Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Gods and Generals' presents reality history (Phyllis Schlafly)
townhall.com ^ | March 4, 2003 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 03/05/2003 5:50:12 AM PST by condi2008

"Gods and Generals" opened in movie theaters this past weekend, and at last we have a movie that presents truthful history rather than fiction or politically correct revisionism. This epic recounts the gripping history of the Civil War prior to Gettysburg, and there isn't a dull moment in its awesome four hours. The movie faithfully shows the sincere motives of the valiant men of principle on both sides. The movie shows that the Northerners fought to preserve the Union, and Virginians fought to defend their homeland against federal troops sent into their state (Southerners certainly did not die to defend slavery, since few Southern soldiers owned any slaves).

Defending one's homeland evokes powerful passions. It's no accident that the Bush administration chose the words "Homeland Security" to get Americans to accept the biggest expansion of government since the New Deal.

"Gods and Generals" doesn't take sides in the War between the States. Scriptwriter and director Ron Maxwell presents a balanced picture of a time long ago, when religious faith defined a man's duty and when leaders, such as Gen. Stonewall Jackson, were devout and outspoken Christians.

President Bush has asked Congress for $25 million to spread knowledge of American history, especially among young people, and to sponsor an annual National History Bee. But will the schools teach history as it really happened, or as the political correctness revisionists wish it had happened?

When the federal government financed a 271-page book in 1994 to prescribe "National Standards for United States History," it was a public relations disaster. The U.S. Senate repudiated it by a vote of 99 to 1, and Al Shanker said it was the first time a government tried to teach children to "feel negative about their own country."

The UCLA professors responsible for "Standards" then made cosmetic changes, but copies of the original book had already flooded schools and publishers and were easily available when the Goals 2000 law mandated the adoption of standards.

"Standards" has a 14-page section on the Civil War and Reconstruction, mostly revisionist history. It's hard to see how any historian could write 14 pages about the Civil War and never mention Gen. Robert E. Lee or Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, but "Standards" accomplished that feat.

On the other hand, "Standards" mentions Harriet Tubman six times, the Ku Klux Klan 17 times and Sen. Joseph McCarthy 19 times. The Gettysburg address is mentioned once, but it doesn't rank as high as the 1948 feminist declaration at Seneca Falls, which is mentioned six times.

"Standards" instructs students to read Civil War fiction, suggesting at least a dozen novels. Conspicuously missing from the list is the greatest American novel about the Civil War period, "Gone With the Wind."

The most amazing example of feminist political correctness in the Civil War section is this question posed for high school students: "Why is the word 'male' used for the first time in the Constitution in the 15th Amendment? Why were women excluded in the amendment?"

In fact, the word "male" does not appear in the 15th Amendment! The Constitution is and always has been a sex-neutral document, using only neutral words, such as citizen, person, inhabitant, resident, president, senator and representative.

The appalling ignorance of American history by students must extend to their professors, too. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as the nation's report card, less than half of high school seniors have even a basic grasp of American history.

A Boston newspaper editorial titled "The Disappearing History Term Paper" noted that the prize-winning essays for Prentice Hall's nationwide history competition prove that students are expected to write compositions based on feelings and impressions, not on research and evidence.

When I went to college, a student couldn't graduate without taking courses in both American and European history. Learning the basic facts of history was considered necessary to become an educated citizen, to appreciate our heritage, and to avoid repeating mistakes in the future.

Today, 55 colleges and universities, including the most prestigious, have no American history requirement and only a fifth of colleges require any course in history. On the other hand, some colleges do require courses in "non-Eurocentric culture or society," a requirement that can be met by courses in human development, sociology, theater, dance or film.

Why have colleges and public schools stopped teaching American history? One reason is the fact that more than half of senior and junior high school teachers didn't major or minor in history in college.

Another reason is the current fad for teaching multiculturalism, the code word for teaching that all other cultures are superior to Western civilization. A third reason is the passion for falsely indoctrinating students that America is a land of oppression.

"Gods and Generals" can remedy a glaring gap in the teaching of American history. It's a must-see.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; confederacy; education; godsandgenerals; history; phyllisschlafly; revisionism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last
To: Pern; Valin
IMO if a person is not a history buff they will find large portions of the film boring.
We took 3 girls(!); ages 9, 12, and 13 (!) and they all hung with it, and recommend it to their brothers & friends. They may be admittedly "different" than many 9-13 y/o's, but it tells me that one does not have to be a Jackson fan like me to find it well worthwhile. Personally, I find the battle scenes wearying, but who am I to complain? -war is truly wearying, and infinitely worse. The excellent character portrayals and God-honoring dialogue throughout the film were the things that have most impressed me twice, and I look forward to any excuse to go again.

I can't see myself sitting in a movie theater for almost 4 hrs w/ no smoke/potty break!
One of us adults puffed the heck out of his pipe just before entering, and did not seem to suffer. There is a 12-minute intermission after the Battle of Fredricksburg; maybe you could run out with your ticket stub in hand?

41 posted on 03/05/2003 8:56:14 AM PST by condi2008 (Pro Libertate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
But I find it completely ironic how over 140 years after the War of Seccession ( yes I have come to se it was NOT a CIVIL WAR ) that the most patriotic Americans are those living in the SOUTHERN and WESTERN ( not Pacific Coast ) states and that most of the Anti American hating types live in the Union States ( and their reprsentatives in congress reflect that fact )

Yes, and Massachusetts, the "hotbed" of unionism, is the wackiest, most America-hating of them all. As I have noted previously, Bill Clinton technically came from Dixie, but yankeeland elected him. Twice. The only dissenter from that region was Indiana.

42 posted on 03/05/2003 8:58:09 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: I still care
When I try to convey the Southern perspective I use a huge book that I recieved from a friend whose family was very much involved with the major Confederate figures. I've never seen it anywhere and can only assume that it was suppressed at the time of it's printing in 1865. It may be one of only three of four still in existence. Hand bound and typeset. It's titled 'A Southern History of the War' and is by a person named 'Pollard'. It contains maps and diary entries along with newspaper reports and correspondence between the major figures such as Lee and Jackson. It's a beautiful compendium of material that to my knowledge has mostly been lost or destroyed.
43 posted on 03/05/2003 9:04:34 AM PST by Lee Heggy ("A good traveler has no fixed plans and is not intent on arriving." Lao Tzu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
The sense I get from viewers' comments is that the movie tried very hard to present character portraits that show why these men fought and believed that God was on their side, but it just didn't come off properly and sank into caricature.
The thing is, if you've read the historical accounts and well-researched biographies, those portrayals were accurate. If it appears false to us with our modern experiences, it is because of our own perspective.
I heard it said just yesterday, that if we object to their 19th-century views, it is for us as if we were midgets standing on the shoulders of giants. We can see much further than they; but only because of what they have done before us. We cannot fault them for the distance vision they did not have at the time.
44 posted on 03/05/2003 9:13:47 AM PST by condi2008 (Pro Libertate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: condi2008; steve-b
You are correct. That's the mistake people of today make.

You CANNOT look back into the 1800's with todays eyes.

45 posted on 03/05/2003 9:22:35 AM PST by SCDogPapa (In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: condi2008
It is a sad testament to how barren our cultural wasteland truly is that a mediocre movie like Gods and Generals is desperately clung to by those of us starved for anything...anything...other than the multicultural, politically correct crap that is the usual "historical" fare coming out of la la land.

The movie had tedious dialogue, left out important military aspects of the battles and movements, romanticised the actual combat experience 90% of the combatants involved, and...get rid of those overweight re-enactors who show about as much passion and enthusiasm as Sadaam's officer corps, and as much desperation in combat scenes as a commuter running to catch a train.

Sorry...I'm with ya emotionally folks....but let's not take leave of our senses...

46 posted on 03/05/2003 9:30:48 AM PST by Basilides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Basilides
I guess I'm really hoping that this is a positive sign of the pendulum of popular culture beginning to swing back; that there will be ever-more historically accurate & excellent arts & entertainments forthcoming; and that the tastes of Americans will soon expect this moral excellence in their cultural pursuits. I would think that this film would have to be at least moderately successful for it to play a part in such a scenario.
47 posted on 03/05/2003 9:42:27 AM PST by condi2008 (Pro Libertate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ff--150
I took the whole family two weekends ago. I loved the movie, and consider it to be the greatest Christian movie of all time - Lang should win an Oscar for his portrayal of Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson - he WAS Jackson!

Even my family, who are not into the unCivil War, were mesmerized at times, and never once asked to leave (what a change!) Certainly 4 hours (with a 15 minute intermission) might be too long to some, I thought it was way too short! I'll definitely buy the DVD. Gods and Generals is a phenominal movie.

Plus, the local SCV chapter was in attendance, with men and women in period dress - the movie was more than a movie - it was an event.

48 posted on 03/05/2003 12:07:34 PM PST by 4CJ ('No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.' - Alexander Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: condi2008
That does it. I better go see this movie. ... But still hoping for an intermission ...
49 posted on 03/05/2003 12:12:48 PM PST by k2blader (Please do not feed the Tag Lion. ®oar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: condi2008
When the federal government financed a 271-page book in 1994 to prescribe "National Standards for United States History," it was a public relations disaster. The U.S. Senate repudiated it by a vote of 99 to 1...

Hm-m-m-m-m, any guesses to who the "1" was?

50 posted on 03/05/2003 12:29:21 PM PST by meandog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Is Antietam in the 6 hour Gods and Generals DVD? As I understand it, this movie is billed as a "prequel" to the Gettysburg movie---and THAT movie was largely based upon a book entitled "The Killer Angels", which I found to be a very good read...
51 posted on 03/05/2003 1:03:17 PM PST by 7MMmag (igottaproblemwiththiswhole eternityconcept..for eachtime ithink iv arrived, a wholenewtrip begins...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: condi2008
Today, 55 colleges and universities, including the most prestigious, have no American history requirement and only a fifth of colleges require any course in history.

This is a bit off topic, but tonight at work I had my (so called)Mind blown. We were talking about the upcoming war, one of the folks is a young skull full of mush and so anti-war. I says to him you do fo course know that saddam see's himself as the new Nebuchadnezzar and wants to reinstate the Babylonian empire. Nebuchadnezzar, Babylonian empire he say's? My jaw dropped, left speechless.
52 posted on 03/05/2003 9:02:12 PM PST by Valin (Age and deceit beat youth and skill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
"Gods and Generals" is a prequel to the 1993 film "Gettysburg," also written and directed by Maxwell, which was a better film. It was able to focus on a narrow slice of the war, a battle that lasted just three days although its influence cannot be measured. "Gods and Generals" covers the first two years of the war -- it needs a figure like Jackson to hold everything together. Even then, it contains a series of sickly saccharine scenes of a 5-year-old girl forging a friendship with him.

I don't think it was "sickly saccharine" at all. I found it humanized him, made more real(if you know what I mean).

53 posted on 03/05/2003 9:11:40 PM PST by Valin (Age and deceit beat youth and skill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Even then, it contains a series of sickly saccharine scenes of a 5-year-old girl forging a friendship with him.
I don't think it was "sickly saccharine" at all. I found it humanized him, made more real(if you know what I mean).

Besides that, it really happened that way. General Jackson did indeed forge a friendship with little Jane Corbin at Moss Neck over that last winter (see James I. Robertson's excellent biography, Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend). I did notice that the actress was more like 8 years old (a bunch of permanent teeth ~seen a bunch of them at our house recently). And ok, her acting or at least her accent left something to be desired, but the situation & most of the dialogue* were historically accurate (*He wouldn't have lied & told her that "all the daddies will come home"). Those scenes "made it" for the 9 year-old girl that attended with me, and I'm glad they were included if it leaves her with a positive impression of a 4-hour-long war movie.
I tried to remind myself that in this life, I'll not get the film that I want to see covering Jackson's life ("the movie's never as good as the book", because in your mind the words become alive). I try to overlook the faults of G&G in order to appreciate the beauty of a major film covering this subject with a sincere attempt at realism.

54 posted on 03/06/2003 4:35:23 AM PST by condi2008 (Pro Libertate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: condi2008
I have read several articles on over the last decade which discussed that the concept of education has eroded badly. The traditional "common body of knowledge" is no longer common, and rarely earned in an American undergratuate degree.

Every year tens of thousands of undergraduate and graduate degrees are nothing but diploma mills' paper, for only a few hundred dolars. 20/20 did a piece reporting that government employees were a major market for purchased degrees, but in any case, little to no old fashioned, midnight oil education was required for "conferred" degrees.

I am old enough to have attended UT in Austin when freshmen/sophomore history, English, math, science, and accounting classes were flunk out courses designed to cull the unfit students. In my experience, government professors were among the first on campus to grade inflate iin protesting the Vietnam War.

In less than one generation, agenda education degraded the American standard bachelor degree in large and small colleges alike. For me, every graduate is suspect in their "common body of knowledge".

Knowledge based critical thinking is no longer held in high esteem in this reality tv/MTV/ABCCBSCNMSNBSNNBC sound byte.com culture. IMHO, this is the underlying reason that we could have elected a psychopath president twice and that Hillary's brand of fscism may yet prevail.

Coffee is on. I have to hire someone this week.
55 posted on 03/06/2003 5:10:28 AM PST by SevenDaysInMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SevenDaysInMay
I've got a good friend(Freeper Powderhorn) who when back to finish getting his degree, he told me how worried he was that after 20 years he wouldn't be able to keep up. Needless to say his fears were greatly exagerated.
I was talking to a kid at work yesterday who had never heard of Nebuchadnezzar or the Babylonian empire. Now lord knows I'll never be consudered the brightest bulb on the tree but (right hand to god) I look like Albert (friggin)Einstein compared to most of the people I run across.
So sad many of them live in such a small world and have know idea what a magical place God has given us to live and play in.
56 posted on 03/06/2003 6:57:21 AM PST by Valin (Age and deceit beat youth and skill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
>> Yes, and Massachusetts, the "hotbed" of unionism, is the wackiest, most America-hating of them all. As I have noted previously, Bill Clinton technically came from Dixie, but yankeeland elected him. Twice. The only dissenter from that region was Indiana. <<

Acutally, most of New England was full of pacifist liberals who urged to let the south go in peace and kept trying to push for a caese-fire and armitace. New England has never liked wars, going back to 1812. It was the midwestern states that was the hotbed of unionism. Not that that matters to you.

As for Clinton, Indiana was the only "yankee" state not to vote for him if you pretend the rest of the midwest, such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas-- don't exist. If you're going to insist that's not "yankeeland" even though many of those states were around during the civil war supported the union (go to their state capitols some time and see who gets all the press in LINCOLN, Neb.) then be consistant for once and stop calling Californians "yankees" (can't get much further SOUTHwest than Califonia) I also see you've conviently forgotten the majority of southern states voted for Clinton (Missouri, Kentucky, West Virgina, Maryland, Tennesee, Georgia--home of the "Zell Miller is God" club of "conservatives"-- Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida) and that little matter about Presidential elections in the 1st half of the 20th century. We've talked at length about the 1916 election results and you've insisted everyone is aware of it, but then you get amnesia yourself.

And I love your excuse about how FDR is not the south's fault because "yankees voted for him to". He got about 55% of the vote in most midwestern states, compared to about 80-90% of the vote in most of the former confederate states. And he didn't even bother to campaign in most of those one-party states. Gee, I wonder where all the opposition to him was? My grandpa NEVER voted for Franklin, did yours?

Finally, speaking of those evil yankees, I'm guess you have no clue where Phyllis Schalfy is from.

57 posted on 03/07/2003 4:08:29 PM PST by BillyBoy (George Ryan deserves a long term...without parole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Acutally, most of New England was full of pacifist liberals who urged to let the south go in peace and kept trying to push for a caese-fire and armitace.

That's not what their elected representatives and government said. The Massachusetts delegation to Congress was arguably the most radical of the northerners. It was the midwestern states that was the hotbed of unionism.

The midwestern states - specifically Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana - were hotbeds of conflicts with the copperhead democrats. Their leader was from Ohio and most of their politicians came from those states, not massachusetts as you would have us believe.

As for Clinton, Indiana was the only "yankee" state not to vote for him if you pretend the rest of the midwest, such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas -- don't exist.

Try again. Those are the plains states per USDA designation and just about any reasonable classification of regions within in the United States. Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and the sort are midwest.

If you're going to insist that's not "yankeeland" even though many of those states were around during the civil war supported the union

Politically, they were union as were Oregon and California. But go ask somebody from any of those states if they consider themselves yankees. Most likely, they associate that term with the northeast and find them as repulsive as the rest of us.

then be consistant for once and stop calling Californians "yankees" (can't get much further SOUTHwest than Califonia)

Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not just lash out at me for not considering Nebraska "yankeeland" on the grounds that it was part of the union side of the war? Hate to break it to ya, but California was part of that same union side. So was Oregon. In light of those facts it seems you have a choice to make - either all states on the union side are "yankeeland" because of that affiliation, or they are not. You can't have it both ways.

I also see you've conviently forgotten the majority of southern states voted for Clinton (Missouri, Kentucky, West Virgina, Maryland, Tennesee, Georgia--home of the "Zell Miller is God" club of "conservatives"-- Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida)

Curious little list you got there, considering your earlier rule of thumb seems to have been whether or not they were with the USA or CSA in the war. It should not surprise you then to learn that West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri all remained in the union (though some in part by force). Rather than sit by and allow you to play fast and loose with the numbers, I've taken the liberty of locating them and providing them for both 92 and 96:

1992:

CSA States for Bush: Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia
CSA States for Clinton: Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Georgia
CSA Electoral votes for Bush: 108
CSA Electoral votes for Clinton: 39

1996:

CSA States for Dole: Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia
CSA States for Clinton: Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Florida
CSA Electoral votes for Dole: 96
CSA Electoral votes for Clinton: 51

In other words, you are simply wrong. And go ahead and add in the border states if you like. Give Clinton Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky, and West Virginia for a total of 34 electoral votes. He still loses the south 108 to 73 in 1992 and 96 to 85 in 1996.

and that little matter about Presidential elections in the 1st half of the 20th century. We've talked at length about the 1916 election results and you've insisted everyone is aware of it, but then you get amnesia yourself.

History has amnesia about that election because it does not stand out as one of importance like 1896 or 1932 or even 1952 for that matter.

And I love your excuse about how FDR is not the south's fault because "yankees voted for him to".

Like it or not, it's a matter of history. The whole nation voted for the guy and, above all else, he was a yankee himself.

He got about 55% of the vote in most midwestern states, compared to about 80-90% of the vote in most of the former confederate states. And he didn't even bother to campaign in most of those one-party states. Gee, I wonder where all the opposition to him was?

The only congressman to vote against all the new deal spending programs was from Texas.

My grandpa NEVER voted for Franklin, did yours?

He always cursed FDR, so I take it he must not have.

Finally, speaking of those evil yankees, I'm guess you have no clue where Phyllis Schalfy is from.

So one good apple makes up for all the Kennedys, Hillary Clintons, Franklin Roosevelts, John Kerrys, Al Sharptons, Chuck Schumers, Carol Moseley Brauns, Pat Leahys, Robert Toricellis, Sheila Jackson Lees, and Charles Sumners that region has produced?

58 posted on 03/07/2003 5:25:49 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson