Cleburne the Movie (2 Viewers)

[Scott]

Brokeback Mountain was pretty good. Heath Ledger did a fine acting job. It's a movie of homosexual love w/o the effeminate stereotypical behavior. W/o the homosexuality in the film it was a pretty good "guy" movie with horses, fighting, women, hunting and fishing.

In that vein, how about the recent film about Alexander the Great? Or the 1960s classic about Lawrence of Arabia?

As far as the Confederate hero Cleburne goes, he makes a good subject for film and books but from where I am, he's was another enemy general. He was at least in tune with the 1860s "zeitgeist" that black people deserve freedom though were not thought to be equal. A few years later Brazil tried the idea of offering freedom to blacks that fought in the war with Paraguay.

 

[UKReb]

As far as the Confederate hero Cleburne goes, he makes a good subject for film and books but from where I am, he's was another enemy general. He was at least in tune with the 1860s "zeitgeist" that black people deserve freedom though were not thought to be equal.

From where I am standing on the other side of the pond I view Cleburne differently. He was not only an exceptional soldier he was, for one so young, a born leader of men. Although being Irish born he adored his adopted country becoming an American citizen in 1855 but he did not carry the dogma that inflicted most of his Southern colleagues.

By January 1864, the outlook for the South was more than bleak-it was desperate. Cleburne believed that unless things changed there was little hope of overcoming the North with its abundant resources. The supply of white males in the South was almost exhausted, the only practical solution that he could see was to enlist male slaves- afterall the Yankees were already using black troops. The effects of emancipation, Cleburne argued, could only be beneficial for the South if they freed and armed the slaves. This would provide the Confederate armies with an untapped source of manpower, furthermore, emancipation would deprive the North of a moral and psychological weapon that had motivated Northerners as well as foreigners. Cleburne told Joe Johnston
"It may be imperfect, but in all probability it could give us our independence"

Was the Civil War fought over the issue of slavery or states rights?

That question has been debated and argued long and hard ad infinitum for 150 years. But this is where I believe Cleburne to be more than just another able Confederate general (or in your case just another enemy general) as his proposal in January 1864, it would seem, strikes directly at the heart of that argument. Surely his proposal proves that Cleburne believed the war to be more about states rights because he was willing to end slavery to retain his new country that he and hundreds of his men had shed their blood for.

But Johnston, Jeff Davis and many others were aghast at Cleburne's proposal and it would seem they could/would not share his view that saving their nation was more important than saving slavery. Even to an extent that Davis could not bring himself to place "slave" and "freed" in the same sentence.

However, some months after Cleburne's death at The Battle of Franklin his judgement on this issue was finally vindicated when Davis and his government- in no doubt through desperation- passed a bill in March 1865 to allow the enlistment of blacks into the Confederate army. But it was by then far too late to have any effect on the outcome of the South.

The above is just my humble opinion of why Cleburne deserves to be remembered much more than just another enemy general

Reb

 

[Spitfrnd]

From where I am standing on the other side of the pond I view Cleburne differently. He was not only an exceptional soldier he was, for one so young, a born leader of men. Although being Irish born he adored his adopted country becoming an American citizen in 1855 but he did not carry the dogma that inflicted most of his Southern colleagues.

By January 1864, the outlook for the South was more than bleak-it was desperate. Cleburne believed that unless things changed there was little hope of overcoming the North with its abundant resources. The supply of white males in the South was almost exhausted, the only practical solution that he could see was to enlist male slaves- afterall the Yankees were already using black troops. The effects of emancipation, Cleburne argued, could only be beneficial for the South if they freed and armed the slaves. This would provide the Confederate armies with an untapped source of manpower, furthermore, emancipation would deprive the North of a moral and psychological weapon that had motivated Northerners as well as foreigners. Cleburne told Joe Johnston
"It may be imperfect, but in all probability it could give us our independence"

Was the Civil War fought over the issue of slavery or states rights?

That question has been debated and argued long and hard ad infinitum for 150 years. But this is where I believe Cleburne to be more than just another able Confederate general (or in your case just another enemy general) as his proposal in January 1864, it would seem, strikes directly at the heart of that argument. Surely his proposal proves that Cleburne believed the war to be more about states rights because he was willing to end slavery to retain his new country that he and hundreds of his men had shed their blood for.

But Johnston, Jeff Davis and many others were aghast at Cleburne's proposal and it would seem they could/would not share his view that saving their nation was more important than saving slavery. Even to an extent that Davis could not bring himself to place "slave" and "freed" in the same sentence.

However, some months after Cleburne's death at The Battle of Franklin his judgement on this issue was finally vindicated when Davis and his government- in no doubt through desperation- passed a bill in March 1865 to allow the enlistment of blacks into the Confederate army. But it was by then far too late to have any effect on the outcome of the South.

The above is just my humble opinion of why Cleburne deserves to be remembered much more than just another enemy general

Reb

I could not agree with you more Bob. Ironically that is from where I am sitting which is actually North of Scott. I would hope we have a better understanding of each other's perspectives by now but I suppose by analogy, I am just another enemy descendant and sympathizer who happened to serve in the composite military that evolved from the result of the end of those unfortunate hostilities.

 

[Scott]

And in historical hindsight from the "winning" side, he was an "enemy" general extending the pain of the CW/WBTS. I haven't read the graphic novel so I don't know what the theme was to actual events. If it's on the line of "300" then it could be the Spartan's side of the story, "legend-ized", lionizing professional soldiers over the citizen soldiers, a tradition in the U.S.

NOW if someone makes a new CW/WTBS movie w/o tubby grey-bearded reenactors (guilty here!) and gets the weapons, tactics, and uniforms somewhat correct, I'll stand in line to see it even if it's about Bragg.

 

[tdubel]

From where I am standing on the other side of the pond I view Cleburne differently. He was not only an exceptional soldier he was, for one so young, a born leader of men. Although being Irish born he adored his adopted country becoming an American citizen in 1855 but he did not carry the dogma that inflicted most of his Southern colleagues.

By January 1864, the outlook for the South was more than bleak-it was desperate. Cleburne believed that unless things changed there was little hope of overcoming the North with its abundant resources. The supply of white males in the South was almost exhausted, the only practical solution that he could see was to enlist male slaves- afterall the Yankees were already using black troops. The effects of emancipation, Cleburne argued, could only be beneficial for the South if they freed and armed the slaves. This would provide the Confederate armies with an untapped source of manpower, furthermore, emancipation would deprive the North of a moral and psychological weapon that had motivated Northerners as well as foreigners. Cleburne told Joe Johnston
"It may be imperfect, but in all probability it could give us our independence"

Was the Civil War fought over the issue of slavery or states rights?

That question has been debated and argued long and hard ad infinitum for 150 years. But this is where I believe Cleburne to be more than just another able Confederate general (or in your case just another enemy general) as his proposal in January 1864, it would seem, strikes directly at the heart of that argument. Surely his proposal proves that Cleburne believed the war to be more about states rights because he was willing to end slavery to retain his new country that he and hundreds of his men had shed their blood for.

But Johnston, Jeff Davis and many others were aghast at Cleburne's proposal and it would seem they could/would not share his view that saving their nation was more important than saving slavery. Even to an extent that Davis could not bring himself to place "slave" and "freed" in the same sentence.

However, some months after Cleburne's death at The Battle of Franklin his judgement on this issue was finally vindicated when Davis and his government- in no doubt through desperation- passed a bill in March 1865 to allow the enlistment of blacks into the Confederate army. But it was by then far too late to have any effect on the outcome of the South.

The above is just my humble opinion of why Cleburne deserves to be remembered much more than just another enemy general

Reb

Spot on, I could not have said this more eloquently or even near it! What you wrote in theme and theory is where my perspective lies.

One could even go further and say the United States is still fighting for State's rights today in our current government and we are experiencing a second Civil War without the bloodshed.

I represent Companies who are household names and who want to move/relocate, etc. I can tell you where they are not going (NJ, NY and CA). They are moving South and West, mainly Texas. As a matter of fact, I was at a press conference last week with Governor Perry of Texas announcing my client's new facility in Wichita Falls. He stressed that he will be pleased to have another brand carrying the "Made in Texas" label. You can read between the lines here, the Republic of Texas wants to be just that.

Sorry to go off track, but I thought interesting and again, great post.

Tom

 

[Scott]

Well I'm not disagreeing with UKREB as to Cleburne's significance, it's just that I don't get a "romantic" feeling for Confederates no matter how honorable or innovative they were. I would go see a possible movie though even with Maxwell's ham hands on it.

In the 1860s most people, even white abolitionists, were not sure that black people were even fully human let alone deserved to be equal even when freed. They didn't have the science at the time and could only judge black people held in bondage and degraded by that existence. A black soldier for the Confederacy had to have made some metal back flips to see that service to the CSA would do him any good personally. But we do know that it happened in some numbers that are still disputed since teamsters, cooks, body servants, and laborers are not fully enrolled soldiers.

 

[tdubel]

Well I'm not disagreeing with UKREB as to Cleburne's significance, it's just that I don't get a "romantic" feeling for Confederates no matter how honorable or innovative they were. I would go see a possible movie though even with Maxwell's ham hands on it.

In the 1860s most people, even white abolitionists, were not sure that black people were even fully human let alone deserved to be equal even when freed. They didn't have the science at the time and could only judge black people held in bondage and degraded by that existence. A black soldier for the Confederacy had to have made some metal back flips to see that service to the CSA would do him any good personally. But we do know that it happened in some numbers that are still disputed since teamsters, cooks, body servants, and laborers are not fully enrolled soldiers.

Scott,
no offense, but your feelings are why there are hard feelings today. There was no right or wrong side in this war, they were all Americans who disagreed with one another on basic principles of government. The slavery angle doesn't and never will do it for me. Not all white Southerners were bad guys, the entire Country was part of that. The main and underlying premise here was government and I still feel like we fight the same fight today, just in a civilized manner!

Tom

 

[Spitfrnd]

Scott,
no offense, but your feelings are why there are hard feelings today. There was no right or wrong side in this war, they were all Americans who disagreed with one another on basic principles of government. The slavery angle doesn't and never will do it for me. Not all white Southerners were bad guys, the entire Country was part of that. The main and underlying premise here was government and I still feel like we fight the same fight today, just in a civilized manner!

Tom

I feel the same way Tom. Ironically many people seem to be better able to forgive and accept the basic humanity of former enemies in international conflicts than in the ACW. That is particularly intriguing given what a mongrel nation we are. Maybe some day....?

 

[Scott]

At this point I had better clarify, perhaps apologize, for seeming to deny the humanity of Confederates.

 

[kingtoot]

Well I'm not disagreeing with UKREB as to Cleburne's significance, it's just that I don't get a "romantic" feeling for Confederates no matter how honorable or innovative they were.
QUOTE]
My grandmother remembers her Irish born Grandfather's stories of yankee prison (Camp Douglas) and walking home from Virginia to New Orleans with newspaper tied around his feet. She even had his campaign hat for the longest time..She said that he never mentioned slavery (i guess since he didn't own any) but sure held a grudge against yankees....I welcome any ACW-type movie in this PC world that sheds some light into people's narrow-minded prejudiced mentality. Gods and Generals was unfortunately not good enough to make the third installment, "ham-handed" like you say...If Cleburne AND Forrest were yankees, ther would already be movies made about them..Great stories none the less..Sherman was a murdering SOB but there are statues of him around...not in the South, of course..looking forward to seeing this movie...

 

[Scott]

Well I'm not disagreeing with UKREB as to Cleburne's significance, it's just that I don't get a "romantic" feeling for Confederates no matter how honorable or innovative they were.
QUOTE]
My grandmother remembers her Irish born Grandfather's stories of yankee prison (Camp Douglas) and walking home from Virginia to New Orleans with newspaper tied around his feet. She even had his campaign hat for the longest time..She said that he never mentioned slavery (i guess since he didn't own any) but sure held a grudge against yankees....I welcome any ACW-type movie in this PC world that sheds some light into people's narrow-minded prejudiced mentality. Gods and Generals was unfortunately not good enough to make the third installment, "ham-handed" like you say...If Cleburne AND Forrest were yankees, ther would already be movies made about them..Great stories none the less..Sherman was a murdering SOB but there are statues of him around...not in the South, of course..looking forward to seeing this movie...

G & G and a good part of Gettysburg had Confederate protagonists. Ironclads, Ride with the Devil, Cold Mountain and, The Hunley. All with Confederate PRO-tagonists. In the Silent era..The General and Birth Of A Nation. From the 1930s, Gone With The Wind, General Spanky, The Littlest Rebel, So Red The Rose, Operator 13. (That movie with Will Rogers about the judge.) CSA Protagonists in film go way back and continue today. The series of CW/WBTS Twilight Zones in the 1960s had Confederate main characters. Many cowboy movies and TV shows had former Confederates as heroes.

One's "PC" complaint is another persons idea that people ignored in the past should be recognized such as Native Americans.


I'd sure LIKE to see a modern film about a Union protagonist.

 

[Scott]

Oh yes...The Outlaw Josey Wales.

BTW John Wayne played General Sherman.

 

[tdubel]

I feel the same way Tom. Ironically many people seem to be better able to forgive and accept the basic humanity of former enemies in international conflicts than in the ACW. That is particularly intriguing given what a mongrel nation we are. Maybe some day....?

Ya, it is odd, but I tell you, I still and I admit it have a problem with Sherman, he boils me on the March to the Sea, even though as a student of warfare, it was a brilliant campaign. I just dislike the guy b/c I thought he over did it in a number of ways, but alas, War is Hell as his quote says.

As for the romanticism of the South, they were the gallant cavaliers and have been depicted that way since 1861, they were the underdogs, etc.

Again, Bill, if I had a lot of time, i would write a book correlating how we as nation have forgotten history and are currently doomed to repeat it. IE, I stick with my thesis that we are still fighting this today. There you go, free thesis for anyone who wants to write a book!!

Tom

 

[marco55]

Well I'm not disagreeing with UKREB as to Cleburne's significance, it's just that I don't get a "romantic" feeling for Confederates no matter how honorable or innovative they were. I would go see a possible movie though even with Maxwell's ham hands on it.

I think the feelings for the Confederates is because their Army,Especially ANV never gave up fighting against a vastly superior North whose manpower and industrial might gave them such a advantage.It's the age old David vs Golith thing.People always admire people who stand up against tremendous odds.People like seeing the little guy take down the big guy.
Mark

 

[marco55]

I agree with Tom that we are still fighting for states rights because the federal government has it's big nose in way too much.But I blame us for that situation because we all depend on it too much including our state governments who depend on the Feds to bail them out all time with Federal (ours) money.
Mark

 

[kingtoot]

You're right...a few years back, Confederates were still viewed as Americans who lived in the South and fought for their freedom from "tyranny" as they saw it..In many of those good movies, the protagonists did not own slaves but got caught up in the times -for instance, Jimmy Stewart in Shenandoah. How time has changed.... .GLORY has it's Union protagonist - Robert Shaw, GETTYSBURG had Chamberlain. We all have our heroes.. Custer was a hero to some..He murdered more Indians than can be counted. He got his in the end though..
p.s. - John Wayne was a terrible Sherman..at least Harry Morgan tried to dress the part as Grant..

 

[Spitfrnd]

Ya, it is odd, but I tell you, I still and I admit it have a problem with Sherman, he boils me on the March to the Sea, even though as a student of warfare, it was a brilliant campaign. I just dislike the guy b/c I thought he over did it in a number of ways, but alas, War is Hell as his quote says.

As for the romanticism of the South, they were the gallant cavaliers and have been depicted that way since 1861, they were the underdogs, etc.

Again, Bill, if I had a lot of time, i would write a book correlating how we as nation have forgotten history and are currently doomed to repeat it. IE, I stick with my thesis that we are still fighting this today. There you go, free thesis for anyone who wants to write a book!!

Tom

Maybe you should make the time to write that book Tom. You have a promising thesis. FWIW and as you may have noticed from some of my posts, I have a real problem with Sherman as well. Tactical brilliance does not excuse a disregard for basic human rights or a resort to savagery, IMHO.

 

[marco55]

Sherman and Sheridan's views on minorities were no different than many Confederate leaders,they were on the winning side though.They fought to preserve the union not because they wanted to free the slaves.
Mark

 

[UKReb]

G & G and a good part of Gettysburg had Confederate protagonists. Ironclads, Ride with the Devil, Cold Mountain and, The Hunley. All with Confederate PRO-tagonists. In the Silent era..The General and Birth Of A Nation. From the 1930s, Gone With The Wind, General Spanky, The Littlest Rebel, So Red The Rose, Operator 13. (That movie with Will Rogers about the judge.) CSA Protagonists in film go way back and continue today. The series of CW/WBTS Twilight Zones in the 1960s had Confederate main characters. Many cowboy movies and TV shows had former Confederates as heroes.

One's "PC" complaint is another persons idea that people ignored in the past should be recognized such as Native Americans.


I'd sure LIKE to see a modern film about a Union protagonist.

There is also a flip side to your list of pro-confederate movies with many during that era showing the Rebs in a different light and with others coming down firmly pro-Union. A few that come to mind are The Raid based on the Reb attack on the civilian town of St Albans-Vermont can hardly be viewed as pro-reb whereas the The Horse Soldiers and The Great Locomotive Chase are definitely pro-Union and as KT stated Glory was clearly flying the Union flag. Maybe it's because I'm a Brit but I can perfectly understand why the Confederacy- as the underdog- has been treated sympathetically by Hollywood with a preference for the Reb primarily portrayed as heroic.

The South was not only invaded and conquered it was utterly destroyed and it's people practically put in bondage during Reconstruction-afterall we are not talking about some conquered 1st century Germanic tribe. These were fellow Americans.

But what the Union could not destroy was the Southerner's cultural pride and their heritage which prompted them to search for some justification for the demoralising defeat they had suffered rather than just going down in history as some kind of proud but rash and impulsive people who illegally attempted to overthrow the Union. This indirectly gave birth to what historians call The Lost Cause which wisely concentrated on the military rather than the complete mess of the Confederate political and social dimensions of the war.

It became powerful stuff, very influential and achieved wide acceptance with the likes of Douglas Southall Freeman's biography of Lee almost revering him as a God like figure that came to epitomise the Southern cause. This was closely followed by Jackson with his trinity of God, duty and country and continued all the way down to the gallantry of the ordinary Rebel soldier fighting for a cause he believed in and all of them facing overwhelming Northern manpower and materiel resources. Needless to say the North hated it and saw it as some Southern resurrection instead of understanding and accepting that is was just their fellow countrymen attempting to bind their wounds.

Now being a bit of a movie buff the above has all the stereotypical ingredients that Hollywood loves to put up on the screen and still remains the basis of most modern movies today from Braveheart to Terminator Salvation

Reb

 

[Scott]

Right I knew Custer would come up. He's been more recently portrayed as a butcher or a fool, but not in the context of his CW/WBTS service.

Glory of course, but the Confederates were just "the other", not the "bad guys" in that movie.