Commentary: Truth blown away in sugarcoated 'Gone With the Wind'

sacbee ^ | 11-13-04

[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."

[fortheDeclaration]

You guys refuse to accept the fact that if Congress did not like what Lincoln was doing and thought it was unconsitutional they could have impeached him.

Was any motion to impeach even offered?

Maybe with a Civil War going on and all that entailed, the Congress was not overly concerned with the limited suspension of the writ.

[GOPcapitalist]

What salient facts are you discussing?

The battles of Monocacy, Manassas, and Fort Stevens, among others.

What did I say that was not a fact.

"Hey, can I help it if the Confederates blew it!," which is an assertion of personal opinion that also appears in a post laced with personal invective rather than substantive discussions of the subject matter. Speaking of supplanting substantive discussions with venom and personal invective, I see that you are apt to continue that practice:

What you want to discuss is your delusional world where the South wins. And make excuses for their loss.

Go figure yourself.

[fortheDeclaration]

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.

That doesn't mean the countries aren't real, just not important.

Hence, their recognition is not enough to be considered as giving nation status in the eyes of the world, to either the US or Confederacy.

[GOPcapitalist]

You guys refuse to accept the fact that if Congress did not like what Lincoln was doing and thought it was unconsitutional they could have impeached him.

The problem with that assertion is that it is neither factual nor an acceptable exercise in logic. Why? Because it arbitrarily assumes that the only means by which Congress can reject an action of the President that it doesn't like is by impeaching him - a logical absurdity on its face, especially given that only two presidents have ever been impeached. Applying your argument consistently one could presume upon this latter fact that only two presidents have ever been substantively opposed by Congress on anything, and we know that proposition to be inherently false.

[fortheDeclaration]

Hey, can I help it if the Confederates blew it!," which is an assertion of personal opinion that also appears in a post laced with personal invective rather than substantive discussions of the subject matter. Speaking of supplanting substantive discussions with venom and personal invective, I see that you are apt to continue that practice:

Wow!

saying the South blew it is considered laced with venom?

I said nothing to you that your pompus attitude did not deserve.

Get off your high horse.

The South either could have taken Washingtona and chose not to, in which case they 'blew it'or they wanted to take Washington, and couldn't and thus, they 'blew it'.

Actually, I think God had a lot to do with their defeats, so it really wasn't all their fault.

[fortheDeclaration]

The problem with that assertion is that it is neither factual nor an acceptable exercise in logic. Why? Because it arbitrarily assumes that the only means by which Congress can reject an action of the President that it doesn't like is by impeaching him - a logical absurdity on its face, especially given that only two presidents have ever been impeached. Applying your argument consistently one could presume upon this latter fact that only two presidents have ever been substantively opposed by Congress on anything, and we know that proposition to be inherently false.

I love it when you guys try to use 'logic'!

If what Lincoln was doing was unconsitutional they should have impeached him-period.

The Separation of powers was made that each branch would be jealous of its power.

Clearly Congress did not feel threatened by Lincoln's actions.

The fact that only two Presidents have been impeached is irrevelent, that was the power that Congress had and did not use.

[GOPcapitalist]

That doesn't mean the countries aren't real, just not important

Then why not simply say "unimportant" rather than denying their recognitions are "real"? Word choices matter, ftD. You shot your mouth off with a choice of words aimed at belittling Saxe Coburg Gotha beyond the realm of factual analysis, hoping nobody would challenge it. It got challenged and now you are squirming to equate the attribute of lacking reality with the attribute of lacking importance.

This sort of thing is a habitual problem of your posting technique, ftD. You are readily capable of discussing events in factually grounded, non-loaded terminology. Yet instead of doing so you lace your posts with venom and unnecessary invective against all things southern or friendly to the south. You exaggerate and inflate negative attributes for no factually valid purpose, hence unimportance to you becomes a denial of reality all together. Remove the arsenic from your posts and people will take you more seriously. And I mean that as constructive criticism.

[GOPcapitalist]

Wow! saying the South blew it is considered laced with venom?

It's a belittling value judgement upon the south's decision not to attack Washington after the battle of Manassas when an unloaded statement of opinion recognizing your own belief that their failure to do so was a mistake would have more than sufficed.

I said nothing to you that your pompus attitude did not deserve. Get off your high horse.

There's no need to get angry with me, ftD, for simply identifying the weaker elements of your posting habits. Nor does my critique place me upon a "high horse." If you don't like being criticized over your unnecessarily combative and loaded choices of terminology there's a simple solution - don't use them.

[fortheDeclaration]

Then why not simply say "unimportant" rather than denying their recognitions are "real"? Word choices matter, ftD. You shot your mouth off with a choice of words aimed at belittling Saxe Coburg Gotha beyond the realm of factual analysis, hoping nobody would challenge it. It got challenged and now you are squirming to equate the attribute of lacking reality with the attribute of lacking importance.

I think this is the LOL part of the thread!

I will let the readers themselves decide if Saxe Coburg Gotha and the Vatican constitute world recognition of nationhood.

I mean with that recognition why were the Confederates looking to England or France!

This sort of thing is a habitual problem of your posting technique, ftD. You are readily capable of discussing events in factually grounded, non-loaded terminology. Yet instead of doing so you lace your posts with venom and unnecessary invective against all things southern or friendly to the south. You exaggerate and inflate negative attributes for no factually valid purpose, hence unimportance to you becomes a denial of reality all together. Remove the arsenic from your posts and people will take you more seriously. And I mean that as constructive criticism.

First, I think you best read your own posts if you want to see arsenic.

Second, as for your constructive criticism, I thank you and will give it the consideration it deserves.

[capitan_refugio]

A carefully crafted case, but one that fails when put to the test.

You, of all people, should realized that a military order need not be in writing to be valid. The supposed "lack of documentation" does not preclude that, in the month since the President, as Commander-in-chief, gave the authorization to General Scott and any subordinate officers, as needed, that the order was propogated to every commander in the theater affected.

The authorization to arrest suspected traitors and subversives is quite apart from suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It was known through the chain of command that the privilege of the writ could be suspended. Indeed, General Cadwalader stated his authorization came from the President.

Taney was notified that Merryman was being held (and rightly so) for treasonable activities and that Taney had no habeas corpus jurisdiction. The purpose of the suspension clause, as explained by Farber, and posted here earlier, was to prevent partisan, or treasonable judges from subverting the government and the military from performing their duties.

[fortheDeclaration]

Wow! saying the South blew it is considered laced with venom? It's a belittling value judgement upon the south's decision not to attack Washington after the battle of Manassas when an unloaded statement of opinion recognizing your own belief that their failure to do so was a mistake would have more than sufficed.

LOL!

You're kidding right!

I think saying that the South blew the chance to win the war is a totally objective statement, considering you were saying how they could have walked in after Bull Run and taken the city.

I said nothing to you that your pompus attitude did not deserve. Get off your high horse. There's no need to get angry with me, ftD, for simply identifying the weaker elements of your posting habits. Nor does my critique place me upon a "high horse." If you don't like being criticized over your unnecessarily combative and loaded choices of terminology there's a simple solution - don't use them

Oh, I am not angry at all, I am laughing as I am typing this.

You guys really do take yourselves seriously don't you!

[GOPcapitalist]

I love it when you guys try to use 'logic'! If what Lincoln was doing was unconsitutional they should have impeached him-period.

There were many things that Bill Clinton did that reasonable persons have characterized as unconstitutional. Yet he was only impeached over one action, which was not a matter of constitutionality but rather criminal conduct. Does that mean Clinton did nothing wrong in all of those other matters?

The Supreme Court has stricken down dozens of executive orders and actions as unconstitutional as well. Yet Congress has never impeached a president for one. Does that mean those other presidents did nothing wrong either?

As noted, your assumptions about impeachment are simply absurd. They are premised upon the faulty notion that impeachment is the only voice of recourse by Congress to indicate that it does not wholly endorse and improve of an executive's action.

The Separation of powers was made that each branch would be jealous of its power.

Which would also explain why the judicial branch asserted its position on habeas corpus in the face of outright harassment from the executive branch and why Congress asserted its position by killing Lincoln's bill to suspend habeas corpus.

Clearly Congress did not feel threatened by Lincoln's actions.

Then what was all that business over killing his suspension bill about? Fun and games? Boredom?

The fact that only two Presidents have been impeached is irrevelent

If you are making the argument that Congress' only recourse of opposition against the action of a president is impeachment - and you are - it's relevence is both necessary and inherent to the situation, as it entails the consequence of asserting that only two presidents have ever been opposed by Congress - an assertion that is outright absurd, much as your assumption is.

[fortheDeclaration]

Does the Congress have the right to impeach a President who is violating his oath of office or not?

Congress did not impeach Lincoln nor attempt to.

I know you guys want to rewrite history but you can't.

The South could have taken Washington-but didn't

The Congress could have impeached Lincoln-but didn't.

[GOPcapitalist]

I will let the readers themselves decide if Saxe Coburg Gotha and the Vatican constitute world recognition of nationhood.

I see you have taken to diverting attention from your own unnecessarily loaded terminology by misrepresenting my position. I have no quarrel with your right to characterize those countries as "unimportant" and asserting your opinions to that effect. But when you begin belittling their own nationhood as well by denying that their recognitions were "real" you've crossed the line into a realm of personal invective against all things that show even the slightest favor to the south. Doing just that is a bad habit of yours and you exercise it with far too great of a frequency around here.

I will note as a factual aside that the entire concept of diplomatic recognition's validity in establishing nationhood derives from the medieval role of the Vatican in crowning monarchs. A monarch's reign, and thus his government, was recognized as a legitimate one through his crowning by the pope or an archbishop. Thus I would not be so quick as you are to dismiss vatican diplomatic recognition as a matter of irrelevance.

[Ohioan]

This article is pure, hate filled rant. Margaret Mitchell actually talked to a great many people who had lived through the era depicted in the movie--those who knew first hand the reality of the times. That was a major part of her motive, to actually capture and preserve the memories of the time.

The movie, itself, is very sympathetic to the South, to be sure; but it is the South of both races; the South of all its peoples. Some of the most sympathetic characters are the Negroes. One can even make a legitimate claim that Mammy is the strongest characterization in the entire film. It is her common sense and loyalty, which sustains the O'Hara family. She is Scarlett's conscience--to the extent that Scarlett will listen.

Why people have a need to spew hatred against the South can only be understood in terms of the needs of Leftwing ideology. The South represents the one remaining region of America, where the principles of the founding fathers still have great numbers of adherents. The South has therefore become the target for those who want to eradicate those principles from American life.

See Creating Hate In America Today, for more on this subject.

[GOPcapitalist]

Does the Congress have the right to impeach a President who is violating his oath of office or not?

You are imposing a fraudulent constraint. Nobody ever denied the power of Congress to impeach. What was denied, as it should be, is your false and absurd assertion that impeachment is the only means by which Congress may disapprove of a President's actions.

[GOPcapitalist]

Oh, I am not angry at all, I am laughing as I am typing this.

It's amusing how quickly a bitter accusation of being "pompous" followed by a demand to "get off your high horse" shifts into a matter of laughter on the convenience of the moment.

Giggle to your heart's content, laughing boy. You've been bested yet again and that is all that matters.

[capitan_refugio]

Mistaken citations are not lies. To call them "lies" is a tried and true "Big Lie" technique. When you resort to "Big Lie" tactics, it is because you are beaten on the substance.

With regard to my political activities, I fully explained what I could and could not do in the 1984 campaign, under the Hatch Act. I did everything I could legally do to get Reagan re-elected in 1984, but I could not obviously participate in the manner I had in 1976 (primary election) and 1980 (primary and general election).

You have continually questioned my conservative values and dedication to Republican causes. These things are easily proved. I have physical evidence, and best of all, eyewitnesses who are FR posters known to you. However, as before, simply proving you wrong is insufficient, in light of your cowardly smear campaign. I'd be more than happy to clip you where it hurts; in your purse. And I would gladly donate all of the money to FR. My satisfaction would be from showing the forum what a small, sociopathic liar you are.

Last time you were game, or so you said, for "1 million dollars" (which was nothing more than braggadocio on your part), so how about my original offer of $1,000?

Put up or shut up, coward.

[capitan_refugio]

"I will let the readers themselves decide if Saxe Coburg Gotha and the Vatican constitute world recognition of nationhood."

They don't. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was a duchy loosely connected to Prince Albert of England (the one in the can). Even then, the nature of the "diplomatic recognition" by the Vatican is a reach.

[nolu chan]

[capitan_kerryfugio #1458] Taney was acting in his capacity as a judge in the circuit court. There was another judge who could have heard Merryman's petition.

As usual, capitan_refugio simply lies. The caption says it is an in-chambers opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. capitan's favorite source, Daniel Farber says it is an in-chambers opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. General Cadwalder was summoned, "Greeting: You are hereby commanded to be and appear before the Honorable Roger B. Taney, chief justice of the supreme court of the United States, at the United States courtroom, in the Masonic Hall, in the city of Baltimore, on Monday, the 27th day of May 1861, at eleven o'clock in the morning...." Better yet, Chief Justice Taney announced from the bench that Judge Giles was not there because he, Taney, was sitting not as a member of the circuit court, but as Chief Justice of the United States.

Obviously capitan_refugio presumes he knows better than the Chief Justice who announced that he was sitting as Chief Justice and not as circuit justice.

"Technically he did not issue it in his capacity as a judge 'on circuit' but rather as an 'in-chambers' opinion of the chief justice."
-- Daniel Farber, Lincoln's Constitution, p. 17

As he took his place he announced that he acted alone rather than with Judge Giles because of the fact that he was sitting not as a member of the circuit court, but as Chief Justice of the United States. One reason for the distinction, undoubtedly, was the belief that it would lend added weight to the decision.
-- Carl Brent Swisher, Roger B. Taney, The MacMillan Company, published October 1935, reprint June 1936, pp. 551.