Posted on 06/23/2015 11:56:19 AM PDT by EveningStar
Edited on 06/24/2015 8:32:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
... I hate Gone With the Wind. I hate everything about it. I hate its portrayal of the Civil War. I hate its portrayal of Southern aristocrats. I hate its popularity. I hate that it's become an iconic movie. I hate that it was ever made in the first place.
Gone With the Wind is Birth of a Nation with less horses. The movie, and its position among the American cinematic pantheon, has done more to further the ahistoric Lost Cause bull**** than any other single production. Because that's the fundamental problem with the Lost Cause narrative: it's not true.
Let's go one-by-one through some typical Lost Cause-tinged revisionist talking points:
The Civil War was about economics, not slavery!
The Civil War was about states' rights, not slavery!
Are you just being contrary or are you one of those people who has to “be right” or have the last word, Bubba? I can let you do that, no problem. Just say so & let’s be done.
Actually, I *do* wish our military would step up & remove 0bama & his people from the government. How many times have they broken the law? Our Congress is corrupt & worthless. They won’t take care of it, they’ll only grab for “theirs”.
I trust our military & our ousted generals one heckuva lot more than I trust what we’re saddled with.
Someone in another thread posted a link to an Act, article whatever, that would have made slavery permanent & irrevocable.
Yes, it went both ways. What you are saying doesn’t negate the opposite. Just because you don’t want to acknowledge it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
What do we have now? We have a situation where people’s every need is provided for (while others are excluded because they don’t have the right last name, origin, or ethnicity) & they don’t need to do a thing in return but file paperwork. They can be bone idle & even engage in criminal activity. The taxpayer foots the bill (how is that not “slavery”?) & gets nothing in return but more demands & more trouble.
I’m not “defending” it at all. I’m saying it wasn’t the parasitic, demonic evil that you (the left & the BGI) are portraying it as.
I really don’t care if there’s an “aristocracy” or not. I’ve never lived in one. The only thing I long for is relief from a bunch of overbearing fanatics (whom I happen to disagree with) who are bound & be-damned to run every minute aspect of my life.
I don’t know if you’re trolling for S&G, BGI yourself, a democrat in RINO clothing or WTH. I won’t speculate. Now, you’re annoying me so have a nice day.
Poor me? Poor YOU. And except for the taxes you pay, I doubt you (or any of your recent relations) have ever been enslaved a day in your life.
Sadly, true. That’s exactly how they think.
Which "four score and seven years ago" was regarded as a just cause, and referred to as "Independence". They even wrote about it.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The rebellion was over slavery,
Not on the Union side it wasn't. As I have mentioned to you before, A D@mn I do not give about WHY one people wish to disassociate themselves from another, I simply believe that forced association is wrong.
That the Croats and Serbs do not wish to associate is all I need to know. I do not care to wade into their specific reasons for wishing to be separate, I only recognize that people have, and ought to have a right to associate with whom they please, and likewise to disassociate from whom they please.
Some slave states did not rebel, therefore, no action was taken against them.
You mean, they continued to do what Washington D.C. told them to do. Exactly! It wasn't the SLAVERY that Washington D.C. found unacceptable, it was the DEFIANCE that Washington D.C. could not tolerate. (same as now.)
So why the F**k do you keep going on and on and on about slavery, when you keep inadvertently admitting that Slavery wasn't the reason Washington D.C. ordered armies into those states?
You seem to have a great deal of difficulty with this concept, despite having it explained to you over and over.
Because I do not accept the idea of placing a LESSER PRINCIPLE above that of a SUPERIOR PRINCIPLE. It is the bone of contention between us that you do.
You could fill a book with what I don’t know. Thanks for the information. As you can tell, I don’t know much about Cleopatra. It was a poor reference to other slavery.
Slaves have been around since one nation conquered another nation and kept the survivors as slaves. Some slavery still exists in various countries today.
Texas has a long history of slavery beginning in the 1600’s through the Civil War. The type and source of slaves varied under each flag over Texas. As agriculture was introduced, it required large amounts of labor. Most slaves were brought to Texas for that purpose.
But not all slaves in Texas were African blacks. There were exceptions. Under the Mexican flag, White European and Hispanic settlers captured in raids were sold and traded as slaves among the Commanche and other Indian tribes in 1840’s Texas. Kind of a reverse slavery situation which Mexico allowed.
So as a white person of Celtic (Irish) descent, might I find the Mexican flag to be offensive because slavery existed in Texas under that flag? Should I demand WalMart* stop selling anything Mexican or Native American because my ancestors MIGHT have been slaves?
Of course not. I’m not an idiot who thinks that history and heritage can be changed by simply banning a flag. Nor do I believe in ostracizing someone because of his/her heritage.
Oops, change “in 1840’s Texas’ to “prior to Texas independence”. Thanks.
Just because you rebel doesn't make your cause righteous, or guarantee that it will succeed.
Not on the Union side it wasn't.
The United States did not rebel. It put down a rebellion. The distinction appears lost on you.
As I have mentioned to you before, A D@mn I do not give about WHY one people wish to disassociate themselves from another, I simply believe that forced association is wrong.
Except that as you've said before, an individual doesn't have that right, my block doesn't have that right, the Lion's Club doesn't have that right. It's only a right, as far as I understand your position, that only comes at some level of "the people" which you consistently appear to be unable or unwilling to define.
! It wasn't the SLAVERY that Washington D.C. found unacceptable, it was the DEFIANCE that Washington D.C. could not tolerate. (same as now.)
It was rebellion, beginning with the shelling of a United States Army fort, that Washington found unacceptable. Are you saying they should have? Are you aware that the Constitution specifically gives the government the power to suppress insurrections?
So why the F**k do you keep going on and on and on about slavery, when you keep inadvertently admitting that Slavery wasn't the reason Washington D.C. ordered armies into those states?
Inadvertently? I've said it outright, over and over, and you keep acting like you've caught me in something. As for why slavery keeps coming up as an issue in these discussions, it's because it's the entire rationale that the southern states gave for their actions, as I've abundantly demonstrated. Like in Mississippi's declaration "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." THAT'S why these discussions always talk about slavery. Sorry that that's a problem for you.
Perhaps you should read it again.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
or guarantee that it will succeed.
And that is true. Sometimes the tyrants are stronger than those who would be free of them.
The United States did not rebel. It put down a rebellion. The distinction appears lost on you.
Again, you think you are smart, but you obviously are not. The document which FOUNDED this nation was the Declaration of Independence.
The UNION most certainly did REBEL against those principles listed therein. They had no RIGHT to keep other people under their rule against their will. So says the Declaration. So says the foundation of our government.
Except that as you've said before, an individual doesn't have that right, ...
I am not going to humor your childish argument that 11 states with a combined population five times bigger than all 13 colonies in 1776, was not sufficient to demand self determination. Sell this bullshit waste of time to someone stupid enough to give it credence.
You make me think your some sort of idiot for even suggesting that argument. Are you really that desperate that you need such a straw to grasp at?
It was rebellion, beginning with the shelling of a United States Army fort, that Washington found unacceptable. Are you saying they should have?
The continued placement of Federal troops in the territory of a people who clearly have formed another nation and do not want them there is a deliberate provocation in and of itself.
I think the Confederates would have been better off shelving their pride and waiting them out, but they didn't. I think the Union should have responded, but not with an Invasion plan.
Are you aware that the Constitution specifically gives the government the power to suppress insurrections?
11 states seeking self determination is not an insurrection.
As for why slavery keeps coming up as an issue in these discussions, it's because it's the entire rationale that the southern states gave for their actions, as I've abundantly demonstrated.
And I guess you are just simple minded. I and others are certainly not bringing up this point, YOU ARE. You keep using it to IGNORE the more significant point that this aspect is irrelevant to the reasons the Union invaded.
I don't give a f**k if they seceded because they didn't like Clam Chowder, their reasons for wanting a divorce do not have anything to do with why the Husband d@mn near beat his wife to death for trying to leave him.
A wife doesn't have to have a good reason, a wife can have any reason she d@mn well pleases, and a Husband has no right to force her to stay.
"Yeah, I beat my wife to sh*t, but she had it coming. She tried to leave me, but she was a dope smoker, so I had every right to beat the sh*t out of her. "
Substitute "Union" for "Husband", "Confederacy" for "Wife", and "Slavery" for "Dope Smoking", and the analogy is exactly correct.
You are trying to divert attention from the fact that your side FORCED people to remain under someone's else's control against their will, but it was okay, because they did bad things. Things to which we didn't object until we needed to moralize about why we beat the shit out of them.
You won't shut up about "Slavery" because that is the balm you use to salve your guilty conscious. It is the only thing that gives you ex post facto moral superiority, because without it, your side is obviously the naked aggressors with no other argument than rule by strength.
Your argument boils down to:
"They were bad so they deserved to get beat to hell and forced back into marriage. "
You are going to get a dose of this treatment yourself before this communist insurgency is over, i'll wager.
Sure, it's called the Natural Right of Rebellion. But you're the one who claims that this right only applies to a certain numerical or territorial threshold that you consistently refuse to define. What you seem to believe is a collective right, and not an individual right.
The UNION most certainly did REBEL against those principles listed therein. They had no RIGHT to keep other people under their rule against their will. So says the Declaration. So says the foundation of our government.
Then why does the Constitution give the government the power to put down insurrections? Again, you refuse to define what distinguishes an insurrection that can be put down with a right to declare yourself another country that cannot.
I am not going to humor your childish argument that 11 states with a combined population five times bigger than all 13 colonies in 1776, was not sufficient to demand self determination. Sell this bullshit waste of time to someone stupid enough to give it credence.
You're the one who says that an individual, or a city block, or some other group cannot, but that 11 states can. So the threshold is somewhere between those two but you won't say what it is. These are your stated beliefs that you consistently refuse to defend.
The continued placement of Federal troops in the territory of a people who clearly have formed another nation and do not want them there is a deliberate provocation in and of itself.
Saying that you're now a different country doesn't make it so, and shelling US Army troops tends not to end well for those who try it.
11 states seeking self determination is not an insurrection.
From the Militia Act of 1792:
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.
You keep using it to IGNORE the more significant point that this aspect is irrelevant to the reasons the Union invaded.
Look, I understand that the fact that the south launched their rebellion in order to preserve their economic interest in slavery is embarrassing to you and you'd rather not discuss it, instead focussing on just how UNFAIR it was that the slaver rebellion was defeated, but it's impossible to ignore the words of the people who led that rebellion when they said that slavery was EXACTLY why they did it, as much as you'd like to.
You won't shut up about "Slavery" because that is the balm you use to salve your guilty conscious
You think I have a guilty "conscious"? I guarantee you, I do not. But I think your constant insistence that the whole thing had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, no matter what anyone at the time said, shows that you are clearly uncomfortable with that fact and would like nothing better than to remove it from the conversation.
Maybe if someone else shows up, i'll spank you some more.
Perhaps someday you’ll defend your positions.
They are defended, but we aren't having an intellectual discussion, we are having an emotional one, so you don't realize you have been beaten.
You’re sorta like Nixon’s Vietnam policy: Declare victory and leave.
There's nobody left in here to take notice of your potshots, and they certainly don't impress me.
You keep saying goodbye, but you don’t leave.
Since the last word means so much to you, you can have it. :)
Bubba,
Here are some of the links I told you about.
http://earlyamericanists.com/2014/05/13/slavery-abolition-and-socialism-in-the-u-s-congress/
I am not attempting to re-engage this conversation. I don’t have time. But I said I would give you links, so here are a few.
Sorry, but none of those links supports your assertion that the abolitionists were fans of Marx, or had even heard of him. Certainly Marx was a fan of the abolitionists, and it’s undisputed that Marx wrote a fan letter to Lincoln (which there’s no indication he ever saw, since the thank you note for it was written by the US ambassador to Great Britain on the same day it was delivered to him in London). The truth is that Marx was a pretty obscure character until the 1870s. The Communist Manifesto had only appeared in English serialized in one magazine in 1848 and wouldn’t be published in America until 1872.
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.