Legend of a 'noble South' rises again

Sun Movie Critic ^ | February 16, 2003 | Chris Kaltenbach

[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."

[laotzu]

"The slave holding states rebelled because..."

Slavery was introduced from, and practiced by the North. Your referring to the South as 'the slave holding states' is deceptive. Why decieve us?

" So yes, it was about slavery"

Why did the North maintain their slaves after conquering the South, and freeing her slaves? It seems odd that those willing to fight & die to abolish slavery, would return home & continue its practice.

Are you purporting that had the South freed their slaves, the North would have had no objection to seccession?

[Ohioan]

It has been a long time since I saw "Roots," but the focus there, as I remember, was on a family tracing its roots back to Africa. Why would that cause me to "have a cow?"

While the story, as I recall, turned out to be fiction, the idea of a family tracing their roots is a very Conservative theme. If you have read the essay, I just cited The Persuasive Use Of Images, you would know that I attribute to African roots, the wonderful Uncle Remus stories, that were the subject of "Song Of The South," the last major Southern friendly, Hollywood movie.

Incidentally, while the Haley story may have been fictionalized, there is very strong evidence that there was a positive benefit to Southern Negroes, who did retain a sense of their roots. It is a good thing for all people to be aware of whence they sprang, etc..

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Ohioan]

There is nothing to apologize for. Morgan's raid was a legitimate wartime event.

I do not know much about this new movie; but I will be amazed if it really does picture the South fairly. Hollywood really has a tremendous bias against the South, which we have discussed in a number of places--in addition to the new essay on images.

Incidentally, I found the other day that there is actually a group actively trying to get Disney to reissue "Song Of The South." If the present management were not Leftist oriented, they would naturally do so, if for no other reason than to give many Southerners a reason to end the boycott by Southern Baptists and others. But a management, that turns their "family oriented" theme parks over to deviants on selected days each year, is not apparently just driven by sound business decisions.

Keep fighting, my friend. Those willing to speak truth, with a sense of proportion, today, are terribly needed.

William Flax

[FreepLady]

"I'm just not going to think about it right now...tommorrow is another day".....man even today's Belles down here have some level of that passive-aggressiveness in them...trust me. Old habits die hard."

Well...being a lifelong belle myself, I can honestly say that I often repeat Scarletts words to myself and act them out. Sometimes we just need a break from life.

[jlogajan]

Do you prostrate yourself at the altar of guilt over the ill treatment of the Amerindians by your kinfolks as well Mr Minnesota?

My gramps was a peasant man who arrived here at the turn of the 20th century -- long after the Indian wars.

And no, there is nothing proud about the treatment of Minnesotan government toward the Indians of old. However, unlike some southerners trying to play the victim (kinda like the Japanese now only remember being victims of the A-bomb) any attempt by fellow Minnesotans to paper over such past evils would get condemnation from me.

There was nothing noble about slaughtering the Indians just as there is nothing noble about being slave holders.

[ggekko]

"But what was the splitting issue in the "union?" It was none other than slavery...."

I belive the tariff issue was of greater importance than the slavery. The slavery issue was important but is was not the driving issue; the tariff issue was.

The Morill tariff bill was passed in 1860 and was signed into law by Lincoln shortly after his election. This bill nearly doubled tariff levels on most products. This bill further exacerbated the inequity in the Federal tax system to the point where most Federal revenue came from the South and most Federal spending occurred in the North. Immediately before the start of Civil War the South was paying 87% of all Federal Taxes!

The tariff issue was explosive. Southern ports were beginning to undercut the Port of New York and Southern exporters were beginning to buy the bulk of their manufacturing imports from Europe. The size of the tariff increase in the Morrill bill was designed to forestall these trends. In several speeches Lincoln threatened to enfore the new tariff regime by force.

The threat of facing a naval blockade and having the economic lifeblood choked out of them was too grave a threat for several sates which then began seccession planning.

[Grand Old Partisan]

The Morrill Tariff was passed on March 2, 1861 -- after, not before, seven states had already seceded. Only the walkout of all those Democrats from the Confederate states made its passage possible. As for tariffs or anything other than slavery being a reason for secession, it is all revisionist nonsense. Each of the eleven Confederate states published declarations of secession. Every word of every one of them is about slavery and the need to keep blacks people down.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The National Archives designates it that way.

[Leatherneck_MT]

I think it was Longstreet who said "We should have freed the slaves first, then fired on Sumter."

The war would have happened with or without the institution of slavery. It was about the rule of the Federal Govt who did not believe (through their dictator Lincoln), that the South had the right to secede. Might doesn't make right, it only makes you in charge. But it won't last forever.

[Leatherneck_MT]

It's officially called the war of Yankee Aggression.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So can I assume that since you want to honor Confederate ancestors and place an emotional stake on "heritage" issues, you'll be supporting the bid for reparations for slavery? Will you also be addressing the reparations for the living victims of official segregation (which only ended 40 years ago)?

Or will you want to put up flags and monuments to greatly honor your ancestors, all while claiming that slavery is ancient history?

You can't have it both ways.

Besides, all fun aside, you need to consider what the ultimate effect of Confederate independence would have meant for North America - we'd have all been European vassals in the end. Two weak countries, manipulable and poor.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Under secessionist rule, the penalty for possession of a U.S. flag was death by hanging. As a pro-secessionist, are you also in favor of hanging people for possessing a U.S. flag?

[jlogajan]

The war would have happened with or without the institution of slavery. It was about the rule of the Federal Govt who did not believe (through their dictator Lincoln), that the South had the right to secede.

You make is sound like the desire to secede was floating in a vacuum -- what drove the desire -- slavery!

[Polybius]

To: Leatherneck_MT

So can I assume that since you want to honor Confederate ancestors and place an emotional stake on "heritage" issues, you'll be supporting the bid for reparations for slavery? Will you also be addressing the reparations for the living victims of official segregation (which only ended 40 years ago)?

Or will you want to put up flags and monuments to greatly honor your ancestors, all while claiming that slavery is ancient history?

You can't have it both ways.

***********************************

Jeez, Chancellor Palpatine, that's a non sequitur, if I've ever heard one.

What was the original name of the Federal holiday we are celebrating today? It was "Washington's Birthday" wasn't it?

Wasn't that the same "Washington" that owned a certain slave plantation named Mount Vernon?

And don't forget that slave-owning Founding Father "Jefferson" on the 5 cent coins in your pocket with his slave plantation "Monticello" on the reverse of that coin.

Do you support stripping Washington's portrait off of the Dollar bill and the Quarter and stripping Washington's name off of Washington, DC and Washington State and renaming that monumental oblisk on the Washington Mall because he was a slave owner?

Do you support stripping Jefferson off the 5 cent coin and putting someone else's statue in his Memorial because he was a slave owner?

If not, can we all "ass-u-me" that........

..... since you want to honor slave owning Americans and place an emotional stake on America's "heritage", you'll be supporting the bid for reparations for slavery? Will you also be addressing the reparations for the living victims of official segregation (which only ended 40 years ago)?

Or will you want to put up flags and monuments to greatly honor Washington and Jefferson, all while claiming that slavery is ancient history?

You can't have it both ways.

[Non-Sequitur]

The intent of G&G is not to claim who is right and who is wrong. Nor is it intended to be a record of authority for historical means.

Please explain that to all the southern supporters who think that Gangs of New York is gospel.

Having said that I wonder if Turner's money will hold out long enough for him to complete the trilogy? Shaara's "Last Full Measure" takes the war through to the end. It would be interesting to see the movie series taken that far.

[rwfromkansas]

This is a MUST MUST MUST see movie. I have great respect for the director, as he is trying to avoid just blanketly criticizing the south or presenting the north as saints.

In fact, there is a scene where Stonewall Jackson breaks down in front of a little girl when she asks him if her daddy will be coming home; he responds all the daddies will be going home (some to heaven is a definite undertone here knowing Jackson).

It is clear that this director (he directed Gettysburg also) is adament on being fair. I hope Freepers will flock to the theaters in droves.

The history department of my college is going to take a field trip to watch the movie (an evening sometime), so I can't wait.

This is a MUST SEE film.

Slavery played a great role in the war, but so did other factors such as high taxes on the south compared to the north (plus earlier, the nullification crisis also helped influence the war later). I am glad to see a film not be afraid to go beyond elementary school history.....which unfortunately, some anti-south Freepers believe.

[rwfromkansas]

I have given up even bothering to reply to his elementary school level analysis of the war.

[Non-Sequitur]

Immediately before the start of Civil War the South was paying 87% of all Federal Taxes!

No it didn't. About 95% of all tariff revenue was collected in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia.

[rwfromkansas]

I mean seriously, if you attend a good high school, you should learn even at that level that there were many more factors than simply slavery.

[Non-Sequitur]

It's officially called the war of Yankee Aggression.

Only by you sothron types. It could quite properly be called "Jeff Davis's War".