I finally had a chance to watch the new Will Smith movie, Emancipation. It’s not a great movie, but it is well worth watching. For the purposes of this post today, I am going to confine myself to making a couple points that connect the movie to broader issues of Civil War history and memory.
I watched this movie over the weekend and had a few comments/questions:
1)I did not think the movie was great and some of the violence was filmed in a manipulative way.
2)I have never seen the experience of impressment of enslaved people into serving the Confederate army depicted in a movie which was interesting and informative. The hopelessness at the Confederate camp was deeply disturbing and looked like a concentration camp from WW2. Is that accurate?
3)I was inspired by the black federal troops and it was great to see their heroic actions.
4)Was Gordon Haitian? How did he become enslaved after the banning of the slave trade?
5)Where did his deep faith come from?
6)Was he a preacher?
7)His former owner was summarily executed by a white officer when Gordon family was liberated? Is that accurate and did that happen frequently?
8)Gordon wife intentionally maims herself to prevent family separation. Was that common?
9)Did Gordon go into the army before or after the Emancipation Proclamation?
The movie was not bad, I'd give it a 7/10. But one thing I noticed that I had a question about (and please don't read this if you haven't seen the film):
In the Confederate slave labor camp, an enslaved man is shot and killed because he didn't listen to someone's orders. Granted, this is done to underscore the horrors of slavery and give one more reason for Peter to escape (as if there weren't enough already by that point). My question is, wasn't the enslaved man someone else's leased "property," to which you now have to explain that you've killed him? And wouldn't such an action likely make slaveholders less likely to rent out their enslaved people and do as much as they could to keep it from happening? I mean, even the heads on the posts might discourage enslavers from renting their enslaved to the Confederate military.
I don’t think we can underestimate the sadistic inhumanity that allows such brutality to happen. Just like the beatings, torture and lynchings that went on for so long. Whites were dependent on slaves but many appeared to hate them for it. Why would you horse whip a valuable worker? Why would you maim, sexually abuse, or deliberately separate families? Why wouldn’t a soldier who killed a slave face punishment? Sadism seems to be part of the inhumane institution.
Such an important point, but I am struck even more by the acts of violence from individuals that are not so easily labeled as sadistic. Examples such as the enforcing of the back breaking work in the fields, restrictions on diets, and the strain on families generally that was created by the slave system.
This is a very good question. First, I don't know how frequently impressed slaves were executed in any manner during their time in the army. In the event of their death the owner was supposed to be financially compensated for the loss of his property.
It's even more difficult to surmise whether this had an impact on slaveholders' willingness to agree to this policy. Certainly, it wasn't necessary by the end of the war. Historian Jaime Martinez argues that while their was some push back, slaveholders in Virginia and North Carolina supported the policy as part of their support for the war effort. Check out her book CONFEDERATE SLAVE IMPRESSMENT IN THE UPPER SOUTH for more on this. We definitely could use more research on this particular subject.
This thread has made me curious about Confederate slave impressment. I think it is one of the most significant parts of the missing Civil War narrative. It is important to the popular narrative to understand that the band of southern brothers stood on the backs of African slaves.. What I am most curious about is the view of Southern enslavers regarding impressment of the slaves. I thought they were generally opposed to sending slaves to t
the service of the government (and white men too) because of the impact on the domestic work force. It appears I may be wrong in that assumption. I will add the book you recommended to my reading list.
"I also appreciated the way in which Peter’s escape complicates our understanding of emancipation in the South during the war. For far too long historians debated whether enslaved people freed themselves as opposed to Lincoln’s role through the Emancipation Proclamation and other federal policies."
Peter is prompted to escape on hearing the news of the Emancipation Proclamation and that the escapes of Black people will be protected by the Union army, rather than turned away.
Personally, I don't see much value in the who-freed-the-slaves as much as as I see the two forces working together. Yes, I think it was a mistake to teach the history of emancipation without highlighting the agency of enslaved people themselves, especially with the many incredible stories of clever escapes. But I also think it's a mistake to understand emancipation while leaving out the actions of the Lincoln Administration, the Union Army, and career abolitionists. It doesn't have to be either/or.
I watched this movie over the weekend and had a few comments/questions:
1)I did not think the movie was great and some of the violence was filmed in a manipulative way.
2)I have never seen the experience of impressment of enslaved people into serving the Confederate army depicted in a movie which was interesting and informative. The hopelessness at the Confederate camp was deeply disturbing and looked like a concentration camp from WW2. Is that accurate?
3)I was inspired by the black federal troops and it was great to see their heroic actions.
4)Was Gordon Haitian? How did he become enslaved after the banning of the slave trade?
5)Where did his deep faith come from?
6)Was he a preacher?
7)His former owner was summarily executed by a white officer when Gordon family was liberated? Is that accurate and did that happen frequently?
8)Gordon wife intentionally maims herself to prevent family separation. Was that common?
9)Did Gordon go into the army before or after the Emancipation Proclamation?
Hi Steve,
I will do my best to answer your questions.
Enslaved men labored under very difficult conditions in Confederate camps like the one depicted in the movie.
You are going to need to do some research on Gordon on your own. There is much that we don't know.
There are accounts of enslaved people maiming themselves to prevent their separation from family members. It's hard to know how common it was.
Gordon went into the army in 1863, after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
I haven’t seen the movie, but I’ve certainly seen the image of the badly scarred back of this enslaved man. I have often wondered about his story.
I’m interested now in seeing the movie.
Definitely take the time to read the essay linked to in the post.
Emancipation is on my list of movies to see. Thanks for the insights. I always like a (non-documentary) movie that corrects historical inaccuracies.
Let me know what you think.
The movie was not bad, I'd give it a 7/10. But one thing I noticed that I had a question about (and please don't read this if you haven't seen the film):
In the Confederate slave labor camp, an enslaved man is shot and killed because he didn't listen to someone's orders. Granted, this is done to underscore the horrors of slavery and give one more reason for Peter to escape (as if there weren't enough already by that point). My question is, wasn't the enslaved man someone else's leased "property," to which you now have to explain that you've killed him? And wouldn't such an action likely make slaveholders less likely to rent out their enslaved people and do as much as they could to keep it from happening? I mean, even the heads on the posts might discourage enslavers from renting their enslaved to the Confederate military.
I don’t think we can underestimate the sadistic inhumanity that allows such brutality to happen. Just like the beatings, torture and lynchings that went on for so long. Whites were dependent on slaves but many appeared to hate them for it. Why would you horse whip a valuable worker? Why would you maim, sexually abuse, or deliberately separate families? Why wouldn’t a soldier who killed a slave face punishment? Sadism seems to be part of the inhumane institution.
Such an important point, but I am struck even more by the acts of violence from individuals that are not so easily labeled as sadistic. Examples such as the enforcing of the back breaking work in the fields, restrictions on diets, and the strain on families generally that was created by the slave system.
This is a very good question. First, I don't know how frequently impressed slaves were executed in any manner during their time in the army. In the event of their death the owner was supposed to be financially compensated for the loss of his property.
It's even more difficult to surmise whether this had an impact on slaveholders' willingness to agree to this policy. Certainly, it wasn't necessary by the end of the war. Historian Jaime Martinez argues that while their was some push back, slaveholders in Virginia and North Carolina supported the policy as part of their support for the war effort. Check out her book CONFEDERATE SLAVE IMPRESSMENT IN THE UPPER SOUTH for more on this. We definitely could use more research on this particular subject.
This thread has made me curious about Confederate slave impressment. I think it is one of the most significant parts of the missing Civil War narrative. It is important to the popular narrative to understand that the band of southern brothers stood on the backs of African slaves.. What I am most curious about is the view of Southern enslavers regarding impressment of the slaves. I thought they were generally opposed to sending slaves to t
the service of the government (and white men too) because of the impact on the domestic work force. It appears I may be wrong in that assumption. I will add the book you recommended to my reading list.
"I also appreciated the way in which Peter’s escape complicates our understanding of emancipation in the South during the war. For far too long historians debated whether enslaved people freed themselves as opposed to Lincoln’s role through the Emancipation Proclamation and other federal policies."
Peter is prompted to escape on hearing the news of the Emancipation Proclamation and that the escapes of Black people will be protected by the Union army, rather than turned away.
Personally, I don't see much value in the who-freed-the-slaves as much as as I see the two forces working together. Yes, I think it was a mistake to teach the history of emancipation without highlighting the agency of enslaved people themselves, especially with the many incredible stories of clever escapes. But I also think it's a mistake to understand emancipation while leaving out the actions of the Lincoln Administration, the Union Army, and career abolitionists. It doesn't have to be either/or.
I completely agree, Bryan. Emancipation was a complex process both over time and depending on location. Numerous factors must be considered.