Spike Lee don't know history

In keeping with the Southern theme...Spike Lee has apparently "got on the bus" of a film called "CSA." It is a faux documentary of the United States as it exists today IF the South had won the war.

Now, I have only seen the trailer and I understand it is only intended as satire, but as an amatuer Civil War history buff I have to say: "What a load of malarky!" First it nurses the myth that the war was primarily about slavery. Furthermore it purports that the south could have actually conquered and subjegated the North. And then it also ignores the fact that slavery was well on its way out and could not have possibly survived into the 21st century: I doubt ANY historians would have given the institution another another 50 years of life in North America...regardless of which way the Civil War went. Arguably it was slavery that prevented the South from garnering european support - which would have been the ONLY way they could have hoped to win a prolonged conflict. And toward the end of the war, there was talk in the South about freeing the slaves...the VAST majority of the southern soldiers did NOT own slaves and fewer still would offer that they were fighting to keep slavery.

Okay, so make your commentary about today's society...but if you are going to package it within an alternative history, could you at least make it remotely believable?

Personally, I support "states rats." Bless your heart!

Comments

Huw Richardson said…
When are you moving?

(Oh, yes, we could have subjugated the north. Like we'd haev wanted to bother...)
Thomas Ham said…
True that! General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was an amazing man of faith and was very perturbed by the mass use of slaves. He was an owner of slaves, but he bought them when they were already unable to work andit sounds like he basically became their legal gaurdians in order that they could survive. He fought for one reason and one reason alone, he was fighting for the side that his home state of Virginia joined.

That's just one example of a Southern soldier and possibly one of the best Generals in the history of the world was fighting for the South, but didn't agree with slavery in it's form at the time.
Anonymous said…
The "myth that the war was primarily about slavery?" Was this written by my own James Ferrenberg? Has your blog been hijacked by a Left-Wing Cynic?

If one looks at the deadly conflicts leading up to the Civil War (Kansas), the fights in Congress about slave vs. free states, etc., the importance of the various court cases defending slaveowners' rights, the electrifyin hanging of John Brown and other abolitionists, the subtle political efforts to create compromise between the two sides, it's sort of obvious that the war was precisely about slavery. Of course there were political, economic and constitutional dimensions to the conflict.

Your statement reminds me of feminists who say that the pro-lifers have some other agenda other than stopping the killing of babies, like enslaving women. Sometimes there isn't an ulterior motivation, friend. The fact is that the South burned Lincoln in effigy when he was elected precisely because they sensed he was anti-slavery. It's rather the other theories of the Civil War, cooked up ex-post-facto, that are myths, like the common idea that the whole conflict was "mainly economic", or mainly about States Rights.

It also reminds me of the revisionists who say that the Iraqi was is "mainly about oil," or that it's just a continuation of the Crusades or Imperialism with a new pretext, yadda yadda.

To say that slavery would have disappeared is second-guessing. You might as well say that in 50 years, we'll be done using oil, and terrorism will disappear, so the war in Iraq is not about terrorism.

Come on, James, where's your sense of proportion? How can you muddy the clearest waters?

I agree with you on States Rights, but to do so is merely to say that the North, in its effort to reign in slavery as in institution, trampled on those Rights. So what does that prove? Right or Wrong in hindsight, the war was nevertheless primarily motivated by the issue of slavery.

None of the above should be seen as a defense of Spike Lee or his movie.
Anonymous said…
And I might add, in my family history, the records show that brother killed brother, fathers killed sons, uncles killed cousins. What was the motivation? What was it about, if not something viscerally moral? Come on man, put up your dukes and fight!!

:o)
fdj said…
Well let it not be said that slavery was the catalyst that brought the issue of state authority vs. federal to the forefront...but state vs. federal WAS the issue.

It's funny that to some extent State vs Fed has become the battle ground of abortion in the mind of some.

It's not revisionist Steve...you are hard pressed to find any southern sooldier claim that they felt it neccesary to fight in order to retain the institution of slavery. While sure there were some southerners who ascribed to this and sure there were some in the North who didn't give a crap about slaves and yet fought.

You are right to note "motivation" because like I said above...to a large degree it depended on who you asked. The VAST majority of southern soldiers did not and never would own slaves and likely all would have answered the famed question ("Why you fightin Johnny Reb...you ain't got no slaves?") given to a Rebel prisoner the same way: "I'm fightin cuz you all are down here."

And, something that is difficult for us to imagine: Like Robert E Lee himself, most southerns felt that their duties lay FIRST with their state and second to Feds. Slavery or not...THIS was their primary issue.

Recall how and why Lincoln delayed the Emancipation Proclamation until after (at last) a federal victory @ Antietam. What does this show?

I'm not saying that slavery wasn't a HUGE issue...but I still stand by my assertion that slavery was a goner in very short order...industrialization (cotten gin etc) would have seen to that, not to mention the utter isolation the CSA would have had to face since the rest of the "civilized" world was for the most part opposed to slavery.

The Civil War ended slavery for sure...but it also made us THE United States as opposed to THESE United States which I think most historians rightly agree is the most significant change.
Anonymous said…
Southerners often refer to the "War of Yankee Agression." If that is true, then we have to ask what brought about the agression. At the bottom is a simmering tension over slavery, and a willingness by both sides to change the rules, on one side to actually change the constitution to grant the feds greater say, and on the other to bow out of the union altogether. So it's about slavery. Of course, like any human conflict, it was complicated, and may have been unnecessarily conplicated by those who find it advantageous to muddy the waters in these types of issues, to rally support by changing the subject, as in the Middle East. Never mind that Arabs can't vote anywhere except Israel and Irag, the extrememists keep talking about the Crusades, etc. So it doesn't surprise me if large sections of the southern or northern soldiery were personally motivated for a whole range of reasons. For example, what if the northern army invades a region, kills your relatives, and commandeers your property to house its officers? You might decide to fight out of pure revenge. So what? That doesn't contradict the basic issue that caused the conflict.
Anonymous said…
I can't resist adding this. It really should have been called the War of Southern aggression due to the unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter.

In addition, one might want to ponder the fact that slavery was profitable in the South so that it would have lasted much longer than 50 years. As if enduring the slavery of others is really a palatible option!

-Rick
fdj said…
I just realized that I flubbed this:

"Well let it not be said that slavery was [NOT] the catalyst that brought the issue of state authority vs. federal to the forefront...but state vs. federal WAS the issue."

please note insert.
fdj said…
Well let me clear here...especially in regards to what Rick said: I'm not advocating slavery or even the rightness of enduring it for a time.

The reason I note that the institution of slavery was going to die soon is simply to show the absurdity of the movie's claim that had the south won we would STILL have slavery today.

Yep, Rick the south fired first...but let us simply call it a "pre-emptive" strike, shall we? (grin). Surely the North's industrial might could be considered a weapon of mass destruction!

And, I would also assert that had it not been slavery it would have been another issue to have brought this state vs. fed to an ugly head. Maybe even something as late an issue as abortion? I dunno..probably soemthing much sooner...but it would have had to have been settled in one way or another and if one side was willing to leave and another side willing to fight to keep them...well...it's war then.

By the way, I'm not sure Lincoln ever even made an issue of slavery until after Antietam..."preserve the union" and all...not so much "free the black man." However, by 1863 we see draft riots in New York when a great deal of outrage is expressed by white men not wishing to die for freeing the slaves...but keep in mind this is nearly year after the Emancipation proclamation.

It is also worth noting that even as late as May of 1862 Lincoln countermanded the actions of Union Generals who were freeing slaves in Federally occupied regions.

Steve, I cannot possibly argue that the ending of slavery (i.e. defeat of the CSA) was a bad thing. BUT, the defeat of the CSA did MUCH more than just end slavery, it also defined what this nation was going to be like. It ended the long standing debate about state rights, and slavery aside, I'm not sure it was the best thing.

So, am I advocating a return examination of the issue - of course not we are well beyond that now. BUT, if Spike Lee or anyone else thinks that a victory for the south implied the stars and bars flying over the whitehouse and slaves being traded on ebay today...well that, I think, shows an obscene amount of ignorance as to the greater implications and a common sense understanding of the Civil War.
Anonymous said…
I don't know if slavery was on the way out or not. Christians hadn't any real reason to do so. I was just in communication with Warren Treadgold, a Byzantine historian, who confirmed what I had suspected that the great Christian Empire had slavery right to the end. Their Muslim successors in that part of the world still do when they can get away with it. Christians from the New Testament til about 150 years ago just seem to have taken it for granted that owning a human being was part of the scenery. Chilling, isn't it? It's all the more remarkable that the US got rid of it. It cost more than defeating Hitler or any other enemy. My parents spent several years in Virginia about 60 years ago while in the Army. The Southerners there were as hostile to the idea of anything like equality for Black Americans who were shedding their blood for their freedoms as they could be. Slavery was part of the scene for a long time, and the scenery changes hard. No one wants to *say* they'd like slavery back, but I bet plenty of people would have just as little trouble rationalizing it as they did for the preceeding 2000 years of Christian history or the preceeding millenia before there *were* Christians. -- Bob Koch

Popular Posts