Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by LouAvul
....snip......
Based on Margaret Mitchell's hugely popular novel, producer David O. Selznick's four-hour epic tale of the American South during slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction is the all-time box-office champion.
.......snip........
Considering its financial success and critical acclaim, "Gone With the Wind" may be the most famous movie ever made.
It's also a lie.
......snip.........
Along with D.W. Griffith's technically innovative but ethically reprehensible "The Birth of a Nation" (from 1915), which portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as heroic, "GWTW" presents a picture of the pre-Civil War South in which slavery is a noble institution and slaves are content with their status.
Furthermore, it puts forth an image of Reconstruction as one in which freed blacks, the occupying Union army, Southern "scalawags" and Northern "carpetbaggers" inflict great harm on the defeated South, which is saved - along with the honor of Southern womanhood - by the bravery of KKK-like vigilantes.
To his credit, Selznick did eliminate some of the most egregious racism in Mitchell's novel, including the frequent use of the N-word, and downplayed the role of the KKK, compared with "Birth of a Nation," by showing no hooded vigilantes.
......snip.........
One can say that "GWTW" was a product of its times, when racial segregation was still the law of the South and a common practice in the North, and shouldn't be judged by today's political and moral standards. And it's true that most historical scholarship prior to the 1950s, like the movie, also portrayed slavery as a relatively benign institution and Reconstruction as unequivocally evil.
.....snip.........
Or as William L. Patterson of the Chicago Defender succinctly wrote: "('Gone With the Wind' is a) weapon of terror against black America."
(Excerpt) Read more at sacticket.com ...
So once again we have another case of fraud perpetrated by El Capitan to artificially bolster his case. This guy abuses his own chosen sources almost as much as he abuses Supreme Court decisions by appending extraneous material to their rulings!
I disagree. The South underestimated the Union's enthusiastic willingness to abuse and violate its Constitution toward the end of conquering the South.
You are incorrect. The attempt to take Washington in 1864 was a strategic attempt to force the union army to divide in two, thus relieving pressure on Richmond. It sought no more to bring Washington into the confederacy than the Gettysburg campaign did with Pennsylvania.
In the case of that expedition, Washington was saved quite literally by a day. Early's army was delayed by a single day's time at the Monocacy River in Maryland. They easily overcome an inferior union force put there to delay their advance, but the loss of a day's time allowed Fort Stevens in D.C. to be reinforced from what would have otherwise been an easy capture.
Gianni is referring to, of course, the decisions of the confederates NOT to pursue the union forces into Washington after the battle of Manassas. In mid 1861 the confederate armies held a line within spitting distance of the city. Jefferson Davis was conducting confederate war operations for a time from Fairfax Courthouse, just 15 miles to the west of the capital. Yet they decided not to pursue, hoping incorrectly that the two sides could still part their separate ways without attempting to conquer each other.
Nixon was never impeached. I guess that means Congress was prepared to let him off the hook for Watergate!
It's an old book and an old movie, who really cares anymore. Hollywood stereotyped all blacks in those days. "Feets do your stuff."
Of course the Northern reaction to Taney's tainted ruling in Merryman was hostile. Taney was a southern partisan whose reputation in the North was already badly damaged by Dred Scott.
You asked for my evidence that Merryman was a "friend and neighbor" of Taney's. You got it. In spades. So stop the cowardly whining.
You offered nothing worth considering. You are not competent to authoritatively comment on such matters.
"I did NOT back out of the (absurd) wager, I UPPED THE ANTE and capitan backed out.
Post your cowardly and ridiculous response, liar. I said I'd be glad to take you for $1,000 - a fair amount. You then proposed to make it a million dollars - knowing full well that you were not going to carry through. Cowardly brownshirt bluster. And that is why you FULLY deserve your new screen name - nolu coward.
Wrong. The indemnity clause in the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 was designed to protect Union military officers from lawsuits brought by disaffected, defeated southerners in southern courts.
Only in the neo-confederate alternate fantasy universe.
I am very well aware of what Gianni was referring to.
The fact is both forces were exhausted by the battle.
The South did not stop from taking Washington at out of some sense of goodness of its heart.
Do you think that Congress would have not given him the powers to raise troops?
Lincoln felt the Constitution gave him the right to do what needed to be done first and then give Congress the opportunity to support or reject what he had done.
Had they rejected what he had done they could have impeached him.
Other than the fact that it simply doesn't exist, no.
I'll take that as a concession of your defeat on the matter, capitan, even though you probably view it as a "valid" exercise of the practice of sticking one's fingers in his ears and shouting "if I can't hear it, it must not exist!"
If they never intended to attack Washington that was their mistake.
They attacked the North twice and were beaten back twice.
What hat size do you wear anyway?
Yet again I attempt to engage you in a discussion over salient factual events, and yet again your only response is to throw venom and invective at the south. Go figure.
As for my ígnorance' ít seems that you have confused being pompus with being smart.
You are engaging in diversionary tactics. A primary issue is whether Congress would have given him the power to suspend habeas corpus. Their outright refusal to do so after they did reconvene in July is an indicator that they would not have.
What did I say that was not a fact.
What you want to discuss is your delusional world where the South wins.
And make excuses for their loss.
go figure.
Then you should've said that they failed to obtain _important recognition_. Yet you did not. Instead you said _real recognition_, as if to imply that the recognition of a small country was not real.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.