Assassination of Jesse James

[Arcey]

Slavery in this country was an abomination.  A deeper bit of research will reveal there was much more to the Confederate States’ secession than that single issue.  But, that isn’t the point of the post.

Being only vaguely familiar with the Northfield robbery I did a little looking around.  Found a couple of good reads.

There was mention of leniency in a couple posts.  Mention of vengeance in another.  Me, I don’t know.  I haven’t dug into it and I wasn’t there. 

What I did find interesting was the mention of one Benjamin Butler in one of the articles.  It mentioned one of the criminals thought he was tied into the Northfield Bank.  And, maybe there a tie-in to the vengeance aspect.

I don’t remember exactly what Butler’s title was at the time.  But he commanded Union occupation troops in the city I worked in, as well as many other Southern states and cities.

For several years my office was downtown, across the street from the main library.  The back door of the building was maybe a hundred and fifty yards from the library’s front door.  I liked to brown bag it, eat at my desk early then get out of the office for an hour without having to burn time getting to a restaurant and waiting to be served.  Usually, I’d just walk the streets listening to talk radio on a Sony Walkman.

On bad weather days, I’d go to the archival room in the library and read old stuff on microfilm, columns, journal entries, letters, etc.  That place is pretty full from serving a city over three hundred years old.  Learned allot.  One of the things I learned was “Butcher” Butler wasn’t held in the greatest esteem by the town’s folks.  Seems as if much of what his troops did, if they did it in Iraq today, they’d be on trial.  Humiliation, intimidation and harassment were practiced daily.  They’d also charge, try and convict people for violations of unwritten laws, happily accepting the payment of fines on the spot.  All the while Butler turned a blind eye.  Or perhaps gave his blessings.  The conditions described in those contemporaneous records could hardly be termed as “lenient”.

Finally fed up with it, one medical doctor, an up-standing, well respected, life long resident of the city, gut shot a young Lieutenant knowing full well he’d hang for it.  And, he did.

Now that I’ve contributed to the total high-jacking of the thread, I’ll close by saying I hope any film made will be entertaining.  I won’t be seeing it.

[The Elderly Kid]

I read the book some years ago and it impressed me as a pretty fair rendition of the facts, as far as they are known, but facts can be pretty elastic things. As Loren Estleman observed about the events in Tombstone in 1881, the OK Corral and its aftermath, everybody involved lied about it and the survivors continued to lie about it for decades afterward. A good movie need not be an accurate one. Does anyone really believe that the cavalry life depicted by John Ford was ever really like that? "The Searchers" was a genuine masterpiece, but West Texas sure looks like Monument Valley. Some of the most accurate pictorially were the silents of William S. Hart (made only a few years after the events depicted) but the action and dialogue are often laughable. The Spaghettis of the late 60s were wonderful looking but they were definitely European products, existensialism and all. I love pirate movies but I hope never to see an accurate one, in which a pack of toothless sadists in the final stages of syphilis commit unbelievable perversions on helpless captives, which was what the real thing usually involved. Good writing, good acting, good direction and especially great photography are what I look for. Sometimes, as in "The Searchers" and "The Wild Bunch," everything clicks. Usually, I'm satisfied if about half of it clicks.

[Cyrille]

Ah hafta agree with Mr. Dog; reply # 8 Ah ain't gonna see thet movie either Jonny Mack Brown, not ta mention a whole lotta other movie cowboys ar a spinnin in thar graves 'rite now!

[Advertising]

[Cyrille]

Reply to # 19
  Mr. Dog, I agreed with you on reply #8 But I have to respectfully disagree with you on # 19. Slavery aside, [It was never good! nor was it an issue.] the issue sir was 'states rights' I like the comparison to "A Gentleman"s Club" in "Gettysburg". I think it expresses the southern setiment well, also the scene where C. Thomas Howel askes some Confederate enlisited prisoners why they were fighting, the answer? 'We' fitin fer aur rats" (rights).It was not to protect slavery sir, Slavery was "on the way out" with the invention of the cotten 'gin' and that was way before the war.
 Lincoln said " if I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves I would do it, if I could save the Union by freeing none of the slaves, I would do it, if I could save the Union by freeing some of the slaves I would do that also. That to me makes slavery a non- issue, Lincoln would do anything he could to save the Union and that included NOT FREEING THE SLAVES
 In any event if by some fluke the South had won the war which was in reality a near impossibility. I believe that we would have rejoined with the United States because of the threat of Germany in WWI.
Just my thoughts on the subject sir.
                                                                                                         

[RowdyBill]

I've heard the "states rights" argument before, but I still contend that if there had been no slavery, there would have been no civil war.  There simply was not another issue so divisive to bring the states into armed conflict or separation.  The secondary issues being argued as the primary causes of the Civil War are really just rationalizations; the South wanted to have slavery, the North did not, and with more states being added to the Union as possible tie-breakers to the argument, there was bound to be conflict rooted in the issue of slavery.

States Rights + Slavery = 0, just as 1 - 1 = 0

Slavery was wrong and we're paying for it today.

[Cyrille]

If, maybe, perhaps/ I say you can think what you want. It was economics, the South seceeded and took with it a giant tax base, and almost if not half of the the then United States. The North could not let that stand because that would have spelt ruin for the manufacturing base of the Northen economy. Slavery was an excuse for the North to go to war with the seceeded states and conquer them so as not to lose the raw meterials they needed for manufacture that were produced in the South.  I have studed Civil War history one h--- of a lot, and ran across that fact more than once--- also I've read direct quotes from Union soilders stating that they were not fighting to free the slaves, but to save the Union and if they  had thought that this was a war to free the slaves they would not have joined up!

[Harley Starr]

I think you will like "Open Range"

one trend I'm not liking though, is these productions are going on location Canada ( kinda puts it outreach, workwise for me)

I sympathize with you on that trend, Major 2. I've heard that the biggest reason Kevin Costner had to film in Canada was because of the fact the states wanted too much money, and that would have detracted greatly from the size of the town they had built. I heard that he wanted to film "Open Range" in the state of Montana. The sad fact is that the states are pricing themselves out of the market.

[Texas Lawdog]

If the movie is a good one, does it really matter where it was filmed? Some of the locales used in Canada are in Alberta.  Alberta has a lot of Western heritage.  The Calgary Stampede is one of the greatest rodeos ever.