Languorous 'Gods and Generals' hurt by too little substance

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | February 21, 2003 | Michael Machoskey

[Cincinatus' Wife]

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."

[ravinson]

I suspect most Southerners who opposed slavery (or at least recognized it's evilness) were resigned to accepting it much the same way we accept the unlawful federal income tax

As heinous as the federal income tax is, it in no way compares to slavery. Nevertheless, I have actively opposed all forms of taxation for over twenty years and I would certainly never fight for a state or confederacy dedicated to preserving the income tax (nor would I have much respect for anyone who did).

Some things are just so ingrained and beyond a person's scope to do anything about it, you just accept it.

So much for that "home of the brave" stuff, huh?

[ravinson]

I'd like to know how you know that [millions of Northerners opposed slavery in 1860]? Maybe millions did oppse it, but I suspect most could care less as it did not effect them directly.

The majority of the people who voted for Lincoln must have been anti-slavery Republicans, because they also elected anti-slavery Congressmen.

I also suspect that most of the Union soldiers were not in the Army because they wanted to free slaves.

I think the fact that most Union soldiers were Lincoln supporters who did not desert when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation is pretty strong evidence that they were anti-slavery.

[Lee'sGhost]

"Fortunately (and unlike you), most Southerners don't identify with the Confederate slaveholdocracy."

OK, I get it. You're one of those who ignores the point and tries to win an argument by redirecting. You are sort of right; LIKE me, most Southerners don't identify with the Confederate slaveholdocracy. As others point out you are applying judgement of Nineteenth Century man through 21st Century eyes. If you can't accept or grasp the concept that people thought differently and understand that things like slavery and (the Northern favored) indentured servitude (or tenured slavery) were measured differently, then there can be no reasonable discussion on this subject. It takes a little thought and empathy.

But I suspect you know that, but in admitting it would have to admit you are wrong headed.

[ravinson]

Ignoring for the moment that it was such Southern wealth that the Northern power structure resented more that anything actually to do with the slaves themselves...

What's wrong with resenting people who have acquired wealth almost entirely as a result of holding people in bondage?

The institution of slavery in the North, where it began, slowly died out for economic reasons -- not because of some higher moral calling...

That's simply not true. Slavery was prohibited in the Northwest Territories because the founding fathers recognized the danger of spreading its evil. That same "higher moral calling" resulted in the abolition of slavery (i.e. it didn't simply "die out" on its own) elsewhere in the Northern states.

...20th Century modernization would have brough it's eventual demise as well.

So you think the abolitionists and negroes should have just waited patiently for a couple of generations hoping for slavery to magically "die out"? I suppose that you also believe that the American colonies should have been much more patient with King George.

[ravinson]

Of each Souhthern family? Where do you come up with such a number when most Southern families could not afford to own slaves?

I stated "on average" slavery was worth $100,000 per family. Here are my calculations:

$3,000,000,000 (the economic value the Confederates put on their slaves) / 1,000,000 Confederate state white families = $3000 per family in 1860 dollars = $56825 in current dollars. I would double that number to include the social value that keeeping negroes at the bottom of the social ladder meant to Confederate families. (Incidentally, Northern Democrats also placed a huge value on maintaining slavery to keep negroes at the bottom of the social ladder).

When the time came in 1888, the Brazilians passed the Lei Áurea and abolished slavery without the fire-eaters on both sides of the issue unleashing the dogs of war.

Brazil had a huge percentage of free blacks and people of mixed race, and nevertheless slavery was not quickly abolished there either.

If Mr. Lincoln was actively promoting the first version of the 13th Amendment that would have protected slavery within the Constitution, how could Lee and Jackson know in 1861 that defending Virginia from an Army raised by Mr. Lincoln had anything to do with the abolition of slavery in Virginia?

All they had to do was read the Confederate Constitution and consider the growing influence of abolitionists and Radical Republicans.

[ravinson]

...why would they agree to have the law of the land changed through the bayonet from the North rather than through the ballot box in the South?

Lee could have helped to dissuade Virginians from taking up arms to support a Confederation dedicated to preserving slavery, even if he was unwilling to fight his neighbors to preserve the Union through force in order to help abolish slavery. Lee lacked the courage to become a political leader (as opposed to merely being a military leader).

Lee, indeed, did not want to fight his "neighbors", be they Southern or Northern.

Yet he did.

There is a huge difference between not fighting your family and neighbors and sitting idly by and not raising a finger to protect them when they are attacked by outsiders.

Virginia was not attacked -- Virginia rebels were. Had Lee remained neutral his family would have been protected unless they joined the Rebel cause (even as it was his family and their property received a great deal of respect from the Union forces due to his wife's Washington lineage). Lee apparently (and with good reason) feared social reprisals (and perhaps violent ones) from rebel Virginians should he choose to remain neutral. He chose social standing over his mildly anti-slavery political views. More courageous anti-slavery Southern military men left their Southern homes to fight for the Union.

[ravinson]

LIKE me, most Southerners don't identify with the Confederate slaveholdocracy.

Then what is encompassed by your self-identification of a "son of the Old South" who is "proud of [his] Southern heritage"? Does your "Southern heritage" include slavery or not?

As others point out you are applying judgement of Nineteenth Century man through 21st Century eyes.

I've already refuted that by pointing out the millions of 19th Century (even 18th Century) people who actively opposed slavery.

[ravinson]

The movie was riveting and thought provoking.

By the way, though I'm critical of much of the movie's social content, I do agree with its portrayal of Southern women as encouraging their husbands, sons, and boyfriends to go to war and Northern women discouraging their men from doing so.

[Lee'sGhost]

Ignore it, maybe it'll go away.