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 ...
"... despite the fact that States leaving the Union implicitly gave up their claims in the Territories, and thereby abandoned all efforts on behalf of their citizens to prove that Southerners had the right to migrate to the Territories with their slaves.... The South gave up on the Territories and the subject of the expansion of slavery, by seceding. Secession is negatively tied to 'the expansion of slavery', if secession guaranteed that there would be no expansion."
It seems to me Mr. GOPc would disagree that the CSA gave up claims to territories, especially in present-day Arizona and New Mexico, the "Indian Territory"; not to mention expansionist designs on Mexico and Cuba. It was Senator Albert Gallatin Brown of Mississippi who said, "I want Cuba ... I want Tampaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican states; and I want them all for the same reason - for the planting and spreading of slavery."
"You made a foolish statement, just to halfway support calling people who disagree with you 'Holocaust deniers'. "
Slavery has been termed the "African Holocaust" and the "American Holocaust." The CSA was intended by its designers to be, in their view, the ultimate evolution of slavey-based society. Bug-eyed Congressman Keitt of South Carolina stated: "African slavery is the cornerstone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism." Bug-eyed Congressman Hammond of South Carolina stated, "I do firmly believe that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth." CSA Vice President Stephens said, "[The Confederacy's] cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man..."
The words of those who were secessionist leaders belie the story you like to tell. The creation of a southern republic was intended, largely, to preserve and expand the institution of slavery. Those who would deny that simple truth are not unlike those who deny the truth about the European Holocaust of the 1930s-40s.
Southern secessionism is fundamentally based on racism.
Examples of that loony persuasion have emerged thus far in marxism (Wlat), neo-nazism and racism (#3fan), habitual and agressive dishonesty (you), and a lengthy list of other disgusting and unmentionable activities that are beyond the scope of this forum as they should be.
No. By their posts you will know them.
"Are you just equating secessionism with racism ...?
Yes, as it was practiced by the CSA. But racial prejudice, in its various guises, was then not uncommon. The form practiced in the slave states, however, was particularly invidious.
"... in order to call all secessionists 'racists'?"
No. That should be clear from the sentence structure.
"Have you some polling data that show that Southerners are neither secessionists nor racists?"
Polling data??? You need a break.
"When are you going to stop applying to people who lived 150 years ago, the politically loaded yardsticks of modern, PC interracial attitudes?"
When I see evidence that the members of the confederate cabal do the same.
How does one become a member, without enlisting?
"... habitual and agressive dishonesty (you)..."
If that's not a case of the pot calling the kettle black! LOL
"... and a lengthy list of other disgusting and unmentionable activities that are beyond the scope of this forum as they should be."
You sound like Neidermeyer!
Secessionist discourse at the level I have come to expect.
The two were most certainly linked c. 1860, as the words of the CSA founders of the CSA prove. The CSA was intended to be a slave-holding republic forever. It represented the ultimate denial of the founding principles of the Union.
One can today, make an abstract argument in favor of unilateral secession, but one cannot rationalize that secession as practiced by the southern states was anything but fundamentally based on racial prejudice. Slavery was an evil practice, and a government dedicated to the propagation of slavery was no less evil.
It means "little man". You used it, twice, as an insult. Bite me.
Last time you responded with an obscenity.
Do you want another? You sound disappointed.
[You, quoting me] "... Secession is negatively tied to 'the expansion of slavery', if secession guaranteed that there would be no expansion."
[You, changing the subject] It seems to me Mr. GOPc would disagree that the CSA gave up claims to territories, especially in present-day Arizona and New Mexico, the "Indian Territory";....
I'm not responsible for his position. There was some discussion of the Territories, but other than the Glorieta expedition and the reconnaissance into Arizona, nothing much came of it. The Indian Nations allied, some of them, with the Confederates of their own volition.
....not to mention expansionist designs on Mexico and Cuba. It was Senator Albert Gallatin Brown of Mississippi who said, "I want Cuba ... I want Tampaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican states; and I want them all for the same reason - for the planting and spreading of slavery."
Thus Sen. Brown. You haven't shown that his was a generally accepted proposition. And meanwhile, you are busily distracting us from noticing that there was no more talk of revisiting Lecompton, or making Dred Scott the law of the northern Territories.
Like I said. The South resigned its interest in the Territories.
[You, quoting me again] "You made a foolish statement, just to halfway support calling people who disagree with you 'Holocaust deniers'. "
[Your turn] Slavery has been termed the "African Holocaust" and the "American Holocaust."
By whom? I don't accept that terminology. The United States and its citizens did not massacre blacks.
The CSA was intended by its designers to be, in their view, the ultimate evolution of slavey-based society.
No, it wasn't. It was intended to be the continuation of the United States and the U.S. Constitution, without the Black Republicans. You write about the Confederacy as if it were some Nazi Ueberplan, some Albert Speer-designed neverland. It was nothing like that.
You quote dishonestly, from one side of the ledger only, from people expatiating on the economic harm that uncompensated abolition would work on the Southern States, and then, like a Marxist would, you insinuate economic determinism as the Southerners' only motivation. You don't give any notice to the numerous statements that these same men made about the South's ability to control its own political agenda and to insist that Southerners' rights be respected.
You have never once admitted that Southerners had a property right in their slaves which was not conceded by the Abolitionists, who always used moral arguments to trump the complaint that what they were really advocating was an uncompensated taking and a massive violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Did Southerners have any rights in slaves?
No, they don't. They amplify it. You, on the other hand, lie.
The creation of a southern republic was intended, largely, to preserve and expand the institution of slavery. Those who would deny that simple truth are not unlike those who deny the truth about the European Holocaust of the 1930s-40s.
You repeat the charge without showing the evidence, by equating Southerners with Nazis and neo-Nazis. I challenge your veracity yet again. Show me that Southerners murdered blacks in the millions. Show me the numbers. Show me the inquests, the warrants. Show me, liar.
You don't know what to do with discourse.
TexConfederate was just trying to accommodate you, by offering you morsels from your own table.
TexConfederate, please don't feed capitan_refugio from the table. He has his own bowl.
The leading candidate for nomination by the democratic party as President was Stephen Douglas of Illinois. By this time, many informed Southern politicians were wise to Douglas. They knew that he had sold out the transcontinental railroad route through Louisiana and Texas for worthless concessions in the Kansas-Nebraska Act. They knew that Douglas preached a program desired by financiers in Philadelphia and New York. Such was the main bone of contention which this faction of Southern politicians had with Douglas.It was increasingly obvious to thinking men in the South that geography barred their peculiar institution in the Federal territories. No amount of argument can change the unanswerable reality that, outside of Kansas where they were doomed before they started, planters from the Dixie States had made no serious effort to import slaves into the huge land mass affected by Compromise of 1850 and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise in 1854. They made no serious effort, because there was nothing attractive to them in those vast stretches. And the proof of this stubborn fact is that in 1860 there were no slaves at all in the New Mexico, Utah, and Washington Territories, none in the Indian or Oklahoma Territory, none in the Dakota Territory, virtually none in the Kansas Territory which entered the Union as a free State in 1861, and barely more than a dozen in the Nebraska Territory, nor was there a prospect that more would ever arrive.
The burning issue for Southern democrats was the transcontinental railroad, because it would have been of great value to their region of the United States as a stimulus to modernize their economy and society, and thereby to help phase out slavery.
[lg #146] And let me guess - you also believe that Lincoln would have won or even had the slightest impact on the election in any of those states had he been on the ballots there.
Lincoln won 18 states. He also won one county in Missouri and one county in Kentucky.
[You, running away] No. By their posts you will know them.
Craven. Skulker. You talk big, but you deal in generalities. I called you a liar, and I spelled out how you do it and cited your post. Now deal with it.
[You, quoting me again] "Are you just equating secessionism with racism ...?
[You, making stuff up again] Yes, as it was practiced by the CSA.
You keep asserting it, but you don't connect the dots. It is absolutely absurd to connect a political revolution with racism -- it's like comparing cows and cherry trees. It's nuts. Do you see how logically unhinged your statement is? By voting Republican, people become theocrats, or Rotarians, or endorse unprotected hacky-sack in alleys? Get a grip! You overleap a chasm of illogic so wide, you'd have to look for its geological equivalent on Mars.
But racial prejudice, in its various guises, was then not uncommon. The form practiced in the slave states, however, was particularly invidious. (Emphasis added.)
Asseveration without proof. Show me. Prove to me that racism in Virginia was endogamously more virulent than racism in Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and Boston. Careful -- you know damn well it was strong in all those places. You can't prove it, but you have to try, because you're pantsed again if you can't.
You keep bad-mouthing the South on things she doesn't deserve a beating about, and I'm going to make you prove or eat every damned word that comes out of that keyboard of yours.
Capiche?
One of the funniest skits ever.
BIG LIE #1 "You repeat the charge without showing any evidence." I have provided plenty of evidence that the protection and expansion of slavery was a primary Southern motivation for secession. On this thread, other active threads, and many long inactive threads, I have provided quotations from the southern leadership which show conclusively the link between slavery and secession.
You choose to deny the truth.
BIG LIE #2 "[You equate] Southerners with Nazis and neo-Nazis." Good propaganda technique. When you can't refute the truth, pervert the statements of the messenger. Goebbels would be proud of you.
The statement I made was that people who deny the fundamental truth of the slavery-secession link are not unlike those who deny the European Holocaust. The comparison was between those who deny obvious truth - and to go to great lengths to do so. It was not a comparison between southerners and nazis. That is your perverted interpretation. Similarly, in the paragraph above I compare your technique to that of Goebbels. Am I calling you a nazi? No. I am pointing out how your perversions are similar to the type Goebbels used on a regular basis.
BIG LIE #3 - "You, on the other hand, lie." Another knowing misrepresentation. Repeatedly calling another a liar is classic "Big Lie" technique. The best antidote is to continually post the truth of the matter and to put as much sunshine on the issue as possible. For every misrepresentation you make, I will shine the big bright light of truth on it. Dan Rather understands the concept, now.
It is one thing to differ on policy or interpretation, and debate the relative merits. It is another thing to engage in character assassination. You are getting to be as bad as some of the droolers.
Abraham Lincoln said, "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." LINK
"Pequeño" mean "little one." It is a polite term, for polite company.
"Like I said. The South resigned its interest in the Territories."
The South laid claim to "New Mexico Territory" and had expansionist views to Colorado, Nevada, and California. the 1862 Sibley campaign is proof of their intent. It only "resigned interest" on territories when it could no longer take them by force.
CR - "Slavery has been termed the 'African Holocaust' and the 'American Holocaust.'"
LG - "By whom? I don't accept that terminology."
I'm sure you don't.
CR - The CSA was intended by its designers to be, in their view, the ultimate evolution of slavey-based society.
LG - "No, it wasn't. It was intended to be the continuation of the United States and the U.S. Constitution, without the Black Republicans."
Which is why the CSA Constitution apes the US constitution, except for the notable inclusion of unambiguous slavery language.
"You quote dishonestly, from one side of the ledger only, from people expatiating on the economic harm that uncompensated abolition would work on the Southern States, and then, like a Marxist would, you insinuate economic determinism as the Southerners' only motivation."
Somewhere, amongst the spittle, appears to be a concession that slavery was the issue! I do not intend to make arguments for all sides of "the ledger." I only intend to refute the denial of the slavery-secession link.
"You don't give any notice to the numerous statements that these same men made about the South's ability to control its own political agenda and to insist that Southerners' rights be respected."
Do you remember the post I made of the Charleston Mercury editorial written by Rhett, in 1860, about the reason's for secession? Rhett was a leader in the secessionist movement and had been for decades. Virtually every point he made was slavery-related. I do not deny that other factors were involved in confederate decision-making. I state affirmatively that slavery was foremost among those considerations.
And I would like to add that Southerners had no more rights to be respected than anyone else.
"You have never once admitted that Southerners had a property right in their slaves."
Call me old-fashioned, but I do not believe that any man has a right to own any other man. Period. I suppose we differ on this point.
True: As the scripture says "Cast not your pearls before SWINE"......:)
I don't deny that Rhett and some of the Southern Leaders had slavery in mind, but there were other primary reasons.
Several states, such as Virginia, seceded when Lincoln called for volunteers. They felt the Federals were overstepping their constitutional authority, by trying to coerce seceded states back into the Union. Stonewall Jackson is one such person that comes to mind. he didn't approve of slavery, but felt Virginia was justified in secession.....
I fail to see how such a maudlin movie could be any sort of weapon at all, against anyone.
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.