Post image for Patrick Cleburne and Black Confederates Take Hollywood

Patrick Cleburne and Black Confederates Take Hollywood

February 5, 2010

in Civil War Culture, Civil War Historians, Lost Cause, Memory, Slavery, Southern History

[Hat-Tip to Lee White]

Back in 2008 I commented on a graphic novel that tells the story of Patrick Cleburne’s plan to arm slaves in exchange for their freedom.  I expressed a number of concerns in that post and I appreciate the author of the novel for offering his own perspective.  Now it looks like that story is coming to the big screen.  Unfortunately, it looks like the misinformation and blatant abuse of history that is present in the graphic novel will make it into the movie.  Consider the web page on the history behind the subject.  It begins with the standard list of half-truths and outright falsehoods about the roles of blacks in the Confederate army as well as the views of some of the more prominent Confederate such as Forrest and Jackson.  Ed Bearrss is cited as having spoken out in support of the black Confederate narrative even though he has denied ever making such a claim.  And can someone tell me where Ervin Jordan describe this as a “cover up”?  I can’t seem to find it in his book, but perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.  You will also notice the doctored photograph of the Louisiana Native Guards at the top of the page.  Consider the following choice “facts” about black Confederates:

  • Many Black Confederates actually engaged in combat including the Battles of First Manassas, Chickamauga, Seven Days, Thompson’s Station, Franklin, and others.
  • Black Confederates were known to frequent veteran reunions years after the war and many posed proudly for photographs with Confederate Battle Flags.

Such a sloppy description of how free and enslaved black southerners functioned in the Confederate army raises more questions than anything approaching understanding of such a complex subject.  But it gets even worse.  Consider the brief description of Cleburne and his proposal:

On a cold winter night in January 1864, Patrick Cleburne put forth a controversial plan to the Confederate high command. It was a written proposal to free over 300,000 slaves and enlist them as soldiers in the Southern armies. He made few allies and many enemies, and from that moment on, his career would come to a dead halt. Cleburne was no ordinary commander. He had never lost a battle and was even called the “Stonewall Jackson of the West”. None of this would matter once his revolutionary views were made known to the Confederate government and President Davis.

Ironically, Black troops had already been serving as teamsters in the Confederate ranks for years, but what Cleburne proposed was not merely service, but official military enlistment. He even went as far as to imply that the entire plan would begin the steps toward the complete emancipation of all African Americans from slavery.

The movie presents Cleburne as having “fought two wars.  One with the North, the other with the South.”  Such a description makes it seem as if Cleburne was operating in a vacuum when his proposal surfaced.  Actually, the debate about arming slaves had started back in 1861 and Cleburne wasn’t even the first Confederate general to offer such a proposal.  More importantly, we must not lose sight of the fact that these proposals do not reflect a desire to end slavery in the South.  In fact, they tell us much more about the extent to which white Southerners would go to gain independence as a means to preserve the institution of slavery.  That fact tells us why most white southerners were not willing to arm slaves and free blacks.  You can expect that I am going to closely follow this story

As bad as all of this is what truly disappoints me is that one of my favorite actors, Philip Seymour Hoffman, is slated to play the role of Judah Benjamin.

  • Chris Evans
    I would like to see a Western Theater Civil War film. I wish it could be more about the battles of Cleburne and the Army of Tennessee because there should be a film depicting the horrors of Civil War battles and the brutal Western Theater fighting of 1864. Cleburne is one of my favorite generals of the Western theater even though I know he was flawed as every General fighting in the Civil War was.

    There are many Civil War films done with large dollops of inaccurate history, rightly or wrongly. 'The Horse Soldiers' by John Ford with John Wayne is a terribly inaccurate film. It shows the Confederates as true incompetents charging down a single street in a town and getting slaughtered to the man and youthful cadets marching out to meet the Union troops and being literally 'spanked'. The Cadets at New Market did not get 'spanked' and helped contribute to the Confederate victory there. These types of films help spread disservice about the American Civil War, too.

    'U-571' is another example of flawed history in movie making. Where was the hue and cry over it? It depicts the Americans capturing the first Enigma machine in WWII when the British actually did it. 'The Patriot' is an inaccurate depiction of the Southern war in the American Revolution. It shows the British burning down a church with women and children in it! That is some serious historical inaccuracy. I point these out as examples of Hollywood badly twisting history.

    I say let the film on Cleburne come out first and then critique it and use it as a teaching tool. Use it as a tool to talk about the myth of the black confederates. Also use the film to talk about the Confederate tactics of 1864 of going on the offensive with seriously depleted forces.

    The Battle of Franklin deserves a huge cinematic depiction but I wish the work adapted would have been a truly great novel such as Howard Bahr's 'The Black Flower' or 'The Judas Field'. Those are two excellent works that use the battle of Franklin in a very moving, accurate way.
    Chris
  • Ken Noe
    If there's ever a movie version of a Bahr novel, Chris, I'll be the first in line to see it. It's a shame that more people don't know those incredible books.
  • Chris Evans
    I agree. Bahr's books are quite spectacular. They contain some of my favorite writing on the war fiction or nonfiction.
    Chris
  • Brooks D. Simpson
    Historians have always raised questions about the accuracy of the history being offered on the silver screen. That includes movies such as Glory, Gone with the Wind, Birth of a Nation, Santa Fe Trail, and so on. But I would not rank all of these issues as equal. A movie that suggests that the Confederacy was actually pro-emancipation, that in its publicity plagiarizes bogus claims offered on neo-Confederate and white supremacist sites, and that makes claims about the eagerness of black Americans to fight voluntarily and willingly for the Confederate cause (including the continued enslavement of African Americans) has a social impact far beyond, say, errors in The Horse Soldiers and U-571. Some other movies, including The Patriot, have come under scrutiny.

    Tremendous movies could be made about Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, and Franklin, among others. But this proposed movie isn't a movie about the Civil War in the Western theater. It's a movie about something else that happens to take place in that setting. It's not even a film about Cleburne. It's a film about a cartoon character from a graphic novel who is loosely based on Cleburne.
  • Chris Evans
    Hopefully some day there can be a series of movies on battles in the Eastern and Western theaters in the vein of 'Band of Brothers' and 'The Pacific'. These stories should be told and are so incredibly interesting.

    I wish the Cleburne film would have just been about Cleburne's battles but it is very hard to do something on the Civil War and not be enmeshed in controversy. 'Gettysburg' seemed to get away with it because both the Confederates and Federals are portrayed in a very human, moving fashion. Both sides are allowed to get their say. That is always what I enjoy about Michael Shaara's book isthe incredible evenhanded depiction of the two sides.
    Chris
  • Thanks for the comment, Chris. I agree that we should wait to critique the movie as a whole. My comments and concern are based on what I've seen thus far. The problem is not my inability to use the film constructively in a classroom, but the inability of most moviegoers to judge between good history and fantasy.
  • Is this suppose to be a "300"-type comic book movie with brutal slow motion shots of decapitation? Although I love "Gettysburg," I feel critics would brush this off as more pro-Confederate propoganda from Mr. Maxwell (and maybe that's what it is). But anyway, I'd like to keep an open mind about the movie because I'd like to see some sort of Civil War film released in the Sesquicentennial time period. I share all of your concerns about the accuracy, however.
  • It's hard to keep an open mind given the information that is available now.
  • toby
    I am not sure if anyone has pointed this out before, but the historical Cleburne Proposal narrative and the Black Confederate narrative basically contradict each other.

    If blacks (and slaves, too) served in the Confederate army from the start of the war (they are mentioned at First Manassas and the Peninsula on the website), then why did Cleburne even have to bother making a formal proposal to enlist slaves at the end of 1863?

    You might say that Cleburne was offering slaves their liberty, what they had not been offered before. But this is significant - at one point in his proposal Cleburne asks the question "Will the slaves fight?" He give four examples of fighting slaves - two examples of those who fought as slaves (Spartan helots, Christian galley slaves at the Battle of Lepanto) and two of those who fought as free men (Haitian rebels & Jamaican "Maroons"). I think it is significant that Celburne does not mention a single instance of an organized force of slaves fighitng for the Confederacy. Surely, if such forces existed, he would have argued that they merited their liberty in return.

    It also invites the question - if black slaves in the Confederate forces were so unremarkable, then why did Celburne's proposal provoke such an outcry among some of his fellow officers. Why did Jefferson Davis order all copies of the proposal destroyed?

    I am sure that the film will string together some sequence, by inventing some events and eliding others, to make a convincing narrative. But it will probably be no more accurate conerning the Civil War than the film "Gladiator" was about the reign of the Emperor Commodus.
  • Brooks D. Simpson
    Well, I love the fact that Trace Adkins is listed as playing Nathan Bedford Forrest. That's a gift from heaven, if one knows how to use it.
  • Perhaps Forrest will break out in song.
  • Brooks D. Simpson
    Ah, but which song?

    For example, here's Forrest preparing to met Bragg:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgAfRX_jdJw

    That said, making Adkins face up to the content of the movie in which he wants to play Forrest is sure to lead to some pondering about whether he'd want to get involved in a mess.
  • Ken Noe
    It struck me this morning that if Maxwell does indeed end up directing--and that's also "in negotiation"--critics and movie goers will inevitably compare it to his last movie, a franchise-killing $56 million critical bomb that almost made back $13 million at the box office. So while this movie will attract the same devoted following, in the end the producers probably already have marginalized it.
  • That's a really good point, Ken. That Maxwell is even thinking about this even before finishing his little Shaara trilogy is also telling. You are right that if he takes it on it will be a limited release.
  • Brooks D. Simpson
    Kevin observed ...

    "I was simply pointing out that I believe that this site does matter because I've worked so hard to address specific issues in a responsible and intelligent manner."

    Of course. Without CWM we would not be discussing this in a virtual forum, and the blog brings together people (and attracts certain lurkers) to learn about and discuss these issues. We know and appreciate how you keep us informed and how you respond to these issues.

    In this case, CWM can serve as a way to mobilize and inform, and be the starting point of a response. In doing that it performs a very valuable service. But it can't shoulder the entire effort, and this should not turn into "let Kevin do it." Even if you are a superhero with special powers ...

    http://civilwarriors.net/wordpress/?p=1765
  • {...this should not turn into "let Kevin do it."}

    Brooks, I think we’re all on the same page here. We all recognize and appreciate Kevin's efforts and leadership. Ta-Nehisi Coates of the Atlantic deserves some recognition also. But this will take the support of a lot of others to make this work.

    One thing I hope doesn't happen is that this is seen as a conflict between so-called Southern Heritage folks on one side, and history academics (read by some as liberals) and blacks on the other. This would result in some (the media) seeing this as a clash of extremes, thus causing them to focus on the conflict and not the issues; and also cause the media to make the easy (careless) calculation that the real truth lies somewhere in the middle of the issues.

    I hope we can get a lot of different voices to speak out on this subject.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Again, I’m thankful to Kevin for his attention and leadership.
  • What do you suggest, Brooks? The film's website has an email contact address, and I availed myself of it to point out to the filmmakers a couple of the problems with their claims. I agree with your admonition not to be defeatist, but also agree with others here that there is a segment of the population that has an agenda and will never be swayed by evidence or rational argument. You pointed out that this is a good opportunity for those, such as Ed Bearss, to publicly confront the use and misuse of their names to push the black Confederate narrative. How might this happen? Is there a way to engage with the filmmakers and historians, and bring the questions involved to a larger public?
  • Brooks D. Simpson
    Marc, your point of departure, I think, is flawed. Generally speaking, the filmmaker's already sold on the issue at hand. Distributors are a different issue. So are movie companies. I'm not worried about the people I won't be able to persuade. I'd address the audience I might in fact be able to persuade, and I would not restrict myself to the internet, blogs, etc. For example, I recall that some people associated with CW publishing read this site. And how about HNN?

    As for Bearss, it's time for him to say something in public, something easy to circulate, to denounce the misleading use of his words. Again, information packets, contacts with media, etc., are among the steps one should take, and one might actually think about organizing all this stuff.

    Frankly, it's the other side that's more organized. If I was to ask you to point to a single website where all of these tales are treated dispassionately and with a respect for evidence, could you point one out? If I asked you to show me a place where I could see collected the evidence that counters this film's claims, could you point this out?

    Look, not too long ago there was a person who posted on this site who claimed he wanted to know the "truth" about this very question. It did not take me long to discover that the poster in question already had decided on what that "truth" might be, because he shared it on other blogs (including the bogus Grant quote about "good help is so hard to find"). We know of other bloggers who are beyond persuasion. Let that go. You're looking at the wrong audience, and you'll be reduced to a bystander bemoaning yet another manipulation of Civil War memory.

    For example ... if you're concerned about Hoffman taking a role in the movie, contact him through his agent, and suggest the flaws in the film/graphic novel with a fact sheet. Point him to this blog. Prepare a more comprehensive rebuttal that one can access easily. Work the media. Take the initiative. Be creative. Be assertive. Be aggressive. And agitate! Agitate! Agitate! Be the change you want to see. And so on.

    Don't tell me you think this is important. Show me how important you think it is by how you respond to this challenge and how you use this opportunity.
  • leewhite
    Also there are a lot of other errors as well, distorting the timeline of Army of Tennessee leadership by having Johnston taking command of the army directly from Bragg, and my own favorite that Bragg tried to punish Cleburne by taking away his distinctive battleflags, while it was Johnston who tried to do that, and not for punishment. But you quickly get Saint Joe and Devil Bragg from this, and that of course is topic of interest to me.
  • Eric Jacobson
    Oh God, this really could be a the radical SCV/neo Confederate wet dream. I like Pat Cleburne, but this whole thing is really nonsense. Cleburne has become a virtual myth because of his death at Franklin and I could go on and on about how much silly, overhyped praise I hear about him. He was certainly not the God he is often made out to be. My opinion about the movie is don't worry - I doubt it will reach an audience any wider than the one which already believes the premise of the novel's story.
  • Brooks D. Simpson
    Why is everyone so worried? I would think that this movie would provide an excellent opportunity for people who detest this sort of thing to bring that discussion to a wider audience and to take these folks on--and I don't mean simply on a blog. I think it's an ideal teaching and learning moment. I'd think it would be wonderful to confront the actors with the message they are helping to transmit. I think it's an excellent chance for Ed Bearss to confront this story of what he supposedly said.

    Instead of writing about Civil War memory, you have a chance to shape it. Period.
  • jfe
    Brooks, there are two problems: (1) This idea of "black Confederates" has been challenged repeatedly in the last 15 years, and seems almost immune to logical discussion. (2) If the movie gets made, the movie will exist and be shown and will be what people remember.
  • Brooks D. Simpson
    No, Jim, it's not been challenged effectively on a broad-based public forum. It also hasn't been advanced in that way. We are talking about relatively small numbers of people who seem to confuse the internet with broader-based discussions. Most people interested in the Civil War (and most historians) don't participate in these discussions.

    FDR was right: the only thing you have to fear is fear itself. Unfortunately, instead of seeing this as an opportunity, I see a lot of fear in these responses. This is a golden chance to expose this sort of stuff for what it is. And, if people really think this is important, they will rise to the challenge. If not, well, please don't complain about the ignorance of a public you've declined to enlighten.
  • jfe
    It's not just the Internet, it is all over the letters columns of mags like North & South. I do agree that sunlight is a good disinfectant, and there is a species of an opportunity here, but I am not confident that intelligence and accuracy will win this fight.
  • Brooks D. Simpson
    To you I have only this to say:

    "Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! "
  • jfe
    <vbg>
  • I tend to agree with you. How many times have you seen it on this site. Someone references a photograph or a document w/o anything approaching serious analysis from which they draw conclusions. The problem is that most people do not know how to evaluate sources. More problematic is that the general public does tend to believe what they see on the big screen.
  • Brooks D. Simpson
    The problem is that bloggers tend to confuse the blogosphere with the world of historical discussion. Most people simply don't pay attention to these discussions, or fail to do so in much depth. Now you get to wage this contest on a broader stage ... if you're up to it. If not, don't complain.
  • I agree with you that online discussions are just a drop in the bucket. At the same time I am proud of what this site has evolved into. I would like to think that it functions as an intelligent forum for those with a serious interest in history and historical memory. It attracts a wide range of readers and this feed is picket up by a number of listservs and newspapers around the country. I would like to think that I have gone above and beyond the call of duty in shedding some light on the problems related to this discussion of black Confederates.

    As I've said before, this site is just one aspect of my career as an educator.
  • Brooks D. Simpson
    Kevin, my comments aren't an attack on the site or on your work. They are a rather sharp-edged set of observations on all the reactions this issue has generated. Virtually every comment has expressed serious reservations about the historical accuracy of the film and its import for our understanding of Civil War memory. I see this as an opportunity and as a challenge.

    Blogs have potential. They also have limits. As a blogger, I realize this. Nor should the response to this film be limited to one blog or blogger. But I do sense a defeatist attitude in some of the comments, and I have to say that's out of place ... or it should be. But if folks want to concede the struggle over memory before it's really underway in this instance, well, I for one will be disappointed.

    That's one reason why I'd welcome Hoffman's participation, so this debate would get some attention.

    Sorry, folks, if I don't join in the head-shaking and mourning about popular ignorance, or the futility of contesting a particular view of history on the eve of the sesquicentennial. And if that arouses some anger against me, well, all I'll wonder is why you're angry.

    Once more: people can talk about Civil War memory (and that includes all of you), or you can try to shape it. Here's your chance.
  • I should have been clear that I wasn't responding to what I perceived to be an attack/challenge by you. In fact, I pretty much agree with everything you've said. Blogging does have a very limited influence. I was simply pointing out that I believe that this site does matter because I've worked so hard to address specific issues in a responsible and intelligent manner. Of course, not everyone would agree with that assessment, but that these same people spend significant time here speaks volumes.

    I am not skeptical in any way about our ability to add to and even shape these important discussions. If I did have any doubt this site would not be in operation. Thanks Brooks.
  • I myself am very worried. Consider the doctored (ie, fake) photo of the Louisiana Native Guards that was mentioned earlier. This fraud has been exposed, yet, the photo is still widely circulated on the web... in fact, its use seems to be spreading.

    I appreciate Kevin's efforts here, and those of a few others I've seen. But those efforts represent a tiny slice of the communications spectrum (TV, radio, newspapers, etc.)

    To really challenge this movie, it's required that
    a) people who are knowledgeable, credible, and possessed of the appropriate communication resources (and time) are able to make an effective pitch that sets the record straight.
    b) people who see the movie are sufficiently skeptical that that they are willing to listen to alternative voices that contradict what they've seen or believe.

    I don't know if either (a) or (b) will happen. We'll see.

    PS: It's amusing to see this stream of interpretations of men like Lee and Cleburne as anti-slavers who had plans to emancipate the slaves. At this rate, the entire South will be portrayed as anti-slavery by the end of the 2010s.
  • No doubt, it's an uphill battle. I've always tended to see this site as an extension of my teaching. It's a "tiny slice of the communications spectrum" but it is mine and I can do my best to set the right example of what it means to take the past seriously.
  • Of course, I agree that this offers an opportunity to challenge this narrative from a number of angles. Unfortunately, I think this also reflects the extent to which this has become a legitimate and widely accepted interpretation. You know me, I will certainly put up the good fight.
  • heidic
    It's very upsetting to see America's most commemorated event skewed for popular culture, even though that has been the case since after the war; regardless, you think with 150 years after the war we would acknowledge the reality of the war, not simply lean to one extreme and then to make up for that, lean to another. In my opinion, if America wants to commemorate the Civil War in popular culture it should be done so with facts and the reality of the war, not with this nonsense based on tenuous history that pleases people.
  • There have been a number of pretty good Hollywood movies about the Civil War, but this movie would set us back decades in our popular understanding of the war. This is unfortunate.
  • Ken Noe
    Interesting to read that Stonewall Jackson supported Cleburne's proposal, since he was, well, dead when Cleburne proposed it.

    I do wonder what's up with this film. The website says that Ron Maxwell is directing, but according to Variety, the director is the author of the graphic novel (who also wrote the script and seems to own the production company as well).
  • Well, that interesting little "fact" will fit neatly into the "Stonewall Jackson Sunday School Teacher/Civil Rights Leader" narrative.

    There are a number of questions about this film that I am looking into.
  • margaretdblough
    How about the howler of Cleburne never losing a battle? He WAS part of the Army of Tennessee wasn't he? By January 1864, among other engagements, he'd been in the Battle of Missionary Ridge. True, his unit's performance was about the only bright spot for Confederates there and blunted Sherman but it was still a crushing Confederate defeat. As for whether or not he suffered repercussions for his proposal, that's hard to tell because I think he was already pretty well ensconced on Bragg's enemies list prior to that.
  • Ken Noe
    Are you looking into the cast? All the major stars, Hoffman included, are listed as "in negotiations." I don't speak Hollywood, but doesn't that mean they're not really signed up yet?
  • Thanks Ken. I was only under the impression that the role of Cleburne was in negotiations. I would hate to see Hoffman in this movie.
  • The Benjamin role has "cameo" written all over it. Frighteningly, however, it's not unusual for actors to appear in historical films with the conviction that the film is historically correct. As we know, that's seldom the case. And actors are judged on their ability to portray a character as written and directed, not on their intellect.
  • markrcheathem
    I'm speechless.
  • jfe
    This is actually scary. Someone of stature in the field needs to discuss this with the actors and producers and make sure they know how tenuous is the "history" here.
  • You are absolutely right. I am going to do everything I can to challenge this nonsense.
  • Oh good God.
  • You took the words right out of my mouth.
  • I take issue with the very basis of this whole narrative, that is that Cleburne somehow paid a price for his proposal. As Lee has pointed out quite convincingly, it is far more rational to deduce that Cleburne was "passed over" in favor of more senior, more experienced, and more connected officers.
  • That's right and if I remember correctly, Craig Symonds makes just that point in his biography. The problem is that this narrative makes it seem as if Cleburne initiated this discussion.

    Once again I have to recommend Bruce Levine's _Confederate Emancipation_ for anyone who is truly interested in the history behind Cleburne's proposal as well as the broader debate that took place throughout the Confederacy on whether to arm a limited number of slaves.
  • jfe
    Let me second the thought on Levine's book. It is very good.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: