The implications this has for a discussion of its historical accuracy are interesting. At first it might seem intuitive at first to assume that the film made closer to the time period in which it is set should be more accurate. This argument becomes moot, of course, because Twelve Years a Slave was based on primary source writing produced during the time period in question, the accuracy of which has been certified by historians. One might disregard that fact in order to analyze the question of what bearing their respective production years would have had on these films, had they not been based on any books, but this would involve a study of historiography in film that would be far beyond the scope of this essay. I believe that the historical accuracy of Twelve Years a Slave should be seen as less suspect even ignoring the source on which its script is based. While any contemporary social theorist or philosopher would assure us that both films would inevitably be biased by the time periods in which they were produced, I believe that historical sources, including primary sources, endorse the portrayal of slavery as a central and violent issue in antebellum American society akin to how it was portrayed by this …show more content…
The war was very much about slavery as an ideology that went far beyond any effort by the South to stop their home territory from having its rights taken from it, as indicated by their fervor to spread slavery to Kansas and Nebraska, which had no history of slavery. Seward 's condemnation of slavery as barbaric indicates that the practice was far more barbaric than shown in Gone with the Wind. The disgusting words of DeBow, in all their condescension towards black slaves, indicate an attitude of disrespect similar to that encapsulated by the portrayal of black slave characters like Mammy. However, DeBow 's also admits how harsh plantation life could be for slaves; he simply failed to see that there was anything wrong with subjecting them to