← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 5070 | Posts: 32 | Started: 2003-02-18
2003-02-18 00:20 | User Profile
[url=http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/chuckwagon.html]Gods and Generals[/url]
by Chuck Baldwin
This Friday, February 21, 2003, a blockbuster movie produced by Ron Maxwell will debut in theaters across America. It is titled Gods And Generals, and it is one movie you must go see!
Gods And Generals is the second of a movie trilogy by Maxwell about the War Between the States. Gettysburg was the first, and there is yet one more in the works.
Gods And Generals could be the most influential and powerful movie to be released since Braveheart. It has the potential to change the hearts, minds, and attitudes of millions of people who disdain the Old Confederacy, who misunderstand Southern slavery, and who hold Christianity in contempt.
The film portrays the life and battlefield campaigns of Lt. General Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson. Any truthful depiction of General Jackson must include his deep Christian convictions. This movie captures those convictions in great detail. In fact, Christianity permeates this movie.
One of Jackson's premier biographers, James "Bud" Robertson, was on hand throughout the filming to help insure the movie's historical accuracy. He said Gods And Generals is "the greatest Civil War movie I have ever seen, and I have seen them all."
Historian Bill Kauffman said, "Gods and Generals is not only the finest movie ever made about the Civil War, it is also the best American historical film. Period."
The movie is produced by Ted Turner Pictures (believe it or not) and was filmed in and around Sharpsburg, Maryland, the site of the Antietam Battlefield, and on actual historical locations in Virginia and West Virginia.
Veteran actor Robert Duvall plays Robert E. Lee and Stephen Lang plays Jackson. You will also see several actors from the movie Gettysburg reprise their roles in this film.
New characters introduced in Gods And Generals are "Stonewall" Jackson, Mary Anna Morrison Jackson, Myra Hancock, and Fanny Chamberlain. The film is rated PG-13 for battlefield violence.
I encourage all my readers to take advantage of this opportunity to watch a rare, rich, and truly remarkable film. Go see Gods And Generals!
2003-02-18 05:36 | User Profile
I hope it's as good as they say, and far better than Gettysburg, which I've never been able to watch all the way through. As soon as the sanctimonious Yanks began their little sermons - in the heat of battle, of course - I couldn't help rolling my eyes and reaching for the remote.
2003-02-18 13:43 | User Profile
I hope it does not make the leaders of the South into Frankfurt School anti-"Racists" like many so-called neo-CSA types do, I rather have it bash the CSA as "Racists". Rember this Film was made by UN loving Ted Turner.
Yes Ron Howard's upcoming Alamo Film looks like it will be very bad!
2003-02-18 17:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Feb 18 2003, 07:43 ** Yes Ron Howard's upcoming Alamo Film looks like it will be very bad! **
Ron Howard left the film and it is now being finished by another director. I read his name just the other day, but now I can't recall it for the life of me. The project still doesn't inspire me, from what I've read.
2003-02-18 23:16 | User Profile
From someone with a master's in history, I can't help but feel that some earth-shattering events, such as The War Between The States, should not be made into films. I just find an injustice in the mere effort. The fact of using actors, a screenplay, and all that goes into it, its truly IMPOSSIBLE to accurately portray the REALITY of the situations... and out of respect should not even be attempted. Just my opinion.
2003-02-19 04:44 | User Profile
Historian Bill Kauffman said, "Gods and Generals is not only the finest movie ever made about the Civil War, it is also the best American historical film. Period."
I think "Birth of a Nation" has the best right to be know as "the finest movie ever made about the Civil War..." and may be the most accurate from the stand point of history too!
2003-02-22 02:19 | User Profile
The first reviews are unanimously bad if not scathing.
However, if you sit down and read a few, they all cite the movie's length and tedium as a covering fire for the real reason for the animus -which usually pops up in the third paragraph: how DARE any Hollywitz studio release a film glorifying the American South...which after all is America's, if not the world's, last no-Jew zone! Read a few for yourselves at:
[url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/GodsandGenerals-10000981/]http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/GodsandGen...erals-10000981/[/url]
Sperm & American film critics....the men can't get enough of it, and the women never touch it.
2003-02-23 00:54 | User Profile
Again, it's a war movie that only a re-enactor could love, where cannons blow up earth, but leave bodies whole, and the dead appear to be only napping.
Another of my gripes about Gettysburg. When a man gets hit with an exploding shell, he goes flying through the air alright - in pieces.
This prequel to 1993ââ¬â¢s ââ¬ÅGettysburgââ¬Â stresses the gentility and devotion to duty of officers on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line, though its sympathy towards the South grows cloying. - Jeffrey Westhoff
Maybe cloying to you, my dear zhid.
Seeing the Confederate high command gather around a piano to sing ââ¬ÅSilent Nightââ¬Â is more surreal than touching.
He would've been more comfortable if they'd sang Hava Nagilah instead.
"Lousy jew-hating redneck bastids!"
2003-02-23 01:01 | User Profile
Needless to say, this adaptation of Jeffrey Shaara's best-seller is one of the biggest disappointments in recent cinema, a stodgy, dull, Southern-apologist rehash of the first half of the Civil War.....
The author, Rebbe Jeff Vice:
[img]http://deseretnews.com/logos/vice.jpg[/img]
2003-02-23 03:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Feb 19 2003, 04:44 ** I think "Birth of a Nation" has the best right to be know as "the finest movie ever made about the Civil War..." and may be the most accurate from the stand point of history too! **
I agree 100%.
My pappy was a FOOF (In the 60s, that meant "Friend Of Old Films"). One of the highlights of my young life was in 1962 when I was 12, and pappy and his buds got a good copy of The Birth of a Nation, hired a 14-piece orchestra, and played it at a local theatre on Sunday night the way Griffith meant it to be seen. I became a Lillian Gish fan that night, but the rest of it was splendid too.
Let me also point out that this was way up north and the Civil Rights Movement was in full flower. Youngsters might find this hard to swallow, but there was serious white racial solidarity all over the country at one time -- among regular working folks anyway. A few years later, a half-million Buckeyes voted for Gearge Wallace, that's how serious. And it's a-coming again.
I plan to see Gods and Generals based entirely on who hates it.
2003-02-23 03:36 | User Profile
Ragnar,
Great Post! Yes Lillian Gish was Great!
I hate PC Southerners who make the leaders of the CSA into Frankfurt School anti-"Racists" like many so-called "Sothern Nationalists" do, more than "Liberals," who bash the CSA as "Racist." Rember this Film was made by UN loving Ted Turner.
2003-02-23 04:44 | User Profile
A Christian reviewer thinks it is a great film:
'None of us were prepared for what we saw that day -- what can only be described as the most compelling and distinctively Christian tribute to principled biblical leadership that this generation has seen on celluloid.'
[url=http://www.visionforum.com/aboutvf/prescor/newsletter/0302/]Review[/url]
2003-02-23 16:23 | User Profile
I have just seen Gods and Generals and regard it as the best historical film that I ever seen. Indeed, I am suprised that a film with this much soul could be produced and distributed in these days. The number of conventions that it confronts are numerous: the justice of the Southern cause, the relationship of the races, the character of the Confederate leaders and men, the ill behaviour of the Union troops, et al. Even a cameo of Ted Turner dressed as a reb officer singing the "Bonnie Blue Flag" with gusto. Perhaps a few years close to Jane Fonda"s bosom brought him to the light. Jackson's oratory before his men is stunning and a tour-de- force by Steven Lang, and one would do well to compare it with the tripe we get from today's leaders. There was only one sermonette by Joshua Chamber on slavery and the use of "darkie" by his aid. it was easy to endure considering the overall greatness of the film.
2003-02-23 17:19 | User Profile
I saw the film last night. It was a very un-Hollywood type of movie.
Most mainstream Hollywood movies deal with historical matters through the lenses of modern politically correct thought. It does not matter if the historical setting of a movie occurs in ancient Rome, the Middle-Ages or the wild American West ââ¬â you can be sure all of the dialog will reflect the values of the 21st century modern establishment. The heroes in such movies always have the proper attitudes concerning diversity, feminism, religion, etc.
Gods and Generals is a movie that attempts to frame the Civil War in the terms of that time. Both the Union and Confederate thoughts of the war were shown in a balanced manner. While the movie was in no sense a pro-Confederate portrayal, it in no way attempted to demonize the South. And I believe that much of a modern audience who has been indoctrinated with the simple ââ¬Ågood versus evilââ¬Â mindset will feel vaguely uncomfortable seeing the Confederate Flag flying proudly. The modern audience has for too long been trained that the Confederacy can only be equated with Evil Nazis, Racists, Sexists, Evil Monsters from outer space etc. Seeing the Confederacy portrayed in a somewhat sympathetic manner is bound to set off the internal ââ¬ÅThought Crimeââ¬Â warning alarms in much of the audience.
Gods and Generals is also a long movie that has complex dialog. Most Hollywood movies are short movies with short scenes. Such Hollywood movies tend to have quick and cynical dialog usually laced with some sort of sexual innuendo. The dialog in Gods and Generals tended to be long and idealistic. I believe that much of a modern audience will find this dialog to sound stilted and rather corny.
Christianity was also portrayed in a shocking manner. I canââ¬â¢t remember how long has it been that I have seen the hero in the movie praying and reading Scripture. In a typical Hollywood movie you can be sure that a devout Christian character will be a psycho.
The modern movie audience is much more at ease with watching explicit sexuality on the screen than seeing a man pray. I had to believe that much of the audience was squirming in their seats when Stonewall Jackson and his wife were in prayer together before he left for War. The modern audience would more expect that this should contain an erotic sex scene. As such, seeing a couple have sex on the screen has become rather ho-hum. Seeing a couple kneel and pray is rather provocative.
The battle scenes in the movie are quite well done. The movie gives you the sense of the horror of war without showing unnecessary gore. Most recent war movies have been in a competition of sorts of seeing who can out do the other in the gore department (movies such as Saving Private Ryan and We Were Soldiers come to mind.) Gods and Generals is more concerned with the tactics and strategy than showing heads being blown off.
Gods and Generals will be a niche film. I donââ¬â¢t believe that most modern Americans will enjoy this movie. The movie is too long and complex and it wades dangerously into politically incorrect waters. But for those who are prepared to see something quite different, I highly recommend this film.
2003-02-23 17:45 | User Profile
Again, it's a war movie that only a re-enactor could love, where cannons blow up earth, but leave bodies whole, and the dead appear to be only napping. Another of my gripes about Gettysburg. When a man gets hit with an exploding shell, he goes flying through the air alright - in pieces.
Silly NBF -- do you expect the gun and weapon hating Holly-woodans to have ANY idea about weapon effects? I mean, the ALIEN (outerspace types, not all those nice gardeners and poolboys) movies all show gross body parts and lots of gore, but to expect one of them to recognize that a human-made instrument would dismember a human (unless it's a legally owned firearm down the street ;) ) -- Oh NO!! Besides, if you showed the Union soliders dismembering, raping, burning, murdering, mutilitating and otherwise doing 'bad'' things to those 'bad' southern men and women... well... that would be disrespecting the good and moral northern soldiers, wouldn't it! (Speaking as an apologetic northerner to all-y'all southerners!)
2003-02-24 06:24 | User Profile
Coming soon from Mouth of the South Productions....... Keep Up A Skeer!: an $80 million Civil War epic dealing unflinchingly with the life, incredible battlefield feats & pro-White racial views of Nathan Bedford Forrest. See him snatch up a Yankee soldier to use as a human shield at Shiloh! See his troops kill a mess of uppity nigras at Fort Pillow! See him become the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan!
Rated ZA (zhid apoplexy)
A man can dream, damn it....
2003-02-24 13:27 | User Profile
I'd pay to see it...
2003-02-28 19:14 | User Profile
Haven't seen it yet but I will,mostly due to the following (bad) review by Roger Ebert. Of all the smirkingly superior pans G&G got, this is the most infuriating ofall...and not because Ebert is the big name among the movie critics but because Ebert has so thoroughly internalized every minute detail & precept of Hollow Man America. For the vain, smug, self-obsessed consumer units Ebert speaks to and for, America is a idea that was born with the end of the Civil War. (Previous to that it had merely been cleared, settled and founded, mostly by uncouth racist louts who killed Indians, enslaved blacks and degraded women. Don't ask what they did to queers, ok?) But since no decent person nowadays would want to be associated with a country full of those sorts of people, America as a nation simply isn't worth paying attention to until the evil Johnny Reb racist-traitors were utterly routed. The Eberts of the world don't even feel comfortable with "United States" until half of them were united at the point of a bayonet: it feels more like the Fed they know and love today.
If none of the above has very much to do with this movie, relax: neither does Roger Ebert's hateful "review".
[url=http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2003/02/022102.html]http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_review.../02/022102.html[/url]
GODS AND GENERALS *1/2 (PG-13)
February 21, 2003
BY ROGER EBERT
Here is a Civil War movie that Trent Lott might enjoy. Less enlightened than "Gone With the Wind," obsessed with military strategy, impartial between South and North, religiously devout, it waits 70 minutes before introducing the first of its two speaking roles for African Americans; "Stonewall" Jackson assures his black cook that the South will free him, and the cook looks cautiously optimistic. If World War II were handled this way, there'd be hell to pay.
The movie is essentially about brave men on both sides who fought and died so that ... well, so that they could fight and die. They are led by generals of blinding brilliance and nobility, although one Northern general makes a stupid error and the movie shows hundreds of his men being slaughtered at great length as the result of it.
The Northerners, one Southerner explains, are mostly Republican profiteers who can go home to their businesses and families if they're voted out of office after the conflict, while the Southerners are fighting for their homes. Slavery is not the issue, in this view, because it would have withered away anyway, although a liberal professor from Maine (Jeff Daniels) makes a speech explaining it is wrong. So we get that cleared up right there, or for sure at Strom Thurmond's birthday party.
The conflict is handled with solemnity worthy of a memorial service. The music, when it is not funereal, sounds like the band playing during the commencement exercises at a sad university. Countless extras line up, march forward and shoot at each other. They die like flies. That part is accurate, although the stench, the blood and the cries of pain are tastefully held to the PG-13 standard. What we know about the war from the photographs of Mathew Brady, the poems of Walt Whitman and the documentaries of Ken Burns is not duplicated here.
Oh, it is a competently made film. Civil War buffs may love it. Every group of fighting men is identified by subtitles, to such a degree that I wondered, fleetingly, if they were being played by Civil War Re-enactment hobbyists who would want to nudge their friends when their group appeared on the screen. Much is made of the film's total and obsessive historical accuracy; the costumes, flags, battle plans and ordnance are all doubtless flawless, although there could have been no Sgt. "Buster" Kilrain in the 20th Maine, for the unavoidable reason that "Buster" was never used as a name until Buster Keaton used it.
The actors do what they can, although you can sense them winding up to deliver pithy quotations. Robert Duvall, playing Gen. Robert E. Lee, learns of Jackson's battlefield amputation and reflects sadly, "He has lost his left arm, and I have lost my right." His eyes almost twinkle as he envisions that one ending up in Bartlett's. Stephen Lang, playing Jackson, has a deathbed scene so wordy, as he issues commands to imaginary subordinates and then prepares himself to cross over the river, that he seems to be stalling. Except for Lee, a nonbeliever, both sides trust in God, just like at the Super Bowl.
Donzaleigh Abernathy plays the other African-American speaking role, that of a maid named Martha who attempts to jump the gun on Reconstruction by staying behind when her white employers evacuate and telling the arriving Union troops it is her own house. Later, when they commandeer it as a hospital, she looks a little resentful. This episode, like many others, is kept so resolutely at the cameo level that we realize material of such scope and breadth can be shoehorned into 3-1/2 hours only by sacrificing depth.
"Gods and Generals" is the kind of movie beloved by people who never go to the movies, because they are primarily interested in something else--the Civil War, for example--and think historical accuracy is a virtue instead of an attribute. The film plays like a special issue of American Heritage. Ted Turner is one of its prime movers and gives himself an instantly recognizable cameo appearance. Since sneak previews must already have informed him that his sudden appearance draws a laugh, apparently he can live with that.
Note: The same director, Ron Maxwell, made the much superior "Gettysburg" (1993), and at the end informs us that the third title in the trilogy will be "The Last Full Measure." Another line from the same source may serve as a warning: "The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here."
Copyright é Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
2003-03-01 03:13 | User Profile
Of course Roger Ebert got a chunky ebony mama for a wife so I guess he had to really go after those "crackers" to make sure he gets some jungle fever lovin. :D
2003-03-01 08:20 | User Profile
Except for Lee, a nonbeliever,* both sides trust in God, just like at the Super Bowl. *
Try to put down the jumbo tub o' buttered popcorn long enough to read a history book, chunky.
2003-03-01 10:35 | User Profile
The Ebert review should be used as an endorsement for this movie. We can see that he not only knows nothing about the history of this period, but what he thinks that he knows shows just how much contempt he hold these brave men in on both sides. Someone who knows how to advertise could use this to reach the folks who would enjoy a movie like this. I can certainly see where a snob like Ebert and the crowd he runs with wouldn`t like it. It would remind them of just what sorry speciments of humanity they truly are, incapable of rising to the occasion as these people did.
"Liberals" (and Neo-cons too) seem to think that the only incidents in American History worth knowing anything about are the "civil rights movement," and, of course the "holocaust." Nothing else that occured is important, only these two events. Everything else is something to be ashamed of and to show repentance over.
2003-03-01 11:47 | User Profile
If Il Ragno had not posted the Ebert review I would not have read it. I still don't believe it. The mixture of arrogance and stupidity is breathtaking.
Somebody one pointed out to me that Roger Ebert started out as a screenwriter or something, and either wrote or is in (or both!) a softcore porn movie. I'll check with a film-freak buddy for details. I'm sure the truth is out there.
A porn film guy reviews Gods and Generals? Sertorius is right, this can only help.
2003-03-01 11:58 | User Profile
Ebert Update
I forgot about imbd. Yup, he did. Ebert scrivved for Cleavage King Russ Meyer:
** Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens (1979) (as R. Hyde)
Up! (1976) (as Reinhold Timme) ... aka Over, Under and Up! (1976) ... aka Russ Meyer's Up (1976) ... aka Up! Smokey (1976)
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970) (screenplay) (story) ... aka Hollywood Vixens (1970) **
Well, yeah. Mister Ultra-Vixens sure has the right credentials to go after Lee & company.
2003-03-01 15:47 | User Profile
Anybody still doubting if Ebert was one of Prof. Ignatiev's charter subscribers had better absorb the following review-excerpts first. Ebert's not a bad movie critic but as a white man, he's a shameful disgrace. Though to his sort, that's the very best kind of white man one can aspire to be.
CRADLE 2 THE GRAVE "Cradle 2 the Grave" will, however, be a box office hit, I imagine, and that will be demographically interesting because it demonstrates that a savvy producer like Silver now believes a white star is completely unnecessary in a mega-budget action picture. At one point, there were only white stars. Then they got to have black buddies. Then they got to have Asian buddies. Then "Rush Hour" proved that black and Asian buddies could haul in the mass audience. Long ago a movie like this used a black character for comic relief. Then an Asian character. Now the white character is the comic relief. May the circle be unbroken. **
MONSTERââ¬â¢S BALL Billy Bob Thornton and Halle Berry star as Hank and Leticia, in two performances that are so powerful because they avoid the pitfalls of racial cliches. What a shock to find these two characters freed from the conventions of political correctness, and allowed to be who they are. They live in a Georgia town, circa 1990; Leticia works the night shift in a diner, has a fat little son and an ex-husband on Death Row; Hank works as a guard on Death Row, has a mean, racist father and a browbeaten son, and will be involved in Leticia's ex-husband's execution. Hank's father Buck (Peter Boyle) is a hateful racist, and Hank mirrors his attitudes. Hank is an abused son and an abusive father. His old man Buck, confined to a wheelchair and a stroller, still exercises an iron will over the family. All three generations live under his roof, and when Hank's son Sonny (Heath Ledger) opts out of the family sickness, Buck's judgment is cruel: "He was weak." The movie then is not about overcoming prejudice, but sidestepping it because it comes to seem monstrously irrelevant.
JUICE It introduces its four central characters as they get up in the morning and venture out from poor but supportive homes into New York streets where, as they perceive it, the person with a gun commands respect. Then the focus tightens, as everything turns wrong, when Bishop (Tupac Shakur) gets his hands on a gun and decides the four of them should stick up the corner store. There is a sense in which **the existence of the gun leads to the necessity of using it; without the cheap handgun, there would be no crime, and lives would be saved. **
THE LIFE OF DAVID GALE One of the things that annoys me is that the story is set in Texas and not just in any old state-- no, the movie is set in Texas, which in a good year all by itself carries out half the executions in America. Death Row in Texas is like the Roach Motel: Roach checks in, doesn't check out. Spacey and Parker are honorable men. Why did they go to Texas and make this silly movie? You can make movies that support capital punishment ("The Executioner's Song") or oppose it ("Dead Man Walking") or are conflicted ("In Cold Blood"). **But while Texas continues to warehouse condemned men with a system involving lawyers who are drunk, asleep or absent; confessions that are beaten out of the helpless, and juries that overwhelmingly prefer to execute black defendants instead of white ones, you can't make this movie. Not in Texas. **
MR. DEATH: THE RISE AND FALL OF FRED A. LEUCHTER JR. Fred Leuchter, the son of a prison warden, an engineer by training, found himself inspired by the need for more efficient and "humane" execution devices. He went to work designing better chairs, trapdoors and lethal injection machines, and soon (his trade not being commonplace) was being consulted by prisons all over the United States. Despite his success in business, he was not terrifically popular. How many women want to date a guy who can chat about the dangers of being accidentally electrocuted while standing in the pool of urine around a recently used electric chair? He does eventually marry a waitress he meets in a doughnut shop; indeed, given his habit of 40 to 60 cups of coffee a day, he must have met a lot of waitresses. Leuchter's trip to Auschwitz was the turning point in his career. He was asked by Ernst Zundel, a neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier, to be an expert witness at his trial in Canada. Leuchter became a favorite after-dinner speaker on the neo-Nazi circuit, and the camera observes how his face lights up and his whole body seems to lean into applause, how happy he is to shake hands with his new friends. Other people might shy away from the pariah status of a Holocaust denier. The hangman is already a pariah and finds his friends where he can. A New Yorker magazine article by Mark Singer wondered whether the film would create sympathy for Leuchter and his fellow deniers. After all, here was a man who lost his wife and his livelihood in the name of a scientific quest. My feeling is that anyone who leaves "Mr. Death" in agreement with Leuchter deserves to join him on the loony fringe. What's scary about the film is the way Leuchter is perfectly respectable up until the time the neo-Nazis get their hooks into him. Those who are appalled by the mass execution of human beings sometimes have no problem when the state executes them one at a time. Early sequences in "Mr. Death" portray Leuchter as a humanitarian who protests that some electric chairs "cook the meat too much." He dreams of a "lethal injection machine" designed like a dentist's chair. The condemned could watch TV or listen to music while the poison works. What a lark. There is irony in the notion that many U.S. states could lavish tax dollars on this man's inventions, only to put him out of work because of his unsavory connections. The ability of so many people to live comfortably with the idea of capital punishment is perhaps a clue to how so many Europeans were able to live with the idea of the Holocaust. Once you accept the notion that the state has the right to kill someone and the right to define what is a capital crime, aren't you halfway there? Poor Fred. What a dope, what a dupe, what a lonely, silly man.**
2003-03-02 17:05 | User Profile
**Despite his success in business, he was not terrifically popular. How many women want to date a guy who can chat about the dangers of being accidentally electrocuted while standing in the pool of urine around a recently used electric chair? **
And who would want to marry an inflamed buttock boil like like him - besides a 300-pound nigra hoochie mama, I mean?
** Poor Fred. What a dope, what a dupe, what a lonely, silly man.**
Takes one to know one, I reckon.
2003-03-02 22:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by N.B. Forrest@Mar 2 2003, 11:05 **
And who would want to marry an inflamed buttock boil like like him - besides a 300-pound nigra hoochie mama, I mean?
**
A photo of the lovely Mrs. Ebert: (second from left) [url=http://www.cinepad.com/fff/studsgroup.jpg]http://www.cinepad.com/fff/studsgroup.jpg[/url]
2003-03-03 10:22 | User Profile
Yow.
Is it me...or does that pic look like three old dykes and a washroom attendant posing for a group portrait?
2003-03-03 15:26 | User Profile
Editor, Entertainment Section, Asbury Park Press;
Eleanor, I'm sort of a Military History buff, and I saw your article in yesterday's Entertainment section.
An awful lot of politically sensitive history never made it to the screen in Gods and Generals.
Starting wirth: [url=http://www.geocities.com/11thkentucky/blackconfed.htm]http://www.geocities.com/11thkentucky/blackconfed.htm[/url] Black Confederates Fact Page by Scott K. Williams Black Confederates Why havenââ¬â¢t we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, ââ¬ÅI donââ¬â¢t want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910ââ¬Â Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a ââ¬Åcover-upââ¬Â which started back in 1865. He writes, ââ¬ÅDuring my research, I came across instances where Black men stated they were soldiers, but you can plainly see where ââ¬Ësoldierââ¬â¢ is crossed out and ââ¬Ëbody servantââ¬â¢ inserted, or ââ¬Ëteamsterââ¬â¢ on pension applications.ââ¬Â Another black historian, Roland Young, says he is not surprised that blacks fought. He explains that ââ¬Åââ¬Â¦some, if not most, Black southerners would support their countryââ¬Â and that by doing so they were ââ¬Ådemonstrating itââ¬â¢s possible to hate the system of slavery and love oneââ¬â¢s country.ââ¬Â This is the very same reaction that most African Americans showed during the American Revolution, where they fought for the colonies, even though the British offered them freedom if they fought for them.
It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, ââ¬Åsaw the elephantââ¬Â also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, ââ¬ÅWill you fight?ââ¬Â Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that ââ¬Åbiracial unitsââ¬Â were frequently organized ââ¬Åby local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raidsââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, ââ¬ÅWhen you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, youââ¬â¢ve eliminated the history of the South.ââ¬Â
As the war came to an end, the Confederacy took progressive measures to build back up it's army. The creation of the Confederate States Colored Troops, copied after the segregated northern colored troops, came too late to be successful. Had the Confederacy been successful, it would have created the world's largest armies (at the time) consisting of black soldiers,even larger than that of the North. This would have given the future of the Confederacy a vastly different appearance than what modern day racist or anti-Confederate liberals conjecture. Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.
The "Richmond Howitzers" were partially manned by black militiamen. They saw action at 1st Manassas (or 1st Battle of Bull Run) where they operated battery no. 2. In addition two black ââ¬Åregimentsââ¬Â, one free and one slave, participated in the battle on behalf of the South. ââ¬ÅMany colored people were killed in the actionââ¬Â, recorded John Parker, a former slave.
At least one Black Confederate was a non-commissioned officer. James Washington, Co. D 34th Texas Cavalry, ââ¬ÅTerrellââ¬â¢s Texas Cavalryââ¬Â became itââ¬â¢s 3rd Sergeant. In comparison, The highest ranking Black Union soldier during the war was a Sergeant Major.
Free black musicians, cooks, soldiers and teamsters earned the same pay as white confederate privates. This was not the case in the Union army where blacks did not receive equal pay. At the Confederate Buffalo Forge in Rockbridge County, Virginia, skilled black workers "earned on average three times the wages of white Confederate soldiers and more than most Confederate army officers ($350- $600 a year).
Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission while observing Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."
Frederick Douglas reported, ââ¬ÅThere are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of theââ¬Â¦rebels.ââ¬Â
Black and white militiamen returned heavy fire on Union troops at the Battle of Griswoldsville (near Macon, GA). Approximately 600 boys and elderly men were killed in this skirmish.
In 1864, President Jefferson Davis approved a plan that proposed the emancipation of slaves, in return for the official recognition of the Confederacy by Britain and France. France showed interest but Britain refused.
The Jackson Battalion included two companies of black soldiers. They saw combat at Petersburg under Col. Shipp. "My men acted with utmost promptness and goodwill...Allow me to state sir that they behaved in an extraordinary acceptable manner."
Recently the National Park Service, with a recent discovery, recognized that blacks were asked to help defend the city of Petersburg, Virginia and were offered their freedom if they did so. Regardless of their official classification, black Americans performed support functions that in today's army many would be classified as official military service. The successes of white Confederate troops in battle, could only have been achieved with the support these loyal black Southerners.
Confederate General John B. Gordon (Army of Northern Virginia) reported that all of his troops were in favor of Colored troops and that itââ¬â¢s adoption would have ââ¬Ågreatly encouraged the armyââ¬Â. Gen. Lee was anxious to receive regiments of black soldiers. The Richmond Sentinel reported on 24 Mar 1864, ââ¬ÅNoneââ¬Â¦will deny that our servants are more worthy of respect than the motley hordes which come against us.ââ¬Â ââ¬ÅBad faith [to black Confederates] must be avoided as an indelible dishonor.ââ¬Â
In March 1865, Judah P. Benjamin, Confederate Secretary Of State, promised freedom for blacks who served from the State of Virginia. Authority for this was finally received from the State of Virginia and on April 1st 1865, $100 bounties were offered to black soldiers. Benjamin exclaimed, ââ¬ÅLet us say to every Negro who wants to go into the ranks, go and fight, and you are freeââ¬Â¦Fight for your masters and you shall have your freedom.ââ¬Â Confederate Officers were ordered to treat them humanely and protect them from "injustice and oppression".
A quota was set for 300,000 black soldiers for the Confederate States Colored Troops. 83% of Richmond's male slave population volunteered for duty. A special ball was held in Richmond to raise money for uniforms for these men. Before Richmond fell, black Confederates in gray uniforms drilled in the streets. Due to the war ending, it is believed only companies or squads of these troops ever saw any action. Many more black soldiers fought for the North, but that difference was simply a difference because the North instituted this progressive policy more sooner than the more conservative South. Black soldiers from both sides received discrimination from whites who opposed the concept .
Union General U.S. Grant in Feb 1865, ordered the capture of ââ¬Åall the Negro menââ¬Â¦ before the enemy can put them in their ranks.ââ¬Â Frederick Douglas warned Lincoln that unless slaves were guaranteed freedom (those in Union controlled areas were still slaves) and land bounties, ââ¬Åthey would take up arms for the rebelsââ¬Â.
On April 4, 1865 (Amelia County, VA), a Confederate supply train was exclusively manned and guarded by black Infantry. When attacked by Federal Cavalry, they stood their ground and fought off the charge, but on the second charge they were overwhelmed. These soldiers are believed to be from "Major Turner's" Confederate command.
A Black Confederate, George _____, when captured by Federals was bribed to desert to the other side. He defiantly spoke, "Sir, you want me to desert, and I ain't no deserter. Down South, deserters disgrace their families and I am never going to do that."
Former slave, Horace King, accumulated great wealth as a contractor to the Confederate Navy. He was also an expert engineer and became known as the ââ¬ÅBridge builder of the Confederacy.ââ¬Â One of his bridges was burned in a Yankee raid. His home was pillaged by Union troops, as his wife pleaded for mercy.
As of Feb. 1865 1,150 black seamen served in the Confederate Navy. One of these was among the last Confederates to surrender, aboard the CSS Shenandoah, six months after the war ended. This surrender took place in England.
Nearly 180,000 Black Southerners, from Virginia alone, provided logistical support for the Confederate military. Many were highly skilled workers. These included a wide range of jobs: nurses, military engineers, teamsters, ordnance department workers, brakemen, firemen, harness makers, blacksmiths, wagonmakers, boatmen, mechanics, wheelwrights, ect. In the 1920'S Confederate pensions were finally allowed to some of those workers that were still living. Many thousands more served in other Confederate States.
During the early 1900ââ¬â¢s, many members of the United Confederate Veterans (UCV) advocated awarding former slaves rural acreage and a home. There was hope that justice could be given those slaves that were once promised ââ¬Åforty acres and a muleââ¬Â but never received any. In the 1913 Confederate Veteran magazine published by the UCV, it was printed that this plan ââ¬ÅIf not Democratic, it is [the] Confederateââ¬Â thing to do. There was much gratitude toward former slaves, which ââ¬Åthousands were loyal, to the last degreeââ¬Â, now living with total poverty of the big cities. Unfortunately, their proposal fell on deaf ears on Capitol Hill.
During the 5oth Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg in 1913, arrangements were made for a joint reunion of Union and Confederate veterans. The commission in charge of the event made sure they had enough accommodations for the black Union veterans, but were completely surprised when unexpected black Confederates arrived. The white Confederates immediately welcomed their old comrades, gave them one of their tents, and ââ¬Åsaw to their every needââ¬Â. Nearly every Confederate reunion including those blacks that served with them, wearing the gray.
The first military monument in the US Capitol that honors an African-American soldier is the Confederate monument at Arlington National cemetery. The monument was designed 1914 by Moses Ezekiel, a Jewish Confederate. Who wanted to correctly portray the ââ¬Åracial makeupââ¬Â in the Confederate Army. A black Confederate soldier is depicted marching in step with white Confederate soldiers. Also shown is one ââ¬Åwhite soldier giving his child to a black woman for protectionââ¬Â.- source: Edward Smith, African American professor at the American University, Washington DC.
Black Confederate heritage is beginning to receive the attention it deserves. For instance, Terri Williams, a black journalist for the Suffolk ââ¬ÅVirginia Pilotââ¬Â newspaper, writes: ââ¬ÅIââ¬â¢ve had to re-examine my feelings toward the [Confederate] flagââ¬Â¦It started when I read a newspaper article about an elderly black man whose ancestor worked with the Confederate forces. The man spoke with pride about his family memberââ¬â¢s contribution to the cause, was photographed with the [Confederate] flag draped over his lapââ¬Â¦thatââ¬â¢s why I now have no definite stand on just what the flag symbolizes, because it no longer is their history, or my history, but our history.ââ¬Â
Books:
Charles Kelly Barrow, et.al. Forgotten Confederates: An Anthology About Black Southerners (1995). Currently the best book on the subject.
Ervin L. Jordan, Jr. Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (1995). Well researched and very good source of information on Black Confederates, but has a strong Union bias.
Richard Rollins. Black Southerners in Gray (1994). Also an excellent source.
Dr. Edward Smith and Nelson Winbush, ââ¬ÅBlack Southern Heritageââ¬Â. An excellent educational video. Mr. Winbush is a descendent of a Black Confederate and a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV).
This fact sheet is provided by Scott Williams. It is not an all inclusive list of Black Confederates, only a small sampling of accounts. For general historical information on Black Confederates, contact Dr. Edward Smith, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20016; Dean of American Studies. Dr. Smith is a black professor dedicated to clarifying the historical role of African Americans.
Next, Free Black Slaveowners: From The Barnes Review: Free, slave-holding, and prosperous property-owning blacks were quite numerous before the Civil War, but are a banished lost tribe within the pages of establishment history.
In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically. The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states. The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves.
Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves). In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters. The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates. In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978.
In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings.
In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners. In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master. At birth he was given the name April. A common practice among slaves of the period was to name a child after the day or month of his or her birth.
Between 1800 and 1802 April was purchased by a white slave-owner named William Ellison. Apprenticed at 12, he was taught the trades of carpentry, blacksmithing and machining, as well as how to read, write, cipher and do basic bookkeeping. On June 8, 1816, William Ellison appeared before a magistrate (with five local freeholders as supporting witnesses) to gain permission to free April, now 26 years of age. In 1800 the South Carolina legislature had set out in detail the procedures for manumission. To end the practice of freeing unruly slaves of "bad or depraved" character and those who "from age or infirmity" were incapacitated, the state required that an owner testify under oath to the good character of the slave he sought to free. Also required was evidence of the slave's "ability to gain a livelihood in an honest way." Although lawmakers of the time could not envision the incredibly vast public welfare structures of a later age, these stipulations became law in order to prevent slaveholders from freeing individuals who would become a burden on the general public. Interestingly, considering today's accounts of life under slavery, authors Johnson and Roak report instances where free Negroes petitioned to be allowed to become slaves; this because they were unable to support themselves. Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (University Press of Virginia-1995) was written by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., an African-American and assistant professor and associate curator of the Special Collections Department, University of Virginia library. He wrote: "One of the more curious aspects of the free black existence in Virginia was their ownership of slaves. Black slave masters owned members of their family and freed them in their wills. Free blacks were encouraged to sell themselves into slavery and had the right to choose their owner through a lengthy court procedure." In 1816, shortly after his manumission, April moved to Stateburg. Initially he hired slave workers from local owners. When in 1817 he built a gin for Judge Thomas Watries, he credited the judge nine dollars "for hire of carpenter George for 12 days." By 1820 he had purchased two adult males to work in his shop. In fewer than four years after being freed, April demonstrated that he had no problem perpetuating an institution he had been released from. He also achieved greater monetary success than most white people of the period. On June 20, 1820, April appeared in the Sumter District courthouse in Sumterville. Described in court papers submitted by his attorney as a "freed yellow man of about 29 years of age," he requested a name change because it "would yet greatly advance his interest as a tradesman." A new name would also "save him and his children from degradation and contempt which the minds of some do and will attach to the name April." Because "of the kindness" of his former master and as a "Mark of gratitude and respect for him" April asked that his name be changed to William Ellison. His request was granted. In time the black Ellison family joined the predominantly white Episcopalian church. On August 6, 1824 he was allowed to put a family bench on the first floor, among those of the wealthy white families. Other blacks, free and slave, and poor whites sat in the balcony. Another wealthy Negro family would later join the first floor worshippers. Between 1822 and the mid-1840s, Ellison gradually built a small empire, acquiring slaves in increasing numbers. He became one of South Carolina's major cotton gin manufacturers, selling his machines as far away as Mississippi. From February 1817 until the War Between the States commenced, his business advertisements appeared regularly in newspapers across the state. These included the Camden Gazette, the Sumter Southern Whig and the Black River Watchman.
Ellison was so successful, due to his utilization of cheap slave labor, that many white competitors went out of business. Such situations discredit impressions that whites dealt only with other whites. Where money was involved, it was apparent that neither Ellison's race or former status were considerations. In his book, Ervin L. Jordan Jr. writes that, as the great conflagration of 1861-1865 approached: "Free Afro-Virginians were a nascent black middle class under siege, but several acquired property before and during the war. Approximately 169 free blacks owned 145,976 acres in the counties of Amelia, Amherst, Isle of Wight, Nansemond, Prince William and Surry, averaging 870 acres each. Twenty-rune Petersburg blacks each owned property worth $1,000 and continued to purchase more despite the war." Jordan offers an example: "Gilbert Hunt, a Richmond ex-slave blacksmith, owned two slaves, a house valued at $1,376, and $500 in other properties at his death in 1863." Jordan wrote that "some free black residents of Hampton and Norfolk owned property of considerable value; 17 black Hamptonians possessed property worth a total of $15,000. Thirty-six black men paid taxes as heads of families in Elizabeth City County and were employed as blacksmiths, bricklayers, fishermen, oystermen and day laborers. In three Norfolk County parishes 160 blacks owned a total of $41,158 in real estate and personal property. The general practice of the period was that plantation owners would buy seed and equip~ ment on credit and settle their outstanding accounts when the annual cotton crop was sold. Ellison, like all free Negroes, could resort to the courts for enforcement of the terms of contract agreements. Several times Ellison successfully sued white men for money owed him. In 1838 Ellison purchased on time 54.5 acres adjoining his original acreage from one Stephen D. Miller. He moved into a large home on the property. What made the acquisition notable was that Miller had served in the South Carolina legislature, both in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and while a resident of Stateburg had been governor of the state. Ellison's next door neighbor was Dr. W.W. Anderson, master of "Borough House, a magnificent 18th Century mansion. Anderson's son would win fame in the War Between the States as General "Fighting Dick" Anderson. By 1847 Ellison owned over 350 acres, and more than 900 by 1860. He raised mostly cotton, with a small acreage set aside for cultivating foodstuffs to feed his family and slaves. In 1840 he owned 30 slaves, and by 1860 he owned 63. His sons, who lived in homes on the property, owned an additional nine slaves. They were trained as gin makers by their father. They had spent time in Canada, where many wealthy American Negroes of the period sent their children for advanced formal education. Ellison's sons and daughters married mulattos from Charleston, bringing them to the Ellison plantation to live. In 1860 Ellison greatly underestimated his worth to tax assessors at $65,000. Even using this falsely stated figure, this man who had been a slave 44 years earlier had achieved great financial success. His wealth outdistanced 90 percent of his white neighbors in Sumter District. In the entire state, only five percent owned as much real estate as Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the state's average for whites. And Ellison owned more slaves than 99 percent of the South's slaveholders. Although a successful businessman and cotton farmer, Ellison's major source of income derived from being a "slave breeder." Slave breeding was looked upon with disgust throughout the South, and the laws of most southern states forbade the sale of slaves under the age of 12. In several states it was illegal to sell inherited slaves. Nevertheless, in 1840 Ellison secretly began slave breeding. While there was subsequent investment returns in raising and keeping young males, females were not productive workers in his factory or his cotton fields. As a result, except for a few females he raised to become "breeders," Ellison sold the female and many of the male children born to his female slaves at an average price of $400. Ellison had a reputation as a harsh master. His slaves were said to be the district's worst fed and clothed. On his property was located a small, windowless building where he would chain his problem slaves. As with the slaves of his white counterparts, occasionally Ellison's slaves ran away. The historians of Sumter District reported that from time to time Ellison advertised for the return of his runaways. On at least one occasion Ellison hired the services of a slave catcher. According to an account by Robert N. Andrews, a white man who had purchased a small hotel in Stateburg in the 1820s, Ellison hired him to run down "a valuable slave. Andrews caught the slave in Belleville, Virginia. He stated: "I was paid on returning home $77.50 and $74 for expenses. William Ellison died December 5, 1861. His will stated that his estate should pass into the joint hands of his free daughter and his two surviving sons. He bequeathed $500 to the slave daughter he had sold. Following in their father's footsteps, the Ellison family actively supported the Confederacy throughout the war. They converted nearly their entire plantation to the production of corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks and cotton for the Confederate armies. They paid $5,000 in taxes during the war. They also invested more than $9,000 in Confederate bonds, treasury notes and certificates in addition to the Confederate currency they held. At the end, all this valuable paper became worthless. The younger Ellisons contributed more than farm produce, labor and money to the Confederate cause. On March 27, 1863 John Wilson Buckner, William Ellison's oldest grandson, enlisted in the 1st South Carolina Artillery. Buckner served in the company of Captains P.P. Galliard and A.H. Boykin, local white men who knew that Buckner was a Negro. Although it was illegal at the time for a Negro to formally join the Confederate forces, the Ellison family's prestige nullified the law in the minds of Buckner's comrades. Buckner was wounded in action on July 12, 1863. At his funeral in Stateburg in August, 1895 he was praised by his former Confederate officers as being a "faithful soldier." Following the war the Ellison family fortune quickly dwindled. But many former Negro slave magnates quickly took advantage of circumstances and benefited by virtue of their race. For example Antoine Dubuclet, the previously mentioned New Orleans plantation owner who held more than 100 slaves, became Louisiana state treasurer during Reconstruction, a post he held from 1868 to 1877 (10). A truer picture of the Old South, one never presented by the nation's mind molders, emerges from this account. The American South had been undergoing structural evolutionary changes far, far greater than generations of Americans have been led to believe. In time, within a relatively short time, the obsolete and economically nonviable institution of slavery would have disappeared. The nation would have been spared awesome traumas from which it would never fully recover. Source: The Barnes Review, 1(13) 1995 , pp. 17-22.
Charles Harris comments that many of the Confederate Generals were slave owners. true, but Union General U.s.. Grant owned 4 slaves. At the outbreak of the war, he gave them to his wife. Mrs. Grant kept the after the so-called "Emancipation Proclamation", which actuall did not emancipate a single slave.
Please feel free to pass this information on, especially to Mr. Harris.
Sincerely,
Ed Toner Brick NJ 08724 732-840-4203
2003-03-03 16:36 | User Profile
Ed - Your efforts are appreciated. With all due respect however, we're having a tough time down here convincing white Southerners that they have a right to exist apart from bent knee deification of the glorious contributions of the noble black man to our otherwise senseless cause. I went to see this movie, Gods and Generals, the other day, and I was pleasantly shocked by the missing batallions of H.K. Edgertons leading our fathers into battle. The negroes who were included were fully dressed out in their humble gazes toward the heaven of ultimate Godly recompense of course, the white man oblivious to it all, but for the most part I was very entertained by the silly idea that there was a time when white men did indeed stand practically alone.
2003-03-03 18:18 | User Profile
Reviews in the mainstream media are demeaning Gods and Generals and trying to dissuade the public from seening it. Although the pro-southern focus of the film is mentioned, criticism seems to focus on the length and tedium of the film rather than a historical/political clubbing. Reviewers know that the public knows little about history and does not like to sit through a lengthy bore; the best way to hurt it at the box office is therefore to render it a poorly spent four hours. Word-of-mouth seems to outflanked this falsehood, and attendance seems to be good.
2003-03-05 07:03 | User Profile
Ruffin,
Great Post. "With all due respect however, we're having a tough time down here convincing white Southerners that they have a right to exist apart from bent knee deification of the glorious contributions of the noble black man to our otherwise senseless cause."
You might like these threads
The Rainbow Confederacy? NOT! [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=427]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...ct=ST&f=6&t=427[/url]
On the so-called Black Confederates [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=1301&hl=black+confederates]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...ck+confederates[/url]
There never were any 'Black Confederate soldiers' [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=4563&hl=black+confederates]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...ck+confederates[/url]
Lying About the Civil War [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=5027&hl=black+confederates]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...ck+confederates[/url]
On the so-called "Mexican Confederates" [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=1302&hl=civil+war]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...02&hl=civil+war[/url]
2003-03-19 21:55 | User Profile
I have seen this movie three times. It is the best movie ever made, including Gone With the Wind.
Roger Ebert hating it was an endorsement enough for me.