@@thatcher17 No. He was questioning the Confederacy, not the United States of America. The Founding Fathers knew damn well that they would be called hypocrites and therefore set in place the means by which slavery could and would be abolished. If you bother to look at the reasons for secession, every state that did so mentions maintaining the institution of slavery as a reason.
@@thatcher17 Yes that's a valid point. The hypocrisy of slave-owners writing "all men are created equal" speaks more to the racist and paternalistic attitudes they held toward black people, not the attitudes they held toward slavery. White supremacy was a fairly universal belief among 18th and 19th century Americans, slave owners or not. But the Confederate struggle was undertaken specifically to protect slavery, not to form a self-governing democratic republic. That was an incidental/circumstantial objective, not the main objective. Lost Causers like to flip those two around -- secession was done to form a self-governing democratic republic, with keeping slavery being incidental to that aim, citing "tariffs" as the true impetus to form a separate country. Nope. Secessionists are actually quite open and transparent about why they were seceding. "We must preserve slavery or our society is doomed." Read their speeches and addresses. Those guys really don't mince words. Protect slavery first and foremost, then figure out how to run a separate country once our slave economies and livelihoods are safe from the tyrant Lincoln. They don't argue about tariffs or state's rights or the Yankee invaduh. Slavery. It was about slavery.
@@Bill-uo6cm No it wouldn't have. The southern elite correctly predicted that the end of slavery was imminent when Lincoln was elected. Their solution was to then rip themselves apart from the rest of the country to keep their wealth and power safely out of abolition's reach.
I got the fortunate opportunity to meet Jeff Daniels, playing Joshua Chamberlain in this scene. I told him how much I enjoyed seeing “Gettysburg” as well as “Gods and Generals” and he replied “Thank you very much. Those were the good ones.”
I'm proud to say I am the x4 grandson of Levi Beck, an absolute nobody that nobody outside of his descendants will remember, but who charged the rebels at Mine Run and left only after being shot twice. He carried a rebel bullet in his body for years after the war until he died. The good thing is the war has enough heroes to make us all proud.
he really did a disservice to himself doing all those stupid comedies when he is a profoundly talented actor. i can't think of anyone else i'd rather see playing the common man with emotional depth and disarming genuineness.
The three characters I really "fell for" in Gettysburg were Longstreet, Buford and Chamberlain. But it was Chamberlain who won my heart with that outstanding bayonet charge on Little Round Top.
@@Pemmont107 He was still enlisted so doing something the day before doesn`t mean he gets a day off, but if he did have a leg wound I don`t recall him being shot at little round top.
despite that he became Governor. And in office he showed incredible moral courage. He is the rare person who proved to have battle field courage and moral courage.
This film does show the absolute tragedy of sending good men off to be slaughtered by bad generals. And other good men being sent into the meat grinder in defense of a treasonous and morally bankrupt cause. Lessons we still need to learn.
@@infinitecanadian It was absolutely treason, and I say this as a descendant of those killed in battle for a horrific and traitorous cause. Let the confederacy and its defenders rot in hell
@@infinitecanadianyou are right. People who call it treason are miseducated. The Confederate states morally and legally left the United States. They were no more treasonists than George Washington and the Revolutionaries. You can't commit treason against a country you're not part of.
@@drewdurbin4968 and all the confederate lines are gospel truth lol come on bud everyone romanticizes the Civil War for some reason it was dirty bloody and fought due to the changing world
This movie was definitely flawed in ways that Gettysburg was not. But at the same time it’s still very underappreciated. It’s a lot better than people give it credit for.
Bowdoin College produced some tremendous soldiers. Joshua Chamberlain, and MOH winner Everett Pope, who went to school with Ack Ack Haldane, who is considered to be one of finest battlefield Marine Officers of WW2
@RUclips Veterinarian Quite a lot, actually. Sure, they still had a long road ahead of them after the war, but they never would have been able to start down that road were it not for their being freed from slavery.
@@drewdurbin4968 yeah, I'm watching this clip and am thinking, "Yeah, this dude really said that back in the 1860s" LOL... I'm pretty sure the Union soldiers were fighting against slavery the whole time: just read the Battle Hymn of the Republic song, as well as some books where they called this a godless rebellion back then. I mean, what else would drive men to die like they did if there wasn't some great cause?
@@ConcernedResident_GiantStack it's called distortion history because of a narrative. This "speech" never happened according to any record. The Civil War happened because of a split in the Union and a wanted continuation of State's Rights, the institution of Slavery was one of them. In fact, slavery was a small part. The "War to Free the Slaves" is revisionist history, purely. However, as in all wars, the Victor's write or rewrite history.
Charles Wang he apparently spoke several classic languages...and even fooled confederates behind the lines with a perfect southern accent and advised them to go to the northern lines.
This was just thrown in there, this one speech amongst countless pro-Confederate speeches, as a token counter-balance to give the film plausible deniability for what it very obviously intended to do -- promote the Lost Cause narrative and glorify the Confederacy.
@@thomasbrennan6303 "Listen to them. The leaders of our intellectual future, screaming for the destruction of our nation!"..."I will not stay in a place where my students dishonor their country's flag."..."Your country, Thomas? Your country, my country. It's all one. All one, Thomas. All one." "Slavery will end in its own time. But the breakup of the Union will inaugurate wars of a hundred generations in America, only to repeat the bloody history of Europe." "How is it a good Christian man, like some folks I know, can tolerate their black brothers in bondage? How is it, Lord, they don't just break them chains?"
@@joshuadesautels Throwing us a 2-minute pro-Union bone doesn't undo the hours and hours of pro-Confederate proselytizing that comprised the obvious thesis of this movie. Honestly, even Gettysburg was criticized for being too sympathetic to the Confederacy -- which I can sort of see, but its saving grace was that the movie focused on depicting the battle, not the social and political ideologies of the war. Joshua Chamberlain, Tom and Buster were really the main protagonists in Gettysburg. The Little Round Top scene had me on the edge of my seat, because I cared about them. They were well-written, well-acted (especially by Jeff Daniels), and their dialogue felt real and emotional. Stonewall Jackson is the main character in this one, and he's just preaching Lost Cause bullshit to his cheering subordinates and his happy slaves, for like, the whole fucking movie.
ONE OF MY FAVORITE SCENES FROM ANY MOVIE. COL. JOSHUA ( LAWRENCE) IS UPSET EARLIER IN THE FILM THAT HIS BROTHER LEFT THE FARM AND JOINED THE ARMY. LAWRENCE HAD TO LEARN TO COMMAND, AS HE WAS A PROFESSOR OF RHETORIC/PHILOSOPHY; THOMAS HAD TO SIMPLY GROW UP. IN THIS SCENE, OLDER BROTHER LAWRENCE EXPOUNDS ON THE FULL SCOPE AND SCALE OF THE WAR THEY WERE IN, AND THE STAKES INVOLVED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. POWERFUL SPEAKING, ELOQUENT WORDS. THE FILM SCORE IS ALSO ONE OF MY FAVORITES.
Chamberlain a true American hero. He is one of the first man who really fought for American values. LIBERTY AND FREEDOM FOR ALL. All man are created equal.
it seems like different movies coexist in Gods & Generals. parts of the movie feels like "Lost Cause" propaganda. 1 part feels like a very edited biopic of General Jackson (it skipped his 1862 Shenandoah Valley campaign!). another part is about Chamberlain's experience in the war before Gettysburg. the middle portion is devoted to the battle of Fredericksburg. when the movie's focused on the Confederates, it highlights major themes of Lost Cause mythology. but it completely changes its tune when the focus is on Chamberlain! so the movie has a schizophrenic tone to it!
In my opinion, that just means they show what each side believed and fought for. The only thing needed is an audience that can deduce that in the confederate logic there is a blatant moral flaw. But ofcourse, the mainstream audience does not want to think too much. Same with Starship Troopers: 'it shows a perfect, fascist world'. No, it shows a world where fascism is the rule, and YOU decide that it is a perfect world, despite there being several signs that there are no personal freedoms or universal rights.
Part of it comes from the screenplay pretty much cutting Hancock's entire part down to ten or fifteen minutes, whereas in the book he's a major character. The book feels balanced, the film does not. Particularly when the screenplay creates a family that didn't exist in the book that romanticizes the old south and gives us a slave character who hangs around Jackson for some inexplicable reason. But a scene like this one really does push back against that 'lost cause' element the film is often criticized for.
My God...A thoughtful discussion about the filmmaker's motivations on the internet, and in the RUclips comments section no less! Thank you. I'm with you guys. The film does feel a bit schizophrenic in places, though altogether a good job. I think that's why, to me, Gettysburg is a better film on the whole. I'm always struck by the scene in Gettysburg where Longstreet tells Freemantle, the British observer, that no way would the British government ever come to the aid of a society that upheld slavery. So, yeah, I think Gettysburg is more consistent in its "realism," for lack of a better term, but Gods and Generals gets more right than it does wrong.
Very good scene from a good Civil War film that is not as one-sided as many reviewers portrayed it to be. Sure, there is more of an emphasis on the Southern side, and a certain glossing over of characters like Lee and Jackson. But all things considered, the film portrays both sides fairly, in my opinion. There’s a great line in this scene that sums up my point: “Now I cannot question their integrity. I believe they are wrong, but I cannot question it.” Aloha 🤙🏼
People thought it favored the South but it covers the first two years of the war to which the South was winning. So...🤷🏻♂️ I bet if they finished the trilogy it would lean toward the North as...well we all know who won the war.
The movie is pretty one sided. It shows a "Gone With the Wind" type idyllic noble antebellum portrayal of the South. The Confederates are routinely portrayed as pious and righteous, giving them multiple rousing speeches and uplifting musical scores whenever they conduct military actions. It totally glosses over slavery, and the only slave character in the movie is a fantasy creation who is so loved by her masters that she is treated as an equal and, despite _saying_ that she wishes for her and her children to be free, chooses to stay in the house once the Federals leave because "she loves the family so much." Confederate characters pontificate about "defending hearth and home" and defending "property" while conveniently glossing over the "peculiar institution" which was literally THE hot-button issue of the time. There's a difference between "portraying one side" and "whitewashing one side to make them look better."
And of course, the only time a derogatory term is used towards a slave is stated by a United States soldier, and not once from a CSA soldier or citizen.
Miraj Tan - The officially became about freeing slaves as well, once the proclamation was announced, but from the onset of the war, slaves were being freed by the US Army. As the war dragged on, US soldiers got out of their bubbles and saw more of the South, and understood how horrible slavery was, according to their letters. Their new marching tune became , “(end of verse)...As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free. His truth is marching on. (Chorus in tune of Glory glory Halleuia) John Brown’s body lies amoulderin’ in the grave. (Repeat). The South believed the hype that Lincoln was going to emancipate their slaves, which is why the first seven states left as soon as Abe was elected. The South ironically took actions which lead to the freeing of the slaves. The decision to secede could go down in history as one of the most clumsy, ill- conceived backfirings ever. If they accepted the election results, they could have kept their slaves for much longer at least, as they never would have created an excuse for northerners to travel South, become enlightened of the horror , and strip the slaver of his capital.
Rather or not the scene in the tent is real Chamberlain has a point. Winning a war is useless if you don't eliminate what caused the issues in the first place. If slavery remained tensions between North and South would have just flared up again.
Chamberlain was a man of high ideals, but I prefer the more personal view expressed by Buster in “Gettysburg.” “I damn all gentlemen- and that is why we’ve got to win this war.”
Yes, the republicans of the 1860s were a progressive party (hence the moniker of radical republicans levied at them by the slavers) and the democrats were a largely southern based Conservative party.
@@MichaelCasanovaMusic the so called "switch" didn't take place until the early 1900s. And that was due to a introduction of industry from the North to the south as new technologies were replacing old ones.
I think a lot of people have some very basic knowledge of this war, and they lump it all into a single event. So even though the war began over one thing, and then halfway through the president rebranded the war into something else, people take the position that it all happened at once. It makes sense, because then it's an easy thing to understand. It makes it a good guys vs. bad guys situation, and then that can be co-opted into the present day political argument.
War is never easy, or simple. It's a cataclysmic chain of political, social and economical events AND actual warfare. The american civil war actually a very short and uncomplicated war for it's time and still it's a lot of single events to acknowledge and understand the way they're connected.
That happens all the time. Saying the war was to end slavery from the get go would've lost the US the support of the border states. Yes it was a political move, yes it was rebranded when it looked like the US army was going to win, but at no point did Lincoln's convictions or his goal of what would happen at the end of the war change about slavery.
@@FLASK904 The War was not fought to end slavery, not at the start anyway, but from the very first the war was a war that was being fought because the South wanted to form it's own country, specifically to preserve and expand slavery without the threat that the north might try to limit it.Thus in short, from the start the core issue at the heart of the Civil War was Slavery, though it was not originally the Unions goal to end slavery.
Yea they both gained weight. It came with age. But yes. This film came AFTER Gettysburg but takes place prior. We just ignore it and enjoy the stellar films and wonderful acting
They only call it a Lost Cause propaganda movie because it goes over how the war started. Not through secession but through Lincoln's "bellicose form of persuasion." The war could have been avoided if Lincoln did not call for the 100,000 volunteers.
Of course he said it, maybe not exactly this way, but he thought it. He was a superb rhetoritician and who knows, maybe even said it better than this....
They tried to do Too Much in one movie. I really Really REALLY wanted to like this movie (because of Gettysburg), but no. Its not unwatchable...but close.
I always get sad reading the comments about this movie. Everybody gets lost in the "Pro North" or "Pro South" side and miss the bigger picture. This war happened because of the political failures of our leaders and their lack to negotiate in good faith for a solution for both sides. Their is a big part of this war that was driven by overseas interests that never are discussed by us. There were huge trade implications for the UK, France, Spain and other countries that had a vested interest in the outcome of this war as well. The part of this that every person should come away with is that this war affected real people on both sides who really had little to gain in the big picture, but just trying to preserve their little part of the whole they were involved with. Slavery, taxation, state's rights were all just a small piece of the whole and until people stop focusing on symptoms and follow the path to the real cause, we will be doomed to repeat history again I fear. Instead of slavery, the next war will be over immigration, free healthcare and other entitlements and the people who lose everything will be the ones trying to do the right thing and have the least to gain by either outcome.
Lincoln said early on that if could preserve the Union by freeing all of the slaves he would do it; if he could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves he would do it; if he could preserve the Union by freeing some and not others he would do that too.
His speech to the Maine prisoners that his regiment had to take in was even better than this, spoke to our nations purpose and beginnings as much as the war’s purpose
during and after, the proclamation of emancipation was aimed at rebel states only. It took a few years before slaves in the southern union states were freed as well. The irony.
Lincoln's main objective was to preserve the Union. Abolish all slavery at once might have forced some of those states you mention to swing to the rebellion. What's the point of trying to end slavery and lose the war? The north would be slave free and the south would be it's own country with slavery still in existence.
Jonathan Curtis remember that in 1862 Lincoln pointed out that while he was personally opposed to slavery, his primary duty was to preserve the union. He said, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
I love this scene, even though its meant to be neoconfederate BS ridiculing the critical race theory. But the N word was the polite way to refer to slaves back then, ironically.
Negro was considered polite, yes. Nigger was always seen as an impolite term. Even in the South it had a rough connotation and was mostly used in anger.
The “N Word” is not “Negro”. That remained the “polite way” at least as far as the founding of the NAACP and Marcus Garvey’s organizations, and probably as late as the end of the Negro Leagues of baseball, into the 1960s.
@@Egilhelmson It was... back in the 1850's, because the continental slave trade was illegal and only slaves from Cuba were allowed so they were called black in spanish.
It’s odd that Lincoln’s emancipation only was for the confederate lands, not the union, where slavery was still going on. Just shows we’d have to live in that time to have a shot at understanding
Politically he couldn't since Co gress had that authority not the President. But, as Commander in Chief he could decide what to do in territories that didn't have representatives anymore (since they withdrew) that were in open military revolt so he could legally declare it over there without taking power away from congress
I believe that he said that he would sacrifice either one of them in the cause of freedom. That's totally different than saying "I'm sure going to miss you." :-)
I feel this movie while not the greatest, gets a bad rap as confederate propaganda, when in actuality there was to be a third movie that was going to be showing the Union position in depth, so it’s an incomplete trilogy, Gettysburg was great and timeless and this one suffers because it’s incomplete of sorts since the third movie was never made making it seem like it was a blatant attempt at neo-confederate lost cause type propaganda when in actuality it was never the aim of this movie for the mere fact it was never supposed to be a stand alone film.
It’s so very A Shame that this Movie doesn’t go all of that way up to where General Lee Surrenders to Grant At Appomattox Courthouse on April 9th, Of 1865 and while in which would have been so very interesting to have brought the Movie to a Finish with that Historic Surrender just like all other Previous Civil War Films have done so ! 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
There is a third novel called “the last full measure” which will likely never be made because the director and producer had a falling out after this neo confederate fantasy movie bombed at the box office
S,Avery WAS the main reason for the Civil War. All you need to do is read the CongressionalRecord in the months leading up in it. There is one and only one issue under discussion, slavery.
The real question is did Chamberlain's opposition to slavery ever prevent him from buying and wearing a nice comfortable cotton shirt? The North could have ended slavery anytime they wanted by just not buying the cotton the slaves were picking. No war required.
He probably wore wool, not cotton. Cotton was shipped to European mills, where they paid more. At the beginning of the war, the South banned the export of cotton, to build up the demand for cotton; ironically it forced the cotton mills to switch to closer Egyptian sources of cotton.
Huge Chamberlain fan here, but according to history, even the Union hadn't granted freedom to an entire race of men at that point in the War, only in states of rebellion that hadn't been conquered yet.
Lincoln had no legal authority to free the slaves. Slavery was legal before 1865. He declared the slaves in rebel-held territory free as a war measure, an emergency measure. Freeing the slaves required an Act of Congress, which happened in 1865.
People knew right from wrong. a major change was onthe way, if they held firm. The rich of the South had deluded themselves, twisting the bible to hold up an evil that was making them filthy rich. On the other hand people like Chamberlain had it right and weren't flinching, prepared to die for the right thing. Robert Gould Shaw was another such hero who also makes me proud to be a human being. As one descended from the many held in bondage at that time, I give a hearty salute to them all, always, the true champoins of the human race, IMHO...
Chamberlain is the rare person who expressed tremendous amounts of moral courage and battle field courage.
*"But I do question a system that defends its own freedom while it denies it to others to an entire race of men."*
So he literally questioned the legitimacy of the Founding Fathers and their struggle for independence
@@thatcher17 No. He was questioning the Confederacy, not the United States of America. The Founding Fathers knew damn well that they would be called hypocrites and therefore set in place the means by which slavery could and would be abolished.
If you bother to look at the reasons for secession, every state that did so mentions maintaining the institution of slavery as a reason.
@@sce2aux464 Slavery would have been more secure had the South stayed in the Union.
@@thatcher17 Yes that's a valid point. The hypocrisy of slave-owners writing "all men are created equal" speaks more to the racist and paternalistic attitudes they held toward black people, not the attitudes they held toward slavery. White supremacy was a fairly universal belief among 18th and 19th century Americans, slave owners or not.
But the Confederate struggle was undertaken specifically to protect slavery, not to form a self-governing democratic republic. That was an incidental/circumstantial objective, not the main objective. Lost Causers like to flip those two around -- secession was done to form a self-governing democratic republic, with keeping slavery being incidental to that aim, citing "tariffs" as the true impetus to form a separate country. Nope. Secessionists are actually quite open and transparent about why they were seceding. "We must preserve slavery or our society is doomed." Read their speeches and addresses. Those guys really don't mince words. Protect slavery first and foremost, then figure out how to run a separate country once our slave economies and livelihoods are safe from the tyrant Lincoln. They don't argue about tariffs or state's rights or the Yankee invaduh. Slavery. It was about slavery.
@@Bill-uo6cm No it wouldn't have. The southern elite correctly predicted that the end of slavery was imminent when Lincoln was elected. Their solution was to then rip themselves apart from the rest of the country to keep their wealth and power safely out of abolition's reach.
I got the fortunate opportunity to meet Jeff Daniels, playing Joshua Chamberlain in this scene. I told him how much I enjoyed seeing “Gettysburg” as well as “Gods and Generals” and he replied “Thank you very much. Those were the good ones.”
He's definitely great actor. Both in comedy and drama.
One of Jeff Daniels greatest roles. It was as if he was channeling Chamberlain.
How could you have seen the prequel as it was just being filmed?
Good
Ole Jeff.
Know the Good News
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
@@nocturnalrecluse1216 I met him last year, the prequel was already released.
I'm proud to say that Chamberlain was my x2 great grandfather
Interesting since only 2 of his 5 kids survived childhood.
... and only one of his two children married and had kids. Three girls, and none of the three girls had children
I'm proud to say I am the x4 grandson of Levi Beck, an absolute nobody that nobody outside of his descendants will remember, but who charged the rebels at Mine Run and left only after being shot twice. He carried a rebel bullet in his body for years after the war until he died. The good thing is the war has enough heroes to make us all proud.
I bet it's a high honored to be with Joshua L Chamberlain
One of my great great uncles served with his brother in the 11th Maine Infantry his brother John C Chamberlain. His name was Captain Edgar A Nickels
US Army Field Manual FM 22-100 on Leadership highlights how Chamberlain led his troops. The man was a natural born leader.
And this is why Jeff Daniels is such a masterful actor.
he really did a disservice to himself doing all those stupid comedies when he is a profoundly talented actor. i can't think of anyone else i'd rather see playing the common man with emotional depth and disarming genuineness.
@cloudyyo He even looks like Joshua Chamberlain.
too bad he couldn't save the movie
oldfrend hey he was great in dumb and dumber
Guy should have an Oscar
The three characters I really "fell for" in Gettysburg were Longstreet, Buford and Chamberlain. But it was Chamberlain who won my heart with that outstanding bayonet charge on Little Round Top.
True, but at pickets charge he just stayed flat on the ground when everyone else was doing something.
@@shanebell2514 He'd already done enough and was unable to stand long due to his leg wound.
@@Pemmont107 He was still enlisted so doing something the day before doesn`t mean he gets a day off, but if he did have a leg wound I don`t recall him being shot at little round top.
by the books too lol
@@AlphaWolf789 I bought The Killer Angels immediately after seeing Gettysburg for the first time. 😉
Chamberlain had a miserable life after the civil war was over , having to deal with his war wounds , such a shame for such a Great man .
They say he was the last casualty of the war, his wounds being the direct cause of death all those years later.
It's part of what made him so great.
Joshua Chamberlain survived the war, but at a cost, he suffered a wound so grievous he was in misery everyday until his death in 1914.
He got shot five times and at the last time in his groin and needed medical equipment to not pee in his pants.
His wound is believed to have lead to his death. And the medical device he wore was an early form of a catheter.
He is the last oficial causality
despite that he became Governor. And in office he showed incredible moral courage. He is the rare person who proved to have battle field courage and moral courage.
I read that had it not been for Thomas, Joshua wouldn't have survived. Story goes that Tom encouraged the doctors to treat his wounds.
Damn I would LOVE to receive advice from Colonel Chamberlain, he was so wise, brave and compassionate. He’s the perfect example of an officer
Me too
The perfect example of a Mainer.
Wise brave and compassionate precisely because he wasn't a professional West Point asshole, but a schoolmaster and scholar.
What a total waste of life . Should of never have fought each other . Should of let each live there life .
you know this wasnt actual footage of the man right? These are lines written by an author, romanticising the idea of a man
Who ever wrote this piece of the script, it was well done and well said.
And no other actor, other than Daniels, could’ve done a better job, IMO
Each one of them a whole person loved and cherished in some home far away, many of them will never return, gets me crying every time
This film does show the absolute tragedy of sending good men off to be slaughtered by bad generals. And other good men being sent into the meat grinder in defense of a treasonous and morally bankrupt cause. Lessons we still need to learn.
There was no treason.
@@infinitecanadian It was absolutely treason, and I say this as a descendant of those killed in battle for a horrific and traitorous cause. Let the confederacy and its defenders rot in hell
@dramusic Especially because there is no such lack!
@@infinitecanadianyou are right. People who call it treason are miseducated. The Confederate states morally and legally left the United States. They were no more treasonists than George Washington and the Revolutionaries. You can't commit treason against a country you're not part of.
'War is a scourge, but, so is slavery.' That is the honest truth by Col. Joshua Chamberlain.
Except he never said that....its propaganda
@@drewdurbin4968 Doesn't mean that statement doesn't hold truth to it
@@drewdurbin4968 and all the confederate lines are gospel truth lol come on bud everyone romanticizes the Civil War for some reason it was dirty bloody and fought due to the changing world
This movie was definitely flawed in ways that Gettysburg was not. But at the same time it’s still very underappreciated. It’s a lot better than people give it credit for.
It's really not at all better than people give it credit for. It does a few decent parts though, like this for example.
Many will never see home again that hit me hard
Bowdoin College produced some tremendous soldiers. Joshua Chamberlain, and MOH winner Everett Pope, who went to school with Ack Ack Haldane, who is considered to be one of finest battlefield Marine Officers of WW2
“Tom, do me a favor. Don’t call me surely”
Looks like the colonel put on a few pounds since Gettysburg.
Doesn't Gods and Generals take place before Gettysburg? I like to think he lost the weight while marching. Or maybe from dysentery.
Charles Wang yeah i think you might be right
Is Daniel playing the character in GnG as well as Gettysburg?
yup
Gods and Generals was actually filmed after the movie Gettysburg. Gen. Hancock is in the movie as well as he has weight as well...
What can one say? Class. Pure class.
Profoundly sound & common sense speech by Chamberlain...
@RUclips Veterinarian Quite a lot, actually. Sure, they still had a long road ahead of them after the war, but they never would have been able to start down that road were it not for their being freed from slavery.
Unfortunately this is not common sense...because it would have to be common to be so.
and as far as we know never actually happened.
@@drewdurbin4968 yeah, I'm watching this clip and am thinking, "Yeah, this dude really said that back in the 1860s" LOL...
I'm pretty sure the Union soldiers were fighting against slavery the whole time: just read the Battle Hymn of the Republic song, as well as some books where they called this a godless rebellion back then. I mean, what else would drive men to die like they did if there wasn't some great cause?
@@ConcernedResident_GiantStack it's called distortion history because of a narrative. This "speech" never happened according to any record. The Civil War happened because of a split in the Union and a wanted continuation of State's Rights, the institution of Slavery was one of them. In fact, slavery was a small part. The "War to Free the Slaves" is revisionist history, purely. However, as in all wars, the Victor's write or rewrite history.
I wonder if Chamberlain, the scholar he was, had read Clausewitz. Sounds a lot like "war is politics by other means."
Charles Wang he apparently spoke several classic languages...and even fooled confederates behind the lines with a perfect southern accent and advised them to go to the northern lines.
Chamberlain was a self made General who I am sure read Clausewitz - in the original German.
Both Jeff Daniels and C. Thomas Howell are superb actors.
They certainly are.
Absolutely so👌
How can anybody justify the loss of 600,000 men unless it is for some higher purpose viz the end of slavery!
This is why I truly admire this movie. It took the time to show both sides without resorting to showing one side as mindless monsters.
This was just thrown in there, this one speech amongst countless pro-Confederate speeches, as a token counter-balance to give the film plausible deniability for what it very obviously intended to do -- promote the Lost Cause narrative and glorify the Confederacy.
@@thomasbrennan6303 "Listen to them. The leaders of our intellectual future, screaming for the destruction of our nation!"..."I will not stay in a place where my students dishonor their country's flag."..."Your country, Thomas? Your country, my country. It's all one. All one, Thomas. All one."
"Slavery will end in its own time. But the breakup of the Union will inaugurate wars of a hundred generations in America, only to repeat the bloody history of Europe."
"How is it a good Christian man, like some folks I know, can tolerate their black brothers in bondage? How is it, Lord, they don't just break them chains?"
For all the grief this movie gets about being "neo-Confederate propaganda", there is some pretty powerful pro-Union/anti-slavery messaging.
@@joshuadesautels Throwing us a 2-minute pro-Union bone doesn't undo the hours and hours of pro-Confederate proselytizing that comprised the obvious thesis of this movie. Honestly, even Gettysburg was criticized for being too sympathetic to the Confederacy -- which I can sort of see, but its saving grace was that the movie focused on depicting the battle, not the social and political ideologies of the war. Joshua Chamberlain, Tom and Buster were really the main protagonists in Gettysburg. The Little Round Top scene had me on the edge of my seat, because I cared about them. They were well-written, well-acted (especially by Jeff Daniels), and their dialogue felt real and emotional. Stonewall Jackson is the main character in this one, and he's just preaching Lost Cause bullshit to his cheering subordinates and his happy slaves, for like, the whole fucking movie.
@@thomasbrennan6303 yup. This movie as a whole is pretty shameless neo confederate revisionism
You can really tell by the expression on Toms face at the end that Chamberlain had changed his entire perspective on the subject
ONE OF MY FAVORITE SCENES FROM ANY MOVIE. COL. JOSHUA ( LAWRENCE) IS UPSET EARLIER IN THE FILM THAT HIS BROTHER LEFT THE FARM AND JOINED THE ARMY. LAWRENCE HAD TO LEARN TO COMMAND, AS HE WAS A PROFESSOR OF RHETORIC/PHILOSOPHY; THOMAS HAD TO SIMPLY GROW UP. IN THIS SCENE, OLDER BROTHER LAWRENCE EXPOUNDS ON THE FULL SCOPE AND SCALE OF THE WAR THEY WERE IN, AND THE STAKES INVOLVED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. POWERFUL SPEAKING, ELOQUENT WORDS. THE FILM SCORE IS ALSO ONE OF MY FAVORITES.
Please turn Caps Lock off before you comment.
@@infinitecanadian I second that motion!!!
@@wallacebell4311 I don't know why people keep doing that.
The look on Howell's face when he says "Don't call ******s ******s."
"But I want to!" 🤣
Chamberlain a true American hero. He is one of the first man who really fought for American values. LIBERTY AND FREEDOM FOR ALL. All man are created equal.
But not all men are created equal.
Jeff Daniels doesn't need rousing music when delivering a Civil War sermon on the heavy price of fighting and freedom, he IS the music!
When people tell me that Gods and Generals is "Lost Cause" propaganda, I show them this scene.
I couldn't agree more with you.
it seems like different movies coexist in Gods & Generals. parts of the movie feels like "Lost Cause" propaganda. 1 part feels like a very edited biopic of General Jackson (it skipped his 1862 Shenandoah Valley campaign!). another part is about Chamberlain's experience in the war before Gettysburg. the middle portion is devoted to the battle of Fredericksburg. when the movie's focused on the Confederates, it highlights major themes of Lost Cause mythology. but it completely changes its tune when the focus is on Chamberlain! so the movie has a schizophrenic tone to it!
In my opinion, that just means they show what each side believed and fought for. The only thing needed is an audience that can deduce that in the confederate logic there is a blatant moral flaw. But ofcourse, the mainstream audience does not want to think too much. Same with Starship Troopers: 'it shows a perfect, fascist world'. No, it shows a world where fascism is the rule, and YOU decide that it is a perfect world, despite there being several signs that there are no personal freedoms or universal rights.
Part of it comes from the screenplay pretty much cutting Hancock's entire part down to ten or fifteen minutes, whereas in the book he's a major character. The book feels balanced, the film does not. Particularly when the screenplay creates a family that didn't exist in the book that romanticizes the old south and gives us a slave character who hangs around Jackson for some inexplicable reason. But a scene like this one really does push back against that 'lost cause' element the film is often criticized for.
My God...A thoughtful discussion about the filmmaker's motivations on the internet, and in the RUclips comments section no less! Thank you.
I'm with you guys. The film does feel a bit schizophrenic in places, though altogether a good job. I think that's why, to me, Gettysburg is a better film on the whole. I'm always struck by the scene in Gettysburg where Longstreet tells Freemantle, the British observer, that no way would the British government ever come to the aid of a society that upheld slavery. So, yeah, I think Gettysburg is more consistent in its "realism," for lack of a better term, but Gods and Generals gets more right than it does wrong.
Very good scene from a good Civil War film that is not as one-sided as many reviewers portrayed it to be. Sure, there is more of an emphasis on the Southern side, and a certain glossing over of characters like Lee and Jackson. But all things considered, the film portrays both sides fairly, in my opinion.
There’s a great line in this scene that sums up my point:
“Now I cannot question their integrity. I believe they are wrong, but I cannot question it.”
Aloha 🤙🏼
People thought it favored the South but it covers the first two years of the war to which the South was winning. So...🤷🏻♂️
I bet if they finished the trilogy it would lean toward the North as...well we all know who won the war.
The movie is pretty one sided. It shows a "Gone With the Wind" type idyllic noble antebellum portrayal of the South. The Confederates are routinely portrayed as pious and righteous, giving them multiple rousing speeches and uplifting musical scores whenever they conduct military actions. It totally glosses over slavery, and the only slave character in the movie is a fantasy creation who is so loved by her masters that she is treated as an equal and, despite _saying_ that she wishes for her and her children to be free, chooses to stay in the house once the Federals leave because "she loves the family so much." Confederate characters pontificate about "defending hearth and home" and defending "property" while conveniently glossing over the "peculiar institution" which was literally THE hot-button issue of the time. There's a difference between "portraying one side" and "whitewashing one side to make them look better."
And of course, the only time a derogatory term is used towards a slave is stated by a United States soldier, and not once from a CSA soldier or citizen.
Miraj Tan - The officially became about freeing slaves as well, once the proclamation was announced, but from the onset of the war, slaves were being freed by the US Army. As the war dragged on, US soldiers got out of their bubbles and saw more of the South, and understood how horrible slavery was, according to their letters. Their new marching tune became , “(end of verse)...As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free. His truth is marching on. (Chorus in tune of Glory glory Halleuia) John Brown’s body lies amoulderin’ in the grave. (Repeat).
The South believed the hype that Lincoln was going to emancipate their slaves, which is why the first seven states left as soon as Abe was elected. The South ironically took actions which lead to the freeing of the slaves. The decision to secede could go down in history as one of the most clumsy, ill- conceived backfirings ever. If they accepted the election results, they could have kept their slaves for much longer at least, as they never would have created an excuse for northerners to travel South, become enlightened of the horror , and strip the slaver of his capital.
Rather or not the scene in the tent is real Chamberlain has a point. Winning a war is useless if you don't eliminate what caused the issues in the first place. If slavery remained tensions between North and South would have just flared up again.
I'm a southern man but he was a great man and soldier I served and have read about him be proud
This was a masterpiece.
I think ppl forget there was once a Union between ppl in this country and it’s what made us a country. This is a good cut!!!
Once again Jeff Daniels knocks it out of the park. My favorite leader from Gettysburg is Chamberlain
Jeff Daniels was a great choice to play Colonel/Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.
"I believe they are wrong but I cannot question their integrity." We need more people to think like that!
Daniels was much slimmer in Gettysburg than in this film.
And Howell too
That last scene was powerful.
Chamberlain was a man of high ideals, but I prefer the more personal view expressed by Buster in “Gettysburg.” “I damn all gentlemen- and that is why we’ve got to win this war.”
My father intensely disliked Jeff Daniels for some reason. If he were still here, I'd play this clip for him and see if it changed his mind.
Beautiful. Jeff Daniels is amazing.
The union north was republican and the southern Confederates were Democrats
Yes, the republicans of the 1860s were a progressive party (hence the moniker of radical republicans levied at them by the slavers) and the democrats were a largely southern based Conservative party.
@@MichaelCasanovaMusic the so called "switch" didn't take place until the early 1900s. And that was due to a introduction of industry from the North to the south as new technologies were replacing old ones.
@@fasiapulekaufusi6632 there was no 'switch' the Democrats just played a switch but they never changed just tricked
Very powerful scene in the movie.
I agree with everything I just said
And you were an imbecile for following a madman's orders.
@@JShmoe let's go brandon
Got to love how the only racial slur in the entire movie was used by a union soldier...
Then Jim Carry shows up too lighten the mood
🤣
Wait, the same two actors played the same two characters in two different movies?
Yes, since it was the same director and based on the prequel novel to Killer Angels (which was the narrative basis behind the movie Gettysburg).
I would be proud to take death for this man for when I see a soldier I don't see rank I see the quality of a person
It is a pity and well awkward how this dignified actor who played George Washington and this character was in dumb and dumber.....
Abraham Lincoln that’s what makes him an amazing actor, being able to play multiple parts.
like you know anything about acting, you went to see that disgraceful clod at ford's theater!
Great Movie And Chamberlain A Great Leader Of Men
This is from Gettysburg by Turner channel TCM
"Dont call negroes "darkies". That's a patronizing expression."
".......Right, sir."🤔🤔
Until I saw the directors cut I thought this was his last scene until I saw him and his wife at the theater with booth after he did his act
I wish this man was with us today
I think a lot of people have some very basic knowledge of this war, and they lump it all into a single event. So even though the war began over one thing, and then halfway through the president rebranded the war into something else, people take the position that it all happened at once. It makes sense, because then it's an easy thing to understand. It makes it a good guys vs. bad guys situation, and then that can be co-opted into the present day political argument.
War is never easy, or simple. It's a cataclysmic chain of political, social and economical events AND actual warfare. The american civil war actually a very short and uncomplicated war for it's time and still it's a lot of single events to acknowledge and understand the way they're connected.
That happens all the time. Saying the war was to end slavery from the get go would've lost the US the support of the border states. Yes it was a political move, yes it was rebranded when it looked like the US army was going to win, but at no point did Lincoln's convictions or his goal of what would happen at the end of the war change about slavery.
@@FLASK904 The War was not fought to end slavery, not at the start anyway, but from the very first the war was a war that was being fought because the South wanted to form it's own country, specifically to preserve and expand slavery without the threat that the north might try to limit it.Thus in short, from the start the core issue at the heart of the Civil War was Slavery, though it was not originally the Unions goal to end slavery.
@@thehistoricalgamer indeed , especially considering 4 Union States still allowed Slavery at the start of the war.
Chamberlain is such a badass! Love him
I've been to Gettysburg once and a time
ill be glad when us pure blood unvaxed get the same rights as everyone else
Amen Brother
Yea they both gained weight. It came with age.
But yes. This film came AFTER Gettysburg but takes place prior.
We just ignore it and enjoy the stellar films and wonderful acting
Just think of it this way, all that marching helped dropped their weight for gettysburg:D
Is it just me or did Jeff Daniels put on a few stone since Gettysburg
Its because it was earlier in the war, and constant marching made him loose weight... 😉
My favorite scene in the movie.
Beautiful
This scene makes me wonder if "Gods and Generals" truly is that nasty Lost Cause propaganda movie everyone claims it is.
They only call it a Lost Cause propaganda movie because it goes over how the war started. Not through secession but through Lincoln's "bellicose form of persuasion."
The war could have been avoided if Lincoln did not call for the 100,000 volunteers.
@@tpsu129 Or if the South hadn't treated humans as property
spectre205 that is not what triggered the war.
Slavery may have aided in recruitment and secession, for most states, but not the war.
@@tpsu129 They chose to leave the Union so they could keep and even expand slavery.
@@spectre205 What about Virginia? They voted against secession.
Fabulous speech. Did the real Chamberlain really say that?
Thanks for posting this.
I doubt he said it in the way it's presented here but he was an abolitionist
Of course he said it, maybe not exactly this way, but he thought it. He was a superb rhetoritician and who knows, maybe even said it better than this....
2:39 what song is this?
They tried to do Too Much in one movie. I really Really REALLY wanted to like this movie (because of Gettysburg), but no. Its not unwatchable...but close.
It sucks. You can say it sucks
@@m42679
I do, I do, I will.
I always get sad reading the comments about this movie. Everybody gets lost in the "Pro North" or "Pro South" side and miss the bigger picture. This war happened because of the political failures of our leaders and their lack to negotiate in good faith for a solution for both sides. Their is a big part of this war that was driven by overseas interests that never are discussed by us. There were huge trade implications for the UK, France, Spain and other countries that had a vested interest in the outcome of this war as well. The part of this that every person should come away with is that this war affected real people on both sides who really had little to gain in the big picture, but just trying to preserve their little part of the whole they were involved with. Slavery, taxation, state's rights were all just a small piece of the whole and until people stop focusing on symptoms and follow the path to the real cause, we will be doomed to repeat history again I fear. Instead of slavery, the next war will be over immigration, free healthcare and other entitlements and the people who lose everything will be the ones trying to do the right thing and have the least to gain by either outcome.
Lincoln said early on that if could preserve the Union by freeing all of the slaves he would do it; if he could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves he would do it; if he could preserve the Union by freeing some and not others he would do that too.
Chamberlain is among my favorite Civil War generals because his background mirrors my own as I consider joining the Army.
So what was the real cause?
2 brothers in war both survive
His speech to the Maine prisoners that his regiment had to take in was even better than this, spoke to our nations purpose and beginnings as much as the war’s purpose
Mo, Del, MD, Ky Stayed in the Union and kept slavery legal, during the war
And?
during and after, the proclamation of emancipation was aimed at rebel states only. It took a few years before slaves in the southern union states were freed as well. The irony.
Lincoln's main objective was to preserve the Union. Abolish all slavery at once might have forced some of those states you mention to swing to the rebellion. What's the point of trying to end slavery and lose the war? The north would be slave free and the south would be it's own country with slavery still in existence.
Jonathan Curtis remember that in 1862 Lincoln pointed out that while he was personally opposed to slavery, his primary duty was to preserve the union. He said, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
Why did Jeff Daniels use a southern accent in this one but not in Gettysburg? When neither movie needed it.
Watch the Chamberlain scenes in the movie, skip the rest.
Jeff Daniel is superb
Thank you
I love this scene, even though its meant to be neoconfederate BS ridiculing the critical race theory. But the N word was the polite way to refer to slaves back then, ironically.
Negro was considered polite, yes. Nigger was always seen as an impolite term. Even in the South it had a rough connotation and was mostly used in anger.
The “N Word” is not “Negro”. That remained the “polite way” at least as far as the founding of the NAACP and Marcus Garvey’s organizations, and probably as late as the end of the Negro Leagues of baseball, into the 1960s.
@@Egilhelmson It was... back in the 1850's, because the continental slave trade was illegal and only slaves from Cuba were allowed so they were called black in spanish.
Chamberlain is a hero
He wasn't. Just look at how blacks in the US are now and what they're doing. He caused this.
Giuseppe Garibardi reminded everybody from Europe of Whom therefore where there from the Country origin.🇮🇹🙏🏼🤔
Gods and Generals takes place before Gettysburg.
I would like a movie about his life
Amen...
It’s odd that Lincoln’s emancipation only was for the confederate lands, not the union, where slavery was still going on. Just shows we’d have to live in that time to have a shot at understanding
Politically he couldn't since Co gress had that authority not the President. But, as Commander in Chief he could decide what to do in territories that didn't have representatives anymore (since they withdrew) that were in open military revolt so he could legally declare it over there without taking power away from congress
He also didn't want to anger the Border States and motivate them to secede as well.
Same guy who did dumb and dumber y’all. Our boys got range.
Did Chamberlain actually say this? Or was this just added
There should not be two standards of justice in America.
But it was and we had to deal with
Picket would still have a division if not for that proclamation
1:51 to 2:06 This is everything. This is the long game.
2:55 to 3:15 This applies to racism AND sexism. Sorry Afghanistan. Sorry. #themtoo
So he would sacrifice his own brother just to free the slaves. Nice.
I believe that he said that he would sacrifice either one of them in the cause of freedom. That's totally different than saying "I'm sure going to miss you." :-)
@@ytorwoody It isn't different at all.
@@infinitecanadian You're absolutely correct. I feel so ashamed.
@@ytorwoody No need to feel shame.
@@infinitecanadian Thanks much. :-)
I feel this movie while not the greatest, gets a bad rap as confederate propaganda, when in actuality there was to be a third movie that was going to be showing the Union position in depth, so it’s an incomplete trilogy, Gettysburg was great and timeless and this one suffers because it’s incomplete of sorts since the third movie was never made making it seem like it was a blatant attempt at neo-confederate lost cause type propaganda when in actuality it was never the aim of this movie for the mere fact it was never supposed to be a stand alone film.
Because everyone wants to look at it from a modern 21st century lens. Instead of looking at it from an independent history lens.
He has a good speech about slavery.
He is the serious Jeff "Chamberlain. He is the funny "dumb".
It’s so very A Shame that this Movie doesn’t go all of that way up to where General Lee Surrenders to Grant At Appomattox Courthouse on April 9th, Of 1865 and while in which would have been so very interesting to have brought the Movie to a Finish with that Historic Surrender just like all other Previous Civil War Films have done so !
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
could work for a third movie
The surrender is in the third novel The Last Full Measure.
There is a third novel called “the last full measure” which will likely never be made because the director and producer had a falling out after this neo confederate fantasy movie bombed at the box office
S,Avery WAS the main reason for the Civil War. All you need to do is read the CongressionalRecord in the months leading up in it. There is one and only one issue under discussion, slavery.
“dah-kies”
The real question is did Chamberlain's opposition to slavery ever prevent him from buying and wearing a nice comfortable cotton shirt? The North could have ended slavery anytime they wanted by just not buying the cotton the slaves were picking. No war required.
You still had european powers buying southern cotton
He probably wore wool, not cotton. Cotton was shipped to European mills, where they paid more. At the beginning of the war, the South banned the export of cotton, to build up the demand for cotton; ironically it forced the cotton mills to switch to closer Egyptian sources of cotton.
@Egilhelmson There were plenty of cotton mills in New England. And they continued to illegally import Southern cotton throughout the war.
Very good speech
1:05 I love Chamberlain's 21st century pc etiquette against Tom's mid 19th century values. Tom's face says it all
Huge Chamberlain fan here, but according to history, even the Union hadn't granted freedom to an entire race of men at that point in the War, only in states of rebellion that hadn't been conquered yet.
Folks knew which way it was going
That's because there were still slave states that remained part of the Union, and Lincoln couldn't afford to push them away.
Lincoln had no legal authority to free the slaves. Slavery was legal before 1865. He declared the slaves in rebel-held territory free as a war measure, an emergency measure. Freeing the slaves required an Act of Congress, which happened in 1865.
People knew right from wrong. a major change was onthe way, if they held firm. The rich of the South had deluded themselves, twisting the bible to hold up an evil that was making them filthy rich. On the other hand people like Chamberlain had it right and weren't flinching, prepared to die for the right thing. Robert Gould Shaw was another such hero who also makes me proud to be a human being. As one descended from the many held in bondage at that time, I give a hearty salute to them all, always, the true champoins of the human race, IMHO...
The 13th Amendment ended slavery. It passed Congress near the end of the war and was still being ratified by the states when the war ended.