'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.

[SCDogPapa]

"You make it sound like Beauregard did it on his own. "

That was not my intent.

[SCDogPapa]

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

[SCDogPapa]

On April 11 Beauregard demanded that Anderson surrender Sumter. Anderson refused, but said he would be starved out in a few days anyway. Beauregard then asked the major precisely when he would be forced to evacuate the fort. In a carefully worded reply, Anderson said that he would leave Sumter by noon, April 15, unless before that time he should receive either instructions from Washington or additional supplies.

The Confederates rejected his answer. At 3:20 a.m., April 12, they informed Anderson that their batteries would open fire in one hour. At ten minutes past the allotted hour, Capt. George S. James, commanding Fort Johnson's East mortar battery, ordered the firing of a signal shell. Within moments Edmund Ruffin of Virginia, firebrand and hero of the secessionist movement, touched off a gun in the ironclad battery at Cummings Point. By daybreak batteries at Forts Johnson and Moultrie, Cummings Point, and elsewhere were assailing Sumter.

[Non-Sequitur]

True, but he was acting on orders from the Davis government. On April 10 the secretary of war wired Beauregard that he should immediately Sumter's evacuation and if Major Anderson refused then he should reduce the fort.

[SCDogPapa]

Non,, you are for the most part correct, but it looks to me as if Beauregard was the one to make the finial decision.

By April 4 Lincoln believed that a relief expedition was feasible and ordered merchant steamers, protected by ships of war, to carry "subsistence and other supplies" to Anderson. He also notified Governor Francis W. Pickens of South Carolina that an attempt would be made to resupply the fort. After debate-and some disagreement-the Confederate cabinet telegraphed Beauregard on April 10 to fire on Sumter if absolutely necessary to prevent reinforcement.

[Non-Sequitur]

According to "Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War" by David Detzer, Beauregard informed the Davis government on April 8 of the message President Lincoln sent to Major Anderson and Governor Pickens that the North intended to land supplies only at Sumter unless opposed. The April 10 telegram told Beauregard that if he was satisfied that the messenges from Lincoln were not bogus then he was to demand the immediate evacuation of Sumter and fire on the fort if Major Anderson refused to comply. He wasn't to wait for the supply ships to arrive before acting.

[SCDogPapa]

Non, I should have posted the entire article I was using. I have posted it before on another thread some time ago.

Fort Sumter Under Union Hold

On December 20, 1861, after decades of sectional conflict, the people of South Carolina responded to the election of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, by voting unanimously in convention to secede from the Union. Within six weeks five other states- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana-followed South Carolina's example. Early in February 1861 they met in Montgomery, Ala., adopted a constitution, set up a provisional government-the Confederate States of America-and elected Jefferson Davis their president. By March 2, when Texas officially joined the Confederacy, nearly all of the Federal forts and navy yards in the seven States had been seized by the new government. Fort Sumter was one of the few that remained in Federal hands.

When South Carolina seceded, there were four Federal installations around Charleston Harbor: Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island, Castle Pinckey on Shute's Folley island near the city, Fort Johnson on James Island across from Moultrie, and Fort Sumter at the harbor entrance. The only post garrisoned b more than a nominal number of soldiers was Fort Moultrie, where Maj. Robert Anderson commanded two companies, 85 men, of the First U.S. Artillery. Six days after the secession ordinance, Anderson concluded that Moultrie and the other works were indefensible and secretly transferred the Federal troops to Fort Sumter, a mile away. Charlestonians were angered by Anderson's move as a breach of faith and demanded that U.S. Government evacuate Charleston Harbor. President James Buchanan refused. In January Buchanan attempted a relief expedition, but South Carolina shore batteries turned back the unarmed merchant vessel, Star of the West, carrying 200 men and several months' provisions, as it tried to enter the harbor. Early in March, Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard took command of the Confederate troops at Charleston and pushed work on fortifying the harbor. As the weeks passed, Fort Sumter gradually became the focal point of tensions between North and South. When Abraham Lincoln assumed office as President of the United States on March 4, 1861, he made it clear in a firm but conciliatory address that he would uphold the national authority. The Government, he said, would not assail anyone, but neither would it consent to a division of the Union. "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government." Lincoln plainly meant to hold Fort Sumter. Unfortunately, circumstances were such that this could not be done without an overt act on his part.

By April 4 Lincoln believed that a relief expedition was feasible and ordered merchant steamers, protected by ships of war, to carry "subsistence and other supplies" to Anderson. He also notified Governor Francis W. Pickens of South Carolina that an attempt would be made to resupply the fort. After debate-and some disagreement-the Confederate cabinet telegraphed Beauregard on April 10 to fire on Sumter if absolutely necessary to prevent reinforcement.

On April 11 Beauregard demanded that Anderson surrender Sumter. Anderson refused, but said he would be starved out in a few days anyway. Beauregard then asked the major precisely when he would be forced to evacuate the fort. In a carefully worded reply, Anderson said that he would leave Sumter by noon, April 15, unless before that time he should receive either instructions from Washington or additional supplies.

The Confederates rejected his answer. At 3:20 a.m., April 12, they informed Anderson that their batteries would open fire in one hour. At ten minutes past the allotted hour, Capt. George S. James, commanding Fort Johnson's East mortar battery, ordered the firing of a signal shell. Within moments Edmund Ruffin of Virginia, firebrand and hero of the secessionist movement, touched off a gun in the ironclad battery at Cummings Point. By daybreak batteries at Forts Johnson and Moultrie, Cummings Point, and elsewhere were assailing Sumter.

Major Anderson withheld his fire until 7 o'clock. Though some 60 guns stood ready for action, most never got into the fight. Nine or ten casemate guns returned fire, but by noon only six remained in action. At no time during the battle did the guns of Fort Sumter greatly damage Confederate positions. And, sheltered in Sumter's brick caverns, only five Federal soldiers suffered injuries. The cannonade continued throughout the night. The next morning a hot shot from Fort Moultrie set fire to the officers' quarters. In early afternoon the flagstaff was shot away. About 2 p.m., Anderson agreed to a truce. That evening he surrendered his garrison. Miraculously, no one on either side had been killed during the engagement. On Sunday, April 14, Major Anderson and his garrison marched out of the fort and boarded ship for transport to New York. They had defended Sumter for 34 hours, until "the quarters were entirely burned, the main gates destroyed by fire, the ocre walls seriously injured, the magazines surrounded by flames." Civil war, so long dreaded, had begun.

[N. Theknow]

Without slavery, there would have been no civil war.

And without tea, there would have been no Revolutionary War.

[Non-Sequitur]

That pretty much corresponds with the information that Detzer puts out in his book, which is really good BTW.

[SCDogPapa]

Thanks for the heads up on the book. Thanks also for the "civil" exchange you and I had today.

[Non-Sequitur]

My pleasure. And while you're at it dig up a copy of "Stonewall: The Biography of General Thomas J. Jackson" by Byron Farwell. I've been recomending it to everyone lately. Regardless of how impressed you may be with General Jackson now you will be even more impressed after reading the book.

[GOPcapitalist]

But the spark that lit the fuse was Beauregard's unprovoked shelling of Fort Sumter.

Nonsense. Far from being unprovoked, the Sumter attack occurred only because Abe Lincoln had a fleet of warships over the horizon coming to fight its way into the fort and boost its armaments. Beauregard caught word of this through intelligence sources and preempted Lincoln's arrival by a hair. One of Lincoln's ships even arrived the night before the shelling and proceded to fire on a southern civilian ship that was entering Charleston harbor. Unfortunately they do not teach those facts in schools anymore.

[SCDogPapa]

Thanks once again. :)

[justshutupandtakeit]

Slight problem with your theory: none of the traitors of 1861 claimed the 10th amendment justified their attempt to destroy the Union.

They should have paid closer attention to those Virginias you attempt to drag into their treason. NONE of whom supported in any way secession.

Or they could have paid attention to Washington who was even more opposed to such an idea. An idea he wrote his Farewell Address to combat. (Well Hamilton wrote it but George agreed 100% with the sentiments.)

[justshutupandtakeit]

For the South it was completely about slavery that was the only States' Right of importance to the Slavers who ruled the South. For the North it was only and always about preservation of the Union. So you are half right.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You must have voted for Clinton if you believe the President can ignore his constitutional oath and allow the Union to be destroyed by a pack of scurvy traitors.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Actually the truth is that some states had Laws against teaching slaves to read. And the truth is that the South was completely under the thumb of the large slave holders who could care less about the "white trash" soon to be dying ignomeneously and stupidly to preserve the aristocrats' power.

While it is also true that the typical owner did not mistreat his slaves (how dumb is that when they were worth a couple of grand each?) but the slaves escaped at every opportunity. Why would they have run away from such wonderful massas?

The truth doesn't matter to the Defenders of Slaverocracy (D.S.) but to the rest of us it matters a great deal. You won't find much of it coming from those who still insist that treason was justifiable and twist and turn to make Lincoln a monster rather than the greatest American after George. George would have totally condemned the actions of the South's leaders as would Madison, and Jefferson. THAT is the Truth.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Oh, I get it you though Lincoln was FRENCH. LOL.

[justshutupandtakeit]

though= thought

[ex-Texan]

I agree with you 100%. Politics in the South was dominated by the large plantation owners. And I know that many slaves were taught to read by the masters, usually the mistress of the house, usually in secret at night. Not only were the actions of such people kindly and well motivated -- it was a very brave thing to do.

I have traveled all through the South and found the people are amazing. They are so very warm, friendly and hospitable. The only city I did not enjoy was Washington D.C. (I know, that it is considered a Northern City). It was a sickening taste of everything that may have been wrong with the South during the 1850's. Nuff said about that.

Slavery failed because people desire to be free. The desire for freedom is fundamental to the human condition. Think that if I had been a slave, I would have attempted to escape too. Just human nature.

By the way, took a peek at your short c.v. and it was pretty impressive. U. of Chicago is one the very, very best. Used to live in South Bend, IN just a sort drive away. Know Chi Town pretty well but have been stuck out here on the left coast since 1981. Used to sneak away from law school and go out to watch the Cubbies. Then have dinner at a couple of great places (vaguely recall the name of the 'Bread Factory,' but that was over twenty years ago).

[RobbyS]

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.

[Captain Kirk]

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.

[SCDogPapa]

"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

[uncitizen]

Before this movie Stonewall was already eligible for sainthood. I never thought he could become any more beloved. I was wrong.

[SCDogPapa]

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.

[uncitizen]

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.

[justshutupandtakeit]

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.

[SCDogPapa]

"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!!!!

[HenryLeeII]

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.

[justshutupandtakeit]

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.