Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by LouAvul
....snip......
Based on Margaret Mitchell's hugely popular novel, producer David O. Selznick's four-hour epic tale of the American South during slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction is the all-time box-office champion.
.......snip........
Considering its financial success and critical acclaim, "Gone With the Wind" may be the most famous movie ever made.
It's also a lie.
......snip.........
Along with D.W. Griffith's technically innovative but ethically reprehensible "The Birth of a Nation" (from 1915), which portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as heroic, "GWTW" presents a picture of the pre-Civil War South in which slavery is a noble institution and slaves are content with their status.
Furthermore, it puts forth an image of Reconstruction as one in which freed blacks, the occupying Union army, Southern "scalawags" and Northern "carpetbaggers" inflict great harm on the defeated South, which is saved - along with the honor of Southern womanhood - by the bravery of KKK-like vigilantes.
To his credit, Selznick did eliminate some of the most egregious racism in Mitchell's novel, including the frequent use of the N-word, and downplayed the role of the KKK, compared with "Birth of a Nation," by showing no hooded vigilantes.
......snip.........
One can say that "GWTW" was a product of its times, when racial segregation was still the law of the South and a common practice in the North, and shouldn't be judged by today's political and moral standards. And it's true that most historical scholarship prior to the 1950s, like the movie, also portrayed slavery as a relatively benign institution and Reconstruction as unequivocally evil.
.....snip.........
Or as William L. Patterson of the Chicago Defender succinctly wrote: "('Gone With the Wind' is a) weapon of terror against black America."
(Excerpt) Read more at sacticket.com ...
Call abuse any time you wish and I never insulted your mother.
My characterization of its meaning and import is completely exact. In no way was it a "Get Out of Union for Free" card.
The French didn't kill Tom Paine though they wanted to. He died a drunk in the US or maybe Britain.
No, the Federalists promised that they would add one, even though they saw no need for it, in order to disarm their opposition and get the Constitution ratified.
The only "right" the States' Rights clan cared for was the right to enslave other humans.
NONSENSE. Lincoln's unconstitutional authorization to military officers to empower them to suspend habeas corpus at their discretion was NEVER approved by Congress. In 1863, Lincoln finally settled for a bill granting indemnity from criminal prosecution or civil liability for his criminal acts.
The attempt to have his unconstitutional authorization to suspend habeas corpus approved in 1861 was brought at Senate Resolution 1.
And as you well know, SR-1 was hooted out of Congress. It was finally buried to prevent it being subject to an embarrassing vote. This resolution never even made it to the house. The Lincolnpimps could not even obtain approval of a committee.
In 1861, Senator Wilson brought a proposed Joint Resolution to the Senate, SR-1. It was batted around throughout the special session called by Ayotollah Abe.
It read as follows:
Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all of the extraordinary acts, proclamations, and orders hereinbefore mentioned, be, and the same are hereby, approved and declared to be in all respects legal and valid, to the same intent, and with the same effect, as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.
The items "hereinbefore mentioned" were:
First. He did, on the fifteenth day of April last, issue his proclamation calling upon the several States for seventy-five thousand men to suppress such insurrectionary combinations, and to cause the laws to be faithfully executed.
Secondly. He did, on the nineteenth day of April last, issue a proclamation setting on foot a blockade of the ports within the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
Thirdly. He did, on the twenty-seventh day of April last, issue a proclamation establishing a blockade of the ports within the States of Virginia and North Carolina.
Fourthly. He did, by an order of the twenty-seventh day of April last, addressed to the commanding general of the army of the United States, authorize that officer to suspend the writ of habeas corpus at any point on or in the vicinity of any military line between the city of Philadelphia and the city of Washington.
Fifthly. He did, on the third day of May last, issue a proclamation calling into the service of the United States forty-two thousand and thirty-four volunteers, increasing the regular army by the addition of twenty-two thousand seven hundred and fourteen men, and the navy by an addition of eighteen thousand seamen.
Sixthly. He did, on the tenth day of May last, issue a proclamation authorizing the commander of the forces of the United States on the coast of Florida to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, if necessary.
This pertained to Lincoln authorizing Scott to suspend habeas corpus and was shot down in flames. It never even attempted to justify Scott authorizing other military officers to suspend habeas corpus.
The battle continued down to the final day of the session, August 5, 1861. During the session, which started in July, the tide turned against this attempted rape of the Constitution.
Right near the end of the session, Mr. Wilson rose and implored the body one more time, "Let us have a vote."
A brave Senator, a true Patriot, a common-sense lover of the Law and the Constitution, rose up to smite the usurping infidel and told Mr. Wilson for the last time, NO! You may not defile and rape our beloved Constitution.
OK, what he really said was more polite and went like this, "Now, my friend is clamorous. He cannot keep still. He says, 'let us have a vote.' I am not disposed to vote upon the resolution. I will tell the Senator from Kentucky I am not prepared to vote for the resolution, and it is not going to pass without consideration. It is not going to pass in the shape it is by my approbation."
Yea, verily, that brave Senator, that true Patriot, that common-sense lover of the Law and the Constitution who rose up so bravely to slam-dunk infidel Senator Wilson and his bill into eternity was none other than ILLINOIS SENATOR LYMAN TRUMBULL.
QUOTES FROM THE SENATE RECORD REGARDING SR-1
Pages : [64] , [137] , [138] , [139] , [140] , [141] , [142]
[333] , [334] , [392] , [395] , [453]
Mr. President, in the State of Missouri, there was no "Law of the United States opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed by combinations of men too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." Indeed, sir, there was no resistance of any United States law. Yet Missouri, peaceful and law abiding, without cause, against law and in defiance of the Constitution , was invaded by United States troops, by troops from Illinois, by troops from Iowa, and by troops from Kansas. Indeed, sir, it seems that from the very moment in which the administration resolved upon this policy of coercion, the State of Missouri was marked as a victim for sacrifice, for invation, and subjugation.
~ Mr. Polk, July 11, 1861, page 64 ~
The joint resolution would seem, upon the face of it, to admit that the acts of the President were no performed in obedience to the Constitution and the laws. If that be true, I should be glad to hear some reasons assigned by gentlemen showing the power of the Congress of the United States, by joint resolution, to cure a breach of the Constitution or to indemnify the President against violations of the Constitution and the laws. If, in any respect that officer has violated the laws, he has also violated the Constitution; because one clause of that instrument declares that "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." It confers on him the power to see that they are executed; but no power to violate them.
~ Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, page 137 ~
I deny, Mr. President, that one branch of this Government can indemnify any other branch of the Government for a violation of the Constitution or the laws. The powers conferred upon the General Government by the people of the States are the measure of its authority. Those powers have been confided to different departments, and the boundaries of those departments determined with perfect exactitude. The President has his powers and rights conferred on him by the Constitution; the legislative authority its powers and rights; the judicial authority its powers and rights; the judicial authority its powers and rights; and I deny that either can encroach upon the other, or that either can indemnify the other for a usurpation of powers not confided to it by the Constitution. Sir, Congress, by a joint resolution, has no more right, in my opinion, to make valid a violation of the constitution and the laws by the President, than the President would have by an entry upon the executive journal to make valid a usurpation of the executive power by the legislative department. Congress has no more right to make valid an unconstitutional act of the President, than the President would have to make valid an act of the Supreme Court of the United States encroaching upon executive power; or than the Supreme Court would have the right to make valid an act of the executive encroaching upon the judicial power.
~ Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, pp. 137-8 ~
It is proposed, sir, to approve and make valid the act of the President in enlisting men for three and five years. I ask you by what authority of Constitution or law he has done this act? The power is not conferred in the constitution; it has not been granted by the law. it is, therefore an unconstitutional and illegal act of executive power. The President, of his own will -- and that is one of the acts enumerated in this joint resolution which is propowed to approve and ratify -- has added immensely to the force of the regular Army. The Constitution says that Congress shall raise armies, and a law now upon your statute book limits the number of the regular force, officers and men. Hence, sir, that is an act in derogation both of the Constitution and of the laws.
~ Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, pp. 138 ~
The President has added immensely to the Navy of the United States. The Constitution says that Congress shall provide and maintain a navy; and there is now a law upon the statute book limited the number of men to be employed in the Navy. That, like the rest, sir, will not bear argument. I doubt if an attempt will be made to defend it upon constitutional or legal grounds. I pronounce it a usurpation.
~ Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, pp. 138 ~
I need not say to the Senate that in england, whence we derive this right, the legislative power alone can suspend it. We all know, sir, that the monarch of England cannot suspend it. We all know, sir, that the monarch of england cannot suspend that writ; but transatlantic freemen seem to be eager to approve and ratify acts which a European monarch would not dare to perform. Mr. President, it needs no elaborate argument to show that the executive authority of the United States has no right to suspend the write of habeas corpus.
~ Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, pp. 138 ~
I enumerate what I regard as usurpations of the Executive to go upon the record as a protest of those of us who are not willing to see the Constitution subverted, and the public liberty trampled under foot, under whatever pretest, of necessity or otherwise.
~ Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, pp. 139 ~
: I remember to have read, not long since, a speech made by the present able Secretary of War, in this city, in which he said that the southern States must be subdued, and that at the end of this contest there would be no more Virginians as such, or Carolinians as such; but only Americans all. Sir, the name of American is a proud one, and I lvoe it; but it is the preservation of the names of Virginians and Pennsylvanians, and the distinctive existence of all these States, which alone can keep the name of American a proud one. I never want to see them blotted out. I said, sir, that in my opinion, the tendency was to change our character of government, and that the purpose, if not avowed, is acted upon to conduct those proceedings without regard to the limitation of the Constitution. these things I have enumerated go to show it. This Joint Resolution goes to show it. I call upon Senators to defend the constitutionality of these acts, or else to admit that we intend to conduct this contest without regard to the Constitution.
~ Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, pp. 140 ~
In the course of the same speech to which I have referred, that eminent Senator declared that not only must that country be ravaged by armies, but that unless the people of those States paid willing and loyal obedience to the Federal Government, their State form must be changed, and they must be reduced to the condition of Territories; to be governed by Governors sent from Massachusetts and Illinois. This was said seriously; and afterwards, when referred to by my colleague on a subsequent day, reaffirmed by that eminent Senator. If necessary, reduced to the condition of Territories! Is there authority in the Constitution to do it?
~ Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, pp. 140-1 ~
We can only hope that this flash of frenzy may not assume the form of chronic madness, and that in any event Divine providence may preserve for us and for posterity, out of the wreck of a broken Union, the priceless principles of constitutional liberty and of self-government. [Applause in the galleries.]
~ Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, pp. 142 ~
The suspension of the privilege of the habeas corpus by executive authority is a violation of the principles of public freedom which have been consecrated for centuries. These principles were dear to our Anglo-Saxon forefathers before the period of Magna Charta. From the days of Magna Charta, which, seeking to restore ancient rights, provided that no freeman should be taken or imprisoned without the lawful judgment of his peers, or the law of the land, down to the declaration of our independence, that principle has been dear to the freemen of England and America.
~ Mr. Pearce, July 30, 1861, page 333 ~
If necessity, whichg is an odious plea, known for hundreds of years as "the tyrant's plea" -- a plea by which you may overthrow all constitutional provisions -- if that plea is efficient here; if that is a justification for a violation of one provision of the Constitution, it is equally a justification for any and all violations of it.
~ Mr. Pearce, July 30, 1861, page 333 ~
So too, sir, these domiciliary visits, which are equally in violation of a provision of the Constitution, are sought to be justified by necessity. Now, let us see where these things are done. Nowhere, so far as I am informed, except in the State of Maryland, unless there be some exceptions in the State of Missouri.
~ Mr. Pearce, July 30, 1861, page 334 ~
My objection to taking up this resolution I will state in a word. I believe it is in order to state briefly the objection. This resolution which the Senator from Massachusetts seeks to take up is germane to the bill which is the unfinished business. The resolution proposed to declare legal the acts which have been done by the President in the recess of Congress. Will our declaration make them legal if they are not legal? Will it make them so if they were unconstitutional and void?
~ Mr. TRUMBULL, August 2, 1861, page 392 ~
The Senator from Maine evidently entertains a very sincere conviction that the action of the President has not been in violation of the constitution or the laws; because he has asserted it six or seven times in the ocurse of the brief speech he has made to the Senate. His convictions are evidently deep and sincere. All I have to say in reply to that is, that it will be a very great comfort to the President to be assured of that fact; forhe himself has been under the impression that he has been transcending both; and, indeed, he admits it in his message, and puts it expressly on the ground of a popular demand and what he deemed to be a public necessity. It has also been admitted by many Senators on the other side of the chamber. I have not believed, all along, that the resolution was going to be voted by the Senate. I do not believe it now. It may be; but I think not. My deliberate judgment is, that in some mode the Senate will avoid putting itself on record in favor of the principles contained in this resolution. It is indifferent to me whether it does or not. Of course, every Senator will vote his own convictions if brought to a vote; but I do not think there are many Senators who want their names to go upon history in favor of this resolution.
~ Mr. Breckinridge, August 2, 1861, page 392 ~
The President issued a proclamation calling into the service of the United States forty-two thousand and thirty-four volunteers. It was clearly illegal; I am not satisfied it was necessary. I am inclined to think it was not.
~ Mr. Howe, August 2, 1861, page 395 ~
I cannot consent to give my approval to the fourth and sixth acts enumerated in the resolution, by which the President authorized the commanding General to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. I do not rise to make a speech; but to give the reason why I cannot vote for the resolution.
~ Mr. Thomson, August 2, 1861, page 395 ~
MR. WILSON. Let us have a vote.
MR. TRUMBULL. Now, my friend is clamorous. he cannot keep still. he says "let us have a vote." I am not disposed to vote upon the resolution. I will tell the Senator from Kentucky I am not prepared to vote for the resolution, and it is not going to pass without consideration. It is not going to pass in the shape it is by my approbation.
~ Messrs. Wilson and Trumbull, August 5, 1861, page 453. ~
Please we are speaking of the RAT Rebellion or the Slavers' Insurrection. Other names are misleading.
[ftD #1036] Let me see, I see Virgina, Georgia and North Carolina and South Carolina, so we can say that they were at least part of the United States of America.
4 out of 13 is unanimous. Brigade new math.
The letter specifically says "The Constitution requires an adoption en toto, and FOR EVER." Exactly what I said.
As for your great discovery of the reciprocal nature of the compact it also undermines your case by since it means changes wrt to the compact must be made on a reciprocal basis not a unilateral declaration by a participant in it. Thus, constitutional secession would be possible only through the defined amendment process.
I am glad you looked it up too bad you didn't understand what it says. Of course, who knows what "for ever" means to you. Before you lapse into paranoid conclusions perhaps you should examine my posts and find ONE which includes a posting of a document. You won't be able to.
Nor is your construction of Islamic marriage correct the women are not married to each other there are four separate marriages not just one.
Our Union is an organic thing and removing a state unconstitutionally is as destructive of that Union as removing the head from a body.
What fortheDeclaration REALLY said:
[ftD #978] Article 7 states that the States agreed unanimously as the Independent United States of America,
[ftD #978] The U.S. Constitution was ratified by the States United
Read my post again. It is in response to what you REALLY said. If you still do not understand it, or if you can't recall what you REALLY said, you will just have to deal with remaining one of the Brigade Commander's stable boys.
Baloney.
For each slave which made it to this continent two died in the attempt to get him here. That produced a holocaust which rivals Hitler's. Mass Murder.
Americans of this day and age have far more freedoms than did any of their ancestors, except possibly the slavers. There is no doubt about this and ideological silliness doesn't change it. Nor does a yearning for a world which never existed. To claim otherwise is just another demonstration of ideology try to trump reality.
Sorry but I don't grasp your meaning.
Brought here by YANKEES.
Actually brought here by Slavers generally English but from whatever region Slavers. And the worst of the lot since their disregard of human suffering was much worse than that of their ultimate owner.
One would think that the man who brought you out of the holds of one of those death ships would have been received as a benefactor.
You will never see me give any involved in this abomination a pass and never have.
A million pages of rebuttal to the inanities of Curtis and McLean do not add up to a single change to the decision of the Court.
If you can document some part of the Decision of the Court that changed, quote the original and quote the change.
AND YOU HAVE STILL NOT PROVIDED YOUR BRILLIANT LEGAL THEORY TO FREE DRED SCOTT.
All you do is yammer about changes you have never seen and are unable to produce.
Actually by the descendants of the Yankees who captured most of the Indians of their state and sold them into slavery. Well, the Massachusettians didn't have any products worth selling, so they had to make a living somehow.
I see where you are going with your rationale. You do not consider additions, rebuttal, and the introduction of new lines of argument to be "changes."
"If you can document some part of the Decision of the Court that changed, quote the original and quote the change."
"When [Justice Curtis] finally acquired a copy of Taney's published opinion, Curtis compared it with his recollection of the oral version, which he had heard twice - first in conference and then again on March 6. He concluded that 'upwards of eighteen pages' had been added. 'No one can read them,' he declared, 'without perceiving that they are in reply to my [dissenting] opinion.' Thus Curtis maintained the about one-third of the published opinion was new material introduced as rebuttal, whereas Taney insisted emphatically that he made no significant changes or additions. Which man's reckoning is more trustworthy? How much did Taney change his opinion after delivering it from the bench? For the most part, historians merely recorded the disagreement, without attempting to settle it.
"Unfortunately, the opinion that Taney read from the bench was not preserved, and the newspaper summary is inadequate for systematic comparison with the published version. There are, nevertheless, some indications to the extent to which [Taney] revised the original document."
Professor Fehrenbacher (Dred Scott Case) notes that both Curtis and McLean were surprised that the decision was not immediately published, as was the normal practice. As I noted in an earlier post on this thread, they were aware of the rumors that were speading, to the effect, that Taney was revising the decision.
A great deal of Taney's papers have been preserved, and a book you have (Swisher's biography) references some of his private papers. Even Fehrenbacher makes light of scraps of notes, draft opinions, incomplete manuscripts, etc., that Taney had saved. Don't you find it strange that Taney's text he read from the Bench did not survive? What do you think Taney might have done with that historic document? I think the answer is obvious - he destroyed the evidence of his duplicity.
Got it. "Southern insurrectionist cause" is probably too euphemistic.
Please explain your perception of the PRE-constitutional American judicial system to me.
The Constitution CREATED the Federal courts.
Some of these turkeys are so STUPID that tomorrow they may get stuffed, shoved in an oven, and cooked.
The cooking process will not affect their IQ.
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.