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 ...
Well, the Confederate Gov't wasn't going to levy taxes?
It says they have the right to do so in Art.1 Sec.8.
Thus, the Confederate Constitution was just a lot of empty noise also, that could have been broke up at the whim of any one state when they did not get their way! If that one state decided to secede from it, pretty much, though it would presumably still apply in states that did not desire to secede from it. The entire notion is built upon a voluntary act of ascession to the government.
Yea, maybe some of the Confederate States would have seen the evil of slavery and seceded over it!
Then the Confederate states could have waged war against it to ensure that their property would be protected in those Confederate states that had joined for the purpose of forming a permanent union.
Well, since you are not in favor of any gov't at all, I did not say I favor no government at all. I simply said that government itself is an institution that is inherently removed from the good, which is the classical definition of sinfulness. That some governments are more evil than others is certain, and thus the pragmatist will tolerate the existence of a lesser evil without embracing it as a positive good that it is not or worshipping at its false and idolatrous altar. Insofar as the United States meets this end when compared to, say, the alternative of mohammedan theocracy or soviet style communism, then I openly prefer the continuance of the United States by far. But that does not mean I worship the United States as some sort of secular and worldly deity.
And a Gov't that supports human bondage is alright with you?
My what libertarian consistency.
I don't know, but it sounds anarchist to me.
Larry, Moe, and Curly. You guys all have the same modus operandi - when you can't make a rational case you resort to personal attacks and smears. I expect it of you guys. It is the result of a low class upbringing - that, and being suckled on the insurrectionist milk confederate broodmares.
Why would they need to be apart from something they individually and voluntarily joined?
Virgina never made a foreign pact with another nation.
I'm not so certain that you are correct about that. I'll admittedly have to research it further but I seem to recall there being a "problem" in the pre-constitutional era of individual states engaging in agreements with foreign nations and with each other. I've already directed your attention to the 1777 case of Georgia and South Carolina individually entering into a treaty with each other and the Cherokee Nation, thus disproving the gist of your claim. This also seems to be the reason why the constitutional convention chose to prohibit states from entering into treaties - because they had been doing so under the articles and the continental congress.
Each state from 1774 on was seen in relationship to one another as a state.
You are incorrect. All 13 "states" were known among each other as colonies into the spring of 1776. At that point some of the colonies individually altered their status from colony to state or to commonwealth prior to July 4th, the remainder doing so with the act of the 4th.
The U.S. Constitution was ratified by the States United
Incorrect. Article VII of the Constitution spells out the ratification process, which is very clearly done by the States to form "this Constitution between the States."
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
One does not need to be anarchist to be anti-statist.
Pssst! Don't get him going. He might break out the sheets. In #964 he attempts to justify the Lincoln assassination.
Sure they were, but at a rate roughly 1/3rd of the rate being used by the north.
It says they have the right to do so in Art.1 Sec.8.
No. It says they have a POWER to do so, not a right. Governments exercise power. When that exercise of power becomes excessive it may be characterized as tyrannical and could thus be an impetus for a people asserting their right to their earned property of income against a government that perhaps they would have tolerated if it extracted that money with greater moderation.
Yea, maybe some of the Confederate States would have seen the evil of slavery and seceded over it!
Who knows, and if they did, more power to them. My point is not in any way related to defending slavery but rather to the logical and consistent application of the principle of self government.
And a Gov't that supports human bondage is alright with you?
Most governments employ human bondage of some form or another, the only difference being the degree. Normal taxation is one form of this. Severe taxation (i.e. property confiscation) is an extreme form of it that sometimes even surpasses legal bondage in severity, as was the case in Stalinist Russia. Thus I will say that a government supporting human bondage of any form is not alright with me, though among multiple governments all employing human bondage, lesser forms of it may exist.
I see that you've added libel to your litany of offenses for the night.
The southern insurrectionist cause wasn't about liberty - it was about privilege, race, and wealth.
You can dish it out, but you can't take it, can you? How about your little tirade in #969?
And are you really trying to justify slavery as practiced by the antebellum south, in #987?
Those states entered into treaties as states of the union, not as separate powers.
That would make treaties that the colonies made with the Indians as equal to that of England herself.
States had latitude to deal with the Indian issue within her border, in their capacity as states, not nations.
That is why those treaties ended up being decided in the Supreme Court.
And Jackson was ordered to enforce the Supreme Court decison honoring the Creek Indian treaty, which Jackson refused to do.
So it was left up to the states because the federal gov't refused to act on upholding a treaty obligation that had been ordered by another branch of the Federal Gov't.
Each state from 1774 on was seen in relationship to one another as a state. You are incorrect. All 13 "states" were known among each other as colonies into the spring of 1776. At that point some of the colonies individually altered their status from colony to state or to commonwealth prior to July 4th, the remainder doing so with the act of the 4th.
Those 'colonies' were known as the states in relationship with one another.
Not to other nations, which did not recognize them as such.
They would not be 'states' until they won independence as the united States.
Then they would form a loose union under the Articles of Confederation (which was suppose to a permanent one) and the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was ratified by the States United Incorrect. Article VII of the Constitution spells out the ratification process, which is very clearly done by the States to form "this Constitution between the States." "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
Read the last part and you will see above the signature of G.Washington, and of the Independence of the United States of America
the Confederate States did not state themselves as the Confederate States of America, but listed each individual state as such.
They understood the importance of the phrase United States and avoided making the Confederate States appear to be a united union as was the United States.
But all of this unimportant since the Southern Constitition was made to continue slavery and the defense of that Constitution only speaks to the true nature of those who would defend such a vile nation being formed.
Amen!
And for Libertarians to defend it shows that the libertarian is only thinking of rights in the abstract not in reality.
You did not say you were for limited gov't you said that you did not like any gov't.
That is not being anti-statist, but an anarchist.
That isn't how it happened. The consensus for amendment grew up before ratification, and it amendment became, not a sop as you mischaracterize it, but the sine qua non, the essential concession needed for ratification. The Federalists could not have pulled the votes they needed in the ratification conventions, without promises to amend.
If the Antifederalists failed to predict the future role of the Supreme Court, they did anticipate the concentration of power in the federal government, and they were alarmed. The rights and liberties of all Americans were in danger from encroachments from above....How could these rights be protected?....The vast majority of Antifederalists and some of the Federalists became convinced that a bill of rights was essential. Three "rights" were especially emphasized: freedom of religion, or conscience; the right to a trial by jury; and freedom of the press.
The right to a jury trial is not guaranteed by the Constitution -- and even today, the appellate and Supreme Court benches operate without juries, so there is no place for the People in the highest reaches of the federal judiciary, which is useful to remember whenever the Supreme Court produces one of its abominable decrees as in US vs. Miller, Roe, Bakke, and Lawrence. It required the Bill of Rights to guarantee jury trials in civil cases, e.g.,; and on the whole the Bill of Rights, as I've quoted Elaine Scarry arguing, introduced an important means of redistributing power from the Government, as imagined by the Hamiltonians, back to the People. The Second Amendment did the same thing with respect to possession of the power of lethal force.
Therefore the amendment process, sine qua non to ratification, substantively changed the nature of the Government and of the social compact offered by the Constitution.
Finally there was the promise of amendments without which the Constitution could never have been ratified....The Federalists did not have to worry about those who wholly rejected the Constitution; they needed only enough votes for ratification -- a dozen or so here, a handful there. They themselves did not admit the need for any alterations. Publicly they preached that the Constitution was perfect, and wherever they had control (as in South Carolina) they proposed no amendments. But when the technique of conceding amendments to the opposition first proved its value in Massachusetts, winning over some waverers and enabling others who had already been convinced to violate their instructions with a clear conscience, it became the most valuable weapon in the Federal arsenal.
-- Op. cit., p. 255.
And the South did not have representation in Congress to fight against this unfair taxation?
And if the taxes had to be increased, then the other southern states could have pulled out?
what rate does triggers this massive secession?
It says they have the right to do so in Art.1 Sec.8. No. It says they have a POWER to do so, not a right. Governments exercise power. When that exercise of power becomes excessive it may be characterized as tyrannical and could thus be an impetus for a people asserting their right to their earned property of income against a government that perhaps they would have tolerated if it extracted that money with greater moderation.
Yes, they have the power do so and the power comes from an implied right, since the States were joining the Confederation and agreeing to accept the use of that power by the central gov't.
Yea, maybe some of the Confederate States would have seen the evil of slavery and seceded over it! Who knows, and if they did, more power to them. My point is not in any way related to defending slavery but rather to the logical and consistent application of the principle of self government.
No, you are suggesting anarchy.
Why not towns seceding from States?
We have a gov't of ballots to prevent the recourse to bullets.
And a Gov't that supports human bondage is alright with you? Most governments employ human bondage of some form or another, the only difference being the degree. Normal taxation is one form of this. Severe taxation (i.e. property confiscation) is an extreme form of it that sometimes even surpasses legal bondage in severity, as was the case in Stalinist Russia. Thus I will say that a government supporting human bondage of any form is not alright with me, though among multiple governments all employing human bondage, lesser forms of it may exist.
My, what a rationalization!
Here a men and women, in chains and you are going to compare them to what other forms of 'bondage' in other gov't.
So do you feel as if you are a slave?
You have no right to travel?
No right to have a home, a weapon for self-defense, a family-all of which were denied to the slaves in the South.
You have no appreciation of freedom, you live in a fantasy world of the anarchist.
No, what he said was,
[To Alexander Hamilton] [July 20, 1788]N. York Sunday Evening
Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.
[s/ James Madison]
You've misconstrued his statement as a statement that ratification of the Constitution must be a threshold or express ratification, whereas the language he uses fits as well for a tacit or perpetual ratification. What he specifically rejects is the idea of ratifying with a set expiration or sunset date in the ratification.
His objection to the attempts at reservations by New York and Virginia rests on the idea of conditional ratification, which he condemns as destructive of the reciprocity of compacts (notice that he does use the word "compact" here).
Didn't think I'd look it up, did you? You should have posted it yourself, and this is why. You misread his salient point.
Islamic marriage can be with five people. The analogy is proper.
One wife dies or runs away. The marriage continues.
Your statement that secessionists tried to "destroy" the Union is still false, misleading, and propagandistic. The South didn't do anything in justice or equity to the Northern States by leaving the Union.
When you structure your statement the way you did, yeah.
Are you about to defend the Domingian slavers now too?
No. I simply pointed out what Southerners had realized would probably happen to them in a slave revolt. Which they knew before Nat Turner tried it.
Slavery itself was mass murder.
No, it wasn't. Mass murder was mass murder.
Slavery was brutal in the American South as well and nothing you have shown me contradicts that reality. Why would the Slavers have organized their entire society to prevent slave revolts if it were not brutality in its essential core?
It was hard rock no doubt, but not uniformly. Among field hands it was doubtless moreso -- and even in town it still could be, as the Manhattan slave cemetery excavations have shown. Slaves' bones found there bore marks of hard, physical labor and overwork, just like slaves' bones from Herculaneum did. Slavery was very often a life of hard work.
Abolishing it still wasn't worth nearly a million dead and major violence to the Constitution and the future of civil liberties.
Look at all the infringements of government on the People since the Civil War, and then deny that the Civil War precipitated them by stoking the Government -- if you can. The words will die in your throat.
Yeah, right. Worked for New York. How'd that happen?
You called me a "hamiltonophobe" [sic].....now how could anyone be, with such a scintillating statement as your above quote floating in the air before him?
Yes. We call Him "Who Am".
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.