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 ...
Words mean what they want them to mean like the Queen of Hearts. To Crapulist "shortage" means "famine." LoL
Delusions of Grandeur are the least of your difficulties.
Applause from your little incestuous clique is nothing to overvalue.
Oh, let us not get too carried away. We are in partial agreement, but that is progress.
The People delegate power to the various Governments.
Hence, the right of change any government is the right to revolution taking back that delegated power if it is being abused.
About this, we disagree.
The people met and reclaimed their delegated powers from the government under the Articles of Confederation. There was no revolution. There was no need to demonstrate any power being abused. If the people are the sovereigns, they do not need permission from anyone to exercise their sovereign power.
The people in the aggregate do absolutely nothing under the Constitutional government. The constitutional government was formed after eleven ratifications were agreed upon. There were not millions of ratifications, but one for each state. The people organized themselves by state, and they acted by state. Each such group of people acted independently of the other twelve groups.
The sovereigns have the right of change of their government. They do not need to stage a revolution to exercise their rights. They need not justify the exercise of their rights to anyone. If they have the right to do something, that have that right even if exercising it would be an act of gross stupidity. They can exericise their rights for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.
That fascinating essay seems to be entirely unaware that the North had a larger agricultural economy that the South and that sector was hurt just as much as that of the South.
And it has escaped him that the cotton used by the mills in the North in greater quantities than it would have been without the protection. It also seems to imply that the South would have been better off being held in total thralldom to the English manufacturers rather than developing industries which competed with them for Southern cotton.
But I would expect no deep analysis from such sources.
How do you know? Rehnquist did not characterize it. "Article" is suitably broad. An "editorial" is an "article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers." Since neither you nor I can state with certainty the authorship of the article, the use of the more ambiguous term is proper.
" ... and no more constitutes a news article than Maureen Dowd today."
I didn't characterize it as a "news" article. You did. All too often editorial content gets into the news. I believe you are familiar with the Houston Chronicle and the problems they have along that line.
I sympathize with your inability to name even ONE high culture which grew without a city at its core. Just ONE.
You act like I mis-defined the word civilization or was lying about its origin. Or that I support those classes which produce its negative features when it is clear that they are STILL the allies of the RAT party which revolted in 1861. Those forces which I ally with in the cities are those which fought against the lower classes and their criminality. It is not they which produce the High Culture any more than the rural regions.
I'd not seen those quotes before. They're keepers. They are consistent with what John Taylor, a participant in the ratification process, said in his 1823 book on the Constitution:
The sovereignties which imposed the limitations upon the federal government, far from supposing that they perished by the exercise of a part of their faculties, were vindicated, by reserving powers in which their deputy, the federal government, could not participate; and the usual right of sovereigns to alter or revoke its commissions.
And they are consistent with the vote of the state delegates to the Continental Congress noted by Thomas Burke in 1777:
The first and latter [proposed additions to the Articles of Confederation] passed without opposition or dissent, the second occasioned two days debate. It stood originally the third article; and expressed only a reservation of the power of regulating the internal police, and consequently resigned every other power [to the central government].
It appeared to me that this was not what the States expected, and, I thought, it left it in the power of the future Congress or General Council to explain away every right belonging to the States and to make their own power as unlimited as they please. I proposed, therefore an amendment, which held up the principle, that all sovereign power was in the States separately, and that particular acts of it, which should be expressly enumerated, would be exercised in conjunction, and not otherwise; but that in all things else each State would exercise all the rights and power of sovereignty, uncontrolled.
This was at first so little understood that it was some time before it was seconded, and South Carolina first took it up. The opposition was made by Mr. Wilson of Pennsylvania, and Mr. R. H. Lee of Virginia: in the end, however, the question was carried for my proposition, eleven ayes, one no, and one divided. The no was Virginia; the divided, New Hampshire.
[Source: Thomas Burke to Governor Caswell, 29 April, 1777. North Carolina Colonial Records, XI, 461.
And, of course, Madison during ratification argued that the states were still separate independent sovereigns under the Constitution.
What are these principles? Do they require that, in the establishment of the Constitution, the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed. [Source: Madison, Federalist 40]
"Farmer" Merryman was an officer in the Towson Guards (Baltimore County Horse Guards) and in the State Agricultural Society. Both positions suggest money, connections, and status.
I provided documentation. You haven't refuted it.
Words mean things. The words of JSUATI define his sort of Blue-State Conservatism.
JUSTSHUTUPANDFAKEIT AND HIS "BLUE STATE CONSERVATISM"
My conservativism is the conservativism of Republicans. DemocRATS are not conservative now or in 1861.
How is your Brigade commander doing?
Is he still tied up doing other things?
The entire known universe, with perhaps one exception, is unaware that tariffs hurt the North as much as the South.
I think you defined your Blue State Conservatism as clear as possible. I can't see why anyone would have any problem understanding what you said.
JUSTSHUTUPANDFAKEIT AND HIS "BLUE STATE CONSERVATISM"
Words mean things. The words of JSUATI define his sort of Blue-State Conservatism.
JUSTSHUTUPANDFAKEIT AND HIS "BLUE STATE CONSERVATISM"
No, but shortage is operationally synonymous with the word famine to the degree that it can provide the noun and object of its definition.
I provided documentation and refuted your nonsense.
I provided the NYT coverage of the Merryman case from May 29, 1861 to June 2, 1861. its misstatements of fact and of law are legion.
Your source cannot even spell the name Merryman. The NYT did not get it right once. And your source claimed Merryman was a citizen of Baltimore.
The NYT referred to "John MERRIMAN, a citizen of Baltimore." John Merryman was a citizen of Baltimore County, not Baltimore City.
The NYT wrote, "He had held a commission as Lieutenant in the rebel forces." John Merryman was a Lieutenant in the Maryland state forces.
The NYT wrote, "He [Taney] knew that for offences such as MERRIMAN was accused of, the military, and not the civil arm, wielded the sword of justice. The NYT was wrong, so held by the Supreme Court, 9-0, Ex Parte Milligan.
The NYT wrote, "Gen. CADWALLADER, as he should have done, as by the Constitution he was bound to do, refused obedience." Perhaps you can quote the part of the Constitution the NYT relies upon for this one.
The NYT called Merryman, "a traitor taken in arms." He was in bed, sleeping. Perhaps the NYT thought his short arm was a cannon.
The NYT wrote, "there has been no suspension of the habeas corpus, by Gen. CADWALLADER or any one else."
The NYT wrote, "In the case under consideration there was no "suspension" of the writ of habeas corpus."
The NYT wrote of Merryman, "still he is not the less a spy." He was carrying out orders issued by the Governor of Maryland. Merryman was in the Maryland state forces.
The NYT wrote, "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." Perhaps they should say it again and maybe it will turn true.
The NYT wrote, "He was an officer in the service of, and was actually serving, the enemy." Nope, it didn't work. It is still false.
The NYT wrote, "In our judgment, he [Cadwallader] acted wisely, and in accordance with legal and constitutional right." Every court that ever spoke to the issue dissenting.
The NYT wrote, "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." The NYT was wrong, so held by the Supreme Court, 9-0, Ex Parte Milligan.
Speaking from experience, eh fakeit? That's why I went straight to the part that Taussig himself identified as his conclusion rather than dwell in quote mining and context removal like you did.
His work does not indicate that the tariffs were a miserable failure
Yes it does. He says straight out that his conclusion is the tariffs did little if anything good for the country. You simply don't like the fact that he did so, thus you quote mine and spin.
or that they cannot work
That is not an issue and never has been. Few if any economists deny that a tariff could _theoretically_ accomplish infant industry protection. But the fact remains that the one the Hamiltonians and Whigs tried in the early 19th century did not work.
nor was he COMPARING them unfavorably to the results of the embargo
No. You made that comparison. I simply pointed out that the embargo is widely regarded as a disaster, thus by your own comparison's implications the tariffs must compare unfavorably to a disastrous policy.
And he explicitly says that infant industry protective tariffs do, in fact, work.
No. He said that they could theoretically work, to which I say big deal. Most economists realize that and even free traders like Friedman openly admit it. But when Taussig looked at a real world example of them to see if they did work he found that they had not.
[cr] How do you know? Rehnquist did not characterize it.
It is on the Editorial page. The new report was on the front page.
Well, we could consult the dictionary...
fam·ine ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fmn) n. 1. A drastic, wide-reaching food shortage. 2. A drastic shortage; a dearth. (American Heritage Dictionary)
famine n 1: an acute insufficiency [syn: dearth, shortage] 2: a severe shortage of food (as through crop failure) resulting in violent hunger and starvation and death. (Princeton Word Net)
...but the again, fakeit, you are the same creature who insisted that Hamilton did not really mean "protection" when he said "protection" in his Report on Manufactures...but only sometimes. Thus it is understandable that you have such difficulty with words.
Because it advocates a position of the paper, dumbass.
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.