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 ...
Far be it from us, that we should fall into tinfoil.
SO, what is your sensible and satisfying explanation for Stanton's having filletted Booth's diary? Someone thoughtfully posted a photograph of the diary, with the excisions prominent and obvious to anyone.
What's the story, Morning Glory?
the Founding Fathers were not against government but against bad government.
Anarchy, which was what was occuring in the colonies, is not a substitute for good government, based on the rule of law.
The Lockean notion of revolution knew that a revolution, a return to nature, was a last resort and not to be appealed to except under the most tyrannical government.
Once the tyranny was thrown off, a new government needed to be restablished as quickly as possible, since anarchy was not an alternative to government, but would itself, result in tyranny.
The French Revolution and the rise of Napolean were examples of this.
Well, there could be other reasons then that the radicals had Lincoln murdered.
Since we do not know what was taken, it is a far leap to say that Booth and the radicals were plotting together to kill Lincoln.
Bump!
I would have never realized it if you hadn't told me.
Anarchy, which was what was occuring in the colonies, is not a substitute for good government, based on the rule of law.
Your assessment apparently is that the alternative to strong central power is anarchy. There is no in-between according to you. However, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention voted down the idea of a strong central "national" government, not once but several times. That is consistent with my argument that the Founding Fathers did not want to set up a system where they would have to fight another Revolution in order to escape a tyrannical central government.
The Founding Fathers knew central governments tended to accrete and assimilate more and more power over time. That is certainly our experience in this century. They tried to prevent this from happening.
There exists a persistent idea that the Framers of the Constitution of 1787 were worried about creating a general government that was too strong. In fact, for many of the Framers, the opposite was true.
In the 11 intervening years between the Declaration and the Philadelphia Convention (1776-1787), the wartime government of the Continental Congress, and its successor, the Congresses of the Confederation under the Articles, proved to be far less than optimal. Madison, in particular, realized the dangers involved in a weak central government, and in conjunction with patriots of similar convictions, proposed, in convention, the Virginia Plan for a new form of government.
Though that plan did not become the final blueprint for the new government, the modified version (through a summer of discussion, debate, and compromise) provided for a stronger general government than had existed for the past 11 years.
When you run across a person like NC who believes that Lincoln was gay, syphilitic, a bastard, a tyrant, a megalomaniac, fixed elections, was drug-addled, and planned to ship ex-slaves off to Panama, could you ever doubt that he would also believe that John Wilkes Booth was the pawn of the Radical Republicans?
There is a word for people with that sort of mentality - sociopath.
IIRC, the James bro's were distant relatives of mine as well. You can't imagine the cost of buying new homes next to everyone buried in the cemetary and the immense time spent making friends with all of them.
The "Advice and Consent" Clause (Art II, Sec 2, Clause 2) has a few, specific requirements. In what ways did Lincoln circumvent that Clause?
As much as the Peace Democrats in the Senate wanted to leave Lincoln "hung out to dry," there was no chance of impeachment. Congress supported Lincoln's conduct of the war, and retrospectively approved all of his actions taken at a time when the fate of the Nation was in the balance. Professor Farber has adequately explained the background to the Habeas Corpus Bill of 1863, sometimes mislabeled the "Indemnity Act," and demonstrated the legality of the congressional action.
Congress, by the way, even during the Civil War, did not meet year round. For instance, in 1863, the entire Congress did not even meet from early March until early December (by their own schedule).
Lincoln governed the Nation much of the time, not in spite of the Congress, but in the absence of Congress.
No, it's nothing like that.
Who has been posting pictures of JWB and images of the Lincoln assassination? Why would they post them? I'll let the fair-minded readers draw their own conclusions.
"Notwithstanding that his criminally misguided intercession spared Abraham Lincoln's reputation and the lives of millions of American blacks, plus incalculable numbers of their progeny."
Rank speculation.
"It's fifty-fifty Lincoln's next four years would have become a reign of terror for somebody, because he was a Rational personality type accustomed a) to having his way with everyone and b) to having large numbers of the unreconciled killed by his enormous and essentially uncontrolled (by anyone but him) armies."
And your credentials in historical psychoanalysis are ...? You guys a good for comic relief. How can you ever expect to be taken seriously, except among the other inmates in the asylum?
...a theory held by some scholars. It's dubious but nevertheless a possibility that cannot be ruled out.
syphilitic
Well documented by Herndon.
a bastard
Lincoln biographers have long known of a mystery about Lincoln's family origins and in fact the source of it is Lincoln himself. He revealed a secret of some sorts about his family to only two known people: Herndon and the author of his 1860 campaign biography. Scholars have long speculated about what that secret is and it is even doubtful that the two people he told it too knew the full details. The most commonly accepted version is that Lincoln's mother was illegitimate.
a tyrant, a megalomaniac
Both go without saying.
fixed elections
Of which evidence abounds in the Maryland gubernatorial race and the 1864 presidential race.
was drug-addled
We don't know for sure, though he is believed to have taken mercury pills that almost certainly impacted his health. Lincoln suffered from many health problems and frequently suffered from headaches and the sort. Modern medicine, which was unknown at the time, would associate several of his symptoms as adverse effects of the mercury that was probably intended to stop them but only made it worse.
and planned to ship ex-slaves off to Panama
Which is a thoroughly documented fact right down to the contract to do so bearing Lincoln's signature.
But the bridges weren't in the City of Baltimore (unless you believe city limits stretched almost to the Pennsylvania border), and they were quite likely owned by the railroad.
"To effect this it was decided that railroad bridges north of the city should be destroyed. When word came that night that more troops were to enter Baltimore via the Northern Central Railroad, and that there was a possibility that some troops had already arrived at Perryville, where rail cargoes were ferried across the Susquehanna, the board decided to act. Marshal Kane was sent to see the Governor, who was staying at Mayor Brown's home. Kane informed Governor Hicks that within a few short hours a large body of troops, no doubt aware of the day's events and inflamed with resentment, would enter Baltimore. The Governor, though he would later deny it, supposedly gave his permission to burn the railroad bridges of the North Central and Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroads, effectively cutting Baltimore off from the North.
"Marshal Kane returned to the office of Charles Howard, president of the police board, and informed him of the Governor's consent. Necessary orders were given and messengers were sent out into the night to collect the men necessary to carryout the operation. One such messenger arrived shortly after midnight at Ravenhurst, the beautiful Victorian home of Isaac Ridgeway Trimble in north central Baltimore County. Trimble was Superintendent of the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad and a Colonel in the state militia. The messenger who awakened him presented Colonel Trimble the following order:
"Baltimore, 20 April 1861, 12 1/2 A.M.
By the authority of the Governor of Maryland and for the protection of the City of Baltimore, I hereby direct Col. Isaac Trimble to proceed up the Philadelphia R.R. and break down the bridges thereof up to the Susquehanna River, and also require all persons to refrain from opposition thereto.
George William Brown
Mayor of Baltimore"
(1) The Mayor of Baltimore is ordering that railroad bridges be burned north of the city, up the the Susquehanna River in northeast Maryland, near the Pennsylvania border - not exactly in his jurisdiction.
(2) The Mayor claims sanction by the Governor, who denies it.
(3) Even if the Governor did sanction burning the railroad bridges, it was an illegal order. Unless Maryland is the exception, the bridges are owned by the railroad company and are private property.
(4) The bridge-burning was a military action.
I agree that it was a stronger central government than what had existed before. It did not need every state to agree in order to pass laws. It became possible for the government to be more effective in governing.
And yes, some of the Founders indeed weren't worried about creating too strong a central government. Some of those same people (Federalists) fought against the Bill of Rights, then after the BOR became part of the Constitution, passed laws contravening the freedom of the press (Sedition Act). Forgive me if I don't have too high an opinion of such people.
Other Founders, of course, were concerned with the power of the central government and wished a balance between state and central government powers. That is why several states at the time of ratification reserved the right of the people to resume their own government or words to that effect. If they were simply claiming a right to revolt, they didn't need to express that. Everyone always has the right to revolt.
I suspect that concern over the possibility that the central government would get out of control was a key reason why the 9th and 10th Amendments were added.
Which is why bridges outside of Baltimore itself were burned by state militia units such as Merryman's. Whether they belong to the railroads or not is of no consequence beyond the compensation owed to those owners for their property by the state of Maryland and/or the city of Baltimore. Just the same, police today would be justified in blocking a privately owned bridge if it was being used in a manner that threatened the public safety.
The Governor, though he would later deny it, supposedly gave his permission to burn the railroad bridges of the North Central and Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroads, effectively cutting Baltimore off from the North.
Hicks was a very weasily fellow and was widely criticized by both sides for failing to assert and stick to one position or another on handling the crisis - a sort of John Kerry for his day. It is certain that he approved the order then later flip flopped and denied having done so to accomodate the political tides.
(1) The Mayor of Baltimore is ordering that railroad bridges be burned north of the city, up the the Susquehanna River in northeast Maryland, near the Pennsylvania border - not exactly in his jurisdiction.
...at direct authorization of the governor.
(2) The Mayor claims sanction by the Governor, who denies it.
No. The Governor, who was a political weasil of John Kerry proportions according to both sides, denied it several months later when it had been determined by him that it was no longer politically popular to have been involved in that decision.
(3) Even if the Governor did sanction burning the railroad bridges, it was an illegal order. Unless Maryland is the exception, the bridges are owned by the railroad company and are private property.
Wrong as usual. You are correct only in that Maryland would be legally liable for the costs owed to the railroads for the bridges. The destruction of those bridges for a pressing matter of public safety, however, is well within the rights of the state of Maryland. You will also note that the militia leader you named also happened to be the head of one of the railroads!
(4) The bridge-burning was a military action.
It was a state militia action.
As usual you cannot refute the facts thus you take to calling names.
[PeaRidge #2435] Well, first of all, you are mixing two issues. Constitutionality and re-supply.
The mission was not to "resupply" but to REINFORCE.
LINKOFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 1, Part 1 (Charleston Campaign)
Page 236
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., April 4, 1861.
Lieutenant Colonel HENRY L. SCOTT, A. D. C., New York:
SIR: This letter will be landed to you by Captain G. V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose object is to re-enforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about two hundred, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latter-indeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition can take -- with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter.
The subsistence and other supplies should be assorted like those which were provided by you and Captain Ward of the Navy for a former expedition. Consult Captain Fox and Major Eaton on the subject, and give all necessary orders in my name to fit out the expedition, except that the hiring of vessels will be left to others.
Some fuel must be shipped. Oil, artillery implements, fuses, cordage, slow-march, mechanical levers, and gins, &c., should also be put on board.
Consult, also, if necessary, confidentially, Colonel Tompkins and Major Thornton.
Respectfully, yours,
WINFIELD SCOTT.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF WAR
Charleston, January 19, 1861.
Maj. ROBERT ANDERSON:
SIR: I am instructed by his excellency the governor to inform you that he has directed an officer of the State to procure and carry over with your mails each day to Fort Sumter such supplies of fresh meat and vegetables as you may indicate.
I am, sir, respectfidiy yours,
D. F. JAMISON.
FORT SUMTER S. C., January 19, 1861
Hon. D. F. JAMISON,
Executive Office, Department of War:
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of this date, stating that you are authorized by his excellency the governor to inform me that he has directed an officer of the State to procure and carry over with my mails each day to Fort Sumter such supplies of fresh meat and vegetables as I may indicate. I confess that I am at a loss to understand the latter part of this message, as I have not represented in any quarter that we were in need of such supplies. As commandant of a military post, I can only have my troops furnished with fresh beef in the manner prescribed by law, and I am compelled, therefore, with due thanks to his excellency, respectfully to decline his offer. If his suggestion is based upon a right, then I must procure the meat as we have been in the habit of doing for years, under an unexpired contract with Mr. McSweeney, a Charleston butcher, who would, I presume, if permitted, deliver the meat, &c., at this fort or at Fort Johnson, at the usual periods for such delivery, four times in ten
============
Page 145
days. If the permission is founded on courtesy and civility, I am compelled respectfully to decline accepting it, with a reiteration of my thanks for having made it. in connection with this subject, I deem it not improper respectfully to suggest that his excellency may do an act of humanity and great kindness if he will permit one of the New York steamers to stop with a lighter and take the womeu and children of this garrison to that city. The confinement within the walls of this work, and the impossibility of my having it in my power to have them furnished with the proper and usual articles of food, will, I fear, soon produce sickness among them. The compliance with this request will confer a favor upon a class of persons to whom similar indulgences are always granted, even during a siege in time of actual war, and will be duly appreciated by me.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding Fort Sumter.
P.S. -- I hope that the course I have deemed it my duty to take in reference to the supplies will have a tendency to allay an excitement which, jndging from the tenor of the paragraphs in to-day’s paper, I fear they are trying to get up in the city.
There was no food shortage. It is well-documented that Fort Sumter had obtained food from the merchants of Charleston since shortly after Major Anderson moved there. It is well documented by the official records of both sides that the supply of food from the Charleston merchants was not cut off until April 7, 1861. After the South Carolina officials learned of the fleet that was sailing toward them, they cut off the food supply.
UNION CORRESPONDENCE
[247]
No; 96.
FORT SUMTER, S. C., April 7, 1861.
(Received A. G. O., April 13.)
Col. L. THOMAS,
Adjutant- General U. S. Army:
COLONEL:
I have the honor to report that we do not see any work going on around us. There was more activity displayed by the guard-
[248]
boats last night than has been clone for some time. Three of them remained at anchor all night and until after reveille this morning, near the junction of the three channels. You will see by the inclosed letter, just received from Brigadier-General Beauregard that we shall not get any more supplies from the city of Charleston. I hope that they will continne to let us have onr mails as long as we remain. I am glad to be enabled to report that there have been no new cases of dysentery, and that the sick-list only embraces six cases to-day.
I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
[Inclosure.l
CONFEDERATE CORRESPONDENCE
HEADQUARTERS OF THE PROVISIONAL ARMY, C. S.,
Charleston, S. C., April 7, 1861.
Maj. ROBERT ANDERSON,
Commanding at Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor S. C.:
Sir:
In compliance with orders from the Confederate Government at Montgomery, I have the honor to inform you that, in consequence of the delays and apparent vacillations of the United States Government at Washington relative to the evacuation of Fort Sumter, no further communications for the purposes of supply with this city from the fort and with the fort from this city will be permitted from and after this day. The mails, however, will continue to be transmitted as heretofore, until further instructions from the Confederate Government.
I remain, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
G.T. BEAUREGARD,
Brigadier- General, Commanding..
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.