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 ...
How about that, even capitan_kerryfugio can figure that one out.
The wild, whacko, insane Radicals gained from the assassination.
The South lost due to the assassination.
The Radicals celebrated and had their way for a while.
Booth's diary was suppressed for years and when released had many pages missing after being in the custody of Stanton.
Who gained? The Radicals.
Who had motive?
It's truly funny how many things disappeared while in the custody of Stanton. Another famous example is the Dahlgren paper. It's existence was well documented under the custody of the confederate government and it is known to have arrived in Washington with the other surviving confederate government papers after the war. Then Stanton sent for it and it was never seen again.
No, meathead. Not only did Lincoln NOT have the power to suspend the writ in the Merryman case, it is historical fact that LINCOLN did NOT suspend the writ in the Merryman case. Lincoln purported to authorize military officers to suspend the privilege of the writ at THEIR discretion. It was allegedly done by a military officer. Nobody has ever tried to defend the right of a military officer to suspend habeas corpus at HIS discretion. It is preposterous.
[cr] 2. John Meryman participated in an insurrection against the United States. He did so as part of a military unit. He was subject to the laws of war, and military arrest was the natural consequence.
No, meathead. Merryman carried out orders from the Governor of Maryland, as part of a Maryland military unit.
The laws of war did not apply. The arrest by military authorities with no specific charges was judicially determined to be unlawful.
Suspending the privilege of the writ in the described circumstances has been judicially determined to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Pssst ... is that "Unchained Melody" in the background?
Keep gloating, sneering, and radiating your dark light like hovering Pazuzu -- just by itself, your wickedness advertises the merit of the other side. You're your own worst enemy -- the Maureen Dowd of the ACW threads.
Actually, he has fairly shown several problems with The New York Times's coverage of the Merryman incident, to which you appeal ad verecundiam. It isn't for him to refute, but only to subvert, the authority to which you appeal, in practicing your deception.
You're the one with the burden of proof, not he. Put up or shut up. You don't have anything better than your weevilly New York Times screed? Justice Rehnquist may have been taken in, which is regrettable, but it isn't incumbent on GOPcapitalist or anyone else to follow him in error. Particularly if you say so, deceiver.
Which, by analogy with the penecontemporaneous Liberian project, and in the face of unconquered yellow fever, would have resulted in the deaths of millions of manumitted slaves in the jungles of Central America.
Lincoln's death saved Lincoln's rep, and his place on Rushmore.
Spot on.
Inductive idiocy , freestyle BS. "It does not preclude...."
Who are you, Maury Povich? Geraldo?
"It does not preclude" Merryman's being a "crack screwsman", a space alien, a time traveler, Prince Albert in a can. What is this, Coast to Coast?
Teleology, appeal to force, gloating, baiting.
You trying to get this thread pulled?
I knew that my great-grandfather shot buffalo for George Armstrong Custer as a white scout, so I guess that makes him, and me, a babyshooting racist genocide by association, right? After all, we all saw Little Big Man, and have you ever heard Dustin Hoffman lie about anything?
He also knew Bill Hickock and Kit Carson personally, so now the picture gets really complicated.
I am the product of oil-patch society. Former President Bush once ran Zapata Corp., back in the day, with Hugh Liedtke. Obviously I know President Bush -- hell, I just got my hair cut Saturday in a barbershop where Bush's picture hangs on the wall, from when he got his hair cut there eight or nine years ago. We live about two miles apart. We obviously know each other.
President Bush should have recused himself from sending me an IRS tax bill in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992. You think I could have got cut some slack on 1993, too, seeing that he was in office for 20 days right at the beginning of the year.
Suuuuure.
</John Lovett>
"What section of the Constitution did he violate by sending the ships to resupply Sumter?"
Well, first of all, you are mixing two issues. Constitutionality and re-supply.
At the time,everyone, I repeat, everyone knew that sending Federal troops to Charleston was an act of war.
If there were a real concern that the troops be re-supplied, all Lincoln had to do was authorize the Union quartermaster at Ft. Sumter to order and accept supplies from the Charleston authorities. He had money on deposit for such requests, and this is the way the men had been fed since construction had begun 25 years before.
If Lincoln did not trust that transaction, then he could have shipped the supplies down by railroad.
Putting supplies on armed Federal warships with several hundred armed men was carrying it too far.
What constitutional authority did he have for this provocative and aggressive action?
From your posts, you don't strike me as a person who would run in the same circles as GHW Bush. I could be wrong.
The boss got ticked about the gay, syphlitic, bastard Lincoln stuff before
And he's probably not too happy about the JWB worship either, if he has seen it.
(It makes FR look bad.)
Does it?
Interestingly, I found a reference to a letter in reply to one from Anne Taney to her father, apparently informing him of the death(?) of "Mr. Bosley," in 1843. I might see if I can't get a copy of this correspondence. I suspect "Mr. Bosley" is Nicholas Merryman Bosley, John Merryman's uncle(?), who left him the Hayfields Estate when he died in 1843.
I wonder why Anne Taney thought that would be of interest to her father? I wonder why Roger B. was "shocked" at hearing about Bosley's death(?)? (Assuming Roger B. didn't know the Bosley/Merryman family, like you say.)
I might want to spend a little time on this, afterall.
Funny, it doesn't say that here:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
As to your fictive motive, of restraining corrupt judges, the Federalist is likewise silent.
Please produce your documentary evidence that "the Suspension Clause was written with a corrupt judge like Taney in mind."
I don't know why I bothered to look, since the burden was yours, and your normative aura of inventive fiction rises like steam from the post. Like your invocation of Farber's oil of slippery elm in your steaming #1690.
Bullhockey. That's Reichstag Fire stuff. The Constitution doesn't stop like a stopwatch the minute a gun goes off.
The president can't stand up in a crowded theater, shout "War!", and immediately take up the fasces of a dictator.
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.