It’s Fact, it’s Fiction, it’s Hollywood…

The Patriot: A “Poetic Truth”

Every time a historical movie comes out, critics have to rant and rave about its “historical accuracy.” The question that is always brought up is whether or not filmmakers have the right to twist, bend and alter history for the purpose of entertainment. In making this movie, the filmmakers -like many others before them- followed a concept called the “poetic truth, a truth truer than the literal truth.” This concept basically states that as long as “the underlying meaning of the events is accurate,” then the “details” don’t really matter. [1] After all, people don’t go watch movies like The Patriot in order to learn about history; they go to be entertained. So why blame the filmmakers for simply doing their jobs?

Frankly, I think they did well. They addressed key points about the war; like the fact that there was a vast difference in opinion about the war. The movie also stressed the important role that both women and children played in the war. Women were shown encouraging men to fight for the cause. Benjamin’s two oldest sons portrayed the large portion of the youth population that was thrilled to join the war and defend the cause of liberty. Even the youngest children were forced to wield weapons for protection. The movie also showed the vital role the French played in winning the war. We had to “Trust the French,” for who knows where we’d be today without them. They also did a very good job of recreating the feel of the 1700s; the scenery, the clothing, the showing of what warfare was really like at the time, explaining concepts like “war ethics” and “the rules of war”, and understanding the switch to guerrilla tactics, why that happened, and what it meant for both the Brits and the colonists.

In terms of the negative aspects, the biggest and most commonly criticized historical flaw is the way slavery is portrayed (or, rather, not portrayed) in the movie. Though slavery played an integral role in society at the time, it is all but ignored in the movie. Benjamin who is a well-respected member of the community doesn’t even have slaves; he has “freedmen.” At the time, that would’ve been extremely unlikely. The whole relationship between blacks and whites was a bit romanticized in the movie, as were the characters of Benjamin and Colonel Tavington. Both seemed superhuman, especially Benjamin who somehow managed to single-handedly kill entire legions of soldiers (go figure)…

In the end, though, it just all goes back to how to make a good movie. One: there must be a good plot. You can thank history for that one. Two: there must be a “bad guy” or else you would end up spending the whole movie trying to figure out who you hated more, the Brits or the colonists, and would probably just end up hating the main character (he was really scary sometimes). Throw in a bunch of Hollywood drama and special effects and you have yourself a movie that does exactly what it is supposed to do. It brings tears to the eyes of the sappy Titanic-loving crowd. It has enough graphic battle scenes to satisfy the action-loving, blood-and-gore “look, his head just got blown off” crowd. And most importantly, it tells the story of a people that risked losing everything they had for the sake of freedom. It was the story of a regular people that stood up against all odds to fight for a cause they believed in strongly enough to be able to go against the most powerful country in the world – and win…

[1] In an editorial written by Mackubin T. Owens, he states: In 1995, Richard Bernstein wrote a piece for the New York Times entitled “Can Movies Teach History?” Noting that “more people are getting their history, or what they think is history, from the movies these days than from the standard history books,” he then asked, does “the filmmaker, like the novelist, have license to use the material of history selectively and partially in the goal of entertaining, creating a good dramatic product, even forging what is the sometime called the poetic truth, a truth truer than the literal truth?” In other words, “does it matter if the details are wrong if the underlying meaning of events is accurate?”

WANTED: Runaway Slaves and Servants

For as long as there has been forced labor, paid or unpaid, there have been those who have tried to escape it. Though there is much we still don’t know know about the slave movements of the past, one way we can try to learn about them is by tracking old newspaper WANT ads. Though these articles are, of course, written by white men, the facts they entertain can give us a better idea of when, where, and who escaped most frequently. I myself studied and read dozens of different articles located on the online database The Geography of Slavery in Virginia. To check out the website yourself go to http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/gos/.

Most of the WANT ads followed a similar structure. The “subscriber” to the ad would state the time and place from which the laborer had escaped, followed by his or her name, age, hight, a description of the runaway’s physical features, any distinguishable or unique marks, scars, etc. and an account of what he or she was last wearing before they ran away.  Then if the author has any idea as to the plans of the runaway, they would state them, followed by a warning, mostly to the “masters of vessels,” to not allow them to board. Finally they would state the reward and the name of the subscriber. Though articles varied in order, detail and length, this was the general content.

Dividing the runaways into three general categories, from 1736-1763, from 1764-1786, and from 1787-1803, I was able to generally notice what things seemed to change and what things did not seem to change about the runaways and their articles. Peculiarly there were actually many similarities between all the runaways throughout the years. The first things I noticed was that, first, they were mostly men, though I suppose that was expected. The second thing was that they were, also expectedly, mostly slaves rather than servants, though there were many runaway servants as well. They were also mostly around the same ages. Though most of the time the laborers exact age was unknown the author would usually state that they were about 20, 30, or 40 years old. Ages rarely dropped below 20 or rose above 40. They also seemed to run away more commonly in the summer months, between March and August, with August being a particularly common one. This leads me to believe that the summer was the most suitable time period for travel and that men around the age of 30 were the strongest and mot capable of escape. Most escapees took nothing withthem but the clothes on their back and perhaps some extra clothing as well. Others may have stolen a horse, gun, money, books and writing-paper, or cloths and linnings. They sometimes carried forged passes or took companions with them, often planning to board a vessel or use their skills to disguise themselves as sailors, blacksmiths, or shoe-makers. In the later years (mostly 1787-1803) runaways usually planned to disguise themselves as freemen.

In articles, runaways were often described by their color as being either yellow, black, or very black. They almost always had scars on their backs or faces and were often described as having pretty good English skills, which I suppose could be an important asset for escapees. This however was not always the case.

Another thing that was also very interesting was that, as the years went on, descriptions of the runaways’ actual character, habits, and personality seemed to increase (mostly 1764 and onwards.) Subscribers often described runaways as being notorious liars, villains, felons, wenches, rogues, very deceitful, etc. On the other side of the spectrum, though, were others that were very commonly being described as remarkably sensible, smart, artful, and cunning. Many were said to have a “smiling countenance.” They also described their habits (usually drinking habits), such as one Negro servant who was described as being “apt to get drunk then to ridicule the country in general.”

Most runaway slaves and servants, despite their age, sex, and serving status seemed to generally cost about the same amount when it came to rewards, for they did not seem to vary too greatly. About 1736-1760, the reward was usually one or two pistoles, and sometimes four or five. In the 1760s, however, it more commonly became 30 or 40 shillings. During this time period the rewards were given by the owners in addition to a government reward, though in the later years no government reward was mentioned anymore. From 1764 and onwards, the currency varied more dramatically. It was 5, 10, or 20 pounds, and sometimes 2 Guineas. There was also the dollar. Between 1787-1803 that was what was mostly used, usually about 5, 10, 15, or 20 dollars. Very shockingly, though, there were those who offered 300, 500, or even 1000 dollar rewards.

In retrospect, there were many differences over the years, but generally articles did not vary too greatly. Women escapees were still few, youngens were few as well as the elderly, and the times of escape and amount of awards did not vary greatly.