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 ...
"In the Northern states, we are not slaves to individuals, not personal slaves, yet in many respects we are the slaves of the community."
-- Frederick Douglass, 1848
Aimed against an attempt to educate Black children in Connecticut, a law was enacted to shut down the school of Prudence Crandall.
"Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened, That no person shall set up or establish in this state any school, academy, or literary institution, for the instruction or education of coloured persons, who are not inhabitants of this state, nor instruct or teach in any school, academy, or other literary institution whatever in this state, or harbour or board, for the purpose of attending or being taught or instructed in any such school, academy, or literary institution, any coloured person who is not an inhabitant of any town in this state, without the consent in writing, first obtained of a majority of the civil authority, and also of the select-men of the town in which such school, academy, or literary institution is situated; and each and every person who shall knowingly do any act forbidden as aforesaid, or shall be aiding or assisting therein, shall, for the first offence, forfeit and pay to the treasurer of this state, a fine of one hundred dollars, and for the second offence, shall forfeit and pay a fine of two hundred dollars, and so double for every offence of which he or she shall be convicted. And all informing officers are required to make due presentment of all breaches of this act. Provided, That nothing in this act shall extend to any district school established in any school society under the laws of this state, or to any school established by any school society under the laws of this state, or to any incorporated academy or incorporated school for instruction in this state."
In the case of State of Connecticut v. Crandall, at Brooklyn, October term, 1833, before David Daggett, Ch. J., the court instructed the jury as follows:
"This is an information filed by the attorney for the state, for an alleged violation of a statute law, passed by the General Assembly, at their last session, relating to inhabitants; the preamble to the act, embracing the reasons for the law."It is alleged in this information, that since the 22d day of August last, to wit, on the 24th day of September, 1833, the defendant has, wilfully and knowingly, harboured and boarded coloured persons not inhabitants of the state, for the purposes mentioned in said act, without having obtained in writing, the consent of the civil authority and the selectment of Canterbury where the school had been set up. As to the facts in this case, there seems to be but little controversy. It has scarcely been denied, that coloured persons have been harboured and boarded, by the defendant, for the objects alleged, within the time set forth in this information. You, gentlemen of the jury, have heard the evidence, and as it is your exclusive business to pass upon these facts, you will say whether or not they are true.
"If these facts are not proved to your satisfaction, then you may dismiss the cause; for in that event, you have no further duty to perform. If, however, you find the facts true, then another duty equally important, devolves upon the jury. It is an undeniable proposition, that the jury are judges of both law and fact, in all cases of this nature. It is, however, equally true, that the court is to state its opinion to the jury, upon all questions of law, arising in the trial of a criminal cause, and to submit to their consideration, both law and fact, without any direction how to find their verdict.
"The counsel for the defendant, have rested her defence upon a provision of the constitution of the United States, claiming that the statute law of this state, upon which this information is founded, is inconsistent with that provision, and, therefore, void. This is the great question involved in this case: and it is about to be submitted to your consideration.
"It is admitted, that there are no provisions in the constitution of this state, which conflict with this act. It may be remarked here, that the constitution of the United States, is above all other law, -- it is emphatically the supreme law of the land, and the judges are so to declare it. From the highest court to the lowest, even that of a justice of the peace, all laws, whether made by Congress or state legislatures, are subject to examination, and when brought to the test of the constitution, may be declared utterly void. But in order to do this, the court should first find the law contrary, and plainly contrary, to the constitution. Although this may be done, and done too, by the humblest court, yet it never should be done but upon a full conviction that the law in question is unconstitutional.
"Many things said upon this trial, may be laid out of the case. The consideration of slavery, with all its evils and degrading consequences, may be dismissed with the consideration that it is a degrading evil. The benefits, blessings and advantages of instruction and education, may also cease to claim your attention, except you may well consider that education is a 'fundamental privilege,' for this is the basis of all free government.
"Having read this law, the question comes to us with peculiar force, does it clearly violate the constitution of the United States? The section claimed to have been violated, reads as follows, to wit: Art. 4. sec. 2. 'The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.' It has been urged, that this section was made to direct, exclusively, the action of the general government, and therefore, can never be applied to state laws. This is not the opinion of the court. The plain and obvious meaning of this provision, is to secure to the citizens of all the states, the same privileges as are secured to our own, by our own state laws. Should a citizen of Connecticut purchase a farm in Massachusetts, and the legislature of Massachusetts tax the owner of that farm, four times as much as they would tax a citizen of Massachusetts, because the one resided in Connecticut and the other in Massachusetts; or should a law be passed, by either of those states, that no citizen of the other, should reside or trade in that other, this would, undoubtedly, be an unconstitutional law, and should be so declared.
"The second section was provided as a substitute for the 4th article of the Confederation. That article has also been read, and by comparing them, you can perceive the object intended by the substitute.
"The act in question provides, that coloured persons, who are not inhabitants of this State, shall not be harboured and boarded for the purposes therein mentioned, within this state, without the consent of the civil authority and select-men of the town. We are, then, brought to the great question, are they citizens within the provisions of this section of the constitution? The law extends to all persons of colour not inhabitants of this state, whether they live in the state of New-York, or in the West-Indies, or in any other foreign country.
"In deciding this question, I am happy that my opinion can be revised, by the supreme court of this state and of the United States, should you return a verdict against the defendant.
"The persons contemplated in this act are not citizens within the obvious meaning of that section of the constitution of the United States, which I have just read. Let me begin, by putting this plain question. Are Slaves citizens? At the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state was a slave state. Massachusetts had begun the work of emancipation within her own borders. And Connecticut, as early as 1784, had also enacted laws making all those free at the age of 25, who might be born within the State, after that time. We all know, that slavery is recognized in that constitution; and it is the duty of this court to take that constitution as it is, for we have sworn to support it. Although the term 'slavery' cannot be found written out in the constitution, yet no one can mistake the object of the 3d section of the 4th article: 'No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered, upon claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.'
"The 2d section of the 1st article, reads as follows: -- 'Representatives and direct taxes, shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.' The 'other persons' are slaves, and they became the basis of representation, by adding them to the white population in that proportion. Then slaves were not considered citizens by the framers of the constitution.
"A citizen means a freeman. By referring to Dr. Webster, one of the most learned men of this or any other country, we have the following definition of the term -- 'Citizen: 1. A native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides. 2. A townsman, a man of trade, not a gentleman. 3. An inhabitant; a dweller in any city, town or country. 4. In the United States, it means a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, and of purchasing and holding real estate.'
"Are Indians citizens? It is admitted in the argument, that they are not; but it is said, they belong to distinct tribes. This cannot be true; because all Indians do not belong to a tribe. It may be now added, that by the declared law of New-York, Indians are not citizens; and the learned Chancellor Kent, says 'they never can be made citizens.' Indians were literally natives of our soil; they were born here; and yet they are not citizens.
"The Mohegans were once a mighty tribe, powerful and valiant; and who among us ever saw one of them performing military duty, or exercising, with the white men, the privilege of the elective franchise, or holding an office? And what is the reason? I answer, they are not citizens, according to the acceptation of the term in the United States.
"Are free blacks citizens? It has been ingeniously said, that vessels may be owned and navigated, by free blacks, and the American flag will protect them; but you will remember, that the statute which makes that provision, is an act of Congress, and not the constitution. Admit, if you please, that Mr. Cuffee, a respectable merchant, has owned vessels, and sailed them under the American flag; yet this does not prove him to be such citizen as the constitution contemplates. But that question stands undecided, by any legal tribunal within my knowledge. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to determine that question.
"It has been also urged, that as coloured persons may commit treason, they must be considered citizens. Every person born in the United States, as well as every person who may reside here, owes allegiance, of some sort, to the government, because the government affords him protection. Treason against this government, consists in levying war against the government of the United States, or aiding its enemy in time of war. Treason may be committed, by persons who are not entitled to the elective franchise. For if they reside under the protection of the government, it would be treason to levy war against that government, as much as if they were citizens.
"I think Chancellor Kent, whose authority it gives me pleasure to quote, determines this question, by fair implication. Had this authority considered free blacks citizens, he had an ample opportunity to say so. But what he has said excludes that idea: In most of the United States, there is a distinction in respect to political privileges, between free white persons and free coloured persons of African blood; and in no part of the country do the latter, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites, in the exercise of civil and political rights. The African race are essentially a degraded caste, of inferior rank and condition in society. Marriages are forbidden between them and whites, in some of the states, and when not absolutely contrary to law, they are revolting, and regarded as an offence against public decorum. By the revised statutes of Illinois, published in 1829, marriages between whites and negroes, or mulattos, are declared void, and the persons so married are liable to be whipped, fined and imprisoned. By an old statute of Massachusetts, of 1705, such marriages were declared void, and are so still. A similar statute provision exists in Virginia and North-Carolina. Such connexions in France and Germany, constitute the degraded state of concubinage, which is known in the civil law. But they are not legal marriages, because the parties want that equality of state or condition, which is essential to the contract.' 2 Kent's Comm. 258.
"I go further back still. When the constitution of the United States was adopted, every state, (Massachusetts excepted,) tolerated slavery. And in some of the states, down to a late period, severe laws have been kept in force regarding slaves. With respect to New-York, at that time, her laws and penalties were severe indeed; and it was not until July, 4th, 1827, that this great state was ranked among the free states.
"To my mind, it would be a perversion of terms, and the well known rule of construction, to say, that slaves, free blacks, or Indians, were citizens, within the meaning of that term, as used in the constitution. God forbid that I should add to the degradation of this race of men; but I am bound, by my duty, to say, they are not citizens.
"I have thus shown you that this law is not contrary to the 2d section of the 4th art. of the constitution of the United States; for that embraces only citizens.
On July 26, 1834, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors dismissed the case against Crandall on a technical issue. The lower court decision that African Americans were not protected as citizens, however, remained standing. Although Crandall had won a technical legal victory and was free to return to her school, the townspeople of Canterbury would not accept the Supreme Court's decision. On the night of September 9, 1834, an angry mob broke in and ransacked the school building. With clubs and iron bars, the mob terrorized the students and broke more than 90 windows. What the Black Law and local ostracism had not been able to accomplish, this mob achieved. Fearing for the girls' safety, Crandall closed the school the following morning.
From Rhode Island, after being educated at a Society of Friends school in Plainfield, Connecticut, Crandall established her own private school for girls at Canterbury. The school was a great success until she decided to admit a Black girl. Crandall, a committed Quaker refused to change her policy of educating Black and white children. The result, White parents began taking their children away from the school. In March 1833 with the support of William Lloyd Garrison and the Anti-Slavery Society, Crandall opened a school for Black girls in Canterbury.Local people were furious at this and many tried to prevent the school from receiving essential materials. The school persisted and began to attract girls from Boston and Philadelphia. The local authorities then began using a vagrancy law that meant the girls could be given ten lashes for attending the school. In 1834 Connecticut passed a law making it illegal to provide a free education for Black students. Crandall refused to obey the law and was imprisoned, but won the case on appeal. When news of the court decision reached Canterbury, a white mob attacked the school forcing Crandall to close her school down.
From Mark S. Weiner, Black Trials, Citizenship from the Beginnings of Slavery to the End of Caste, Alfred A. Knopf, 2004, p. 115.
On August 12, 1834, crandall was married to a minister who had courted her since the trial had begun. After her school was destroyed, she moved to New York with her new husband, who bled her dry of her money and, it seemed of joy. After he died, she moved to Kansas, gaining a name for her advocacy of feminism and spiritualism.
I welcome the DemocRATS decision to support the Union side in the RAT Rebellion. It is 143 yrs too late but what the hey. Now if they would only support the Union today I would be much happier.
Jefferson never advertised for the return of the two Hemings slaves who absconded. Wonder why?
What a typical defense of the slavers tyranny by pointing to injustices elsewhere. At present, unfortunately for your defensive tack, we are talking about the South so that defense is inrrelevent. An aberration in the North in no way justifies a standard practice in the South and those laws were changed in the former as time went on.
There is plenty to complain about the North wrt to blacks but this is not the issue on this thread now is it. Besides it is like comparing grapes to watermelons.
it was of LITTLE import/interest to ANY NON-owner.
no matter how much you wish it was different, that is the TRUTH.
free dixie,sw
only the SLAVEOWNERS cared a damn about slavery AND slavery was DYING. NO amount of damnyankee, self-serving propaganda OR hateFILLED invective trumps those TRUTHS! (though the RADICAL REVISIONISTS & SOCIALISTS make a POOR case that the WBTS was ONLY about ending slavery.)
ALSO, FEW white persons NORTH OR SOUTH cared about the plight of the slaves. SAD but TRUE. it was NOT on their "radar screen". (thus the MANY horror stories like the NY draft riots, where HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of totally INNOCENT blacks were lynched in the NORTH! SADLY, the mass lynching in NYC were NOT an "isolated incident".)
free dixie,sw
Stampp is NOT correct about the opinions of ANYONE in the whole country EXCEPT the 5-6% of persons who were SLAVEOWNERS. the slavers cared INTENSELY about slavery. nobody else cared a damn about it, as INTELLIGENT people KNEW it was DYING.
free dixie,sw
BTTT
good to see you here today.
free dixie,sw
slouh= SLOUCH!
free dixie,sw
Why thank you :-)
Although your "5-6%" slaveowners figure actually equates to 25-30% of the free population being part of slave-owning families, and thus having a vested interest in the institution, your post misses the main point.
The southern antebellum governments were fundamentally slaveowner oligarchies. They were run by slaveowners in behalf of the slaveowner interests. Those who, for decades, had agitated for secession were part of the slaveowning leadership. They were the empowered political elite of the slaveowning south who established the laws and policies, and owned the newspapers. You are quite correct to observe that most "southerners" at the time had little interest in slavery (which, by the way, implicitly disqualifies the 4 million slaves themselves as an interested party). But it wasn't the great mass of small farmers and tradesmen who led the secessionist insurrection - it was the slaveowner oligarchy.
And that is the real truth.
free dixie,sw
personally, i know of NO traditional scholar who would take such a SILLY, simplistic & untenable position, though a host of LEFTIST, southHATING REVISIONISTS would agree with you.
5-6% of persons/families that owned slaves is the correct PERCENTAGE.
NOT some SILLY 25-30% figure, which was dreamed up by the revisionists as a FAILED attempt to inflate the TRUE figure. the REVISIONISTS said that "25-30% received value from slavery", which is equal to saying that 25-30% receive value from a cruise line owning cruise ships= in other words, it is an EVASION of the truth, if not an outright LIE.
free dixie,sw
They must have cared a great deal.
Slave population (Federal Census data)
1790 - 694,000
1800 - 888,000
1810 - 1,131,000
1820 - 1,529,000
1830 - 1,987,000
1840 - 2,483,000
1850 - 3,201,000
1860 - 3,951,000
You may quibble with the census figures, but what we see here is exponential growth of the total slave population.
Hatefilled invective?
You'll not find me making the case that the ACW was "only about ending slavery." The case I make is that secession was primarily driven by the southern desire to propogate and expand slavery.
stand, you certainly realize that the 5-6% figure you like to quote is premised upon the calculation that there is only one slaveowner per family residing at the same location. But, typically, the entire family benefits from the enforced labor, and would have a vested interest in retaining it. The 25-30% figure of those who benefit from slave labor is well-established - in fact I have seen numbers that are even higher.
When dealing with lawyers, it is always a good idea to check their "facts" for accuracy. Esquire Graham got it wrong.
With regard to Utah Territory (aka "Deseret"), the census data from 1850 showed 26 slaves and 24 freemen. In 1852 the Territorial Legislature passed an act legalizing slavery and establishing regulation on treatment of slaves ("An Act in Relation to Service") By the 1860 territorial census, there were 29 slaves in Utah. The Congress outlawed slavery in the territories in 1862.
Similarly, in 1860, the were 22 slaves listed in the New Mexico territorial census. However, because of the Spanish cultural heritage, the actual number of "indentured servants" were under-counted. At that time, the practice of "peonage" was still prevalent in the territory. Neither were Indian slaves counted.
Esquire Graham needs to work on his "stubborn facts." It only took a few minutes to come up with the information.
the REVISIONISTS on the FAR LEFT & SOME here, do however.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
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.