Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #27: Lincoln (2012)

Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln was one of his long-running projects. Earlier on, it was to be a more general biopic with Liam Neeson as the famed Abraham Lincoln. By the time it finally swung into proper production, however, Neeson dropped out and Daniel Day-Lewis took his place. Wisely, Spielberg also abandoned the idea of a film covering years, if not decades, of Lincoln’s life, a common mistake of biopics that results in unfocused, hole-ridden storylines. Instead he zeroed in on the president’s attempt to get the 13^th Amendment passed in the House of Representatives.

The 13^th Amendment was to end slavery once and for all in the United States. It was the culmination of years of policy development during the Civil War. Though he hated slavery, Lincoln knew he could not abolish it and instead had supported the Republican Party’s views of preventing its expansion into new territories. As the war progressed, however, the Union Army and Federal government could not ignore the fact that slave labor fueled the Confederacy, so runaway slaves were accepted as “contraband” enemy property. By 1865 many now believed that slavery had to be abolished, whether out of moral concerns or the pragmatic belief that it would result in more strife down the road.

The 13^th Amendment is opposed by various Democrats and some of the more conservative Republicans. A greater threat is a Confederate peace commission. If slavery’s continued existence in a restored Union ensures that a long, bloody war can finally end right now, many in the House will see the 13^th as a guaranteed war to keep the body count going. Many historians disputed the central conflict of Lincoln, arguing that there was no way slavery could remain intact after the Civil War, even if the amendment initially failed to pass.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #23: Gettysburg (1993) part 2 of 2

 

Fremantle (James Lancaster) carries tea, because he's British, you see.

Arthur Fremantle

Before I get into a general rundown of the battle scenes and a few other points, I should provide some background on Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur Fremantle (James Lancaster). A British officer, he wanted to see the American War up close, particularly from the Southern side. Believing him an official observer, the Confederates gave him access to various major generals and politicians. Amusingly, however, Fremantle was actually on a leave of absence, and this was his idea of a vacation. He had quite the trip, starting with a pursuit by a Union blockade vessel, getting a look at Texas, and viewing Bragg’s Army of Tennessee.

Then he got to personally travel with the Army of Northern Virginia to Gettysburg. After witnessing the greatest American battle, he  traveled to New York for departure, arriving just in time to witness the infamous Draft Riots. He published his experience in the book Three Months in the Southern States. In the movie Fremantle adds a little color (literally with his inaccurate red uniform) and humor while getting the Confederate characters to open up about their causes and beliefs. In a wider-scoped Gettysburg movie not based on Shaara’s novel, his scenes would definitely be considered unnecessary fluff. Now to look at the action itself.

June

I love the opening credits. Backed by Randy Edelman’s stirring, if heavily synthesized musical themes, photos emerge, first of the historical figure, then the actor in costume portraying him. On earlier rewatches this becomes a fun game of identifying which movie character belongs to each photo. W. Morgan Sheppard, who already plays Trimble, provides the opening narration over a map showing the army’s routes northward.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #23: Gettysburg (1993) part 1 of 2

 

This is the movie that led to my becoming a history buff, especially of the Civil War. Gettysburg was a film over a decade in the making. It’s source material was Michael Shaara’s historical novel Killer Angels, which attempted to dive into the heads of several real-life Union and Confederate figures in America’s greatest battle. Maxwell was unable to get the backing to actually make the movie because of some notable failed epic films, but finally Ted Turner, who also saw the idea of a Civil War mini-series as a passion project, finally got things going.

Gettysburg was originally made to be a mini-series for TNT, but Turner was so impressed with the final product that, with a few scenes cut, it was given a limited theatrical release first. Thanks to its four hour length, the longest for any theatrical release in American history, it didn’t make back its budget, but it got lots of praise and positive buzz. Thus it was a smash hit on TV and home video. I remember my family having the two-tape set. It’s size always impressed me and it was watched a lot in the house. After seeing a few other images in my family’s book collection and getting the BMC toy soldier set for my birthday, I one day decided to check out a couple books from the library and I turned into a Civil War nerd for the rest of my life.

For those who don’t know, Gettysburg is considered the greatest battle of the Civil War. It didn’t have the most men involved (that honor goes to the Battle of Fredericksburg), but it saw the heaviest casualties in killed and wounded. General Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, wanted to take the war north and score a decisive victory that would end the war in his favor. Nearly by accident, the Confederate and Union Armies collided at Gettysburg on July 1, 1863. After three days of fighting, Lee’s army suffered its first massive defeat. Along with the loss of the last strongholds on the Mississippi River and the major Tennessee railroad junction of Chattanooga, this battle was a major turning point and is argued to have signaled the eventual defeat of the Confederacy.

Ted Turner (left) cameos as  Colonel Waller T. Patton, World War II general George Patton's great-uncle. Ron Maxwell stands to the right. (https://davethecaveman.blogspot.com/2018/11/my-favorite-films-gettysburg-1993.html)

By the way, if you’re wondering why the movie didn’t retain the title Killer Angels, marketing warned that people would think of biker gangs instead of the Civil War. Now into the movie’s content and historicity. I also already did a list of some historical inaccuracies, a few which I’ll touch on in this review, but others I won’t, so check it out.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #22: Glory (1989)

Glory tells the story of the 54^th Massachusetts, one of the first black Civil War regiments. One of the conditions of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was that, starting January 1, 1863, African-Americans could officially join the Union Army, though many were already giving a big hand with logistical support, thus freeing up more white troops to get to the front lines. The 54^th Massachusetts in particular received much attention because it had the full support of Massachusetts Governor John Andrew and saw action fairly quickly in the southeast around Charleston. Also, as an early black regiment, it got to have the state's distinction in its name while other units were listed as USCT (United States Colored Troops). Already made known in art and general histories, the regiment is certainly well known now because of its 1989 film adaptation.

The movie was the brainchild of New York cultural figure Lincoln Kirstein and screenwriter Kevin Jarre (adopted son of none other than Maurice Jarre, composer of Lawrence of Arabia). Both were inspired by the regiment’s monument in Boston (featured in the end credits), several books (including one by Kirstein himself), and Colonel Robert Gould Shaw’s letters. Shaw (Matthew Broderick) provides narration via his letters, but the quotes are a mix of real ones and fake ones to accommodate the changes made for the story.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #21: Gods and Generals (2003) part 2 of 2

 

Here is the second part of my Gods and Generals review, going through the film to look at the battles as well as a few other points I wanted to discuss.

First Bull Run

The movie begins with Lee meeting Francis Preston Blair, a major political figure at the time, to discuss an offer to command the Union Army. Lee refuses, citing that his primary loyalty is to Virginia and the if it secedes he will join it. It’s funny how all these Civil War films and shows always have Lee starting the war with his gray hair and beard. Actually, he had dark hair and just a mustache, and was even considered handsome for a man in his fifties. The stress of the war is what changed his look into the one familiar to us today.

Most of the first act focuses on Jackson, and outside of the Lee and Booth scenes this could have been the first part of a Jackson biopic. Now, I hadn’t seen Gods and Generals in ten years, so I was hit with a few fresh observations, and one is that there is actual no explanation for what exactly is going on militarily. Jackson’s brigade does a little training and then marches off for a battle. We don’t get any exposition about why the armies are clashing at Manassas Junction because everyone is too busy delivering speeches. They just go to a battle and start fighting.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #21: Gods and Generals (2003) part 1 of 2

General Intro

I’m finally into the Civil War proper, my favorite era of history. Because of my enthusiasm for the subject, a couple review are going to be long. That’s why the first movie for the war, Gods and Generals, is going to get a multi-part review.

Before the movie Gods and Generals was the prequel to Gettysburg, the novel it was based was written as a prequel to Gettysburg’s source Killer Angels. The author Jeff Shaara, was following the success of his father’s historical novel in that he takes a few important officers on each side of a conflict and then tries to get into their minds. Unlike Killer Angels, which focuses only on a few days in 1863, Gods and Generals covers entire Civil War up to the death of Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson in May 1863. Naturally, one may imagine a screen adaptation would take the form of a mini-series (Jeff Shaara has said this), but Ron Maxwell, who had a bit hit with Gettysburg, seemed to think it would be fine as an actual theatrical release.

Between the large scope of history the film covers and some poor filmmaking choices, Gods and Generals was such an uneven slog that it became a big flop. Critical events and important figures have to be cut to make room, but at the same time Maxwell spends an inordinate amount of time on fluff, unnecessary side characters, and long speeches that worked in the more condensed timeline of Gettysburg, but kill the pacing here.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #20: Abe Lincoln in Illinois (1940)

 

Abraham Lincoln is one of the greatest figures in American history, no matter what your opinion of him is. He was an instrumental player in one of America’s great transition points. Abe Lincoln in Illinois is an adaptation of the play of the same name, which in turn was heavily derived from Carl Sandburg’s Prairie Years volume of his Lincoln biography. Thus it charts Lincoln’s life from the 1830s up until the 1860 election. Running at a little under two hours, it commits one of the common sins of biopics, which is trying to cover too much of a person’s life. Thus I was surprised to not only enjoy the film, but be legitimately invested in much of it, especially towards the end.

Raymond Massey was famous for playing Lincoln in the stage version, and he reprises his role here for an Academy Award nomination. Massey was well into his forties, so the earlier scenes seem a bit off. For example, we first see him being sent off by his mother to make something of himself in the world. Massey’s aged face makes the scene somewhat comical. As the film progresses, though, I do get more comfortable with him in the role, and his age definitely fits in the last act.

Massey’s Lincoln is a good-natured, self-deprecating county boy who wins the hearts of almost everyone around him. He goes from taking odd frontier jobs to becoming a lawyer. He’s also consistently reluctant to get involved with politics, first being pressured into becoming a local politician, then a congressman, and finally running for the presidency despite his self-doubts. While this does humanize him much more than some rather hagiographic depictions, I’m going to have to call foul on its accuracy. Lincoln may have had humble origins, but he definitely had an ambitious streak and I don’t think he needed everyone to keep prodding him towards his destiny. Because of time’s sake, the movie also skips over his railroad lawyer career. The railroad industry in 19^th Century America was notoriously corrupt, so it’s possible Lincoln had to get dirty despite his “Honest Abe” appellation.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #19: Harriet (2019)

 

One of the great heroines of 19^th Century history is Harriet Tubman, a Maryland slave who, after escaping to Pennsylvania, headed back south to rescue other African-Americans from bondage. Sadly, some of the awesome stories about her are likely the results of oft-fictionalized 19^th Century biographies, but she’s still a woman worth celebrating. Her story has been told on television, most notably in the 1978 miniseries A Woman Called Moses (I would have watched this one if I didn’t already have many 3-4 hour movies coming up). Surprisingly, it wasn’t until 2019 that we got a theatrical depiction in the simply titled Harriet.

The movie was actually considered back in the 90s, but shockingly a Hollywood executive, believing a black female lead couldn’t carry a movie, suggested that Tubman be played by Julia Roberts! Anyways, Cynthia Ervo would get the role when the movie finally swung into production. She does a good job, playing an initially frightened runaway slave before becoming a determined and tough heroine. Also, unlike in 12 Years a Slave, we get a good dose of the slaves’ Christianity. Tubman’s head was once struck and split open, whereupon she received visions. She claimed they were from God, and some sources claim that they indeed helped her successfully evade capture when guiding slaves to freedom. I was pleased to see that they had a scene of her threatening to shoot a runaway when he wants to go back to his master. This actually happened a few times in real life. Harriet knew that if a slave had second thoughts and went back, he could endanger the whole group.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #16: 12 Years a Slave

 

12 Years a Slave, directed by Steve McQueen, is one of the more in-depth looks at what it was like to be a slave. It’s based on the memoir of Solomon Northup, a free black living in New York who was attracted by a fiddling job in Washington DC, only to be drugged and wake up in a slave pen. He found himself transported along with other kidnapped blacks (and a lot of slaves who were also abducted or were being resold) to New Orleans. For the next 12 years (1841-1853) he served under several masters, experiencing different degrees of slavery. Eventually he found a sympathetic white Canadian, Samuel Bass, who got word of where he was to his family, and Northup was freed. Understandably, he became a prominent abolitionist.

There is actually a debate about the veracity of Northup’s memoir. The debate arises form several passages which seem to express white views of slavery and race and others which had uncanny similarities to other slave narratives. The explanation for these bits is that Northup wrote his memoir via dictation through a white writer. The white writer likely decided to make some alterations to make the book more sellable.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #15: Amistad (1997)

 Steven Spielberg finally makes it to my watchlist with Amistad. Amistad is one of his less known movies and thus also his most underrated. It’s a high-stakes court drama, based on the story of the Spanish slaver Amistad. As in real life, the slaves on board manage to slaughter most of the crew. The two surviving Spaniards, however, don’t take them back to Africa, but land in Connecticut. With the slave trade legal for Spain, but not America, there is a long legal battle. President Martin van Buren, seeking reelection, is worried that if the slaves are freed he’ll lose the southern vote, so he twice has the trial done again in a higher court. He also has to deal with the Spanish government, which insists that the slaves are their property and should be punished for killing most of the slavers.

The movie is chockfull of real historical characters and follows the events closely for the most part. The main character is Cinque (Djimon Hounsou), a man kidnapped and sold into slavery. The real Cinque actually had a different name that was anglicized into his more familiar one, but the movie simplifies things. His defense lawyer is Roger Sherman Baldwin (Matthew McConaughey), who was a well established legal figure in real life, but is turned into an ambitious low-level one to give us more of an underdog story. The big hurdle for the defense team is the language barrier, but gradually this is overcome with the discovery of James Covey (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a sailor who was born in West Africa and knows some of the different tongues.

Emancipation, the Union Army, and the Reelection of Abraham Lincoln (Jonathan W. White)

 

In Emancipation, the Union Army, and the Reelection of Abraham Lincoln, Jonathan White presents a more cynical but probably more realistic take on the Union Army in regards to the motivations of its soldiers. He challenges the popular historical consensus that the overwhelming army vote for Lincoln in the 1864 election reflected solidarity with Republican war aims of emancipation. While he directly addresses James McPherson’s works, which trumpeted the army as a force of emancipation, he also criticizes Chandra Manning’s What This Cruel War Was Over, and in doing so challenges her thesis as well. In her book Manning claimed that by looking at hundreds of Union and Confederate letters, the soldiers obviously fought for the issue of slavery. As regards the Federals, she believes they for the most part put Unionism I the background in favor of destroying slavery. White believes that she and other historians inferred too much from a considerable, yet still fractionally small pool of letters and diaries. I add that they also failed to take differing ethnic and regional backgrounds to account (for example, a soldier from southern Illinois would not be as inclined towards abolitionism as a Massachusetts man or radical German immigrant). Furthermore, he believes that soldiers’ views change back and forth in response to events. Historians can fall into the trap of taking a few diaries and letters and making them representative of the whole army. He avoids being representative himself, stating that he only wishes to flesh out those who did not vote against Lincoln and not make any monolithic claims.

He argues several general facts that challenge the popular narrative. Using voting statistics, he shows that 20% of soldiers eligible to vote chose not to do so, showing either disinterest or disgust with both parties. Many who voted for Lincoln did so because they did not approve of the Democrats’ anti-war platform and just wanted to win the war. Finally, in the age of public ballots, there was an atmosphere of intimidation that dissuaded Democrat votes. Some Republican officers rigged pro-emancipation regimental resolutions to appear unanimously in favor. Soldiers who wanted to vote for McClellan could be stopped out of fear of riling up their comrades and being accused of disloyalty. Officers could have their careers stalled or destroyed if they expressed too much criticism of abolitionism.

Through his work White concludes a common historiographical trend. Often there is a prevailing view of a historical event that stays entrenched for decades. Then a revisionist makes a stark counter-argument that becomes the predominant view, only later on for a third “neo-revisionist” work to argue a middle ground. For a long time the Union soldier was presented for fighting primarily for preservation of his republic. Then it became emancipation. White shows that “for many northern soldiers, restoring the Union was the only true goal of the war from beginning to end.” Though his lack of time on it may not reveal it, he argues that many soldiers indeed came to see emancipation as the higher cause, but perhaps just as many prioritized preserving the Union without any concern for blacks. He argues that the Union Army was an army of emancipation not from some popular “bottom-up” movement by the soldiers, but from a top-down implementation of policies by Lincoln, the War Department, and then the generals and other officers.

White’s book does a good job of providing a more nuanced view of the Union army and showing that there was not a strong pro-emancipation majority, but there are a couple flaws. White makes the same mistake as Manning in not differentiating the different types of ethnicities and regions making up the armies. In reading this book I noticed that the soldiers with the strongest anti-emancipation views came from such states as Illinois and Ohio. General Sherman’s 1864 army, which was made up of westerners, refused to accept any black soldiers. Westerners had stronger economic ties with the South, and may have shared more of their racial views as a result. My second issue is that some of the officers and soldiers that were dismissed for disloyalty were directing some very bold criticisms and insults towards Lincoln and abolition. White never suggests that they might have twisted the stories behind their comments when presenting them in court. A pillar of the United States is free speech but one wonders if such blatant attacks on war aims and the commander-in-chief would have been accepted or still are.

Regardless this is a great book from the recent Dark Turn in Civil War historiography. While not pleasant, it is essential for White and others to challenge some of the comforting narratives. White also better accounts for the fact that history is made up of individuals, not collectives. While group pressure can shape an individual, he, especially an American one, is likely to have some degree of difference in views. Federals soldiers’ views on emancipation varied widely from outright abolitionism to pragmatic emancipation to complete disinterest to even anti-emancipation.

The book can be bought here. It's price has gone down significantly since I had to get it for my Master's course.

Rating: Highly Recommend

Rating System

Must-Read: Definite read for history in general

Highly Recommend: Definite read within a certain subject

Recommend: Good for further information or info on a certain topic

Adequate: Useful if looking for further information certain topic

Pass: Awful, only useful for examining bad or ideologically-tainted history

Movie Review: The Woman King (2022)

The Woman King is a curious movie. I was entertained and absorbed for much of it, but as someone who’s fairly knowledgeable on the subject it covers, the West African kingdom of Dahomey, I found some aspects odd, perhaps a little troubling. First of all I will say that the marketing for this movie was bad. The trailer shows black women talking about fighting for freedom while girl power songs play in the background. When the main character Nanisca (Viola Davis) talks about fighting the enemy and for freedom there are shots of white colonists. This gives the impression that the Dahomey fought European slavers. When potential viewers conducted a little research and learned that the Dahomey were in fact massive slavers, seizing entire towns to sell on the coast, they felt lied to. They thought the movie was going to completely change history depict the Dahomey as heroic anti-slavery fighters. It did not help that Viola Davis tried to shame audiences by implying that anybody who did not see her movie was against black women. As it turns out these concerns can be both dismissed and verified. Let’s get into it.

The movie focuses on the Agojie, an all-female warrior unit. Black female fighters certainly checks boxes that are currently in vogue in Hollywood, but there is a firm historical basis. In the actual history they originated as a royal bodyguard, but thanks to a shortage of fighting men King Ghezo (portrayed by John Boyega in this movie) expanded it into a frontline unit. The Woman King thankfully remembers that the Europeans, the Portuguese in particular, were the Dahomey’s customer’s rather than enemies. In fact the film portrays the Oyo, a powerful Yoruba Empire, as the main antagonists. The Oyo had forced Dahomey into a tributary status, receiving annual gifts in exchange for no further invasions. This movie takes place in 1823, when Dahomey threw off Oyo domination.

Alan Taylor's American Republics

Taylor, Alan. American Republics: A Continental History of the United States, 1783-1850. W.W. Norton & Company, 2021.

American Republics is the third entry in Alan Taylor's ongoing history of the United States (following American Colonies and American Revolutions). He uses the plural form of Republic because he argues that the United States was hardly a united front, with various ideas for what the nation should be. The most obvious divide was between free-soiler Northerners and pro-slavery Southerners. However many reformers, religious outliers, Abolitionists, and others further added to a dazzling array of variants on the American ideal. Many Americans, and Indian Peoples as well, even struck out to create their own independent republics (Mormons, Texans, and Cherokees are among the notable examples), though all eventually fell into the United States anyways. Taylor also shows how shaky the American Republic was in its early years. It struggled economically and was battered by established empires, foremost Britain's. Internal strife frequently led it to the brink of disunion as different geographic and political sections pursued differing agendas. The book ends with the Compromise of 1850, which did ward off Civil War, but also heightened tensions to the point that it caused one anyways ten years later.

Taylor also gets into the history of America's neighbors, such as Canada and Spanish Florida. These are among the strongest parts of the book, contextualizing America within a wider continental history (as the title promises), and providing some inroads into other countries' histories for more curious readers Another strength is the collection of various unique characters, many little known even to history buffs. In addition to well-known monumental figures ranging from Henry Clay to Frederick Douglass to Andrew Jackson, Taylor treats us to would-be republic founder William Bowles (77-80) to humanitarian slaveholder Zephaniah Kingsley, Jr. (150-155) to William and Ellen Craft, a slave couple who posed as male master and valet to escape to the North (374-375). This makes for an expansive and colorful collection of characters and stories within 400 highly readable pages. American Republics serves as a wonderful starting point to find topics to investigate.

George Fitzhugh: Confederate Socialist?

“All concur that free society is a failure. We slaveholders say you must recur to domestic slavery, the oldest, the best and most common form of Socialism.”- George Fitzhugh[1]

The likening of southern slaveholding ideology to socialism seems anathema to us today. The former is associated with conservatism and the latter with leftism. But it must be remembered that not all socialism is Marxism. Still, the states that would make up the Confederacy never thought to have the government control the economic means of production. Yet in the years leading up the Civil War, one Virginian intellectual insisted that there were commonalities between socialism and slaveholding ideology. This man was George Fitzhugh, a small slaveholder and lawyer in Port Royal, Virginia. He sought to prove the legitimacy of slavery and furthermore to show that it was a moral good for the betterment of the lower classes.

Southerners often defended slavery on the grounds that it was a benign institution, that it uplifted blacks towards white civilization. A common counter-argument of the abolitionists was that if slavery was so good, then why were impoverished whites not put into it? Unlike other pro-slavery advocates, Fitzhugh took their arguments to their logical conclusion, that there was nothing wrong with enslaving whites. This was a radical suggestion, though Fitzhugh did argue that the enslavement of whites would be much different than the enslavement of blacks. However, he considered slavery of any kind to be a better alternative to “free society” capitalism, especially in industrializing countries. It should also be noted that many of his arguments were not unheard of among Southerners in general. He merely took them a little further. Most of his ideas expressed here are taken from his two major works, Sociology for the South (1854) and Cannibals All (1857). Both attacked free capitalist society and both defended the Southern way of life as the most natural and benevolent.