Posted on 02/17/2003 10:41:15 AM PST by stainlessbanner
Director says 'Gods' has Southern slant, but 'full humanity'
The North may have won the Civil War, but in Hollywood, the South reigns triumphant.
That was certainly true in 1915, when D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation portrayed the conflict as a war of Northern aggression where order was restored only by the arrival of the Ku Klux Klan. It was true in 1939, when Gone With the Wind looked back on the antebellum South as an unrivalled period of grace and beauty never to be seen again. It was true when Clint Eastwood played The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), a Confederate war veteran who has run afoul of Northern "justice."
(Excerpt) Read more at sunspot.net ...
If Cuba shelled and occupied Guantanamo Bay would you consider that to be all right? Fort Sumter was the property of the federal government. It was built on an island made of Vermont granite, on land deeded to the United States by the South Carolina legislature, and was paid for by federal revenue provided by all the states. South Carolina had no right to seize it without negotiation.
Only a mental midget could offer an oversimplifid rant such as that.
James Madison, the father of the constitution said you are dead wrong on that. According to him, unilateral secession was not constitutional in any way, shape or form.
Huh? We invaded Germany because they were bad. Just like we invaded the secessionists states because they were bad. Enslavers. Lincoln had the support of the congress. So there was nothing illegal going on. All Constitutional issues were settled. The secessionists had removed themselves from Constitutional protection.
Your position is hopless. You were a foreign hostile power in your own minds. You got you arse whoooped trying to maintain slavery. Get over it.
Are you purporting that had the South freed their slaves, the North would have had no objection to seccession?
James Madison, the father of the constitution said you are dead wrong on that. According to him, unilateral secession was not constitutional in any way, shape or form.
Actually, it doesn't really matter. In the secessioist eyes, they no longer had Constitutional protection, so to them anything in the Constitution had no meaning. They can't rely on it one way or the other, as they have renounced it by seceding.
In Lincoln's eyes he could see it two ways -- they were still in the Union and therefore violating the Constitution, or they were now a hostile foreign power. In either case Lincoln could persue the interests of the Union by invading the hostile foreign power -- or -- invading the Constitution violating rebel states.
Secessionists have no legal case to complain about Lincoln's actions.
What about the Northern enslavers??????????????? The North maintained slavery after the War.
With the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in December 1865, slavery was officially abolished in all areas of the United States.
What took y'all so long.
It sure is funny,,y'all never mention your slaves. Why is that??
Where did you get this from? The Federal Government has always exercised the power of eminent domain, ever since the first Judiciary Act of 1789. The Supreme Court's decision in Barron v Baltimore (1830) held that the Fifth Amendment's requirement that property be seized under eminent domain be justly compensated applied only to eminent domain seizures by the federal government. So obviously there were such federal seizures.
It was a political compromise. The US Government officially called it "The War of the Rebellion" until 1902; the South was unhappy with that perjorative label, and wanted to substitute "The War between the States": the North objected to that name as giving the losers equality with the winners; Congress settled on the (arguably technically inaccurate) name "Civil War" as a way for everyone to save face; Northern and Southern representatives and senators agreed on that compromise.
I didn't "purport" any such thing, one way or the other. It may be an interesting question -- but I'll leave it to you to channel their spirits for their answer.
My granddaddy was a peasant man who came to America around the turn of the 20th century. So there never were any slaves in my blood line. Sorry.
However, no "northern" states seceded over the slaver issue or any other issue.
In Minnesota's case, the state was admitted to the Union in 1858 as a free state, just two years before the election of Lincoln. Southern states attempted to delay the admission of Minnesota because they insisted that states be paired when admitted, one slave for every one free.
Actually all the Northern states had ended slavery on their own by January 1865 with the sole exception of Kentucky and y'all claim them as one of the confederacy anyway. Slavery would also still have been legal in those areas of the south not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation.
But thanks for your comments.
Thank you New York. So do I. It was one heck of a war. One that should not have been persued.
But since I always have to be different and strange, I'd probably wear a confederate cap to see Gods and Generals. I hope my rambling makes sense to everyone.
LOL,,,what ever you decide to wear,,go see it!
Yet you state, with confidence, the 'Civil War' was about slavery. Be bold, be brave. Confidence should not ebb & flow out of convenience.
Why did the North introduce slavery to the South?
Why did the North maintain their slaves after those in the South were free?
Asserting the war was about slavery also asserts that a slaveless South would have been allowed to seceed. An absurd assertion. The North would not, and did not allow secession; as the conflict had little to do with slavery.
This "slavery" component is a re-write of history, as is calling it the "Civil War", and these states "United". A re-write intended to salve the guilt of persecuting a war of tyranny.
So many deceptions.
To this day(as back then), most up north readily turn over their lives, and mine, to the whim of the federal government.
Socialists rarely identify themselves as such. Deception is frequently employed to hide their true face. Born to be slaves, many are ashamed to be recognized as such.
Why on earth would anyone accept your dictates as to what their heritage is & means? Put down that burden. Release the guilt. Stop calling my honor disgusting, and accept forgiveness.
The secessionts states said secession was about slavery. The whole period leading up to secession was about the coming of the majority "free states." The slave states were loosing their clout. The election of Lincoln without carrying a single southern slave state spelled the end of slave state power. So they picked up their ball and decided to go home.
The end of slavery in the US was drawing near. The secessionist states realized it. Their act of secession speeded up the process and they got their arses kicked for good measure. Sweet!
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.