Update: Those of you in Virginia may want to check out the upcoming Nat Turner Rebellion Symposium.
I learned of this planned movie about Nat Turner from my twitter feed and via this blog post. It’s hard to know what to make of the movie website. There is a script, but the casting call is open to anyone who wants to audition over YouTube. The trailer, which echoes some of the gratuitous violence of Django, will likely disturb some of you. Whether we ever see this movie in the theaters is anyone’s guess. At this point that might be a good thing.
I’ve known for about a year that there is a movie script about Frederick Douglass that is being bandied around, but this is the first I’ve heard of a movie about Solomon Northup. The movie is based on Northup’s autobiography, which I’ve used numerous times in the classroom. The movie boasts an impressive line-up of actors so it will be interesting to see if it does justice to the book. If you are going to make a movie about slavery Northup’s story is ideal for some of the same reasons that the story of the Amistad proved attractive to Spielberg. Both stories end with freedom. I hope the movie somehow makes it clear that Northup’s story before the Civil War was highly unusual.
The movie hits theaters this coming October.
This Thursday marks the 150th anniversary of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry’s unsuccessful assault at Battery Wagner outside of Charleston. Though the amount of attention focused on this event pales in comparison with the recent commemoration of the battle of Gettysburg, the event constitutes the “high water-mark” of the black soldier experience in the Civil War and in our popular memory. This is due in large part to the success and continued popularity of the movie, “Glory”. On the one hand, the movie obscures the rich history of those black men who fought for the United States during the war beyond the 54th, but it also opens a door that will hopefully be exploited by those involved in this commemoration over the course of the week. Continue reading
While in Gettysburg last week for the CWI I led a dinner discussion about the effects of the campaign on the region’s black population. We discussed two chapters in Margaret Creighton’s book, The Colors of Courage: Gettysburg’s Forgotten History: Immigrants, Women, and African Americans in the Civil War’s Defining Battle. It was a really nice discussion so I decided to write up a little something for the History News Network. It’s also encouraging to see that others have touched on it as well on blogs and in newspaper editorials. The stories are powerful, but more importantly, it forces us to step back from our tendency to interpret the battle in isolation from the broader picture. We often get caught up in the details of the unfolding drama and lose sight of the fact that the movement of armies and place of battle mattered to ordinary people in profound ways. Anyway, most of you who read this blog are likely familiar with this story, but if I can offer a slightly different view of the campaign and battle for those new to this history than it will have been worth writing.
On Wednesday July 3, thousands of visitors will congregate near the “copse of trees” on Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg to commemorate the 150th anniversary of “Pickett’s Charge.” From this position they will be able to imagine the roughly 13,000 Confederates in tight formation, who crossed the deadly field in the face of long-range artillery. Once across the Emmitsburg Road visitors should have little trouble envisioning the deadly effects of short-range canister and the deafening sound of Union rifles. Some will contemplate the tragedy of a war that pitted Americans v. Americans while others will hold tight to thoughts of what might have been before accepting that the charge constituted a decisive Confederate defeat. [Read the rest of the article at HNN]
It’s always interesting to watch politicians distort the past for their own purposes. This week Elbert Guillory decided to switch from the Democratic to the Republican Party. As he explains in this short video, he did so based on his understanding of the broad political history of race. Why he only recently came to some of these realizations goes unmentioned, but here are a few highlights. According to Guillory “the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement.” It was the Republican Party that gave blacks rights of citizenship during Reconstruction. Democrats have always been on the wrong side of the history of race. Most importantly, “they were the party of Jim Crow.” Guillory praises Dwight D. Eisenhower as the champion of the Civil Rights act of 1957.” Somehow he forgot that it was a Democrat from Texas who pushed for the final passage of the Civil Rights Bill in 1964.
Ultimately, Guillory’s break with the Democrats is based on a rejection of the notion that only big government can improve the lives of Americans. But isn’t much of the history of freedom for African Americans the result of government intervention? Setting aside the important role that blacks played in securing their own freedom didn’t the government intervene directly during the Civil War to free slaves? Finally, wasn’t Reconstruction itself the most extreme example of government intervention during the postwar period before the 1930s? Wasn’t it Southern Democrats who wanted to be left to sort out their affairs without federal intrusion. Continue reading