You all may be surprised to hear I agree with St. Louis Post Dispatch reviewer Joe Williams when he says that the movie would have been better had it contained more about slaves. This is especially true for those slaves in Gen. Jackson's personal life, and the plight of the refugee slaves (not all were so fortunate to be able to stay in the mansions of their former masters), and the large number of slaves (and free blacks) that provided logistical support to the Confederate Army, especially during the early war. Keep in mind this movie was the time of the early war, before U.S. Colored Troops were allowed into combat. Either the director or one of the actors explained that this movie was not supposed to be about slaves, but centered on the battles of "Stonewall Jackson". They stated "Roots" had already depicted slaves so this movie was not going to repeat that. Although I understand the time limits, it would have been refreshing to have more parts of the black experience that were too politically incorrect for "Roots" covered in this movie. Jackson's Black Sunday School and Slaves: Jackson had a sunday school class where he taught about one hundred slaves and free blacks to read the Bible. This alone was considered to be a subversive act by many in the pro-slavery South. Jackson, although personally against slavery, did purchase one or two slaves. One was an elderly lady who was beyond her years of productivity and begged Jackson to purchase her and provide for her in old age. I recall another slave, he bought upon personal request and he allowed the slave to purchase his freedom by labor. ---------------------- Plight of the Refugee Slaves: Wherever there was war there were refugees that were displaced by the fighting, foraging/looting. The conditions were usually worse for refugee slaves than anyone else, their story has never been told in any movie. Many were displaced directly by Federal troops and many escaped by running away. Following the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was issued, which had caused many slaves to leave the plantations and head north expecting a better life and assistance. What is left out fellow St. Louisan, James Yeatman, President of the Western Sanitary Commission (a precursor to the Red Cross) spoke on behalf of the refugee slaves: "Besides the fact that men are thus pressed into service, thousands have been employed for weeks and months, who have never received any thing but promises to pay. This negligence and failure to comply with obligations, have greatly disheartened the poor slave, who comes forth at the call of the President, and supposes himself a free man, and that, by leaving his rebel master, he is inflicting a blow on the enemy, ceasing to labor and to provide food for him and for the armies of the rebellion. Thus he was promised freedom, but how is it with him ? He is seized in the street, and ordered to go and help unload a steamboat, for which he will be paid, or to sent to work in the trenches, or to labor for some quartermaster, or to chop wood for the Government. He labors for months, and at last is only paid with promises, unless perchance it may be with kicks, cuffs, and curses." "Under such treatment, he feels that he has exchanged one master for many masters; these continued abuses sadden and depress him, and he sighs to return to his former home and master. He, at least, fed, clothed, and sheltered him. Something should be done, and I doubt not, will be done, to correct these terrible abuses, when the proper authorities are made to comprehend them. The President's proclamation should not thus be made a living lie, as the "Declaration of Independence" has too long been, in asserting the inalienable rights of man, while the nation continued to hold millions of human beings in bondage." Yeatman continues: "The poor negroes are everywhere greatly depressed at their condition. They all testify that if they were only paid their little wages as they earn them, so they could purchase clothing, and were furnished with the provisions promised, they could stand it; but to work and get poorly paid, poorly fed, and not doctored when sick, is more than they can endure. Among the thousands whom I questioned, none showed the least unwillingness to work. If they could only be paid fair wages, they would be contented and happy. They do not realize that they are taken and hired out to men who treat them, so far as providing for them is concerned, far worse than their "secesh" masters did. Besides this they feel that their pay or hire is lower now than it was when the "secesh" used to hire them. This is true." (incidentally this is an account in St. Louis, but the situation was the same throughout the country, until the Freedman's Bureau was setup to provide massive assistance) ---------------------- Black Confederate in the Camps: While the movie did show the hiring of one slave (or freeman) as a cook for the Confederate army there were thousands that provided support for that army in the rear. These were teamsters, skilled craftsmen, cooks, and laborers of all kinds. Plus they should have put in one or two armed black Confederates. Jackson's Army was noted for having a significant number of unofficial black soldiers that were heavily armed. In fact the Army of the Potomac considered one lone unnamed black sharpshooter the best sniper in the ANV (Army of Northern Virgiinia). Although I criticize the absence of the above, I understand the time limits involved in making the movie. When it came to town scenes of civilians, I think the movie was pretty good at depicting slaves (or free men) walking in the streets, and the house servants of wealthy Virginians. These were often the most loyal of slaves and so it was historically accurate to show them with close intimate relations with their masters. Of course these are generalities, exceptions were common. Of course, I agree with the History Channel that given its time restrictions, it was one of the most accurate historic films to have been released. Sure it could have had the bloody affects of "Saving Private Ryan", but this is a movie the entire family can come watch. But unlike Joe Williams, I would have given the film 3 stars *** and look forward to the 6 hour DVD. (Please pardon any typos, I churned this out after suffering a bout of insomnia with only two hours of sleep last night) Scott K. Williams, Author: "Slavery in St. Louis" http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/slavery.htm Webmaster: The Missouri Civil War Museum http://www.missouricivilwarmuseum.org/