Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

====== Errors in fact ======

Although there was a 'Wilderness' Campaign in the French and Indian war, the only **Fort Wilderness** I could find exists today at Disney World.

Also, Benjamin Martin's quote, "Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?" was actually a version spoken by Boston’s Rev. Mather Byles who was a Tory through and through. Byles was vocally loyal to England throughout the American Revolution.  He is perhaps most famously remembered for his retort when questioned why he didn’t support the uprising of the Sons of Liberty.  Rev Byles original quote: **“Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?”**- Andrew Mullins

cite:http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/mather-byles-bostons-jester-to-the-revolutionary-cause/

While it was a really shocking scene, one thing that stuck out to me was the scene in which the British gather all of the townspeople in the church, then set the church ablaze with all of them still inside. There are no actual records (as far as I've seen) of British soldiers using such extreme methods to any extent. I understand that the idea was to make out the British to be these cruel and horrible enemies, but there were plenty of ways to do it while maintaining accuracy to their tactics of intimidation and dominance. --Robert Dallas

The head stone for his wife says, "In memory of-" This is a characteristic of head stones in the 19th century when more emphasis was on the memory of the loved ones that have died rather than death itself. In earlier examples of head stones in the united states it was much more common place to see the phrase, "Here lies the body of-" this emphasizes the body and the soul being different. The body dies and the soul lives on according to Christian belief, this was reflected in their head stones and the ways in which the living honored their dead. I think that by referencing the memory in the head stone not only is it conveying to the audience his wife has died, but it shows how much her death still affects him and the children, her memory is still with them....(I also took a class on grave stones last semesters so this is also me probably reading WAY TOO MUCH into it.) Still, I don't think it likely that a head stone at that time would be phrased in such a way, plus the writing was at the bottom when it would have been at the top, the carving is not in the correct style, the capitalization is off if it is trying to mimic head stones at this period, and don't get me started on the star engraving and the general shape of the stone. AHHHH -- Grace Corkran

They portrayed the soldiers in the British army, especially Tavington, as really evil in this movie. Like Robert mentioned above, I don't recall ever learning about such extreme methods being used in the Revolutionary War. Because this is an American movie geared towards an American audience, I suppose the writers and directors were attempting to dramatically portray the continental army as the good guys and the British army as the bad guys. I think more than anything they wanted an action movie that showcased the Revolutionary War, rather than a historical movie about the Revolutionary War with some action. They created a story and used the events and time period as props, which has pros and cons. --Maryanna Stribling

From what I can tell, there was no "Fort Wilderness" battle in the 7 years war (http://www.patriotresource.com/thepatriot/factfiction/events/one.html). Benjamin Martin was also not a real person, however he was based on several real people -  Francis Marion, Thomas Sumter, Andrew Pickens, Elijah Clarke, and Daniel Morgan (http://www.patriotresource.com/thepatriot/factfiction/people.html). There was no single-handed hero of the Revolutionary war. I agree with Maryanna above - this seems more like an action movie set in the Revolutionary war rather than a movie about the war itself. It is also interesting to see so many South Carolinian farmers leave to fight in the war after some inspirational speeches. We discussed in class that the Carolinas were very divided, and many remained neutral until the fight came right to them. So wouldn't it make more sense for the militia to form after the British burned everyone alive in the church? --Erin Shaw

**Was it typical for women at the time to own plantations and homes in the city, like Aunt Charlotte? -Maddie Shiflett**

The regular continental soldiers (both in the beginning in what is presumably Valley Forge, during Gabriel's letter to his family, and into Camden and Cowpens) are remarkably well-equipped and clean. Also during the two big battles the lines seemed to be way too close together. Additionally, Harry Burwell, for being apparently based on Light-Horse Harry Lee, is much older, in a different rank and doesn't even command cavalry or act with Greene's army. http://www.patriotresource.com/thepatriot/characters/burwell.html --Jessie Fitzgerald

In the movie, the British are shown burning down a church with people inside of it. However, there is no evidence to show that this event occurred during the American Revolution.  –Courtlyn Plunkett

**Gabriel could not have been writing about Charleston while in Valley Forge. Unless he can see into the future. If he was in Valley Forge during 1778 then he could not have known about Charleston being captured in 1780.** https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/americans-suffer-worst-defeat-of-revolution-at-charleston https://www.nps.gov/vafo/index.htm There was also an error in the numbers captured in the battle of Charleston as the movie said the number was 5,000 but the number was actually 3,000.I waa also wary about the accuracy of the rifles used when Benjamin was saving Gabriel as the two very young kids were able to very accurately shoot trained British regulars. Was this an accurate depiction of the skill that was possessed by some colonials or just blind luck?--Jack Hagn

A few inaccuracies that caught my eye from The Patriot. First, the hygiene of the characters was// impeccable// for the time. I highly doubt after months from being away from home, everyone would have clear skin, pretty hair and sparkling teeth. Second, some of the scenes showed maneuvers with a gun and aim that just could not have been executed at the time (possibly even in real life). For example, when Colonel Tavington miraculously shot a man while on a horse with one hand, no kick back from the gun, straight into the back of another man riding a horse from a couple hundred feet away...c'mon!! --Caroline Collier

As other students have mentioned, one error was how Tavington was portrayed. Tarleton, who Tavington is based off of, was not a child murder. The burning of people and execution of soldiers on the other side was also a misrepresentation of the Revolution. --Alyx Wilson

Based on the map that Dr. McClurken showed us in class of which parts of which colonies favored which side in the war--or, those who didn't take a side at all--Charleston in 1776 was a Loyalist stronghold. Therefore, there would be no reason for there to be people in the streets burning King George III in effigy and chanting "Hang the King!".

Source: http://www.kotcb.com/2015/07/loyal-to-leviathan.html
~Will Everett
====== Things the Movie got right ======

The movie got right the fact that General Horatio Gates, commanded the Continental troops that were crushed by General Cornwallis in the scene that must be the Battle of Camden.  Gates was replaced by General Nathanael Greene, and well, the rest is History.  As an aside, Gates was no stranger to defeat, having been part of the failed Braddock Expedition with George Washington of French and Indian / “Seven Years War” fame, fighting the French in the Ohio campaign we saw depicted loosely in LoTM.

Also, from 1670 to 1783, the city of Charles Town then Charlestown. No "e" on the end. At the end of the American Revolution in 1783, the name was changed by the city legislature and shortened to Charleston, and corrected the pronunciation to sound more like “CHAHLston” as a way of announcing their independence from Britain, which has been in use ever since. 
Cite: A History of Charles Town, South Carolina, retrieved from http://www.carolana.com/SC/Towns/Charles_Town_SC.html   – Andrew Mullins

In the the first charleston scene there is a political protest depicting the burning of effigies outside what appear to be the town hall. This was a common occurrence  in the events leading up to the revolution and an important to establish cross-class unity between the white colonists to ensure the poor colonists wouldn’t rise against the elite ones. This source was from Bernard Bailyns book “The ideological Origins of the American Revolution.--William Roszell

In the movie there was a local militia for the Continental Army. The men would not follow the war, but rather locals would round up when the war came to them. This is in contrast to the British Army, which had trained soldiers that would travel from battle to battle. --Maryanna Stribling

The names of the battles that occurred in the film were based off of actual battles such as the Battle of Camden, the Battle of Cowpens, and the Battle of Yorktown. As well, Mel Gibson’s character Benjamin Martin was partially based off a Francis Marion, Indian fighter from the French and Indian War. Another name that the movie mentions is General Charles Cornwallis who is based on the real-life Lt. General Charles Earl Cornwallis. Just like movie portrays, General Cornwallis oversaw the British Army in the Carolinas in 1780-81. http://www.patriotresource.com/thepatriot/factfiction/index.html - Courtlyn Plunkett

The film had accurate uniform and weaponry, as historians from the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History consulted on the film. St. George, William Ross. The Journal of American History 87, no. 3 (2000): 1146-148. doi:10.2307/2675444. [[https://www.jstor.org/stable/2675444]]. The Colonial Army did use guerilla tactics against the British because of their greater number. The French also did help the Colonial army during the war. -Kyle Moore

CW: Sexual Assault --Towards the beginning of the film, one of the younger sons at the dinner table casually mentions that the British Soldiers will "do lord knows what to you women." The fact that such a young character recognizes the possibility of R*pe and other abuse towards captured women reveals how prevalent of an issue this was. As we discussed in class, systemic sexual abuse was a horrid reality colonial women had to face, as civilians were often victims of war as well. --Jessica Lynch

When Gabriel returns to his family's house wounded, he describes the fight at Waxhaws and notes that the dragoons killed all of the surrendering soldiers. This was somewhat accurate. Col. Tavington’s character is based on British Col. Banastre Tarleton. At Waxhaws, Tarleton continued to fight against the surrendering Continental soldiers, earning him the nickname, “the butcher.”  
"The Battle of Cowpens." National Parks Service. Accessed September 24, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/cowp/learn/historyculture/the-battle-of-cowpens.htm.       -Maddie Shiflett

The final battle is based on the Battle of Cowpens, where General Daniel Morgan (under Greene’s command) told the militia to fire two volleys and then retreat to the line of Continental soldiers, knowing that Col. Banastre Tarleton would rush an attack. Tarleton and his dragoons chased after them before being overwhelmed by Patriot cavalry. Morgan ordered retreating troops to turn back and then ordered a bayonet charge. The militia rejoined the fight and the British were driven off. 
"The Battle of Cowpens." National Parks Service. Accessed September 24, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/cowp/learn/historyculture/the-battle-of-cowpens.htm.       -Maddie Shiflett

Other than the extreme brutality towards civilians by the British (that others have pointed out is false for the movie) and the personal enmity between Martin and Tavington/Tarleton, there isn't that much "made up" just for the movie. Benjamin Martin wasn't real, obviously, but a conglomeration of many Patriot partisans put into one character, for example, Thomas Sumter became a partisan after Tarleton burned his home, Francis Marion's nephew Gabriel was killed by Loyalists (at least, according to one of Marion's men, William James), the partisan militia acted similarly to what is shown in the movie, buying time by harassing the British and keeping them from moving north, the basic premise of the battles of Camden and Cowpens are portrayed, homes were burned in retaliation, patriot and loyalist neighbors fighting each other, French army officers training Continental soldiers (although no evidence of one with Marion)so much of the movie is actually based in fact.  It is, however, definitely a dramatization and oversimplification of real events. --Jessie Fitzgerald
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/thomas-sumter

Enslaved people like Occam often fought in the Revolutionary War for their masters who wanted to support the cause but were unable too. Some of the enslaved people fought for their own freedom that they believed would come with fighting for the continentals but only a few achieved their freedom. A majority still remained as property of their masters. Some enslaved men went to the British because they saw that their chance for freedom with them was better than with the continentals. But like shown when the British attacked Benjamin’s home, they did also take enslaved people as well. 
Dobyns, Lloyd. "Fighting... Maybe for Freedom, but Probably Not." Terms of Estrangement: Who Were the Sons of Liberty? : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site. 2007. Accessed September 24, 2018. http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/autumn07/slaves.cfm. -- Ellora Larsen

Something the movie did mention was the fact that if enslaved people fought in the war as a Loyalist, they would be granted freedom. As we talked about in class, Lord Dunmore proclamation stated just that in hoped to hurt the southern colonists labor forces. --Caroline Collier

At first, I was convinced that the movie kept saying Charleston wrong! I could not stop thinking about Charlestown, WV every time they said Charles Town. After some quick Wikipedia searches, I found that the original name was Charles Town but then it changed to Charleston in 1783. I was so confused when the Martin's were just going to 'willy-nilly' go to Aunt Susan's in Charlestown. -Lake Wiley

I know it's a stretch but during the movie I thought, this movie was very long, just like the length of the war at the time. -Erin Andrewlevich

The attitude of Benjamin’s initial hesitancy towards the war is accurate to most of the colonists of the time. The majority of the colonists were neutral unless one side or the other pushed them in the other direction through violence or other means. – Carolyn Stough

One thing the movie got right was the maroon society where the Martin family are reunited with Abigail, their house keeper, and that becomes their new hide away. Another thing the movie got right was the freedom that slaves were promised if they joined the war, on either side. --Alyx Wilson

One of my favorite scenes was the conversation between Cornwallis and Benjamin. Cornwallis derides Benjamin for targeting officers during battle instead of taking them as prisoners of war, since this causes battlefield chaos, and Benjamin says that he will continue doing so as long as the British’s “brutal” tactics continue. I thought it was funny since Banastre Tarleton (the real life inspiration for William Tavington) got his reputation as a butcher due to an especially bloody battle known as the massacre at Waxhaws. In his memoirs published after the war, Tarleton says that the massacre happened because his horse was shot out from under him during battle and his men thought he was dead. (https://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/battles/800529-waxhaws/) Although it was surely unintentional, I like to pretend the writers might have understood the historical inaccuracies in the movie and included this as an in-joke. (Justin Curtis)

====== Questions about interpretation ======

The movie makes it so that African Americans are treated well by the "nice white patriots" and that they have a loving relationship that is not affected by race. The patriots that do judge based on race come to see the errors of their ways by the end of the film. Additionally the partiots are pious are often depicted in the movie praying, they are shown with the cross present in multiple places in their camp, and die as innocents in a church. In comparison the British are not seen as religious and furthermore they burn down the one church they entered in the movie. The movie interpretes the colonist as able to over come race and in a way that shows the purity of their cause by placing G-d on their side, and the British as stuck up, G-dless officers. what could the movie have done better to break down these stereotypes that we know are not true?-- Grace Corkran

The Patriot uses Occam (enslaved African fighting for Colonists) to represent African Americans during the Revolutionary War. Enslaved and Free Africans could fight for both sides during the revolution with each side promising different forms of freedom and punishing “traitors” even worse.  The link posted below describes better than I could how this played out for both sides of the war.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26306022
Poirier, Noel B. “A Legacy of Integration: The African American Citizen–Soldier and the Continental Army.” Army History, no. 56 (2002): 16–25. --William Roszell

Tavington, who is based on Col. Tarleton, is portrayed as blood-thirsty, hot-headed, and merciless. Tarleton was a fan of total war; there is record of him burning houses and crops. However, he was “probably no more brutal than British officers and even some American officers” (NPS). The British villain in the film has no redeeming qualities, most likely done to increase the viewers’ emotional response and to draw more support for the character of Benjamin Martin and the Americans. "Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton." National Parks Service. Accessed September 24, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/cowp/learn/historyculture/lieutenant-colonel-banastre-tarleton.htm.   -Maddie Shiflett

This is a movie of extremes. The good guys stand up for what modern people believe in - anti-racism, anti-totalitarian government, and doing anything for one's family. The bad guys are not only pompous, they are violent, and do not care about family. The focus on family ties could be interpreted as an overall sense of family ties to the new nation - that is, all "patriots" are family and should be protected as such from the pure evil British. This interpretation makes Martin's plight all the more serious, cementing him as an action star in the vein of any Nicholas Cage B-movie. --Erin Shaw

Everyone loves a good patriotic story where the ragtag Americans bravely defeat the powerful British Army. Benjamin Martin is a cookie-cutter American hero with all the right character aspects that are needed to make him likeable. Everyone fighting against the British is united by a common cause despite other social issues that would’ve been very divisive in real life. The war is over-simplified in this movie: recruits for the militia are easy to come by, the decision to fight against the British is an easy one to make, would-be enemies in every day life learn to see eye to eye simply because they are both soldiers, and out-witting experienced British officers is a simple task. This movie was enjoyable to watch, it got many things right in terms of the course of the war, and indirectly paid homage to a real figure of the American Revolution. However, the British perspective was not considered in a serious light. The important thing about studying history is to be objective- not to only look at one side of things. -Maddie Shiflett

It was interesting how the movie displayed the alliance that the colonists had with the French in the American Revolution. They had one French man who helped teach the regulars how to fire a gun and warfare tactics. Why did the director choose to include one French man to show that alliance instead of making references to the French until they show the French navy showing up at the end? Are they trying to do what they did with Occam and the African American experience and have one person represent a group?-- Ellora Larsen

Something I immediately noticed was how SUPER convenient that the Martins had freed African Americans working on their farm rather than enslaved people. It makes their family and especially the hero himself look great like he cares so much for the people working his plantation. It probably is intended to make the white audience feel good, “not all white people back then were bad”. Except for this situation that was set up for the movie seems to have been EXTREMELY uncommon and that’s a truth that an audience member should have to accept. -Erin Andrewlevich

Going off what Erin S. said about extremes in the film, the actions of the Col. Tavington against the settlers were so extreme. Gen. Wilkinson had to tell him he better straighten up or else since his reputation would be poorly reflected by his cold blooded actions. That is until Wilkinson was tricked by Benjamin, then did he give Tavington permission to do whatever in order to stop the rebels. Also, Benjamin was bent on getting revenge ASAP when his son was killed before his eyes in cold blood. He took his scared senseless sons and had them help him ambush the soldiers. I understand, it was all done to free his son but he kinda just left his even younger children . . To be honest, I was quite impressed that his sons were superb marksmen (especially under pressure) their father taught them well! And yes the British are portrayed as cold blooded killers (the church massacre) compared to the rebels who are fighting to try to protect their families.
 - Johana Colchado 
====== The movie as a primary source of its time ======

Mel Gibson, an Australian known for his performances as a victim of English cruelty and incompetence in Gallipoli and Braveheart, clearly has an ‘axe to grind’ against the British, (pun intended) and continues that quest in The Patriot.  – Andrew Mullins

The Patriot was made after the World War II blockbuster Saving Private Ryan (1998), which shares the same head writer. The way the British are portrayed, specifically Tavington and the British seemed to be overly embellished to fit the good guy vs. bad guy formula that worked in Saving Private Ryan and other war movies of the late 90’s/early 2000’s. -Kyle Moore

The patriotism exhibited in movies of the early 2000's was everywhere. Black Hawk Down, Jarhead, Letters from Iwo Jima, Flags of Our Fathers, Saving Private Ryan all came out around the time The Patriot did. At first I thought the movie came out after 9/11 which would explain the intense patriotism but I guess it was a time in the movie industry that loved to show war and the American spirit. -Lake Wiley

This movie may have been centered around history and patriotism, but the focus on the fictional characters relationships with a dash of blood-filled action sequences said about as much to me as the history aspect did. There were multiple different plotlines about different relationships (Benjamin and his kids, Benjamin and Catherine, Gabriel and Anna) that speak for the genre as well as time period. -Erin Andrewlevich

The Patriot demonstrates a severe desire to simplify and idealize the motivations that created this country. Characters are motivated to join the war due to a desire to escape perceived unfair taxation or due to the British forces’ cruelty and aggressive tactics. The sides in the movie are clear cut with the British being the obviously wrong side of the war as they don’t take prisoners, kill innocent civilians, and are obsessed with superficial items such as clothing or valuing commanders above regular soldiers. In contrast, the militia becomes a morally superior group as they have only a momentary doubt in whether or not to kill surrendering forces, they are never shown to harm civilians, and hold each soldier as much as they would a commander. Even the worst aspects of the colonist militia soldiers is brushed off, as the racist soldiers are swayed by the commanders who aren’t racist and all issues are put aside by the climax.  Any issues that could have possibly existed in the budding country is cast aside or solved by the end of the movie. There is also the idea that Benjamin embodies the ideal American, who learns from his mistakes and becomes a better person. However, when he acts in a more brutal and vicious fashion at the beginning of the movie, he is using a tomahawk before “elevating” to a more civilized method with traditional weaponry. --Sky Horne

====== Comparing the reading to the movie ======
Similarly to how an Ad was placed in the movie promising freedom to enslaved soldiers who served for 12 months, according to "Boisterous Sea of Liberty," most states had granted freedom to enslaved people who served in the war by 1778. As paralleled in the reading, it is hard to watch the white colonists who feel as though they are oppressed and desperately seek freedom, yet they enslave other humans of a differing race, and apparently Tories taunted the colonist's hypocrisy in regards to racial slavery. (182, 186)--Jessica Lynch

Both readings emphasize the brutality of war, which the movie also clearly wanted to emphasize. It is also interesting to compare the character, whose name I can't remember, who is at first cruel to the black soldier, and then grows to believe in his freedom as much as the patriots' freedom. In Boisterous Sea of Liberty, it is discussed that colonists were keenly aware of how they enslaved people, and used that as a metaphor for their treatment from Britain. However, they continued to enslave people after the war ended, showing that colonists didn't really have an "a-ha racism is bad" moment while fighting alongside black men in the war. It was actually the Tories who pointed out this hypocrisy, like Jessica mentions above. Interestingly, the movie does not discuss the various political and economic points that led the colonies to rebellion, like taxes and tariffs. Instead, it focuses completely on the brutality of the English, or just Tavington, as the reason for war. --Erin Shaw

Although there is zero evidence of Tarleton killing civilians, in the partisan warfare reading we see that there is evidence of his brutality towards actual Continental troops (regular and irregular). It was interesting to note that he offered them terms of surrender that were the same as the troops in surrendering Charleston had previously gotten, but then Col Brownfield describes how after they attempted to put up a fight and then surrendered when it became clear they would be successful, he didn't acknowledge it and continued to attack, killing the majority of the party. ("Tarleton's Quarter") and even went so far to stab the fallen Continentals with bayonets to insure they were all dead. https://www.nps.gov/cowp/learn/historyculture/lieutenant-colonel-banastre-tarleton.html 
Also, in Jefferson's early draft of the Declaration, I think we can easily see that the Patriot leaders were aware of the hypocrisy of owning other men while declaring that all men are creating equal, enough to address in a draft, but obviously it did not stay in. However, by removing it, the Declaration was passed through the Continental Congress without alienating any votes on the question of slavery. Maybe not the right choice to leave it out, but they were obviously aware and decided a different course.   --Jessie Fitzgerald

One thing that struck me in particular about the readings in comparison to the film was the relative lack of the revolutionary forces’ brutality. While there certainly was both the immediate visceral violence that comes with warfare, the militia forces did not demonstrate much cruelty after their first instance of killing those who surrendered. The film did not show the militia forces dealing with loyalists except those who had first proven themselves to be the “bad guys” and thus were completely justifiable to kill. The film seemed more focused on hitting some broad strokes with any negative aspect of the militia, such as the involuntary enlistment of slaves, and simply brush away these actions after the characters are scolded for doing a bad thing and then let free. --Sky Horne
====== The "So, what?" question ======
 This movie is practically a textbook definition of American patriotism (hell, Patriot is in the title of the movie). American war films like this carry a common motif of romanticizing our history as something of a morale-booster or a feel-good nostalgia trip. Of course there are plenty of issues with over romanticizing; as we've seen in the other films, the risk of losing true historical credibility and accuracy diminishes the more an event is romanticized. At the same time though, **it's that romanticizing that brings people to the cinema, and it's these over-the-top images of  our past that inspires us to have pride in our country.** ON A COMPLETELY UNRELATED NOTE: I appreciate that this movie took subtle jabs at Gregory Smith's previous role in //Small Soldiers// by constantly having his character playing with tiny figurines of soldiers: literal Small Soldiers. --Robert Dallas

**I found an interview from Mel Gibson from after the movie was released where he said " "If one were to adhere to historical accuracy all the way, you'd probably have the most
boring two hours on earth, but firstly it's entertainment and we've taken license with history to make it more compelling." With the main actor making a quote like that, why do we still hold it as a historically accurate film?** What crosses the line between a historically accurate film and a historical fiction one?
William Ross St. George Jr. http://www.studythepast.com/patriotreview.pdf Accessed September 24, 2018     --Ellora Larsen

The main inaccuracy that I noticed is that the film implied that the British were the only ones harming civilians and their property during the war. Really, it was both sides that caused great destruction to civilians who were in the way of the battle. – Carolyn Stough

When it comes to historical accuracy, this movie succeeds in certain ways that our other Mel Gibson movie failed. Pocahontas’ biggest weakness was the way it took actual historical figures and reworked their characters until they might as well be completely different people. The Patriot, on the other hand, has the good grace to change the names of historical figures when they change the stories. If this was a movie about Francis Marion fighting Banistre Tarleton, then it would be one thing, but instead the movie is about Benjamin Martin fighting William Tavington. This allows the movie some leeway, but the movie takes it too far, because although the characters are fictional the Revolutionary War was real, and everything that happens is just a little too Hollywood Clean. Yes, there are slaves in the movie, but the characters we are supposed to like don’t have them. Yes, there are atrocities committed by both sides, but the characters we are supposed to like feel real bad about it. It makes an attempt to say something real about war, but it gets bogged down in, well, patriotism. (Justin Curtis)

The British treatment of the population poorly as they waged war which in the movie and in history caused many of the populace to switch from their neutral positions to support of the Patriots.(Notes) The church that was burned down was very period accurate as there were family boxes that would have been in most churches as well as a raised pulpit. https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/christ-church-alexandria/ --Jack Hagn

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International