The Free State of Jones | Based on a True Story
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ธ.ค. 2016
- There are a few problems with the accuracy of the Free State of Jones, but they’re mostly forgivable. What really makes this a bad movie has nothing to do with that. It just makes some storytelling mistakes that made this an unbearable movie to watch
------------------------------------------------------------
more videos:
previous:
• The Robin Hood complex...
related:
• The Birth of a Nation ...
------------------------------------------------------------
references:
Oshinsky, David. Worse than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal of Jim Crow Justice. New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1997. amzn.to/2udhA8Q
Blackmon, Douglas. Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II. New York: Anchor Books, 2008. amzn.to/2zWOT64
www.historyvshollywood.com/ree...
www.smithsonianmag.com/history...
journalofthecivilwarera.org/20...
www.highdefdigest.com/blog/fre...
www.newyorker.com/culture/rich...
www.southeastern.edu/news_medi...
www.cbsnews.com/news/the-story...
www.theatlantic.com/national/a...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_St...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_C...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_...
------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS:
th-cam.com/users/subscription_c...
contribute to my Patreon:
/ cynicalhistorian
LET'S CONNECT:
/ cynicalcypher88
/ cynical_history
-----------------------------------------
Wiki:
Free State of Jones is a 2016 American historical period war film inspired by the life of Newton Knight and his armed revolt against the Confederacy in Jones County, Mississippi, throughout the American Civil War. Written and directed by Gary Ross, the film stars Matthew McConaughey, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Mahershala Ali and Keri Russell.
It was released in the United States by STX Entertainment on June 24, 2016. It received mixed reviews from critics polled by Metacritic and grossed $25 million against its $50 million production budget.[3]
------------------------------------------------------------
Hashtags: #History #FreeStateOfJones #NewtonKnight #Review #BasedOnATrueStory #JonesCounty
![เก่งแต่ลับหลัง (FINSTA) - ส้ม มารี (Zom Marie) Ft. Punch 4EVE [Official Teaser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fvt0Wz1hfGY/mqdefault.jpg)
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.76[2/2] เดินมาสิบกว่าป่า วันนี้รู้แล้วว่าโจโฉกลัวอะไร!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/R7Yor-t2Au0/mqdefault.jpg)
The Southern Unionists need more credit in US history because they're TRUE Southerners and TRUE American patriots.
True. Southerners disgrace the South by aligning with the traitorous slavers instead of those patriots. Modern Germany instead elevates those who resisted the Nazi regime - they would never celebrate Nazi generals, let alone put up statues to them!
@@stonem0013 The last opposition speech given in the weimar republic, seems to be held with a similar type of reverence, we give to G.W. Where he stands up to fascist, to their face, with dogs and violence being right outside.
@@Briosification Would you be so kind as to link that speech? I am quite intrigued and would love to better know of it.
@@Santiago_Nyczka I assume that Br777 refers to the Speech of Otto Wels against the enabling act in 1933. A recording (in German obviously) can be found on TH-cam here (th-cam.com/video/bmhB6D1_AIc/w-d-xo.html ) and an English translation of the transcript here (ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1497 ).
@@stonem0013 Many of those people who resisted the nazi regime were also nazis. Von Staffenburg was a high ranking member of the nazi party, as was Oskar Schindler and many others. I think what you mean is that people who resisted a megalomaniac dictator and his sick fuck cronies.
I am a direct descendant of Newt Knight! I used to visit his grave when i was a little girl and hunt for his rumored Confederate treasure said to be hidden next the Leaf River behind my house. He was such a mythical figure for me as a little kid and all of the sudden became more of a legend when the book and movie came out. So strange that it used to be only a story told within my family to now a major movie. Sadly, I had just went off to college out of state when Matthew McConaughey visited Soso, MS while filming but I'm glad this story was made available to the world at least.
God bless you
❤
I hope that you are doing well! Would you be willing to write down the story you heard as a child?
He never visited Soso nor was a majority of the movie filmed in Jones County. I am from Jones and know a few guys who were in the movie. It was filmed in Louisiana. Knight wasn't even from Jones County. He is the definition of a complicated individual. Did he fight against the Confederacy? Yes he did. Did he also take advantage of the situation? Yes he did. The movie made him more of a hero than he actually was. That being said, the story needs to be told. I just wish they would have used more of his family's story. Movie is not accurate. There was also no love of both sides in Jones County. Knight and his crew were nothing more than a mafia in 1863, he was no devout christian. He has a lot of dependents in Jones and Jasper County, many more than most do.
Heath Hinton he was definitely in Jones County for a short while and visited Soso in the winter of 2015.
In a time when the majority movies are now shallow cgi money grabs. This one has here. Solid. I was never bored.
same I thought everything but the random cuts to the future were fine.
>a white guy dates a white girl
Mississippi: actually, he’s black
Me: *visible confusion*
Yeah the one drop rule is completely nuts but yet so wide spread people still believe it. I learned about it in the 90’s while in school in the south, ffs.
What's even more ridiculous is that these are the same people who will say "Well, Obama was only half-black."
@@KarlMarkyMarxx But he is tho
i saw the guy photo and he don't look anything like the white guy showed in the video, he looked more like a brown mixed.
thats what is presently known as "the one drop" it gives you an N-word pass 😎
Yo dawg. I heard you like rebellions, so we put a rebellion in your rebellion so you can rebel while you rebel.
@@johntim3491 you're talking about criticism of a movie when this guy made a joke
@David Gibson damn rebels, they ruined rebellion
But can you rebel against the rebellion rebelling against the rebels?
Rabble rabble rabble.
@@sloshed-rat underrated comment
Maybe the storytelling wasn’t ideal, but McConaughey made it work.
Absolutely, the way he holds his nephew and the look on his face when he realizes it’s over for the boy. Heartwrenching
Strangely, I wasn't bored by the film.
nerd
Excellent movie!!!
What movie have you done!!!
The text makes it engaging!!! Again I say, what’s your movie
Neither was I board!
This movie was great. Disagree with most of your points in regards to it being boring - it's emotionally gripping, well acted (for the most part), and beautifully shot.
The movie should've left out the Miscegenation trial. Really had no effect on the narrative.
@Evan Cervantes A whole movie about the Miscegenation would've been way better than inserting it here and there throughout this movie. It just felt out of place.
@@philingrouille7198 ha. No
I love the way it tied two times together via the same type of law that existed post civil war.
i mean it wasn't boring at all and i think the text snippets were a great addition the historical photos too. And the trial felt like consequencess of the civil war a racist laws.
I really liked the film, I personally didn't find it disjointed or hard to follow. Probably the most accurate film I know about the American Civil war. As for being slow have you watched any films from before the 1990's?
I agree, 👍👍
Agreed. I like how it talked about Reconstruction, which isnt really talked about.
I liked the movie as well and was pretty impressed with him taking on that Mississippi accent. Whatever dialect coach work he did in preparing for the role really paid off.
John Henry Roenigk it might be because Matthew McConaughey is from the south (Texas) so that might have helped a lot.
Agreed. i watched it because of this video. and the text blurbs, pictures and cuts to the court constantly reminded me this man was real. And what are they just gonna cut to jasper hiding under a house with no context? or did he want a jasper only battle scene that fluffs the movie even more.
"Unbearable to watch"? I enjoyed it much more than Ken Burns''s Civil War documentary series, much more than most other 19th century movies, much more than most WW2 movies and much more than most Hollywood dramas and "action" (violence) movies.
I'll agree with the Ken Burns bit. I hate Ken Burns docs
Why? Not judging, just want to know why
You mean why i dislike Ken Burns docs? I find them incredibly stale, devoid of substantive discussion, and the pan&scan technique is abused to the point of absurdity. The way he uses historians to repeat his writing in order to give his story more trust from the viewer (yes, most of the historians are simply reading lines written for them) is also an annoying trope of TV documentaries. Plus the errors and mistakes are pretty egregious, especially in comparison to my work
How about the American Experience documentaries? Are they engaging?
How does it compare to the Gettysburg movie from the early 90's.....or have you not seen it.
I think that's the standard for a Civil War movie.
I am glad to finally see movies about southerners who did not support the Confederancy. A lot didn't and fought guerilla wars against the Confederancy. They fought the home guard mostly like the Knight character in this film did. Remember at the end of the American Revolution, 97% of Americans could read. By the time of the CW it was about 43%. So a lot of people didn't know what the war was about. After a while the realized they didn't have a dog in this fight and left for home to protect their families from the home guard, which were worse than the yankee's. But what the Confederate Army did is crazy, they had about 2/3 the size of the Federal Army, less equipment and twice the desertion rate of the Federals. A lot to work around.
Outdoor life the illiteracy rate hasn't gone down much since then
@@GuinessOriginal It is sad that our illiteracy rate is what it is. But you want go to the cattle trucks if you can read. Or armed
The Confederate Army in The East did pretty good against McClellan who had to fight a lot of nepotism and political appointments amongst top brass, but over on the western front which is not often talked about Grant and Sherman were an unstoppable freaking juggernaut. The Union definitely had the harder fight ahead of them, though, seeing that their objective was to conquer the entirety of The CSA, whereas The CSA only had to bunker down and weather the storm. When you consider that fact, you realize Lee's strategy was bad. He planned to humiliate The Union and break their backs, but he didn't realize that he could have expanded far fewer men and resources by simply forming an iron wall on the border of strong, well-supplied and well-rested regulars on their home turf. He was arrogant, and clearly motivated more by his own quest for glory than anything else.
We all owe a debt of gratitude that Lee is overrated, especially if you're not white. I suspect history would have been far crueler to many of us, whether it was because of the extension of slavery, or because of the lilely endless border wars between The USA and CSA.
@@Lupostehgreat the North would have won the end. It would have just meant a longer war and more bloodshed. Maybe the South would have accepted their defeat with a bit more dignity and humility then instead of whining like libtard snowflake little bitches for 150 years
@@Lupostehgreat they were protecting the capital. Most of there resources were put there. A lot of people deserted, did not support the war
I really liked it and didn't find it boring at all. I was thrown off by the first jump to the great grandson's trial but once I realized what it was it made sense. It served as the context for Newt Knight's story being told. Great review but I disagree with the boring charge. Thanks!
"We're out here dying so they can stay rich" Well I see some things about the USA haven't changed.
We're a Capitalist democracy, not a corporatist Oligarchy. As much as you want to believe it, corporations have very little influence on the U.S. government.
We're a Capitalist democracy, not a corporatist Oligarchy. As much as you want to believe it, corporations have very little influence on the U.S. government.
You can believe that the US is a Capitalist Democracy, but the fact is that our government has been willingly corrupted into a Corporatist Oligarchy - all you have to do is look at all the mountains of evidence showing proof that rich corporations have been buying off politicians to get favors allowing them to profit off of the suffering and death of the rest of us while the rich 1% continue to hoard all the money and resources so the poor get little to nothing while the middle class vanishes altogether.
But, don't take my word for it, go do the research yourself. The current Commander in Greed, his cabinet, and current Congressional majority should be proof enough.
The problem with a capitalist democracy is that it ends up devolving into a corporatist oligarchy eventually.
Either that, or a corrupt welfare state that funnels most of it's money towards people who don't contribute but just vote themselves more money.
Somehow, the USA has managed to do both.
Sure, corporations might not have direct influence on the government, but a few people control most of the country indirectly through holdings and investments.
Developing countries are corporatist. Developed countries are both. Because of two things:
-Corporations provide jobs and pleasant numbers (GDP...) = votes
-Automation means a percentage of the populat are always unemployed. But democracy means they have the right to vote.
No government should give people who is easily replaceable in society much power. Sorry.
If a nutjob like Alex Jones can employ several people, have his own media company and product lines then it's better to look inside the mirror than looking into society.
It's interesting that both the North and the South ignored the hyocrisy of conscripting people to fight for freedom/independence
Well technically only 1 side was fighting for freedom and independence... The other side fought to keep it all together.
Yeah, you can be conscripted in the US too. It’s called selective service. And that’s also why they say freedom isn’t free. Jackass.
You have to fight for freedom and independence by definition. The founders of the United States were very specific about this necessity. If you don't constantly and actively fight for freedom you will lose it.
@@swirvinbirds1971 What's ironic is the side claiming to be about state's rights and less power in the central government enacted a conscription before the United States by order of the Confederate central government and not the Confederate states. They had to do so, of course, because much of their population was slaves and as such they were outnumbered. That's yet another irony, the institution they were fighting to keep was the primary cause of their defeat. You will reap what you sow, God is not mocked.
The best scene in the movie is the ambush at the funeral. If it was ever uploaded, the movie's production company must have had YT take it down. You can't blame them for that. Why pay for a movie if all the best scenes are on YT? BTW, it's not boring - it moves along at a good pace, the characters are engaging, and it has several exciting battle scenes large and small.
YT is a leftist organization. If there are facts they dont like, they're silenced.
Hence, demorats being shown how corrupt and despicable their history is, isn't going to last long on yt.
@MrMedukneusha
But that scene wasn’t against anything leftists believe...?
@@MrMedukneusha this might shock you... but democrats in the civil war were righties ;)
@@MrMedukneusha Giant corporation is leftist... do you have any idea how little sense that makes?
I was actually in this movie. I had many opportunities to speak with writer Victoria Bynum and director Gary Ross. I can assure you that they made every possible effort to portray the Knight story as accurately as possible.
That's kinda cool
i want to say despite the criticism of this you-tuber i found it quite enjoyable, i like scenes with not much happening and i liked the trial and text explaining things, also the church fight scene was for me an all time memorable scene among-st all movies
I would like to see a review of 'Gangs of New York'.
Same
Great casting, shot excellent. Five points, all damn Yankees getting "misled fools" off boats from Erin to the slaughter of Shilo and Gettysburg.
BountyFlamor The draft riots was amazing back than.
it would be like "West Side Story" but with the Irish... ( a review is also a multi act theatrical show that combines music dance and sketches) Hahaha, Im so witty
@@delstrain8590 The wasn't any Union soldiers after the first 25 min of the movie.
We used this movie in my Civil War History class, an elective at my school.
What's even more depressing when you think about it is that with all the controversy surrounding the Confederacy right now, it might be a very long time before we get another Civil War film.
I personally enjoyed the directing style. I can agree there was maybe a tad much of the prolonged walking, but I didn't pick it up expecting an action film.
Thank you for the recommendation and analysis as always.
If you ever been to Ellisville you would know about the walking, that's what they need their back in the day. My dad walked 5 miles to school and back
I think calling this film was absolutely absurd! This film was incredibly suspenseful and had me on the edge of my seat from start to finish
I agree that the cuts to the trial were jarring, and there were a decent amount of extended walking scenes. Other than that though, I actually REALLY enjoyed the movie. I was really captivated by it. I was also really interested in the Civil War growing up and was raised on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, I also enjoy documentaries. So I might be a bad example, but I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.
Hey, I love your historical insight, You've brought a lot out that I didn't know and did a good job of differentiating the real from the speculation.
But I think it's a better film than you give it credit for. It's becoming one of my favorite movies for a number of reasons.
It's long, but it's cut more like an epic with some art house elements than it is a modern, fast paced movie. The Long walks and people doing average work helped to establish the hardships of that work at the time. The long walks in a beautifully shot south reminds me of like if they filmed Laurence of Arabia in Mississippi. There were similar scenes in "12 Years a Slave".
I found the characters were engaging, although almost every character you're rooting for dies.
But most of all, the movie has much in common with the philosophy of John Locke but in a very down to earth manor. "You can't own a child of God." "What a Man Sows, that he shall reap." A man should keep the fruits of his own labor.
I thought the Back and Forth between Newt Knight and his Grandson was an amazing plot device. Like you said, there is a lot of ambiguity in the story. Through the Trial that ambiguity came forward and was a veil by which the film maker was allowed to slowly pull back and show you the story of the Knight Family's Patriarch. They were two seemingly parallel lines that came together when Newt Knight wrote that his son was not Rachel's but his Wife's son and that later the Bible was used as evidence in the trial. It demonstrated the futility of Newt Knight's efforts. The High point in the movie was when they raised the Union Flag over the City. Black and White people were together living and working together and at that moment there was so much hope, only to see that devolve as time went on.
And it's that furious struggle against the overwhelming odds where you feel hope for a moment, it comes back a little bit when Newt Knight's Grandson, silent like a lamb for most of the movie, defiantly chose jail above ending his marriage.
It brings it forward to today when as Americans we feel like we've taken two steps forward and one step back as it comes to Race Relations. The early optimism gave way to a harsh reality of political compromises after reconstruction. The results of those compromises was evident for Newt Knight's Grandson.
After all my lifetime of Ken Burns Documentaries, I appreciate not zooming into all these photos. It makes it feel more real, like something I could take out of a box.
Out of the ether comes a story with a lot of interesting commentary on America back then and now.
I think the ideas put forward are as important as the history. I re-watched it recently now that it's on Netflix and got much more out of it a couple years later. Some is preference, but does that make the movie seem any better?
I thought that the movie was great! It was very engaging and the attention to detail was refreshing.
I honestly feel that it depicted reconstruction in a better way than anything I have seen before. I have a degree in history and have read several books on the topic for various classes, and I can say that, without a doubt, this was far more memorable than any literature I have read on the subject.
I actually love this movie including all of the aspects you mentioned that “bored you” . Love the documentary
I liked all the reading peices and seeing the real pictures made it well.. Real. And the future jump basically showing though this was 100 years ago they were still treated like dirt. It was all eye opening. I also didn't notice the long walking shoots
thinking about somebody being charged with misegenation in the year 1967 is just mind boggling. disgusting failure of the legal system.
Agreed, the legal system nowadays is disgusting. Bring back racemixing laws.
lol
Yep, demorats held onto their racism for a long time.
But somehow the people that were fighting them the whole time are now suddenly the ones responsible. Pretty convenient for demorats isnt it.
MrMedukneusha yep, oddly convenient. ',:\
@@MrMedukneusha The "democrats" of the 1850's more closely resemble the republicans of today, and the "republicans" of the 1850's are closer to the democrats today. Its obvious because the republicans back then were fighting for the minorities but the democrats are today.
Just watched it for the first time, yesterday, and this movie has aged hauntingly well given the context of everything that has continued to happen the past few months.
Wow, just when you think the South couldn't have been any more petty post civil war, you find out about what they did to Knight's great-grandson.
I really enjoyed the movie and didn't find it boring at all. More often than not I have a problem with directors leaving the movie short. There isn't that much "deadtime" that could be cut to shrink it in by a significant amount. Sometimes text is necessary, it's impossible to show not tell everything. For foreigners the different areas, battles and significant events needs explaining. It's different taste, that's all.
The Echo of the Black Horn was a private published book on this subject. Not many copies, but USM had one in their library years ago! Can’t help but think those interested in this subject would benefit reading that one if they haven’t!
Interesting points, some I agree with and some I don't. Ross should have started the film with the miscegenation trial (I think its incorporation was essential to show the ongoing repercussions of the Black Codes) and then segued into the story of Newton Knight. The cuts were awkward.
I disagree totally that it was boring or needed severe editing. It had a slow, mournful, elegiac quality to it which was so fitting for the horrors without end of the post-war period. Don't know about you but the audience I saw it with was stunned at the end and sat in silence in the theater. The titles and text inserted may have been clumsy but for people totally unfamiliar with the Civil War and particularly Reconstruction, but they were necessary to follow the story.
Effectively, the story was simply too complex for a 2 hour film and probably should have been a mini-series.
As for why the film flopped, that's an easy one. A serious, adult film particularly one addressing such a difficult, historical subject, must have good reviews. Critics in New York and Los Angeles were apparently totally unaware of the sway of the "Lost Causers" and neo-Confederates across the South. They obviously had no in-depth knowledge whatsoever of the Civil War or Reconstruction. All they saw was a film that had slaves in it (most of those characters, with the exception of Rachel Knight, were either fictional or composites) and a white actor in the lead. They were all "triggered" to scream: "white savior movie!" And most of those reviews recommended ignoring the film to watch the (then) upcoming "Birth of a Nation" (which would have problems beyond flopping)...
Given the horrific election campaign we have just gone through, this film was certainly (sadly) the most relevant movie in 2016.
Agreed, it's better to start with the aftermath, just the opposite of another complex (but civilian) movie Struck by Lightning.
Agreed, the court case was difficult to weave into the main plot and really was the payoff to the entire movie, which was not a great ending for movie but understood why as a historical movie. As a fan of the history and cinamatic version of the story, I'd rather it ended with Newton knight having some sort of last word, so I could feel more closure on his story. Because really as someone who was unfamiliar with the incredible true events, is why i started to watch this film.
I'm actually typing this from Jones County, Mississippi. There are pretty much no vestiges of the Newt Knight affair remaining now. The county seat, Laurel, is the site of HGTV's Home town show.
1/8 Black.... Hahahaha Lol. I'm 1/8 white. That doesn't make me white now does it? Lmao😂😂
well in Mississippi even one drop of blood of black can be traced then your full black no matter how white Asian or Hispanic you are.
I'm 1/8 Native American, but I'm white as driven snow. If that's your picture, yeh I can see the white in you. You can see the NA in my brother and sister, but not me.
Simon Wood Links to vox and expects to be taken serious
Simon Wood >no bias
>vox
Holy shit looool
ThePeaceMaker28 he linked 3 sources by the way, you cannot discredit him for that one source.
Gone with the wind isnt even worth comparing to any civil war film, because while the setting is the south during the war, the actual story of Gone With the Wind is how a young girl who has fond memories of before the war, and came of age during it, slowly realizes that the glory of the south never existed anyway. That's why half the movie and 3/5 of the book take place after the the war ended. Even points most would consider the climax were actually very early. And even with all that, the book is still written as an allegory for the Great Depression and how the roaring 20s were never as great and glorious as people thought it was, and how the fall wasnt actually that far.
Surprisingly, my history teacher used this movie and I go to a private religious high school where we can't call prom "prom" because it suggests drugs and sex, instead we have junior senior banquet.
Banquet suggests mass orgy......though that could be just me.
I didnt find it boring myself. I actually found it quite engaging. Definitely was not 'Hollywood' - which is what I appreciated it for. Glad to hear they got the accuracy right, though! Love your work, Cypher!
I find it nuts how widespread the lost cause myth for reconstruction is, even among people who might rightfully reject the prewar lost cause myth. Reconstruction is arguably one of the more important moments in American history and to most people it gets distilled down to lost cause myths about carpetbaggers, maybe with the odd reference to sharecropping.
As a result seeing a movie that put a good amount of focus on postwar reconstruction made me very happy.
My high school teachers had to get movies approved before they could be shown in class for educational purposes. Any movie rated over a PG, the teacher had to get a permission slip signed and if the student didn't get it they would have to sit out of class for how many days it would take for the class to finish watching it. I doubt any schools would allow this movie to be shown in class just because of the rating. It doesn't matter how historically accurate it is. They would much rather show something that isn't even slightly accurate and was made for 5 year-olds in 1998, I swear my teacher showed us a VHS tape from 1998 about The American Civil War and it claimed that the reason for the war was slavery and that alone. It didn't even go into any detail about anything and most of it was just glanced over. I probably got stupider after watching that piece of shit. But anyway this movie was really good, I actually enjoyed it for it's history.
Slavery was main cause of the Civil War
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property [editor's note: "property" means slaves] worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.
Slavery was the root cause of the Civil War.
Secession (and in particular the seceshers firing on Fort Sumter) was the proximate cause for the North to fight. But what caused the South to secede? The election of Abraham Lincoln, who was opposed to the spread of slavery further west.
Which state was this succession letter from? Each of the succeeding states named slavery as the main reason in their letters to Washington D.C.
lafiv tv - your syntax is terrible, but keep communicating in English it will improve, probably. You are conflating two separate and distinct subjects. Yes, those who are historians study root sources, original documents etc., while those who take a history class as a requirement to get a degree economics for example, take a class broader in scope. To suggest a movie with multiple historical phd's who acted as advisers cannot be useful in educational setting, is just, well, dumb
Graduated last year, when my class watched The Patriot in 8th grade we had to get signed permission slips and everybody except one or two people (out of around 30 kids) got it. Kind of funny in retrospect.
If you were southern and actually lives in Jones county, Mississippi you’d get it
Born and raised in Laurel
Hey! Just want to thank you for all the hard work you put in editing your videos and researching your subjects!
Great work!
Martha Hodes! She was my professor at NYU about 3 years ago. Great professor, chill grader, and she really did a lot to improve my historical scholarship and thinking. She even wrote me some rec letters.
You should review Glory
old video, hope you keep up with the channel to answer a few questions. What implications come from the prelogue to the video? I looked up 17usc ~ 106 and 512 and derived the likelihood of your reason to post it is because of the use of the copyrighted videos from The Free State of Jones in your youtube video? Have you found this to be helpful in google not taking your video down when reviewed by a human for violations of official guideline usage? Just curious. Thanks.
I actually loved this movie lol
Not a descendent of Newt, but of his older brother James, who died in the war. Needless to say, the story was part of the family oral history.
My grandmother even met Newt when she was very little. Davis Knight was one of her distant cousins.
I loved the idea that they brought this story to life, but personally I agree they mangled it on the editing floor.
Eric Foner is my Grandfather’s cousin. Happy i came across this video.
I really liked a lot about the film, the acting was sharp, it felt real. But you're right, it's a jarring watch because of the very odd decisions made with how they presented the story. The skipping between his descendant's court case and Newt's own story felt so out of place. The passage of time between many scenes was not clear etc
The more you look in to race laws in America during the 20 century to the more similarity you can draw to the Nazis
mark mclarnon Mass Genocide =/= Segregation
You have it in reverse in actuality, friend. Hitler and his Nazi ideology drew much of their inspiration from the racial segregation and legal codes of the United States.
I made a similar comment to my wife watching this last night. It's crazy that the South still hasn't changed much. Bunch of rascist asswipes.
Yes, the demorats were very influential to the National Socialist German Workers Party. Replace "black withe "jew" in most cases, its almost a mirror. Also the eugenics mantra being spouted out by the founder of planned parenthood.
The Left has many similarities to the Nazi party. Hitler was a stringent anti-capitalist and a vegetarian. Two current leftist hallmarks.
President Roosevelt interned Japanese Americans during WW2. Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was a Kleagle in the KKK. Al Gore Sr. voted against Civil Rights. Planned Parenthood; the leftist baby slaughterhouse was founded by Margaret Sanger to limit minorities.
I appreciate your efforts to support the accuracy of the storytelling, although I personally disagree as to filmmaking. I've been working in the industry for 30 years, with lots of directors including Peter Weir (Master and Commander) and David Fincher (Panic Room), and I really liked this movie.
I felt that the era photos and text gave it authenticity and gravitas, and I didn't personally mind soaking up some bayou footage...:) And as far as the flashbacks/flash-forwards, I didn't even mind that, because it also gave currency to this story from long ago.
I think it was William Faulkner who said something to the effect that in the former Confederacy, 'the past isn't dead--it isn't even past."
And the flash-forwards showed--jarringly--how virulent the racism was--and is baked into the American psyche, so I actually appreciated that.
And having lived for many years all over the South (presently Tallahassee, FL), the systemic infrastructure of racism is so baked into the culture that it's largely invisible to those who live here--it's like the hot, humid air we breathe.
But everybody has an opinion and I respect yours--and I ABSOLUTELY agree that high schools should show this movie. And again, I appreciate the work you've done here.
I would just hate for people to see your review and not watch the movie.
Gettysburg is bad.
Gods and Generals is horrifically stupid, ham-fisted neo-Confederate propaganda--and cinematically unwatchable.
This movie is not those movies and deserves a look as an important part of our past/present history.
I am wanting to become a history teacher in the coming future, and this would definitely be a good movie to show. I’d definitely have to do some re-editing so the students would stay awake or just maybe show bits and pieces from it. Good vid 👍
Were all here to say this is actually a good film 😂 love it
The battle scene at the beginning, damn near had me tearing up at the futility and true horror of war.
Excellent film. Seen it 4 times since its release.
Shit imma watch it again tonight lol
As a Civil War reenactor, I noticed two technical inaccuracies in the beginning of the movie.
First, when the rebel formation is marching forward, you hear someone calling out the cadence "left, left, left, right, left." But the cadence in the mid-nineteenth century was actually "one, one, one, two, one." "One" was your left foot, and "two" was your right foot.
Second, when Newton Knight met another rebel soldier in the trenches, he identified himself as being from "F Company." However, given the vernacular of the mid-nineteenth century, he would have said "Company F."
I don't meant to nitpick, but those were two things that stood out to me. I loved the movie though.
modern grammar messes with movies and such based off of history all the time because grammar changes drastically throughout time so if someone messes up the historical grammar and uses modern grammar it usually doesn't click in our ape heads because it makes sense to us... usually you have to be looking for those things or like in your case semi "lived" through it being a reenactor... like for example just imagine how many times the yoda actor had to redo lines because what he was reading just didn't compute right in his brain... like imagine just going on with your life and talking "normally" and then someone whips out a random "the store now must i go"
In my opinion, the South should had been treated like conquered subjects, for a while. You treat the losers with forgiveness, and they treat would you with treachery. That’s how they repaid Lincoln’s and the Republican’s mercy.
I PARTIALLY disagree, you have to show goodwill in some ways and win the peace, but yes more action should have been taken. I personally believe the South should have been immediately begun industrialization to break the power of the plantation owner elites who set the Civil War in motion in the first place. This would also have freed both blacks and poor whites from being dominated so badly by them. Public literacy rates in the South were a disaster at the time, so something should have been done to get those up (to avoid stuff like Lost Cause propaganda from forming). Basically, the South needed major restructuring so that the elite class could no longer abuse the commoners to the horrific extent they had been. Obviously there would still be issues (dangerous factory conditions as in the northern states, etc.), but the South would have been five times better off. And there is no excuse that civil rights were not enforced more (Rutherford B. Hayes tried to, but Congress disgustingly wasn't interested much after 1876). The federal government could have helped get all of these things I listed in motion. Andrew Johnson and others sadly did not.
Oddly, I didn't have any gripes with the pacing or directorial cut decisions in this film. Rather, I found it hard to believe, especially that crazy church battle scene that reminded me of the over-the-top battles in The Patriot. But overall, it was better than I expected given how badly this movie bombed.
@Donde Merlin LOL good point; I'll take this movie over those embarrassments any day...
Long term subscriber. Goggled and downloaded the film a couple of days ago. Then your review pops up in my feed. :)
I didn't find it boring. I guess because i wasn't expecting a "Hollywood" film. Its just got the traditional "serious movie" pacing.
When I saw the DVD siting on the shelf of multiple stores, I told myself I would make the effort to watch it. So far, I haven't. But, your review has rekindled this desire, and I will go out this weekend and find a copy. Thank you.
FINALLY! I'm sooo glad someone is talking about this movie, or heck even *knows* about this movie.
I actually rather enjoyed it though. But obviously I'm just a hormonal woman taken in by a handsome actor playing a charming character. I clearly know nothing at all about what makes a movie good.
come off it, the jumping between narratives wasn't *that* confusing. it showed the cause, then the effect: like that Hitchcock short about the old man and the young woman. Also, people like you who complain about long takes and onscreen text are exactly what is wrong with American cinema *particularly* documentaries (a word that has entirely lost it's meaning, because modern documentaries have so little informational content).
This movie has far more actual information in it than 12 Years a Slave, or Harriet: or any of the other "based on a true story" Civil War dramas. The primary reason for making such a film, I'm sure many would agree, is to educate. An entirely fictional character suffices for the purposes of entertainment (see Django Unchained), but portraying a real person is far better for educating the audience. Maybe it is not "entertaining", although it is enjoyable, because that is not it's purpose.
I actually saw this in my history class and throughly enjoyed it with my class, so I was surprised by your opening statements about it not being a great film. Still even I feel weird saying it's one of my favorite historical movies.
Southerners say slavery wasn't the big issue in the Civil War but it sure played a huge role in the political climate at that time.
The more you learn, the less black and white things appear. I knew about the Confederacy- supporting Democratic Copperheads up in the North, but I was definitely surprised to learn of a story where a Confederate soldier made as big a statement as this. I know that not all Confederates fought for slavery, but I figured any that spoke against the CIS from within were silenced immediately to prevent dissent in the ranks.
@18:19 I'm a native of Covington County, born and raised. Bordering Jones County to its west. I spent much of my life fishing, swimming, and roaming the banks of the Leaf River; which cuts approximately halfway between Collins and Ellisville--the small city at the center of Knight's story. So the photo shown at this point appears to be real and from the river valley. The movie's scenes of the Leaf were shot on Pearl River in Louisiana, which looks nothing like the real setting. The Leaf River valley in Jones has no significant swamp grounds; and its forests are incredibly dense, such that running throughout is nearly impossible. (No doubt that the grounds during those times were crisscrossed with beaten foot trails, so that running was easier, but those trails are long gone now.)
With all of that said, I'm actually good friends with many of the local historians who consulted on this movie. Wyatt Moulds was one of my professors at Jones College; the man is a biological library of world history books, and he is especially regarded for his studies of Mississippi history. From across the board, I've been told that the movie was consulted with Mississippi residents unofficially intended as the target audience.
That is why the violations of "show don't tell". Most of the local historians were born and raised in Lost Cause mythology--as was I. It remains an institution of Mississippi culture even to today. Howbeit much evolved. The idea behind the film's verbosity was that the story would be more difficult to distort. That's not to say many of us around here are likely to research historical records and validate the details. Newton Knight is a popular urban legend, erroneously as a Confederate deserter and traitor. Depending on the source; he was an abusive husband and father who kept his wife and other women imprisoned as concubines in his home, while others say he murdered and raped young Confederate soldiers (more modern versions also include Union soldiers, in order to further discredit his motives). Any film, book, or other works which run counter to Lost Cause mythology are automatically censored by the public as "Yankee meddling", and the details are commonly amputated from context and distorted into convenient explanations.
I agree that explicit explanations in storytelling is bad form. But that's easy for you and I, because we are not gullible to decades of refined Lost Cause influence and manipulation. But it does have respectable disarming power and forces the average Mississippi viewer to at least think about what they thought they knew about Confederate history. Although it doesn't change many hearts, a few is indeed plenty within a large demographic absolutely rooted in "Heritage not Hate" bullshit.
If you have time, do you think you could do the history channel series Hatfields and McCoy's
Thank you so much for these videos. You put so much effort and research into them, and I come away feeling like I've learned a lot!
I live in Jones county do I get a trophy??
Vincent Herrington you can get a sticker, but no more
Participation ribbon at least!
My father's family is from that part of Mississippi. It's all dirt farms, cattle and horses and, they ended up hating both sides: they weren't slaveholders and resented the confederacy conscripting their boys and forcing them to sell their horses for confederate money which was only useful as toilet paper. They hated the North after the war for basically stealing everything that wasn't nailed down. They are very stubborn people and yes- they will shoot you even to this day.
it wasn't boring at all. it was long but times was flying. and i totally loved that they wrote some historical facts and photos during the movie. made it feel more real and more serious. if it's a history movie, i want accuracy and getting some additional info that wasn't depicted by the movie doesn't hurt, it only makes you understand the times better. though it didn't feel like a documentary at all
Yea I get what you’re saying. It felt like a History channel movie with Hollywood actors.
I remember being let down after looking really forward to seeing it.
Thought it was great. River runs through it uses photos like that too.
I wasn't bored at all with this film, as I found it deeply atmospheric and tantalizing!
I didn’t find the movie boring, and judging by the comments i see many others did not as well. However a lot of us who watch these videos are probably more patient when it come to absorbing things like text or old photos in the movie. So while many of us have no problem with the movie, others may not have the patience to wait through the extra info that’s heaped in. Just my take.
One of the first books written about this probably the late sixties was "Echoed Of The Black Horn" by Ethal Knight who lived on the banks of the Leaf River. I've met Ethal Knight a few times and been in her home .. She was of Fair skin color and could pass as 'white' .. I have deep roots in Jones county.. My ancestors migrated from Western Alabama Tennessee, Carolinas, into the area in 1850's...
A perspective:
Looking back in the history there wasn't a lot of people in Mississippi roughly at one point 6,000 free persons and 6,000 slaves.. The Choctaw Indian nation had only recently given up their land opening up more land for settlement in Mississippi.. Mississippi was still considered Frontier as Natchez was the western most city on the river with France only recently given up their land west of The River..
So those moving into Mississippi were the more poor Scott Irish that were looking for land. There were some who had acquired larger sections of land..
The film was made in North Carolina because of availability..
There was nothing here that the Northern Army wanted.. One small Skirmish outside the city of Ellisville est .1826 the county seat as Northern Calvary was burning train depots... The house where the Confederate major was shot is still standing and offer tours.
Laurel MS est. 1882 made Famous by the show "Hometown" those large fine houses in the show .. Many were built by Northerners who came down after the Civil War to profit from the lumber industry... Laurel was established by the lumber barons .. Eastman, Gardiner, Green, Weyerhaeuser, and others. They established Laurel as the second county seat as an expression of their power.
What's that song at the end please
With the disc format these days, all that extra doc-style stuff you mention could have been historical extras on the disc.
11:59 Wow. I didn’t catch on to that clue during the movie.
Thank you for this video, I recently watched the movie and am right now visiting the old graves and homesteads. You influenced me to make a video about Newt’s wives, and I’m heading to one of them now
Excellently researched! Including the names of the production advisors should be done with more movie reviews! Great job Sir regards from the UK.
I watched it today and absolutely loved it!!! I am shocked this story hasn't been told before now. Also, really wished this was a part of my history classes.
Hey Cynical, new subscriber here. I'm really glad I found your channel. Keep up the good work!
Hey sometimes a plodding sustained treatment is effective . It conveys the mundanity of existence interspersed with fear, brutality and injustice.My fav warfilm of WW2. The Cruel Sea. Many parts it were long ,boring and dreary. Just like being on a grey ship, in a grey ocean under a grey sky looking for an enemy that is not there.
If I were in the position of making this story the very first thing I would have done is made it a mini series and not a movie. It has an extremely good story but the movie is packed with information that makes it like a history documentary more than a movie. For me I’d make it something the HBO series Chernobyl. It would be relatively short only 5 episodes with the episodes going as such.
S1E1: Knights views on Slavery and how the south was involved in the war. The show the war with brutal battle scenes the hardships and frustrations with the 20 slave law and such and end it the episode with his nephew showing up or more historically accurate someone giving him the news that his wife is being beaten.
S1E2: Would consist of the either the nephew dying or him trying to get back to Jones. I personally prefer the nephew for drama reasons but that isn’t the most historical thing. But back on track the 2nd battle scene we see in the movie is the first 20 minutes of episodes and whatever happens he returns to Jones. Meets Rachel, Defends the woman’s house from the Calvary unit and then end the episode with Knight running from the dogs and being hunted down.
Episode 3 Would consist of him moving into the swamp and making friendship with the runaways and slowly bring the rebellion into order until the young men are hanged.
Episode 4 would Consist of a full rebellion in Jones county after and declaring it a state with pretty much an action packed episode of rebellion and like in the movie showing us how the relationships of the Former slaves and the Deserters is becoming strained. We eventually end the episode with Knight and Rachel having a child and ending on a happier note than the Previous episode.
Episode 5 the final would deal with reconstruction, And how Knight had to deal with the black codes and Jim Crow and the KKK
Have you done a video about Gangs Of New York? Another ‘historian’ here on TH-cam claimed the Draft Riots were not featured in the movie (they were the climactic scene). When I pointed that out he got mad and said they where handled badly. I have no opinion on that: just do remember the Riots being featured.
Wait a minute, Tennessee was responsible for secession? I thought South Carolina was the very first state to leave the Union.
no you dolt, the democratic party
Brilliant! I too found the movie to be weird when using documentary elements and shoving the trial in the middle of the story felt very jarring.
First Civil War movie i recall that was told and accurately depicted from the view of the common soldier. No nonsense about glory and romance
As a very serious student of scholastic Civil War history and historiography, I love this movie. I've actually found I've liked it more with each subsequent viewing.
11:19 can anyone tell me why they walk in the midst of bombardment why dont they charge or something smh
Overall enjoyed your video, but where I strongly disagree is that it was boring
As a Libertarian (and a radical one at that) this is my favourite movie of all time. When I first watched this movie I was absolutely mesmerised and it was one of the seeds of freedom loving that was planted. It wouldn't be until a few years later in life that I truly appreciated it. It is my favourite movie of all time, hands down
The documentary, text book, style that you said was so boring to me was perfect. We are dealing with real events and I want to be aided in understanding the facts
Lastly I was disappointed that they made some of the changes you mentioned. I don't see why they would do that, keep all the accuracies in. For example, seeing him being tortured would have made us side with him more, so idk why they cut that out. So in that area I agree with you as I suppose the absence of those scenes robbed it of some potential excitement
Oh and yeh, the story of his descendant in court shouldn't have been cut up randomly throughout the film I agree. Should have been put at the end or something. But I'm glad they showed it, the worse thing would have been to omit it entirely
I find it strange that this movie got such bad reviews. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Having Newton Knight go back to murder a pedophile is strangely more compelling than having his fictional nephew die.
Plus the fact that he's whipped, beaten, and displaced (having his home burned down while he's unable to defend it) puts him akin to the runaway slaves he meets in the swamp. He's once again "shackled into slavery" by being forced back into the army, only to be a runaway (deserter) again. This makes that confrontation over the smoked pig between Knight, Ward, and Moses that much deeper.
Newton forever saw himself as a "freed slave" because he had always had to fight to retain that freedom against the confederacy.
When I went to see this film in the theater I arrived late. I didn't think the cut to the misogination trial was jarring and out of place. I figured it was part of a framing device that I had missed because I was late.
You know what it's called when you tell a story too accurately? It's called a Documentary and Hollywood knows you don't make any money from a Documentary.
I actually liked it. I liked the long generally quite shots of people doing things.They helped maintain the dark and foreboding tone the director was going for. I think he was trying to show life as it is, harsh and barren, and devoid of justice. The jumping back and forth between narratives was incredibly jarring though.
Very interesting review. Much appreciated the focus on historical accuracy. Where are your own movies - they sound interesting.
Not gunna lie I wasn’t bored by this movie in the slightest… so despite factual inaccuracies and exaggerating, rotten tomatoes or any other channel for that matter is not the end all be all for a movie being good… the story itself is about perseverance through hardship and confusion if you like that type of plot line, than this a great movie for you
I put this movie on my watch list because of McConaughey but haven't watched it due to poor ratings. It's good to know beforehand not to expect a good movie and can view it in a different, and interesting, light.
"Vicksburg falls to Union forces" - photo that's clearly from the battle of Antietam shows up
I thought the pictures made it more engaging, it took one out of the Hollywood depiction and snapped a harsh reality that made the movie more personal. This in turn made every scene as if one was there. It was very fine art. I think the reason why it didn’t make much money was because most people don’t like war history, or rather see what the kardashians are up too.
Honestly, I think I'm most triggered by the still images. How did that make it into the final version? Who thought that was somehow a good idea? Not only is that just bad movie making, it's straight up bad storytelling. One of the key parts of storytelling, is making the most out of your medium. Still pictures, only work in a book, where your imagination applies them different places, in a film it makes no sense to have them.
I’ve watched this movie multiple times, i didn’t find it boring although it did have an odd cut after the emancipation proclamation that looked like it was wrapping things up only for it to go another 35 minutes