Have you Seen "Gods and Generals"?

[Dr. Bob]

Much discussion here is by folks who seem unable to grasp the causes and course of the late great unpleasantness.

Probably one of the most accurate books/movies of late is Gods and Generals. It uses actual recorded dialog, primary source diaries, etc, with little Hollywood embellishment.

As long as we are cluttering the General Forum with lots of threads can we just ask each participant to simply answer:

(1) Watched the movie/read the book? Yes or No
(2) Think it is an accurate portrayal? Yes or No
(3) Would recommend folks watch/read it to understand 1861? Yes or No

I bought a cheap VHS copy since my DVD always skips and bucks and I hate it. BUT I am appalled at how narrow the pix is and feel robbed of the movie experience.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
(1) Watched the movie/read the book? Yes or No
(2) Think it is an accurate portrayal? Yes or No
(3) Would recommend folks watch/read it to understand 1861? Yes or No

1. Yes - the DVD.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

Having watched both this movie and Gettysburg I find it revealing that the "critics" loved Gettysburg which was a Yankee victory and hated Gods & Generals which showed the CSA winning the major battles and focused on a very godly man, General Stonewall Jackson. It also showed the Yankees as being the racists that they were. It also showed the agony of an Irish battalion of the South and an Irish battalion of the North shooting at each other.

I almost didn't watch Gods & Generals because of what the "critics" said, but I saw no difference in the acting or in the level of re-enactment from Gettysburg. But I bet the "critics" will love the third installment since the CSA will surrender in that one.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I was in Gettysburg but missed the filming of G&G. Battle scenes in the new version were better and the dialog and development of characters - christian and not, home front and battle - were far superior.

And think Ted Turner is about as ANTI-christian as you can get.

 

[KenH]

Here are some reviews of the Gods & Generals - www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/godsandgenerals.html

 

[Tanker]

I watched Gods and Generals and enjoyed it. I didn't pay much attention to any supposed bias or ideological slant. But I strongly disagree with the apologists for the south as expressed in this forum. I think they misrepresent some of the most important elements of the war. The criticism of Lincoln by such apologists is usually based on inaccurate and incomplete information, such as the lie that the war was about state's rights. It was essentially about the right to spread slavery, maybe if you want to consider that state's rights, then it fits, but it misrepresents and sugar coats the ugly nature of the southern power structure. It is true that the ordinary southern citizen was not calling the shots. It was the slave owning aristocracy that caused the rebellion.

Even from their own viewpoint, it was ill advised. Slavery was ended much sooner than it would have been otherwise. They cut off their nose to spite their face.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Tanker:
But I strongly disagree with the apologists for the south as expressed in this forum.

And I strongly disagree with the apologists for the North as expressed in this forum.

Now that we have settled that, let's go have a soft drink.

 

[Rick Sr.]

AMEN Brother Ken.

 

[mioque]

(1) Watched the movie/read the book?
No. You see, both the book and the film are practically unavailable overhere. Neither 'Gettysburg' nor 'Gods & Generals' ever reached Dutch shores.

Films about American sports with hardly a fanbase in the netherlands (baseball for example) regularly make it into Dutch movietheaters (where they usually bomb).

Pathetic displays of US jingoïsm defile moviescreens from Maastricht to Den helder, leaving a bad taste in the mouth of moviegoers who don't even like glorious wellcrafted displays of American national pride, because they have no reason whatsoever to be proud to be an American (mostly because they aren't US citizens).

Most things produced by American filmmakers with anything resembling a budget, will cross the pond, no matter how bad it is.
But Gods&Generals hasn't. I have no idea why.


(2) Think it is an accurate portrayal?
No idea. To be honest, on this side of the Atlantic, the civil war is mostly remembered as that war going on in the background of films like Sergi Leone's spaghetti western 'The good, the bad and the ugly.' Considering the huge hit that film and several others featuring the civil war were, I'd say that films about the war between the states can be marketed quite well overhere

(3) Would recommend folks watch/read it to understand 1861?
No idea.

 

[Xingyi Warrior]

I really liked the movie because it focussed on the life and role of Stonewall Jackson rather than Lee, Grant, etc... which is usually the norm in Hollywood productions of this sort. Its sort of along the lines of other movies such as North & South that gave a face to both sides during the confict and showed that they were both human and worshipped the same God, but were divided by ideological differences. Although now we know that slavery is wrong, at the time of the Civil War it was an institution that had been established and accepted for millenia in many cultures throughout the world. It was a critical part of the Southern economy. The civil war began for a variety of underying reasons and Lincoln did not initially want to make slavery an issue.

 

[Bob Alkire]

1. Yes - the DVD.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

As was show in the movie Lee wasn't for secession, but he was a Virginian first as was most people of that time, their state first then the federal goverment. That goes along with all the history that I've read.
Jackson was a unique person.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

1. Yes - the DVD.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

I thought it was an excellent movie.

 

[Jimmy C]

1. I have read everything I can get my hands on form he and his (deceased) dad, loved the movie as well.

2. Yes

3. Yes, the movie seemed to lean a bit more heavily to the southern perspective than did the book but the movie was already quite long, to cover more of the book it would have to have been done like the Lord of the Rings and the south basically controlled the war up to that point. He covers Lee very well in his book about the spanish war, and made Jackson come to life in Gods and Generals. I have really enjoyed the way he has shown these leaders as strong principled men. The early northern leaders come across as incompetent idiots, Lee might have been able to take Washington if he had known how bad they were.

 

[Deacon]

I thought the book was slow, the authors dad did a much better job in "Killer Angels".

I never did get around to seeing the movie but thanks for reminding me, I'll get the DVD for my dad for Christmas.

Rob

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Deacon:
I thought the book was slow, the authors dad did a much better job in "Killer Angels".

I never did get around to seeing the movie but thanks for reminding me, I'll get the DVD for my dad for Christmas.

Rob

The Commentary on the DVD is worth the purchase price. It's better than the Movie!

 

[Gunther]

I saw the DVD.

I would recommend it to anyone. That scene toward the end when the terrorist turned on their leaders with a few musket rounds. That was priceless. God was clearly in it.

If their use of Scripture in the movie is true to what they used in real life, then they deserved to be beaten down and trodden upon.

The way that Jackson kept treating the Psalms as justification for his personal vendetta was pathetic and disgusting. Can you imagine this: one "christian" raises his weapon and rebels against the God ordained government and then tries to use the Psalms (none of which had a thing to do with political feuds between the states) as evidence that God was on his side. How absolutely reprehensible. I expect that kind of mishandling the text from those presbos, but for Baptists to cheer him on in this is very disheartening.

The hate in that mans heart is probably evidence that he did not have the light of Christ in him.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Gunther:
I saw the DVD.

I would recommend it to anyone. That scene toward the end when the terrorist turned on their leaders with a few musket rounds. That was priceless. God was clearly in it.

If their use of Scripture in the movie is true to what they used in real life, then they deserved to be beaten down and trodden upon.

The way that Jackson kept treating the Psalms as justification for his personal vendetta was pathetic and disgusting. Can you imagine this: one "christian" raises his weapon and rebels against the God ordained government and then tries to use the Psalms (none of which had a thing to do with political feuds between the states) as evidence that God was on his side. How absolutely reprehensible. I expect that kind of mishandling the text from those presbos, but for Baptists to cheer him on in this is very disheartening.

The hate in that mans heart is probably evidence that he did not have the light of Christ in him.

Gunther, you know about hate don't you?

 

[Major B]

Gunther, to refer to the CSA forces as terrorist does not demonstrate a very good grasp of the facts (I'm being kind here).

There would not have been a war had the northern forces not invaded the South; Virginia, Tennesse, and Arkansas would likely NOT have seceded, but for the threatened invasion of their territory by the Northern forces.

Some of the greatest and most loyal warriors the US ever had ended up joining the confederacy, because their home states were being invaded by a federal army.

Some other historical facts:

Generals Jackson and Lee were anti-slavery--and they were not the only ones.

When Lee's wife inherited the Custis plantation, General Lee freed all of the slaves except a few elderly ones who could not fend for themselves.

Jackson had personally funded and built a Sunday School for black children in Lexington, VA.

Both Lee and Jackson wanted to enlist slaves in the CSA army with a promise of freedom in return for serving.

The psalms you refer to were written in the context of Israel being invaded by a foreign army. The Southerners used them in that context. As the movie clearly points out, most Americans then (even in the north) referred to themselves as citizens of their states first, then perhaps as citizens of the union. For southerners, they were being invaded by a foreign force.

And, in that great conflict my great-grandfather wore BLUE--because HIS home state (Kentucky) had been invaded by uninvited Confederate forces. (And, because he was personally opposed to slavery).

As for Jackson's death, Shaara's book relates a prayer offered at a memorial service for him in 1880--"Oh Lord, in Thy Providence, Thou hadst determined that the South should lose, and for that to happen Thou knew it was necessary that thy servant Stonewall Jackson had to die first."

 

[Gunther]

MajorB, it is not I who lacks the understanding here.

There was no invasion. I think the south has to keep saying that in hopes that someone actually believes it.

The federal government has absolute sovereignty over all land. At any time, they could claim your land even if they needed it. You know what, no one could stop them either.

The feds were putting down an uprising that threatened the good of the entire country. I seem to remember reading that the duties of the government is to "provide for the common defense".

The south were a bunch of terrorists. They were responsible for the deaths of thousands of our forefathers because they were a group of whiners. If they tried to pull the same idiocy today, that is exactly what they would be considered.

None of the souths supporters here addressed either of the threads I started already.

Here is what they do not get apparently, the states are in submission to the FEDERAL government, because all states are in submission to the U.S. constitution, which is a FEDERAL document. Ultimately, right or wrong, the federal interpretation of the constitution is what stands, nothing else. So when the Feds sought to put down an uprising, they acted within their constitutional right.

Now, many disgruntled people on this board are still fighting the war in their heads. It wasn't a second war for independence, it was rebellion against the constitution and against God's law (which is to obey even wicked governmental authorities).

The reason it is not the same as the revolutionary war, is because in England, the king is not law, the law is king. That is what the Magna Carta explicitly demands. Those who rebelled against the king, who was rebelling against the law by not allowing taxation with representation, it can be successfully argued that the colonies were defending the justice system by overthrowing a SELFIMPOSED authority.

The colonies never agreed to what the King had been practicing.

The states though did ratify the constitution.

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by Gunther:
[QB] There was no invasion. I think the south has to keep saying that in hopes that someone actually believes it.[QB]

Well, I guess all those battlefields in the South must be figments of the imagination.

[QB] The federal government has absolute sovereignty over all land. At any time, they could claim your land even if they needed it. You know what, no one could stop them either.[QB]

The constitutional right of imminent domain mainly applies to being forced to sell land to the federales for highways, military bases, etc. It is not an exclusive federal right, by the way. As for ABSOLUTE sovereignty, we have a federal system, even now, and there are things the federal government has absolutely no say over, so their sovereignty is certainly not absolute. It certainly was an invasion when the north invaded the south, for the idea that states could secede had been mentioned often in the years prior to the Civil War (the first being during the War of 1812 when New England almost seceded), and the Civil War was the test of that principle.

[QB]
The feds were putting down an uprising that threatened the good of the entire country. I seem to remember reading that the duties of the government is to "provide for the common defense".
[QB]

This was the first and only time that a federal force attacked duly elected state governments.

[QB]
The south were a bunch of terrorists. They were responsible for the deaths of thousands of our forefathers because they were a group of whiners. If they tried to pull the same idiocy today, that is exactly what they would be considered.[QB]

"Our" forefathers? I seem to remember you saying your people did not come until after 1900. MY Greatgrandfather fought in the UNION cavalry, and I had cousins on both sides. Your understanding (lack of) and knowledge of history (lack of), is exceeded only by your lack of appreciation of the views and honor of men on both sides. I have read a lot of primary source material from both sides, and these men of honor would never have referred to each other with such terms.

As far as terrorism, a terrorist attacks civilians (like William Tecumseh Sherman did). This was a war.

[QB]Here is what they do not get apparently, the states are in submission to the FEDERAL government, because all states are in submission to the U.S. constitution, which is a FEDERAL document. Ultimately, right or wrong, the federal interpretation of the constitution is what stands, nothing else. So when the Feds sought to put down an uprising, they acted within their constitutional right.[QB]

Actually, that was the issue, and it was never litigated in court (which is where we normally do things), but settled on the battlefield.

[QB]Now, many disgruntled people on this board are still fighting the war in their heads. It wasn't a second war for independence, it was rebellion against the constitution and against God's law (which is to obey even wicked governmental authorities).{QB]

King George said the same thing in 1776!

[QB]The reason it is not the same as the revolutionary war, is because in England, the king is not law, the law is king. That is what the Magna Carta explicitly demands. Those who rebelled against the king, who was rebelling against the law by not allowing taxation with representation, it can be successfully argued that the colonies were defending the justice system by overthrowing a SELFIMPOSED authority.
The colonies never agreed to what the King had been practicing. [QB]

Actually, the Magna Charta was the first step in a long process, including the Petition of Right (1628), the English Civil War, and the Glorious Revolution (1688), culminating in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The Magna Charta only gave rights to noblemen, us po folks had to wait a few hundred years for Cromwell and Company to nail down real rights for common folks.

The King was most certainly NOT rebelling against English Law. By the law of England at the time, we WERE represented--the English concept of representation was "virtual" representation--we were commoners, there were commoners in Commons, so we were represented. Our concept of actual representation developed during the Era of Benign Neglect (1630-1763), when English Americans developed self government in the 13 colonies. It was never accepted by English Law. As far as the colonies accepting the King, until the lamentable series of idiotic political moves by Lord North and George's other ministers, beginning in 1763, Americans were quite happy to be subjects of the Crown.

Major Charles T. Buntin (USAF, Retired)
B.A. M.S., M.A.R.
History Teacher

 

[Gunther]

Originally posted by Major B:
"Our" forefathers?

MajorB, it is way too late to address everything tonight, but suffice it to say that my usage of our forefathers was in the sense that I am an American, and it was American blood that was shed.

Thankfully my family missed the whole mess.

But as one who has grown up in the South my ENTIRE life, I would have picked up my rifle and sword and would have defended the UNITED STATES, not the maverick, honorless southern leaders.