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 ...
That symmetry, which had long preserved the Union, was broken when California came in alone in 1850. After that, the South was outvoted in the Senate and the war, or at least secession, was inevitable.
Was the "Civil War" about slavery, or was secession about slavery? Or, can it be either as convenience allows?
Why did the North introduce slavery to the South? Was it a good idea, or something we just don't talk about...questions that we ignore?
If the war was about slavery, why did the North maintain their slaves after those in the South were free?
The war was about slavery...right?
Why the continued deption of labeling, such as "Civil War" & "United States"?
Please ignore any questions that you may feel uncomfortable with.
So true. Today, everyones liberty and rights are subserviant to the federal governments.
"Sweet!"
(congratulations)
While I do not want to get bogged down in a discussion of the entire panoply of social factors at play in the South after the War, I will point out something, which you have overlooked in your suggestion that Southern employers would have denied employment to Negroes in order to keep the poor Whites in line. The wealthy class in the South was pushed out of power by the 14th Amendment, which disenfranchised many if not most of them, as a punishment for supporting the war. The Southern patrician only gradually regained political influence.
But as to employment preferences, I again recommend the Frederick L. Hoffman study from 1895. (He was the Chief Actuary for Prudential Insurance, and was writing from a business point of view.)
You might also consider the acknowledgement by Gunnar Myrdal, the Swedish Socialist Economist/Sociologist, who compiled the study that the Warren Court cited in over-turning over a century of legal precedents in ordering school desegregation in 17 States. While it is not a part that the "Liberals" or judicial activists like to cite, Myrdal acknowledges in his book that his ideas could ruin the Negro middle-class in the South. (Of course, as a Socialist, he had no great concern for the middle class, who are after all the principal target of most Socialist movements.)
I will grant you that the issues are quite complex, and wish that I had more time at the moment to more fully develop them.
William Flax
The confederates fired on the US flag, and suffered the consequences.
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.
-- James Madison to Daniel Webster, Mar. 15, 1833
Madison would have been all in favor of hanging the secessionists.
What Northern ststes had slavery in 1860?
Much more to do with Roosevelt, but nonetheless, evil things flowing out of the civil war rest on the secessionists, just as the deaths of innocents in Iraq rest on Saddam's shoulders.
I'll cheer when Saddam bites the big one. It remains sad that innocents will perish because of him.
We lost innocents, wealth, and freedoms because of the South's love affair with slavery. But it all rests on their shoulders.
The South may have lost the war...but we damn sure didn't get our "arses" kicked. Without the conservative South...this country today would be more communist than Red China. Below is an image of the 2000 electoral map. Yankee blue states voting for socialism, Southern Patriot and Heartland states in red. Sweet!
Sweet!
The south seceded because it felt that the institution of slavery was at stake. Free states were gaining ground in the congress. Lincoln carried the free states ... it was the end of power for slave states. They bolted immediately. That is the history. Deny it if you will. But those are the facts.
May have lost? May have???? I think history is pretty clear on the size of the arse kicking the south got. They've been a bit more behaved since -- kinda like a beaten dog.
Not every slave state chose to secede. The free states were coming into majority power and slavery was near its end. The actual effect of the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 was that by 1865 there were no slaves anywhere in the US. By Dec of 1865, the states had ratified the 13th Amendment.
Before his assasination in early 1865, Lincoln had personally pressed the House of Representatives to get the 2/3rds majority to approve the 13th amendment. The senate had previously gone for it massively. It took less than a year for the states to forever abolish slavery.
Slavery had remained legal in the US due to the early influence of southern voting power. As soon as they lost power, slavery was abolished. There was no huge appetite for slavery in the north, contrary to your implication. An institution maintained for 300 years by southern pressure ended in the blink of an eye -- just as the south lost voting majority.
Let's see....the South was usually faced with superior numbers and equipment on the field of battle and yet we still managed to kill more of you Yankees. That hardly qualifies as an "arse kicking" in anyone's book.
At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:
Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222
The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:
Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000
Face it boy....everyone knows Southerners are better fighters than you blue zone socialist pansies....then and now.
Yep, Ole Dixie really did us proud in the Louisiana runoff on Dec 7th. didn't she?
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.