Media Portrayal of Union Troops

[jonharrison]

I only recently became aware of this historic incident from the Civil War. I apologize if others know about it, however I never had, despite being fairly well read on the subject of military history:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Locomotive_Chase

To sum up the story of Andrew’s Raiders: A group of 22 civilian spies and Union troops infiltrated over 200 miles behind Confederate lines. Their objective was to steal a locomotive, ride it North towards Chattanooga, and destroy the rail lines connecting Atlanta with Chattanooga, preventing the Confederate troops there from being resupplied, allowing the city to be captured by the Union. The raiders successfully captured the train and began the process of demolishing tracks, cutting telegraph lines, and burning resupply stations. The Confederates in the area commandeered their own train and gave chase. Just outside Chattanooga, the raiders ran out of gas and were forced to abandon their own locomotive and scatter. The men were captured with several being executed for espionage. Eight of the raiders, fearing execution themselves, managed to escape the Confederate prison and make it back to Union lines. Their activities managed to disrupt Confederate supplies, waste valuable resources rebuilding track, and had a psychological effect on Confederate feelings of safety behind their own lines. The first ever awarded Medal of Honor was awarded to Jacob Parrot, a raider who had been tortured during his captivity, with all but the civilian raiders being awarded the Medal as well.

————————-

Now, why is this a WR topic? This story is incredible, it has a little bit of everything, so it lends the question, why is it not more well known? By all rights some recent filmmaker (there was a 1950s movie about it) should have released a major block buster about it. It should be something talked about in schools as a source of Union pride. Why does the Confederacy have a monopoly on positive media coverage? From The Outlaw Josey Wales, to any portrayal of Jesse James, to Hell on Wheels, or any of a dozen other Westerns or Civil War movies, it always seems like the Union is portrayed as the villains. Glory is a notable exception, but I can’t think of many others.

I will be frank, I’m a pretty patriotic guy. I’m at least fifth generation US military, with ancestors who fought for the Union. I can’t help but dislike that stories of heroic, patriotic Americans go untold, while stories of those who wished to leave our nation, and killed men flying the Stars and Stripes get the glory. It is my opinion that media depicting heroic American soldiers fighting for the union of our nation, showing men willing to die to preserve the country our forefathers created, would serve as a unifying and healing force in divisive times. Do others feel this way? Or would that just cause further division, demonizing the proud Southern man, and lead to further unrest? Could changing our lens of the Civil War to focus on the Union, rather than the South, help to bring us together, or divide us? Discuss.

 

[lilelvis]

Maybe the media feels it prudent to leave the horrors of union civil war tactics untold lest they create sympathy for the southern civilians. It was an ugly time.

@Captain Davis has a ton to offer on this subject.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...3f7826-3391-11e4-a723-fa3895a25d02_story.html

 

[Falsedawn]

I mean, we joke about Sherman burning down the south again, if that's not positive I don't know what is.

But really though, you don't need to try and sway people's opinions when you're seen in the history books as the good guys. The confederacy apologists are trying to do image control, the Union is already widely acknowledged as being the force for good.

Speaking of, do we need to send Sherman down there again?

 

[Trotsky]

If we speak in too much detail about the valor of Union troops, we inevitably arrive on the atrocities committed against confederate soldiers. People don't like talking about crimes committed by their countrymen against their countrymen. It's uncomfortable.

Anyways, I don't mind personally. Fuck the South.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If we speak in too much detail about the valor of Union troops, we inevitably arrive on the atrocities committed against confederate soldiers. People don't like talking about crimes committed by their countrymen against their countrymen. It's uncomfortable.

Anyways, I don't mind personally. Fuck the South.

There's a lot of talk about the valor of Confederate troops or generals, to the point of ridiculous myth-making. So I don't think that's it. There was a concerted propaganda effort on behalf of the South that began a little after the war and has largely been successful in setting the tone for the popular understanding of the Confederacy.

https://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/not-a-tea-party-a-confederate-party/

 

[Scrody]

There was quite a bit of turmoil in the country in that particular era. I think most films try to encompass the disenchantment towards the government for even getting themselves into a position of fighting a rebellion. Not necessarily pro confederate, but anti union. Gangs of New York comes to mind.

Plus America loves the outlaw, rebel, bank robbing type of story. There is that angle as well. The civil war should be viewed as a tragedy, rather than a military victory or defeat imo. Anyone spiking the football from either side is dumb as fuck. You may not have fought on the side you align yourself with now.

Also worth noting, a lot of the confederate ended up heading west after the war. Hence their larger presence in western films and stories etc. Don't be mad at history.

 

[JosephDredd]

I believe this is the incident that inspired The General, Buston Keaton's groundbreaking movie. You've all seen gifs from it.

 

[Trotsky]

There's a lot of talk about the valor of Confederate troops or generals, to the point of ridiculous myth-making. So I don't think that's it. There was a concerted propaganda effort on behalf of the South that began a little after the war and has largely been successful in setting the tone for the popular understanding of the Confederacy.

https://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/not-a-tea-party-a-confederate-party/

It always blows my mind how conservative Americans can have so much respect for Confederate rebels, who were fighting for their right to own slaves, yet openly disparage and characterize as evil leftist rebels throughout history, like Castro and Che or the Spanish Republicans, who fought against similar or greater odds and for objectively more defensible purposes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It always blows my mind how conservative Americans can have so much respect for Confederate rebels, who were fighting for their right to own slaves, yet openly disparage and characterize as evil leftist rebels throughout history, like Castro and Che or the Spanish Republicans, who fought against similar or greater odds and for objectively more defensible purposes.

Not surprising, though. More surprising is just that more generally in American culture, the South gets portrayed as the good guys, and true American heroes like Sherman and Grant get a bad rap.

 

[trident]

Americas rapid rise in the world economy was due to sevral factors, unending land and an abundance of resources and potential; but it wouldnt have happened without slavery, a resource the Europeans mostly used abroad.

The country as a whole and its position internationally benefitted greatly from slavery. The Norths complicity in the system is often left out, also the unwillingness of Northerners to actually fight, also the Norths unwillingness to accept a giant population of newly freed black people.

America's Civil War is misunderstood by both sides in my opinion.

What was at stake wasnt the dissolution of slavery for moral reasons, though there was plenty of pressure from this direction, and enough to use it as a motivator; but because the national economic system itself was being revamped to a wage based system.

Making modern media depicting this period of history is really tricky, imo, and somehow glorifying (because that is what ultimately happens when something is turned into a film) independent moments or stories from that war is sure to enflame.

 

[Trotsky]

Not surprising, though. More surprising is just that more generally in American culture, the South gets portrayed as the good guys, and true American heroes like Sherman and Grant get a bad rap.

I don't know about that, with regard to American culture. I think the Union is still overwhelmingly portrayed as in the right, and Grant is mostly regarded as a positive figure.

Sherman perhaps not so much, but that's also a consequence of becoming synonymous with total war. It's for similar reason that Harry Truman has a bit of a negative historical tint due to his bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[Phr3121]

A movie on Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest would be more appropriate in my opinion. The man practically invented guerrilla warfare in the 1860s.

 

[Gregolian]

I don't know about that, with regard to American culture. I think the Union is still overwhelmingly portrayed as in the right, and Grant is mostly regarded as a positive figure.

Sherman perhaps not so much, but that's also a consequence of becoming synonymous with total war. It's for similar reason that Harry Truman has a bit of a negative historical tint due to his bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You don't learn much about Sherman in school is the thing. Learn plenty about Lincoln, Grant, and Lee but Sherman is just kind of "this dude burned Atlanta to the ground" and then moved on.

Also, Josey Wales is the shit and I don't think that movie tried overtly to do the "South good, Union bad" it was more "this dude fought for the South and these assholes in Blue showed up and killed his family and he wants revenge"

 

[Phr3121]

It always blows my mind how conservative Americans can have so much respect for Confederate rebels, who were fighting for their right to own slaves.

Slaves? The South was fighting for state rights. Do you really think a white Northern soldier would give his life for a black man in 1862?

 

[USA!USA!]

The civil war is so damn interesting. As Americans, it's not only hard to comprehend that a war was fought on our own land - but against our own countrymen. So fascinating.

 

[InternetHero]

I mean, we joke about Sherman burning down the south again, if that's not positive I don't know what is.

But really though, you don't need to try and sway people's opinions when you're seen in the history books as the good guys. The confederacy apologists are trying to do image control, the Union is already widely acknowledged as being the force for good.

Speaking of, do we need to send Sherman down there again?

At the same time, there is nothing wrong with knowing both sides, and everything right about a responsible person knowing the truth.

 

[Trotsky]

Slaves? The South was fighting for state rights. Do you really think a Northern soldier would give his life for a black man in 1862?

States' rights to own slaves. Do you really think a bunch of Southern farmers really had principled and educated opinions on federalism that they would defend to the death regardless of context? No, they had self-interest.

And I think, similarly, a Northern soldier wouldn't give his life for a philosophical belief in centralized government, either. Soldiers fight because their government tells them to.

 

[trident]

A movie on Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest would be more appropriate in my opinion. The man practically invented guerrilla warfare in the 1860s.

Was used during the American Revolution

 

[InternetHero]

It always blows my mind how conservative Americans can have so much respect for Confederate rebels, who were fighting for their right to own slaves, yet openly disparage and characterize as evil leftist rebels throughout history, like Castro and Che or the Spanish Republicans, who fought against similar or greater odds and for objectively more defensible purposes.

I suppose that is the complication of history and honor/nobility.

The antebellum South portrayed itself has having a certain sense of nobility, honor, and charitable character outside of slavery.Much of that may be true, and some slave masters were cruel while others were "kind" as they saw it.

But that matters little, or should matter little to our current views.

That said, with the knowledge of all that is modern and settled in split blood and ink, we know there is no real moral defense for slavery today, and have to judge that the Union was unequivocally right in that fight.

The problem with Castro and Che, is that their stated aims of Utopia were grandiose , but their methods were barbaric and failed to produce any kind of paradise.

When it comes to personal character as well a man like James Longstreet is complicated, although overall would probably be judged as a good man.

Che personally executed a few too many dissidents to have that distinction.

 

[Falsedawn]

At the same time, there is nothing wrong with knowing both sides, and everything right about a responsible person knowing the truth.

Only problem with that is that people want to nitpick every little thing about the Union while finding some way to valorize the confederates for their absolutely stark moral failings.

If we wanna talk about how Lincoln wasn't in it to end slavery or how Reconstruction was half assed, i'm for that. But if we're gonna take that and say "See, the south wasn't all THAT bad, the north did it too!", i'm gonna froth at the mouth and slap some fucking people. NO, the south was fighting for the right to own slaves. There was no "War of Northern Aggression", that shit doesn't fly.

And keep in mind, i'm black. Even if the North didn't care enough to finish the job (to the point that we had to have a civil rights movement shortly after to gain our rights), I will attribute every good thing to them because of the circumstances of the war, without question. At least they cut the balls off the south by freeing the slaves. Thank fuck for that.