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 ...
In essence that is what it was in the final analysis. Now people of your ilk are screaming bloody murder that the central gov't has grown too powerful. Where were you in 1860?
Okay, I'm walking into one here. Before you say it even this ignorant Southerner knows you were not born yet. Tell me, when is the blessed event due?
Are you so blind that you don't see the implicit denunciation of slavery in all of modern society? I DENOUNCE SLAVERY!. Hah! I beat you to it! I have formally denounced it and you haven't. Boy did I get you. nah nah.
You may not desire to discuss anything with me and that is fine. But as I have noted previously and will again point out, when you spread factual falsehoods on these threads I will point them out and reply with the facts. If you do not like that, either be more careful in your posts or don't make them in the first place. I have no interest in hearing your whines when you are called to task in front of others on this forum.
Since you're serving, I suppose. In the meantime, I'll happily point out the statistics of that election:
Louisiana Senate Runoff totals with New Orleans included:
Terrell - 596,642
Landrieu - 638,654
Orleans Parish results:
Terrell - 26,880
Landrieu - 105,780
Louisiana Senate Runoff totals minus New Orleans:
Terrell - 569,762
Landrieu - 532,874
So there you have it - exactly as I stated earlier. Without New Orleans and its heavy Democrat turnout, Terrell would have won.
Your whining about blacks not voting Republican in New Orleans proves you don't know jack bout Louisiana politics.
Much to the contrary, as the stats I just posted demonstrate. New Orleans voted Democrat in near unanimaty. Contrary to your assertions, the rest of the state voted Republican by a majority that was not large enough to offset the 80,000 vote automatic deficit that came out of New Orleans.
Not that I expect you to recognize any of those facts though...you've already decided that the south, despite being one of the most consistently Republican regions in the nation, voted for Landrieu when in fact her victory would not have happened at all except for the black Democrat parish of New Orleans.
Ask Abe Lincoln. In the words of Henry Adams, he actively worked to frame that issue for his party's political advantages. In the meantime, I'll simply note that it is absurd to try and reduce the conflict to any one issue alone, be it tariffs or slavery or something else. You and others have attempted to do that repeatedly around slavery, seemingly because, holding all other things equal, you seek to use it to claim a moral advantage from the begining for your side. In reality though, the tariff speeches you and others have claimed not to exist are all there in the congressional record. That is because there existence is not the real issue here. Rather it is the conscious actions taken to by yankee apologists for the purpose of ignoring, supressing, and lying about those speeches to keep them from the consciousness of the American public. Your own behavior here indicates that either you have been duped by this crowd or you are an active participant in those very same acts of ignorance, suppression, and dishonesty.
On the other hand, if tairffs were such an issue what prevented the southern politicians from submitting Constitutional amendments to address their grievances?
Did you not read my previous post? By its very nature, the tariff debate was legislative. Why try and change the Constitution, which requires an unattainable 2/3rds majority, over an issue that could be settled by an also unattainable yet lesser 50% plus one majority?
But not a single one of them offered a compromise proposal to address them?
They did. Senator Hunter and his backers offered several amendments to the Morrill Act when he was fighting it on the senate floor. Senator Powell of Kentucky, who was also a prominent participant in the other compromise proposals, did the same during that debate. Time and time again the yankees shot them down just like they did with all compromises on any issue.
Not at all. The north enjoyed lesser losses due to the tariff than the south because they regained some of the consumer surplus through the protected industries. The south did not have those same industries and therefore suffered from a greater loss. Add to that the fact that the Morrill bill virtually killed off all American trade with Europe, and the southern export economy would have been ruined.
They grew wealthy through their exports and there was nothing that the tariff did to hinder that.
Your economic ignorance is showing. Trade is a circular process - goods come in and goods go out. In a roundabout way, they essentially pay for each other. Stick a barrier in that circle of trade and the whole process will grind to a halt. That is exactly what happened after 1861's Morrill Act and virtually every other similar protectionist tariff hike in American history.
They bragged that their lack of manufacturing and industry and finance protected them from the economic downturns of the time.
Insofar as the business cycle is concerned, perfectly competitive sectors do exhibit some qualities that ease natural downturns. The same does not apply though when those downturns are artificially created by the government, as is the case with a tariff.
I'll happily denounce it. I'll also happily share a post-war statement from a man who was the nation's foremost denouncer of slavery for decades prior to the war. Seeing as they come from an abolitionist of irrefutable credentials and a libertarian (small L) philosopher of similar significance, what he had to say is particularly telling:
"The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general--not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both white and black. And yet these impostors now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man--although that was not the motive of the war--as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle--but only of degree--between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.
If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.
Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this--that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace."
Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people--or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter)--could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated.
All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats--so transparent that they ought to deceive no one--when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want." - Lysander Spooner, "No Treason" 1870
Sugar in you coffee Mr. Free-Trader?
Doing so is logically sound. Your argument lacks that quality as it ammounts to nothing more than blaming southern Republicans because the Democrats in their state voted Democrat.
If you care to examine the statistics, you will see that it was not Landrieu's Orleans Parish vote that won it for her. Her plurality in 2002 was 80,000 votes in Orleans Parish. In 1996, her plurality in Orleans Parish was 100,000 votes. And in 1996, she won by only 5700. In 2002, she won by nearly 40,000. The fact is Jenkins did far better in the rest of the state than did Terrell. Landrieu did better this time in Acadiana among white democrats because of the sugar issue. And she did better in North Louisiana in the very conservative 5th District. New Orleans was overall a disappointment for Landrieu compared to 1996.
Blaming the loss on New Orleans is like a Democrat blaming the 2000 presidential election on the fact that Bush carried Indiana and Texas.
I've yet to hear one word of criticizm from you about Jefferson Davis, his terrible racist beliefs and his contempt for the confederate constiutition. Let's hear it.
I would rather you admit that Jefferson Davis was a vile racist, in the same way that you believe President Lincoln was. His beliefs were worse than Lincoln's.
Hitler was actually the nicest mass murderer as compared to Mao and Stalin. Surly you have have no qualms about anybody espousing such beliefs here about that, would you?
You seem to jump on that band wagon, saying that Jefferson Davis wasn't so bad while President Lincoln was a monster.
...racist insane asylum...murderer insane asylum...
Would you be an alumnus from those institutions?
Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for one of them to admit that the southern leadership was racist.
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession." - Robert Lee, January 1861
Lot of that going around.
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.