That exposure got me interested in reading more about the Marine Corps official history of the Pacific.

I think the best thing to ever come out of Gone With The Wind is a wonderful Carol Burnett skit (The bit at 3:30 onward is priceless http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjhtxfSMIWk )

Killer Angels/Gettysburg is a great book and movie but lousy history. But that can also be said for a lot of nonfiction work which has been written.

[astralis]

shek,

in the same vein, what i find interesting is how contemporary thinking influences the attitudes of those sympathetic to the South today.

for instance, the debated meme of tariffs, northern/government economic-political intervention, political disenfranchisement as -the- factor in southern antagonism...all ideas that the sympathetic Southerners of 75 years ago would have brushed off as nothing compared to the overriding reason of the right of southerners to own slaves.

and the southerners then would have said the slaves (and for that matter, everyone) was happier for it.

you're not likely to hear either of those reasons today. so it's actually pretty funny for me to see how more than a few Lost Causers will tell me how the importance of slavery was all a northerner fabrication when their own great-grandfathers would have told them dam' well otherwise.

[TopHatter]

Sir,

History and Hollywood are just a wee bit different.

Ditto that. ;)

Obviously History and Hollywood are just a wee bit different. That's like saying that water is wet.

But that's as far from the point of the article/thread as you can possibly get without leaving the planet.

To think that Hollywood does not heavily influence people's perceptions, not to say outright beliefs, about history is more than a little naive, for the reasons Shek gave, among others.

I cannot count the number of historical movies that have been released that prompted people that I know to say "Gee I didn't know they [fill in the blank] back during that time/event/battle"

You didn't know that because they/it didn't. But Hollywood does!

The average American gets his or her history through Hollywood. Let's face it: How many people cheerfully crack open historical non-fiction?

It's a good way to make people grimace and look at you if you're crazy for suggesting it.

But mention Gone With The Wind, Titanic, or another historically-based classic and their eyes light up.

[Shek]

Sir,

History and Hollywood are just a wee bit different.

fic·tion (fkshn)n.
1.
a. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
b. The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
2. A lie.
3.
a. A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
b. The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.
4. Law Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.

Perhaps you may want to review the level of books that you deem "high on your wish list".
Unless you just like books with lots of pictures and short words.

But you go right ahead and enjoy fiction movies and books about fiction movies.

Bless your heart.

GAU-8 and/Julie,

I have a series of questions for both of you given the thrust of your post.

1. One of the most popular books on the American Civil War is "The Killer Angels." Is this found the fiction or non-fiction section of bookstores (hint: it won the 1975 Pulitzer Prize for this genre)? The movie Gettysburg, adapted from "The Killer Angels," was released in 1993 (full disclosure - I own both).

2. In your estimation, how many people who have read "The Killer Angels" or seen "Gettysburg" have read another book or seen a documentary on the battle/operation? For those who haven't, what book/movie has shaped their memory?

3. What is The Lost Cause? When did The Lost Cause narrative emerge? Who were its champions? How much fact and fiction is embodied into it? How does it treat Jefferson Davis? How does this reconcile with the view of Jefferson Davis in April 1865?

4. To bring it full circle, a final question. Gone with the Wind is a fictional movie based on a fictional novel. Is everything made up in the movie, or are there parts of it that are based on actual fact? If so, what parts are fact and what parts are fiction? Are there subtitles that announce what is fact or fiction? If not, how is a viewer supposed to know what is fact or fiction? In other words, how many viewers/readers do research on the entire film vs. how many simply allow the film (while fiction) to "teach" them history?

As you answer these questions, realize that what we are talking about here is the history of history, not history in a direct manner. Historiography is the formal name, memory is an informal name. Thus, when you try to chastise me for wanting to read the Gallagher book, you're completely confusing what I'm interested in, and so the post was entirely misguided. However, if you think that people only "learn" history from history books, then there's a larger issue here, as that view simply ignores human psychology.

If you want an example of how bad history is legitimized, just check out the some of the bad history contained at this site, dixieoutfitters.com - Mission Statement, which uses clothing as a means to gain an audience and then continue the perpetuation of myths.

[Bigfella]

History and Hollywood are just a wee bit different.

Indeed they are, yet the perception of the former can be influenced by the way it is portrayed by the latter.

I'll give you a local example. Some years ago I attended a lecture by a noted Australian historian at the University of Melbourne. She wrote one of the first significant works on life in Australia during WW2 - focussing particularly on the lives of women. She did extensive interviews with these women in the mid-1980s, during & shortly after the screening of an incredibly popular & long running TV series set in Australia during WW2 called 'the Sullivans'.

She began to notice two phenomena. The first was that these women would often refer to 'the Sullivans' to illustrate their own memories - 'it was just like what happened in the Sullivans dear'. More disturbing, however, was when she noticed on a few occasions that several women would 'remember' events that sounded eerily similar. When she did some checking she discovered that these events had actually happened on the TV show. The women were weaving fictional elements from popular entertainment into their own memories.

Now, imagine an audience that has never experienced the event & most likely has only a sketchy understanding of the details. Under these circumstances it is very easy for an audience to let Hollywood form their view of history. Looks to me like that is what the book is about.