'Gods and Generals' boldly scorns 'Uncle Tom's Cabin Syndrome'

Fredericksburg.com ^ | 3-5-2003 | Dave Smalley

[stainlessbanner]

THE RECENT theatrical release of "Gods and Generals" marks a rare triumph for the modern film industry. The successful transition from book to silver screen is noteworthy not just for its cinematic virtues--which are plentiful--but for its fair presentation of the Confederate perspective in the War Between the States. It's about time.

Since Harriet Beecher Stowe's powerful but inflammatory work in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in 1851, it has long been de rigueur in some circles to demonize Southerners as cruel, whip-flicking overseers, intent on preserving the institution of slavery. The film industry has all too often gleefully contributed to stereotypes of the most unfair sort--from "Deliverance" to "Mississippi Burning," Hollywood has spared no small expense to paint Southerners with the broadest and crudest of brushes.

"Gods and Generals" stands as a rarity among recent major releases. In the film, the real motivations of many Southerners to pick up arms, fight--and, in horribly large numbers, die--are honestly presented. Of course slavery was a brutal, major schism in America in the mid-19th century. But so were difficult concepts like states' rights--the guaranteed rights of people to keep as much power in their own hands as possible.

Southerners, at least, with their roots in the Constitution's very essence through such great Virginians as Madison, Monroe, and Jefferson, had not forgotten the mandate of the 10th Amendment--all powers not specifically vested in the central government are supposed to be reserved to the states, or to the people.

Small wonder, then, that men and women with that sort of collective memory saw Abraham Lincoln's call-up of 75,000 men to "put down a rebellion" as something to be met with determined opposition. In their minds, Southern secessionists were true patriots, supporting constitutional principles that had made America great among nations. As the film shows, they considered their actions the "second American revolution."

Understanding this mentality is what makes "Gods and Generals" a success. Recent literary works such as Charles Adams' "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession," and Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln," also have contributed to a long overdue fairness in presenting both sides' perspectives.

Like all wars, the conflict between North and South was based on many issues, from base economics to highest morality. Both sides thought their reasons just--and that is why, as the film's battle scenes so effectively show, troops from both sides stood in open fields and did not flee as bullets flew around them.

If it does nothing else, "Gods and Generals" has perhaps permanently burst the intellectually untenable bubble that the Civil War was just about slavery. It was not--as scholar John S. Tilley has pointed out, at least 80 percent of Confederate army and sailors never owned a slave. The recognition that "The Cause" was in fact a deep one--along with brilliant portrayals of the motivations for the various Southern commanders shown in this film--will be recalled as nothing less than courageous in a future, hopefully less politically intolerant time.

As the movie's director, Ronald F. Maxwell, put it in a recent interview with author Peter Collier, "Future generations will not thank me if I pandered, or caved in to the political winds that were blowing in the year 2003, which will be blowing differently in the year 2010, the year 2050, and 500 years from now. We are telling the truth here."

Hollywood--and Southerners--should take note.

[stainlessbanner]

Thanks to shucks.net

[Capriole]

Thanks to shucks.net

And thanks to you, Stainless. May God bless the South, still the tongues of the liars, and enlighten the minds of those who are prejudiced against us.

[RobbyS]

After seeing this film, no one will ever think of T.J. Jackson in quite the same way ever. All the same, I wish they could have worked in the Valley Campaign, where he was brilliant, and the Peninsula Campaign, where Jackson failed.

[JulieRNR21]

Have you aeen the movie? And is this the one where Byrd plays a Confederate General?

[ClearCase_guy]

Life was hard back then. Sure, it was better to be a free man working for wages in a mill, but that was no picnic either. Low wages, lots of injuries, no one looking out for you. There were plenty of people who thought wage laborers in the North had a worse deal than slaves in the South.

Many people today want to pretend that it was all very simple and cut-and-dried in 1860. Slavery evil. Everyone agrees. Yet bad Southern whites continue it! I'm afraid that things were not quite that simple. The Civil War occurred for a variety of reasons and freeing the slaves was really not one of the top motivating factors. It is only in hindsight that the winners tried to plant themselves firmly on the high moral ground and claim that the war was about the slaves. Lincoln didn't think that way when it all began.

I applaud Gods and Generals for treating the subject in an adult manner in which the South is not populated with ogres.

[stainlessbanner]

Yes, Julie, I have seen the movie and I enjoyed it. Hollyweird slammed it, Historians praised it, and well, I just thought it was a great production. Byrd is in the movie, however I failed to spot him.

[MadeInOhio]

Yes, there were a variety of reasons for the coming of the Civil War. But the spark that lit the fuse was Beauregard's unprovoked shelling of Fort Sumter.

Lincoln's call-up of 75,000 troops was the predictable response following an act of war.

Certainly majority opinion in the North supported the war to avenge Sumter and reunify the country, not to free the slaves.

But the South's actions brought the war and those actions were driven by the ruling class fear that slavery was imperilled. One need only read the correspondence of the Confederacy's leading civilian leaders to understand that.

Lincoln was no abolitionist in 1861. Southern fire-eaters thought differently and acted accordingly. Surely no one believes that -- were slavery non-existent on the North American continent in 1860 -- secession would have occurred anyway. What would have prompted it? Tariff disputes? Cultural distinctions?


I don't think so.

[ex-Texan]

Bump for later review.

[RLK]

Of course slavery was a brutal, major schism in America in the mid-19th century. But so were difficult concepts like states' rights-

---------------------------

I'm as against over-powerment of the federal goverment as anybody in the country. However, states rights was too often only an instrument to prevent outside interference with slavery and create a system of legal safety for the system of slave-based kingdoms in the South.

[RLK]

The Civil War occurred for a variety of reasons and freeing the slaves was really not one of the top motivating factors.

------------

Without slavery, there would have been no civil war.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

You people who think that slavery was not one of the major factors leading up to the Civil War, are just going to have to be honest with yourselves and admit that northerners are/were capable of being right about something.

[ZappaDawg]

Beauregard's unprovoked shelling of Fort Sumter?

Five of Licoln's seven Cabinet members disagreed with the President's decision to reinforce Fort Sumter. The South saw this as a hostile act. Lincoln knew that they would.

"I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground; while, by an accident, for which you were in no wise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent was, you were deprived of a war vessel with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise. I most cheerfully and truly declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort, have greatly heightened you, in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise, of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man, of all my acquaintances, whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." - Abraham Lincoln, letter to Captain Gustavus Fox (leader of the reinforcement), May 1, 1861 (emphasis added)

After the South fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, Lincoln’s response to the North was that “the star-spangled banner has been shot down by Southern troops” and on April 15, 1861 he asked for 75,000 volunteers (answered by 92,000 within days.) This move pushed Virginia and North Carolina into secession. His letter to Fox, in which he stated that “the country would be advanced” and that the attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter was “justified by the result” (having the South fire the first shots), came 17 days later.

[ex-Texan]

I took a course in Economic History of the U.S. many, many years ago. It was filled with statistics, surveys and old census results. I remember vividly that during the 1850's and 1860's that the average slave holder in the South had less than 2 slaves.

Say, about 1.8 slaves was the average. The cost per slave had been going up steadily. Recall it may have been between $ 300 and $ 800. Slaves were expensive, especially when the average family in the whole country was living on less than $ 500 a year.

Of course, there were large plantations. Some plantation owners owned many slaves. And mistreatment and beatings could be severe. Sure, some slaves were badly treated. Some slaves were tortured and branded and suffered broken limbs from severe beatings.

But the average family with their 1.8 slaves were simply not in any position to severely beat, or torture and even harass their slaves. Common sense tells you that common decency would prevail in most cases. Sometimes the owners sat down at night and taught their slaves to read. Some Southerners believed they had a Christian duty to teach their slaves to know and understand the Bible. And they risked severe consequences in doing so.

Oh, well ... The truth doesn't seem to matter much these days.

[Non-Sequitur]

I like quotes, too. Here is one from Robert Toombs, secretary of state for the Davis regime.

"Firing on that fort will inagurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen...At this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend in the North...You will wantonly srike a hornet's nest which extends from mountains to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it put us in the wrong; it is fatal."

He was right, too.

[SCDogPapa]

"He was right, too."

So was Beauregard in his PROVOKED shelling of Fort Sumter.

[Mamzelle]

I'd like to note "Sweet Home Alabama" showed a very positive, albeit humorous, picture of the south.

[Captain Kirk]

The author has obviously never read Uncle Tom's Cabin, a nuanced book and great literature. Interestingly, most of the slave-holders in that book were kind to their slaves. Stowe's main argument is that slavery created a trap which ensared even well meaning masters. Also, I could mention that Uncle Tom's Cabin an an explicitly Christian work, and thus quite un-PC. This is probably the reason why it has rarely been made as a movie.

[Non-Sequitur]

You make it sound like Beauregard did it on his own. He was ordered to fire by the Davis government. Like I said, Davis knew exactly what would happen but he did it anyway.

[SCDogPapa]

"Interestingly, most of the slave-holders in that book were kind to their slaves."

Most slave owners were. The biggest abuses came from the large plantations.

Stop and think for a minute. The average farmer lived on $500 or less per year. Slaves were very expensive.

Why would "he" abuse his slave to the point of making him unable to do work? Kinda like a farmer today, going out to his $30,000 tractor and tearing it up, to the point where he could not use it.

Before you call me a racist, wanting slavery back, no I don't. And yes, it was a trap.

[steve-b]

One of the sins of the Old South is that they dragged the concept of states' rights through the mud of bigotry and greed.