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 ...
The fundamental problem of the Slaver society was its inability to accomodate the demands of modern life including capitalism. Jefferson and the Republican's view of banking put them in the power to banks outside the South and insured that the region would never be able to develop the infrastructure which could lead to financial strength and independence. This attitude insured that the wealth of the region would flow out of it and there is a great deal of truth in the statement that the plantations were run for the benefit of British bankers initially then the NE bankers after independence.
Those economic interests dragged ideologies along with them and the ideology of Freedom was more appropriate and powerful than the ideology of Boundage.
There is no capitalism which exists in the theoretic world with on intervention. Never was and never will be for many reasons. Ayn Rand is not an economic thinker of high quality or historian.
Hamilton's ideas went far beyond mercantilism which was based upon the concept of robbing Peter to pay Paul. He understood that the economic world was not a zero sum game and that limiting an economy to the gold supply would not work in America. A Central bank or National bank was anathama to mercantilist theory.
It is not too difficult, even for you, to compare the census numbers with the numbers which volunteered for the U.S. Army. If it is help is available.
If your singing is as bad as your ability to think, heaven help us.
"It's only a flesh wound!" says the Black Knight.
Not only do you need to build a cogent argument, you should try reference and citation
Citation #1: The Virginia Constitution of 1776. Now tell me again exactly what it is about the phrase "totally dissolved" that you do not understand.
Oooh another one whose mom must have whispered "abelincolnabelincolnabelincoln" in his crib.
ABE LINCOLN!!!! ok now you can come back out from under your bed.
As I've told you many times, capitan, I generally do not prefer to indulge in ad verecundiam renderings as it is an inherently weaker form of argumentation. It's also one of the reasons why you give such a poor showing on threads such as this one.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has its own autonomous local government, its own constitution - and it is most certainly not an independent state.
Puerto Rico never adopted a constitution declaring its ties with the U.S. were "totally dissolved" either. Now tell me again, capitan, exactly what don't you understand about that phrase?
Yes, but notice WHERE in the constitution that power is granted. It is in Article I and is granted to the Legislative branch. To suspend habeas corpus as Lincoln did was also to usurp a power of the Congress that he did not properly have in his own right.
The 10th merely stated that the states retained their local police powers and the power to regulate certain local and state concerns it did not empower states to take any action that would affect the Nation.
It was likely a sop to the slavers indicating that the fedgov would not interfere with their regulation of their favorite institution.
It is anything but the massive repository of power left to the states which the DSs claim it was.
No, have you?
That's very far from the truth. Find yourself any good biography of Jackson and look back to his days in Tennessee. Particularly look at a case involving the death of Peyton Anderson. Anderson, Jackson's best friend, was shot in an altercation after he tried to stab somebody and Jackson spent the next several months making all sorts of blustery threats on how he was going to ensure everybody he percieved to have wronged Anderson was going to hang. The legendary Felix Grundy put a stop to it all and Jackson was left with nothing more than blustery threats to his name.
Of course Hamilton was right. Jefferson's incomprehension of the meaning of the Constitution led to a disaster for those who swallowed it.
Lincoln's logic in that statement is false and circular. A union OF states cannot predate the component members by necessity. An association of colonies existed before the declaration, but not a union of states.
I find it interesting that you would think that Iredell "channeled" Hamilton, because Iredell was not a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention and I can find no evidence that up until that time he had ever even met Hamilton.
But, if you mistake the concept for Hamilton, I can assure you it is pure Madison:
"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in the enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution." (Madison in the 1st Congress during debates on the amendments, in reference to what would become the Ninth Amendment)
Thank you for quoting from Wood's Pulitzer Prize winning volume. It is on my "wish list." His Creation of the American Republic is a classic text, first published in the late 1960's. It won the Bancroft and Dunning prizes.
We're discussing conceptual theories, not their ideal applications, fake-it. Whether it is implemented in perfect fullness or not, the term "capitalism" in the modern sense refers to something of a laissez-faire persuasion that at the very most only tolerates intervention while arguing against it. It does not refer to that which celebrates and openly espouses intervention as a positive good as Hamilton did. The two are mutually exclusive.
Ayn Rand is not an economic thinker of high quality or historian.
Who ever brought her into it?
Hamilton's ideas went far beyond mercantilism
Every economic historian whose worth anything identifies Hamilton as a "neo-mercantilist" and places him in the same school of thought as Freidrich List. I've already given you dozens of references to this universally accepted fact in our previous debates. That your bizarre Hamilton fetish induces you to reject this notion and buck the entire field of economic sciences is not a concern to me as your unsupported personal opinion carries no weight with much of anything.
may i gently suggest you go do some REAL research on lincoln, the tyrant, before you make yourself look MORE IGNORANT than you seem now?
free dixie,sw
"TOTALLY DISSOLVED."
i have LITTLE trouble making damnyankee lunatics (like "heyworth the HATEFILLED" for example) either ANGRY and/or making them look HYPOCRITICAL,IGNORANT,ARROGANT,MEAN-SPIRITED and/or DUMB. they do all that by themselves!
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Your inability to admit to Taney's deceptions speaks volumes about your own intellectual honesty - or lack thereof. At least Taney tried to rationalize his changes.
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.