Especially striking to me is the author’s central thesis: that the United States could easily have descended into a spiral of never-ending bloodshed and guerilla warfare (a la Bosnia, Chechnya, Sudan, Northern Ireland, etc.) but for the restraint of Generals Lee and Grant and Lincoln’s desire that the Confederate states be fully welcomed back into the Union.

Winik believes that Lee and other Confederate generals could easily have chosen to continue fighting as guerillas, but chose not to because they were aware of the horrific consequences of the guerilla fighting that had taken place in Missouri and Kansas. Missouri in the 1860s sounds an awful lot like Vietnam in the 1960s — little if any distinction between civilians and combatants, Union and Confederate guerillas impersonating each other, entire towns and counties destroyed in order to “save” them, people living in constant fear of betrayal by family, friends and neighbors. (Could this be the real reason Missouri became known as the “Show Me State” ? )

Had the Confederates gone guerrilla, had Grant been harsher toward the defeated Rebel soldiers and civilians, or had public sentiment after Lincoln’s assassination turned more toward revenge against the South, things might be a lot different today.

(Let us hope that historically ignorant schoolgirls today do not develop fond feelings toward Henry VIII just because Jonathan Rhys-Meyers looks quite dashing in period costume. Any young woman who has the impression Henry looked like Rhys-Meyers is bound to be disappointed by Holbein’s portrait.:-))

You have depressed me. Now I will utterly unable to eat a hot dog on Saturday. Curse you!

I am still young and idealistic, so it remains a favorite of mine. I will say though that juxtaposing Mr. Smith with Jimmy Stewart’s later movie with John Wayne “The man Who Shot Liberty Valance” is fascinating

By the way, here’s how Mr. Smith would play out if it happened in real life:

http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/9298

Funny, my fiance asks that question too. With alarming frequency, actually

I just could not stand it. Went too long, too absurd, hated the music, was over-dramatic, etc etc.

I like Mr. Smith b/c it recognizes that politics are corrupt, but it offers a message of hope among the disillusion. I think it’s the greatest movie ever made, but I’m probably one of the few who do.

No honorable mention for Cagney’s “Yankee Doodle Dandy”?

Sheesh..

In regard to 1776, tastes will vary. I love it, and I will use this as an excuse to post another sequence from the film:

1776 is a great movie. William Daniels (with that Boston Brahmin accent) will ALWAYS be John Adams to me (Giamatti’s outstanding effort notwithstanding). Daniels even voiced the role in the A&E/History Channel documentary I cite above.

And I must say that I’m much less enamoured by Mr. Smith Goes to Washington than I once was. I suppose being involved in government/politics will do that to a person.