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 ...
That is completely false wrt to Hamilton's intentions and interests. He had one interest outside raising his family and that was the strengthening of the Union everything was bent toward that end. Any benefit for the upper classes was secondary. Far from being a member of that class he sacrificed his opportunity to create a fortune through his legal work by running the government from 1789 to 1799 ( Adams was unaware that he controlled his administration for three years). As the greatest lawyer in the nation he would have been a millionaire but for his devotion to the nation. The pygmy, crooks and snakes-in-the-grass who opposed him and the RAT media of the day were far more self-interested than he.
Why would he allow George Clinton to drag the Union down when he could remove NYC from his baleful influence? Session was a real option at that time if NYC wished to remain in the Union. His view of the states was that they were a negative influence when under the control of forces such as Clinton and early Machine politician like Mayor Daley. Their concerns are always parochial and petty. Thus, a giant like Hanilton whould strain every nerve to reduce their power.
There were concentrations of slaves as high in southern NY state as in any southern state then and States' Righters there included George Clinton, the beneficiary of their Masters' votes. At that time there was legalized slavery in almost all states.
This refers to the power structure supporting slavery north and south which was the core of the democrat party of that day, the anti-federalists not all of whom were from the south.
Madison "...en toto, and for ever." Game, match.
Fortunately for the Union and unfortunately for the Slaver Insurrectionists and their defense team, Hamilton's program laid the basis for the development of a strong capitalistic economy in the North which allowed the creation of and arming an army capable of defeating the insane designs of the Slavers.
This is the reason Hamilton is so despised by the DSs. Had his program been a failure and weakened the North you couldn't have been happier.
Of course, it is typical misleading nonsense from you to compare an infant industry with a small market to British operations able to produce for a world market such as the Empire. Economies of scale produce the profits capable of drawing forth investment from the largest banks in the world at that time, the British and even the larger European ones. Comparing apples and oranges is pointless.
More venom, yet still no content or substantiation. The simple fact of history is that the major industries that protectionism was supposed to help - textiles, woolens, and iron - did not experience the anticipated technological growth spurt and in fact lagged behind with inferior and antiquated technologies. That fact has been thoroughly documented by several very distinguished economists including Frank Taussig, nobel laureate Robert Fogel, and Paul David to name a few. Hamiltonian protectionism was a failure. Live with it.
Although he is entertaining to taunt, I concur. Some of his behavior is way over the line of common decency. Lately he's been libeling other posters by accusing them of supporting David Duke, the KKK, the American nazi party and all sorts of other evil organizations. Of course the true irony in his charges is the fact that he himself openly affiliated with, praised, and considered among his allies the poster known as #3fan - the same #3fan who got the boot after we exposed his neo-nazi affiliations and discovered he was posting material from an Aryan Nation website.
It all goes back to my earlier remark about El Capitan: he has no aversion whatsoever to publicly align himself with and cite sources that are avowed marxists, reparationists, ACLU lawyers, SPLC thugs, hippies, leftists, neo-nazis, sexual deviants, and other red diaper doper babies so long as they partake in his Lincoln worship.
But if anybody who says anything even remotely favorable about the south he goes off the deep end and eventually ends up hurling bombs at those persons in which he accuses them of being the very same vile things that he counts among his inner circle of FR conversants and "academic" sources!
Your posts concerning Wood suggest you haven't actually read Scalia's book. Am I mistaken?
It is easy for you to sit back and carp about sources, resources, and authorities. That's what ignorant whiners do. It is a concession on its face. You make ad hominem attacks rather than logically or reasonably deal with the issues.
You have posted enough about your scientific background that I have a pretty good idea you are capable of rational discussion. Those who have been schooled in the sciences usually are analytical by nature. You also understand the importance of the scientific contributions of recognized authorities.
Read this and divine for me Wood's politics:
http://www.auroraforum.org/downloads/woodintro_natlpride.pdf
That is scary.
And did you not take issue with that statement?
And doesn't my listing of Wood's recent academic achievements confirm what I said in #1079?
From the essay, here is how YOUR SOURCE describes the case:
"When the Jefferson Administration completed its first term in office, Vice President Aaron Burr (who had been indicted in New York and New Jersey for murder as a result of having killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel) found it prudent to travel west. There, he allegedly conspired with others to separate some of this country's newly acquired western territories from their allegiance to the United States. Among his alleged co-conspirators were Samuel Swartwout and Dr. Erick Bollman. In December, 1806, they were seized by General James Wilkinson, the American Army commander in New Orleans (who was himself heavily and discreditably involved in the alleged events). 'Both men were denied counsel and access to the courts and sent by warship' to Baltimore via Charleston--in defiance of writs of habeas corpus granted by territorial judges in New Orleans and a District Judge in Charleston.
"They arrived in Washington on Friday, January 23, 1807; '[t]hat afternoon, to ensure that the prisoners would not be freed with another writ of habeas corpus, Senator William Branch Giles introduced legislation to suspend the writ for three months . . . legalize Wilkinson's arrest of Bollman and Swartwout and to keep the pair in confinement.' Meeting in closed session, the Senate passed the measure with only a single dissenting vote, but by Monday, January 23, the atmosphere had cooled, and the House by a vote of 113-19 bluntly rejected the proposal as unworthy of consideration.
"On the following day, the United States attorney moved the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia for an arrest warrant in order to have the pair committed to stand trial on a charge of treason. A divided bench granted the motion.
"The prisoners then applied to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. As Justices Johnson and Chase expressed doubts as to the Court's jurisdiction, Chief Justice Marshall set that preliminary question down for full argument. 'Interest in the argument that followed was at fever pitch, almost the whole of Congress being in attendance.'"
You conveniently "forget" that the issue being discussed at that time was whether the President had the constitutional right to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Some of the neo-reb posters quoted dicta from Bollman as "proof" that only Congress could suspend the writ.
I pointed out, as did other posters, that the suspension of the writ was not an issue in Bollman, therefore Marshall's comments made in passing are not authoritative. Nor is the issue in Bollman (treason) analogous to the exigencies of early 1861.
Freeman correctly points out, as did Levy, and as did several other posters, that Bollman was about whether the two principles could be tried for treason. Habeas was a side issue.
Scott v Sandford did not appear out of thin air, without a history. Although Negro citizenship and the restriction on slavery in the territories in the Missouri Compromise were not part of Emerson, other issues did. Fehrenbacher notes that Scott's attorney, Montgomery Blair, "drew heavily from Judge Gamble's dissenting opinion in Scott v Emerson." Fehrenbacher also notes that the "defence counsel reiterated the arguments previously used in Sanford's behalf."
My comment that these cases were "all part of the Dred Scott record" is quite true.
It was here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1279209/posts?q=1&&page=751#783
Just leave her out of it.
Invoking the rule about heat and kitchens. Smoky back room, and all that.
Here is what I wrote back then:
From the Hamdi v Rumsfeld decision, comes this short review of Mitchell. I saw the case referenced several times, but I have not taken time to look it up yet, so I will limit my comments
(When you took exception to the use of the term "decison," I corrected it to "documentation.")
"The Fourth Circuit’s ruling also is entirely inconsistent with this Court’s long experience with the review of Executive branch seizures. In Mitchell v. Harmony, this Court reviewed and rejected the military’s seizure of a citizen’s property in Mexico during the Mexican-American war. 54 U.S. (13 How.) at 128-29. The plaintiff, a naturalized American businessman, filed an action against a U.S. colonel to recover the value of his property seized by the military. The government responded that the businessman had a “design” to trade with the enemy, and that the decision of the military commander to seize the property “must be entitled to some respect.” Id. at 118, 120.
"Rejecting these arguments, Chief Justice Taney’s opinion for the Court found the government’s defense to be based on “rumors which reached the commanding officer.” Id. at 133. “Mere suspicions of an illegal intention,” the Court stated, “will not authorize a military officer to seize and detain the property of an American citizen. The fact that such an intention existed must be shown; and of that there is no evidence.” Id. If an Article III court, consistent with separation of powers principles, can inquire into the seizure of a citizen’s property by the military within a country at war with the United States as in Harmony, these same principles surely pose no barrier to an inquiry into the seizure of the citizen himself."
It seems that Mitchell is not applicable to the situation of the South in the ACW. By their insurrection, the southern rebels forsook their claim to United States citizenship. I do not see how they could assert legal protections, if those protections were even applicable, from the document and country they renounced.
From a 'reply brief" we find this statement: "In a footnote, Respondents distinguish this Court’s opinions in Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 115 (1851), Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932), and prize cases by explaining that they 'do not support the type of factual development that petitioners have in mind with respect to the challenged enemy-combatant determination in this case.'" Her is the web article:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs_03/03-6696PetReply.pdf
I may have been mistaken about connecting the two (or maybe not), but your focus on trivial terminology diverts attention from the issue at hand. You won't argue the substance, because you'll lose; so you argue the form its presented.
It is a loser's diversion, and you are the master at it.
Not at all. You misread the quote. You really need to quote context instead of these one-liners -- or in this case, a half-liner or even quarter-liner.
You've blown any bit of credibility you might have still retained.
Madison dicussed governmental powers and the differences between those for the federal government, and those reserved to the states:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain with the state governments and numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external object, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state." (Federalist 45).
The powers reserved to the states have to do with localized control within a federal system. Unilateral secession purports to abandon that system and deny the citizens of their Constitutional rights and protections. Unilateral secession is not, therefore, a constitutional process, and is not authorized by the 10th Amendment.
I'm still around because I don't violate "the prime directives" (no profanity, racism, or personal attacks).
I don't think so, obviously.
He had one interest outside raising his family and that was the strengthening of the Union everything was bent toward that end.
Rather too much was bent toward that end -- and you forgot to add "as he saw it". Hamilton was, as I've said, an operator and a manipulator. Lest anyone think I'm being overly hard on Hamilton, consider this first-person account of a conversation that Hamilton had in 1782 with New York republican and later Antifederalist Abraham Yates, Jr. Hamilton, in Yates's first-person recordation of the meeting, asked him
Wether if the Financier appointed me [Yates] Receiver of Taxes I would promiss on Every Occasion to promote the view of the Financier [Gouverneur Morris, a Hamilton ally] tho it should be against my oppinion & should Even I conceive it to be against the Intrest of the State. I got a little out of Temper I told him I was an Honest Man and Acted agreeable to the Dictate of my Conscience. He farther in Conversation told me he looked upon the Loan Office as useless that it ought to be put in the Hand, of the Receiver of Taxes or such other Person as was under the Immediate Direction of the Financier. I told him I thought the Financier had too much Power already and that Congress had better Curtail him -- but I thought Congress could not now take it up as he had done Congress such Essential Service.
Quoted in The Antifederalists, p. 112.
This memorandum clearly shows that Hamilton valued others merely as manipulable digits on his hand, or on that of his ally Morris. It might be replied that the programs, causes, and concepts he was promoting were more important than people, but to quote Lee Iacocca, as he fired someone else who was unsupportive of others, "that's too bad, because people is all we've got around here."
...he sacrificed his opportunity to create a fortune through his legal work by running the government from 1789 to 1799 ( Adams was unaware that he controlled his administration for three years).
Thank you for corroborating my point. If he wanted to run the administration, he should have been elected President of the United States and achieved and accepted the full responsibility, instead of clandestinely and unaccountably exercising someone else's responsibility for him. This is not honest behavior, and collaborating with people like Hamilton is never a good idea. Neither is supporting them and neither is praising them for their effectiveness. If you exalt effectiveness over principles, you might as well subside into a naked despotism, and let Hamilton's massive ego run rampant.
Why bother with democratic republicanism, if you admire men like Hamilton who "can get it done"? That's not a New World value, except in the corporofascist culture, if you can call it that, of Northern industrialism.
Consider, too, the value of the contradiction between Hamilton's desire that a man like Abraham Yates, Jr., should subordinate his opinions and judgment to another (Gouverneur Morris) as a condition of holding office, and what Hamilton himself did in the ostensible service of the Adams Administration.
His contemporaries knew the same sorts of things about Hamilton, and that knowledge blunted his effectiveness in public (as opposed to his ability behind closed doors, which you attest). For example, during the New York ratification convention, which was dominated by Antifederalists who were nevertheless persuadable after the ratification of the Constitution by ten other States, meaning that the Confederation was in effect already at an end,
Hamilton has been given much credit for the outcome, but actually his views were so well known in New York that his activity was perhaps more of a liability than an asset to the Federalists. Charles Tillinghast reported, "You would be surprised did you not know the Man, what an amazing Republican Hamilton wishes to make himself be considered. But he is known." [Emphasis in original.]
Op. cit. p. 238.
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.