review of "Gods and Generals" (spoliers)

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm sure Canadians would obsess over a civil war of that magnitude if it ever had one. Hell, ANY nation would obsess over a civil war of that scale.

Not really.

The Wars of the Roses isn't as highly revered in England, nor is the English Civil War much either.

The UK has seen a lot more major wars fought on its soil, and the world wars where far worse for the UK compared to the United States. For the United States, only a few wars have been fought on home ground. Our civil war happens to be one of them, in addition to being the most destructive and bloodiest for the nation.

[Joe]

Mind you I'm not saying paint the Southern generals as monsters or characture villains or racists, all I'm sayng is that not showing one of the main reasons for the war (the Emancapation Proclamation is NOT dealing with states rights, slavery WAS a central issue for Lincoln and many Northerners.) is like having an elephant in the room and not talking about it.

Part of the reason why the civil war was so complex a story is because you had honorable men defending a horrid instutition. You cannot paint Lee as a saint and ignore the slavery he was defending. Nor can Northerners say they wer enlightened and pure. Check out Gangs of New York, there was a very stark depiction of racial tension in the movie with lynchings going on from pissed of Northerners during the Draft Riot. A movie like Glory showed that PERFECTLY. It showed the horrors of slavery from the black characters and all that they endured YET showed racism among the Northerners and the despicable behavior of Northern officers. Glory was a well balanced civil war movie IMHO.

If what I read about Gods and Generals is correct, this movie is NOT.

That would be a no; at first, slavery was a peripheral issue at best for the Union. The North's primary object was saving the Union. I find little or nothing to admire about either side.

[Ted]

The UK has seen a lot more major wars fought on its soil, and the world wars where far worse for the UK compared to the United States. For the United States, only a few wars have been fought on home ground. Our civil war happens to be one of them, in addition to being the most destructive and bloodiest for the nation.

True, but the British Civil Wars were as nation effecting as the US Civil War, if not moreso.

[Sokar]

Yes, we've all heard the Southern States' apologist bullshit before. They just loved blacks, as long as they knew their place and remained slaves And the slavery issue was just the catalyst, which somehow erases the fact that the South unrepentantly fought to keep slavery.

I disagree, slavery was the catalyst issue for the conflict, but was not the cause for the conflict. At the end of the Revolution the main issue facing the infant nation was the division of State and Federal powers. There were two sides to this coin, on one hand you have the State legislatures wanted to keep the new Federal Government out of State affairs totaly, this is why the first US government was a confederation as created under the Articles of Confederation signed in 1781 after the conclusion of the Paris Peace Treaty that ended the War. Note the word "Confederation", you will see this again. Over time , Confederation proved to be a nightmare, and hamstrung us so badly that it was eventually superceded by the Federal Govenment under our current constitution as signed in 1789. Many States both North and South stung at the new intrusiveness of the new Federal government, and a see-saw struggle ensued over the extent of State and Federal powers. It is a point of historic contention that the Federal govenment may have fallen in favor of a new Confederation gov't if it had not been for the unification necessary during the War of 1812, when America was damn near re-conqured by the British. If not for some luck and a bit of diversion thanks to Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna it might have happened.

After 1815, Federal power was entrenched, and over the next 50 year a silent battle was fought between the States and Federal govenment over this power, gradually the industrialized north became steadily more Federal in their outlook, while the Southern States, led by the charismatic and vocal John C. Calhoun(Seantor from South Carolina, who died just days before Ft. Sumter) maitained their intrangient stance on States Rights over Federal.

Slavery became the focus when due to mounting civilian and international pressures(Much of Europe[save Portugal] had abolished slavery and slave trading by the 1800's, with Britian taking an active role in anti-slavery fleet patrols off the African Coast in the 1790's) the Feds began to rumble about the abolition of slavery in early 1858. To the Southeners, where the entire economy was still highly dependant on mass slave labor, it was too much and an active resistance developed within the Congress and State assemblies to Federal encroachment. Thing is technology was rapidly rendering the slave obsalescent, and likely that within 25 to 30 years slavery would have been abolished anyway as steam and petrol powered farm equipment entered the market. Eiether way , as new states entered the Union , particularly Kansas where the slave issue causes a mini-Civil War to erupt in 1859-60, the famous "Kansas, Bloody Kansas" episode. By 1861 things had gotten out of control and the Unnion split into the Federalist North, and the Confederation South, which reverted to the older State powerful system of government. After 1st Mannassas, when the pre-war illusions of quick victory for eiether side had been shattered, the Federal govenment played slavery and the slave issue for all it was worth to convince the North to continue the fight despite the horrendous cost in lives it was incurring, in the early stages of the war the north had lost almost every major battle prior to Vicksburg and Gettysburg, and their only

major 'victory'; had been an atrocious bloodbath at Antitam. To keep anti-war sentiment, which was growing as the cost of the war was becomming painfully evident in lost sons, Lincoln and his advisors siezed on the anti-slave sentiment to help prop up the flagging morale of the North. Pro or Anti-slavery was not truly the motivation for both sides, but which type of govenment would be more powerful was. The US Civil War was really just the final stage of the Revolution, conducted much later, and it was out of the ashes of that War that the character and timbre of governance in North America was established fom 1865 onward.

Can you tell Im a US History Teacher(In training still)........

[Stravo]

Sokar...spaces are your friends...paragraph breaks are VERY nice too

[Sokar]

Damn, it didn't look that dense when I was writing it.....sorry
But what do you think of my opinion?

[Stravo]

I don't think I was arguing that slavery was the central cause or issue, but it certainly was an issue, important enough for the abolishinist movement that was pressing for a final answer on the slavery issue. The main critque I have is the absolute whitewashing of a very ugly instituition in this particualr film. There has been an apologist movement afoot for a very long time now about the slavery issue, trying to sweep it under the rug. Pretend that this was a gentlemen's war about state's rights issues and oh...there happened to be black people in slavery around.

But you are basically correct in your summary of the events leading up to the war, but you cannot seprate that instituion neatly from anythign to do with Southern relaitons, hell it even creeps into the COnsitution with what consitues a person in the South.

[Trytostaydead]

I agree 100% with you Sokar.. btw Stravo, as I wrote before.. if Thrawn doesn't beat Kirk to a bloody pulp and leaving his carcass on the moon, there'll be a civil war here on this board!!

[AdmiralKanos]

I disagree, slavery was the catalyst issue for the conflict, but was not the cause for the conflict.

You have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a fuck about that distinction. The fact remains that the southern states unrepentantly fought to keep slavery. Was this just one issue of many? Of course. So what?

[Stravo]

I agree 100% with you Sokar.. btw Stravo, as I wrote before.. if Thrawn doesn't beat Kirk to a bloody pulp and leaving his carcass on the moon, there'll be a civil war here on this board!!

LOL....is that a thread hijack in progress???

As I have said before to all the Thrawn fanatics...there is nothing to worry about.

Why does everyone assume otherwise...*glances at avatar* Oh, yeah I forgot.

[Trytostaydead]

I disagree, slavery was the catalyst issue for the conflict, but was not the cause for the conflict.

You have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a fuck about that distinction. The fact remains that the southern states unrepentantly fought to keep slavery. Was this just one issue of many? Of course. So what?

So, then what's your point? Every side has laws, issues, etc that's morally ambiguous or wrong. Almost everything the British did we can say they were horrible people and should be condemned in the annals of History. The French, Spaniards, and Portugese.. all EVIL then. Why do we make movies about the heroism of them then? Why do we glorify them in such movies as Zulu, or 1492, etc etc?

[Trytostaydead]

I disagree, slavery was the catalyst issue for the conflict, but was not the cause for the conflict.

You have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a fuck about that distinction. The fact remains that the southern states unrepentantly fought to keep slavery. Was this just one issue of many? Of course. So what?

So, then what's your point? Every side has laws, issues, etc that's morally ambiguous or wrong. Almost everything the British did we can say they were horrible people and should be condemned in the annals of History. The French, Spaniards, and Portugese.. all EVIL then. Why do we make movies about the heroism of them then? Why do we glorify them in such movies as Zulu, or 1492, etc etc? Each side has facets they are not proud of.

Doh, sorry about the double post.

A lot of the Southern leaders knew this and were phasing it out, they just didn't particularly care for the idea that a different portion of the country can dictate to them what to do.

[AdmiralKanos]

So, then what's your point? Every side has laws, issues, etc that's morally ambiguous or wrong. Almost everything the British did we can say they were horrible people and should be condemned in the annals of History. The French, Spaniards, and Portugese.. all EVIL then. Why do we make movies about the heroism of them then? Why do we glorify them in such movies as Zulu, or 1492, etc etc? Each side has facets they are not proud of.

Sure, and every time someone tries to whitewash it, people notice.

A lot of the Southern leaders knew this and were phasing it out, they just didn't particularly care for the idea that a different portion of the country can dictate to them what to do.

I might be more inclined to buy that historical whitewash if institutionalized racism weren't still rampant in the Southern states to this very day (interracial marriage bans not being repealed until literally a couple of years ago in some states), and if the Southern states hadn't vehemently fought things like integrated schooling in the 1960's, and if the Southern states weren't still a hotbed of support for the KKK, and ...

[Sokar]

I disagree, slavery was the catalyst issue for the conflict, but was not the cause for the conflict.

You have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a fuck about that distinction. The fact remains that the southern states unrepentantly fought to keep slavery. Was this just one issue of many? Of course. So what?

Hmmm....need to be more clear I guess then. I again I disagree, I feel its a VERY important distinction between catalyst and cause.

My main thrust is that The South did not fight FOR slavery , but for the right to determine the when and how that slavery would be regulated, and in time abolished. By 1860 it was fairly obvious that the days of slavery were numbered.

No new slaves had been legaly imported in almost twenty years as the Dutch and Portugese slavers that supplied slaves to North, Central, and South America as well as the Carribean had been shut down due to eiether internal or international pressures. Also new technologies were on the horizon that would oviate the need and cost effectiveness of slavery. Contrary to popular belief , slavery is not this uber effective labor system where products and profits are somehow magically higher than your normal factory, sure it was somewhat, but slaves had been brought to the Americas to make up for a massive labor shortage in the early 1700's , by 1860, the population and labor pool along with the move toward industrialization were making slaves actually a wasteful aspect of Southern agriculture and industry.

The issue again , which is clouded by the overt focus on slavery that modern populist history puts on it, was states rights to internal regulation. the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia, Mississippi, Lousiana, and Texas and Arkansas all secceded in order to preserve the right to regulate their own internal affairs rather than some Senator n Washington. Were there pro-slave commanders in the Confederate Army, certainly, but there wer also plenty of racist bigots in Blue as well, who;s opinions of blacks were often worse than thoes self same pro-slave Confederates. For a majority of the Souther troops though , 99% of which had never once owned a slave, the issue was the rights of their home states. Similarly, the Federal troops viewed the Conferates as rebels to the government, hence the idea of 'Johnny Reb' as they called the Confederates. It wasnt till late war levies in the North, that troops counted slavery as an issue in the conflict.

[Trytostaydead]

..and what does that have ANY bearing to do with the movie though? The movie was not about the politics of slavery. It wasn't even about the politics of state rights versus federal. It was about the people who fought and led the battles.

[AdmiralKanos]

Sokar, as I've said before, I have a lot of trouble buying the notion that the South was no more racist than the North before the Civil War when it has been so much more racist since then and continuing to the present day. Need I remind you that 40% of Alabama voters voted to keep interracial marriage illegal just two years ago?

[Sokar]

So, then what's your point? Every side has laws, issues, etc that's morally ambiguous or wrong. Almost everything the British did we can say they were horrible people and should be condemned in the annals of History. The French, Spaniards, and Portugese.. all EVIL then. Why do we make movies about the heroism of them then? Why do we glorify them in such movies as Zulu, or 1492, etc etc? Each side has facets they are not proud of.

Sure, and every time someone tries to whitewash it, people notice.

A lot of the Southern leaders knew this and were phasing it out, they just didn't particularly care for the idea that a different portion of the country can dictate to them what to do.

I might be more inclined to buy that historical whitewash if institutionalized racism weren't still rampant in the Southern states to this very day (interracial marriage bans not being repealed until literally a couple of years ago in some states), and if the Southern states hadn't vehemently fought things like integrated schooling in the 1960's, and if the Southern states weren't still a hotbed of support for the KKK, and ...

Much of that instituionalized racisim and bigotry is a direct result of the harsh treatment of the South during the War , and especially during Reconstruction when the south was occupied by Northern troops for over six humiliating years while policy was dictated to them from Washington, the exact state of affairs they had fought to avoid. The reaction , was to demonize and punish the former slaves , who so many Northern soliders said they had fought the war to free....

The KKK's establishmet was as a partisan resistance group during Reconstruction that also took up the racist attitudes and used them to stir up resentment and trouble in the occupied south. That the organization still exists is a sorry state of affairs.

I might add that I am NOT attempting to white-wash slavery in any way. it is an abhorrent system that should have never been instituted in the Americas and much of our social and regional conflicts today could have been avoided by having never engaged in slave trading or use. As it was , slavery was wide spread and common through out the new world colonies. If you think American slavery was bad, do some reading on the British Sugar Slave plantations in the West Indies, many of which were virtual Death Camps. American slaves were a valued commodity that despite the excesses of some plantation owners, were often relativly well cared for as compared to slaves in Mexico, the West Indies and South America. But from these other regions, where slavery was eventually phased out as societal pressures and economics ended the need for them , (the best example being Brazil, where 70% of the population has slave origins)you do not have the sharp divide in race relations or this social problems that the slave issue is traced to in the US.

[AdmiralKanos]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Even the enduring legacy of Southern racism and bigotry is blamed on the North now?

[Sokar]

Sokar, as I've said before, I have a lot of trouble buying the notion that the South was no more racist than the North before the Civil War when it has been so much more racist since then and continuing to the present day. Need I remind you that 40% of Alabama voters voted to keep interracial marriage illegal just two years ago?

Prior to the war, I dont think eiether side was more or less racist than the other. Some people reviled blacks and others saw then as they should as fellow men , or had no opinion eiether way. In the post war situation though , the slaves had been forcibly emancipated, and the Southeners made them the scapegoat for their own anger at losing and being mistreated by the Northern authorities.

Racisim was endemic to the entire country norht included , not just the south , sure the Northern states did away with segregation laws swifter than the south , who saw their foot dragging and resistance as a tribute to all the soliders who had fought and dided for what they saw as southern liberty, but then the North had subscribed to the idea of complete Federal control from the beginning.

[Sokar]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Even the enduring legacy of Southern racism and bigotry is blamed on the North now?

No, racisim and bigotry was there before the war and after , but the end result of the war crystalized that bigotry across a broad spectrum, and made it endemic and virulent to much of the South.

I should clarify that I couch my arguments in the mind set of the time, when the idea that African slaves were a diffrent race, an actual diffrent species of homo-sapiens, was wide spread and an accepted facet of palo-earchelolgy. You could be a Northern gentlmen of learning and social position and believe that Africans were an inferior species to Caucasians and were to be survile and subservient to their social and racial superiors , and few would bat so much as an eye.

[Trytostaydead]

I don't think he gets it.. but let's try it on the extreme..

If someone made a movie about Rommel the Desert Fox, what would you think? Goddamn Nazi?

Or maybe just about the average Wermacht soldier who was no SS, but might not have liked the average Jew.. verboten right?

Those are the extremes of course, and that particular war was about conquest. The Civil War to the these people was not an issue of slavery. To the characters in Gods and Generals, the issue was home, honor and God. If it makes you feel any better, yes, most did not like slavery. As Sokar is trying to tell you, you're pushing an issue that is not really an issue. Historians will tell you slavery was being phased out. The fight was over soverignty of states over federal.. home vs. union.. brother vs. brother. If you're stuck on slavery, good for you.. join NAACP or ACLU if it'll make you feel better.

[AdmiralKanos]

I don't think he gets it.. but let's try it on the extreme..

If someone made a movie about Rommel the Desert Fox, what would you think? Goddamn Nazi?

If he hadn't tried to kill Hitler, yes.

Or maybe just about the average Wermacht soldier who was no SS, but might not have liked the average Jew.. verboten right?

If it tried to portray him as a basically noble person, yes. The Nazi whitewash is quite shameful too. To this day, the Germans insist on pretending that Hitler dragged them along on his anti-Semitic ride and they weren't really aware of it. The only thing worse than an historical abomination is the inevitable subsequent whitewash.

If you're stuck on slavery, good for you.. join NAACP or ACLU if it'll make you feel better.

Yes, how silly of me to think that Southern racism, bigotry, and slavery are something to be concerned about

[Trytostaydead]

Well, the last part was kind of cynical.. I think the NAACP is one of the most racist groups out there now

I didn't say ignore. It's just not an issue for this movie. If every civil war movie had to be about racism and bigotry, wouldn't we just be promoting more racism and self-conciousness?

[Darth Wong]

Well, the last part was kind of cynical.. I think the NAACP is one of the most racist groups out there now

And you were accusing me of acting like them in a not-so-subtle fashion. Do you think I don't fucking get it?

I didn't say ignore. It's just not an issue for this movie. If every civil war movie had to be about racism and bigotry, wouldn't we just be promoting more racism and self-conciousness?

What the fuck kind of logic is that? It promotes racism to talk about it? Have you been inhaling exhaust fumes?

[Sokar]

*sigh* I was having fun with this conversation too, oh well some one had to drag the Nazis and NAACP in to it......Shit, its 4am here and I have to work at noon.....night all , Lord Wong , maybe we'll take this up again later?

Till next time
Sokar Out *stepsthroughstargatewithHellGuard*