![]() |
The Scottish-American Civil War Memorial |
The musings of a Canadian studying the American Civil War, and other historical topics.
Friday, February 13, 2015
The Scottish-American Civil War Memorial, Edinburgh
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Review: Point of Honor (ABC Signature and Amazon Studios)
Here we have yet
another entry into the ‘family divided’ theme of Civil War television and
movies. Point of Honor is a proposed series for ABC Signature and Amazon
Studios, the online retailer’s video programming branch, focusing on a
slaveholding family in Lynchburg, Virginia.
So far, only one hour-long episode has been released, produced and written
by Carlton Cuse of Lost fame and
Randall Wallace (writer of Braveheart,
and director of Pearl Harbor, We Were Soldiers, and this). Its promise does not look good. Its southern focus, ridiculous handling of
the slavery issue and basic historical errors ruin its dramatic impact. The result is a series similar in style to The Blue and the Gray and North and South but also their flaws in
portraying families torn apart by the Civil War.
First, the family structure works for and against the
narrative. Ralston Rhodes (played by Apollo 13’s Brett Cullen) owns the Point
of Honor plantation near Lynchburg (which actually exists if the family itself
is fictional). Although in financial
straits, he still commands great respect from those around him, as evidenced when
he hosts a large party with his neighbors.
Here, we are introduced to four of his five children, including arrogant
and aggressive daughters Estella, Kate and Lorelei, whom Ralston prepared to be
strong-willed. Garland oversees the
plantation. John attends West Point
where his best friend is an anti-slavery northerner, Robert Sumner, who also
happens to be married to Lorelei. These
relationships are the grounding for the movie, but the southern focus expects
the audience to see them as the heroes.
Sumner, a peripheral member of the family, serves no purpose except to
tear at his wife’s allegiances, and barely so at that. This may play out in later episodes, but it
is unconvincing in the pilot.
Second, the slavery issue occupies a prominent part of the story
but in ridiculous ways. The Rhodes’
family appears to own about fifteen enslaved persons and employs them in
domestic and field tasks. When war
begins, John renounces slavery to Robert’s great relief, but resigns from the
Army to return home and raise a regiment of non-slaveholders for the
Confederate cause. Somehow, we are
supposed to believe that this makes John the great hero, indeed it fulfills the
series’ title. Word of his decision
reaches the plantation incredibly fast, for the family has a hard time believing
it. Adding to their woes, a mob of
neighbors condemning the possible liberation appears at the front gate. This part is actually credible, for non-slaveholders
still had a stake in maintaining the institution. When
John carries out on his promise, the slaves are relieved but none know what
comes next. The Rhodes family promise to
pay wages to them, but it is clear that they do not know what to do either. One
slave is not freed as she was sold to another plantation, headed by a
stereotypically cruel master and overseer, similar to David Carradine in North and South. Even if the audience accepts John’s
emancipatory act as sincere, it is clear that no one else, not even his family,
does. This evading of the politics and
economics of slavery is intended to make the Rhodes the heroes. It fails as both as drama or history.
There are too many historical errors in this episode to
count. At West Point, Robert says that
John has the highest standing since Robert E. Lee. Either he or the screenwriters did not know
that Charles Mason graduated ahead of the more famous Lee. The assertive daughters appear out of place for
an upper-class southern woman of the time.
Their father’s desire that they be strong-willed, possibly since he was
a widower, may explain part of that. A
small Union cavalry troop, led in part by Robert, manages to make it from the
north to outside of Lynchburg within days of the attack on Fort Sumter. This act completely ignores the five-week
delay on secession in Virginia pending the outcome of a statewide referendum. Ralston dies in a clash with these raiders,
yet it is not explained why he wore a blue uniform with officer’s
insignia. If one could speculate, he may
have served in the Mexican War. Please
note that no comment has been made about limited production values. The combined effects of its southern bias,
poor handling of the slavery issue, and historical errors thwart Point of Honor in its attempt to tell a
story that we have heard many times before.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Review: Blood and Daring: How Canada Fought the American Civil War and Forged a Nation. By John Boyko.
Review: Blood and
Daring: How Canada Fought the American Civil War and Forged a Nation. By
John Boyko. Toronto: Knopf Canada, 2013. Pp. 355.
The story of how the American Civil War brought the British North
American colonies to form the Dominion of Canada is well known. Every Canadian history textbook covers the
issue, as do previous specialist works by Robin Winks in 1960 and Greg
Marquis fifteen years ago. With the 150th
anniversaries of both the end of the Civil War and of Confederation soon approaching,
the need for a new work on Canada during this turbulent period would help both fields. John Boyko, a school administrator and author
of five previous books, produced this book for that purpose. The result, however, is a major
disappointment. The author contributes
nothing new to the scholarship. Even if
he intended it for the popular market, flaws in research, analysis and writing
reduce its value considerably.
My first thought after reading this book is “where’s the blood and
where’s the daring”? Neither exists in
this book. Instead, he attempts to use
the stories of six contemporary figures to prove a tenuous thesis about how the
conflict mobilized the British North Americans to set aside their differences
and form a new identity in the Dominion of Canada in 1867. Poor research prevents him from achieving
this goal. Boyko uses the first case, escaped
slave John Anderson to prove that Canadians opposed pressure from Britain and
the United states by freeing him. He
neglected to mention the increasing resistance in the northern states to the
institution after the Compromise of 1850, such as the Christiana Riots and
Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Boyko aimed
to show William Henry Seward as a rabid expansionist whom Canadians stopped in
the Trent Affair, but the supposed villain barely appears in the
chapter. Sarah Edmonds stands in for the
forty thousand or so colonists who served in the Civil War, but perhaps due to
the spotty nature of the evidence, little is learned about their experiences.
Research problems mar the remaining three chapters in ways that
undermine Boyko’s thesis. He based the
book on a shallow base of including handful of Canadian archives and only U.S.
printed sources. The section on spies,
as represented by Jacob Thompson of Mississippi, shows how Canadians escalated
wartime tensions by aiding the rebellion, instead of being a victim. George Brown, the Horace Greeley of Canada, portends
to show how the Confederation process began amid the war’s tense last two
years. Boyko concludes with John A. MacDonald,
who guided the new nation towards its new status amid Fenian Raids and
annexationist fears. He quotes Canadian
leaders at length about the American threat, but contradicts himself by saying
how U.S. officials rounded up the Irish invaders after the raid (p. 273) and
demobilized the mighty Union Army after the war (p. 290). These inconsistencies not only disprove his thesis,
but distract the reader. There is not
much blood or daring in this book.
Writing issues compound throughout this mess. The Civil War appears mostly as narrative in
each chapter, save for the first which has no context at all. Boyko skips over the major events of the four
year conflict with celerity. One
suspects that he knew little about the subject before he started. His handling of Confederation is likewise
thin. This book ends on a low note, with
Boyko citing how Confederation yielded a “unique centralized parliamentary democracy
governing a bilingual, multicultural, tolerant country with too much democracy
and too few people, was underway” (p. 304).
The partisan nature of this statement needs no further commentary. Amateurishly researched and weakly written, Blood and Daring offers nothing to
scholars and little to the general public.
Its sole purpose is to capitalize on the sesquicentennials of the Civil
War and Confederation.
Friday, January 2, 2015
Lincolnvisan (The Lincoln Song)
I found this song a while back. In 1865, a Swedish professor and satirist named His Henric Hallback of the University of Lund composed Lincolnvisan for his school's student union. It starts off mocking the news of President Lincoln's assassination, calling him "the king of Northern America." Hallback continues with vivid if exaggerated descriptions of his head being shot off and speaking while disembodied. It ends, however, on a positive note when it blessed the dead king and damned the murderer. This is just another in a long line of references to the Civil War from around the world.
This is a link to a Swedish musician singing this song while playing the guitar, to give you some idea of how it sounds.
The chorus is actually nonsensical, designed to carry on the melody, as if saying "la la la la".
As I am not a Swedish speaker, I had to rely on Google Translate to convert the original text into English, with some modest changes. Any fault is mine alone.
Lincoln
Visan by His Henric Hallback
Have
you heard the terrible event,
it
is true for it to happen right now,
when
the King of Northern America
was
shot, well shot down the middle.
Tjolahopp
Tjang Chong faleladala,
Tjolahopp
Tjang Chong fallirej.
when
the King of Northern America
was
shot, well shot down the middle.
He
went out to see a play
for
it amused His Majesty
But
he could well imagine,
that
he would be shot just for that.
Tjolahopp
Tjang Chong faleladala,
Tjolahopp
Tjang Chong fallirej.
But
he could well imagine,
that
he would be shot just for that.
But
then came a villain through the door,
ugh,
so frightful perilous he looked!
And
in his hand he bore a pistol,
which
was loaded with bullets and gunpowder.
Tjolahopp
Tjang Chong faleladala,
Tjolahopp
Tjang Chong fallirej.
And
in his hand he bore a pistol,
which
was loaded with bullets and gunpowder.
And
so he shot the king in the face
so
that the head jump from his neck;
and
blood it splashed on the wallpaper,
and it asked: who had done this?
Tjolahopp
Tjang Chong faleladala,
Tjolahopp
Tjang Chong fallirej.
and
blood it splashed on the wallpaper,
and it asked: who had done this?
And
so [they] lay the king on a couch
and
stroked his hair.
And
the king he took himself to the head
and
said: Aye, aye so bad I feel.
Tjolahopp
Tjang Chong faleladala,
Tjolahopp
Tjang Chong fallirej.
And
the king he took himself to the head
and
said: Aye, aye so bad I feel.
"Oh,
goodbye" said the good-natured king
"Now
to heaven joy I receive,
where
little angels they flap their hands,
so
what fun they have."
Tjolahopp
Tjang Chong faleladala,
Tjolahopp
Tjang Chong fallirej.
where
little angels they flap their hands,
so
what fun they have."
And
so died the good natured king
and
is blessed, I think, right now.
But
damn embrace the culprit,
who
shot the king in half!
Tjolahopp
Tjang Chong faleladala,
Tjolahopp
Tjang Chong fallirej.
But
damn embrace the culprit,
who
shot the king in half!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)