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 ...
You are simply being slothful now, fakeit. NOBODY ever denied that Taussig recognized the _theoretical_ validity of an infant industry argument. Not even Friedman rejects that _theoretical_ argument.
What was said and what is plainly evident in Taussig's study is the conclusion that infant industry protection, as attempted in the early 19th century United States, simply DID NOT WORK.
The quote you are hanging your sombero on does not accurately display his conclusion since it excludes the comments which indicate that the period of extreme protection
You're being slothful again, fakeit. The quote I have provided accurately displays his conclusion because TAUSSIG HIMSELF SPECIFICALLY LABELLED IT AS HIS CONCLUSION unlike any of the quotes you have mined to argue otherwise.
Nor do you quote anything by him saying that it "flat out did not work" that is just another falsehood.
Your failure to comprehend the very same language you purport to speak is showing again, fakeit. Taussig, in the passage that he himself specifically placed under a heading identifying it as his conclusion, said this:
Although, therefore, the conditions existed under which it is most likely that protection to young indus tries may be advantageously applied—a young and undeveloped country in a stage of transition from a purely agricultural to a more diversified industrial condition; this transition, moreover, coinciding in time with great changes in the arts, which made the establishment of new industries peculiarly difficult — notwithstanding the presence of these conditions, little, if any thing, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained in the first part of this [the nineteenth] century.
See that, fakeit? Protection gave us no gain! That means it failed.
You have been offered the opportunity to show us some high civilizations created without benefit of a city. Of course, being unable to do so, you prefer to rant and rave and attempt to deceive.
League of the South followers seem more likely to join the enemies of America not defenders of the Union like me.
The Afghanis and Iraquis are therefore not nations according to #3doctrine. Nor are any of the nations of Europe, who depend on the US for protection.
I try to keep it simple for the simple minded. Clear, concise and rational thought would be way above your head.
You're being slothful again.
"little, if any thing, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained in the first part of this [the nineteenth] century"
In short, no gain. That means protection failed.
Taussig is actually arguing that the protection that worked came before the tariffs. That is what allowed the infant industries to rapidly expand and what made the protection which came after not truly infant industry protection.
AND his weak conclusions which you amplify and adopt as your own were only applicable to three tariffs' effects.
"Little" doesn't NOT mean no gain. "If any" is NOT a firm statement that there was none either. There is little, if any, chance I will be shot and killed on the street but to you this means I definitely will NOT be.
Just because you want it to mean what you want it to mean doesn't mean that it means what you mean.
It would have been simpler and easier for Taussig to boldly state "There was no gain from protection." But he was intellectually honest and knew he could not truthfully state that so he didn't leaving it to the intellectually dishonest to make that claim.
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.
Farber, page 192.
fortheDeclaration, caught fabricating his non-"facts" yet again. Yet another false citation of a source.
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.
No. He is arguing that the embargo act and the wartime disruptions of 1812 destabilized the U.S. economy in a way that "might" have stimulated domestic production of some items. Those acts were not imposed for the purpose of protection however - they were wartime policies. One might just as well try to pass off World War II as an "economic policy" since it had the economic effects of stimulating an economy as it exited a depression even though the war itself was not undertaken for that purpose.
AND his weak conclusions
Weak? No, fakit. Try unequivocal: "little, if any thing, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained in the first part of this [the nineteenth] century." You are simply being slothful when you attempt to suggest anything else.
which you amplify and adopt as your own were only applicable to three tariffs' effects.
...and those three tariffs also happen to be on three of the most protection-prone items in the economy at the time! Other studies I've seen identify five or six major protection candidates in the antebellum economy: the three that Taussig examined plus glass, certain wooden products, and perhaps one more item depending on the study. Iron, cotton textiles, and woolens were also the largest of protected industries and thus provide ample representation of the effects of protection.
Did your pony grow up to be a horse and die? Somebody beat him to death?
Opposition to serial rape of the Constitution.
You're straining at gnats, fakeit. "little, if any thing, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained in the first part of this [the nineteenth] century."
That means two things: either protection did so little for the industries as to be considered negligable or it did nothing at all. Seeing as either would constitute a failure for a policy that boldly claimed it was essential to industrial survival in those sectors, I'll let you take your pick: "protection did next to nothing good" or "protection did nothing good."
"If any" is NOT a firm statement that there was none either. There is little, if any, chance I will be shot and killed on the street but to you this means I definitely will NOT be.
You are artificially truncating Taussig's quote to alter it into an unrelated hypothetical. Taussig did not say "little if any" - he said "little, if any thing" - a 19th century spelling of what we use today in "anything."
Just because you want it to mean what you want it to mean doesn't mean that it means what you mean.
Print that one out, take it to the mirror, and repeat. You need it far more than I do as the above clearly demonstrates.
Being a little bit sovereign is like being a little bit pregnant.
ROTFLMC*O!!!!!! BWAHAHAhahahahahaha!!!!! Bollman was not a trial for treason, or a decision regarding treason. It was a habeas corpus case from the beginning!
The prisoners having been brought before this court on a writ of habeas corpus, and the testimony on which they were committed having been fully examined and attentively considered, the court is now to declare the law upon their case.This being a mere inquiry, which, without deciding upon guilt, precedes the institution of a prosecution, the question to be determined is, whether the accused shall be discharged or held to trial; and if the latter, in what place they are to be tried, and whether they shall be confined or admitted to bail.
I see you've found another filthy lie from the flithy liar. The frequency with which he is posting them is increasing.
It's not hards, just about very sentence he writes is suspect.
"The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better." - August 12, 1803
So were they neighbors and friends, or was that just Northern Opinion as the chief justice states?
Pipe dream. Culpepper is having a banner year. He's even holding on to the ball (well, most of the time), and even with him screaming along right behind Peyton Manning in QB stats, Farve and the Pack are starting to look unstoppable again. GB can go to the superbowl for all I care, so long as Farve has one solid loss left in him on Christmas Eve.
Clearing hurdles was not all that happened. We're talking, remember, about protectionism - it's not enough to clear the hurdles in front of us, we must do our best to throw them in front of others.
Unless a case can be made that only industries critical to defense were protected, then I don't think that you can claim political necessity as justification for a tarrif. You can say all you want that there was no abuse, but someone got rich.
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.