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 ...
That short term memory loss will get you every time.
justshutupandtakeit #242 responded to my #239.
242 posted on 11/17/2004 9:49:23 AM CST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
My #239 was a quote of Ann Coulter in which she explained how to talk to a LIBERAL about the CBF. In your misbegotten #239, you said, "As to your babble about the CBF you can fly a Nazi flag if you want but don't expect anyone who understands history to support you." As to your babble, Ann answered you quite nicely.
To: justshutupandtakeit; Colt .45
[jsuati #223] As to your babble about the CBF you can fly a Nazi flag if you want but don't expect anyone who understands history to support you.
All drooling LIBERALS are invited to file their dissenting opinions.
All CONSERVATIVES -- here is Ann's advice on how to talk to the liberals about the Battle Flag.
* * *
239 posted on 11/17/2004 4:39:40 AM CST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Slavery is far from ended. It is ramped right now in many areas of the world. Even children are sold into brothels. The PC crowd does not blink an eye on the slavery going on today but fixate on the past that was vindicated with the blood of many. They are hypocrites in the lowest.
Untrue, having "a slave" anywhere was not dispositive of the question of slavery's acceptance -- it certainly wasn't true in Kansas or California. The Southern States walked away from the territories north of the Missouri Compact line, and Kansas and California, when they seceded. They might realistically have entertained some thoughts about New Mexico and the Indian Territory becoming part of the Confederacy eventually, but Colorado became a State during the war, and California and Oregon were already States -- Oregon having been populated by Northerners mostly (as its voting patterns still show today -- one of the things realized by Richard Nixon when he reviewed young Kevin Phillips's map of national electoral patterns, which he compiled as a teenager).
Slavery, as the document I quoted shows, was excluded from California by freesoil interest through devices very like those complained about by freesoilers in Kansas, when the Lecompton convention sat. Of course, we don't hear about Southerners' having received a raw deal in California, which was, as Rhett says, very well suited to plantation agriculture -- or any other kind of agriculture, since it has become one of the breadbaskets of North America.
Nevertheless, the Southerners were successfully shut out of California by a cabal, which obtained California's admission to the Union as a freesoil State. And so California was not on the table when the Southern States left the Union.
The Southerners were, I'm sure, perfectly aware that they couldn't just claim large territories and walk off with them, without some sort of resolution of the Territories' status between the Confederacy and the United States. But the Confederate commissioners attempting to discuss issues created by secession were repeatedly rebuffed by Lincoln, and so I'm sure it became pretty obvious that, the United States being on a war footing, there would be no negotiation where the Territories were concerned.
The secession convention delegates had to be aware of this possibility, that secession might mean the abandonment, in practice, of all access to the Territories. But they went ahead and voted for secession anyway -- truncating that leg of your "it was all about slavery" argument.
Northern Black Laws prohibited them from settling in the Northern states.
Frederick Douglass observed emancipation laws in the North had merely transformed people of color from slaves of individuals into "slaves of the community."
In the Northern states, we are not slaves to individuals, not personal slaves, yet in many respects we are the slaves of the community.
[jsuati #368] They understood where they would have a better chance at life.
If you say so.
Excellent post.
Well Linclon would not allow the expansion of slavery.
That was the reason that the South went to war over-expansion of slavery.
Because the South was desperate and offered freedom to those slaves who fought for them.
Now, how did the South treat northern blacks they captured fighing against them?
It is your inane position that is insignificant. Nobody is singing about those old cottonfields back home in New Mexico, Utah, or Nebraska. The Congress made it legal to take slaves to the territories and nobody went. The Supreme Court said the Constitution prevented Congress from passing any law preventing the taking of slaves into the territories. Nobody went. Total 1860 slave population in the territories -- 44.
You really deserve that boot. As a didactic aid.
Running headlong into war, in 1860-61, one wonders why the southern leadership, at such a materiel and manpower disadvantage, chose to "call the North's bluff." Perhaps they believed their own propaganda.
Perhaps they saw the pre-Sumter state of Northern opinion and underestimated the power of New York to set the agenda, and of Northern papers to generate the war propaganda Lincoln needed to mobilize and sustain a war.
And how could Lincoln lawfully do that?
Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void;United States Supreme Court, Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) (7-2)
However, with free states coming in, the balance of power was shifting from the slave states (held largely due to the 3/4 rule) to free ones.
A constitutional amendment would had eventually been put into place to end slavery expansion if the Courts kept defending it (like Dred Scott)
The South had begun to look at Slavery as a positive good and did not want any interference with it.
They did not like the fact that many in the nation hated slavery and wanted it to be limited (while keeping the Consitution intact)
The South had a persecution complex about their 'peculiar institution'
Here is a pic of the finished product.
A constitutional amendment would had eventually been put into place to end slavery expansion if the Courts kept defending it (like Dred Scott)
A Constitutional amendment also requires 3/4ths of the states.
The myriad of Black laws in the North clearly establishes that they did not want the Black population to come North. Plain and simple, nobody wanted a large population of free Black NEIGHBORS.
I don't know who the "many" were who "hated" slavery (they were a very small minority) but Lincoln had this to say:
Although I have ever been opposed to slavery, so far I rested in the hope and belief that it was in course of ultimate extinction. For that reason, it had been a minor question with me.
-- Lincoln, speech July 17, 1858In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."
Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the federal government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding states only.
-- Lincoln, February 27, 1860
So?
That is a far cry from believing people should be considered property.
I don't know who the "many" were who "hated" slavery (they were a very small minority) but Lincoln had this to say: Although I have ever been opposed to slavery, so far I rested in the hope and belief that it was in course of ultimate extinction. For that reason, it had been a minor question with me. -- Lincoln, speech July 17, 1858 In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up." Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the federal government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding states only. -- Lincoln, February 27, 1860
Note, as far as Lincoln rested in the hope of slavery eventual extinction it was a minor point.
When the Missiouri compromise was thrown out, and Douglas began advocating 'popular sovereignity' with the Kansas Nebraska act Lincoln saw the exactly what the slave holders were attempting.
Hence his 'house divided speech which stated that this nation is going to end up either all slave or all free.
Lincoln never believed that the Federal gov't had a right to end slavery, he did believe they had a right to control its spread, as did Jefferson.
[ftD #397] So? That is a far cry from believing people should be considered property.
It is a major impediment to emancipation.
[Lincoln quoting Jefferson] "If ... it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."
[Lincoln eulogizing Henry Clay, July 6, 1852] "Cast into life where slavery was already widely spread and deeply seated, he did not perceive, as I think no wise man has perceived, how it could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself."
[Henry Clay said of slavery it was] "nothing in comparison with the far greater evil which would inevitably flow from a sudden and indiscriminate emancipation."
[Thomas Jefferson] "This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question `What further is to be done with them?' join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.
If one desires to free 4 MILLION people and NOT have them as neighbors, one must get RID of them somehow. Take away the territories and all that is left is the absurdity of colonization.
Letter on the Relation of the White and African Races in the United States Showing the Necessity of the Colonization of the Latter
Addressed to President Abraham Lincoln
May 18, 1862
"Let us then, earnestly and respectfully recommend as a remedy for our present troubles and future danger, the perfecting the proposed plans of the administration in regard to those two conflicting races, and the careful and gradual removal of the colored race to some desirable and convenient home. This suggests that the tropical lands of our own hemisphere should be devoted to their use, and that all available means should be seized to pour a flood of Anglo-African civilization on the tropical lands of the old hemisphere most accessible to us (Western Africa.) In doing this we take from imperialism its temptation to tamper with our republicanism; for by preserving the heterogeneous character of our population, we perpetuate our republican equality in social and civil life.""It further suggests that our legislation should cover the wants and well-being of both races, and that statesmen should consider, first, the good of the white race, then, the good and well-being of the black; making at least as liberal appropriations for the colonization of the Indian, upon whom millions on millions have been expended with but imperfect success in the cause of civilization, whilst the slender means of the friends of the African civilization have produced lasting results. Some affect to fear that the man of color will not remove to a separate locality. It is not to be expected that a race, which has hardly attained a mental majority, will rise in a day to the stature of the men who found empires, build cities, and lay the ground work of civil institutions like ours; nor should they be expected to do this unaided and alone. They should receive the kind attention, direction, and aid of those who understand such things; nor will the world condemn a gentle pressure in the forward course to overcome the natural inertia of masses long used to the driver's will and rod. Let us do justice in the provision we make for their future comfort, and surety they will do justice to our distracted Republic. If they should fail to do this, there would then be more propriety in weighing the requirement of some to remove without consultation, but not till then. The more intelligent men of color can now see the necessity that rests upon us, and they will aid us in this work. We know that there is a growing sentiment in the country which considered the removal of the freed man, without consulting him, "a moral and military necessity" -- as a measure necessary to the purity of public morals and the peace of the country; and this unhappy war of white man with white man, about the condition of the black, will multiply this sentiment. But we cannot go further now than suggesting, that the mandatory relation held by the rebel master should escheat to the Federal government in a modified sense, so as to enable his proper government and gradual removal to a proper home where he can be independent."
The Supreme Court decision to the contrary was 7-2.
The Lincoln belief is illogical. Any of the existing states could have authorized slavery within its jurisdiction. A new state, having joined the Union, would have the same rights as the other states.
The problem was the Constitution, not the Dred Scott decision. The Constitution allowed slavery and left it up to the States. That is the deal that was made. Had that not been agreed to, the Constitution would not have been ratified. However, that agreement was ratified by -all- the states. That some were no longer happy with the agreement -they- made does not change it.
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.