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 what units?
Worth repeating - excellent post!
When I say "the Court must respect the structure of government," that means that activist justices must not legislate from the bench. Legislating is left to the Congress. And Congress is an institution which legislates through the development of majorities.
We'll see why you are "laughing" with your next comment:
"[Fehrenbacher's book] ... attempts to discredit a very sound legal decision."
Ring the bells and throw the confetti. Folk's, 4ConservativeJustices wins the "stupidest comment on the thread" award! Even the most ardent racists don't call the Dred Scott decision "a very sound legal decision." Before I will take any more of your comments seriously concerning the DS decision, I suggest you either (1) actually read the book in question, or (2) cite your references as to DS's "soundness."
"Please provide DOCUMENTATION from the 6 justices siding with Chief Justice Taney that the holding in the decision had been changed."
Why would the "co-conspirators" care? The documentation exists in the National Archives, which contain two sets of printer's proofs, demostrating Taney's substantial changes. (Supreme Court Records, RG 267, Opinion in Appellate Cases, Box no. 52, National Archives)
What a maroon!
everything, according to you, that was ever done by the southland,her people & her leaders during her struggle for FREEDOM was flawed,incorrect,stupid,corrupt and WRONG.
otoh, everything ever done by the damnyankee coven of thugs around lincoln, the TYRANT & GREAT spiller of innocent blood, was PERFECT in every way.
as i said before, smart people on FR are on to your game. you simply are a propagandist for the most extreme, south-HATING, REVISIONIST fringe on FR. nothing more,nothing less.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
FUNNY that the damnyankee extremists like YOU and damnyankee PROPAGANDISTS like N-S can't find them when everyone else can.
could it be that you are BLINDED by your hate for the southland & her continuing struggle for FREEDOM?
or is it that you aren't smart enough to go look for yourself???
several times on other WBTS threads, the origional SOURCE documentation has been posted, such that ANYONE could go look for themselves.
BUT instead of going to do their research (as an intelligent/curious person would) the damnyankee LUNATICS on FR said that NONE of the records, regardless of source, COULD BE TRUE! for that reason, nobody on our side is likely again in this lifetime to go do hundreds of hours (or even ONE hour) of research, so that the damnyankees here can say: "that's a bad source" OR to ignore the source. (in point of fact, ONE of your number said that EVERYTHING in the OR was CONTAMINATED by "the rebel scum" & could NOT be believed!) damnyankees are nothing if not consistent-consistently HATEFUL & WRONG.
free dixie,sw
In its literal use, it does necessarily mean that there are two or more competing parties seeking control of the area - so yes, it does necessarily mean that at least one claimant is denied his claim to the property. But you were not even using the word in that sense, rather only the word "captured" as it stood alone. So I'll ask you once again: Who did they capture it from? Or put another way, who asserted the competing claim?
They were likely lost in the Richmond fire. Those that survive identify the officers of each unit and briefly describe some of their activities.
Now, if there were these all black units were they composed of free black men or slaves being promised their freedom?
Some of both. The majority of the troops in one of the units are known to have come from the Winder-Jackson military hospital staff in Richmond. It included both slaves and freedmen.
about the same percentage of slave owners were in the north as in the south. (didn't know that did you? the overall percentage was 5-6%.)
how did the new england slaveTRADERS & ship's masters from new england treat their cargo? (about 1 of 3 slaves, actually landed in the USA, remained alive, as compared to the number captured in Africa!) were they BLAMELESS in your opinion, since they were damnyankees?
what if anything did the so-called "anti-slavery" societies do about freeing northern slaves, including those still in bondage AFTER Richmond fell? (NOTHING is the truthful answer!)
go do some research & come back & we'll talk. otherwise, head over to DU to spread your south-HATING nonsense & drivel. (DU likes FOOLS & LIARS!)
free dixie,sw
Is there truly that much of a difference? One placed blacks in the sole custody of a white master here and made them work. The other, as I have shown from Lincoln's contract, tried to do virtually the same thing to blacks only in Panama. In either case the blacks were screwed.
Moreover, I think Lincoln's view on colonization had changed due to the fact that Blacks did not want to go back to Africa.
There is no evidence of that and in fact only three days before his assassination Lincoln held a meeting at the White House to devise a plan for the first shipment of blacks to Panama. They were supposed to go there and build him a canal.
And Lincoln would not force them to do so.
Incorrect. Lincoln realized that he could not force civilian blacks to leave and that ordering them to do so would probably be fruitless. He knew, however, that there were almost two hundred thousand blacks in the army, which he could order to do anything he wanted. With the war over he planned to order them down to Panama as part of a "military" activity, where they would start the colony and, presumably, their families would follow them there voluntarily. That is why Lincoln hatched the scheme with two military generals rather than going through congress - he sent Daniel Sickles down to Panama in early 1865 to feel out for and cut the deal, and he met with Ben Butler in the White House on April 11th to devise the transport logistics of the scheme.
i didn't know anyone of above "room tempature IQ" & the age of 10 still believed that lincoln, the GREAT BLOODSPILLER & tyrant, was any sort of hero.
he was nothing more or less than a cheap, scheming, power-hungry politician not UNlike wee willie klintoon.
free dixie,sw
did you also believe the NONSENSE, EVASIONS & LIES of wee willie klintoon?
lincoln & klintoon were the same sort of "leader".
BOTH would do/say ANYTHING to get ahead.
BOTH were nothing more or less than cheap,scheming shyster lawyers & politicians.
NEITHER could/SHOULD be trusted with telling the truth OR with our/your/anybody's freedom.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
mixed marriages seldom work.
i was ONCE dumb enough to marry a yankee woman. never again.
free dixie,sw
lol.
free dixie,sw
And it did so without consequence and with good reason. The first shot on a flag was on the Star of the West, which had troops for Fort Sumter hidden below its decks on a false resupply mission.
The second shot was a warning shot on the merchantman Rhoda Shannon a few weeks later in a case of mistaken identity for a federal warship.
The third shot was fired by the federal warship USS Harriet Lane on a southern civilian passenger ship entering Charleston harbor the night before the battle of Fort Sumter.
The fourth shot was fired on Fort Sumter itself - a preemptive strike to induce the fort's surrender before the arrival and assault of a northern fleet of warships that was amassing outside of the harbor.
Needless to say, to pretend that the said fourth shot, aimed at a fort in a battle that produced no casualties, justified the full scale invasion of 14 states, three of which were not even secessionist at the time of invasion, is akin to employing an atomic warhead to silence the neighbor's barking dog.
he is BLINDED by HATE of the southland.
A demonstration of shoddy scholarship on Lewis's part. Professor Fehrenbacher documents that, "Meanwhile, a few newspapers had awakened to the potential significance of Dred Scott v. Sandford. The first was the Washington Evening Star, which on February 12 [1856!] declared, 'The public of Washington do not seem to be aware that one of the most important cases brought up for adjudication by the Supreme Court is now being tried before that august tribunal' .... Horace Greeley reported that the Court would soon decide 'a most important case, involving the validity (in its day) of the Missouri restriction.'"
Fehrenbacher further shows that "By Christmas 1856, Dred Scott's name was probably familiar to most Americans who followed the course of national affairs. Major newspapers throughout the country carried summaries of the four-day reargument." The ramifications of the decision were important enough that at least two members of the Court (Catron and Grier) "tipped off" doughface President-elect Buchanan as to the verdict prior to his inauguration speech. DS was probably the most anticipated decision of the Supreme Court up to that time.
Fehrenbacher notes in Chapter 18, "The Judges Judged," that "The first wave of public comment on the Dred Scott Decision was in response to the newspaper summaries of the oral opinions delivered on March 6 and 7, 1857.... Horace Greeley's New York Tribune set the pace with editorials almost every day denouncing this 'atrocious,' this 'wicked,' this 'abominable' judgement, which was no better than what might be obtained in any 'Washington bar-room' - denouncing the 'cunning chief' who collation of false statements and shallow sophistries' reavealed a 'detestable hypocrisy' and a 'mean and skulking cowardice'.... The Chicago Democrat-Press "expressed 'a feeling of shame and loathing' for 'this once illustrious tribunal, toiling meekly and patiently this dirty job.'; and the Chicago Tribune, which declared: 'We scarcely know how to express our detestation of its inhuman dicta, or to fathom the wicked consequences which may flow from it.'" Interestingly, in footnotes Fehrenbacher remarks, "For extensive quotations from press opinion, see Albert J. Beveridge..."
Fehrenbacher then notes, "A new surge of public interest in Dred Scott's case during late May and early June, 1857, resulted from news of his manumission and the curious circumstance surrounding it, but also from the publication of the official version of the decision in Howards Report's." "Most remarkable, however, was the extensive newspaper coverage in a day when only a few major journals exceeded four pages." "Montgomery Blair heard John McLean's opinion read from a pulpit on the first Sunday after it was read in court. One of the most notable performances was a series of sermons denouncing slavery and the Supreme Court by George B. Cheever of the Church of the Puritans in new York City." The Congregationalist weekly, the Independent called the decision a "vain attempt to change the law by power of Judges who have achieved only their own infamy." The decision was a "deliberate, willful perversion, for a particular purpose," the paper said. "If the people obey this decision, they disobey God."
The statement that the politicians did not take note of the DS decision for some time is also incorrect and specious. Comment concerning the case from the Congress wasn't going to happen until the Congress was back in session - December 1857, if I am not mistaken. But notables such as Thomas Hart Benton, "... smelling far too much essence of Calhoun in Taney's opinion, turned aside [from his Debates in Congress] to write 'with incredible speed' a book of 130 pages (plus a 62-page appendix'" about the failings of the decision.
So Walker Lewis is just wrong. If for no other reason, however, Lewis's scholarship should be questioned for this boner: "Slavery violated [Taney's] conscience. His opposition to abolition was not because he wished to perpetuate slavery but because he believed abolitionists misguided."
Andy Jackson made a lot of blustery threats. Now actually carrying through with them is another story...
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.