Glory...

Help Support CattleToday:

chrisy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
11,543
Reaction score
6
Location
England United Kingdom
just watched a good film, not sure you Southern boys will agree, it was about the first Black Troop of Soldiers in the Civil War, and how their General faught for them to be recognized. It had Denzil Washington in it....the title is 'Glory'.....has anyone else seen it.
 
I didn't, Chris...I was afraid it would be too hard for me to watch. I'm a real woosy...

Alice
 
Chrisy they were the troop that fought for the north if I remember right. You very seldom hear of the ones that fought for the south of their own accord. Was a lot more than people would want you to believe. A terrible war that today has been blown out of portion. Most people today have only a one sided view of what the war was fought for. It was mainly fought to unite the states and the issue of slavery was only part of the reason. I had relatives that fought on both sides and am sure most everyone else did also. (JMRO)
 
chrisy":13xzot89 said:
just watched a good film, not sure you Southern boys will agree, it was about the first Black Troop of Soldiers in the Civil War, and how their General faught for them to be recognized. It had Denzil Washington in it....the title is 'Glory'.....has anyone else seen it.

I've seen part of it, but I couldn't watch all of it.
 
llcupit":2dkrx5eh said:
Chrisy they were the troop that fought for the north if I remember right. You very seldom hear of the ones that fought for the south of their own accord. Was a lot more than people would want you to believe. A terrible war that today has been blown out of portion. Most people today have only a one sided view of what the war was fought for. It was mainly fought to unite the states and the issue of slavery was only part of the reason. I had relatives that fought on both sides and am sure most everyone else did also. (JMRO)

I have gotten that impression over the years, I thought the War was to Unite the States, and Slavery was only bought into it to try to justify it at some stage, I had an Uncle who fought in it to, he had commited a crime over here was sent to the Americas for seven years as punishment, he got caught up in the war, was injured he got sent back home because of his injuries, and was hung because he returned back to England to early, what a bummer. :x
 
My family was in it. We were not slave owners - very few Southerners were. Lincoln added the slave issue as an attempt to cause a slave rebellion in the South. (Read the Amancipation Proclamation - closely)

A lot of the ill will some southerners had toward the north was not due to war but due to the reclamation period. This was a bad time when northern carpet baggers and an occupational army stole land and livestock while the south was trying to get back on their feet and move on. There was little if any justice during this period. My great graddad help form a underground network of "vigilantes" who saw that the real law was upheld in our area and ran the carpet baggers out of our area.
 
Jogeephus":2h29hc7o said:
My family was in it. We were not slave owners - very few Southerners were. Lincoln added the slave issue as an attempt to cause a slave rebellion in the South. (Read the Amancipation Proclamation - closely)

I'm in the slo w process of reading a book that is newspaper clippings from that period. The free states and the slave states was the issue from the beginning. Some refer to it as states rights.
One thing I found interesting is that after a year or so, the people in the north and the south were both starting to want "peace at any price". Sure reminds me of vietnam and the currect war in Iraq.

dun
 
Well, I won't argue it was an issue for a few in the beginning - not the masses. Lots of people portray the south as a bunch of slave owners who started a war so we could keep people in chains and beat them like kerr dogs. This is not the case - my family didn't own slaves and I don't know of one family that did in my area. I get tired of this type profiling.
 
Jogeephus":2jgbxapq said:
Well, I won't argue it was an issue for a few in the beginning - not the masses. Lots of people portray the south as a bunch of slave owners who started a war so we could keep people in chains and beat them like kerr dogs. This is not the case - my family didn't own slaves and I don't know of one family that did in my area. I get tired of this type profiling.

As in most cases, it wasn't the everyday citizen that got the ball rolling. It was the poloticians and the powerful minority. In the north there wasn;t an issue of slavery for the common man, they didn;t even think of the issue. It was the disolution of the union.

dun
 
The Civil War wasn't just over slavery. It was the fact that the South did not feel it needed to be governed or regulated. Slavery was just the "match that lit the flame."

Anyone watch the movies "Remember the Titans" w/ Denzel Washington, or "Patriot" with Mel? Both excellent movies.
 
I have already posted the facts before. You can find them on the net if you look.

A whole lot of non-slave owners gave their lives in that war. The war was not about slavery. There were blacks who owned slaves. After the war, northern states could have still owned slaves if they decided to become slave states.
 

Latest posts

Top