3 major U.S. Civil War movies due in 2003: Could Rebel Flag Revival Follow? (My Title)

The Washington Times ^ | November 29th, 2002 | Scott Bowles

[End The Hypocrisy]

Three MAJOR civil war cinema epics are due in 2003. 1) Robert Duvall plays Robert E. Lee in Gods & Generals, out Feb. 21; 2) Jude Law portrays a jaded confederate in Cold Mountain, due Dec. 25, 2003; and 3) Tom Cruise plays a Civil War veteran who witnesses the end of a Japanese culture in The Last Samurai, due Dec. 12, 2003. Gods & Generals is replete with special effects, although director Maxwell still used more than 10,000 extras to re-create battle scenes.

[Non-Sequitur]

In 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North.

How do you get this figure? What evidence do you have that the south paid 87% of the tariff income. That would mean that they either consumed 87% of the direct imports or 87& of the output from tariff-protected industries. Where is your evidence for this? A flat claim like this is meaningless.

[Non-Sequitur]

Nobody's disputing the existence of state chapters, divisions, and whatever other goofy names they give themselves across the nation, but the location generally recognized by federal monitors to be the group's national headquarters is a compound in Indiana belonging to the National Knights of the KKK.

Generally recognized by you, you mean? A dozen or so separate Klan organizations pulled by a single string from Indianapolis? Cospiracy theories abound, I guess. You can criticize Dees' website all you want but but how about showing where he is wrong at least where the Klan is concerned?

[JoeGar]

I probably won't watch either of these, I just can't see Tom Cruise, Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, or Renee Zellweger in any Civil War movie that I would enjoy.

Be sure you read "Cold Mountain". It's really not a Civil War novel. It's more of a survival tale.

[Non-Sequitur]

Tariffs shift the whole price scheme around, which is where the costs of a tariff are incurred.

But any way you look at it, for the south to have incurred 87% of the tariff burden they would have had to consumed imports and manufactured goods way out of proportion to their population. I'm waiting for some evidence of that.

[Non-Sequitur]

It may have been a necessary evil in light of the chaotic times...

The ends justifies the means, like I said before. No wonder you admire Davis so much, he so closely resembles your namesake.

The overwhelming majority of blockade runners were privately owned, the government siezed parts of their cargo capacity without compensation. You may not have a problem with levies on agricultural produce, with a name like Stalin how could you, but that was a tax on top of the confederate tariff and the confederate income tax and the state taxes. Davis closed newspapers, jailed dissidents, and tossed former congessmen in the slam, and was far more intrusive into the lives of citizens and the dealings of private business than Lincoln every contemplated. But that's part of what endears him to you, isn't it.

[Non-Sequitur]

Also, perhaps you could comment on the Morill tariffs? For some background: The Republican platform of 1860 called for higher tariffs; that was implemented by the new Congress in the Morill tariff of March 1861, signed by President Buchanan before Lincoln took the oath of office. It imposed the highest tariffs in US history, with over a 50% duty on iron products and 25% on clothing; rates averaged 47%. The nascent Confederacy followed with a low tariff, essentially creating a free-trade zone in the South. Prior to this "war of the tariffs", most Northern newspapers had called for peace through conciliation, but many now cried for war.

What about the Morill tariffs? Those tariffs passed the House in the spring of 1860, they were passed by the Senate after 7 southern states had seceded and, amazingly enough, I can't find a single reference to those tariffs in any of the documents relating to secession. So I don't see how you can make the claim that they were a cause of secession.

Southern tariffs. If you are suggesting that the south would have been some sort of free trade zone, attracting imports destined for the North and undercutting the tariff collection in Boston and Philadelphia then that is ridiculous. The south directly imported very little to begin with so the loss in revenue to the North would not have been fatal. Goods imported through the Northern ports prior to the breakup would have continued to come in through those ports. Why would it be otherwise? Any goods imported into the south that would be sent to the North would have had two tariffs applied, the Northern one and the southern one, plus the additional shipping costs. Goods imported into the south, regardless of whether they came from the Union or Europe, would be submject to the same southern tariff so the North could still undercut European imports. A confederate 'free trade zone' would have been a trade zone to nowhere.

[End The Hypocrisy]

"Hey Supreme Court, race-based admissions quotas are necessary!" (Can we refute this, Freepers?):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/799154/posts

[Intimidator]

) Robert Duvall plays Robert E. Lee in Gods & Generals

I hope he does a better job than Martin Sheen did.

[Hacksaw]

It is based on the percent of total households just like the rate of home ownership is calculated today.

Which is still meaningless. The fact that my brother owns a Caddy does not make me a Caddy owner.

If you think the numbers are "bogus" you had best let the University of Virginia know that their historicaql census figures are all screwed up.

I'll get right on that.

[Non-Sequitur]

The fact that my brother owns a Caddy does not make me a Caddy owner.

But it does mean that your sister-in-law and all your nieces and nephews gain from his ownership of the Caddy. So while a census may register a single Cadillac owner in that household, there are several times that many people who actually benefit from your brother owning the car.

[Ditto]

So I guess to your way of thinking, since I own the house, my children are homeless.

Get right on that and tell the U of VA just how stupid they are.

[Ditto]

I hope he does a better job than Martin Sheen did.

Anyone could do a better job than Sheen did. That was the worst Southern accent I have ever heard and it really did take away from and otherwise fine film.

[I'm ALL Right!]

Ping!

[Hacksaw]

So I guess to your way of thinking, since I own the house, my children are homeless.

Does you children own the house or you? If your brother owns a Caddy - does that mean you do to?

Get right on that and tell the U of VA just how stupid they are.

It's quite high on my priotity list - like deciding if the toilet paper should be hung up or down.

[Ditto]

Does you children own the house or you? If your brother owns a Caddy - does that mean you do to?

Why is it you use a "brother' example and not a parent or spouse example? If you are a minor and your dad owns the Caddy, does it not benefit you? Did the slaves on the plantation only do work for the owner, or did they support his entire household? Did they only cut wood and haul water and grow food only for the "Master"?

The fact is that in the 19th century, very few women owned any property in their own name --- their husbands owned everything. Minors could not own property. Taking women and minors together added up to about 70% of the population leaving 30% who effectively owned all property. A significant percentage of drivers today are either not old enough or could not get financing for a car. There was a time when I owned 4 cars even though I only drove one of them. My kids had their "own cars" even though I held the title to them. They got the benefit from them just as the "young masters and mistresses" of the 19th century got the benefit from Daddy's slaves. The title was in Daddy's name, but the slave benefited the children and spouses just the same.

That is why we have historically counted things like land, homes, and slaves, that benefited the entire family in terms of households and not strictly on the basis of title.

[Colt .45]

Which despite all of your assertions does nothing ... repeat nothing ... to convince any of us that the South was wrong to secede. No sir, if anything, I am more firmly convinced that you are so steeped in Yankee lore, that you wouldn't know truth if it walked up and spit in your face.

The South seceded over the right of a State's self-determination ... what the Founders' bequeathed everyone. What America got with the Yankee victory in 1865 was enslavement to a big government, and loss of many personal freedoms. See how intrusive Big Brother is in your life now? See what a welfare state we have now? You can thank Lincoln and his cronies for that! As I have said before, it was up to the Slave States to end slavery ... not the intrusion of Government. The Founders must be spinning in their graves to see what we've become.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Founders must be spinning in their graves to see what we've become.

Well then it's all the south's fault for launching the rebellion in the first place and giving Lincoln the excuse he needed. </sarcasm>

[GOPcapitalist]

But any way you look at it, for the south to have incurred 87% of the tariff burden they would have had to consumed imports and manufactured goods way out of proportion to their population.

Sorry, but that is simply not so. Tariffs can realign entire national economies in ways reaching far beyond the physical imports a tariff is imposed against. And if retaliation is taken abroad, a tariff can realign the world economy. The dangers are far reaching beyond anything you give credit for or even comprehend. That is why your disguising your imcomplete stats as economic analysis simply doesn't work.

[GOPcapitalist]

Generally recognized by you, you mean?

No, by hate group monitoring authorities and operations. That Indiana compound is the main hub of Klan activity in America.

A dozen or so separate Klan organizations pulled by a single string from Indianapolis?

No, not really. Just affiliated with the national compound in Osceola as their hub.

[Ol'Grey Head]

Because someone else uses a symbol in a despicable way, I now have to avoid the symbol? Besides the KKK started as a secret society to fight the reconstructionist carpetbaggers. It perverted into an anti-black cult, which became mobster-like and used its terror to attack anyone, white or black, that stood in the way of its leaders will. I heard one story in eastern Oklahoma, where the KKK intimidated other whites to stop them from dating certain ladies, to contribute money etc. This behavior brought intense resistance to the KKK and their destruction as a political power.