Gone with the Wind presents a romanticized story on the horrors of the Old South. Though, there are a few accuracies in the film. For example, the idea that women were left at home to care for the households and plantations is shown throughout the film. Any of-age men went off to fight in the war, as they were expected to. They also point out the obvious monetary differences between the North and the South in the film. We learned in class that the South's inflation was much higher than the North's, though both portions of the country struggled throughout the war economically. -Tara Scroggins

Gone With the Wind can kind of work as a secondary source for the Civil War because it is a romanticized story that is set in the period before and during the Civil War, and during the Reconstruction Period. There are accuracies portrayed in the film such as how many people who lived in the South during this time felt about owning slaves. The depiction of slavery within the film contributes to the fact that many southerners didn't see owning slaves as a problem. Even if someone knew that owning slaves was wrong, they still joined the bandwagon of having their slaves do their work for them. -Lauren Simpson

When it comes to what is accurate in the movie, it's very basic. The architecture and southern mannerisms portrayed seemed accurate to life during this time in the South. The clothing seemed within the time period. They also seemed to accurately portray how women had to operate plantations. In terms of this being a secondary source, it can definitely serve as one that portrays how the South thought of themselves at the time. – Jordan Petty

Gone With the Wind can certainly be argued as a secondary source. The film does a good job at accurately portraying the Civil War from a certain point of view. That point of view is from the perspective of the white southern slave owners, who glorified their participation in the war and saw slavery through the lens of that reciprocal relationship we discussed in class. However, the way the movie goes about this is something that makes me argue against its validity as a secondary source. Gone With the Wind is based off a fictional novel by Margaret Mitchell, who is not a historian of any capacity. It would be different if the novel had been written during the time of the war, or anytime immediately thereafter. Mitchell finished her book in 1936, meaning she is not a contemporary of the conflict. She is not a scholar on the subject of the Civil War, and therefore her story cannot be taken at face value. At its roots, Gone With the Wind is no more than an epic romance fiction and drama set during and after the American Civil War. In fact, as the movie progresses it becomes less about the time period and struggles of the characters and more about the relationship between Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler. My initial reaction to this film was that it was no more than a whimsical romance set in the Antebellum South. I was not let down, considering the conduct of Scarlett throughout the movie. I couldn't help but find her name to be rather apt, especially at the casual way she throws herself at every man before deciding to play hard to get with Rhett. The overall historical context with the Civil War, while a vital part of the storyline, is usually lost in the interactions between the characters before you are reminded by a scathing remark about “Yankees” or “Sherman.” It is because of these qualities that I do not think Gone With the Wind works well as a secondary source. It is nothing more than fictional drivel that conveniently takes place in the Antebellum South. – Lyndsey Clark

The film would not make for a good secondary source in the time which it claims its story took place. Gone with the Wind presents small details which are congruent with the historical record such as the overseer having a mulatto child and the occurrences of Gettysburg and the Burning of Atlanta. Even the speech from Rhett Butler about the resources of both sides prior to the announcement of war with the north having industry and the means of war compared to the south’s focus on agriculture and slavery. The focus on the carpetbagger’s bag made of carpet like material was interesting and clear to see. I will say that the realities of war with the various injuries and demand on hospitals was good. I thought it a nice touch that Scarlet’s first husband died of disease which is a reality of wars that is often ignored as more died off the field of battle than on it. As the film progressed the hate for Yankees grew initially as the southern gentry failed and reached poverty which was close to many of the sources we read but I think it ignored the hate after Scarlet found success in her lumber business. -Robert Keitz

I think the most accurate part of the film was the fact that a lot of the union soldiers depicted were wearing bits and pieces of original civil war uniforms. Can't get more accurate than that, right? - Wilson LeCount

If you watch nothing more of this movie except the context transition cards, you'll get the exact same view of the Old South as if you'd wasted four hours watched the entire movie. It should really only be seriously viewed as a source for the time period it was made/written in. Maybe if less focus was on the romance aspect of it (since almost everything after the intermission had nothing to do with history) then there would have been more screen/page time given to the actual war and Reconstruction. But for me at least, it's like viewing a historical bodice-ripper as a secondary source for 18th century Scotland or 19th century London. -Madison Roberts

Gone with the Wind also presents several historical inaccuracies. The main problem with the film lies in the source material. Due to the author's upbringing and the societal norms of the time it was originally written, the film further romanticizes the horrors of slavery. It makes the Confederacy out to be great people who deserved better, when the actual reasons for war were very black and white, literally. Slavery is presented as being what whites wanted to show, that the slaves “wanted” and “liked” to be there, when we know this is far from reality. -Tara Scroggins

This film almost immediately takes liberties with it's history when it begins. The most obvious and borderline ridiculous example of how its narrative specifically changes history is it's blatant use of Southern Lost Cause revisionist propaganda. This infects almost every aspect of the film, painting reconstruction as this punitive force upon white southerners, slavery as a mutual relationship where slaves were respected members of the household, even showing them on their way to build barricades and digging trenches for the Confederate soldiers in Atlanta. The film also paints Sherman as much southern propaganda does, as a mass murdering maniac whose troops looted and raped and pillaged their way across beautiful Georgia. Beside this much of the culture of the south is heavily romanticized, and censored from any kind of unpleasantness. A person who watched this film may have believed the Antebellum south was a “Moonlight and Magnolia” paradise before those evil meddlin' yankees showed up. –AJ DeGeorge

As I was watching Gone With the Wind I noticed that the way the African American slaves were portrayed was very incorrect. They acted as if they were against the Union's effort to free them, and were alliances with the Southerners who enslaved them. I also noticed that some of the slaves were portrayed as “simple-minded” and could not complete simple daily tasks without being punished or reprimanded. For me personally, this was the biggest inaccuracy in the movie. - Kaylee Williams

Gone With the Wind additionally portrays historical inaccuracies. The perspective of the story is told by Scarlett O'Hara who is the daughter of a wealthy plantation owner in Georgia so the plot seems to be very biased toward the South and the Confederacy. The plot is only showing half the picture and not showing the views of the Northerners. It portrays as the “Yankees” as the bad guys coming to violently ruin the South, with the Confederates trying to protect themselves. However, the movie fails to mention how the Confederacy was falling apart to begin with along with the unjust slave culture. The movie made it seem like all the slaves and their owners had great relationships with one another. -Lauren Simpson

I honestly had a lot of problems with this movie in terms of its historical accuracy. It became clear very quickly that this movie, although it was made in 1939, is propaganda for the Southern perspective during the Civil War. This makes even more sense when you consider the author of the book the movie is based on. Mitchel was born in Atlanta, Georgia, and she did not learn of the South losing the Civil War until she was ten. The best evidence to support this being propaganda is its portrayal of race relations and slavery during the Civil War. There was absolutely no negative depictions of slavery in the film, making it seem like it was a pleasant affair. It completely erases the horrifying truth of slavery. On the other hand, this portrayal makes sense, as many southerners did not see a problem with slavery. It also seemed to romanticize plantations and make it seem like large-scale plantations were more common than they actually were. – Jordan Petty

Gone with the Wind presents a southern perspective that looks at the problems during and after the Civil War with romantic eyes for the southern gentry. With the arrival of general Sherman at Atlanta he is given no screen time but is rather presented as a force of evil as the screen is coated in flames as soldiers advance. Even the carpetbaggers are shown as a careless malevolent group as they arrive laughing and actively insult the southerners. The whole interpretation of the film plays the southern gentry as victims of the northerners in both language and presentation. The race relations presented in the film is by far the most egregious aspect as the slaves are a happy folk who stick with their masters. The film blatantly ignores the periods race relations while presenting horrible stereotypes. The film constantly presents the southern gentry of victims of northern oppression while ignoring the many factors that led to war as it rather presents the issue as a given occurrence of southern honor rather than being the result of any political or social interests. With the film’s focus on the upper classes it ignores many of the dynamics that are only hinted at with such characters as the slave driving having a mulatto child that died and finding financial success in the aftermath of the war. The plantation owner is presented as the primary example of the south. Rather than commenting on the ideas of the past the film perpetuates a romanticized view of the old south, counter to the historical record. -Robert Keitz

One issue I have with the accuracy of this film is the treatment of the enslaved peoples after the war. While Sherman or “The Great Invader” is closing on there is the few scenes where Prissy is scolded and beat by Scarlett. Scarlett threatens to “sell her south and beat the hyde off of her”. The issue in accuracy comes after they return to Tara. All of a sudden Scarlett's sisters are out picking cotton and Scarlett is telling her father that she would “never tell them (Mammy, Pork, Prissy) to do anything she's not doing herself”. This likely wouldn't have happened. The complete 180 they have Scarlett do after the war is ridiculous. There is also the scene where Scarlett and Ashley were discussing using prison labor instead of hiring freed slaves for the saw mill. Ashley says he will, “not make money off of the enforced labor and misery of others”. Then Scarlett mentions that he had slaves and he says he was going to free them anyway before all of this happened.“ -Dan Dilks

I would argue that GWTW actually aligns more with the primary sources we read then goes against it. At least, the primary source that is from the viewpoint of Southern whites. Specifically, I'm thinking of George Fitzhugh's “The Blessings of Slavery.” Fitzhugh calls slaves “some of the happiest…freest people in the world.” This idea of slavery being a mutually beneficial agreement is something shown in the film as well, especially the way Scarlett's dad and Ashley talk about African Americans in the second half of the film. The entire movie has both subtle and blatant racism throughout that emphasizes this way of thinking. –Cat Kinde

Gone With the Wind was released in 1939, so there is a lot of historical context that needs to be taken into account. The book the movie is based off of was initially released in 1936. The book was an instant success, leading to the creation of the movie, which also proved to be insanely popular. The film was released in the middle of the Great Depression, just as World War II was taking shape in Europe. I believe it is safe to say that during the Great Depression, Americans readily reminisced of the “good old days” in the Antebellum South. The hardships they had endured for the past decade were similar to the struggles faced by those during the Civil War. This was a time of economic downturn, a time of war, and a time of deep-rooted racism. All of these were things that hadn't changed that much from eighty years prior. The movie offered a familiar landscape in American history that was distinctly similar to the plight they faced at the current time. Much like the history and collapse of the moonlight and magnolia view of the Antebellum South, America in the 1930s had taken a drastic turn from the prosperous Roaring Twenties into the throes of a terrible Great Depression. War was also prominent in both times. While the Civil War was a romanticized affair in Gone With the Wind, America had faced trials due to the Great War, and with the coming of the Second World War. Both times also faced trials due to racism. While Gone With the Wind is reminiscent of life before and after emancipation, America had yet to lose its deep racist roots and fully accept African Americans into society. These are just some reasons why Gone With the Wind must have appealed to such a broad audience at the time of its release. – Lyndsey Clark

As a primary source about the time period, the film works well. Its portrayal of the South could align with what was being taught about the Civil War in certain areas of the country in the 1930s and 1940s. The portrayal of women, specifically Scarlett's character, definitely seem to fit the economic situation that many women were in during the Great Depression, even though the film is set in the 1860s. – Jordan Petty

I was shocked by the marital rape scene in the second half of the movie. While I know many people condemned marital rape at this time, this scene making it into the movie at least reflects the fact that spousal rape was not legally and personally considered to be rape by many states and people in the '30s. It's even more disturbing that scarlet is portrayed as having enjoyed Rett's actions in the following scene. This part of the movie is just one of many windows into into contemporary public perceptions and debates about sexuality provided by GWTW.

This film was released in 1939 and it serves as a great primary source for that time period. As mentioned in class, the idealist version of the antebellum south was perpetuated in America well into the 20th century. In 1939, the effects of the Great Depression greatly impacted the nation yet this book was still a bestseller. While the film starred some big names in Hollywood at the time, like Clark Gable and Vivan Leigh, the story and plot itself were really what made the movie a hit with the public. Of course, the romance and soap opera plot of the movie really caught a lot of Americans’ attention, it was the social implications of the movie that really made it famous I think. People wanted an escape from the difficulties they were facing in 1939, and this movie painted a picture of a past that acknowledged and mirrored what many Americans were going through at this time in some ways. Scarlet O’Hara lost everything; family members, her land and crops were destroyed, and what was left of her home and resources were far less than ideal. This movie showed how she perceived red through the struggles and despite never truly being happy again; she survived and thrived later in her life. This movie also connected with people as it glossed over many of the horrors that slavery exhibited. In this movie, the slaves of the O’Hara family were their friends and as discussed in class, it appeared to be a symbiotic relationship between them. While we know that this is far from the truth, it perpetuates the narrative that slavery was not as horrific as it really was. White Americans in 1939 enjoyed the idea that their ancestors were really actually doing good for other people, and that the South had experienced a great loss and hardship before and survived against all odds, so modern Americans at the time could as well. -Morgan Gilbert

GWTW is a great look into the mindset of 1930's America. It depicts the casual and blatant racism and misogyny present at this time, as well as the burgeoning lost cause ideology. Around the time that this book was written and the movie was made, the veterans of the Civil War were dying out rapidly and southerners in particular were trying to redeem the confederate cause before the memory of the veterans was totally gone. The lost cause ideology swept slavery under the rug and painted confederate veterans as heroes of southern Independence. This film is full of that. It depicts enslaved people as completely submissive and willing to help the confederate cause for their “benevolent” slave owners. It portrays the southern aristocracy as noble gentlemen who can do no wrong, and fight the “evil Yankees” for southern values and independence rather than to protect the institution of slavery. While many wealthy southerners did see themselves as these noble heroes, they also all knew that the war was started to defend southern slavery, which was not shown at all. As a whole, I also think the film represents escapism for readers and viewers during the depression, and probably the reason it was so popular. It not only shows the elegance of the Old South that so many whites wished to return to, but it also depicted Scarlet and her family overcoming the hard times after the war, and coming out wealthy and prosperous afterwards. This was definitely something people during the depression would have idolized. - Wilson LeCount

As far as 1930s-1940s cinema goes, Gone with the Wind is an excellent primary source. Compared to the first half of the movie, I found the second half disappointing, so I am only going to focus on the first half. As I was watching, I couldn't help but be impressed by the cinematography of Gone with the Wind–in a lot of ways, it still holds up in 2020–80 years later? That's amazing. Maybe I just have extremely low expectations of 1930s-1940s film making, but I don't think I do. In particular, the scene where Scarlett is walking through the rows and rows of soldiers to find Dr. Meade was staggering. How many extras did they have to stage for that seen? 80? At least?? And the slow pan out shows how devastating the war was in a real way. Another impactful scene was when Melanie was giving birth- I know it was done in silhouette because a woman giving birth was NOT something they could show on screen, but it's almost more powerful to be filmed entirely in shadow. The ride through Atlanta as it was on fire was also impressive- the bones of the large house on fire as it collapses- pyrotechnics of that magnitude in 1939? That's kind of amazing. A huge part of me hates to give this movie any credit because Scarlett is a garbage human being the casual, blatant racism is horrific, but I have to admit I was impressed by the filmmakers ability to set the scene. Outside of the film making process itself, the film is also a really good indicator of how African Americans were viewed in the 1930s-1940s. How we view the the casual, dismissive racism the film displays, as well as the romanticized version of the Antebellum period now in 2020, is pretty indicative to how film makers and white Americans viewed slavery and the south during that time. Hattie McDaniel, who played “Mammy”in the film, Scarlett's nurse, won an Oscar for the role. A double edged sword, considering she was the first African American to win an Oscar, but her role plays up African American stereotypes. Additionally, she wasn't allowed to attend the premier of Gone with the Wind, because it was shown at a “whites only” theater, and the awards show had segregated tables. – Cat Kinde

It’s extremely accurate to the book. (I wish that every book to movie adaptation was like this) And no matter how you feel about the movie plot and topics, you have to admit that there are some impressively shot scenes for the time period. The slow zoom out of the Confederate soldiers lying in the streets of Atlanta as far as the eye can see is pretty well done. However, that’s about all the praise I can give it. Yes, they have black actors and actresses, but not one of them portrays a character along the lines of Theodore Joadson (Amistad) in being a positive depiction. Every slave is either incompetent (Prissy) or half in love with their masters (Mammy, Big Sam, etc). That wasn't done by accident. -Madison Roberts

I think there is a lot to be said of the way enslaved people were depicted in the movie. Almost every one seemed like a caricature. Pork seemed humble but unable to do anything. Big Sam was depicted as the big smiley stupid guy. Prissy was depicted as the slow one with an annoyingly high pitched voice that was either supposed to make you hate her or laugh at her. Mammy's character was about as stereotypical as they could get. If this movie were ever remade today, none of that would fly. Nor should it. - Dan Dilks

As we had talked about in class, this was how the topic of the Civil War was presented to Americans in 1939. Of course there are some things this movie does get correct, like the period clothing, the timeline of the war, and the devastating aftermath of the Civil War. But, there are some issues within the movie itself. There is recognition of these issues, and today there are warnings and disclaimers stating that. I feel like this might have been a decent movie in its time, but today there are many movies and documentaries that are much better representations of the Civil War, and slavery.- Kaylee Williams

As a museum worker who has interacted with curious historic site visitors from around the country, I would argue that GWTW has affected public perception of the past more than any movie ever created. Even though younger Americans may not be as familiar with the piece as their elders who grew up in the past century, the tropes and treatments of historic lifeways perpetuated by this film are everywhere in the popular imagination.

Among these are the following stereotypes: the part-admirable and part-laughable image of stoic, acquiescing, and self-controlled gentlewomen who willingly or unwillingly injure themselves with tight stays; the casual approach to slavery and abuse of the enslaved when discussing southern history; the idyllic picture of a warm, sweat-tea-and-barbeque-laden, simple southern lifestyle.

These are just a few of the misleading representations of the past that effect the American subconscious even today. They contribute to issues which commonly perforate popular perceptions of the past, such as the failure to take history seriously, the tendency to view the non-memorable past as the inexplicably “good 'ole days,” or the habit of adhering to the notion that chattel slavery wasn’t really all that bad.

I can't help but to think that GWTW is partly responsible for some of this, especially since it is still a pillar of American pop culture. This movie has caused so many issues with how much of the American public views history, and now historical interpreters at museums have to deal with these annoyances every day. I know I'm supposed to sappily adore this “American classic,” but frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!

-Ethan

This movie impacted generations of Americans’ perceptions of the antebellum south, and it did so in a way that really altered their understanding of the ugly truth of slavery. This movie caught Americans’ attention, despite much of the population struggling to make ends meet, most of the nation saw the movie or read the book. It became a staple in American culture; my father who was born in 1960 remembers seeing the movie at a drive-in theater with his parents when he was 7(1967). This movie perpetuates the idealist vision of the antebellum south in that the confederacy was the victim in the narrative, not the slaves who were mistreated. The confederacy and white southerners were the ones who lost their land, lives, and affluence and not the slaves who were mistreated before, during, and well after the Civil War ended. Gone with the Wind impacted generations of Americans and their understanding of the horrors of slavery by grossly misinterpreting and glorify some conditions and common practices in the antebellum south. While in modern America, society has gotten a little better about understanding that movies are biased and somewhat learned not to believe everything that happens on screen, early 20th-century American society took much of what occurred in the movie as direct facts and a true depiction of the past. Analyzing this movie really exposes how the idealist view of the treatment of African Americans in the past and present is strengthened by pop culture in many ways, and it also displays how far-reaching the impacts of movies can truly be in society. -Morgan Gilbert

This is one of the highest grossing movies ever. This influenced how so many people of the time perceived the Civil War, and to some extent still does. Too many people read it and want to hold on to that ideal version of the South, no matter how unrealistic it is. It's still a movie and book that holds cultural prestige, no matter how badly it's aged or how long ago it was made/written. -Madison Roberts

This movie is just blatant propaganda that definitely influenced the minds of multiple generations. It wants the viewer to feel bad for these people that lost “everything” and were forced into “poverty”. Then all of a sudden what does Scarlett do? She starts living the American dream, she acquires a business and is very successful. Then she starts a family. She starts checking off all of those do it yourself boxes. Its pretty obvious. All of the main characters act like babies because they can't have their fun parties anymore, they want things the way they were when the land was “of grace and plenty”. - Dan Dilks