Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

New Civil War Movie: Field of Lost Shoes (2014)

Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:02 pm
Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
65118 posts
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:02 pm
This features some decent actors. Tom Skerritt plays Ulysses S. Grant, Jason Isaacs plays John C. Breckenridge, and David Arquette plays Henry DuPont. Lauren Holly also stars.

LINK

Field of Lost Shoes is about the VMI Cadets and their stubborn fight at the Battle of New Market in 1864.

Posted by prostyleoffensetime
Mississippi
Member since Aug 2009
11437 posts
Posted on 9/12/14 at 6:07 pm to
Will watch.


Wish HBO would do a miniseries, similar to North and South, but with, you know, HBO miniseries stuff.
Posted by Tigah in the ATL
Atlanta
Member since Feb 2005
27539 posts
Posted on 9/12/14 at 6:38 pm to
quote:

Battle of New Market in 1864.


I've been to the battlefield! The cadets captured 2 cannon.

Then the rest of the union army showed up & burned the school down.
Posted by AU86
Member since Aug 2009
22387 posts
Posted on 9/12/14 at 6:48 pm to
I have been to the battlefield to. Those yankees got their arse kicked at New Market.
Posted by theGarnetWay
Washington, D.C.
Member since Mar 2010
25871 posts
Posted on 9/12/14 at 7:11 pm to
Looks like it's not afraid to address the morality of fighting for slavery / state's rights issue. Which I think is good, I feel that a lot of Civil War movies just ignore that issue.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 7:12 pm
Posted by Zamoro10
Member since Jul 2008
14743 posts
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:16 pm to
Looks like they're going to have some modern language and sensibility in it.

I hate that. Just tell the story...people were different back then and lived in a different society.

We don't need to sugarcoat things.
Posted by Purple Spoon
Hoth
Member since Feb 2005
17849 posts
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:30 pm to
War of Northern Aggression

rabble rabble


I would love a series that focused on strictly the battlefield strategies and locations/timetables, and left out the political ramblings.



Posted by Palm Beach Tiger
Orlando, Florida
Member since Jan 2007
29864 posts
Posted on 9/13/14 at 11:04 am to
quote:

Looks like it's not afraid to address the morality of fighting for slavery / state's rights issue. Which I think is good, I feel that a lot of Civil War movies just ignore that issue.


The North would have conceded slavery in a heartbeat if the South agreed to the other issues they were upset about. Its something I've always hated about Civil War movies.....they all make it look like the War was only about Slavery and the good guys of the north vs the bad guys of the south. Obviously Slavery is horrible, but a lot of the other issues the South had with being in the union were fair points. I would like to see more civil war stuff with that perspective.
Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
65118 posts
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:26 pm to
quote:

Obviously Slavery is horrible, but a lot of the other issues the South had with being in the union were fair points. I would like to see more civil war stuff with that perspective.


Without slavery there wouldn't have been a Civil War. Obviously the war itself wasn't fought over the issue of slavery (at least not at first), but the southern states seceded because of the issue of slavery. Anyone who disagrees with that is living under a rock. What was the #1 issue throughout the decade of the 1850s, leading all the way up to the Election of 1860? Slavery.

People were killing each other over slavery in Kansas throughout the mid-1850s. You had congressmen beating each other to the point of death over the issue of slavery on the floor of the Senate. You even had an attempted slave insurrection led by John Brown in 1859 that received a lot of press and a lot of passion for one side or the other, depending on where in the country you were from.

Secession would never have been possible without slavery. That was the central issue that southerners had with their northern brethren.

750,000 men didn't die over four years over a dispute arising from tariffs. That's Lost Cause, revisionist history.
This post was edited on 9/13/14 at 12:28 pm
Posted by Zamoro10
Member since Jul 2008
14743 posts
Posted on 9/13/14 at 1:00 pm to
quote:

That's Lost Cause, revisionist history.


But that's not recent.

That writing and narrative occurred within 30 years after the war.

Nobody wants to be seen as on the wrong side of history.

The new narrative happened early and often.

And that narrative hasn't abated.

LINK

Just a few years ago:

quote:

Shortly before the Fort Sumter anniversary, Harris Interactive polled more than 2,500 adults across the country, asking what the North and South were fighting about. A majority, including two-thirds of white respondents in the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, answered that the South was mainly motivated by "states' rights" rather than the future of slavery.


quote:

It's not simply a matter of denial. For most of the first century after the war, historians, novelists and filmmakers worked like hypnotists to soothe the posttraumatic memories of survivors and their descendants. Forgetting was the price of reconciliation, and Americans — those whose families were never bought or sold, anyway — were happy to pay it.


quote:

But denial plays a part, especially in the South. After the war, former Confederates wondered how to hold on to their due pride after a devastating defeat. They had fought long and courageously; that was beyond question. So they reverse-engineered a cause worthy of those heroics. They also sensed, correctly, that the end of slavery would confer a gloss of nobility, and bragging rights, on the North that it did not deserve. As Lincoln suggested in his second Inaugural Address, the entire nation, North and South, profited from slavery and then paid dearly for it.


quote:

"The proposition on which the revolutionaries of 1776 had staked their efforts — the fundamental equality of individuals — was diametrically opposed by the constitution of the new Confederacy.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition," explained Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens.


quote:

Davis' book, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, became a polestar for the Lost Cause school of Civil War history, which takes its name from an 1866 book by Richmond newspaper editor Edward Pollard. Highly selective and deeply misleading, the story of the Lost Cause was immediately popular in the South because it translated the Confederacy's defeat into a moral victory. It pictured antebellum life as an idyll of genteel planters and their happy "servants" whose "instincts," in Davis' words, "rendered them contented with their lot... Never was there happier dependence of labor and capital on each other."


quote:

Virginia historian Gary Gallagher writes, "The Lost Cause's Confederacy of gallant leaders and storied victories in defense of home ground retains enormous vitality." It shows up in movies like Gods and Generals, in commemorative paintings, decorative plates and battlefield re-enactments.

By contrast, Gallagher searches in vain for a scene in any recent film that "captures the abiding devotion to Union that animated soldiers and civilians in the North."


quote:

To be blind to the reason the war happened is to build a sort of border of the mind, walling off an important truth. Slavery was not incidental to America's origins; it was central. There were slaves at Jamestown. In the 1600s, writes Yale's David Brion Davis, a towering figure among historians, slave labor was far more central to the making of New York than to the making of Virginia. As late as 1830, there were 2,254 slaves in New Jersey. Connecticut did not abolish slavery until 1848, a scant eight years before the fighting broke out in Kansas. Rhode Island dominated the American slave trade until it was outlawed in 1808. The cotton trade made Wall Street a global financial force. Slaves built the White House.

Furthermore, if slavery had spread to the West, the country would have found itself increasingly isolated in the world. Russia emancipated its serfs in 1861. The once sprawling slave system that had stretched from Canada to South America was by 1808 still vital only in Brazil, Cuba and the U.S. The first nation founded on the principle of liberty came dangerously close to being among the last slave economies on earth.


quote:

On April 12, 1861, Abraham Lincoln cast his Inaugural Address as a last-ditch effort to win back the South. A single thorny issue divided the nation, he declared: "One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."

This post was edited on 9/13/14 at 1:02 pm
Posted by Palm Beach Tiger
Orlando, Florida
Member since Jan 2007
29864 posts
Posted on 9/13/14 at 1:58 pm to
I am not disputing most of what you are saying. Im saying the north would have agreed to let slavery keep going early on if the south conceded on everything else.
Posted by theGarnetWay
Washington, D.C.
Member since Mar 2010
25871 posts
Posted on 9/13/14 at 2:13 pm to
quote:

I am not disputing most of what you are saying. Im saying the north would have agreed to let slavery keep going early on if the south conceded on everything else.


It's an interesting topic. Yeah there were certainly some Northerners who felt slavery was a moral wrong and should be abolished, but politically speaking Northerners didn't like the population boost it gave the South and added to our number of Congressmen.

From a Southern perspective I think most of us on here know that most CSA soldiers weren't slave owners and felt they were fighting to defend their states. However Southern politicians were clearly wanting to keep slavery.. for political and economical reasons. I think at least 4 states directly reference slavery in their secession papers.

Just the way history of man works I suppose. "Rich man's war, poor man's fight"
Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
65118 posts
Posted on 9/13/14 at 2:20 pm to
quote:

Im saying the north would have agreed to let slavery keep going early on if the south conceded on everything else.


Most certainly. Lincoln announced his Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, but also announced it wouldn't go into effect until January 1, 1863. Basically what Lincoln was doing was giving the South an ultimatum. You either come back into the Union now or on January 1 we will declare total war on you. He gave the South an opportunity to end the war, come back into the Union, and keep their slaves.
This post was edited on 9/13/14 at 7:42 pm
Posted by OleWar
Troy H. Middleton Library
Member since Mar 2008
5828 posts
Posted on 9/13/14 at 7:38 pm to
I have gotten to the point that the crap hollywood puts out, I will take a historical movie that has some minor flaws.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram