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 ...
I'll let you take it up with Justice Thomas:
U.S. Supreme Court Nos. 95-1478 and 95-1503
JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v. UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503
on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit[June 27, 1997]
Justice Thomas, concurring.The Court today properly holds that the Brady Act violates the Tenth Amendment in that it compels state law enforcement officers to "administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." See ante, at 25. Although I join the Court's opinion in full, I write separately to emphasize that the Tenth Amendment affirms the undeniable notion that under our Constitution, the Federal Government is one of enumerated, hence limited, powers. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819) ("This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers"). "[T]hat those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Accordingly, the Federal Government may act only where the Constitution authorizes it to do so. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). [snipped]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/95%2D1478.html
Of course not, but just to oppress people.
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.
Your moral squalor is the ornament of your adversaries. As for "eradicating" the "evil" of "slavery", Lincoln hardly did that, did he? He just shifted its focus and its form, removing it from American blacks and attaching it instead to the people who'd resisted his tyranny.
The South still isn't free after all this time, and the Southern States are still not equal members of the Union, since federal laws apply here that don't apply elsewhere, that make our elections thrall to the pleasure of the Director of the Civil Rights Division at DoJ. We know we aren't free. So do you -- your sneering, vindictive, gloating tone underscore your agreement with us.
So even when you think you've made a point, your delivery costs you the argument with every honest man and woman. You supply the exemplar of what all the old republicans resisted in the person of Hamilton -- the arrogance and the rot, and his contempt for American liberty that was won in the Revolution.
Let me make this really simple. We're Americans. People like you are not, and anyone who reads your stuff, knows the difference.
Do you really think English-speaking adults are going to let you put over the claim that all discussion of these subjects has to conform to what is found in your personal library of liberals and Declarationists?
As for Wood's work and whether it is authoritative, the last I saw of him upthread, he was in full crayfish mode himself as soon as Antonin Scalia walked into the room.
The difference between Americans and chumps like you, capitan, is that, being born with a pair, we don't need someone like your boy Farber to tell us what the Constitution says. Neither did our ancestors, which is why they were competent to pass on its contents, while in convention assembled, and without a single copy of your favorite books.
We've seen your game -- the arrogance, the overweening, the prestige games. Americans left it behind in the Old World.
The South underestimated Union resolve to defend the Constitution.
Yes there was, but then you knew that, too.
The United States Government does it all the time.
For example?
The fedgov was created by the people of the states, not the people of a non-existant nation.
Well, where else have seen a 'dream team'able to get a guilty man off?
As I said, Davis was a traitor, just not a convicted traitor.
Regarding the issue of Habeas Corpus Lincoln saw this issue as an issue of balance power between the Executive and Judical branch.
No different then Jackson had done.
Lincoln now took decisive measures to win the war. No American president had ever faced such a crisis, and Lincoln had to find for himself the necessary powers by which he could pursue the war and uphold his oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. Recognizing the problem, Lincoln said, "It became necessary for me to choose whether, using only the existing means, agencies, and processes which Congress had provided, I should let the Government fall at once into ruin or whether, availing myself of the broader powers conferred by the Constitution in cases of insurrection, I would make an effort to save it." Lincoln found the necessary powers in the constitutional clause making him "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states." He told some visitors to the White House, "As commander in chief in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may subdue the enemy." Using this power, Lincoln took a number of vital steps before Congress convened. Besides summoning the militia, he ordered a blockade of the Confederacy's ports, expanded the regular army beyond its legal limit, directed government expenditures in advance of congressional appropriations, and suspended the legal right of habeas corpus. The suspension of this constitutional guarantee, by which a person could not be imprisoned indefinitely without being charged with some specific crime, aroused much opposition throughout the country. Although Lincoln himself made no concentrated effort to suppress political opposition, which at times was extremely vocal, the repeal of habeas corpus enabled overzealous civil and military authorities to imprison thousands of people who were vocal in their opposition to the war against the South. During the war, in the case Ex parte Merryman, Chief Justice Taney ordered Lincoln to grant a writ of habeas corpus to a Southern agitator who had been arbitrarily jailed by military authorities in Maryland. Lincoln ignored the order. After the war, in the case Ex parte Milligan, in an opinion written by David Davis, the Supreme Court ruled that a president could not suspend habeas corpus without the consent of Congress.
Regarding the issue of Congress, Congress never did impeach Lincoln nor attempt to.
Jeff Davis used the same level of power as did Lincoln, if not more.
Nothing you have posted as disproved one thing that I have said, or what Capitan has said.
You do have a particular knack for beating dead horses, gnat straining, and being obnoxious.
Since you refuse to answer the question if you regard yourself as an American (an question no American would hesitate a moment to answer) I take your non-answer to be 'no'.
No doubt you and the rest of the Rebel Cabel are citizens of the world, living in the past, in the glory of the Confederate States of America, fighting against unfair tariff's and not allowing their property to be taken anywhere a free white man could go.
Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." --From the April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce et al
Oddly, had Davis and the Southern government thought as you did, that revolution was a 'winner take all' scenario, the war would have likely ended with the capture of Washington and the slaughter of the black Republicans after the war's first major battle. It seems, then, from that perspective, that the South's willingness to let the North go it's separate way probably cost them the war.
Well, that is a key point of disagreement.
No, we are speaking of Revolution in a political sense, the right of a people to change a gov't when real tyranny exists which cannot be rectified by any other means.
The means of fighting a revolution to not have to include full scale slaughter, as the South did not did not receive that treatment, they being allowed to return to the US upon taking oaths of loyalty (which most did)
As for taking Washington, it wasn't for want of trying.
I think Lee got stop twice did he not?
I think there are sufficient examples to demonstrate that lack of impeachment is in no way the equal to approval of action. Hopefully our friend also figured this out.
I see that we've essentially avoided the question that I posed considering whether Americans are best considered as subjects of their governmnet, only to go on posting as though the answer were given and decided definitive.
My questions were ofcourse, rhetorical.
Based on the quality and quantity of recognition I think it is safe to say that neither had any real recognition for the first three years of their existence.
Because the question of Americans being only 'subjects'of their gov't is decided by Revolution.
If it comes to that where the Gov't becomes so tyrannical that no other recourse is left, then the people have a right to change their gov't by force if necessary.
No such condition existed in 1860.
I'm for the Constitution and you are for the Declaration. Therein lies the rub. Perhaps you can find some country where the Declaration has been adopted as the law. In this country it is the Constitution.
As for another of your legally obtuse proclamations, what other country does an American have a "right" to live in???
http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/lincoln.html
Conclusion
Following in the ideological footsteps of Daniel Webster, one of his Whig mentors, Lincoln was forced by the circumstances he inherited to place survival of the Union above some civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Though Lincoln had often been a defender of the Constitution during his career, he was also a critic of some of its consequences, as in his opposition to the Dred Scott decision. In fact, by the time of the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln had concluded that the principles of the Declaration of Independence were more important than a strict construction of the Constitution. He ended that address echoing a phrase from Webster's Reply to Hayne when he pledge a new birth of liberty from a government of, by, and for the people.
That stance had serious implications for freedom of expression during the Civil War. It led to the suspension of habeas corpus, the use of extra-constitutional measures to quiet both his external and internal opposition, and the censoring of newspapers which opposed his war policies. Lincoln's transgressions were forgiven because of the dire situation and because Lincoln used his powers judiciously and politically to keep his opponents at bay. Perhaps the boldest stroke being the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation after the war turned in the North's favor. That event placated Lincoln's Radical rivals in the Republican Party and, combined with the victory at Gettysburg, assured his re-election in 1864.
He would then be able to move to a more conciliatory approach to the South. But in fairness to Lincoln, we need to remember that the scene far different when he first became president. Even before Lincoln took his oath in March, 1861, seven southern states had seceded from the Union. He deemed that a full scale rebellion and suspended habeascorpus in military jurisdictions and where marshall law had been imposed. Nonetheless, Lincoln anguished over these cases, particularly those of Congressman Vallandigham and the Chicago Times. Once Salmon Chase replaced Roger Taney as Chief Justice, the Supreme Court supported Lincoln's actions, as did the Republican Congress after Antietam. It is clear from the documents available that Lincoln's leniency with regard to the South would have extended to Copperheads in the North. But Lincoln's assassination opened the door on an era of vengeful reconstruction where further violation of rights occurred and the Constitution was significantly amended to guarantee that the people would take primacy over the states when it came to civil liberties.
Now what part of the Declaration are you against?
The Right of revolution?
No, it can't be that one.
Might it be the same thing that Calhoun was against-all men are created equal?
[capitan_kerryfugio the LIAR] ftD - Again, notice the "Big Lie" technique. nolu coward knows full well "Ex parte Merryman was not a decision of the entire Supreme Court, but rather, one from Taney, issued all on his own. Still, he attempts to cloud the issue.
Once again, capitan_kerryfugio must LIE.
Did the Merryman opinion issue from the Supreme Court? YES.
Was Taney acting in his capacity as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? YES
Did Taney announce from the bench that he was acting in his capacity as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? YES
Did Taney announce that he was NOT sitting as a member of the Circuit Court? YES
Does the caption of the case say it was issued by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? YES
Is Merryman an in-chambers opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? YES
Did I say it was a decision of the ENTIRE Supreme Court? NO - capitan_kerryfugio LIED.
The Lincoln administration could have appealed, but it had no case to argue. So, Lincoln chose to rape the Constitution instead, thus beginning his career as a serial rapist.
Is Harry Jaffa a philospher? YES
Is Harry Jaffa an attorney? NO
[capitan_kerryfugio] Lincoln was a lawyer, well-versed in constitutional issues.
Lincoln was a lawyer but NOT well-versed in Constitutional issues.
[capitan_kerryfugio] Taney was a friend and neighbor of John Merryman
capitan_kerryfugio has yet to provide one shred of evidence for this repeated sourceless assertion.
[capitan kerryfugio] Both Harry Jaffa, in A New Birth of Freedom, and Daniel Farber, in Lincoln's Constitution make the case for the correctness and constitutionality of Lincoln's emergency suspension.
Farber wrote, "Arguably, a valid suspension of the writ does eliminate the court's very power to proceed. ... a plausible argument can be made that during a [nc - valid, let us not slickly edit the word out] suspension, the executive not only has a valid defense that the habeas court should accept, but he is entitled to ignore any order to appear or to produce or release the prisoner ... the strongest argument against the jurisdictional view of suspension isthat in practice it would leave the executive as the sole judge of whether the writ was validly suspended ... allowing the president to ignore an adverse ruling about the validity of the suspension is undoubtedly dangerous ... if this jurisdictional analysis is rejected, however, we should concede that Lincoln's action was unlawful. It is fruitless to argue for a general power of executive nullification. Lincoln himself did not even offer this defense, and history speaks strongly against it. Instead, we are thrown back on the necessity defense that he did in fact offer."
[cr] Farber provides a perspective contrary to the mind-numbing pro-southern arguments you like to barf up from time to time.
He certainly does provide a DIFFERENT perspective. Here is capitan_kerryfugio's "EXPERT" on display.
With Daniel Farber's insight into sovereignty as "an almost metaphysical concept -- some secret essence of legal potency that cannot be detected directly, but only as a kind of normative aura," he provides comic relief, as well as a source of wisdom for Brigadeers.
FARBER'S WISDOM
In the American context, sovereignty often seems to function as an almost metaphysical concept -- some secret essence of legal potency that cannot be detected directly, but only as a kind of normative aura. One hotly debated question, for example, is whether the populations of the various states existed (or still exist) as separate entities acting together as a conglomeration, or rather as a single entity acting through the agency of multiple subgroups. This is reminiscent of medieval disputes about the nature of the Trinity. It is not in any real sense a question of fact or even one of law.
SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 29
-----------------------------------------
Ideas about sovereignty may also color the understanding of particular constitutional issues. Thus, while it may not be useful to ask who really had sovereignty in 1776 or 1789, it is potentially useful to ask who was believed to have sovereignty then.
SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 30
------------------------------------------
A contract between the peoples of the separate states might well be termed a compact. The critical question was whether a national social compact arose at some point, binding all Americans together into one people, or whether the only real social compacts were at the state level, with those political societies then forming a second-level compact. The "compact theory" of sovereignty refers to this second-level compact, which is considered to have a less fundamental status than the social compacts establishing each state. If this all seems rather aridly metaphysical, that's because it is.
SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 32
---------------------------
Because of its virtually metaphysical nature, it is hard to answer the theoretical question of whether the state peoples wholly retained their separate identity, or whether adoption of the Constitution signified the existence of unified "People of the United States." To the extent that the Framers had any shared understanding on this point, which is itself somewhat dubious, they probably leaned toward the view that ratification signified the emergence of a national People. On the whole, however, the best conclusion seems to be Madison's -- that the United States was unique and could not be considered either a consolidated nation or a compact of sovereign states.
SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, pp. 82-83
------------------------------
Still, it would be a mistake to view the Framers as purely nationalistic. During ratification, the most direct discussion of the source of the Constitution's legitimacy was in Federalist 39. Inquiring into the formation of the new Constitution, Madison explained that ratification takes place by the authority of the people -- "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." Madison went on to call ratification a "federal and not a national act," that is, "the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation." This passage seems at odds with Lincoln's theory, but leaves open the possibility that ratification resulted in the creation of a unified American people.
SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 38
---------------------------------
Unlike your most recent diarrhea dump, it is properly sourced.
It is, of course, capitan_kerryfugio sources who regale us with such brain droppings as this:
In the American context, sovereignty often seems to function as an almost metaphysical concept -- some secret essence of legal potency that cannot be detected directly, but only as a kind of normative aura. One hotly debated question, for example, is whether the populations of the various states existed (or still exist) as separate entities acting together as a conglomeration, or rather as a single entity acting through the agency of multiple subgroups. This is reminiscent of medieval disputes about the nature of the Trinity. It is not in any real sense a question of fact or even one of law.
SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 29
It is reported than one can find a reasonably priced "normative aura detector" on eBay.
AND they can be detected without a "normative aura detector."
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.