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

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.

Considering its financial success and critical acclaim, "Gone With the Wind" may be the most famous movie ever made.

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.

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.

Or as William L. Patterson of the Chicago Defender succinctly wrote: "('Gone With the Wind' is a) weapon of terror against black America."

That doesn't mean that the diplomatic recognition of St. Eustasis meant anything to the rest of the world, which is what getting recognized as a nation is all about.

Barbara Tuchman says otherwise and notes that St. Eustasius was a pivotal event of the revolution. It sent shockwaves through Europe and also provoked several British acts of retaliation against the Dutch and against the island.

Whatever the case may be, establishing nationhood is by no means a clear cut concept of diplomatic recognition. That is why I asked you what date you give for the U.S. if not July 4th and also presumably why you have yet to give a straight answer to that question.

When is the Confederacy date of independence anyway?

There is no one day as the states seceded individually on different days over a period of several months. Some of the ex CSA states do mark their Confederate History holidays on or about their dates of secession.

You seem to be greatly offended! Offended at what? Your childish behavior? Please. You give yourself far too much credit. You have little problem with insulting others And I insulted you exactly how? By accurately describing your antics for what they are? Yet you're the one accusing me of thin skin...

Not at all, I will not go back to the old posts and show what you wrote, it is a waste of a time, since rewriting history seems to be one of your favorite pastimes.

You might note that I am not pinging you, but you are pinging me. I am simply replying. Would that be a #3ping? (NC - take note above. Sound familiar?)

What ping are you talking about?

I have about three pings of yours to one of mine.

You are attempting to prove what is unprovable since it is wrong. Lincoln was not a tyrant by any objective usage of the word. I see you've picked up El Capitan's habit of affirming the consequent. In this case you construct an argument in which the association between Lincoln and tyranny is arbitrarily designated as "wrong," followed by an attempted proof of it on its very own consequent - your arbitrary assertion that Lincoln was not a tyrant! Funny how those things work out that way...

That is what is known as doubletalk

By any objective meaning of the historical usage of the word tyranny, Lincoln would not be considered one.

Only in the delusional world of pristine libertarinism where any Gov't by nature is considered such, or in the neo-confederate world of make believe, would such a charge even get a hearing

Congress was not opposing him in his efforts to save the Union, including in the suspension of the Writ. Then why on earth did they kill his bill asking for a suspension

Did they impeach him for the suspension?

Congress had the power to do so, did they not?

As protecters of the Constitution they should have, if he was committing these crimes, using a power they should have only used?

No impeachment, no opposition from Congress.

No case.

Lincoln's post-war criticism came is only from the judical branch, who were afraid that a Lincoln may not be President in the next crises and not use the power in suspension of the writ, in the limited matter that Lincoln did.

What ping are you talking about?

You're the one who is suddenly concerned about who's pinging who. You figure it out.

That is what is known as doubletalk

I'm glad you finally admit to it!

Did they impeach him for the suspension?

Nope, nor is impeachment the only process by which Congress may disapprove of a president's actions. In fact impeachment is probably the rarest of many options Congress can take to disapprove of a president's actions. The most common is simply killing a major bill that he wants, and that is exactly what Congress did to Lincoln to show its disapproval over his suspension of the writ.

That doesn't mean that the diplomatic recognition of St. Eustasis meant anything to the rest of the world, which is what getting recognized as a nation is all about. Barbara Tuchman says otherwise and notes that St. Eustasius was a pivotal event of the revolution. It sent shockwaves through Europe and also provoked several British acts of retaliation against the Dutch and against the island.

Well, I am sure that England did not like anyone recognizing the colonies as a nation.

That did not mean the world considered the colonies as such.

More meaningless doubletalk.

Oh, I gave you a very clear answer, one that you refuse to accept due the fact it will make your case that the confederacy a nation DOA.

Had the U.S. lost the war (as did the South), there would be no day of the birth of the U.S.

Since we won (unlike the South), our birthday is recognized by other nations as the 4th of July.

What no national day of celebration to honor the day of the birthday of the great Confederacy recognized by the Vatican and the Duchy of something?

LOL!

Well, if Congress did not consider what Lincoln was doing was bad enough to warrent impeachment, I guess it wasn't all that bad!

So, why are you and Nolu beating a dead horse!

Congress did not regard Lincoln as a tyrant, if they did they would have impeached him as such.

They may not have like everything he, as President did, but what Congress does?

I do not know if you have read this essay before.

It is quite good.

I have only put in the conclusion, the link is below.

Conclusion In a sense, the "Nationalist" and the "Weak Compact" views are the easiest to hold. The "Nationalist" view sees the nation coming into being with "the people" ratifying the Constitution. In the process of that act, the people give their sovereignty to the national government. The "Weak Compact" view sees the nation as existing in states which grant powers, but not sovereignty to a national federation. Thus, the "Nationalists" cannot agree with secession because it is an act of sovereignty no longer existing in the states, but given to the national government. The "Weak Compact" adherents cannot but support secession in principle because it remains a concomitant of sovereignty that the states have retained.

However, it is apparent that James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," supported a third approach, which he denominated "in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both."35 Thus, the states, national government, and the people retain a measure of sovereignty. However, since the states had unanimously granted three-fourths of the states the ability, through the Constitution, to amend the document governing the wielding of power and sovereignty at a national level, it was obvious that individual states could not secede and claim a constitutional prerogative for doing so any more than a majority of the states could vote to withdraw from another. Still less could they do so in the name of claiming a prerogative to systematically violate the private property rights of a significant majority within their borders.

While the biblical warrant, if any, for any of the above analysis will have to wait for another discussion on another day, the topic of constitutional secession is one, I am tempted to say, that we will have to fight about.

http://www.nationalreform.org/statesman/98/refight.html

That did not mean the world considered the colonies as such.

The world doesn't have to so long as nationhood is established by the act of July 4, 1776 rather than diplomatic recognition, and I'm still not sure whether you agree or disagree with that notion.

More meaningless doubletalk.

Indeed, and both you and capitan are full of it. Care to stop anytime soon?

Had the U.S. lost the war (as did the South), there would be no day of the birth of the U.S.

That's an evasion, not an answer. Did the United States attain nationhood on July 4th, 1776 or did it not? Yes or no will do. If you care to explain it further you may then append your answer with detail.

What no national day of celebration to honor the day of the birthday of the great Confederacy recognized by the Vatican and the Duchy of something?

Once again I attempt a polite and factual response to your comment, and once again you return it with needless invective and venom. Go figure.

Well, if Congress did not consider what Lincoln was doing was bad enough to warrent impeachment, I guess it wasn't all that bad!

That's some strange logic you use there. Let's apply it elsewhere. Evidently congress did not consider Whitewater, Chinagate, Cattlegate, Vince Fostergate, Travelgate and all the other non-Lewinsky scandals of Clinton bad enough to warrant impeachment on their basis so I guess none of them were bad either. And Congress didn't consider Teapot Dome bad enough to impeach Harding or any major figures under him or Credit Mobilier bad enough to impeach Grant or any major figures under him, so I guess none of them were anything bad either! And Watergate? Well, Congress never quite made it to impeaching Nixon either...must not have been anything bad. Funny how all these scandals work out for the better when the only means of expressing disapproval is limited to impeachment...which must also mean that there have only been two major scandals in American presidential history!

Had the U.S. lost the war (as did the South), there would be no day of the birth of the U.S. That's an evasion, not an answer. Did the United States attain nationhood on July 4th, 1776 or did it not? Yes or no will do. If you care to explain it further you may then append your answer with detail.

Only because it succeded.

Had it failed there would be no national day of independence.

The United States did not attain nationhood on July 4th, they declared it.

It took 8 years to attain it.

What no national day of celebration to honor the day of the birthday of the great Confederacy recognized by the Vatican and the Duchy of something? Once again I attempt a polite and factual response to your comment, and once again you return it with needless invective and venom. Go figure.

Goodness, a little tongue in cheek and you get all bent out of shape!

Well, if Congress did not consider what Lincoln was doing was bad enough to warrent impeachment, I guess it wasn't all that bad! That's some strange logic you use there. Let's apply it elsewhere. Evidently congress did not consider Whitewater, Chinagate, Cattlegate, Vince Fostergate, Travelgate and all the other non-Lewinsky scandals of Clinton bad enough to warrant impeachment on their basis so I guess none of them were bad either. And Congress didn't consider Teapot Dome bad enough to impeach Harding or any major figures under him or Credit Mobilier bad enough to impeach Grant or any major figures under him, so I guess none of them were anything bad either! And Watergate? Well, Congress never quite made it to impeaching Nixon either...must not have been anything bad. Funny how all these scandals work out for the better when the only means of expressing disapproval is limited to impeachment...which must also mean that there have only been two major scandals in American presidential history!

And maybe those events, while bad and scandalous did not reach the level of Impeachement.

However, Clinton did get impeached for lying under oath.

Lincoln did not.

I am sorry that you do not like the way checks and balances work in our country, but if Lincoln were the tyrant that you think he was, impeachment would have been the responsibility of the Congress, just as it was when Clinton was impeached.

As for Nixon, he was forced out to avoid impeachement.

Only because it succeded.

Another evasion, still no answer though.

Had it failed there would be no national day of independence.

So the "righness" of nationhood is determined entirely on its ability to exercise force? Strange.

Goodness, a little tongue in cheek and you get all bent out of shape!

I'm not quite certain where you keep getting interpretations like that from as I've certainly given no real reason for you to derive them. Nevertheless you do. One minute you're spouting venom, which I casually point out, and the next you're laughing about it while throwing bizarre accusations of irritability at me for simply pointing out your unusual behavior. And once that's all said and done you'll revert right back to spewing venom. You truly are a strange one.

And maybe those events, while bad and scandalous did not reach the level of Impeachement.

...or perhaps they did but the congress at the time simply lacked the backbone or partisan makeup to carry through with it much like the US Senate lacked the backbone to convict Clinton. Congress is a fundamentally political institution and, being one, they can and do opt for lesser but nevertheless certain expressions of disapproval than the extremely rare act of impeachment.

However, Clinton did get impeached for lying under oath.

Clinton got impeached on two counts - perjury and obstruction of justice.

Lincoln did not.

I don't believe Lincoln ever testified before a court on one of the many cases involving him thus the occasion for perjury would not arise. He did indeed obstruct justice though to the point of using military officers to harrass sitting judges, unconstitutionally suspending their salaries, and impeding their rulings from being carried out and their membership from meeting. Lincoln's obstruction of justice in those regards actually exceed Clinton's in severity.

Only because it succeded. Another evasion, still no answer though. Had it failed there would be no national day of independence. So the "righness" of nationhood is determined entirely on its ability to exercise force? Strange.

Strange? No, not at all.

If you are going to declare yourself free, you have be able to fight to defend it.

Liberarians think freedom is something you just talk about.

And where is the Confederacy today?

Goodness, a little tongue in cheek and you get all bent out of shape! I'm not quite certain where you keep getting interpretations like that from as I've certainly given no real reason for you to derive them. Nevertheless you do. One minute you're spouting venom, which I casually point out, and the next you're laughing about it while throwing bizarre accusations of irritability at me for simply pointing out your unusual behavior. And once that's all said and done you'll revert right back to spewing venom. You truly are a strange one.

Venom?

A bit of hyperbolic isn't it?

You seem given to the dramatic.

I guess that goes with being full of oneself.

And maybe those events, while bad and scandalous did not reach the level of Impeachement. ...or perhaps they did but the congress at the time simply lacked the backbone or partisan makeup to carry through with it much like the US Senate lacked the backbone to convict Clinton.

They got him impeached didn't they?

Congress is a fundamentally political institution and, being one, they can and do opt for lesser but nevertheless certain expressions of disapproval than the extremely rare act of impeachment.

And Congress is suppose to be the check on Presidental tyranny via impeachment.

Sorry, that your accusations against Lincoln have no historical validity, but you just go on continue living in the world of fantasy.

However, Clinton did get impeached for lying under oath. Clinton got impeached on two counts - perjury and obstruction of justice.

Lincoln did not. I don't believe Lincoln ever testified before a court on one of the many cases involving him thus the occasion for perjury would not arise. He did indeed obstruct justice though to the point of using military officers to harrass sitting judges, unconstitutionally suspending their salaries, and impeding their rulings from being carried out and their membership from meeting. Lincoln's obstruction of justice in those regards actually exceed Clinton's in severity.

I guess Congress did not see it that way.

Events were a little different, like a Civil War going on.

They got him impeached didn't they?

The House did. The Senate still failed in its duty to convict even though Clinton was clearly guilty of the charges. It failed to convict for political reasons amounting to a combination of RINOs and Clinton partisans who would not convict a member of their own party if it meant letting him off the hook for murder.

And Congress is suppose to be the check on Presidental tyranny via impeachment.

Supposed to, but as we know from the Clinton case Congress often falls short of completing the task.

Sorry, that your accusations against Lincoln have no historical validity, but you just go on continue living in the world of fantasy.

More needless venom and invective, this time of the gratuitous sort.

Events were a little different, like a Civil War going on.

...or one of your own party being in the White House combined with the lingering threat of outright political persecution for members of the opposition party who spoke out too much or too loudly (Lincoln had the opposition leader Rep. Clement Vallandigham seized from his house, thrown in jail, and deported to canada). He also had hundreds of opposition newspapers shut down, an opposition U.S. senator expelled from the senate, another opposition former U.S. senator arrested, and half the maryland legislature put in chains.

If you are going to declare yourself free, you have be able to fight to defend it. Then you believe that might makes right.

No, right is right no matter who wins.

If the South had won, they still would have been wrong.

Since they lost, they died stillborn.

Venom? A bit of hyperbolic isn't it? Not at all. You regularly fill your posts with unnecessarily loaded terminology and pejorative language thereby poisoning the content. Venom, of course, is synonymous with poison. If you don't like me pointing that out then drop the invective and the attitude.

As I said, hyperbolic.

I always have this attitude of bemusement toward the pompus.

Stop being pompus and I will drop the attitude.

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.