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 ...
You may be right. The wording of the Brown order did not say "burn," per se, but indicated disabling the railroad bridges so they could not be used to transport troops.
Whether it was burning the bridges, or pulling them down, or pulling up rails, it is all insurrectionist activity (from the Federal viewpoint).
"I don't know how believable these statements are, but the governor is on record publicly opposing sending troops through the city."
Large-scale troop movements through the city could be seen as provocative (from the southern viewpoint). Baltimore wasn't known as "Mob City" for no good reason!
If I wanted to call you a name, it wouldn't be "conspiracy theorist"!!!
Then exactly what action that preserved the peace was he commending Hicks and Brown for?
Brown was arrested in September, when his treason became known.
Incorrect. Brown was among the many political persecutions in Baltimore later that year. He was never convicted of anything.
Furthermore, Hicks' approval of Brown's order is demonstrated in his letter to Lincoln on April 20th:
To his Excellency ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States:I have been in Baltimore since Tuesday evening last, and co-operated with Mayor G, W. Brown in his untiring efforts to allay and prevent the excitement and suppress the fearful outbreak as indicated above, and I fully concur in all that is said by him in the above communication.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, THOMAS H. HICKS, Governor of Maryland.
The request that Hicks "fully concurred" with was a letter from Brown asking Lincoln not to send any more troops through Baltimore.
Doesn't speak to anything, actually, except your vexation at nolu chan for opposing you with documentation.
And pantsing you about your own lying and game-playing.
Exactly how was passing troops through the state a danger to the (law-abiding) public safety? The presence of Federal soldiers was only a danger to the insurrectionists and other criminals.
"It was a state militia action."
It was an act of war by rebels directed against the miltary forces of the United States.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE MARSHAL,
Baltimore, May 9, 1861.Near the hour of 12 p.m. on Friday, the 19th April, the day on which the collision with the Massachusetts troops occurred, I received intelligence that the president of the Pennsylvania Central Railroad Company had sent a dispatch to a gentleman here that additional troops would pass through Baltimore on their way to the capital.
I immediately sent to the president of the police board the intelligence referred to, and called at the residence of his honor Mayor Brown, to whom I also communicated the information which I had received.
The mayor immediately had an interview with the governor, who was then staying at his (mayor's) house, and afterwards invited me to accompany him to the chamber of his excellency, to whom I communicated the information of the purposed coming of the troops.
A general conversation then ensued, in which it was agreed to by all present that any attempt to pass troops through the city, in the then excited condition of the public mind, would lead to the most fearful consequences, and that any such passage must be prevented or delayed. The governor fully accorded in these views.
The conversation resulted in the governor's distinctly and unequivocally consenting, in response to the direct question put to him by the mayor, that the bridges on the roads by which the troops were expected to come should be destroyed as the only means of averting the consequences referred to of their coming at that time.
GEO. P. KANE, Marshal.
Another eyewitness was Brown's brother:
BALTIMORE, May 9, 1861.About 12 o'clock on the night of Friday, 19th April last, I was present when a conversation took place between Governor Hicks and my brother, the mayor of Baltimore, in reference to the best course to be pursued, by which a repetition of the troubles which had occurred on that day could be prevented. It was represented to them by Marshal Kane that troops from the North were on their way to Baltimore, and might by the following morning reach the city.
The destruction of the bridges on the Northern Central and the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroads was, in the opinion of my brother, the best and most effective method to obstruct their progress. In this opinion Governor Hicks fully concurred. When asked by my brother whether or not he gave his consent to the measure, the governor expressed a desire for time for reflection. Being reminded by those present of the lateness of the hour, and the necessity for prompt action, my brother again earnestly appealed to Governor Hicks and asked him for his consent. Governor Hicks' answer was, in substance, although I may not use his exact words, "I see nothing else to be done." "But, sir, said my brother, I cannot act without you consent; do you give it?" The governor's reply was distinctly given in the affirmative.
J. CUMMING BROWN
Here is the testimony of Louis Lowe to the Maryland legislature about the incident. Lowe was accompanying Police Chief Kane to Brown's house when they conferred with Hicks. It indicates that Hicks not only approved the bridge destruction but also specifically gave Brown the authority to destroy bridges outside of the city limits.
Governor Hicks fully and most distinctly assented to all this, and said, "Well, I suppose it must be done," or words of precisely that import, to which the mayor replied, substantially, "Governor, I have no authority to act beyond the city limits, and can do nothing in this matter except by your direction; shall the bridges be destroyed?" Governor Hicks emphatically and distinctly replied in the affirmative. It is absolutely impossible for any misapprehension to exist on this point. The mayor, Marshal Kane, and I then proceeded to the marshal's office, where we found several highly respectable citizens gathered, to whom the mayor and marshal gave a statement of their interview with the governor. The mayor then issued Written orders for the destruction of the bridges. The next morning I learned by the newspaper extras that the orders had been carried into effect.
Nonsense. The Federal government did not own or control any of those bridges. Lincoln agreed the very next day that troops should NOT be sent through Baltimore and commended Hicks and Brown for their actions on the 20th!
Look no further than the Pratt Street riot where 12 civilian bystanders were killed in the crossfire.
The presence of Federal soldiers was only a danger to the insurrectionists and other criminals.
Tell that to the 12 dead civilians who got caught in the crossfire.
It was an act of war by rebels directed against the miltary forces of the United States.
So Governor Hicks, who authorized the bridge destruction, was a rebel? Funny, cause every biography I've ever seen of him says that he cast his lot with Saint Abe.
In the same manner, Jefferson, et al., didn't need to write the Declaration as a statement of their revolutionary rights. I read the language made by some of the states in their ratification as parroting the revolutionary declarations of the Founders.
"Some of those same people (Federalists) fought against the Bill of Rights..."
George Mason's motion to add a "Bill of Rights" to the proposed Constitution was soundly rejected by the Convention. Some felt it would have been redundant. Others felt a BOR would have had the effect of limiting individual rights, rather than expanding them. Still others just wanted to go home.
There were maybe as many reasons for rejection as there were delegates voting against the Mason proposal. However, Madison and other pointed out that the process to amend the Constitution provided an avenue to include a BOR.
Today, we look back at the convention's rejection of the Bill of Rights and wonder, "What were they thinking about!?" The BOR is considered today a cornerstone of American freedoms. But the words of the Framers themselves, in the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, and in the debates in the 1st Congress, point out the diversity of opinion.
The problem was the pro-southern rioters and associated criminals; not the troops in transit.
"Tell that to the 12 dead civilians who got caught in the crossfire."
12 dead criminals, or just innocent bystanders throwing bricks?
"So Governor Hicks, who authorized the bridge destruction, was a rebel?"
He denied authorizing destruction of the bridges. To my knowledge, there is no paper trail with his authorization.
"...every biography I've ever seen of him says that [Hicks] cast his lot with Saint Abe."
Maybe he wised up and saw the handwriting on the wall.
Only a Kool-Aid drinker or a totalitarian would locate all lawful authority in a single person, no matter how august.
Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States, not Autocrat of the Galaxy. His writ did not run to the moon, nor to overreaching the sovereign powers of the States.
You and I will continue to disagree about this, but your suggestions so far have had a very strong absolutist and totalitarian miasma to them. Reading you, absolutely nothing under the sun was not comprehended and completely attached by Lincoln's power of decree.
A non sequitur. Lincoln did not commend Hicks and Brown for burning bridges! He thanked them for stopping the riots from spreading further and preventing further murders of federal soldiers.
That's believable.
It's called WORSHIP.
An "in-between" date would seem to be right, between the 2nd and the 7th.
c_r just despises Southerners and thinks we ought to lick his hand.
"[A} civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government.... [T}he President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority. And whether the hostile party be a foreign invader or States organized in rebellion, it is nonetheless a war." (Prize Cases)
To the extent that Lincoln exercised the constituional powers to wage war, he exercised those powers to win the war.
Beauregard acknowledged receipt of the instructions on April 4th. One would assume he replied the same day he received the letter, and that he would implement the instructions immediately. April 4 seems about right.
Official Record, War of the Rebellion, Volume 1, Series 1, Page 286
HEADQUARTERS PROVISIONAL FORCES,
Charleston, S. C., April 4, 1861.
Honorable L. P. WALKER, Secretary of War:
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of instructions of the 2nd instant, in reference to Fort Sumter, and respectfully ask to be further instructed in regard to the mails of Major Anderson, which have been allowed daily up to this time, whether they shall be continued or limited to once or twice a week.
The batteries are now all complete, but I regret to have to state that there are but few, if any, well-instructed artillerists on Morris Island; also, that the shells and fuses of the sea-coast guns and columbiads cannot be entirely relied upon.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
G. T. BEAUREGARD,
Brigadier-General, Commanding.
Yes?
The Union-manned cannons at Ft. Sumpter were aimed AT Charleston, not to defend her. The American dictator - Lincoln - wanted war and he prodded, connived and lied until he got one.
Congress was in session when 7 Southern states seceded. Congress did not hold that the states were insurrectionary, nor did they declare war on the states for seceding.
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.