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 ...
Defensible borders is one of the fundamental attributes of a nation-state. The CSA was never able to maintain control of the territory it claimed, and continued to lose control over those areas they did control for the balance of their failed war for independence.
Your complaint is reminiscent of the confederate losers' lament.
nolu coward - your hatred is as palpable and your ignorance.
Did Davis have to contend with a major opposition party?
I think "the coward" blew a sphincter!
So you believe that he should not have been allowed to espouse an opinion since it was against the war itself?
The opposition Party was allowed to operate
Yeah, under constant harassment with its leaders and elected officials being persecuted, imprisoned, deported, and arbitrarily kicked out of office.
Davis did no less.
And thus you still continue to squack "Tu quoque! Tu quoque!" Davis, BTW, had a very outspoken opposition that he nevertheless did not harass like Lincoln did. The opposition in the CSA senate (which I have no doubt you will #3slander with another #3cheap shot since I simply mentioned their name) was actually more competent on war matters and eventually got Lee named the primary commander.
No, defeating a bill is not the same as activily opposing him.
Then exactly what is it - passively opposing him?
Bill get defeated by Congress all the time, even when the President own party is in charge.
Indeed they do, but Congresses do not kill off the president's top legislative item for the session if not to send a message to the president that the bill sucks (the bill's number was S 1, which is always designated for the most important bill of the session).
If Lincoln was the tyrant you claim, the Congress would have had to bring up charges against him, which they did not.
Once again you've arbitrarily imposed an irrational constraint in which dissapproval may only be expressed by impeachment. Your logic for doing so is circular and your position is not derived from reason. Thus I see no purpose in continuing this any further.
Both of the coutries you name specifically, and all of the nation-states in Europe have defined and internationally accepted boundaries, have been recognized by and have established relations with neighboring nation-states, and are part of the world community.
The CSA never had any of those things.
I don't see why not, at least not in the days when this was a confederation of voluntary states. Now days you'd probably go apoplectic over such a thought. Sorry, I don't mean to harm you.
[rb] A major compromise over slavery in the Constitution (the return of fugitive slaves) was being disobeyed by the North.
[ftD] Well, that is a false statement.
Oh? From the 1855 Massachusetts Personal Liberty Law:
Sec. 11. Any person who shall act as counsel or attorney for any claimant of any alleged fugitive from service or labor, under or by virtue of the acts of congress mentioned in the ninth section of this act, shall be deemed to have resigned any commission from the Commonwealth that he may possess, and he shall be thereafter incapacitated from appearing as counsel or attorney in the courts of this Commonwealth...
Sec. 15. Any sheriff, deputy sheriff, jailer, coroner, constable, or other officer of this Commonwealth, or the police of any city or town, or any district, county, city or town officer, or any officer or other member of the volunteer militia of this Commonwealth, who shall hereafter arrest...any person for the reason that he is claimed or adjudged to be a fugitive from service or labor, shall be punished by fine...and by imprisonment...
Sec. 19. No jail, prison, or other place of confinement belonging to, or used by, either the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any county therein, shall be used for the detention or imprisonment of any person accused or convicted of any offence created by [the Federal Fugitive Slave Acts]...or accused or convicted of obstructing or resisting any process, warrant, or order issued under either of said acts, or of rescuing, or attempting to rescue, any person arrested or detained under any of the provisions of either of the said acts.
Lincoln told the South that the law was in the Constitution and would be upheld.
I think the South knew what was in the Constitution and didn't need Lincoln telling them. It was the North that needed the reminder. Personally, I think the South would have been wiser to let Lincoln enforce the law (or not).
From The Daily Mississippian newspaper of January 16, 1861:
Washington, Jan. 12. Hon. Wm H. Seward, of New York, addressed the Senate to-day, on the President's message. He said Congress ought, if it can, redress any real grievances of the offended States, and then supply the President with all the means necessary to maintain the Union. He argued that the laws contravening the constitution, in regard to the escape of slaves, ought to be repealed. He was willing to vote for an amendment to the constitution, that Congress should never have the power to abolish or interfere with slavery within the States.
What did Seward know that you don't?
[Lincoln] had strong opposition, both from the Northern Democrats and Southerners.
Others on this thread have documented the leanings of the House and Senate. Senator Wigfall from Texas did the count, I think. Lincoln's opposition could have been outvoted.
The Tarriffs of the 50's were fairly low.
had the South not left in 1860 they could have blocked the tarriff that was passed when 14 Southern Senators left.
Like I said, others have demonstrated otherwise. And yes, the tariffs adopted by the Confederate States were low. Here is what the Cincinnatti Enquirer said in March 1861:
The seceded States invite imports under the tariff of 1857, at least ten per cent. lower than that which the Federal Government has just adopted. As a matter of course, foreign trade will seek southern ports, because it will be driven there by the Morrill tariff.
As I remember, as soon as the Morrill tariff was passed Congress voted to float another big loan to the Federal Government.
The South had no moral justification for secession.
Ah, the pious moral scold from Fort Bend has spoken! Actually, they could leave whenever and for whatever reason they chose, be it moral, immoral, or simply because they didn't like Lincoln's deoderant.
They had the rights of representation, even using the slaves 3/4 rule to be overrepresented.
I forget who proposed that, someone from the North perhaps (I may be wrong) to counter a demand that slaves be counted as whole people. Without the compromise, a Union including the South would not have come to be, and I would not have the pleasure of discussing the WBTS with you.
"It may seem that Lincoln violated the rule of law in his effort to vindicate the legal order. Much of this apparent paradox dissolves on closer examination, partly because most of his actions were indeed lawful, and partly because the rule of law in not an inflexible concept. Yet, a subtler paradox persists. The rule of law is usually contrasted with the 'rule of men.' But at least in a time of crisis, maintaining the ideals of the rule of law depends in a crucial way on the character and courage of society's leaders.
"As we have seen, most of what Lincoln did, then and later, was in fact constitutional. he was correct that secession was unconstitutional, a revolutionary act rather than a legitimate exercise of state sovereignty. He was also correct that, in actual areas of war and insurrection, he had emergency power to suspend habeas and impose martial law. This is not to say everything he did was constitutional. Military jurisdiction was extended beyond constitutional bounds in the North; money was spent and the military expanded without the necessary authority from Congress; and freedom of speech was sometimes infringed. Not a perfect record, but a credible one, under incredibly trying circumstances." (p 196-197)
He later continued:
"Most of Lincoln's emergency actions fell within a much narrower power to suspend the normal legal process in the actual vicinity of war or insurrection, where the authority of the government was challenged by forces too strong for the conventional legal system to control. This narrower power was still subject to abuse, with unnecessary harm to civil liberties, but it was confined to areas where force had already displaced law as the operative principle. The fact that Lincoln acted under narrower powers does not disprove the existence of broader ones, but it does not support them either....
"Lincoln's form of nationalism remains relevant for us today.... In interpreting the very real role of states in the constitutional scheme, we must not forget that the primary purpose of the constitution was not to enshrine state sovereignty but to create 'a more perfect Union.' As Lincoln recognized, the Constitution was an exercise in nation building." (p 197-198).
These were lessons that Taney, Calhoun, the fire-eaters, and the confederate leadership were unable, or unwilling, to understand.
He was doing far more then just being against the war, he was saying that the Federal gov't should be resisted in its war efforts.
The opposition Party was allowed to operate Yeah, under constant harassment with its leaders and elected officials being persecuted, imprisoned, deported, and arbitrarily kicked out of office.
There were elections held in 62 in which the Democrats did very well.
Only those who were Confederate supporters or attempting to obstruct the war effort were dealt with severely.
Davis did no less. And thus you still continue to squack "Tu quoque! Tu quoque!" Davis, BTW, had a very outspoken opposition that he nevertheless did not harass like Lincoln did. The opposition in the CSA senate (which I have no doubt you will #3slander with another #3cheap shot since I simply mentioned their name) was actually more competent on war matters and eventually got Lee named the primary commander.
And again, Davis handled the issues no better then Lincoln did and in some cases worse.
No, defeating a bill is not the same as activily opposing him. Then exactly what is it - passively opposing him?
It is opposing a particular bill.
Bill get defeated by Congress all the time, even when the President own party is in charge. Indeed they do, but Congresses do not kill off the president's top legislative item for the session if not to send a message to the president that the bill sucks (the bill's number was S 1, which is always designated for the most important bill of the session).
And again, that does not mean that Lincoln was held to be a tyrant by the Congress.
had they thought so, they would be under obligation to impeach him as such.
If Lincoln was the tyrant you claim, the Congress would have had to bring up charges against him, which they did not. Once again you've arbitrarily imposed an irrational constraint in which dissapproval may only be expressed by impeachment. Your logic for doing so is circular and your position is not derived from reason. Thus I see no purpose in continuing this any further.
If Congress has a tyrant in the White House, impeachment is how they are to deal with them.
Since they are actually fighting the war to keep the nation together, they might have a little more realistic view of what Lincoln was doing then do the arm chair historians do a hundred years later.
Similarly, considering Jefferson's specualtion concerning the future of the Louisiana Purchase, he wonders if the nation would not become too large to effectively govern. He refers again to separation, but not the mechanism, and not "unilateral secession."
I realize this offend closely held southern dogma, but its time for all y'all to grow up.
I had not read your post when I posted my latest! Good observation.
No, I will not go apoplectic, but it is clear that you are advocating anarchy.
So, no state would have any security in the union.
[rb] A major compromise over slavery in the Constitution (the return of fugitive slaves) was being disobeyed by the North. [ftD] Well, that is a false statement. Oh? From the 1855 Massachusetts Personal Liberty Law: Sec. 11. Any person who shall act as counsel or attorney for any claimant of any alleged fugitive from service or labor, under or by virtue of the acts of congress mentioned in the ninth section of this act, shall be deemed to have resigned any commission from the Commonwealth that he may possess, and he shall be thereafter incapacitated from appearing as counsel or attorney in the courts of this Commonwealth...
I said that the States were not too happy with turning over the slaves, but the Federal gov't was enforcing the act.
Gee, what happened to State rights?
Sec. 15. Any sheriff, deputy sheriff, jailer, coroner, constable, or other officer of this Commonwealth, or the police of any city or town, or any district, county, city or town officer, or any officer or other member of the volunteer militia of this Commonwealth, who shall hereafter arrest...any person for the reason that he is claimed or adjudged to be a fugitive from service or labor, shall be punished by fine...and by imprisonment...
Again, the Federal gov't was using force to retrieve slaves when the states would not give them up.
There was a riot in Boston when the Federal Gov't took one slave back.
Sec. 19. No jail, prison, or other place of confinement belonging to, or used by, either the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any county therein, shall be used for the detention or imprisonment of any person accused or convicted of any offence created by [the Federal Fugitive Slave Acts]...or accused or convicted of obstructing or resisting any process, warrant, or order issued under either of said acts, or of rescuing, or attempting to rescue, any person arrested or detained under any of the provisions of either of the said acts.
And again, the Federal gov't supported the South's taken back the slaves.
Lincoln told the South that the law was in the Constitution and would be upheld. I think the South knew what was in the Constitution and didn't need Lincoln telling them. It was the North that needed the reminder. Personally, I think the South would have been wiser to let Lincoln enforce the law (or not).
Lincoln told the South that they had nothing to fear from him that he would uphold the Constitution.
That is what Lincoln was telling the South, not what was in the Constitution.
From The Daily Mississippian newspaper of January 16, 1861: Washington, Jan. 12. Hon. Wm H. Seward, of New York, addressed the Senate to-day, on the President's message. He said Congress ought, if it can, redress any real grievances of the offended States, and then supply the President with all the means necessary to maintain the Union. He argued that the laws contravening the constitution, in regard to the escape of slaves, ought to be repealed. He was willing to vote for an amendment to the constitution, that Congress should never have the power to abolish or interfere with slavery within the States. What did Seward know that you don't?
And as President, Lincoln took an oath to defend the Constitution, no matter what his private opinions.
[Lincoln] had strong opposition, both from the Northern Democrats and Southerners. Others on this thread have documented the leanings of the House and Senate. Senator Wigfall from Texas did the count, I think. Lincoln's opposition could have been outvoted.
So, if you can't win the vote, pull out?
I however, doubt that the North could have defeated the South in the Senate
The Tarriffs of the 50's were fairly low. had the South not left in 1860 they could have blocked the tarriff that was passed when 14 Southern Senators left. Like I said, others have demonstrated otherwise. And yes, the tariffs adopted by the Confederate States were low. Here is what the Cincinnatti Enquirer said in March 1861: The seceded States invite imports under the tariff of 1857, at least ten per cent. lower than that which the Federal Government has just adopted. As a matter of course, foreign trade will seek southern ports, because it will be driven there by the Morrill tariff. As I remember, as soon as the Morrill tariff was passed Congress voted to float another big loan to the Federal Government.
You do not know that the South could have not defeated the Tarriff.
The South had no moral justification for secession. Ah, the pious moral scold from Fort Bend has spoken! Actually, they could leave whenever and for whatever reason they chose, be it moral, immoral, or simply because they didn't like Lincoln's deoderant.
Yea, right.
Calhoun's view of loose confederation of states.
The same guy that rejected the Declaration of Independence since he believe that no individual was born with rights to anything, only the state had the rights.
Here you are arguing for a regime that tore men from their loved ones to drag them back to the slaver masters and used the federal gov't to do so.
They had the rights of representation, even using the slaves 3/4 rule to be overrepresented. I forget who proposed that, someone from the North perhaps (I may be wrong) to counter a demand that slaves be counted as whole people. Without the compromise, a Union including the South would not have come to be, and I would not have the pleasure of discussing the WBTS with you.
Well, the slavers wanted it both ways, having slaves counted as people for representation but in practice treating them as property.
But consistency in thinking has never been a strong suit for defenders of the Confederacy.
Ever heard of civil disobedience?
There were elections held in 62 in which the Democrats did very well.
There were also elections held in 64 in which Lincoln and his party "won" in several places by way of voter fraud.
It is opposing a particular bill.
...and in this case, that particular bill sought simply to suspend habeas corpus. They rejected that bill in a clear sign of disapproval of Lincoln's request. You're simply to dishonest to admit that fact because admitting it would entail a concession that Lincoln ran roughshod over the will of the other two branches of government. Your #3position not being one derived from reason, you will remain in #3denial of that simple fact. To permit a concession otherwise is unacceptable in your mind, which is already made up upon the premise that Lincoln can do no wrong, all subsequent acts of yours built around vindicating that faulty premise.
Novel idea. I would not have guessed that from those eclectic posts.
No doubt because they reject his administration as being tyrannical.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - Congress has eliminated direct financing for a Justice Department program that has been the centerpiece of the Bush administration's efforts to prosecute black-market gun crimes. The move, which Congressional officials attributed to competing budget priorities, cuts federal grants to local and state law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting crimes committed with guns. It also raises questions about the administration's ability to persuade the Republican-controlled Congress to support its legislative priorities, after Republicans last month blocked an intelligence overhaul backed by the White House. The administration had sought $45 million for local grants under the gun...
Defeating bills is checks and balances.
Impeachment is for criminal, tyrannical actions.
Lincoln's suspension of the writ did not meet the level of impeachment, thus was neither tyrannical nor criminal.
Yes we do. The math is as follows: As of March 1861 the incoming US Senate had 34 states and 68 members. The minimum threshold for passage was 34 votes - a tie, in which case VP Hamlin would break the tie in favor. Now the breakdown of the senate:
1. There were 14 southern states. Assuming that all southern senators voted "no" that yields a maximum of 28 southern no votes.
2. There were 31 Republicans guaranteed to vote yes.
3. There was one Democrat from the tariff state of New Jersey, who would also vote yes for a total of 32. Another Democrat from Delaware suggested he would vote in favor of the bill for 33.
4. Of the remaining northern democrats and independents there were five reliable "no" votes: Bright of Indiana, the 2 senators from California, Douglas of Illinois, and Rice of Minnesota.
That puts us at 33-33 with two votes outstanding, one from Oregon and the other from Delaware (neither voted on the bill or gave their positions in the congressional record as far as I can determined). The southerners estimated that they would not get the Oregon vote and assuming they are correct that would put the Morrill bill over the top.
Scenario 2 happens after June when Stephen Douglas dies and is replaced by a Republican, giving the Republicans 32 votes plus the two aforementioned pro-tariff Democrats for 34.
Add to the mix that the incoming President had publicly pledged to make the tariff his top legislative priority in the new session and the scenario plays out to completion.
Here is what we can conclude from that scenario:
- The absolute best case possibility for the south was defeating 35 to 33 assuming they got the Oregon vote that they did not consider reliable. That possibility is removed entirely after Douglas dies.
- The second and most likely scenario for the south is that the two unidentified votes split, possibly after Lincoln lobbies one of them hard for the tariff, and a tie results. Hamlin then breaks the tie and the bill passes.
- The third and worst case scenario is that Lincoln lobbies hard for the tariff and sways both of the undecideds to his side. The bill passes 35-33.
As only one of these three scenarios was acceptable to the south (and it only worked so long as Douglas was alive) it is safe to say that the odds were strongly against them.
Bush isn't asking Congress to suspend habeas corpus and demanding they move the bill to the front of the legislative agenda as H.R. 1 or S. 1.
That would be akin to Congress listening to President Bush's address on the Iraq war last year and then killing the authorizing resolution.
Such is the confederate fantasy world.
Lincoln took the actions needed to stop the insurrection and win the war; a building consensus in the Congress and among the loyal people supported him; and the confederacy died an ignominious death.
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.