NF Free State Of Jones

Non-Fiction
Lefty, you comprehending what contemporary Southerners thought is about as likely as those Southerners understanding the thinking of some modern day “la la land” nutter. :O o:
Show me an editorial from a Southern newspaper decrying the historical inaccuracy of Birth of a Nation or decryi g racist cartoons.
Leftyhunter
 
I see little need, Newton was a clearly a traitor to the Union by enlisting twice in the confederate army, then was clearly a traitor to the Confederacy by deserting and forming an outlaw band.........The man had obviously no morals or allegiance to either side.......And most definitely wasn't a Union anything unless someone can provide some authorization or commission of him in such a role......
We should split off from this thread,as I suggested.
Leftyhunter
 
Interesting view, but I think Grant, and probably Grenville Dodge were very aware of the situation in the Mississippi countryside in 1863. I am not aware of any resistance movement fighters in Mississippi taking human scalps. Maybe they did and we have not heard about it. How many banks did Knight rob after the Civil War concluded?:D
 
Show me an editorial from a Southern newspaper decrying the historical inaccuracy of Birth of a Nation or decryi g racist cartoons.
Leftyhunter

1/3 of the 2nd Founding of the KKK were Southerners. Birth of a Nation Time Period. So how many Others were Members. My math would say 2/3 were part of the 100 percent Americans. Do you think Hollywood just made Racist material for Southerners? Or did they make it, along with Birth of a Nation, because they were Racist?
 
Last edited:
All this movie was, was a fap fest for those who want to see history their way. To see a flawless hero with a band of people from any gender and color beating the evil, nasty Confederates. It's basically "Birth of a Nation" but for the opposite spectrum. Then again, the point of the movie wasn't historical, being that all the soldiers depicted were polyester farbs.
 
Show me an editorial from a Southern newspaper decrying the historical inaccuracy of Birth of a Nation or decryi g racist cartoons.
Leftyhunter

The Birth of the Nation was a national hit, it was as popular outside the South as within if not more so. I would imagine that older Southerners, though, would have looked askance at Southern newspaper articles writing of Southerners in tears on hearing of Lincoln's death or at images of blue-clad soldiers fighting alongside the Klan against a black militia.
 
Two wives is better then one
That's another thing about this movie. He didn't even go looking for his first wife and son after the war. It was just like...'ah well, they're gone', and he'd already moved on by then anyway. I struggle to see Newt Knight as 'moral' in many of the circumstances of this movie. He's a real mixed bag for me.
 
Show me an editorial from a Southern newspaper decrying the historical inaccuracy of Birth of a Nation or decryi g racist cartoons.
Leftyhunter

Why would you expect southern newspapers to decry racist cartoons 20 years before the whole country, north and south was portraying Japanese as bucktoothed, eyeglass wearing, slant eyed yellow monkeys and apparently didn't see any connection to that being racist?.................

Contrary to what some seem to want to imply on some of these threads, racism is neither a southern or a black victim thing............It has happened on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, both before and after the civil war, and to about every race, religion and even nationalities within a race that hasn't been the majority .................Is the point of pointing to other parts of the country so one doesn't have to look at what happened in their part?....................

Wasn't aware California for example, had a shortage of racist treatment of Native Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian-Americans or even African Americans throughout its history, unfortunately even to this day based on Rodney King and Mark Fuhrman that it needs to point its finger elsewhere............
 
Last edited:
"Two wives is better then one"

That's another odd treatment in the movie. Rachel returns to the farm ("from Birmingham" which btw didn't exist at the time) to see Newt shacked up with another woman. Her reaction is basically: "Oh, they have a child. Isn't that wonderful."
 
"Two wives is better then one"

That's another odd treatment in the movie. Rachel returns to the farm ("from Birmingham" which btw didn't exist at the time) to see Newt shacked up with another woman. Her reaction is basically: "Oh, they have a child. Isn't that wonderful."
I think that is one part that was accurate. The first wife, Rachel, returned just to find a place where there was something to eat. The politics of subsistence was accurately depicted.
As to the battles, I doubt any of them occurred, in Mississippi.
 
I believe Knight made this claim more than once, but was never recognized as part of the Union army.

This is why the designation "guerrilla" confuses me. If Knight and his band were neither commissioned nor recognized by the Union, then how are they Unionist guerillas?

If they were not acting in concert with Union forces and merely fighting in self defense, then they are just outlaws, right?
 
Speaking of racist cartoons. my son loved the Disney movie Dumbo when he was a kid. I hadn't watched in 25 or 30 years, but I was appalled when I watched with him one day back in the 1990s. Disney is actually broadly guilty of producing a lot of racist ****.
 
This is why the designation "guerrilla" confuses me. If Knight and his band were neither commissioned nor recognized by the Union, then how are they Unionist guerillas?

If they were not acting in concert with Union forces and merely fighting in self defense, then they are just outlaws, right?

They never did anything "in concert" with Union forces. Knight twice deserted the Confederate Army. Between 1870 and 1900, he, and 33 followers attempted to obtain Federal Pensions. They were denied all attempts, except for a handful that had eventually joined the Union Army. Uncle Sam never considered him anything but a rebel deserter.
 
This is why the designation "guerrilla" confuses me. If Knight and his band were neither commissioned nor recognized by the Union, then how are they Unionist guerillas?

If they were not acting in concert with Union forces and merely fighting in self defense, then they are just outlaws, right?
Apparently some want to imply there was as many "union" guerrillas as there was confederate ones, that they are willing to compare outlaws who were sanctioned by no one to troops who actually were recognized as such by the side they fought for......

You would get no argument from me that both sides, the union with the jayhawkers and some Missouri militia or the Confederacy with some of the partisan rangers very well sanctioned some individuals based on their conduct they probably shouldn't have, however comparing troops who had actually been sanctioned and had contact and cooperated with their sides armies to outlaw deserters who were sanctioned by no one and apparently served no one other then themselves is a false comparison........

There were some gangs of union deserters in western Pa, however I've never considered them confederate guerrillas, they were just gangs of outlaw deserters.......
 
Last edited:
They never did anything "in concert" with Union forces. Knight twice deserted the Confederate Army. Between 1870 and 1900, he, and 33 followers attempted to obtain Federal Pensions. They were denied all attempts, except for a handful that had eventually joined the Union Army. Uncle Sam never considered him anything but a rebel deserter.

Yeah, and I don't think the movie makes any claim they were fighting for the Union. That was one of the things I liked about it. It showed them as anti-Confederate outlaws fighting against the injustices of an oppressive government. It never claims they were all fighting for some lofty ideal like Union or Freedom from Slavery.
 
"Two wives is better then one"

That's another odd treatment in the movie. Rachel returns to the farm ("from Birmingham" which btw didn't exist at the time) to see Newt shacked up with another woman. Her reaction is basically: "Oh, they have a child. Isn't that wonderful."
What's wrong with That?
Leftyhunter
 
Yeah, and I don't think the movie makes any claim they were fighting for the Union. That was one of the things I liked about it. It showed them as anti-Confederate outlaws fighting against the injustices of an oppressive government. It never claims they were all fighting for some lofty ideal like Union or Freedom from Slavery.
Same difference. If someone is offing Confederates it serves the Union cause. If men desert from the Confederacy that also serves the Union cause. If someone d ties down Union troops that serves the Union cause. In other words those somebody's were Union guerrillas.
Leftyhunter
 
They never did anything "in concert" with Union forces. Knight twice deserted the Confederate Army. Between 1870 and 1900, he, and 33 followers attempted to obtain Federal Pensions. They were denied all attempts, except for a handful that had eventually joined the Union Army. Uncle Sam never considered him anything but a rebel deserter.
So what they still fought the Confederacy. Knight was also appointed as a,U.S. Marshall. Not just anybody could get such an appointment.
Leftyhunter
 
This is why the designation "guerrilla" confuses me. If Knight and his band were neither commissioned nor recognized by the Union, then how are they Unionist guerillas?

If they were not acting in concert with Union forces and merely fighting in self defense, then they are just outlaws, right?
Outlaws against whom? An illegal entity such as the Confederacy? Guerrillas back then didn't have cell phones or satellite phones. They had to fight has they saw fit.
Leftyhunter
 
Back
Top