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 ...
Actually Krentzl was looking like a rookie with some potential. But he was in an almost impossible situation in having to step in as he did after disaster. No one had any idea he would have to play this year except for those who are fans and realized that the typical start streak for a Bears qb is about 3 games. Grossman did look like the real deal though and it is a damn shame he was hurt. Had he not been I feel fairly confident that the Bears would have made the playoffs.
It was to every state's advantage to stay a member of the confederation for protection, for trade, for stability, etc. Why would a state or a people vote to leave unless they perceived it was better outside of the confederation than inside it? States didn't leave on whims. The confederation held together for some 70 years before it failed.
A major compromise over slavery in the Constitution (the return of fugitive slaves) was being disobeyed by the North. If that was important and fundamental to the South, why should they stay in a confederation whose governing document was not being obeyed?
Republicans were coming into power saying there were higher laws than the Constitution. In other words, we're going to interpret it any way we like, much like liberal judges today. Despite Lincoln's assurances over slavery after he was elected, he previously had said, "this government cannot endure permanently, half slave, and half free." In Lincoln-speak, we're not going to continue the arrangement set up by the founding fathers. Which Lincoln should you believe, the one who made assurances over slavery or the one who threatened its existence?
Then there was the tariff. Through the tariff, the South was being treated as a colony by the North. Basically, it operated as a transfer of money from the South to the North.
free dixie,sw
damnyankees are nothing if not HATEFILLED & HYPOCRITICAL!
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
i'm trying to get our tribe to issue me "ham radio plates" for my truck.
free dixie,sw
!!!!!!!
There are several illuminating books about the origins and functions of cities. Jane Jacobs wrote several and Lewis Mumford a classic. They show the vital necessity of cities in producing civilization as the origin of the word itself also shows. Initially it provided a market, a citadel and a place for the temple.
Advancement past the agricultural stage does not occur without the city. Development stagnates without strong urban life and history confirms this. Ideas good and bad flow from the cities to the hinterlands surrounding them. A more accurate view of the relation between urban and rural areas is that the former sweeps up the latter in its cultural/economic orbit and without their urban dynamism rural progress falls away and stagnation and poverty results.
Much, if not most, of the negative aspects of cities comes from the lower classes which go there seeking a chance of improvement and opportunity those that fail often turn to lives of crime and/or welfarism. Those who actually make the city work: taxpayers, police, firemen etc. are more conservative than the city as a whole. Democrats have always sought the failures, ne'er-do-wells and parasites to form the base of the party. Thus the first welfare was that provided by the RAT party bosses in exchange for votes. It has become institutionalized and part of the governmental structure.
free dixie,sw
There was no abuse in trying to clear away the hurdles erected by the British. It was a political necessity to strengthen those sectors necessary in an independent nation. It was exactly "artificial props" which had to be cleared away. Or artificial constraints.
Then you believe that nationhood is not contingent upon exerting force now? Your self contradictions are amusing.
As I said, hyperbolic.
And as I said, you cannot make an honest post around here without loading it with cheap shots and venom against the south. It's sad, really.
Taussig not only does not claim that protection did not work but he explicitly refuses to discredit the theory. "The intrinsic soundness of the argument for protection to young industries therefore may not be touched by the conclusions drawn from the history of its trial in the United States, which shows only that the intentional protection of the tariffs of 1816, 1824, and 1828 had little effect."
And he claims that one of the reasons is that the closing off of trade prior to those tariffs did a lot of protectionism's work for it without having to involve the tariff.
And these quotes are not data mining since I have read his book and do not share your opinion of his conclusion which is simply that it "might" not have worked. To claim otherwise in the face of his clear statement that the theory was not affected is deception.
It is easy enough to say "Tariff protection did not work." Taussig does not say that at all that is the reality of his study. He can't prove that it worked but neither can he prove that it did NOT work.
Not true. One must ask himself where Taney lived while he was hearing case on Circuit in Baltimore.
Answer, at his relative's home there. Remember he married the sister of Francis Scott Key. Baltimore was "home" to Taney, even if he kept a place in D.C. during his later years.
Try again. Misrepresentation? or just another goof on you part?
A typical non-sequitur. It simply does not follow from your premise - that the house didn't impeach Lincoln - that he must not have been a threat to freedom simply because (a) impeachment is a political process that is subject to political influence that could distort and protect a president even if he was a threat (see Clinton's senate vote for another example) and due to (b) the fact that he also happened to be harassing, intimidating, and imprisoning members of the political opposition who spoke out against him.
No, Clinton was Impeached, just not convicted.
...hence my point that the Senate FAILED in its duty with Clinton for political reasons.
The Democrats make the same mistake, saying that Clinton was not impeached.
Are you blind, stupid or both, ftD? I never said that Clinton was not impeached. He was not convicted in the Senate even though he was indisputably guilty of the articles of impeachment and should have been convicted on them (do you dispute that?), thus proving that political considerations can overcome justice in matters of impeachment.
Yea so.... A Civil War was going on. What part of that sentence do you not understand?
...and the Constitution holds firm in both times of war and peace. What part of that sentence do you not understand.
And Davis violated no ones civil liberties?
Quoth the ftD: "Squack! Tu quoque! Tu quoque! Davis did it too! Tu quoque!"
I believe that Vallandighm was released to his beloved South wasn't he?
The south didn't want him nor did he want to be there so he ended up in Canada till the end of the war.
No one says that everything that Lincoln did would pass a strict consititutional test.
...and deporting, harassing, and imprisoning members of the opposition party for criticizing your politics doesn't pass much of any constitutional test.
That is far from saying that he was guilty of being a tyrant.
Lincoln deported his opponents, threw congressmen and state officials in jail, got a senator kicked out of office, overthrew the state government of Missouri, placed judges under house arrest and unconstitutionally suspended their salaries, used military thugs to prevent courts from meeting to hear cases against him, and shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers for being critical of his policy. If not acts of tyranny, exactly what were all those acts?
There were no conditional ratifications of the proposed Constitution of 1787. There is no reserved right to unilaterally secede after unconditionally ratifying the Constitution.
If a people desire to revolt due to tyranny and oppression, that is their natural right, but it is not a constitutional right. Your post is just more Neo-confederate pabulum.
You only bloviate about the fact that the claim of "necessity" was not unprecedented. Jefferson wanted to suspend habeas corpus but did NOT succeed. THAT is the suspension of habeas corpus precedent.
What Farber says is quite clear:
Lincoln's action might suggest that he thought he had the general power to second-guess judicial orders. The argument in favor of such a presidential power has been pressed with great ingenuity, relying on the postulate that each coordinate branch of government is independent within its own realm. Thus, if the president may interpret the Constitution independently when he is considering whether to veto a bill, he should have the power to interpret the Constitution independently when he is exercising his duty to execute the laws. Judicial decrees are not self-executing; they often require the intervention of an executive officer such as a marshal. The president, then, must have the power to determine whether a decree is valid, in order to determine whether it is part of the law he must "faithfully execute" or contrary to that law.This argument for executive nullification has not been well received, even among scholars generally hostile to judicial supremacy. Critics point out that Merryman is the only known instance where the president has actually disobeyed a court order merely because he disagreed with it. They also argue that "the available historical materials... at leaswt usggest that judgments are absolutely binding.... [J]udgments have always been thought of as final between the judicial department and the political departments." A contrary view would undermine the judiciary's position as a coordinate department, effectively reducing it to a mere adviser to the president, who would have the final say about the disposition of lawsuits. The "judicial power" would not amount to much if judgments could be overruled at will by the other branches. And the practical consequences are at least potentially chaotic, threatening a constitutional crisis any time the Court rules against the government in litigation. In this respect, executive nullification has similar vices to Calhoun's theory of state nullification.
Farber, page 188-9
Once an injunction is issued, it must be obeyed even if it was erroneous. A legal error in entering the injunction is no defense to a contempt citation. This is true even if the injunction violates a constitutional right. for instance, a court order that violates the First Amendment normally must be obeyed until it is set aside on appeal. Similarly, if a judgement is entered in one state, anotther state muct recognize that judgemnt as valid without inquiring into the merits of the case. Hence, even if Taney was wrong, his order was entitled to obedience. The incorrectness of Taney's view on the merits would be no defense in a contempt hearing.
Farber, page 189-90.
Some of Lincoln's initial acts were unconstitutional even under the relatively favorable view of his powers taken in this book. At least his unauthorized expansion of the regular army and disbursement of funds fall intothis category. Disobedience of Taney's order may fall into the same category, unless that order was a nullity.There may well have been other unlawful actions. For example, Lincoln's suspension of habeas in areas removed from any hint of insurrection arguably went beyond his emergency powers to respond to sudden attack. And of course, not of the constitutional arguments in favor of Lincoln's actions during the war are incontestable. Some would argue that nearly everything Lincoln did in those early days was unconstitutional. Thus, to a small or greater extent, we are forced to consider Lincoln's claim that otherwise unlawful actions were justified by necessity.
Farber, page 192.
In short, on careful reading, Lincoln was not arguing for the legal power to take emergency actions contrary to statutory or constitutional mandates. Instead, his argument fit well within the classic liberal view of emergency power. While unlawful, his actions could be ratified by Congress it it chose to do so ("trusting , then as now, that Congress would readily ratify them").
Farber, page 194
Farber, of Berkeley, wrote that Lincoln's actions were admittedly unlawful but that they fit will within the classic liberal view, which explains why Farber and you cling to that view.
Congress did respond with legislation ratifying the president's military actions. Later, it augmented its support of the president with an immunity statute. an 1863 statute provided that "any order of the president, or under his authority, made at any time during the existence of the present rebellion, shall be a defence in all courts to any action or prosecution... for any search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment." The statute also gave the defendant the power to remove state litigation to federal court and provided a two-year statute of limitation (even if the case remained in state court) for any action brought against an officer acting "under color of" presedential or congressional authority.
Farber, page 194-5.
Thus, in the end, Congress ratified as much of the executive's actions as it could, excusing the lack of prior authorization, and tried to ensure a fair legal procedure for dealing with the remaining cases. Nowhere was there any thought that necessity alone gave the president an exemption from the legal consequences of violating statutory or constitutional requirements.
Farber, page 195
Congress ratified as much as it could. One thing it could NOT ratify were the suspensions of habeas corpus by military officers.
As we have seen, most of what Lincoln did, then and later, was in fact constitutional.
Farber, page 196
If most of what Lincoln did was constitutional, less than half was UNconstitutional. There is a comforting thought.
Obiter dictum
I got that far before I realized you had coughed up another purposeless hairball. Bollman was about what treason.
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.