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

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."

Beauregard's unprovoked shelling of Fort Sumter. Actally Davis had been manuevered into order the shelling. Lincoln sent a fleet to reprovision the Fort rather than order its evacuation. That still does not make legal all his actions before the calling of Congress into session. I am thinking specifically of his actions in Maryland, which were blatantly extra-constitutional.

I generally agree with you. Most slave-holders tried to be kind and fair IMHO but there were limits (as Stowe points out) to how far they could, or would, go. For example, one of Stowe's kindly masters had to liquidate his assets (slaves) to pay off the massive debts because of economic hard times. He didn't want to sell them but ulimately did to the highest bidder (who was abusive to his slaves) and later sold them down the river.

She uses another example of a young and kindly master who died suddently before he could "get around" to changing his will to free his slaves after his death. His selfish wife took over the estate and sold the slaves who were put up for auction. The children were separated from the old and sickly ones (who could not fetch a good price). As Stowe pointed out, this kind of danger was always present under chattel slavery.

"They should have paid closer attention to those Virginias you attempt to drag into their treason."

Your dictionary must be different than mine.

Treason: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

I agree with your post. Hard times ruled. When you need money, you do what you must. And very likely the buyer did sell to someone else.

The selling, or breaking up of a family was a terrible thing indeed. As I said, slavery, in any manner, was not a good thing. We, both North and South, would have been much better off without it.

They're gonna make a mint on the 3 CD set once the trilogy is complete. Because they've got something for each of your 3 basic types of Civil War buffs: your Confederacy supporters, your Gettysburg officianados, and your Union supporters.

Cuz as someone said on another thread, the 3rd part of the trilogy will probably be pro-Union. That would be a great strategy.

"Of course, it is different. You defend traitors I attack them. These were citizens of the UNITED STATES of America. Thus, their war was treason. Simple."

Not so simple. You are like many,, you get called and you don't like it.

Why don't you just shut up and take it!!!!

The very act of calling secession conventions within the states was an affirmation of the Tenth Amendment, contrary to your assertion that they ignored it. The rest of your post is so vaguely and poorly written as to be unintelligible. Washington and his generation of Virginians were not anti-secession (if that is what you are trying to imply), unless you have uncovered long-lost writings that historians should read.

Actually I was born and raised in South Arkansas and only left to attend the UofC. My family is all still in the South. Being from the South I swallowed the Noble Cause mythology and still have great admiration for Jackson and Lee. Though I now find it distressing they could have fought under such misguided leaders and attempted to destroy their country.

Other than the politics I love Chicago. Incredible food, far more culture than one can absorb. One of my favorite things is the free concerts by the Grant Park Orchestra in the summer. The people here are actually quite friendly too. Of course, the population is much more diverse than that I grew up with but that just makes for a huge selection of restaurants.

Read Jefferson's inaugural address (1801), Washington's farewell address. The correspondence of Madison and Jefferson after about 1818 clearly shows the abhorrence they shared of destroying their country. Washington considered himself an American not a Virginian.

Secession is constitutionally impossible because no state can make a law (secession) which effects the other states. That is why the Constitution is the Law of the Land. So unless you throw out the constitution secession cannot be legal. Simple logic would show that to one who understands the document and its development.

None of the Southern leaders claimed they were implementing the 10th amendment or acting under it. That is a recent fantasy of the current generation of D.S.s. Nor is there any need to find new writings to make it clear that the founders never intended the "perpetual Union" formed under the Confederation to be disrupted. To claim otherwise is just a Lie.

If you can't understand what I write that is your problem though I am sure you are fibbing about that.

I have been called on nothing and could care less if you think that is the case. Your side's case is built on falsehoods, distortions and misinformation. Truth is simple in this case.

Nothing in the constitution (the Law of the Land) allows a state to secede. The actions of the States which tried were all illegal. States had NO power to do that. Only a constitutional amendment could have changed the Union in such a manner and no one tried to do it legally.

Even the idiot leaders of the Cornfederacy knew this and included the right to secede in their "Constitution." The dumbasses in New England who wanted to use Burr to secede were just as wrong. It cost Hamilton his life to keep the Union together as he caused Burr to be defeated as Governor of NY. He had planned to use that position to split the Union with NY joining NE. That was the reason he challenged H. to the duel. Secession was a bad, illegal concept in 1800, 1861 and forever more.

I never justshutupandtakeit when falsehoods are being dispensed.

Well, I have to admit that your response was written better, its just a matter now of getting some facts involved.

Since when did Washington not consider himself a Virginian? Did he renounce his home state in one of his myriad writings. Don't confuse his shouldering of responsibility by being a visible symbol of and advocate for the new Federal government as a denunciation of his beloved Virginia.

Where specifically in Jefferson's inaugural speech, or Washington's Farewell Adress, do you find an explicit rebuke of secession? How could the Founders, representing their states, in good faith enter into a Constitution from which there was no recourse by the individual states to an encroachment by the Federal government?

Southern leaders did not have to explicitly invoke the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Do you verbally invoke the First Amendment before speaking in public or going to church?

Washington never denounced or renounced Virginia. He merely felt that being an American was a higher calling. This was not uncommon for patriots of his day and came about after the early unifying events of the 1770s. He considered himself an American from Virginia.

Read the two documents they are very clear.

Many of the founders in 1787 considered the states to be an impediment to a strong Union. Madison was one of them. They (particularly those who had fought in the Continental Army) had seen what excessive State power had done to the new Nation and were determined to reduce it. That was one of the major beefs of the anti-Federalists and why they opposed it. Federalists (even Madison and Jefferson considered themselves so at that time) realized that the country would not survive without a means of cementing the people into one nation. That is why the constitution starts with We the People not We the STates. It is also why the state legislatures were not allowed to ratify the document only special conventions. This would prevent any state in the future from passing a law de-ratifying it.

The powers spoken of in the 10th amendment were local police powers, health and welfare regulations etc. NOT an ability to destroy the constitution. What sense would that have made? You really believe the 10th was a bomb waiting to explode the constitution? Please Madison, Hamilton, Washington and the boys were too smart for that. Even Elbridge Gerry was too smart for that.

No state can or could pass a law or take an action which would be designed to effect the whole Union. That is why the constitution was created, to produce a Law of the Land. It is/was Supreme. No state action in conflict with it is allowable.

"I have been called on nothing and could care less if you think that is the case."

Oh yes you were,, on your definition of treason.

"Nothing in the constitution (the Law of the Land) allows a state to secede."

There is nothing in it to prevent it either.

"Even the idiot leaders of the Cornfederacy knew this and included the right to secede in their "Constitution."

The the problem with the US Constitution, was it spoke not of it.

Byrd is in the movie, however I failed to spot him.

Byrd actually has about a three second appearance. When Robert Duvall makes his speach about God's will, shortly before the battle of Fredricksburg, you can see a guy in a white sheet standing behind and to the right.

Actually, Byrd is the one who says God's will be done", or something like that, right after Duvall's speach (he is standing behinf to the right witha redish type cap on).

Nothing in the constitution (the Law of the Land) allows a state to secede.

Wrong. Read the 10th Amendment. That which was not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remains with the states. If you disagree, please cite section and clause of either case.

The actions of the States which tried were all illegal.

Wrong. The Full Faith & Credit clause requires the federal government to recognize state acts.

Even the idiot leaders of the Cornfederacy knew this and included the right to secede in their "Constitution."

LOL - they did? Please cite section and clause, and which crystal ball you're using, because I've never seen it in the Confederate Constitution

The dumbasses in New England who wanted to use Burr to secede were just as wrong.

Your opinion. No one waged war on them to prevent any of their threatened secessions, or told them they couldn't secede.

Secession was a bad, illegal concept in 1800, 1861 and forever more.

Nonsense. The mere threat of secession could in many cases rein in the federal juggernaut.

I never justshutupandtakeit when falsehoods are being dispensed.

Neither do I, as you can tell. And I don't even wear a cape.

That is why the constitution starts with We the People not We the STates.

Ummm, no. The Committee of Style changed it for obvious reasons. Originally it listed each state by name, but once the convention modified the proposed Constitution to become effective with only 9 signatories, it became prudent to simply state "we the people", instead of listing all 715 combinations of states satisfying the requirement.

The powers spoken of in the 10th amendment were local police powers, health and welfare regulations etc. NOT an ability to destroy the constitution.

I am amazed at this ability to divine intent, or to read between the lines what has escaped every single founding father that wrote and debated the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Do you get many calls from police departments to help solve cases?

No state can or could pass a law or take an action which would be designed to effect the whole Union.

I am impressed, you got that one right. When a state secedes, only THAT state secedes, not every state.

I agree with you about the Valley Campaign, where Jackson was truly brilliant. Including that in the film in conjunction with the Peninsula, or Seven Days', Campaign would have been preferable to so much focus on Fredericksburg. I disagree that Jackson failed during the Peninsula Campaign. I do not believe that he agreed with the tactics Lee employed during the Seven Days. Assaults on entrenched federal positions at Mechanicsville and Malvern Hill, among others, did succeed in driving McClellan off the Peninsula, but they were nearly all tactical defeats and the Confederates lost 20,000 men. Jackson was a master of Maneuver annd speed. He "sacrificed his men's legs to spare their lives." He saw the basic futility of frontal assaults, and his lethargy during the Seven Days was not a failure but a recognition of reality.

I respectfully disagree with you that Jackson's performance on the Penninsula were the result of a disagreement with General Lee's tactics. Jackson was a consumate professional who followed orders regardless of personal feelings. Instead I believe that any failures on the Penninsula can be more properly attributed to the fact that Lee and his subordinate commanders - Jackson, Longstreet, A.P. Hill, Jeb Stuart - were working together for the first time. Lee's leadership style throughout the war was to make his intentions clear to his commanders in broad terms and let them work out the details. In this case the subordinate commanders didn't know each other's abilities well and Lee inadvertantly compounded the problem by adopting a good but complex battle plan. As time went by Lee, Longstreet, Jackson and the rest became the tested command team of legend. In the Penninsula, however, they were still feeling each other out.

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.