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 ...
Already have. Thomas Sanders, William Sanders, and Leroy Moore - murdered by execution in a pond near the Elk River, Franklin County, TN January 11, 1865.
Remember this?
Yes I do, Walt. Why don't you post a link to that exchange so everyone can see how you are fibbing even in your portrayal of the events that occurred there. They will see it how it really happened. You lied and claimed that hardly anyone was raped, so I proved to the contrary. You then lied and claimed that Sherman executed no POW's, so I proved to the contrary. You then lied and claimed that you had asked for civilians rather than POWs despite the fact that you specifically asked for confederate soldiers and dared me to prove that any were executed, so I proved to the contrary by pointing out your own words. Sadly you have yet to find a new lie to peddle around here, so you're sticking with that last one. As I said though - your every move is predictable.
The records of congress indicate that the federal government adopted a tariff of about 17% average rate in 1857. That tariff was in place through 1860. So yes, Walt. There were federal taxes in 1860.
Even the tariff in 1860 was lower than any since 1816.
The Morrill Tariff could not have passed if the rebel senators had retained their seats. And a tariff is not a tax. Buy American and you won't pay a penny.
Walt
Already have. Thomas Sanders, William Sanders, and Leroy Moore - murdered by execution in a pond near the Elk River, Franklin County, TN January 11, 1865.
Sherman's army -- and Sherman -- were in North Carolina.
You will tell any kind of lie. And even if Sherman had had these men murdered in cold blood, which he did not, that is still too thin a reed to hang the name of murderers on him and his men.
Not only that, I searched on this string on Google and Yahoo without one relevent hit:
civil war Thomas Sanders William Leroy Moore sherman
You seem to be bending the truth again, aren't you?
I found out you were lying about this Miller person, and now you are lying about this.
Walt
We've already been over that red herring many times, Walt. The south liked the pre-Morrill tariff of 1857 because it was pro-free trade. It was one of the lowest rates in the world. They did not like the Morrill tariff though because it hiked the rate to over 45% and killed off their trade-based economy.
The Morrill Tariff could not have passed if the rebel senators had retained their seats.
That is simply false, Walt. Senator Wigfall calculated the voting strength of the south in the incoming senate on December 12, 1861. It had a pro-northern majority that was about to be increased. The best case scenario, holding that every single southern senator remained and voted in a block plus gained the support of all the swing vote senators, was a tie in which case the Republican VP would cast the deciding vote in favor of the north.
And a tariff is not a tax.
Put down that hookah and go tell that to any political scientist, economist, or lawmaker of your choice, Walt. Then tell me what they say to you when they finish laughing.
Buy American and you won't pay a penny.
Not if American costs $1 and import without the tariff costs 50 cents. In that case I end up paying 50 pennies.
Not entirely. They were stretched out over several hundred miles in supply chains going back to Tennessee.
You will tell any kind of lie.
You say that often yet never seem to be able to document a single one when I press you on it. Why is that?
And even if Sherman had had these men murdered in cold blood, which he did not
The government records of the union army indicate that they were.
that is still too thin a reed to hang the name of murderers on him and his men.
How so? The murderers were Shermans men serving in his army on his supply lines and they were ordered to murder by one of his subordinate generals.
Not only that, I searched on this string on Google and Yahoo without one relevent hit: civil war Thomas Sanders William Leroy Moore sherman
Google? You mean that great database of all the records contained in the national archives?
I found out you were lying about this Miller person
How so? You asked for a confederate murdered in retaliation by Sherman. I gave you his name. Only after that fact did you change your criteria (as usual) that he had to be a civilian. And for the record, I've now given you civilian names and you deny them too despite overwhelming documentation and evidence. That makes you a liar, Walt. And it wouldn't be the first time with you.
Hey everbody! Check out this latest gem of wisdom by Waltrot!
You never proved any such thing. I noted last July:
"I asked you to name a civilian murdered by Sherman's men or on his orders. You responded with the name of a POW shot in reprisal for the bushwhacking of some of Sherman's men. You tried to pass this POW off as a civilian.
Burke Davis notes a couple incidents of rape in "Sherman's March." That was never at issue. This sounds like more dissembling on your part."
You tried to pass off a rebel POW as a civilian to substantiate your claim that Sherman's men had murdered civilians. Now you have branched out to Tennessee, but you are still working a dry hole. Sherman's men were very well behaved, given the circumstances.
Walt
tariff
n : a government tax on imports or exports; "they signed a treaty to lower duties on trade between their countries" [syn: duty] v : charge a tariff, as for imported goods
Have you ever heard of BOOKS? Those things filled with paper and the little letters on them - they are not a myth and do exist.
For what it's worth there's much more on the internet that just what is indexed by Google.
How so? You asked for a confederate murdered in retaliation by Sherman.
That is a flat lie. I well knew that Sherman had POW's executed at random to deter the rebels from murdering Union POW's. I even knew the name of this James Miller.
YOU posted that a grey headed grandfather had been murdered by Sherman's men, and lo and behold, it was the same person.
You lied and you got caught.
Walt
If you had hold of a valid document that showed men murdered by Sherman, it would on dozens of ACW and neo-reb sites.
But you don't have a valid document.
You're lying.
Walt
As the United States Constitution specifically prohibits taxes on exports from the states, a tariff in -this- country only applies to foreign goods. There were -no- federal taxes in 1860.
You also conveniently ignore the fact that tariffs in 1860 were lower than they had been in 40 years.
Tariffs were not the cause of the war, slavery was.
Walt
That is simply false, Walt. Senator Wigfall calculated the voting strength of the south in the incoming senate on December 12, 1861
"One fact needs emphatic statement: of all the monistic explanations for the drift to war, that based upon supposed economic causes is the flimsiest. The theory was sharply rejected at the time by so astute an observer as Alexander H. Stephens. South Carolina, he wrote his brother on New Year's Day, 1861 was seceding from a tariff 'which is just what her own Senators and members of Congress made it.' As for the charges of consolidation and depsotism made by some Carolinians, he thought they arose from peevishness, rather than a calm analysis of facts. 'The truth is, the South, almost in mass, has voted, I think, for every measure of general legislation that has passed both houses and become law for the last ten years.' The South, far from groaning under tyranny, had controlled the government almost from its beginning, and Stephens believed that its only real grievance lay in the Northern refusal to return fugitive slaves and to stop the antislavery agitation. 'All other complaints are founded on threatened dangers which may never come, and which I feel very sure would be averted if the South would pursue a judicious and wise course.' Stephens was right. It was true that the whole tendency of federal legislation 1842 to 1860 was toward free trade; true that the tariff in force when secession began was largely Southern -made; true that it was the lowest tariff the country had known since 1816; true that it cost a nation of thirty million people but sixty million dollars in indirect revenue; true that without secession no new tariff law, obnoxious to the Democratic Party, could have been passed before 1863--if then.
"In the official explanations which one Southern State after another published for its secession, economic grievances are either omitted entirely or given minor posiitions. There were few such supposed grievances which the agricultural states of Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota did not share with the South--and they never threatened to secede. Charles A. Beard finds the tap-root of the war in the resistance of the planter interest to Northern demands enlarging the old Hamilton-Webster policy. The South was adamant in standing for 'no high protective tariffs, no ship subsidies, no national banking and currency system; in short, none of the measures which business enteprise deemed essential to its progress.' But the Republican platform in 1856 was silent on the tariff; in 1860, it carried a milk-and-water statement on the subject which Western Republicans took, mild as it was, with a wry face; the incoming President was little interested in the tariff; and any harsh legislation was impossible. Ship subsidies were not an issue in the campaign of 1860. Neither were a national banking system and a national currency system. They were not mentioned in the Republican platform nor discussed by party debaters. The Pacific Railroad was advocated both by the Douglas Democrats and the Republicans; and it is noteworthy that Seward and Douglas were for buiulding both a Northern and a Southern line. In short, the diviisive economic issues are easily exaggerated. At the same time, the unifying economic factors were both numerous and powerful. North and South had economies which were largely complementary. It was no misfortune to the South that Massachusetts cotton mills wanted its staple, and that New York ironmasters like Hewitt were eager to sell rails dirt-cheap to Southern railway builders; and sober businessmen on both sides, merchants, bankers, and manufacturers, were the men most anxious to keep the peace and hold the Union together."
Nevins, *The Ordeal of the Union* quoted on pp. 212-213 of Edwin C. Rozwenc (ed.), *The Causes of the American Civil War* (Boston: D. C. Heath 1961).
Walt
Obviusly economics was not your forte or your minor. Import tariffs protect American industry - not consumers. Tariffs allow American industries to charge more for their own goods, and also reduce competetion. If a US widget costs (retail) $1.50, and that from overseas $1.25, a 47% import tariff raises the price of the foreign widget to $1.84. As long as the tariff is in place, it allows American widgets to sell domestically at a level of $1.50 - $1.84. And if the foreign product is superior to the American, the foreign widgets will still be purchased for a very good reason.
Secondly, retalitory tariffs are often imposed by foreign governments, making American exports more expensive. Thus the American exporters experience a reduction in profits and volume. Tariffs only benefit the industry they protect - all others pay for their subsidization.
Most Americans have no problem supporting/purchasing American products, just don't rob them in the process.
Step away from the thread....s-l-o-w-l-y
Nonsense, many pay sites are not indexed by Google of other search engines. The current ability of many sites 'bots' to traverse the web are limited by scripting, CGI, Javascript redirects and other factors. I've quoted from several books that are available on the web, but Google dosn't reference them.
Despite the vast resources available on the web, not everything is accessible, nor is it always accurate.
Could you imagine putting all pages of those books on the web? What great resource it would be. Unfortunately, I have seen very little original work on the web. IMO it's mostly repetitive and copied, borrowed, stolen from other sites. Editorials and commentaries offer a great source of information, but often reference sources not available on the web (such as the books you quoted).
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.