Posted on 03/04/2003 4:21:19 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:02:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The first Civil War movie of consequence, D.W. Griffith's heroic and horrific masterpiece, "Birth of a Nation," was an electrifying polemic that demonized the North and the slaves, and glorified the Klan.
Yet, for all of "Birth of a Nation's" moral faults, the subject made for exciting cinema. President Woodrow Wilson remarked that it was "like history written with lightning."
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Stunted development.
Hilariously ironic comment.
I found that scene to be the most unbelievable in the movie (beating out some strong competetion). It seems highly unlikely to me that a Confederate general's cook would be spending any time at all socializing with him - let alone risking pissing him off with prayers for emancipation at a time when the Confederate president was so enraged by Lincoln's emancipation proclamation that he threatened to hang any white commander of a Union negro regiment.
Stonewall Jackson was part of an army that captured and enslaved any able-bodied negro that that army found when they invaded Pennsylvania. There is an accout in the regimental history of my great great grandfather's Illinois cavalry regiment of one of their surgeon's black assistants becoming Stonewall Jackson's "body-servant" upon being captured by the Confederates. There is also an account therein of the harsh treatment that was inflicted by Jackson's men on the wounded Union soldiers that were under that surgeon's care, which included violently ripping blankets and clothes off of the wounded, stealing their food, and refusing to allow them to leave the area controlled by the Confederates even though they had all been paroled.
"Gods and Generals" probably is the best illustration of what physically happened before Gettysburg - the strategy, the movements of troops, the bravery of men led into the valley of death - that you're likely to see. And yet, even with nearly four hours of screen-time, it still feels like so much is missing.
I agree. It was as if the Peninsula campaign and Antietam had never occurred, since no mention was made of those battles whatsoever. Meanwhile, a huge chunk of movie time is devoted to trying to make Stonewall Jackson and the Confederates sympathetic characters by showing his fictitious relationship with a little girl and some ridiculous Christmas carolling and partying (one scene of which seemed to be included for no other reason than to give Ted Turner some screen time).
What about the arrogance and callousness of the Northern generals, who senselessly wasted their troops on futile charge after charge?
I disagree with this criticism. The only Union commander who had a bad habit of wasting his troops with charges was Ambrose Burnside, and he was certainly portrayed accurtately as a bungling general who was far from arrogant. The main problem with McClelland and Hooker as Union commanders was their timidity, not their arrogance.
Where's the bald-faced greed of the Southern generals, who were willing to risk everything to maintain a luxurious existence on the backs of millions of blacks?
Even though most of them held slaves (including Jackson), most Confederate generals (as opposed to Confederate political leaders) seemed to be motivated by misguided duty to their homeland and their lust for warfare and glory, not greed or a luxurious existence.
We want - no, we need - to see the blood, the death, the mistakes and the horror of war to remind us what it really is.
There was plenty of gore in Gods & Generals.
Leave the generals' long-winded, righteous speeches to the camera to the History Channel, and show us how it really was.
I didn't mind the speeches to the extent that they were historically accurate, it's just that many of Jackson's were not. The best "speech" of the movie, though, was not spoken by a general but sung by Bob Dylan (`Cross the Green Mountain) during the closing credits.
As much as I found the Confederate glorifying distortions in this movie laughable, though, I really enjoyed the movie because the battle scenes and strategy discussions seemed accurate and helped put the war in perspective.
I thought he did come off as a smamry religious nut -- one who was unwilling to face the stark contrast between the golden rule and serving the Confederate slaveholderocracy. He reminded me of the modern day drug warriors and Isama bin Ladens of the world who insist that they are the most religious of all men while liberally spreading evil all over the land.
Why do you characterize that as "fictitious"?
Jackson's relationship with Janie Corbin during the winter of 1862-63 is well known to Jackson historians.
It's so easy to judge 19th Century men through 21st Century glasses, isn't it?
At the time, slavery had existed on Earth since the dawn of civilization.
Why don't you go ahead and tell us what you think of Jesus Christ for praising the Roman Centurion instead of reading the Centurion the Riot Act because the Centurion was a slave owner.
And, while you are at it, don't forget to tell us what you think of Mrs. U.S. Grant bringing her slave "Black Julia" to Grant's Headquarters to look after little Jesse Grant whenever she visited her husband.
And don't forget to tell us what you think about that guy on the One Dollar Bills in your wallet and the Quarters in your pocket.
I've never seen it mentioned in any Jackson biographies, but even if it is a true story, the movie's telling of the tale was rather hokey and certainly lacked context (eg. far more Civil War soldiers being killed by disease than in battle).
I disagree with the author's comment that he wishes to "see the dirt under the well-manicured fingernails of these self-righteous warriors"
For me, it was nice to see the Generals as civilized men as I believe they were. The plethora of war movies portray war-makers as war-mongers and I liked seeing a bit of honor portrayed.
There were plenty of 19th Century men who could see how wrong slavery was. Take Alexis de Tocqueville, for instance, who in the 1830's, despite being born a privileged French aristocrat, fully comprehended the damage that slavery was doing to both the enslaved negroes and the slaveholders and other white Southerners who had become so dependent on them.
Millions of Northerners opposed slavery in 1860 even though by doing so they subjected themselves to being called "niggerlovers" by Northern Democrats merely for suggesting that slavery should be abolished. Even many Southerners like Robert E. Lee clearly saw the evils of slavery -- yet they did very little to oppose it. At best, they treated it like Ross Perot's crazy aunt in the basement. It seems very apparent that the Confederates who opposed slavery simply succumbed to peer pressure and ended up walking off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings. They had the courage to join (and lead) the crowd in battle but not to stand up to them on the issue of slavery. That was a deep and fatal flaw that cannot easily be whitewashed -- try as they might -- by the Confederate glorifiers.
And, while you are at it, don't forget to tell us what you think of Mrs. U.S. Grant bringing her slave "Black Julia" to Grant's Headquarters to look after little Jesse Grant whenever she visited her husband.
Neither Mrs. Grant nor U.S. Grant, for all of their flaws, ever fought for a country that was founded upon and dedicated to preserving slavery.
And don't forget to tell us what you think about that guy on the One Dollar Bills in your wallet and the Quarters in your pocket.
It is just as wrong to idolize the founding fathers as it is to condemn their entire lives for being slaveholders. I have a great deal of respect for the achievements of Washington and Jefferson, but I would have a great deal more respect for them had they more actively opposed slavery. Washingon's descendants certainly paid for his failures in that regard.
One was Robert E. Lee:
"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy.....Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:
One individual who claimed that he did not much care about the issue except for the fact that it affected the Union was U.S. Grant:
"I never was an abolitionist, not even what could be called anti-slavery, but I try to judge fairly and honestly and it became patent in my mind early in the rebellion that the North and South could never live at peace with each other except as one nation, and that without slavery. As anxious as I am to see peace established, I would not therefore be willing to see any settlement until the question is forever settled." - August 30, 1863, in a letter to Elihu Washburne
Robert E. Lee was not fighting to perpetuate slavery. He was fighting to protect his native Virginia from invasion.
What was so evil about Lee's vision?
Would America not have been far better off if slavery had died it's inevitable end, in Lee's words, "from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy" which cost a nation of 32 million people the deaths of 600,000 of it's citizens and poisoned racial relations for the next 140 years?
One must also remember that Lincoln signed the first version of the 13th Amendment which called for the perpetual establishment of slavery in order to appease the Southern fire-eaters.
"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
So, how are Christian men such as Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson supposed to acquire your 20/20, year 2003 moral and historical hindsight regarding the future of slavery in 1861?
The same Lincoln that singed the proposed Constitutional Amendment that would have perpetually enshrined slavery in the U.S. Constitution in the form of the first proposed 13th Amendment is raising an army to invade their native State of Virginia. How are Lee and Jackson expected to equate abandoning the defense of their native State in 1861 to the abolition of slavery?
The reasons men fought between 1861 and 1865 were very complex. Some were honorable and some were not. To judge all men on either side with 20/20 moral and historical hindsight from a vantage point of 142 years into the future is a cheap shot.
Also, as in most films, they take create license to protray something that encapsulates. I think that was the reason for the dialogue between Jackson, the cook and God. It also was the reason for the dialouge between the house slave and the Union general. I think it brought out the complexities of slavery without making it the focus of the movie.
Robert E. Lee was not fighting to perpetuate slavery... What was so evil about Lee's vision?
Perhaps that was not his motivation, but he was certasinly not fighting against slavery at all, and he certainly was fighting for a Confederacy that was expressly dedicated to perpetuating and expanding slavery. If he didn't want to fight against his neighbors and relatives, he could have chosen to remain neutral by sitting out the war.
Would America not have been far better off if slavery had died it's inevitable end, in Lee's words, "from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy" which cost a nation of 32 million people the deaths of 600,000 of it's citizens and poisoned racial relations for the next 140 years?.
Those are very convenient assumptions for him and for you, but they are totally unsupported by history. How exactly would slavery "melt away" when it was essentially adding the equivalent of about $100,000 (in today's dollars) on average to the wealth of each Southern family (and much more to the wealthiest and most politically powerful in the South)?
Race relations are not great now due to the toll that several hundred years of slavery and Jim Crow laws in the South have taken, but it is clear that race relations would be much worse had slavery survived any longer. Had the Confederates prevailed and the Northerners not dared to interfere with it, slavery may have continued to the present day, and even if it did not the American South would certainly be a lot more like South Africa (either before or after aparteid).
One must also remember that Lincoln signed the first version of the 13th Amendment which called for the perpetual establishment of slavery in order to appease the Southern fire-eaters.
The president has no formal role in passing Constitutional amendments, and though Lincoln passively approved of that proposed Amendment, you are mischaracterizing its terms, since it did not prohibit any state from abolishing slavery therein. (The Confederate constitution, in contrast, did prohibit any state or territory therein from abolishing slavery.)
Lincoln believed that he could persuade slave states to voluntarily abolish slavery therein. He was certainly quite mistaken in that belief, and fortunately the Radical Republicans did not share his faith in the prospects of voluntary abolition (note that 3/5 of the Republicans in Congress voted against this proposal, even as a last ditch effort to avoid a bloody civil war).
So, how are Christian men such as Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson supposed to acquire your 20/20, year 2003 moral and historical hindsight regarding the future of slavery in 1861?
All they had to do was read Tocqueville's Democracy in America, which was published in 1840.
The same Lincoln that singed the proposed Constitutional Amendment that would have perpetually enshrined slavery in the U.S. Constitution in the form of the first proposed 13th Amendment...
His signature would have been a nullity, and even if the states had passed it (which is unlikely given the Radical Republican's opposition to it), it could not have been made permanent.
How are Lee and Jackson expected to equate abandoning the defense of their native State in 1861 to the abolition of slavery?
The original Confederate states seceded (as they explicity and emphatically declared) in order to preserve, protect, and defend the institution of slavery, which they (quite accurately) perceived as being threatened by the rising tide of the abolition movement and the Republican Party. When Virginia joined the Confederacy, they joined that cause, and when Lee and Jackson agreed to serve the Confederacy, they were serving that cause (whatever their personal reasons for choosing to do so were).
Had Lee (or other prominent like-minded prominent Southern military men) stated from the outset that he/they would only serve Virginia and/or the Confederacy if they first abolished slavery, he/they might well have had a very positive influence on preventing or shortening the war.
The reasons men fought between 1861 and 1865 were very complex. Some were honorable and some were not. To judge all men on either side with 20/20 moral and historical hindsight from a vantage point of 142 years into the future is a cheap shot.
I'm not "judging" anyone -- I'm just pointing out some deep character flaws in some of the more prominent ones. Most of the Confederate soldiers probably fought because they were presented with a Hobson's choice to either fight for the Confederacy or be executed as traitors (as many Southerners who escaped to the North and fought for the Union were). Many others fought for the Confederacy because of social pressure (especially from the women) and/or as a result of a fighting instinct that had been deeply bred into them. Many of the most prominent Confederate officers, though, fought with the idea of preserving slavery foremost on their mind (eg. Nathan Bedford Forrest, who said "if we ain't fightin' fer slavery, I don't know what we're fightin' fer").
That was certainly more and more true as the war proceeded, but keep in mind that prior to the war per capita income of free people was almost twice as high in the slave states as in the North, with the South having 30% of the nation's free people but 60% of the wealthiest Americans. What the Confederates discovered, however, was that it was difficult to convert cotton into food when trade with the Northern states was cut off.
Also, as in most films, they take create license to protray something that encapsulates. I think that was the reason for the dialogue between Jackson, the cook and God.
I think the filmmaker was trying to pander to the Confederate sympathizers, which I dare say are more heavily represented in TNT's demographics.
It also was the reason for the dialouge between the house slave and the Union general. I think it brought out the complexities of slavery without making it the focus of the movie.
You can't make a credible Civil War movie without focusing somewhat on slavery. The regimental history of my great great grandfather's Illinois cavalry regiment has numerous accounts of freed slaves providing valuable intelligence to Union soldiers and singing and jumping for joy as they abandon their Virginia plantations in droves and head north to enjoy their freedom. Is it expecting too much of a fair filmmaker to have included at least one such person in a four hour movie? Is it asking too much of a fair filmmaker to include a mention of the fact that Lee's men made slaves of any able bodied negroes they found when they invaded Pennsylvania (including during the aftermath of Antietam in 1862)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.