Commentary: Truth blown away in sugarcoated 'Gone With the Wind'

sacbee ^ | 11-13-04

[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."

[unspun]

But no, we have to do it the other way -- 620,000 other people have to die. I get it.

The South should not have violated the USA and started the war. Those deaths are at their feet, my chip-shouldered southern FRiend. Also the assassination of our great president.

[nolu chan]

capitan_kerryfugio Lying Again

[capitan kerry_fugio #1086] I retracted my comments concerning Lemmon the next day. I was clearly mistaken about that case and the only three sentences in which I ever mentioned it. (You are beating a dead horse.)

[capitan_refugio #526 09/01/2004] "I remembered Lemmon was a sojourn and transit case regarding New York. And I recall there was SC case that foreshadowed . When I have time, I'll figure out which one that was."

No, capitan_kerryfugio, you did not post a retraction, you substituted a different lie. That is what dishonest liars do. As a substitute for the non-existent SCOTUS case of Lemmon v. The People, you substituted a different non-specific yet still non-existent SCOTUS case. As was to be expected, you have yet to "figure out which one that was." I previously provided you with a link to a complete list of all SCOTUS case citations from 1790 to 1862 and challenged you to cite the case. As was to be expected, you simply moved to another thread.

Citations of ALL SCOTUS cases 1790-1862

There is the link again. Cite the case.

And what you purported to "remember" was: "Lemmon v the People was a case which foreshadowed Dred Scott. The Taney Court overturned a New York State statute which immediately freed slaves brought into the state. The decision guaranteed 'sojourn and transit' rights to slave-owners through free states. It did not address, to my knowledge, the issue of residence."

[nolu chan]

capitan_kerryfugio Lying Again

[capitan kerry_fugio #1086] (4) Amy Warwick and Brilliante were all part of the Prize Cases. The citation was wrong, but the point being made was concerning whether Lincoln instituted a "blockade" under international law. You are still wrong on that point. A country cannot blockade its own ports.

You know the court said otherwise, and you are still lying.

In cr #649 you purported to quote from the Opinion of the Supreme Court in The Prize Cases. You continued, in your words, "The Supreme Court finds: (1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries, (2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and (3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority."

In this case you quoted from the recap of the argument of one of the lawyers, Mr. Carlisle, and presented it as the opinion of the court. All of your purported "findings" of the court were the reverse of the actual findings of the court.

Thank you for chiming in> I refer you to the text of Amy Warwick (1862): "But chiefly, the terms of the President's proclamation instituting [67 U.S. 635, 641]...."

The Supreme Court finds:

(1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries,
(2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and
(3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority.

-- capitan_refugio, #649, 09/03/2004

[nc] cr quotes are from pp. 640-642 of the Supreme Court Reporter.

The entirety of the quoted matter was from the Court Reporter's recitation of the Argument of Mr. Carlisle which runs from page 639 to 650. The Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Grier starts at page 665.

All of the findings attributed to the Court are arguments of Mr. Carlisle. None was adopted by the Court.

On FINDLAW, bracketed comments in text of case [67 U.S. 635, 650] indicate this report starts at Volume 67, page 635 and you are at the beginning of page 650.

| 635 | 639 | 640 | 641 | 650 | 665 | 682 | 699 |

[court reporter at p. 639] "One argument on each side is all that can be given. Those of Mr. Dana and Mr. Carlisle have been selected...."
[court reporter at p. 639] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Ends presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Dana.
[Opinion of the Court - Mr. Grier] pp. 665 - 682.
[Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Nelson] pp. 682 - 699.

---

OPINION OF THE COURT http://laws.findlaw.com/us/67/635.html

"THE PRIZE CASES"

U.S. Supreme Court THE AMY WARWICK, 67 U.S. 635 (1862)
67 U.S. 635 (Black)

THE BRIG AMY WARWICK.
THE SCHOONER CRENSHAW.
THE BARQUE HIAWATHA.
THE SCHOONER BRILLIANTE.

December Term, 1862

* * *

Mr. Justice GRIER.

There are certain propositions of law which must necessarily affect the ultimate decision of these cases, and many others, which it will be proper to discuss and decide before we notice the special facts peculiar to each.

They are, 1st. Had the President a right to institute a blockade of ports in possession of persons in armed rebellion against the Government, on the principles of international law, as known and acknowledged among civilized States?

* * *

On this first question therefore we are of the opinion that the President had a right, jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion, which neutrals are bound to regard.

* * *

II. The case of the Hiawatha.

The Court below in decreeing against the claimants proceeded upon the ground that the cargo was shipped after notice of the blockade.

The fact is clearly established, and if there were no qualifying circumstances, would well warrant the decree. But after a careful examination of the correspondence of the State and Navy Departments, found in the record, we are not satisfied that the British Minister erred in the construction he put upon it, which was that a license was given to all vessels in the blockaded ports to depart with their cargoes within fifteen days after the blockade was extablished, whether the cargoes were taken on board before or after the notice of the blockade. All reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the claimants. Any other course would be inconsistent with the right administration of the law and the character of a just Government. But the record discloses another ground upon which the decree must be sustained. On the 19th of April the President issued a proclamation announcing his intention to blockade the ports of the several States therein named.

On the 27th of April he issued a further proclamation announcing his intention to blockade the ports of Virginia and North Carolina in addition to those of the States named in the previous one. On the 30th of April Commodore Pendergrast issued his proclamation announcing the blockade as established.

Here was a distinct warning that the vessel must leave within the time limited, after the commencement of the blockade.

---

[nolu chan]

capitan_kerryfugio Lying Again

[capitan kerry_fugio #1086] (5) It was indeed a footnote in the web article quoted from the Hamdi documentation.

You know what you are saying is false. You are deliberately lying.

No capitan. It is not from a web article, it is from a Petition by a public defender.

No capitan. It is not a footnote from anything. It spans the full width of the page, and ends page 24 and starts page 25. No footnote resembles that.

The images shown in my #1402 prove beyond a doubt that the Petition for a Writ of Cert cannot be mistaken for either the decision or the dissent. It looks nothing like a decision of the Supreme Court. It bears no resemblance to a court decision. It looks nothing like any court decision on FINDLAW. Court decisions on FINDLAW are single-spaced in HTML. This Petition was double-spaced in PDF.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERT BY PUBLIC DEFENDER [ PDF LINK ]

HAMDI DECISION BY U.S. SUPREME COURT [ Findlaw LINK

---

[nolu chan]

capitan_kerryfugio Lying Again

capitan_refugio #384 8/31/2004 to nc purported three quotes to be about the SCOTUS case of Scott v. Sandford which were actually about the Missouri case of Scott v. Emerson.

[capitan kerry_fugio #1086] (2) All part of the Dred Scott record.

One is a Federal case against Sandford.

The other is a Missouri case against Emerson.

It is two different cases. One was held under Missouri state law. The other was under Federal law.

They are not interchangeable. And you know it.

[nolu chan]

capitan_kerryfugio Lying Again

[capitan kerry_fugio #1086] (1) Bollman was about treason. Habeas corpus had not been suspended in the case, and much of the habeas discussion in Bollman is dicta.

capitan_refugio #237 8/29/2004 to GOPcap [ LINK to #237 ] argued that

Bollman was not about habeas corpus, it was about conspiracy to commit treason. Marshall's paasing commnet with regard to habeas are obiter dicta, and as you can see from the definition provided, are "not precedential."

Habeas Corpus, by Eric M. Freedman, NYU Press, 2001, devotes three entire chapters to Bollman.

You said Bollman was not about habeas corpus. You can try to add the word suspension in there now and change the subject, but, as with your other lies, it merely shows that your are trying to lie your way out of your previous lies.

Been there, done that.

[cr #1865] To return to the Bollman matter for a moment. Bollman was about what constituted "treason." Leonard Levy writes in The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution that....

Leonard Levy, Ph.D., UCHS class of 1940, is a retired professor of history who earned undergraduateand graduate degrees from Columbia University. He is a former Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional History and a former Dean at Brandeis University in Boston, Massachusetts.

History Professor Levy has also been cited as "Andrew W. Mellon All-Claremont Professor of Humanities and Chairman of the Graduate Faculty of History, Claremont Graduate School."

Eric M. Freedman is a professor of law.

Eric M. Freedman, Habeas Corpus, Rethinking the Great Writ of Liberty

From Amazon: "In this timely volume, Eric M. Freedman reexamines four of the Supreme Court's most important habeas corpus rulings: one by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1807 concerning Aaron Burr's conspiracy...."

As the Table of Contents shows, Chapters 3, 4, and 5 are devoted exclusively to Bollman,

[nolu chan]

I remember it but unfortunately I believe it is buried in The Late Great Deleted Thread.

[capitan_refugio]

Don't forget to cut out eye-holes this time.

[nolu chan]

I don't have to tell him what he already knows and has published.

This is very distinguished legal company, and I confess to wondering about my qualifications to be a commentator on Justice Scalia's paper. I do not seem to have too many of them. I have never been to law school, so I have not experienced that intellectual rebirth which Justice Scalia says every first-year law school student experiences. I am not a jurist. I am not a legal philosopher. I am not even a legal or constitutional historian. I am just a plain eighteenth-century American historian who happens to have written something on the origins of the Constitution. I am not sure that this suffices.

Source: Gordon Wood, from his essay which appears in A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, by Antonin Scalia, 1997, p. 49.

Gordon Wood is well-qualified to do what you cited, "Gordon Wood spent the fall term, 2003, teaching the Revolution and the origins of the Constitution at Northwestern Law School." That is the HISTORY, not law.

[nolu chan]

Boo!!!

[lentulusgracchus]

The South should not have violated the USA and started the war.

I will agree this far, that they should not have opened fire on Fort Sumter -- that was extremely stupid and short-sighted. The South wasn't ready for a war; it was barely on its feet.

That said, there is a difference between starting the shooting and starting the war. Lincoln served notice that it would be war, in his First Inaugural (read it sometime). Press reception of that speech, north and south, was unequivocally united on one point: it meant war. "It was on."

Those deaths are at their feet, my chip-shouldered southern FRiend. Also the assassination of our great president.

No, they aren't. They're at Lincoln's feet, I think because Lincoln planned and intended to start a civil war as a way around the Constitution. He needed secession to get the South out of the way, and he needed the war and bloodshed to drag the Southern States back into the Union at gunpoint, and reorganize their governments at his pleasure, and according to his will.

[lentulusgracchus]

Why do you think Justice Scalia chose the persons he did to review his essay?

Because he wanted a really good opportunity to lauch Wood into the bleachers?

[lentulusgracchus]

providing authoritative documentation as substantiation

Wood and Rakove. Right.

The filters favor your side, after 30 years of unemployable Marxists tunneling into the tenure system, most of whom probably agree with your agenda out of deference to Marx's own admiration of Lincoln, and so it's understandable you would want to leverage an asset: the high head-count of Wingy profs liable to agree with you on warring down the South.

[lentulusgracchus]

I never insulted your mother.

Yeah, you did, with that crack about childbirth.

[lentulusgracchus]

Sorry but I don't grasp your meaning.

Hamilton bent every sinew for the interests of the merchant and business class in New York City. He was one of them, and every proposal he made advanced their interests, even his threat uttered for the benefit of Antifederalists upstate in Albany, that if New York didn't vote to ratify, perhaps downstate New York would secede from the rest of the state. He and John Jay -- later our first Chief Justice and every bit as great a partisan snore as Hamilton -- retailed that one for the benefit of people around Gov. George Clinton. Ratify or else!!

He was a real piece of work.

[lentulusgracchus]

The only "right" the States' Rights clan cared for was the right to enslave other humans.

The shortest pamphlet ever printed on the ratification debates would show that that statement is just flatheaded and wrong. As if you'd care, when you're slamming the South again.

[lentulusgracchus]

My characterization of its meaning and import is completely exact. In no way was it a "Get Out of Union for Free" card.

Your attempt to gloss over the topic notwithstanding, the Tenth Amendment still, all the gall in your craw likewise notwithstanding, reserves all powers to the States that were not granted to the federal Union.

And that, my boyo, includes the right to secede, which the Southern States duly and thoughtfully exercised.

[lentulusgracchus]

A new low - even for you.

I could never get under you, fabricator.

[lentulusgracchus]

...but only after being ripped over the fraud contained in them. In normal circumstances one could probably excuse it as a one-time error, but given your unusually strong tendency toward making similar "errors" elsewhere, one can only conclude that your intent was to defraud.

Strong concurring bump, with emphasis added.

I don't even know why this guy is still around here. That kind of conduct ought to get a person TOS'd.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I made no mention of childbirth.