Disclaimer

1. I’ve written ‘Spoiler’, but come on… Movies were released more than half a century ago and have been classic.

2. I know that racial issues are a big deal in the modern USA. I also remember about backlash happened after HBO had announced the alternate history drama series Confederate set in the modern world after South had won in the American Civil War. But again – it’s just a theory about European movies released in 1960s. Let’s be nice. :-)

3. I am not an American, so I could make some mistakes about historical details. Well, movies were made by Sergio Leone, an Italian director, and other European filmmakers. It’s a common knowledge that Leone became a friend of Eli Wallach (Tuco in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly), but Wallach didn’t know Italian, and Leone spoke English very badly, so they communicate in French, you can read about it even in Wikipedia. I suppose Sergio Leone wasn’t the best expert about the North American history, and movies should be seen as a story told by an outsider anyway.

TL;DR. The Sergio Leone’s legendary ‘Dollar trilogy’ is an alternate history series. It is set during the American Civil War and in the post-war North America, but in that timeline South won and there was the independent Confederate States of America, CSA. Furthermore, stories were told by some Southern sympathizer or sympathizers, and the Man with No Name may or may not be one of them. Perhaps, the breaking point of the Civil War in that timeline was during the New Mexico Campaign, and our characters could play in it, specifically blowing up the Branston bridge near the end of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Movies order.

Let’s begin with narrative order of movies. What movie should be narratively “first”, what movie should be the “last” one?

Well, originally movies were released in Italy in next order: A Fistful of Dollars in 1964, For a Few Dollars More in 1965 and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in 1966 and later in the USA in the same order. However in fact The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is the “first” movie about Clint Eastwood’s so called “Man with No Name” and a prequel for first two movies released earlier in real life.

It’s easy to prove, and there were some theories about it on this Subreddit, but it’s also been mentioned in Wiki and IMDB.

Item 1. Weapon.

According trivia for trilogy’s movies on IMDB, in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

• Clint Eastwood’s “Blondie” used a Colt 1851 cartridge conversion revolver (with silver snake grips);

• Tuco used a Colt 1851 Navy cartridge conversion revolver with a lanyard;

• Angel Eyes used a Remington 1858 Army percussion revolver.

The movie is set during the American Civil War, probably in 1862, during the New Mexico Campaign (we’ll return to it later). All handguns were designed in 1850s, years before the Civil War. The only issue was a Blondie’s Winchester 1866 “yellow boy” with ladder elevated sights, but we can ignore that.

In A Fistful of Dollars Clint Eastwood's “Joe” character uses a 1873 Colt Single Action Army revolver with a 5 & 1/2" barrel and raised silver coiled rattlesnakes on the grips, in either .44 or .45 caliber. Eastwood' s “Manco” carries the same gun in the sequel film For a Few Dollars More. The gun was designed 8 years later after the Civil War was ended and 11 years after events of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly happened.

Item 2. Dates.

A Fistful of Dollars is set after 1872. While “Joe” was setting two Mexican soldiers’ dead bodies at the cemetery we could see a gravestone with inscription “Esteban Garcia 1873”. It happens since 35:27 until 37:06. Our attention was even more emphasized, when Silvanito told Joe that that man was the only one who ever died from pneumonia in that town. Well, it’s kinda funny to die from pneumonia on Americano-Mexican border, because it’s a hot place. I think it was also an important death, because it peaceful, he wasn’t killed. It’s less important, but during that conversation Joe was sitting near another gravestone with inscription “Peter Escuder 1870” since 36:31 until 36:47.

It’s true for For a Few Dollars More too. Lee Van Cleef’s Colonel Mortimer monitored the mob’s activities in El Paso and met “Manco” first time. Then he had been checking out town’s newspapers archives until he found the Manco’s picture telling he was a bounty hunter. The newspaper was printed on June 15, 1872. The screenshot is here.

Item 3. The Man with No Name.

At the beginning The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Blondie didn’t wear his poncho and sheepskin vest. He wore a long coat, ostensibly a leather one. Eastwood’s character got his iconic clothes, when he was captured in Confederacy uniform with Tuco, and Angel Eyes gave him the outfit in Batterville after they became partners in the prisoner camp.

Blondie used to make money taking rewards for captured criminals and helping them to flee. Joe/Manco didn’t do it, he didn’t take Mexican army’s gold in A Fistful of Dollars and left it in the town, he didn’t take loot from the El Paso’s bank and was going to return it at the end of For a Few Dollars More. His character obviously had some moral evolution.

Let face it, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was a prequel in the Dollar trilogy.

Why is For A Few Dollars More the “last” film of the trilogy narratively?

Well, Manco had several holes at the upper right corner at back of his poncho, we could see it at the beginning of the movie when he found Red Cavangh in a saloon in White Rocks. It fits with the iconic scene in the end of A Fistful of Dollars, when Ramón Rojo wasted all of the bullets from his Winchester shooting Joe in the heart’s area, at left side of the chest, but Joe had the steel plate under the poncho, so he wasn’t wounded. Joe/Manco seemed just to sew holes in the poncho and turn it over, and it was just fine, because it’s basically a fucking blanket. And it’s easy to understand that upper left side on the chest would become upper right side on the back.

Item 4. Mexican Army.

My issue with A Fistful of Dollars concerned Mexican Army. They brought a lot of gold to the border town for a meeting with some American soldiers and were going to buy some guns, specifically, I suppose, machine guns. However both sides of the planned exchange were too suspicious. Secret meeting in the middle of nowhere in a border area? Come on. If the deal had been official, it would be more public or weapons would be just delivered to some port by ships or to some railway station by train. I am pretty sure the deal was illegal, even for the Mexican soldiers.

Or maybe it was illegal especially for the Mexican soldiers. Well, in 1876 Porfirio Diaz, popular Mexican general, a hero of the war against French occupation, made a military coup d'état against the civil government and took power for next 35 years. Obviously modern weapons, like American machine guns, would help their cause, and Mexican military wouldn’t be interested to make those deals through official channels under the civil government’s control. And it happened/would happen after 1872 too.

Conclusion. So, we’ve dealt with it. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (during the Civil War, apparently in 1862) --> A Fistful of Dollars (mid-to-late 1870s) --> For a Few Dollars More (mid-to-late 1870s).

Could first two movies be set narratively even later? Nah. Colonel Mortimer told he was about 50 years old in the last movie, he called Manco a “boy”, and Manco called Mortimer an “old man.” It was kinda ironic, of course, but at the same time the Man with No Name couldn’t be too old, because he had to be younger than the colonel, and he couldn’t be too young, because he was a rather experienced man in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly a decade ago. I suppose, he was in his mid-to-late 20s in the “first” (narratively) movie and in mid-to-late 30s in “last” two movies.

The Confederacy’s victory and Southern sympathizers

Question 1. What does prove Southern victory and the CSA existence in the ‘Dollar trilogy’? How dare you? :)

Well, CSA obviously existed during the Civil War, and the Southerns fought in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. But we are talking about “next” two movies. Basically it’s the only one fact, but it’s very important. In the “last” film, For a Few Dollars More, El Indio’s mob robbed ‘The Bank of El Paso’ which was being considered as the best and the most reliable bank in the whole area in the film’s universe.

El Paso is in Texas, and Texas joined the CSA in the Civil War. We have just found out the film was set in mid-to-late 1870s.

According El Indio, there were about million dollars in the captured safe, and it was Confederate dollars, mostly paper dollars, so called “greybacks” (vs. Union “greenbacks”). Here is the proof – screenshot. Why would the most reliable bank in Texas (or even in whole Southwest) have the whole safe full of Confederate dollars a decade later after the Civil War? By the way, burglars didn’t panic, they didn’t think it was a trap, a dummy. Nope, they wanted to double-cross each other and leave with the money, the Confederate dollars.

I have only one explanation. CSA were existing in that universe in 1870s, but the Civil War did happen in the “first” movie, so South had to win for some degree. Well, maybe the Confederate forces didn’t storm Washington and New York, but they could defend their independence.

There is an important addition. According Wiki, “by the end of 1863, the Confederate dollar was quoted at just six cents in gold, and fell further still”, “by the end of the war, a cake of soap could sell for as much as $50 and an ordinary suit of clothes was $2,700”. But in the movie the box with papers cost million dollars. I suppose “greybacks” were being backed by some assets/gold.

Question 2. How did South win in the ‘Dollar’s trilogy’?

I think the key is in the plot of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The film is obviously set during the New Mexico campaign in 1862. Characters dropped some names from real life, including Confederate General Henry Sibley and Union Colonel Edward Canbey, we saw General Sibley for a moment in the town where Tuco ambushed Blondie in the hotel and tried to hang him: 39:12, screenshot. The innkeeper even told his wife about Yankees seconds before that,

“They carry gold, not paper dollars, and they’re going to beat the South.

Well, that’s the point. Somehow South got gold.

The New Mexico Campaign had that certain goal – to get gold for Southern Cause . What a coincidence, wow! /s

According Wiki, Southern forces led by General Sibley had to gain control of American West, including the gold fields in Colorado and ports in California. The Confederacy would get a major source of gold and silver to support the army and its economy, the Union would lose it, the Confederate would break the Union blockade on Pacific Ocean and, for example, would export their goods, such as tobacco, cotton and sugar – again, for gold and silver.

By the way as Angel Eyes was looking for Bill Carson he met a Southern soldier who told the Carson’s regiment went to Glorieta Pass, and later in real life it became another Southern military victory. However the Confederate lost the train with supplies and were forced to retreat.

It is a funny thing to think about, but the breaking point might be Blondie and Tuco’s intervention and the Branston bridge’s destruction. At the end of the movie they were captured by troops of the alcoholic Union captain who was ordered to take the bridge from the Confederates. Both sides thought it was the key to control the region. Again, Northerners tried to take the bridge, and Southerners tried not yield it. The explosion might help to save many lives locally, but I am pretty sure that strategically it helped the Confederacy, because Union’s counter-attack wouldn’t happen.

Question 3. How did show the storyteller’s sympathy for South?

Let’s remember how both armies were shown in the movie? Just some facts.

• Union Army committed atrocities. In the town, where Blondie changed sides again and teamed up with Tuco to wipe out Angel Eyes’ tugs, marching Northerners routinely executed a “thief” by fire squad (about 01:54:15).

• There was a crucified “Confederacy spy” (about 47:00) in front of the Northern engine (that train Tuco and his guard, the Angel Eyes’ henchman took), even Tuco, a bandit and a murderer, looked disgusted.

• In the prison camp Batterville Southern prisoners were being robbed, tortured and murdered. It was stated that Batteville was inspired by Southern camp Andersonville, but in the movie we saw only the Northern camp, and the subject was remembered by the gangster. Of course, perhaps Angel Eyes killed some Union sergeant and took his identity or just robbed a dead man, but he could do it and nobody stopped him.

• Even rather “decent” guys in the Union army like that captain near the bridge and the Batterville’s commandant were either incompetent and coward-ish or helpless.

There were no such things about the Confederate army. Southerners just fought and struggled, that’s it. Even Bill Carson and Baker were baddies, but they were deserters and renegades, not common Southern soldiers.

Later, in For a Few Dollars More we met Colonel Mortimer who was from Carolina. Obviously he fought in the Civil War as a Confederate officer and he was/became a colonel. And what did we see in him? He was brave, noble, kind, resourceful, competent, he loved his sister.

It was the whole trope/cliché about “Southern chivalry against Northern barbarity.”

Even Mortimer’s sister preferred to kill herself than to live as a raped, “disgraced” woman – a traditional view of a noble Southern belle.

Again, it’s not about real life, it’s about the cult and popular trilogy.

And as ice on cake I can point you an interesting fact – there was no any black character in three films. Like even as extra on background. There were a lot of latinos (or Europeans of various ethnicities as “latinos”), some of them had big roles, there were some American actors, including the protagonist, Clint Eastwood, but no black ones. And it’s in the area where black people had to be. Like actually black lives didn’t matter here. Well, it’s a very specific point of view, isn’t it?

Question 4. Was the Man with No Name a Confederacy sympathizer, a follower of Southern cause?

He may or may not be one, but I think he was.

• The Man with No Name as Blondie did the trick with rewards, but it was at the beginning of the Civil War, as some towns were being controlled by the CSA, some towns were being controlled by the USA. Originally New Mexico was in the Union and Texas was in the Confederacy, than the war began and things became even murkier: yesterday Southerners were here, Northerners are there, and today vice versa.

• The Man with No Name/Blondie didn’t help Northerners except that moment with the bridge, and IMO it was only a personal thing for the captain, and the explosion helped Southerners more. He gave a dying Confederate his cigar and covered him with a blanket.

• In the post-war North America (well, in the CSA, if I am right) the Man with No Name played as Joe and Manco for the System, you know, for existed order of things. “Manco” didn’t take the money of The Bank of El Paso, “Joe” didn’t take Mexican army’s gold. He was fine just to take rewards for El Indio and his mob in For A Few Dollars More.

And what did happen with the Southern gold from the The Good, the Bad and the Ugly? Blondie got $100 000 in 1862, it’s like at least $2.5M in 2019 or even $6.3M in gold (we remember that the money was in gold in the movie, don’t we?). It’s a huge sum. Where was it? We didn’t see him drinking, gambling or wasting money for women in any movie of the Dollar trilogy. Why didn’t he have money to pay for a bed and food in A Fistful of Dollars? Why did he take thousands and even hundreds of dollars from the Rojos and the Baxters in that movie? Why was he a bounty hunter in For a Few Dollars More? Why was he going to retire with $25000 as a reward for El Indio and his mob? We don’t know what happened with inflation in that alternate reality; in our reality $25000 in mid-1870s is about $500000 in 2019, but he had dozen times more a decade ago.

Yeah, in real life Sergio Leone didn’t knew what he was going to do eventually with the character yet. However considering all aforementioned things the Man with No Name might donate those money for Southern cause.