Romantic Comedy Movie | Judge Priest (1934) Will Rogers, Hattie McDaniel | Film, subtitles 

Hi paulo 😊

@@mikesilva3868 _Hi, Mike! Have a wonderful day.much blessed by God, pardner!_

Hattie McDaniel non Daniels.The movie credits got it wrong.

@@keithharvey7230 Hi, Keith Harvey! Thanks a lot for your kindness, giving to us this information, because a Simple "s" on the end sometimes can change all the origin from someone! You're right on it, correcting the credits mistake on the movie! Hattie McDaniel Thanks you a lot for this correction! God bless you always!

Hollywood should never have sucked up to the confederacy. The United States gave those traitors too much respect for too long.

God Bless our dear Hattie McDaniel…such a wonderful actress. I imagine her as I always see her in Oviedo. Such a dear, sweet soft good women….✝️

To her credit, she won an Oscar. Even Will Rogers couldn't achieve that.

Hi helen 🕺

@@mikesilva3868 hai mike 👸

Lol!

We all miss out pets.

Hahahahaha! Lovely comment ! I think so many young and beautiful ladies melted by ur words ! Yes !me too ! 👸 💋

And I'm first to say to BBJ; Why I oughta &%*!?#. er I mean hello, how's it goin? how ya doin today? LOL You defintely sound completely recovered. LOL 👍 See ya soon, pal.

​@@helenpoornima5126 🤣agreed

@@zanti209 -- Actually, Zanti, I've got a long way to go, but my mental spirits are good.

I noticed that as well.

Plonker.

Tudo o que você precisa fazer é clicar no botão "CC" para ativar as "legendas fechadas"; em seguida, o botão Configurações ⚙ para selecionar seu idioma preferido!

@@CultCinemaClassics Sim, eu conheço recurso, mas tenho dificuldade de leitura, por isso pedi filmes dublados.

Hai dear 💋 👸

@@helenpoornima5126 💜

There's always one. Geoff was one of the great characters in this movie.

WHY? You ever seen a Lil Abner or Ma & Pa Kettle movie??

Woah! Seen him in my nightmares...🤣

Lol

No, the rebels were the Southern States, which rebelled against the Union's attempt to ride roughshod over their desire for greater independence. The slavery issue was not as clear-cut as North vs South. You should study the history of it. Very illuminating.

You do have it wrong, @kattydover6356, but if you aren't from the USA, it's probably understandable, as it gets complicated. The film is set in Kentucky, which technically remained neutral in the American Civil War, but Kentucky was the site of many Civil war battlefields, and Kentuckians fought on both sides of the war, with attitudes changing over the course of the war and the Reconstruction period to follow, and beyond. By the time the Confederacy (generally southern and western states/territories) seceded/rebelled from the Union, slavery had been all but completely abolished in the North, but still provided a backbone of labor for the Southern states' cotton plantation economy, and more importantly was tied up in Southern politics (slaves were being imported in large numbers for a time because they could be counted as citizens for the purpose of allotting political power to Southerners, which Northern politicians moved to void, resulting in the infamous 3/5 compromise, which settled between slaves counting as full citizens only for the purpose of political exploitation, and not counting them at all - thus counting them as 3/5 of a free citizen....) This would play into Western territories and how/when they could be admitted as states to the union: if they were admitted as slave states, they would likely side with Southerners politically, while otherwise territories without legal slavery might be aligned with northern abolitionists, heightening the friction between North and South. Northern Republicans under the Lincoln administration weren't necessarily opposed to slavery per se - the Republican Party has always been a fairly progressive party in spite of its modern conservative reputation, and was generally abolitionist, but the Lincoln administration and its staunchest supporters were not known before the war for being particularly anti-slavery. However, there was political advantage to be had over the southern Democrats in abolishing slavery, with the understanding that the freed slaves would likely support the Northerners who freed them, at the expense of southern wealth and power... this would also play into the northern strategy during the war, as an appeal to black slaves fighting with the south to defect and weaken or even fight the south militarily. Hence Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.... The American Civil War was thus only indirectly fought over slavery, and was largely instead fought over political power, economics, and territory (as is the case of most wars), with slavery involved mostly for its secondary role as an institution of political power, economic wealth and strength, and territory in the border states and the western frontier. After the war, the former slaves now freed with all the privileges and rights of free white southerners represented a new voting block that threatened old southern Democratic power; among the responses from southern Democrats were "Jim Crow" laws that interfered with black voting (for example, by requiring a literacy test that former slaves that were forbidden to learn to read and write could not pass), and also an intimidation campaign to scare black voters away from election polling places, which would evolve into a full-blown organized terror campaign. Northern Republicans, meanwhile, had been flooding southern states under Reconstruction with pro-Republican migrant voters - "carpetbaggers" - who would also attempt to organize black voters to support a pro-northern Republican cause, setting the stage for post-Civil War racial violence in retaliation, and leading in time to the Civil Rights movement. It would have been during the years leading up to the Civil Rights era that the Democratic party began to recognize the political leverage that the black vote represented, and the Johnson administration in particular when the Democrats would start taking full advantage of that leverage by working with black voters instead of against them. It wasn't a universally popular change of strategy among white Democrats, and there was a split among the now pro-Civil Rights wing of the party's white voters - generally educated urban northerners and westerners, and those Democrats - generally southerners - who still harbored the remnants of Reconstruction-era grudges; some (but definitely not all) of whom would defect to the Republican party, contributing to the modern American political cliches about the two parties "trading places" with Democrats being an exclusively progressive "pro-Civil Rights" party, and the Republicans being exclusively a party of "conservative racists". The boundaries between the formerly progressive Republican northern/Union states, and the formerly anti-Civil Rights southern Democratic states has blurred over time as the two parties reinvented themselves, demographics in the various states changed, and so on - many former Democrat strongholds in the south have "swung red" instead in recent years in part as a response to the Republican party's new role as a home for non-college-educated working-class conservative Christian voters, as urban areas have largely "gone blue" as strongholds for college-educated urban white voters, and the black voters who had moved to the Democratic party during and after the Johnson-era reinvention of the Democratic party as a pro-Civil Rights and pro-social benefits party. Kentucky had largely abandoned its remaining pro-slavery position during the American Civil War as remaining slaveholders abandoned their slaves when joining the Confederate army or fleeing from Union advances, or freed their slaves as more trouble than they're worth to keep, or saw their slaves run away to join the Union army or otherwise escape to free states. Kentucky politically existed in a sort of denial for a time afterward: since it hadn't joined the Confederacy, it wasn't quite a target for emancipation as a political weapon against the South, and there was still some hope among remaining slaveholders that slavery would never go away in the state, while in practice the handwriting was on the wall, and slavery had pretty much disintegrated in the state as an institution, with the last of Kentucky's slaves being freed relatively peacefully in the 1860s, while abolition of slavery was not constitutionally ratified in the state until the 1970s - since it was effectively gone, there really wasn't much hurry to officially end it! Kentucky, where the movie is set, was generally neutral as a state, with factions who preferred complete neutrality, alongside factions of pro-slavery confederate sympathizers, and pro-Union and pro-Abolition supporters, and could have been a perfect illustration of the American Civil War cliche about brothers fighting brothers: the loyalties of many Kentucky families close to the southern border and throughout the state were divided over the war; perhaps Kentucky's neutrality might have made the state more willing than most former slave states to try to heal those differences after the war. In short, it's complicated, but southern secessionist/rebel Confederates would have generally been slave states during the Confederate and Civil War era and the years leading up to the war, while northern pro-Union states were generally at least ambivalent to slavery, if not indifferent to it, or even actively anti-slavery. Kentucky, the movie's setting, was officially neutral, and very often divided politically between the two sides of the war.

Thank you so much for the time and effort you have put into this reply, İ really appreciate this.@@pietrayday9915

​@@pietrayday9915gracias por compartir.interrsante información.

@qwer - chill, not everything is a trigger...peace :)

@@lisagerman2111 Wrong the record need not be changed to suit political correction. There is the star and there are supporting actors. She was not the star.

@Brad James We currently live in a time where everybody wants to rewrite history to be woke or politically correct at best. Thus, if you rewrite history then it is no longer history regardless of who's doing it.

@@qwer123211 Calm down. The comparison wasn't made in order to attempt to rewrite history. It was a comparison of careers and a reflection of what part race may have played in the recognizing of career accomplishments. It doesn't diminish or erase either McDaniel's or Roger's careers.

@@RealGRRRLz69 No, it was political correctness pure and simple. "Woke" up.