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 ...
Farber is not a justice on the US Supreme Court. That court ruled - 9-0 - that the Constitution was for all men, at all times. It is superior to martial law, war powers, Laws of war, and Farbers prattlings.
Merryman inherited from his uncle - Nicholas Bosley, not his father. His direct family was not prominent. My ancestor was one of the "first" residents of my county - that does not make him a prominent member of society. But please, by all means, please enumerate these "prominent", leading citiznes of Baltimore for us. In 1861, Merryman was 37 years old. He was not a lawyer, banker, jeweler, Governor, mayor, assemblyman, senator or representative. He was a farmer. He was elected to political office in 1874, long after the death of Chief Justice Taney.
P.S. I noted in another post that the City Baltimore was not part of Baltimore County after 1851.
As if that made a difference? You cannot provide documentation of the alleged friendship, of any home owned in Baltimore City near the Taneys. In the 1850 & 1860 census, John Merryman lived 20 miles away. My wife's grandparents in the early 1900's drove by carriage just once a month to the nearest town (13 miles).
Even aside from that, what could Merryman possibly have in common with Roger Taney, a man almost 40 years his senior? Was Taney a farmer? Did Merryman attend meetings of the Supreme Court?
First off, it is not an article. It is an opininion editorial and no more constitutes a news article than Maureen Dowd today. So please abstain from dishonestly portraying it as an article.
Second, its credibility has been destroyed. It asserts that Taney and Merryman are neighbors when in fact they lived in two different cities entirely.
In fact, anything "discredited" by you is worth its weight in gold, as far as I'm concerned.
An habitual liar like yourself would react to the truth that way.
I can see why you claim to be a social scientist instead of a real one. There is no accounting for rational thought from such a narrow mind..
Print that one and take it to the mirror, capitan. After all, have you not asserted that Taney and Merryman must've been friends since their distant relatives are buried in the same cemetary?
You know that I am far to modest for that. I leave that sort of thing for the Brigade Scribe.
From his posting history, it appears that #3Fan knows more about my book even than I do. I therefore refer you to your Brigade Chaplain and Political Theorist. Your humble and obdt. servant, nolu.
capitan, did you notice that used the same precise phrasing as #3Fan?
[#3Fan #3456] Have you ever written a book?
[#3Fan #3462] Tell us about your book.
[#3Fan #3467] Have you ever written a book?
[#3Fan #3473] What about your book?
[#3Fan #3475] Tell us about your book.
[#3Fan #3484] Tell us about your book
[#3Fan #3496] Tell us about your book
[#3Fan #3508] I want to hear about his book and his motivation for writing it.
[#3Fan #3523] Tell us about your book.
[#3Fan #3591] I think I know what book you've written, a book you won't talk about even though I've asked you several times.
...says he who insists that Merryman and Taney were friends since their distant relatives are buried in the same cemetary.
Does the Times state when they were neighbors? No.
Nor would it matter if they did as John Merryman grew up in Cockeysville, lived in Cockeysville to adulthood, inherited his home in Cockeysville during the 1840's, appeared in Cockeysville in the 1850 census, appeared in Cockeysville in the 1860 census, and was arrested in the middle of the night in Cockeysville in 1861. Since we know for a fact that Roger B. Taney never lived anywhere near Cockeysville, he physically could not have been a neighbor of Merryman.
Taney was born in Frederick, Maryland. He lived in Frederick until 1823. From 1823-1855 he had residences in Washington and downtown Baltimore. From 1855 to his death in 1864 he lived in Washington and, when in Baltimore, stayed at the home of his daughter located on Franklin street downtown. NONE of Taney's well documented residences is within even 20 miles driving distance from Merryman's home from his birth in 1824 to his arrest in 1861, thus it is physically impossible for the two to have been neighbors.
Oh boy...Looks like the famed linguistics of Californy political discourse are showing through capitan_kerryfugio!
Better watch out! Right now it's only "narrow minded" but at this rate in a matter of days he could be calling me an "intolerant right wing sexist homophobic xenophobic jingoist oppressive WASP purveyor of western cultural dominance and exploitation" as well. Thought I'd war everybody, especially since we all know what a person of "tolerance and diversity" el capitan is /sarcasm
That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. James Madison, Virginia Ratifying convention 24 Jun 1788
'zactly. Even Madison and the federalists knew that were they not to accept he ratifications as written, it was back to business as usual, which none of them could tolerate. In the end, it was not the anti-federalists that caved.
Perhaps you should've read the post I was replying to then, jackhole.
Interesting commentary, from the guy who can't fool any of the people, at any time, in spite of your willingness to lie and cheat in what is otherwise honest debate.
The quote you provided from the Amy Warwick decision, was, unforutnately for you, not from the decision.
The case you mistook Lemmon for, unforunately, was never a case.
The chief justice cited an editorial as an example of opinion which you then quote as fact.
You lose. California lost, Capitan_kerryfugio. I understand your disappointment in not electing your ideological peer to the white house, but please, understand that FR is a place for Conservatives. We don't believe in the flexibility of the Consitition. WE don't believe that the rule of law takes a backseat to the metaphisical nature of Union. Go home, or rather stay home, and accept your lot in life.
We all have sympathy.
Yes, GOPcap, you obviously have no training in the scientific method as espoused by El Capitan.
A true scientist must believe in the metaphysical nature of the Union, detectable only by its normative aura.
A true scientist must believe that the written law takes a back seat to preservation of the mystical Union, metaphysical in nature, detectable only by its normative aura.
A true scientist must take an example of Northern opinion, and treat it as though it were fact.
A select few become geologists because they desire to make a fortune in the oil industry... the remainder are apparently just dumber than rocks and feel there's something to learn there.
From the trash that you and nolu chan have posted, I'll wait for it to become available in garage rag.
My crystal ball was on loan.
Naturally the Founders agreed but were so skillful they made it unnecessary to tamper with it much. Only a score plus times in over 200 yrs. Its flexibility has served the generations well.
Your friend Lentulusgracchus is a geologist too.
Every shortage is not a famine even idiots know that. I guess when you are hungry you are starving to death. Your brain seems to be degenerating.
[capitan_refugio #2211] The Times articles is eminently credible. In fact, anything "discredited" by you is worth its weight in gold, as far as I'm concerned.
This is an example of true Blue-State Conservatism.
Below is an example of New York Times objectivity, from May 29, 1861 to June 2, 1861. However, I actually like the part where the Times writes, "We will concede, too, for the sake of the argument, that the power to suspend this writ exists only in Congress...."
[nc - portions in bold blue were quoted by CJ Rehnquist in "All the Laws But One," page 35]
[nc - boldface added in a few places]
New York Times, May 29, 1861
Front page
NEWS REPORT
SPECIAL DISPATCH FROM WASHINGTON.
Washington, Tuesday, May 28
The intention of Judge TANEY, in issuing a writ of habeas corpus for the prisoner retained by Gen. CADWALLADER at Baltimore, is to bring on a collision between the Judicial and the Military Departments of the Government, and if possible to throw the weight of the judiciary against the United States and in favor of the rebels. He is at heart a rebel himself, for on Saturday, when it was supposed the rebels were attacking the United States forces at Arlington, Judge TANEY expressed the wish that "the Virginians would wade to their waists in Northern blood." The animus of this exclamation will be apparent to any one, and the fact that Judge TANEY, and and infirm as he is, volunteered to go to Baltimore to issue a writ in favor of a rebel, shows the alacrity with which he serves the cause of rebellion.
New York Times, May 29, 1861
Page 4
EDITORIAL
Taney and Cadwallader.
The controversy between Chief Justice TANEY and Gen CADWALLADER is in all respects unfortunate. A collision of civil and military authority is always to be, if possible, shunned; because the majesty of law, must, in all cases, succumb to the necessities of war, and the respect which the magistracy must assert for itself in a period of peace, is impaired by the sight of a fruitless struggle for supremacy at a period when military law is in the ascendant. In the case of John MERRIMAN, the interposition of Chief Justice TANEY can only be regarded as at once officious and improper. If the right in the (two words illegible) to be tested, there were other legal (one word illegible) whose intervention would have (one word illegible) quite as
effectual as that of the Chief Justice, before when, should the case give rise to litigation, it may eventually come for final adjudication. The issue, however, was one to which the State of Maryland was a party, and which therefore should have been raised by a magistrate of that State. In thus energetically interpreting, Judge TANEY presents the ungracious spectacle of a judicial and military authority of the United States at varance, the soldier eager to punish, and the jurist 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.
New York Times, May 30, 1861
EDITORIAL
Page 4
Civil and Martial Law at Baltimore.
John MERRIMAN, a citizen of Baltimore, was made prisoner the other day by the military authorities and confined at Fort McHenry. He had held a commission as Lieutenant in the rebel forces, and the company in which he served was armed with guns stolen from Government arsenals. He was active in inciting the revolt which resulted in the murder of Massachusetts soldiers in the streets of Baltimore, and he was taken while his hands were scarcely washed of the blood of these brave men to whose massacre he was accessory. He was the principal agent in the destruction of the bridges between Baltimore and Washington, which cut off the communication between those two cities. He was busy in attempting to organize the military of Baltimore against the Federal forces, -- and for these offences he was arrested.
It was in behalf of such a man, imprisoned for such offences, that Chief Justice TANEY, with what haste the feebleness of age would permit, hurried down to Baltimore to interpose between him and the retributions of justice his writ of habeas corpus. No man knew better than Judge TANEY that he was perverting its uses, and prostituting its purposes; that under circumstances like those which prevailed at Baltimore and its vicinity, which, for the purpose of suppressing rebellion and for the preservation of the Government, were under military rule, the functions of the writ, so far as military arrests were concerned, were suspended. He knew that for offences such as MERRIMAN was accused of, the military, and not the civil arm, wielded the sword of justice. He knew that Gen. CADWALLADER could not, without a violation of honor and official duty, obey the writ.
Gen. CADWALLADER, as he should have done, as by the Constitution he was bound to do, refused obedience, and Judge TANEY, with great solemnity and in presence of a gaping mob, pronounced judgment against him as for a contempt of judicial authority, and issued his writ of attachment for his arrrest. Again the General, in vindication of his official duty and his manhood, refused to submit to an arrest. And again Judge TANEY, sitting in solemn state, in presence of a vast concourse of people, solemnly declared the civil authority powerless to protect the rights of the citizens; that its arm was paralyzed and its power destroyed; and hypocritically deprecating the fact that the General was sourrounded and protected by a force against which it would be folly to contend, announced his purpose to appeal to the Executive of the nation to enforce his judicial mandates, and retired in affected humility from the Bench.
General CADWALLADER was, it is needless to say, right in refusing to surrender a traitor taken in arms against the government to a Judge who sympathized in his treason. He was also right in refusing to submit to arrest under the attachment which followed. The wrong was in issuing the writ of habeas corpus, and the greater outrage of requiring a brave and loyal man to surrender himself a prisoner, to be held in durance in judicial ante-rooms, and arraigned before a Judge who was himself steeped to the crown in the treason, which, as a loyal and just man, he was bound to punish. Gen. CADWALLADER was right. The Government, we doubt not, sustain him, and we know that the people will honor him for his patriotic firmness.
As for Judge TANEY, there is nothing in his antecedents to prepare us for any different line of conduct. When he promulgated his opinion in the Dred Scott case, its enormity shocked the moral sense not of the North alone, but of the civilized world. the monstrous doctrine enunciated by the Chief Justice of the United states, that under the Constitution of the Republic -- founded upon principles of liberty, and having for its object the perpetuation of justice and right -- Slavery was a national, an outspreading and progressive institution, based on organic law, marching forward with the national flag, and expanding with the national domain, pervading alike States and Territories; and the still more monstrous doctrine, that under the Constitution the black man possessed no civil rights whatever, the friends of freedom everywhere -- humanity itself -- stood amazed at the ghastly paradox. It was fitting that the author of this libel upon our institutions, upon free government everywhere, and upon the Constitution should sell the ermine of justice by conspiring against the government that had honored and trusted him, and go down through history as the Judge who draggled his official robes in the pollutions of treason.
It is melancholy enough to see young men, impelled by the ardor of youth, the impulsiveness of inexperience, plunge into rebellion; but it is a thousand times more melancholy to see an octogenarian turning back from the grave, on the verge of which he was standing, to strike one last though impotent blow at the existence of a Government he has repeatedly sworn to support. This is precisely what Roger B. TANEY is doing now. Too feeble to wield the sword against the Constitution, too old and palsied and weak to march in the ranks of rebellion and fight against the Union, he uses the power of his office to serve the cause of the traitors, by creating if possible an angry conflict between the military, organized in defence of the constitution and the Union, and the civil authorities of Maryland. Out of this conflict he hopes to see arise an excitement that shall fan the smouldering fires of secession in that State into a flame; -- that treason sill find an apology for a new outbreak in a pretended support of the civil authority against military rule. No matter if this outbreak shall deluge his own State or its chief city in blood, if it shall occasion a diversion of the
Page 5
loyal forces that are now marching to the overthrow of his Southern confederation, his object will have been accomplished.
New York Times, June 2, 1861
EDITORIAL
Page 4
The Habeas Corpus, and the Merriman Case.
There is a vast deal of patriotic indignation among the Southern sympathizers just now, over what they are pleased to term the unconstitutional suspension of the habeas corpus by Gen. CADWALLADER. They affect to see infinite danger to constitutional freedom in his refusal to surrender a military prisoner in his custody, and in the further refusal to give up his command, and yield himself a prisoner upon the attachment issued for his arrest. If these cavilers would take time to consider the nature of the office of the writ of habeas corpus, and the facts of the case which they criticise so severely, we think that, unless their sympathies are permitted to control their deliberate judgment, their convictions on this subject would be changed.
We concede fully the value and importance of the writ of habeas corpus. We regard it as one of the most essential instrumentalities for the preservation of liberty, but it should be remembered also that it may be used to shield villiany and protect guilt against merited punishment. We will concede, too, for the sake of the argument, that the power to suspend this writ exists only in Congress, though, as a practical fact, we hold that exigencies may arise when the President or a commanding officer of a military district may lawfully suspend it for the time being. Whether we are right or wrong in this opinion is immaterial now, for the reason that there has been no suspension of the habeas corpus, by Gen. CADWALLDER or any one else. It is one thing to prohibit or suspend the right of issuing the writ at all, and another and very different thing to deny its authority in a particular instance. A sheriff making an illegal arrest, may rightfully be required to produce his prisoner before the magistrate issuing the writ, while a general having fought a battle and captured a regiment of the enemy, would be entirely justified in refusing to obey the mandate of a judge requiring him to parade his captives in Court. It is a great fallacy to suppose that the civil authority is at all times, and under all circumstances, superior to that of the military. In the presence of an enemy, when there is actual danger of collision, when the strong arm of physical force is necessary to save the country from imminent peril, the civil power must give way, for the time, to the military. It needs no constitutional provision, no legislative enactment, to legalize its authority. It is inherent in the nature of things, existing from necessity, and growing out of, and in a part of the great law of instinct and self-preservation, which is higher than Constitutions, older and stronger than the statuute book.
In the case under consideration there was no "suspension" of the writ of habeas corpus. Judge TANEY was at perfect liberty to issue his writ and enforce obedience to its mandates in all cases within its legitimate province. In every case of civil arrest under the forms of civil process or by color of the civil authority, there was no impediment in his way. But the difficulty is that this was not such a case. The country was at war. Call it a rebellion if you please, a revolt, or by any other name, still it was an organized war, with armies confronting each other with weapons and array prepared for battle. The danger of collision was imminent. The Government itself was in peril. Under such circumstances, Gen. CADWALLADER, the commander of the government forces and of a military district, found within his jurisdiction a man holding a commission in the ranks of the enemy, aiding them by enlisting men for their service, by inciting an armed mob to attack and kill the Government troops, by burning bridges and destroying railroads to cut off communication between the Government forces, and he made him a prisoner. Call the offender a traitor, and say he is guilty of treason, still he is not the less a spy, subject to a drumhead court-martial, or a prisoner of war, and liable to be retained as such. He was taken in arms, ready to fight on the side of the enemy -- was an officer bearing their commission, and had fought for them. Now, it is true that he might have been handed over to the civil authorities and tried for treason, but he was also liable to be treated as a spy or a prisoner of war, and disposed of as such. Suppose that, instead of its having been an individual thus made prisoner, a company of the enemy had been surrounded and had surrendered -- will anybody pretend that Judge TANEY, by any legitimate exercise of judicial authority, could have required Gen. CADWALLADER to parade his prisoners in Court, and demand of him by what authority he made or held them prisoners of war? Or, again, suppose that the outposts of the army should capture a scouting party of a dozen of the enemy, could Judge TANEY, by virtue of his writ of habeas corpus demand their presence in Court, and sit in judgment upon the propriety of their capture? Go a step further, and suppose that in making a charge a single officer of the enemy should be captured, could Judge TANEY lawfully demand that Gen. CADWALLADER should bring him into Court, that the legality of his capture or the propriety of his discharge should be passed upon by him? We do not believe that any decently learned lawyer or sensible man would say that Judge TANEY had any such jurisdiction, or that the writ of habeas corpus could be legitimately used for any such purpose, or who would not justify Gen. CADWALLADER in treating it as an usurpation, and disregarding its authority. and yet these cases would be precisely parallel in principle with the one under consideration. MERRIMAN, we repeat, held a commission in the enemies' ranks, was an officer in their pay, was subject to their command, was actually in their service, doing all that he could do to strengthen them and forward their interests. It makes no difference whether he was taken with and at the head of his company, or at the head of a scouting party, nor yet whether he was captured alone. He was an officer in the service of, and was actually serving, the enemy. True, Gen. CADWALLADER might, in his discretion, have handed him over to the civic authorities to be tried for treason, and doubtless would have done so had it not been for the known sympathy of the Judge in the treason, and that the writ was only used for the protection of the culprit; but he had also a right to fall back on his military authority, and retain his prisoner. In our judgment, he acted wisely, and in accordance with legal and constitutional right. Any other course would have furnished at once the pretext and the precedent for the release of every prisoner taken by the army so long as Judge TANEY retained the physical ability to issue his writ.
New York Times, May 30, 1861
Front page
NEWS REPORT
STATE OF OPINION IN THE SOUTHERN ARMY.
Correspondence of the New-York Times.
WASHINGTON, Wednesday, May 29, 1861.
No fact gives greater promise of a speedy termination of the present rebellion than the altered tone of public sentiment now manifested in the South. The agents of the government who have visited the rebel camps at Fredericksburgh, Richmond, Staunton, Warrenton and Harper's Ferry, all coincide with the statements made by the scouts and prisoners who have been seized by our advance troops and statements of the deserters and fugitives from the rebels, that the Southern military now fully realize the strength of the Government and the formidable character of its present military movements.
New York Times, May 31, 1861
EDITORIAL
Page 4
A Short War Probably.
It is now only six weeks since Mr. LINCOLN issued his proclamation calling for volunteers for the defence of the Capital. The same act that led to this step precipitated Virginia into secession. This was effected for the purpose of adding a strength to the movement which would, as it was believed, render it invincible, and to transfer the seat of the war from the cotton to the food-producing districts. The rebels elected to make this State their battle-ground. The Government accepted the challenge, and, today, has one hundred thousand men either upon, or who are swiftly advancing towards the soil of this State, and directed by the ablest commander of his time. This force is well equipped, abundantly supplied with munitions of war, and sustained by the entire financial strength of the North. If it is not so thoroughly trained as the veterans that compose European armies, it will be opposed to troops, wo, whatever may be their personal courage or endurance, are vastly inferior in soldierly qualities to those of the North. With equal numbers it is discipline that wins, and this is the last quality of which southern soldiers are capable. ...
You had better be careful ... mental masturbation of the type you are performing is habit forming. Look what has happened to the coward.
What's a "Constitition"?
What does "metaphisical" mean?
For what it's worth, here's the ticket I voted this year (major races): President: Bush/Cheney (Rep) - won
Federal Senator: Bill Jones (Rep) - lost
Representative: Elton Gallegly (Rep) - won
State Senator: Tom McClintock (Rep) - won
Statre Assembly: Audra Strickland (Rep) - won
I think "ignorant" pretty well covers it.
Scambling up different thoughts that Taussig had wrt tariffs and embargos does not produce clarity. But that is your specialty. Picking little tidbits and amplifying them is the only way the DSs can argue at all.
His work does not indicate that the tariffs were a miserable failure or that they cannot work nor was he COMPARING them unfavorably to the results of the embargo he was describing the historical context of their implementation. At best he was saying that the infant industry protective intent of the tariffs had been made superfilous by the embargo's forcing of self-reliance. And he explicitly says that infant industry protective tariffs do, in fact, work.
Maybe I should have written it as, "Tell us about your book," emphasizing you inability to put cogent thoughts together.
Clarity is a goal you should strive for not that you'll ever achieve it given the irrational obsession which drives your defense of the indefensible.
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.