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 ...
The act, not the holding -- two different things.
Good question, though, let's ask GOPcapitalist, I think he would have the best knowledge wherewith to attempt a count.
How many times, GOPcap, did Honest Abe the Railsplitter display contempt of court by either snapping his fingers at court orders or interfering with judges and courts?
Two wrongs make a right? Sounds like a "logical fallacy" to me.
It's a matter of simple fact, fakeit. Either the policies succeeded or they did not. The explicitly claimed purpose of the policies - to foster the "infant" development of specified recipient industries beyond what would occur naturally in the market - is also necessarily the benchmark against which their success may be determined. Thus, to show them a failure requires only to show that the given industry's growth was either on par with non-intervention or inferior, as in the policy actually retarded growth. Taussig did just that with qualitative studies of iron, woolens, and textiles - the three main protected industries. David did an econometric study of textiles and found no gain from protection. Fogel did an econometric study of iron and found that protection slowed the replacement of inferior smelting techniques. That means protection did not boost those industries like it promised. That means the policy failed and your bizarre Hamilton fetish will never alter that fact of history.
Yates was passed over by Morris for the position which Hamilton eventually took. He resented this appointment and complained that he had not been sufficiently rewarded while H received what HE should have (he later had to admit he was wrong about this after learning H took no pay for his work.) When you quote Yates please do not pretend that you are quoting an impartial or even fair source. You are quoting an inveterent enemy of Hamilton. Given that TRUTH the statement can be properly evaluated. And thus entirely discredited by honest men.
Yates unsuitability for the office was simply stated: "that it was Necessary the Receiver of Taxes should be able to Look Continentally. He should have Continental Eyes, should not be under governmental Regulation etc. (state)"
Thus, a toady of Clinton was completely unqualified for this post given that they had worked diligently to work to prevent the excise taxes NY collected from being transferred to the Confederation as had been agreed to do earlier. Clinton's factotems had no concern to strengthen the Union.
And you neglected to fully tell the rest of the story which in no way redowns in Yates' favor or against Hamilton. Hamilton's correspondence to Yates had him eventually agreeing with H as to what the job entailed then H (knowing that such assent was contrary to the Clintonites) OFFERED YATES THE JOB knowing he would have to turn down the job he had just sought. After H had made him look the fool he erupted with the misleading and dishonest crap you posted.
I am arrogant enough that being called arrogant causes me no alarm or concern. Like Hamilton, however, I am also honest.
They were very knowledgable about the document they'd helped produce and knew all the reasoning of the convention and the Framers, but at the end of the day, they were still advocates for a point of view within the convention, from which almost all the people who disagreed with them had either been excluded or had decamped in disapproval.
Furthermore, The Federalist does not deal comprehensively with the Articles of Amendment demanded by the Antifederalists and public opinion: and it was here that Madison, I read in The Antifederalists, began to see the dangers to personal liberty and the potential strength of the government he had helped Hamilton create, and began his migration over to the Democratic Republican ranks, taking some Federalists with him.
The Amendments of the Bill of Rights substantively altered both the content and the nature of the Constitution itself in ways demanded by the American people before they would ratify it, and the Federalists acceded in order to get the document agreed to.
As amended, the Constitution contained many more safeguards and many more points at which power of perpetual consent was distributed back to the People in the jury box, the polling place, and the ranks of the Militia.
And it reserved all nonenumerated rights and powers not specifically granted to the United States Government to the States or to the People. Which is precisely what you National Greatness power junkies and your liberal pals have been trying to break down ever since, to make the People your prey.
Your ellipsis distorts substantively what I said. Which I've come to expect from you, Snark.
Lincoln's rep was rescued by his untimely and illegal demise. In that sense, Booth's crime rescued Lincoln's reputation from Lincoln's next series of crimes, which included the transportation of, and probably megadeaths among, the slaves he had so recently ordered emancipated.
Now that's enough of that.
Naturally a new nation must develop the raw power to protect itself and the liberties of its people. This was Hamilton's goal and it was a noble one. Our incredible way of life and the prosperity which makes it the envy of the world is nothing to apologize for nor feel guilty about. But don't let me stop you from self-flagelation.
It is also important to note that this power and prosperity has not been bent towards tyranny and world conquest but the improving of life here and abroard. And it was necessary to defeat the totalitarian regimes which took power in Germany and the Soviet Union.
Those trying to paint America as Tyrant are just laughable whether from the Left ala Michael MOOer or the "Right" ala the DSs.
At least one.
The D.C. Circuit Court held his direct agent Andrew Porter, who was acting on his orders, in contempt for his house arrest and harassment of Judge Merrick. Lincoln subsequently intervened and prevented the court authorities from delivering the contempt summons. In responding to Lincoln's intervention, the Circuit Court formally ruled that "the President" had "arrest[ed] the process of this Court" by harassing Judge Merrick and blocking the contempt order from being served on Porter (2 Hay. & Haz. 394; 1861 U.S. App.)
The ruling also states that Lincoln "assumes the responsibility of the acts of General Porter, set forth in the rule, and sanctions them by his orders to Deputy Marshal Philips not to serve the process on the Provost Marshal." It concludes by ordering this material printed in the court's register along with a note that the court, though it has ruled against Lincoln, lacks the "physical power" to enforce it any further against a president who has the military at his disposal.
So in total, there are five federal court rulings against him for which contempt could be charged, one of which actually did cite him specifically for "arrest[ing] the process of this court."
Of course. He said he wouldn't submerge his own opinions and will in Morris's -- but then perhaps you're enough of a modern organization-worshipper that you mightn't have seen anything wrong with that.
When you quote Yates please do not pretend that you are quoting an impartial or even fair source.
I didn't say that I did, only that he reports the substance of the conversation, and historian Main vouches for it.
You are quoting an inveterent [sic] enemy of Hamilton.
Of course he would be, after being insulted like that.
Given that TRUTH the statement can be properly evaluated. And thus entirely discredited by honest men.
Not so. Honest men will see that Hamilton was exactly what people who knew him well, said he was.
Yates unsuitability for the office was simply stated: "that it was Necessary the Receiver of Taxes should be able to Look Continentally. He should have Continental Eyes, should not be under governmental Regulation etc. (state)"
I.e., somebody (you don't say who) thought he should be more......Hamiltonian in his outlook. So what? I think George W. Bush should be more Reaganesque in his outlook.
Clinton's factotems had no concern to strengthen the Union.
Now it's your words that will have to be weighed against other evidence, as you are again displaying blatant bias and Hamilton-worship.
And you neglected to fully tell the rest of the story which in no way redowns in Yates' favor or against Hamilton. .....then H (knowing that such assent was contrary to the Clintonites) OFFERED YATES THE JOB knowing he would have to turn down the job he had just sought. After H had made him look the fool he erupted with the misleading and dishonest crap you posted.
And just how the hell does that redound to Hamilton's credit, please? He was being a skunk and playing someone false.
Leaving aside the question of whether you placed the conversation I quoted correctly in time (Yates recounted it in a letter of Oct. 19, 1782), it seems to me that the conditional nature of the offer of employment was enough in itself to make anyone say no. And no, it shows exactly what I said it did, about Hamilton.
I am arrogant enough that being called arrogant causes me no alarm or concern.
Congratulations. Just don't bleed credibility all over me.
As even a first year economic student knows any study of policy result must make certain assumptions and the studies rise and fall with those assumptions. That is the case here.
Those studies can be balanced with studies with different assumptions showing the opposite results. Unlike scientific experiments we are not able to run history over after changing policies to see which one would work best or if they did what was intended. Those studies did not consider the result of capital flows to pay for the increased imports and thus the impact on the market as a whole and how much that would reduce demand for those products because of the reduction in the money supply. Even the econometric studies do not ask such questions but simple ones for which a regression equation can be hypothesized and tested.
It almost becomes a matter of faith. But if you want to base yours on the proposition that there is sufficient data and accurate specification of the independent variables to draw a definitive conclusion that is contrary to theory and the general conclusion of history feel free. But once again we are not speaking of strictly economic issues but also politcal ones. It was a political goal to develop those industries and it may have not been identical with the methods a completely free market economy would have used or even as effective. But this cannot be proven.
Serve us up your next howler.
I'll check in, of course. I just won't be up for book reviews and second-guessing Justice Chase for a bit.
I can certainly quote part of it for you:
"In the case of John Merriman [sic], the interposition of Chief Justice Taney can only be regarded as at once officious and improper .... Judge Taney presents the ungracious spectacle of a judicial and the military authority of the United States at variance, the soldier eager to punish, and the jurist eager to exculpate a traitor. The antithesis might have been very easily avoided; and an impression that the zeal of the Justice might have been less fervent, had not the prisoner been a citizen of his own State, a neighbor, and a personal friend, would not have countenanced." (From Rehnquist, pg 35)
"The underlying premise - that the writ had been constitutionally suspended - is unsupported."
Incorrect. It is supported by the text of the Suspension Clause, the necessity and circumstances related to the suspension, and the Congressional approval of the suspension.
"I simply state what [Jaffa's] own website at Claremont claims - that he's got a degree in English."
Another case of telling a partial truth. His AB was in English. What about his PhD from the New School?
"Since you are citing him as an authority the burden is also upon you to establish his credentials."
Incorrect again. Professor Jaffa is a recognized authority in the subject matter quoted. If you want to try and pull down the professor, that's entirely up to you. If find the fact that you shy away from contacting the professor as evidence, on its face, that you are more interested in cheap shots than finding the answer (an answer, I suspect, that would not be to your liking).
"The authorities a cite for my position are John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Robbin Curtis, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, St. George Tucker, Joseph Story, William Rawle, and Antonin Scalia. And yes, I'll pit those guys against the Cult of Harry any day."
It is clear you cite the people listed about, but you have demonstrated little ability to understand what they wrote. I recall you quote from Marshall and Scalia in dicta and dissent, and from commentaries by Rawle, Tucker, and Story. What you quoted from Jefferson about habeas I can not recall. Yates, the Antifederalist, is of little consequence as he was on the losing side of that particular political skirmish, and the only time I can recall you quoting from Curtis was in an attempt to boost Taney's reputation.
"Though I am not a lawyer nor do I profess to be one, my credentials in the field include formal academic training in American constitutional law, authorship of academic case briefs on a dozen or more supreme court rulings, and employment at a law firm during college."
And at the same time you tout this level of accomplishment, you state that Professor Fehrenbacher's or Professor Wood's work is not authoritative? Your ego is showing. You don't hold a candle to Fehrebacher, Wood, Jaffa, or Farber.
You are misstating Madison's view of the necessity of the BoR. He sheparded it through because he had implicitly promised to do so and did not believe it necessary. Most of the Federalists did not care if it were added believing it would not substantially change the document. They had what they wanted and saw no reason to further antagonize their opponents.
And, no, the Anti-federalist view was not one based upon understanding the document if it propaganda can be believed which raved on about "monocracy", "Aristocracy", and threats to Liberty from standing armies. Absurd stuff that any rational man would be ashamed to claim.
As the quote from Madison posted to you by another he clearly stated that the 10th refered ONLY to local police powers and regulations. Matters outside federal power.
All three works I've cited are easily available, fakeit. If you wish to challenge them you are perfectly free to do so. Otherwise, no real reason exists why we should not accept them.
Those studies can be balanced with studies with different assumptions showing the opposite results.
Name me one that does that.
Unlike scientific experiments we are not able to run history over after changing policies to see which one would work best or if they did what was intended.
No, but we are indeed able to examine dates of technological adoption and discern irrefutable facts such as the fact that the United States iron industry lagged technologically behind Britain by 50 years during the period of protection. We can also observe the fact that U.S. iron producers reintroduced an antiquated charcoal smelting technique in response to the protectionist tariff of 1842 that otherwise would have succumbed to new technology at a faster rate. And we can observe the fact that technological innovative objects, or "learning by doing" as it is often called, remained stagnant in response to the textile tariffs of the 1820's. These are not difficult things to grasp, fakeit, and the overwhelming abundance of scholarly works from people who are far more educated in the matter than you ever will be states that the claimed goals of antebellum protectionism simply were not met in practice.
Those studies did not consider the result of capital flows to pay for the increased imports and thus the impact on the market as a whole
You do not know any of that as you have not even read the studies I referenced. You are simply spouting technical-sounding jargon that you believe, however mistakenly, will obfuscate the fact that you cannot defend your earlier claims.
Yate's will was already turned over to Clinton. This made him unworthy of trust by Morris. Common sense rules out placing an enemy in your administration knowing he will work to undermine it.
Main quoting Yates in no way verifies its truth.
You mean "after being found out" rather than being "insulted" after all he was bought and paid for already.
The quotation was from Hamilton.
I don't know what "Hamilton worship" has to do with the history of the Clinton governorship. It is fairly clear as to its policies and beliefs.
Hamilton's astute understanding of politics and men was clearly demonstrated by his drawing Yates out and then humiliating him into refusing what he wanted. Hilarious.
This episode is not mysterious and fully discussed in the major Hamilton biographies both pro and con. I refer most often to the Hendrickson.
I have about reached my limit here with these topics too.
Lincoln broke no law. He asked for no Bill of Indemnity, nor was such bill by that name passed by the Congress. They did, however, pass the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863, supporting his actions and authorizing more of the same.
"Congress acted two years after the fact. You can't legalize or criminalize actions ex post facto, as nolu chan and GOPcapitalist have pointed out and documented for you with infinitely more patience than your utterly recalcitrant lying and pettifogging deserve."
Those two posters are wrong on the subject and confused on the subject matter. They have demonstrated their ignorance regarding "ex post facto" (a misnomer) legislation on several occasions.
Congress is perfectly within their rights to pass retrospective legislation. Retrospective authorizations of Congress were upheld in the Prize Cases, for example. Your position appears, in part, in the dissent of that case.
You and your two "experts" can keep repeating the same old lies, but that won't make them truthful.
Not to destroy your arguments.
However, to eradicate the twin evils of slavery and secessionism, no price is too high - especially if the price is primarily borne by the perpetrators.
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.