Memphis theater pulls Gone with the Wind after complaints that the Civil War classic

[Wikiy]

Slavery played a part in the secessions but was not what started the war and not what it was fought over. The immediate cause of the war was the North's refusal to recognize the Confederacy and refusal to evacuate the forts in North Carolina, in particular Fort Sumter. If they would have left the forts, the war may very well never have happened. Why wouldn't they leave Fort Sumter? Because from there they could disrupt or prevent the Confederacy's export commerce with Europe. The North did not want to lose their lucrative arrangement which they had imposed on the South. Robert E. Lee chose to fight for the Confederacy not to support slavery, but to uphold the principle of a state's rights to cast off a government that they had deemed oppressive. A right that was expressly stated by the US Constitution. The North was fighting to preserve the Union, not to give blacks equal rights.

This (the bold) is an important point; I feel way too many Americans have bought in on this pipe dream that the Civil War was because or about slavery. The South obviously being portrayed like the equivalent of Nazis here, despite the fact that the Northerners were no better only a short time ago.

[zorkuus]

This (the bold) is an important point; I feel way too many Americans have bought in on this pipe dream that the Civil War was because or about slavery.

But it was, for the south.

[Wikiy]

But it was, for the south.

It was about preserving their economic status (which was worse than the North's, even with slavery). Sure, for them that meant keeping slavery, and it means they literally fought to keep it, but it doesn't mean that was the root cause. The distinction is subtle, but it's important. For example, the root cause of Germany and Austria-Hungary starting WWI wasn't their sinister desire to conquer Europe, it was their desire to be considered equals with France and the UK, both of whom had vast empires at the time, while Germany and Austria-Hungary (as well as Italy) were left scouring for "scraps" in Africa.

I'm not trying to justify anyone's actions, by the way, but one has to try to understand things from the proper perspective in these kinds of reflections, I feel.

[Deleted]

objectively speaking, yes, being owned as property was not all that bad. For every case of "how we think slavery was" far more was simply being a worker, receiving three meals and having shelter on top your head. Even more, if you were a housekeeper. The argument against slavery stems from 21st century morality, not due to it being extremely harsh or anything. 21st century expects people to be fed, housed for Free i.e. welfare. It is better to be slave than a starving African even now. I mean really end all the food donation and ask them if they want to be slave in America, then just see how many will agree even NOW. Hell, you can even ask for their children to be slaves, and not them, they will still agree even though they will be dead, but their children will be alive and not starve to death.

- - - Updated - - -



which is the truth, in general. Specific cases however differs greatly. Objectively speaking as of now, white people as a group is superior to black people as a group. Whether you believe this is due to genetics, or the environment or mix of both, this is truly the case as of now. In the future it might change. Can you sincerely deny it?

Yes i can sincerely deny you racist piece of shit.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you're completely wrong. Of course slavery was a terrible thing and never should have happened. The fact remains however, that it did happen and became a necessary evil for economic survival. Thats all I'm saying. It had been the case for many years previous to the Civil War where Washington and Jefferson, while opposed to the practice, had to employ It to compete economically. The North was just as complicit in the continued use of slaves as the South was. You could even say that the Southern growers were in a state of slavery to the Northern industrialists and that was the cause of the war.

- - - Updated - - -


So you take one small part of a long speech, a part that is clearly just one man's personal opinion, and ignore the rest. The first part of the speech clearly spells out the economic issues that prompted the secessions and were being addressed by the new Confederate Constitution. Issues like tariffs and the favoring of one element of industry to the detriment of another which was clearly what the Federal Government was doing. Issues that were fact and not morally based opinion. Yes, Stephens was a racist but he was just one man who did not represent the opinions of every Southerner (most of whom didn't even have slaves). This whole speech is now known as the "cornerstone" speech. Why is that? Because the victors of the conflict concentrate on the one small part in order to gloss over and hide the other elements which contained a lot of truth which didn't put them in a very good light. An effort to make themselves look noble and justify their conquest.

Slavery played a part in the secessions but was not what started the war and not what it was fought over. The immediate cause of the war was the North's refusal to recognize the Confederacy and refusal to evacuate the forts in North Carolina, in particular Fort Sumter. If they would have left the forts, the war may very well never have happened. Why wouldn't they leave Fort Sumter? Because from there they could disrupt or prevent the Confederacy's export commerce with Europe. The North did not want to lose their lucrative arrangement which they had imposed on the South. Robert E. Lee chose to fight for the Confederacy not to support slavery, but to uphold the principle of a state's rights to cast off a government that they had deemed oppressive. A right that was expressly stated by the US Constitution. The North was fighting to preserve the Union, not to give blacks equal rights.

He was the vice fucking president of the south. Slavery is exactly why the south fought the north.

[Kithelle]

well they were savages. Name one peaceful tribe in the Americas, will you. Savage enough that some tribes they sided with colonials against other tribes. Read upon Beaver wars for example.

- - - Updated - - -



all of those show only the BAD parts of slavery, its excesses, tailored toward modern WHITE American guilty conscious. As an Indian, who has cultural legacy of being conquered by first the Muslims, then the british, White People have NOTHING to feel guilty for. Because in their place, we would done the same. So, would the natives, and they did with other tribes before precontact and post contact.

- - - Updated - - -



yes, the end goal is the cut off the historical ties of White People to the United States. From movies, to literature, to culture. Since, you can not destroy them, they will be shamed to a corner where no one would see them or want to see them. It is done to create a globalized U.S. where every race has claim to the U.S. and its Greatness. They want to say America built by minorities, even when most of the minorities did not come to the u.s. until the 20th century and even then people were low skilled worker. But they want to equalize the achievement of working to build a road to establish a NATION. They already done so, Susan B Anthony replacing Jefferson. Some one who establish the monatary system of the United States of America with A glorified Nagger (not the N. word) who "fought" (even though no battle was actually fought and did NOTHING but complain)

infracted - forbidden topics

If it's okay to slaughter a people almost to the point of genocide and take all of their land then honestly what makes enslaving people so bad? Or is it okay to overlook one atrocity than not another? Just because we can use the excuse that they were savages...

Must be nice for people to be able to pick and choose which morals to follow and which to discard because they can make simple excuses...

[Dch48]

Yes i can sincerely deny you racist piece of shit.

- - - Updated - - -



He was the vice fucking president of the south. Slavery is exactly why the south fought the north.

No it was only a minor part of it. Also, when has the Vice President of the US ever spoken for or set policy of the nation? It was his opinion and his justification for continuing a practice that in his heart had to know was wrong.

Here's something else because he mentioned Jefferson's statement that all men were created equal and said it was wrong. It's entirely possible that Jefferson's statement was not about racial equality at all. It was far more likely to have been yet another rejection of the monarchy system where rulers were born into their power and everyone else was born to be a subject. Unfortunately, the belief that blacks were inferior and not truly human was far more prevalent than at the time of the Civil War. Slavery was protected by the original Constitution and there were provisions that runaway slaves had to be returned to where they ran from. Some Northern states were refusing to do that which the South saw as a violation of the Constitution. Technically it was and made some Southerners more adamant about secession because if some states were not following the Constitution, then they didn't have to either.

I'll say it again. Slavery was only a part of the major economic reason why the Southern states seceded. To them, it had become a necessary evil and the only way they could survive. The North did not fight for equal rights. It was all about economics and "preserving the Union". Once again, Lincoln wanted all the freed slaves to be deported to Africa. In a different way, he was a racist too.

- - - Updated - - -

well they were savages. Name one peaceful tribe in the Americas, will you. Savage enough that some tribes they sided with colonials against other tribes. Read upon Beaver wars for example.

Some were savage and warlike but not all. I can name a tribe in particular. The tribe known as the Flatheads. Their major problem was they lived in proximity to the most warlike and savage tribe on the continent, the Sioux. The Sioux had been waging war on anybody who wasn't them for way before the first white face was ever seen. War was their way of life and the way their braves proved themselves. Their savagery and butchery of white settlers caused all natives to be painted with the same brush. The whites didn't know how to tell one tribe from another (the differences were often very subtle such as color patterns, placement of jewelry, and hair styling) so the safest policy was to shoot first and ask questions later. (Any of us would have done the same thing in that situation.) This resulted in peoples like the Flatheads being treated unjustly but it was the fault of the Sioux and the other warlike tribes more than the whites.

[Deleted]

But who the hell still goes to the theater is what I'm wondering.