AMC Joining The Confederate Apologist Cause
Tweet
AMC has a new series where a confederate soldier will be the hero, fighting union soldiers.
Apparently the series isn’t concerned with the morality of the confederacy, which sought to keep black people as slaves in order to assist commerce in the south. Sick.
55 Responses to “AMC Joining The Confederate Apologist Cause”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
You’re assuming a lot without having seen an episode, no?
I think this was called The Outlaw Josey Wales the first time around.
I think this was called The Outlaw Josey Wales the first time around.
Which was written by a former George Wallace speechwriter and KKK member. So while it was a great movie I think that’s a bad case to say its origin was devoid of attempts at Confederate revisionism.
Fair point, I’d forgotten that. Haven’t read the book. But how many people do you think came away from the movie thinking, ‘Wow, the Confederacy was really cool’?
Josey Wales was a Missouri “border ruffian” who rode with “Bloody Bill” Anderson during the Civil War. Like contemporary Confederate General Jo Shelby, the fictional Wales refused to surrender at the end of the war and headed for Mexico. Unlike Shelby, he stopped in Texas and made his peace there.
The Kansas-Missouri border wars were bloody affairs with atrocities committed by both sides. Whatever you might think of the author of the story, what I saw in the movie serves very well as historical fiction and rather accurately (IMHO) depicts the spirit of the times (as far as we know). I also note that I don’t remember any black people being harmed in the making of the film. In fact I don’t remember slavery being mentioned at all.
The Confederacy wasn’t really part of the film, though. I’m sure a lot of people came away thinking Josey Wales the fictional character was really cool, and maybe a few would have been inspired to learn more about the setting of the movie; in which case they’d learn about John Brown, the “border war” and Bleeding Kansas, Quantrill’s raid, Marais Des Cygnes, and Osceola. That can’t be a bad thing.
I think you should give the show a chance before condemning it. You may get more about the “morality of the Confederacy” than you expect. “Mad Men” by all accounts is not a glorification of Madison Avenue and the 50s.
I think Oliver wants to refight the Civil War, only this time everyone south of the Mason Dixon line is put to death. Give it a rest already, Oliver, the War’s over, the North won, slavery is illegal, and some southerners hate blacks, as do some northerners.
Grousing about how the Civil War is portrayed makes the “strong black man” look like a whining baby.
As for The Outlaw Josey Wales, I came away from it curious about the Redlegs, and wondering why Josey was always spitting on the people he killed.
I think the problem is that Hollywood, in general, romantizes the Confederacy. We don’t see portrayed in film confderate troops rounding up Pennsylvania’s free blacks and sending them south into slavery prior to the battle of Gettysburg. However, we’re nearly always treated to portrayls of Federals stealing from southern farmers, or raping southern women. Did it happen? Yes, but why do we never see in film the atrocities commited by confederates?
Missed Roots, did ya, Frothy? How about Glory? Posse?
Cryin’ out loud, you guys will say anything.
GWTW was made in 1939!
Yeah, and Roots was made 33 years ago, Glory 21 years ago, Posse 17 years ago. Guess you missed the scene in Glory where federal troops sack a town? Confederate soldiers in that film, when they appear, appear in battle scenes doing what soldiers do, fight each other.
Posse takes place during the freakin Spanish-American war! Only Roots regularly displayed the brutality of the slave system.
Now, relate those films to the mess that was Gods and Generals (or as I like to call it, The Stonewall Jackson Story) made just 7 years ago. Look at the romantic way characters like Jackson and Lee are portrayed, not just in that movie, but in many, many films that reference the Civil War, if not directly about the war.
Look at Cold Mountain, slavery isn’t present in that film, and yet we’re treated to a scene of Federal cavalry troops raping a woman while the heroic southron comes to the rescue.
If you think there isn’t a generally romanticised notion of “The Lost Cause” in film, you are seriously delusional.
Meant to put this link in the above post, its a pretty good summary of the santization of the Confederacy in popular culture, written at the time Cold Mountain was released.
“Grousing about how the Civil War is portrayed makes the “strong black man” look like a whining baby.”
Yeah, and Frank never owned slaves so fuck off.
What ol froth said.
Pathetic that some still have a need to romanticize the Civil War,a war brought on by the needs of those who made their living buying, and brutalizing other human beings.
I believe the correct term is “War of Northern Agression” at least according to all of my relatives in Louisiana.
To strip away the true significance and cause of the war is to give those who misuse its symbols today a free pass.
I believe this is the crux of the argument.
Is the portrayal of the South in the Civil untrue, or simply distorted? Were Union soldiers never villainous, or sometimes villainous?
I might suggest that slavery and its effects are unpleasant to watch for white people in an audience, more so for black people. I might also suggest that while some movie stars are very vocally ideological, most movie producers just want asses in the seats, and are more concerned about not offending someone, than they are about raising consciousness or defending Lost Causes.
Pathetic that some still have a need to romanticize the Civil War
Why pathetic? Is it not what all nations do with their history?
Would it be better if it were forgotten, or shall we continue to punish the South forever?
“I think Oliver wants to refight the Civil War, only this time everyone south of the Mason Dixon line is put to death.”
Not sure what Oliver would do, but I’d put them at Guantánamo Bay …
“… most movie producers just want asses in the seats, and are more concerned about not offending someone, than they are about raising consciousness or defending Lost Causes.”
Well, they’re offending many. That’s the fucking point.
All Confederate soldiers are evil. All Union soldiers are the heroes.
We don’t want to make cinema or actual history too complicated for Oliver. No nuance required.
I’m not saying that brutality exacted on civilians by Federal troops shouldn’t be portrayed, I’m just pointing out that acts of brutality by Confederate troops are almost never portrayed in cinema, while its hard to find a movie that doesn’t show northern troops commiting at some point, an atrocity. Has the Ft. Pillow massacre ever been portrayed in film? Has my example upthread of confederate soldiers rounding up free blacks in Pennsylvania and selling them into slavery ever been portrayed? The only confederate leader I can ever recall being portrayed negativly is William Quantrill, and even in Quantrill’s Raiders, the “hero” is another confederate officer. That’s what I mean about the sanitizing of the Confederacy, and the romanticing of the Lost Cause.
No. But the Confederate cause was indeed evil, and it should not be portrayed as anything else.
The Andersonville Trial was a successful Broadway play brought to video. I’d love to see a movie made about the massacre at Ft Pillow.
But the Confederate cause was indeed evil, and it should not be portrayed as anything else.
How do you suppose the southern leaders got poor farmers who owned no slaves to join the Confederate Army? By telling them they were fighting for slavery?
The Big Picture is that two people keeping a wound open will never close the wound. If those of you who say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, therefore, anything positive said about is also positive about slavery, then the South can never be forgiven.
BUT
If the South feels they can never be forgiven because of a war fought generations ago, in which in some cases, not even their ancestors ever participated, then the wound stays open forever.
The Republicans in the Congress imposed the harsh strictures on the South post-Lincoln. Lincoln would have welcomed them back into the fold (No, I don’t want to rehash the “Jim Crow Laws” argument to justify harsh Reconstruction. The South was being punished, plain and simple).
Some southerners may believe in The Lost Cause, but many northerners believe they should “put them [all southerners*?] at Guantánamo Bay.”
By the way , I have to ask , is the “fucking point” any different from a regular point?
Tell me something, isms, and don’t lie: When was the last time you saw a movie about the Civil War that offended you? You – not some hypothetical group or individual – you.
* What about the biracial descendants of confederates who have had children with black women? Them , too?
“If the South feels they can never be forgiven because of a war fought generations ago, in which in some cases, not even their ancestors ever participated, then the wound stays open forever.”
Then they should quit celebrating the good old days; they are keeping other folk’s wounds open, don’t you know. These Southern fokes really do need to move on and burn that damn Confederate flag … that I’m sick of seeing.
Interesting that you brought up Andersonville. The main villians in that movie were the union prisoners who were hanged for brutalizing their fellow soldiers. The implication being that the prisoners’ misery was brought on by their comrades, and not the confederates, who were just caught in a bad situation because Grant wouldn’t agree to prisoner exchanges.
Froth, you didn’t see what I saw – the Confederate warden was on trial, and he tried to put the blame on his superiors. I have no idea what movie you are talking about .
I’m talking about the made for TV movie. You?
I saw a DVD of a Broadway play , with William Shatner as the prosecuting attorney.
I thought Cold Mountain did an excellent job of showing the savagery of the Confederate army as well (the scenes with the military police guys executing deserters).
I’d say give the show a chance. Censorship isn’t the answer.
Honestly, I don’t think that a movie about Confederate soldiers necessarily means anything. Movies are supposed to present a story; actors are supposed to play parts in those movies.
I mean in American History X, Edward Norton wasn’t really a white supremacist. If the story is good, then I’ll watch it. Movies are supposed to be provocative.
Apparently Oliver sees:
AMC has officially given a 10-episode series order to Hell On Wheels, the post-Civil War drama
Instead of:
AMC has officially given a 10-episode series order to Hell On Wheels, the post-Civil War drama
At least let it hit the air before condeming it, they may surprise you. I thought the walking dead would be retarded but it has been interesting enough so far.
Oliver, I give up! From this day forward, I declare all your posts on the Civil War without value. This from the Los Angeles Times for Dec 15 :
Jaim, you’re right about Cold Mountain’s portrayl of the Home Guard. Of course, that was “south on south” violence. I thought it was a great movie, my complaint is that in general, when the Civil War is portrayed in film, Confederates tend to be portrayed romantically or sympatheitcally, while Yanks are generally portrayed in a negative light.
Frank, I’ve never seen that play/movie. Might have to look it up, sounds interesting, along the lines of Broadway adeptation of the Caine Mutiny.
The SOUTHERN LEADERS screamed from the roof tops why they started the CIvil War.
First they promised to start it — if the North did not spread slavery.
See the Southern Ultimatums — issued by SOuthern leaders, proclaimed by Southern newspaper headlines as “THE TRUE ISSUE”.
ALL FIVE — count them FIVE — of the SOuthern Ultimatums were about the SPREAD of slavery. All five. All five.
Have I mentioned — all five? They were issued by the Southern leaders in Montgomery, March of 1861. Southern newspaers, including Richmond Enquirer, gave them big headlines “THE TRUE ISSUE”.
Ultimatum 1 — the North must spread slavery into the territories — by force
http://fivedemands.blogspot.com/
http://deathofsoutherngod.blogspot.com/
Frothy : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065399/
Movies about Confederate soldiers (sans the elephant in the room) mean nothing but somehow, Teletubbies undermine the nuclear family. Go figure.
Isms, I get all the references, now explain what you’re talking about? Calling evangelical Christians racists?
Do I get a Kewpie doll for guessing correctly?
Frank: The Big Picture is that two people keeping a wound open will never close the wound. If those of you who say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, therefore, anything positive said about is also positive about slavery, then the South can never be forgiven.
BUT
If the South feels they can never be forgiven because of a war fought generations ago, in which in some cases, not even their ancestors ever participated, then the wound stays open forever.
So the problem is the North never forgives the South (bad North!), and the South never feels forgiven (bad North!).
What might the South do to help at all with this situation? I wonder…
Oh I’m gonna enjoy this…
No, Frank, you fucking twit, they got them to join in exactly the same way that the modern Republican party and corporate media have gotten millions of Americans to vote against their own interests in our era, to vote to destroy their own protections against rapacious corporations that would poison their water, steal their livelihoods, and impoverish their children’s futures…
By telling them that maybe someday they too could own slaves, or that an offence against slave-holding isn’t just about keeping the darkies in chains, it’s an affront to their fundamental white man’s liberty! Just as today the masses are told that they too could be super-rich and wouldn’t it be great to not have to pay taxes, etc. then? By telling them that asking the most wealthy and powerful to pay their fair share and accept that their interests do not coinicide with those of the great majority of the commonweal is a great affront to liberty! etc. etc.
You enjoyed making a total fool of yourself, Rheinhard, you ignorant windbag…
Where in the world did you ever hear it stated, even by a drunk in a bar, that southern leaders convinced poor farmers that one day they would own slaves?
I guess you think that the antebellum oligarchy thought like modern day Republicans?
I can’t even begin to describe your total lack of knowledge of both the antebellum South and modern day Republicans.
But if you enjoyed showing us how little you know, then more power to you!
Etc, etc.
I’ve lived in North Carolina now for just over a year and am still amazed how some folks still feel the south should have won. We live in a town that was liberated by the Union and became a safe haven for blacks and escaped slaves for the duration of the war. And still I see pick up trucks with a US flag decal on one side and a Confederate battle flag on the other. I always wonder how they can rectify the dichotomy of stating they are patriotic and traitorous at the same time.
All these bubbas who claim their “heritage” should be investigated for treason and sedition. The true Southern Heritage goes far deeper than simply the right to own another human being in bondage. And you can’t pretend to be a good christian and defend bondage at the same time either.
Having said that, I’ll watch the show, because if it’s a good story, I’m in.
And you can’t pretend to be a good christian and defend bondage at the same time either.
Sure you can. Look at Frank. He pretends all the time.
The problem with the revisionist history in which the noble South seceded from the corrupt North for the sake of self-determination is that it is used to teach the current generation how to view the world.
And if your history is not reality-based, your political and social choices won’t be, either.
How do you suppose the southern leaders got poor farmers who owned no slaves to join the Confederate Army?
They drafted them.
Under the Conscription Act, all healthy white men between the ages of 18 and 35 were liable for a three year term of service. The act also extended the terms of enlistment for all one-year soldiers to three years. A September 1862 amendment raised the age limit to 45, and February 1864, the limits were extended to range between 17 and 50. Exempted from the draft were men employed in certain occupations considered to be most valuable for the home front, such as railroad and river workers, civil officials, telegraph operators, miners, druggists and teachers. On October 11, the Confederate Congress amended the draft law to exempt anyone who owned 20 or more slaves. Further, until the practice was abolished in December 1863, a rich drafted man could hire a substitute to take his place in the ranks, an unfair practice that brought on charges of class discrimination.
How do you suppose the southern leaders got poor farmers who owned no slaves to join the Confederate Army? By telling them they were fighting for slavery?
By telling them this:
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
Texas Declaration of Seccession
Ol Froth: Then I don’t suppose the “we’re fighting to keep slavery going” pitch was necessary, was it?
Willie, do you honestly believe some dirt farmer in the middle of the boondocks read that Declaration?
What do I pretend, Sean? I really want to know what you think I pretend.
Willie, do you honestly believe some dirt farmer in the middle of the boondocks read that Declaration?
Frank, yes I do. Or was aware of it. Or at least shared the sentiments expressed in it.
Read today that the Houston Film Critics Society voted Johnah Hex the worst movie of the year. Had forgotten all about that one.
Or was aware of it. Or at least shared the sentiments expressed in it.
Or just might have agreed with some of it? Or maybe had no idea what was in it? Or something.
I think AMC’s only ’cause’ is to run a story-line that folks will tune in every week, make revenue, win emmy’s, etc…
If anything, I would bet the way they do that is each episode will show the best AND worst of all the protagonists and associated subject-matter as is germane to the story at hand.
Based on some of their other shows, I would guess the morality (and immorality) issues of that era will be integral parts of the program..
Frank, when the war started, there were LOTS of volunteers, on both sides. Many saw the war as a great adventure. Once the bloom faded from that rose, the south found it necessary to coerce those poor farmers to fight through the power of the state. Its from this era that the phrase “Rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight” comes from.
If you have any doubt about why the political leaders of the Confederacy went to war, a group of people drawn from the landholding, slaveowning aristocracy, just read Alexander Stephen’s Cornerstone Speech, or see the articles of succession passed by every treasonous state.
OK, Frank. So why would someone from the boondocks of Texas with no inkling of the issues surrounding seccsssion enlist in the Confederate army?
I had an ancestor who was in the Texas Rifles until he deserted after not getting paid for two weeks, according to Frank, he just happened to enlist without knowing anything about the politics or issues involved.
He just casually signed up to risk his life(until he was stiffed and realized where his better interests really weren’t with the Confederacy.)
Yep, that sounds about right.
I can speculate ’til the cows come home as to why individual soldiers enlisted, even Texans who had no values but cash ( boy, is that ever a case for genetic transmission of character traits! ). But, in general, my guess is that some poor tenant farmer or white employee of a business in the South ( remember, everybody didn’t live at “Tara” ) wasn’t concerned about preserving slavery, when they owned no slaves. And “keeping ‘Nigras’ in their place” was not an issue in the antebellum South – they were already in their place, and poor Southerners, may be even rich Southerners, might not have even suspected that Lincoln would free the slaves during the war.
No, I think a poor, or wage earning Southerner’s brand of patriotism would have included a love of his home state that was greater than any allegiance he might owe to some abstract ( imaginary? ) “Union”.
“keeping ‘Nigras’ in their place” was not an issue in the antebellum South – they were already in their place
Which explains the need for slave patrols, and the prohibition on the distribution of abolitionist materials in the slave states.
Frank, in general, the poor tenamt farmer or white employee of a business in the south wasn’t interested in preserving slavery, nor was interested in fighting to do so. He also wasn’t motivated by patriotism. In fact, the patriotic southerners who volunteered for military service entered the Union regiments. An entire region of Virginia broke away from the Confederacy. Thousands of North Carolinians, Arkansans, Texans, Tennesseeans, and Lousianians volunteered for service with the Federal army, against hundreds of northerners that went south. The bulk of regiments raised from the border states, KY, MD, and MO, served in Federal, not Confederate service.
That’s why the Confederacy had to resort to a draft. They simply could not raise the manpower necessary to fight the war through appeals to patriotism.
So, you’re trying to say that the southerners who didn’t fight for the South, explain why the ones who did, did?
I am saying that the southerners who fought because they were drafted didn’t enter the fray blindly. What could they have to fear? They had a million places to run to, a million places to hide. Let’s assume that some guys who ran off, did so because they opposed slavery, and some because they did not care about states’ rights. Then say some of them had myriad miscellaneous reasons to run off – like fear of bullets entering their bodies at high speed, for example.
Still, some poor southerners fought, and draft or no, they were not mindless zombies. They were motivated by something, and it wasn’t the food or the pay. All I am saying is that the soldiers themselves were not likely to be motivated by the preservation of slavery, unless they owned slaves, or came from families of slave owners. I don’t think that is an unreasonable speculation.
Which explains the need for slave patrols, and the prohibition on the distribution of abolitionist materials in the slave states.
I was speaking generally, and did not intend to imply that every slave served docilely. I am aware of slave rebellions and the existence of the Underground Railroad, and the origins of the Fugitive Slave Act. But, for the most part – and, yes, I am speculating – the average sharecropper had little to fear from slaves.
…( boy, is that ever a case for genetic transmission of character traits! ).
Heh, heh.
Interesting points. The average Southerner probably had no direct connection to slavery, at least as far as owning slaves. I know of one ancestor who owned one slave. Which of course was one too many.
Yes, the Blacks were already in their place, but the South’s greatest fear – as expressed in their Declarations of Secession was that the North was determined to change what that place was. The typical Confederate soldier could probably give dozen of reasons why he was fighting. I’m sure love of his ‘country’ was one. But a major part of the ethos of that country was a belief in the ordained subjugation of Blacks by Whites. And yes, there were probably plenty in the North who shared that view.
if someone tried to romanticize the nazis no one would say “give the show a chance”. nor would anyone try to tell jewish people to move on. well, guess what? to a black person in america the confederate WAS the nazis. the fought for their right to oppress black people in some of the worst ways imaginable. i live in jacksonville, fl. in the heart of downtown is a huge monument to confederacy in a place called “jackson square” named after andrew jackson. we have high schools named after robert e. lee and nathan b. forest. it downright is a slap in the face to every black person in the city. as a matter of fact they voted to keep the name of nathan b. forest high school the night before obama was elected.
i really had respect for amc. i love breaking bad and walking dead. but i agree with oliver and froth. the confederacy shouldn’t be romanticized. i truly believe if they could get slavery back it would be written in some republican bill and obama would cave on it. racism has been on a surge ever since the end of the black power movement. all this attempt to revise the confederacy is just a symptom of it.
Frank you ever heard the phrase “Cotton is King”. slavery was the driving force behind the economy back then. it effected absolutely EVERYTHING. much the way oil does now. the major economy was in the south. not the north. there was no industrial revolution back then. slavery was the shipping industry, international trade, insurance industry, machinery, food supply, and all else. i don’t have to own a gas station to know that if the price of oil goes up or a war occurs in a country with large sums of oil that all aspects of my life will be effected by it. yet if the oil industry is attacked in anyway look what happens. it was ten times worse back in the days of slavery. so people literally went to war to preserve what they knew and depended on. those that didn’t volunteer were drafted as already pointed out. and obviously people who don’t own slaves today still have an interest in preserving that institution with their constant celebration of the confederacy threw media monuments and even holidays.