The central story is this: Benjamin Gates (Cage) believes his great-grandfather, Thomas Gates, helped to thwart John Wilkes Booth and his fellow conspirators by refusing to decrypt a message for them. New evidence is presented that shows Thomas Gates may have, in fact, been one of the conspirators. His name is on a page from Booth's diary. Now in order to prove his forefather's innocence, Benjamin Gates must decipher the code himself, find the treasure it refers to, and thus, prove Thomas Gates' innocence. (I never quite understood how finding the treasure could prove or disprove Thomas Gates' loyalty to the Union or Confederacy.)
Now follows brilliant code cracking and daring strategies, all based on information gleaned from children's illustrated histories. And through the entire movie runs the theme that a Confederate victory would have been disastrous, thank God they never found the treasure, or we would all be speaking with Southern drawls and still own slaves. One of Ben Gates' praises of Lincoln is this quote:
"Before the Civil War, the states were all separate. People used to say "United States are." Wasn't until the war ended, people started saying "The United States is." Under Lincoln, we became one nation."
And there is my problem. Lincoln dissolved states rights, brought about the war that took more American lives than any other, turned brother against brother, and he is remembered as a hero. Lincoln destroyed the United States and created something else with the same name. We are no longer a collection of sovereign states that join together for national defense and other common causes. The constitutional rights of states were removed. You were no longer a member state by choice, you were a member state by military force.
Professor Walter E. Williams, of George Mason University, opens one of his recent columns with the following brilliant paragraph:
"One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence."
We did not have a civil war in this country. We had a second war for independence that was unsuccessful. Imagine that our founding fathers had lost their war for independence. We are now a British colony (probably a commonwealth by now, but still paying allegiance to the crown). King George III would be known as the king that unified the kingdom and the Colonies. Would those of us in North America today consider him a hero? Or would we consider him to be a thief of liberty and a tyrant?
The War of 1861 is long over. Its consequences live on. The former Confederate States today have a population of over 100 million. They are continually portrayed as ignorant, and regarding the war, evil (some of them did own slaves, after all). Other causes for the war are rarely addressed, and never in popular media. There is an absolute world-view regarding the war: South wrong; North right.
Thomas Gates is eventually declared to have been for the North (like I said, I don't see how finding the treasure proved anything) and we are expected to be happy that our hero is descended from a man who fought on the Right Side. That means 100 million or so of us are descended from those who fought on the Wrong Side. I am no "South shall rise again" southern rebel lying in wait for a chance to re-fight the war. I am a Southern born American who recognizes that what we are told to believe and what is true are not always the same. And I mourn the loss of our freedoms, whether lost today or 140 years ago.
6 comments:
Very well said.
Leatherwing, this is a wonderfully thought-provoking post.
Natn'l. Treasure II was silly. I was confused in the same areas you were, and did not buy into any character in the least. I didn't care about anyone in the movie or their "truth mission."
Which is sad because there were some great actors playing really flat characters.
Steve and I just finished watching the HBO series, John Adams, so, on the heels of that, the rest of your post is also quite interesting. There seems to be this historical tendency for governing bodies to try to protect and unify a group (of states, countries, individuals) by assuming a certain level of ignorance on the part of their constituents, and/or that they are ill-informed or inexperienced(uneducated?) to make wise decisions for themselves. It's not so much a government by elected representation, but more of a government by diagnosis and prescription. ("I know what is wrong with you and I know how to fix it, so I'll make the decisions and let you know what you can do to live happily under my wise guidance.")
What is even more tragic is that many of us in America are content to daily hand over our critical-thinking and personal decision-making to "the experts."
I see it in government.
I see it in churches.
I see it in advertising media.
I'm including myself in this non-thinking group too. I would rather let someone else do it for me and just tell me how to live. Wouldn't that be so much easier? Battling my flesh to deny the laziness and move toward taking ownership of my life, my faith and my patriotism is hard.
It is going to be an interesting election season, isn't it?
Thanks for the feedback Erin.
I haven't seen John Adams yet, but I've heard very good things about it.
I try to be aware of when I am being led versus when I am making a sound decision on my own. I have to confess that being led is easier and I fall into it more often than not.
But I believe that if we exercise our brains just a small part of the time, we will be able to see through the smoke and mirrors to truth and reality.
I can't imagine either of the leading presidential candidates being very good for our country. And I have made a commitment to stop voting for the guy that I think will do the least damage. If I don't support his cause or ideology why should I give him my vote and participate in the charade.
To quote a really good book, "Even so, come, Lord Jesus."
So should we more properly be referring to the 1861-1865 unpleasantness as The War of American Unification?
Comparing it to Bismarck's wars of German unification or Garibaldi's wars of Italian unification, both of which took place at about the same time, I must confess I can't see heck of a lot of difference -- except that the Americans, both northern and southern, were much better shots than the Italians.
Leatherwing,
I was just brushing up on some of the other political parties campaigning for Presidential position. I know (vaguely) what some of them stand for- Libertarian, Green Parties- but had never heard of ones like the Constitutional Party.
Have you checked out any of those parties? Any of them strike a chord with you? Any independents that you find appealing?
Sounds like you vote for a personrather than a partywhen you vote, true? It gets to be a complicated thing, knowing which way to vote and who to elect to represent your views. How will we know that the person we vote for will follow through on what they say, whether or not their party supports them? And how much influence does the party have over the decisions their person makes? (I imagine it's a lot.)
My head is spinning right about this time every 4 years. I've got to say it's better than a dictatorship though!
Party plays a role in my voting - I've never voted for a Democratic candidate because I completely disagree with the party's ideals/methods (more government will solve most problems, pit economic classes against each other, redistribution of wealth through taxation and aid programs, etc).
My current opinion of the Republican party is that they look a lot like Democrats. Both parties engage in pork barrel projects, representatives of both parties seem to abandon their principles once they reach Washington and represent special interests more than they do their constituents.
I believe Ron Paul is an exception, and had he been the Republican nominee, I'd gladly vote for him.
I'm not crazy about Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. I need to read his reasoning for abandoning many of the positions he held when he was a Republican. I agree with the changes (end the war on drugs, now opposes the Defense of Marriage Act). He held many positions that strengthen government at the expense of individual freedom and now says he supports individual freedom over government. I want to know his reasons for switching.
I haven't really looked into the Constitution Party yet. But I expect I will vote either Libertarian or Constitution in the presidential election. Most local elections won't have candidates for those parties on the ballot (North Carolina keeps taking 3rd parties of the ballot then reinstating them after petition drives. The constant effort required to just be on the ballot takes most of the energy, it's hard to promote a candidate well after all that effort).
Post a Comment