Question for any Irish viewers out there, or anyone familiar with the Irish dialect...how accurate is Constance's Irish accent? Decent, so-so or atrocious?
I always crack up when they call Virgilla crazy, she was anything but crazy lol. A little passionate, yes. Maybe a little too headstrong, yes. Very honest, yes. But not crazy lol.
the south was fighting for what they considered freedom from the ruleof a foreign power, the north wanted money for goodness sakes money from the south to be one union to just have more than they already did, thats cause enough to secede but none the less like lee said secession is inexusable but is in the law, but it was fight over money, tarifffs and land, home invasion, unity, slavery came into later when lincoln needed something to make england not help the south, and i do have morals
listen i never elieved it was over slavery lincoln liked how the south got a lot of porfit agriculuture wise and when they seceded he culdnt have it, he done two things not within his power declared war without congress approval and declared a rebellion and raised a army with approval, the souh was defending their lands and homes, 6 percent of south owned slaves only six percent the rest were fighting for the south their country slavery came later
@hitokiriyahiko2008 It was the south who forced the North into war, Lincoln had a duty to keep the Union together. The law stated that no state can secede from the United States.
@SDhunter2020 Wrong. Read Federalist Paper #45 and get back to me on the legality of Secession. Then I recommend two papers from (Abolitionist) Lysander Spooner. He wrote "The Unconstitutionality of Slavery" in the 1840's. He also wrote "No Treason" in 1870.
His conclusion: BOTH sides were right, and both sides were hypocrites.
NORTH: It's wrong to force blacks to stay, but ok for me to force south to stay.
SOUTH: It's wrong to force me to stay, but ok for me to force blacks to stay.
@falstoffe How am I wrong? The constitution does not say that secession is legal. The Federal government was the North! Thus having the right to govern the south as they see fit. The south wanted to bring slavery into new territories and saw the power of the government as a threat to their way of life. The South wanted more power, plain and simple. The had no constitutional right to seceed and were the first to attack. North had no option but to declare war and protect the Union!
@SDhunter2020: 1st, I'll grant you correct points: The south wanted Mexico to extend slavery. That was invasive and expansionist. Correct, and hypocritical of South. They were also the first to attack.
They did however have a constitutional 'right' to secede, and the Constitution was (*IS*) designed to limit Washington DC. The "govern as they see fit" argument was the same explanation England had about the colonies. The Fed was created by the states, not the other way around.
@SDhunter2020: 9th and 10th Amendment. "Not delegated, nor prohibited." Secession was not delegated, nor prohibited.
If North 'declared war', then by definition the South was its own country. If the south was 'in rebellion', then Southerners still had constitutional rights, including:
- W. VA is unconstitutional, it violated Article V, Section 3.
- Non combatants still had 3rd (no quartering) and 4th (no seizure) protection.
@SDhunter2020 So what basically happened legally matched the reality: The south seceded legally. Ft. Sumter, ALSO legally owned by the Fed with a title deed in a South Carolina Court House, was wrongully fired on. DC, with its quorum of senators, declared war. The South, no longer US citizens, had no US constitutional rights and cannot complain their mansions are burned or used as a Union Barracks, etc, or West Virgina is carved out of VA. The south was conquered as a foreign country.
i ant racist either i am a southerner, and a son of the confederacy at heart, also where my sympathies lay, but i am no racist i have black family, through marriage but still family, but it is a fool thing to say they were in the right only god knows such things, you cannot determine who was right and wrong by the causes or by who wins or who loses, also most of south fought because thier states seceded they could not fight against south and that is noble and i admire that a lot.
Firstly, saying you have black family does not mean you are not racist. I am not saying you are but I hate when people say that to mean something, especially when you are related by marriage. It's not as though you are personally married to a black person.
Secondly, you are correct in what you say, but it's not fair to say that most of the southerners who fought did so simply so as not to take up arms against their own soil. Most fought because of their southern pride of not being told what to do by a central government in fear that if they allowed this government to stop them from seceding, they would then be able to abolish slavery in their states as well. They feared the overreaching affect and it had more to do with pride than nobility.
also a southerner stonewall jackson opene dup a school so blacks could read and write so that just destroys racist ideas of southern bad men, and nothern puritans, the south believed it was gods will in gods time when the slaves would be released from their curse, the north wasnt fighting for slavery they were fighting for one union, slavery came later and only becaudse they were losing the war to the south in the east, also that is a very tense scene with orry and george, amazing, got to buy it
So slavery would have eventually died out, we don't know when or just how. As a black person, it is offensive to hear anyone say that. Just as it would be offensive to Jews or other descendants of Holocaust survivors to say that WW2 wasn't really necessary because it would have ended eventually naturally. Even if "naturally" means when all "undesirables" were exterminated.
rebels didnt change the las thats ridculous they wanted a country of their own so the damn north would quit nosing in their freakin business trying to tell them what to do, invading their privacy their lands, their homes, slavery would have eventully died of natural causes what most dont realize is a majority of the south dint own slaves much less fight for one which is dumb of people to say, the rich southerners did own but notherners did too
Well, clearly you are an anti-federalist. Which is fine if that is your belief, but I would hope that you also believe in a moral code that any government (if they are to have a strong society) must at least attempt to uphold.
yes, she was... I truely liked the character, even when she got too fanatic. on the other hand, she was on the right side and human rights are not a matter of diplomacy. it´s not the rebels who change the laws but it is them who wake people up and make them sensible for injustice. I have always a certain sympathy for people who act with too much passion...
Question for any Irish viewers out there, or anyone familiar with the Irish dialect...how accurate is Constance's Irish accent? Decent, so-so or atrocious?
Schone23666 4 months ago
i want this film
can u help me?
this is so hard for dl because its part and part and part
i want complate this film please
thanks
nazanin681 1 year ago
@nazanin681 Search for "North And South" on Amazon or something
JohnAnderssonTV 7 months ago
I always crack up when they call Virgilla crazy, she was anything but crazy lol. A little passionate, yes. Maybe a little too headstrong, yes. Very honest, yes. But not crazy lol.
ChicagoTyme 1 year ago
great acting
gibsyboy 2 years ago 8
@gibsyboy yes, especially kirstie alley. she gave complete life to virgilia!
markmeetsworld 11 months ago
the south was fighting for what they considered freedom from the ruleof a foreign power, the north wanted money for goodness sakes money from the south to be one union to just have more than they already did, thats cause enough to secede but none the less like lee said secession is inexusable but is in the law, but it was fight over money, tarifffs and land, home invasion, unity, slavery came into later when lincoln needed something to make england not help the south, and i do have morals
hitokiriyahiko2008 2 years ago
listen i never elieved it was over slavery lincoln liked how the south got a lot of porfit agriculuture wise and when they seceded he culdnt have it, he done two things not within his power declared war without congress approval and declared a rebellion and raised a army with approval, the souh was defending their lands and homes, 6 percent of south owned slaves only six percent the rest were fighting for the south their country slavery came later
hitokiriyahiko2008 2 years ago
@hitokiriyahiko2008 It was the south who forced the North into war, Lincoln had a duty to keep the Union together. The law stated that no state can secede from the United States.
SDhunter2020 1 year ago
@SDhunter2020 Wrong. Read Federalist Paper #45 and get back to me on the legality of Secession. Then I recommend two papers from (Abolitionist) Lysander Spooner. He wrote "The Unconstitutionality of Slavery" in the 1840's. He also wrote "No Treason" in 1870.
His conclusion: BOTH sides were right, and both sides were hypocrites.
NORTH: It's wrong to force blacks to stay, but ok for me to force south to stay.
SOUTH: It's wrong to force me to stay, but ok for me to force blacks to stay.
falstoffe 1 year ago
@falstoffe How am I wrong? The constitution does not say that secession is legal. The Federal government was the North! Thus having the right to govern the south as they see fit. The south wanted to bring slavery into new territories and saw the power of the government as a threat to their way of life. The South wanted more power, plain and simple. The had no constitutional right to seceed and were the first to attack. North had no option but to declare war and protect the Union!
SDhunter2020 1 year ago
@SDhunter2020: 1st, I'll grant you correct points: The south wanted Mexico to extend slavery. That was invasive and expansionist. Correct, and hypocritical of South. They were also the first to attack.
They did however have a constitutional 'right' to secede, and the Constitution was (*IS*) designed to limit Washington DC. The "govern as they see fit" argument was the same explanation England had about the colonies. The Fed was created by the states, not the other way around.
It gets
falstoffe 1 year ago
@SDhunter2020: 9th and 10th Amendment. "Not delegated, nor prohibited." Secession was not delegated, nor prohibited.
If North 'declared war', then by definition the South was its own country. If the south was 'in rebellion', then Southerners still had constitutional rights, including:
- W. VA is unconstitutional, it violated Article V, Section 3.
- Non combatants still had 3rd (no quartering) and 4th (no seizure) protection.
- 22 missing senators = no quorum, so no work.
falstoffe 1 year ago
@falstoffe Correction: West Virignia violates Article *IV*, section 3: No state may be created in the boundries of another state.
falstoffe 1 year ago
@SDhunter2020 So what basically happened legally matched the reality: The south seceded legally. Ft. Sumter, ALSO legally owned by the Fed with a title deed in a South Carolina Court House, was wrongully fired on. DC, with its quorum of senators, declared war. The South, no longer US citizens, had no US constitutional rights and cannot complain their mansions are burned or used as a Union Barracks, etc, or West Virgina is carved out of VA. The south was conquered as a foreign country.
falstoffe 1 year ago
i ant racist either i am a southerner, and a son of the confederacy at heart, also where my sympathies lay, but i am no racist i have black family, through marriage but still family, but it is a fool thing to say they were in the right only god knows such things, you cannot determine who was right and wrong by the causes or by who wins or who loses, also most of south fought because thier states seceded they could not fight against south and that is noble and i admire that a lot.
hitokiriyahiko2008 2 years ago
Firstly, saying you have black family does not mean you are not racist. I am not saying you are but I hate when people say that to mean something, especially when you are related by marriage. It's not as though you are personally married to a black person.
GirlieRat 2 years ago
Secondly, you are correct in what you say, but it's not fair to say that most of the southerners who fought did so simply so as not to take up arms against their own soil. Most fought because of their southern pride of not being told what to do by a central government in fear that if they allowed this government to stop them from seceding, they would then be able to abolish slavery in their states as well. They feared the overreaching affect and it had more to do with pride than nobility.
GirlieRat 2 years ago
also a southerner stonewall jackson opene dup a school so blacks could read and write so that just destroys racist ideas of southern bad men, and nothern puritans, the south believed it was gods will in gods time when the slaves would be released from their curse, the north wasnt fighting for slavery they were fighting for one union, slavery came later and only becaudse they were losing the war to the south in the east, also that is a very tense scene with orry and george, amazing, got to buy it
hitokiriyahiko2008 2 years ago
So slavery would have eventually died out, we don't know when or just how. As a black person, it is offensive to hear anyone say that. Just as it would be offensive to Jews or other descendants of Holocaust survivors to say that WW2 wasn't really necessary because it would have ended eventually naturally. Even if "naturally" means when all "undesirables" were exterminated.
GirlieRat 2 years ago 5
rebels didnt change the las thats ridculous they wanted a country of their own so the damn north would quit nosing in their freakin business trying to tell them what to do, invading their privacy their lands, their homes, slavery would have eventully died of natural causes what most dont realize is a majority of the south dint own slaves much less fight for one which is dumb of people to say, the rich southerners did own but notherners did too
hitokiriyahiko2008 2 years ago
Well, clearly you are an anti-federalist. Which is fine if that is your belief, but I would hope that you also believe in a moral code that any government (if they are to have a strong society) must at least attempt to uphold.
GirlieRat 2 years ago
Very good scene. In the film Virgilia Hazard is a much more likeable character than in the books.
Sanderus 2 years ago
why didnt the south win:((
ouzolover 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
kill the blacks
ouzolover 2 years ago
kill yourself.
fucking racist
Mariposa1Kamikaze 2 years ago
God Bless Dixie!!!
Photograph1974 3 years ago
Great acting of Patrick Swayze. Let pray for his recovery.
guest7777777 3 years ago
kirstie alley was great..
panosmuc 3 years ago
yes, she was... I truely liked the character, even when she got too fanatic. on the other hand, she was on the right side and human rights are not a matter of diplomacy. it´s not the rebels who change the laws but it is them who wake people up and make them sensible for injustice. I have always a certain sympathy for people who act with too much passion...
MariposaKamikaze 3 years ago 3
youre right
panosmuc 3 years ago
One of my favorite parts in the whole series, although there are many to choose from. Wasn't that George a handsome fella?
GirlieRat 4 years ago 3
Amazing :]
ImaginarySanity 4 years ago
Kirstie Alley was brilliant in this.....
builtcaleb 4 years ago
brilliant,more please
busketts 4 years ago