Yuku free message boards

*** Spoiler alert ***

Agreed. Also, the character development was rather weak, except for Stonewall and perhaps Chamberlain (Jeff Daniels). Even so, IMO, Stonewall wasn't sufficiently established as a good leader to inspire the men's devotion to him on the battlefield. And why was Jackson's cook present for his death and in the funeral procession? The two of them had no significant interaction apart from the initial interview and the brief discussion of slavery. It seemed like the cook was a token character to show how Stonewall treated "Negroes" but who lacked any other significance in the story.

On the other hand, regarding the "War of Northern Aggression," the movie definitely sought to make the audience empathize with the South (who's the revisionist historian now?), and with a little selective perception, it was mainly the Northern soldiers who were portrayed as racist. In my history lessons, the South's position was presented as predominantly motivated by self-interest and racism and was almost absurd, but the movie made their resistance seem much more tenable on the basis of independence from the whims of the bankers and merchants of the North. The movie didn't really do much to address the question of slavery or the economic or societal forces that kept it in place, but then again, they only had four hours!

PS, "Noobs?" :-)