The title posted before I could ask what did you think of the movie overall?

Decent history, poor movie.

The author of the book from Texas State was very pleased and even has a bit part as a nurse in the bloody hospital scene early.

The portrayal of well developed Confederate trenches at Corinth was ahistorical.

Capturing the flavor of the anti-government movements in the south was pretty good. Portrayal of Newton Knight as some sort of refined freedom fighter a little over the top.

In before "the only actor worse than Nicholas Cage is Matthew McConaughey" comments.

There was a small thread on it on the Entertainment board.
http://texags.com/forums/13/topics/2759137/replies/46554321

hollywood history is to history as hollywood ethics are to ethics

they make up stories to enchant us rubes and then dress them up in costumes.

We end up with cinderblock Alamos and other atrocities.

One of my favorite westerns is The Comancheros, in spite of the fact that there are no mountains near Galveston, John Wayne could not have shot all those Injuns with a lever action repeater during the Republic of Texas days and the old drunk could not have been in the territorial prison in Yuma before Arizona was a territory, etc.

There was a lot of disunion in the Confederacy and not just in western Virginia and Georgia, though they were the most open about it.

There was a lot of Unionism in Texas, especially among the Germans.

I am re reading Noah Smithwick's Evolution of a State and he talks about leaving Texas after secession and because of it and snickers at how many Texas secessionists he ran into in California.

When I was in grad school I went through the papers of a prominent secession leader in Texas and was surprised that after the first battle he took off for California and never returned.

Anything that illustrates the lack of clear agreement on both sides of the civil war is good, even a cruddy movie.

My wife sold some plants to the studio that were used in the production. That's all I know about it.

Matthew Mccougnaghy >>>>>>>>> Nic Cage

I think it was good. Not perfect, but it touched on some history that's always been hidden. In particular, the Scalawags, the Southerners of Northern sympathy.

The idea that great majorities in the North supported one idea and great majorities in the south supported another is wrong. The south was more committed because slavery was their economic system and they didn't see an alternative, plus the fear of a race war in the Nat Turner vein. But both sides had very substantial minorities who opposed the war.

We don't really know how strong this was, because only a few states in the South voted on the issue (Texas, I think was the only one that held a popular referrendum) and while the vote is pretty strong in favor, I seriously doubt that the KKK style voter intimidation was invented AFTER the war.

As a Republican, I was happy to see the struggles of the early Republican Party in the South shown. It was not easy fighting against the powers of the old South and they were brave and courageous. There were a lot of Southerners who were Republican in sympathy, but who were intimidated or frankly because of racism could not join a "black party." In fact, as the GOP began sinking after Reconstruction, many whites began a "lilly white" move to clean the party of its black base and try to repackage it for white southerners. This failed, ultimately because of anti-Northern hate, but also because the principles of the party outside of slavery were pro commercial and industrial and the South was predominately agricultural.

More than Texas had popular referendums on secession, just off the top of my head Georgia and Virginia did as well.

One of the good depictions in the movie is how voting occurred in that era. A person had to get up in front of their neighbors who were watching and put their vote into the jar or container for their candidate. So it is no wonder that Abraham Lincoln was shut out in just about every polling place in a slave state in 1860.

The early battle scenes were shot at my brothers farm just north of Covington, LA!

I thought the movie was pretty good. Not the best I've seen but certainly worth a watch.

Texas was the only state that based its decision to secede purely on the popular vote (they had a convention that adopted articles of secession that were then voted on). Virginia and Georgia both elected delegates to a special convention.

Dr. Watson:

Not true, Tennessee based their secession on purely a popular vote. I see what you are saying though, but a ratifying popular vote after the convention is a popular referendum in my mind like Virginia held on May 23, 1861.

quote:

---

There was a lot of Unionism in Texas.

---

See the Great Hangings in North Texas. https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jig01 Unfortunately some of my relatives were involved on the governments side.