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."

[GOPcapitalist]

Taussig not only does not claim that protection did not work but he explicitly refuses to discredit the theory.

Now you are simply lying. That Taussig recognized the _theoretical_ validity of the infant industry argument (and most economists, even Friedman, do - they simply note that it seldom if ever is seen to work in practive) in no way alters his other observation that protection simply did not work in the early 19th century. Exactly what about the words "little, if any thing, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained in the first part of this [the nineteenth] century" do you not understand?

And these quotes are not data mining since I have read his book and do not share your opinion of his conclusion which is simply that it "might" not have worked.

It's quote mining, fakeit, as you are spinning out of context phrases to make it sound as if he concluded other than he did. Nor did he simply say that protection "might" not have worked - he said flat out that it did not work and made that statement unequivocally under the header titled conclusion: "little, if any thing, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained in the first part of this [the nineteenth] century"

[GOPcapitalist]

It is easy enough to say "Tariff protection did not work." Taussig does not say that at all that is the reality of his study.

Yes he does: "little, if any thing, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained in the first part of this [the nineteenth] century."

[GOPcapitalist]

Obiter dictum

Wrong as usual, proving once again that you do not understand the concept.

[nolu chan]

Uh, the Blacks rose up, rebelled, and won their freedom from the French.

[capitan_refugio]

nolu has a new book from which he likes to quote. It's by a radical lawyer who has been trying to further secession in Quebec and speaks at League of the South meetings. See the following vitae:

http://www.alfra.org/articles/Graham%2C%20John%20Remington%2C%20CV.pdf

As much as the neo-confederates rail against "leftists" and "marxists" and "statists," you'll find they glom onto the strangest group of anti-American, philosophical misfits you'll ever see.

And they rarely embrace the original, founding principles of this great nation of ours.

[capitan_refugio]

Was habeas suspended in for Bollman and Swartwart? No. It was not an issue before the court.

[GOPcapitalist]

Was habeas suspended in for Bollman and Swartwart? No. It was not an issue before the court.

Fallacious non-sequitur. Habeas did not have to be suspended for the court to rule that its habeas jurisdiction came from an act of congress and thus cannot be removed by any other means than an act of congress under the constitutional clause from which it came.

[nolu chan]

I was referring to your mouth.

[jsuati] Civilization is a product of the cities.

You may take your place in the civilized culture of San Francisdo.

[jsuati] The conservative movement must find a way to gain political control of the cities.

You and your rants are too powerful. It is better to just export you to Canada or France or something.

[jsuati] Your RAT party has controlled them almost the entire history of our nation, they are the epitome of democracy.

YOU live there by choice, not I.

YOU assert that civilization is a product of your RAT controlled cities.

YOU assert your RATS have controlled the cities almost the entire history of the nation.

YOU therefore assert that U.S. CIVILIZATION is a product of your RATS.

Why do you post to FR when you assert that U.S. CIVILIZATION is a product of your RAT cities, dominated by your RATS almost the entire history of the nation???

Why do you not go post on DU where you can wallow in what you perceive as U.S. CIVILIZATION, i.e. your RAT CULTURE.

[nolu chan]

The simple-minded are easily amused.

I have noticed how easy it is to amuse you.

But to obtain a rational, intelligent thought from you would be like the labors of Sisyphus.

[nolu chan]

Lincoln was never impeached by the Congress.

Hitler was never impeached. Stalin was never impeached. Saddam Hussein was elected with a near unanimous vote and never impeached.

Ruthless dictators are rarely impeached.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is no clearer statement wrt the tariff made by Taussig than the one disabusing the idea that the theory of protection is wrong.

The quote you are hanging your sombero on does not accurately display his conclusion since it excludes the comments which indicate that the period of extreme protection (the Embargo and War) did much of what the tariffs were designed to do get those industries established.

Nor do you quote anything by him saying that it "flat out did not work" that is just another falsehood.

[capitan_refugio]

"Jefferson wanted to suspend habeas corpus but did NOT succeed. THAT is the suspension of habeas corpus precedent."

The memebers of the House had gone home in early march and the Senate stayed in session for about a month to ratify nominees in the new Adminstration.

Although Lincoln had already issued a proclamation for Congress to return for a special session, the progress of events in the war necessitated swift and sure action.

Lincoln was up to the job and used constitutional methods to save the country and blunt the insurrection.

The doctine of necessity and that of "executive nullification" are two different matters. But you're not smart enough, or honest enough, to realize that.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Those are not equivalent statements.

[justshutupandtakeit]

LoL, how do you keep the spittle from drowning out your keyboard?

This set of insane raving comes from the same kind of mindset which claims Hamilton was queer because he wrote that he loved his best friend. Good thing you are not a prosecutor.

[justshutupandtakeit]

And their leaders were men of the French culture who had assimilated their masters' ideas and had no other culture in common. Some of the more important were mulattos in any case. To claim this was a "culture" merely indicates little knowledge of what happened.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Gee a new alliance is in the making. "Nutcases of the World Unite, You have only your rationality to Lose."

[nolu chan]

[capitan_refugio] The Chief Justice thought enough of the passage to include it in his book. I'll accept his judgment over yours, any day.

The Chief Justice included the NYT comment as an example of Northern opinion at the time. It is historical fact that Taney sold his house in Maryland in 1855 and in 1861 was living in Washington, D.C.

The content of the NYT editorial of May 29, 1861 is totally refuted by the historical fact that Taney sold his house in Maryland in 1855 and was, at the time of the Merryman case, living in Washington, D.C., while Merryman lived in Maryland. They could not have been neighbors as you claim. But do not let the facts get in your way. You never have.

---

Taney sold his home in Maryland in 1855 and moved to Washington, D.C. More specifically, he was living at 23 Blagden's Row, on Indiana Avenue, near the Court House. See Carl Brent Swisher, Roger B. Taney, pp. 471 and 472.

---

LINK

According further to Tyler, Taney was poor. In an interview with Tyler, published after Taney’s death in the Cincinnati Commercial newspaper, Tyler was asked: “Was Judge Taney rich, Mr. Tyler?” “No, sir,” replied Tyler, “always poor. He lived in Blagden row -- the row of stuccoed houses opposite the City Hall. They are four-storied; an iron balcony runs above the first story; two windows adjoin the hall door."

[Gianni]

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.

Just under half of the congress was recalled by their states. Even the remaining puppets refused to authorize the suspension of habeas, and that was with the puppeteer's hand so far up their backside they probably squeaked when the talked.

Using lack of impeachement as evidence of support is a joke. By corallary, failing to try Jefferson Davis implies total judicial, legislative, and executive support of his actions.