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."

[fortheDeclaration]

Now what are you babbling about?

INTRODUCTION EX PARTE MILLIGAN A democracy, even at war, must retain its basic democratic character, or else it loses that for which its citizens fight. War, however, places great strains on the body politic, and occasionally individual liberties and the needs of the state come into conflict. The Civil War had its share of overbearing governmental action, including Lincoln's questionable suspension of habeas corpus -- the "great writ" of Anglo-American law that provided for the release of people wrongfully imprisoned. Few of the government's actions came under the scrutiny of the courts during the war, but once the Union had achieved victory, the Supreme Court proved willing to hear some cases arising out of the conflict.

Lambden P. Milligan had been sentenced to death by an army court in Indiana for allegedly disloyal activities. Lincoln delayed his execution, but after Lincoln's assassination, the new president, Andrew Johnson, approved the sentence. Milligan's attorney appealed for his release under the 1863 Habeas Corpus Act, and the federal circuit court split on the question of whether civilian courts had jurisdiction over appeals from military tribunals. Although this seems only a technical matter, the case gave the Supreme Court a chance -- now that the fighting was over -- to comment on the limits of the government's war powers.

In what many scholars hail as a landmark in constitutional protection of civil liberties, the Court decided that military rule could not supersede the civil courts in areas where the civil courts and government remained open and operational. Indiana had been a loyal state, and its regular government and courts had functioned throughout the war. In such a situation, the military courts had no jurisdiction over civilians.

Certainly the language of Milligan allows the courts to interpose themselves between the citizenry on the one hand, and Congress, the president and the armed forces on the other. There is little doubt that the Lincoln administration overreacted to threats of potential disorder in the northern states, and the arbitrary use of executive authority -- often without congressional approval -- could only be justified by the unique conditions surrounding the Civil War. The Court's rebuff, however, came late, and its primary value was as a precedent for future governmental action. The United States, fortunately, has since been spared the problems of internal security in wartime to which Lincoln had to respond. For further reading: Charles Fairman, Reconstruction and Reunion, 1864-1888: Part One (1971); Stanley I. Kutler, Judicial Power and Reconstruction Politics (1968); and S. Klaus, ed., Milligan's Case (1929).

As for abuses on civil liberty, the South had it own share of problems in that area, starting with the worst one, having men in chains for no crime other then being the wrong race.

You hypocrites, strain at a gnat and swallow a camel'

[rustbucket]

Not only did the 10th Amendment not provide anything new ideas, it further limited the states' autonomy by removing any reference to "expressly delegated" powers of the federal government, and to state's "sovereignty, freedom, and independence."

Will it be said that the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of the Confederation were not within the purview of the convention, and ought not to have been varied? I ask, What are these principles? Do they require that, in the establishment of the Constitution, the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed. [Madison, Federalist 40]

[nolu chan]

[fortheDeclaration quoting another meathead Derek Alger who selectively quotes from Hanchett] According to historian William Hanchett in his book, The Lincoln Conspiracy Murders, "While it is unlikely that Holt doubted for a moment that Davis and the others were guilty, as charged, he and Stanton were too able and experienced to fail to recognize that the evidence presented at the conspiracy trial was not proof of guilt but only hearesay and that it was only as credible as the eyewitnesses who gave it."

Continuing on page 73, Hanchett wrote, "How credible were the witnesses? Even while the trial was in progress a flood of letters and affidavits denouncing Merritt, Montgomery, and Conover as liars and imposters was published in Canadian newspapers and reprinted in the United States."

Moving on to page 81, Hanchett wrote:

In fall 1866 Conover was discovered and arrested and brought to Washington to stand trial under his real name, Charles A. Dunham, for perjury and the suborning of perjury. Sentenced to prison for ten years, he confessed that he had coached the lying witnesses in their stories in order to take revenge against Confederate President Davis, by whose order he had been im­prisoned for six months in 1863 in Castle Thunder prison, Rich­mond. But he continued to insist that his testimony against Davis and the Confederate agents in Canada given at the 1865 con­spiracy trial was strictly true, and on this point Holt supported him for the rest of his life.

In a December 1866 letter to the president, Holt once again urged a military trial for Davis, despite the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Ex parte Milligan that such trials were illegal in areas where the civil courts were open and functioning. No part of the May 2nd proclamation, Holt assured Johnson, had been based on information supplied by Conover, whom he had not even known at that time. The proclamation had been based chiefly upon the testimony of Merritt and Montgomery, as corrobo­rated by many other witnesses. Its validity, he reminded the president, had been confirmed by the military commission, which, "after a long and patient investigation," arrived at ver­dicts of guilty for each of the eight defendants. The guilt of Da­vis had "thus become [a] matter of solemn record, and this record stands unimpeached."

If Holt really believed that the record of the military commis­sion stood unimpeached and that the Confederate leaders had been proved guilty as charged, he was doubtless the only mem­ber of the administration who did. In May 1867 Davis was re­leased from prison on bail. He was never brought to trial.

And there was perjurer Henry Von Steineker, alias Hans H. Vonwinklestein. On September 2, 1864 Private Von Steineker was court-martialed for "desertion" from the U.S. Army and found guilty. He was dishonorably discharged and sentenced to three years at hard labor. On May 12, 1865 he winds up testifying as a witness for the prosecution in the Lincoln assassination tribunal. On May 30, 1865 General Edward Johnson, then a prisoner of war, testified of Von Steineker, "he belonged to the Second Virginia Infantry, of the Stonewall Brigade, which was one of the brigades of my division." Mr. Aiken asked, "Q. Was he the subject of a court-martial at any time in your camp, and, if so, for what?" Judge Advocate Bingham objected: "I object to the question. The record of such a court-martial would be the only competent evidence of conviction, and if the record were here, it would not impart any verity. I do not think there were any courts in Virginia in those days that could legally try a dog." Mr. Aiken: "Under the circumstances, parol testimony of the fact is the best that can be offered, and therefore I presume it will not be seriously objected to." Mr. Aiken was wrong. The Commission then sustained the objection. Quotations are from the Pitman record of the Trial.

Pitman Assassination Trial Transcript Page 38

Henry Von Steineker.

For the Prosecution. - May 12. [1865]

I was in the Confederate service as an en­gineer officer in the Topographical Depart­ment, with the pay of an engineer, and was on the staff of General Edward Johnson. Al­together I was in the service nearly three years. In the summer of '63, being at Swift Run Gap, near Harrisonburg, I was over­taken by three citizens, and rode with them some eighteen or twenty hours. The name of one was Booth and another Shepherd.

[A photograph of John Wilkes Booth being shown to the witness, he identified a resemblance between it and the person referred to. The photograph was offered in evidence.]

I was asked by Booth, and also by the others, what I thought of the probable suc­cess of the Confederacy. I told them, after such a chase as we had just had from Get­tysburg, I thought it looked very gloomy. Booth replied, ''That is nonsense. If we only act our part, the Confederacy will gain its independence. Old Abe Lincoln must go up the spout, and the Confederacy will gain its independence any how." By this expres­sion I understood he meant the President must be killed. He said that as soon as the Confederacy was nearly giving out, or as soon as they were nearly whipped, that this would be their final resource to gain their inde­pendence. The other two engaged in the conversation, and assented to Booth's senti­ments.

They being splendidly mounted, and my horse being nearly broken down, they left me the next day. Three or four days after­ward, when I came to the camp of the Second Virginia Regiment, I found there three citi­zens, and was formally introduced by Cap­tain Randolph to Booth and Stevens. That evening there was a secret meeting of the officers, and the three citizens were also pres­ent. I was afterward informed of the pur­pose of the meeting by Lieutenant Cockrell of the Second Virginia Regiment, who was present. It was to send certain officers on "detached service" to Canada and the "bord­ers " to release rebel prisoners, to lay Northern cities in ashes, and finally to get possession of the members of the Cabinet and kill the President. This "detached service" was a nickname in the Confederate army for this sort of warfare. I have heard these things spoken of, perhaps, a thousand times before I was informed it was the purpose discussed at this meeting, but I always considered it common braggadocio. I have freely heard it spoken of in the streets of Richmond among those connected with the rebel Government. Cockrell belonged, I believe, to the Second Virginia Regiment, and to the same company to which Captain Beall belonged, who was executed at Governor's Island. Cockrell told me that Beall was on "detached serv­ice," and that we would hear of him.

I have heard mention made of the exist­ence of secret orders for certain purposes to assist the Confederacy. One I frequently heard of was called a Golden Circle, and several times I heard the name of the "Sons of Liberty."

[No cross-examination.]

---

And here is a document on Von Steinaker from the records of the Judge Advocate in charge of the prosecution.

This appears to be sort of a modus operandi with these cases. In the assassination conspiracy trial, Gen. Lew Wallace was a member of the panel. In theWirz trial, Gen. Lew Wallace was the head of the panel. In each case the U.S. government prosecutor used a U.S. Army deserter testifying under a false name to provide perjured testimony.

In the assassination conspiracy trial a copy of the General Court Martial Orders of September 2, 1864 was later found with the files of the judge advocate in charge. The document serves as proof that Von Steinaker was a convicted U.S. Army deserter who was dishonorably discharged and sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for three years.

From a General Court-Martial sentence of DD and 3 years imprisonment on 9/2/1864 we find Von Steinaker testifying on 5/12/1865.

Note: The photo purported to be of John Wilkes Booth, identified as trial exhibit #1, was actually a photo of his brother, Edwin Booth.

The trial exhibit list identifies the photo only as "Booth's Portrait," which was legally accurate whether the photo was of John Willkes Booth, Edwin Booth, or Shirley Booth.

In his closing argument, prosecutor John Bingham referred to "the photograph which is of record here." (Pitman trial transcript, page 400) Mr. Bingham was being legally accurate as well.

[fortheDeclaration]

I stated that I had very little knowledge regarding the level of involvement that the Southern leadership had in Lincolns murder.

That was not the point of the article I cited.

The article made mention that the only reason that Davis was not tried was because the radical republicans were going after Johnson and had lost interest in Davis.

You do know you lost-don't you?

Do you consider yourself an American or a Southerner?

[nolu chan]

[fortheDeclaration rewriting the Constitution] Legal definition of Treason Treason. A breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.

United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

THAT is the ONLY definition of TREASON that matters in the UNITED STATES. The burden of proof must be strictly met. One witness does not count.

Personal definitions invented by Lincolnpimps do not count.

[fortheDeclaration]

As I said, Davis was not a convicted traitor, but he was still a traitor.

So was the entire officer corp of the Confederacy who resigned their commissions.

[nolu chan]

[cr] They had no right to do so, and this was confirmed in Texas v White

Not only Texas, but Georgia and Louisiana had relevant cases.

WHITE v. CANNON, 73 U.S. 443 (1867) (re State of Louisiana)

The ordinance of secession passed by the State of Louisiana, on the 26th of January, 1861, was a nullity, and did not affect the previous jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of that State, or its relation to the appellate power of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The objection that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana is to be treated as void, because rendered some days after the passage of the ordinance of secession of that State, is not tenable. That ordinance was an absolute nullity, and of itself alone, neither affected the jurisdiction of that court or its relation to the appellate power of this court.

WHITE v. HART, 80 U.S. 646 (1871) (re State of Georgia)

At no time during the rebellion were the rebellious States out of the pale of the Union. Their constitutional duties and obligations remained unaffected by the rebellion. They could not then pass a law impairing the obligation of a contract more than before the rebellion, or now, since.

Darn. It looks like someone named White was barnstorming and making a living out of losing secession cases.

[nolu chan]

You will find that they tend to classify any poster who disagrees with their pet theories becomes a "liar," a "marxist," or whatever the insult-of-the-day might be. It is classic "Big Lie" propaganda technique, and an admission that they don't have the ability to participate in rational discussion.

Gianni: you will find that capitan_kerryfugio has been caught and documented repeatedly using phoney legal citations and then trying to lie his way out of it.

[fortheDeclaration]

It looks like according to the legal cases you cited that the states were still part of the Union, thus, the actions committed by them against the United States were treason.

[FreedomCalls]

Could you [write-in his name]?

They were paper ballots. You could write what you wanted on them. It's not like they had touch-screens or punch cards or anything like that.

[nolu chan]

[ftD] It was the South's arrogrance that made Lincoln the great President that he was.

It was John Wilkes Booth that made Lincoln "great."

It is difficult to find anyone who knew Lincoln saying much of anything good about him while he was still alive. Try his generals and cabinet members for example.

It was after he died that he became St. Abe.

[television is just wrong]

Geez, it is only a movie. It isloosely based on a true event, and the story itself is fictional.

[fortheDeclaration]

Based on the évidence'and the reasoning you and the rest of the South will rise again cabel, Capitan has been very accurate in his assesement.

And probably too kind.

[nolu chan]

[ftD] We are now in a war against Islamic terrorism, is the President going to have the ACLU types (like yourself and Nolu Chan) coming in and screaming, Rights, when the men who are using those same rights are attempting to destroy them forever?

Another sermon from the nut case. Any minute now I expect ftD to start preaching about sixth day creation.

[fortheDeclaration]

No, I think knocking the tar out of the South would have been enough to make him a great President.

The murder made him one of our greatest Presidents.

[nolu chan]

[ftD] The American Colonies declared themselves a nation. In the eyes of the British they were still colonies. Had they lost, they would have been hung as traitors.

How did they hang a colony, anyway?

The colonies were not sovereign states.

[nolu chan]

[ftD] This attempt to make Lincoln the arch villian in U.S. history is just revisionism run amok.

This attempt to make Lincoln into St. Abe, post-mortem, is just revisionism run amok.

[nolu chan]

[n-s] Ex Parte Milligan was a unanimous decision against an administration policy. How did that one slip through?

Chase did the best he could. He wrote the opinion for the four concurring justices who found the tribunals UNLAWFUL as a violation of Federal statute, but not UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Evidence was provided that proved beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that the statutory requirements had not been complied with.

[nolu chan]

Now, the fact is that Congress approved of Bill Clinton's Oval Office Lovin', at least implicity, by not convicting him for what he did.

Did the Congress approve of Sprio Agnew taking bribes in the Office of Vice-President?