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 ...
Nonsense. Even Justice Curtis retreated to state that he did not mean to charge Chief Justice Taney with any official misconduct.
Carl Brent Swisher, Roger B. Taney, The MacMillan Company, published October 1935, reprint June 1936, pp. 512-16.
The term of the court came to an end with the reading of the opinions in the Dred Scott case, but friction among the judges remained in evidence, especially between Taney and Curtis. Curtis filed his opinion immediately in the office of the clerk of the court, and gave a copy to a Boston paper for publication, where it was used in criticism of the arguments of the majority of the court, which had not yet been officially made available. He left Washington for a vacation in Virginia. Upon returning to his home in Massachusetts he learned that the other opinions had not been published, except as summarized by reporters from the oral deliveries in court, and he heard the rumor that extensive changes were being made in Taney's opinion.He wrote to the clerk of the court requesting a copy of Taney's opinion, but was told that the opinions were not yet printed, and that a rule had been adopted by the judges forbidding the giving out of the opinions until they were officially published in Howard's Reports. Curtis protested that the rule should not be held to apply to a member of the court, but Taney assured the clerk that it applied to Curtis as well as to everybody else. When Curtis asked for an explanation Taney replied that Curtis' father-in-law had announced his intention of publishing the Curtis opinion in pamphlet form, and on the ground of his relationship to one of the judges had asked for
[512]
--------------a copy of Taney's opinion to publish along with it. Taney had refused, and he intimated to Curtis that he thought the whole proceeding quite bad form. Before leaving Washington, therefore, he had consulted with Wayne and Daniel, the only members of the court remaining in the city, and they had agreed on a written order to the clerk prohibiting the delivery of opinions to any person except the court reporter. Since Curtis had already published his own opinion, and had declared in it that he regarded the opinion of the court as extra judicial and not binding, Taney reminded him that he had no right to object to the order which had been issued. [20]
Curtis denied any intention of aiding his relative in getting a copy of the opinion of the court for publication. His motive, he declared, lay in the fact that he had heard that the opinion from which he had dissented had subsequently been materially altered. He doubted the power of the court in vacation to make an order of the kind mentioned without giving all the judges an opportunity to debate on it. Had he been consulted he would have advised the immediate giving out of authentic copies of all the opinions, to prevent the great misunderstandings and gross misrepresentations which Taney deplored. [21]
Taney wrathfully perused Curtis' letter while preparing to leave for Richmond to hold circuit court. Because of his duties in Richmond, performed under the handicap of ill health, he was unable to reply until nearly a month later, after his return to Washington, by which time the opinions had been officially published. His wrath still unappeased, he declared that he had no desire to continue the unpleasant correspondence which Curtis had been pleased to commence, and was glad to notice that Curtis' letter called for no reply. Nevertheless, it would be unfair to the other judges and to himself, he continued, to ignore certain passages in Curtis' letter. As his reason for desiring a copy of the opinion of the court Curtis had given the rumor that it had been materially changed after delivery. Had Curtis inquired of him directly about the matter, as he should have done, a direct reply would have been given.
[20] Taney to Curtis, April: 28, 1857, Memoir of Benjamin Robbins Curtis, I, 213-215. Most of the materials here summarized are to be found contiguously in this volume.
[21] Curtis to Taney, May 13, 1857, ibid., pp. 217-220.[513]
--------------The report, Taney declared, had no foundation in truth. "There is not one historical fact, nor one principle of constitutional law, or common law, or chancery law, or statute law, in the printed opinion, which was not distinctly announced and maintained from the bench; nor is there any one historical fact, or principle, or point of law, which was affirmed in the opinion from the bench, omitted or modified, or in any degree altered, in the printed opinion." The only changes made had been in the insertion of proofs and authorities to support the truth of historical facts and principles of law which he had thought unquestioned until he heard them denied in the dissenting opinions.
After a long discussion which revealed the bitterness of his feelings about the way in which the several opinions had been used for political purposes, growing in part out of the way in which they had been reported, he brought his letter to a close which culminated in an outburst of personal indignation: "I have now done. I had, indeed, supposed that, whatever difference existed on the bench, all discussion and controversy between members of the tribunal was at an end when the opinions had been delivered; and I believed that this case, like all others that had preceded it, would be submitted calmly to the sober and enlightened judgment of the public in the usual channels of information, and in the manner in which it has heretofore been thought that judicial decorum and propriety required. But if it is your pleasure to address letters to me charging me with breaches of official duty, justice to myself, as well as to those members of the court with whom I acted, makes it necessary for me to answer and show the charges to be groundless; and a plain and direct statement of the facts appears to be all that is necessary for that purpose." [22]
It is easy to understand Taney's angry mood, provoked as it had been by the assaults made upon his opinion, upon him and his brethren as persons, and upon the dignity of the court; and provoked also by the fact that he had added to sectional strife instead of restoring peace to the country by passing upon constitutional ques-
[22] Taney to Curtis, June 11, 1857, ibid., pp. 221-225.
[514]
--------------tions which might easily have been avoided. Furthermore, he was probably right in assuming that the early and widespread publication of Curtis' dissenting opinion had played a prominent part in the forming of public sentiment on the case.
Nevertheless, it is apparent from reading the correspondence in full that his heated feelings had led him to put the worst possible construction on Curtis' actions, and that in some respects he was quite unfair to Curtis. The latter replied with great restraint, admitting that the correspondence had grown unpleasant, but declaring that it had been made so by Taney and not by himself. He had not meant to charge Taney with official misconduct. As for the additions which Taney had made in the way of proof of facts already stated in the opinion, Curtis intimated that he would have much desired to see them, in spite of Taney's contention that they added nothing new. He made a private notation of an estimate that at least eighteen pages had been added by Taney in refutation of his dissenting opinion, none of which Curtis saw until the publication of the official reports. He denied sharply that he had published his opinion for political purposes as Taney had intimated, declaring that his sole purpose had been to avoid misconstruction and misapprehension. [23]
Taney replied with a brief expression of pleasure that nothing in Curtis' last letter called for more than an acknowledgment of its receipt, and added that he was not aware that there was anything in either of his own letters that was not strictly defensive in character. [24]
Curtis was by this time thoroughly dissatisfied with his position as a member of the court. With reference to constitutional questions about which he felt deeply he was in a hopeless minority, and perhaps felt that he could serve his cause better by resigning than by remaining on the bench. This is not to say that he had become an abolitionist. The use of his dissenting opinion by the rabid Free Soil party, with which he had never been aligned, may have given him more discomfort than pleasure. It seemed to him, however, that the
[23] Curtis to Taney, June 16, 1857, ibid., pp. 226-228.
[24] Taney to Curtis, June 20, 1857, ibid., pp. 228-229.[515]
--------------court was committed not to impartiality, which he had tried to achieve, but to active aid of the southern cause.
He had another plausible reason for resigning. He had found the salary of six thousand dollars a year quite inadequate for the standard of living which he wished to maintain. He was one of the most prominent lawyers in the country, and could earn far more as a practitioner than as a judge. He discussed the several matters with his friends, and in spite of the protests of many of them decided to send in his resignation, giving inadequate compensation as his major reason.
Jeremiah S. Black, the Attorney General, wrote an acceptance in which he lauded Curtis as a man and as a judge, and sent the letter to Buchanan for inspection. Buchanan indignantly blue-penciled the laudatory remarks. "I return your letter to the late Judge Curtis," he wrote in a note to Black. "I do not think it ought to contain what I have stricken out. I know I entertain no such opinion of him as is therein expressed, and your communication to me of what had passed between him and the Chief Justice does not serve to enhance him in my estimation." [25] The letter was sent to Curtis over Black's signature, and without the comments of which Buchanan disapproved. Another judicial career came to an end, and the way was paved for political battles over another appointment to the Supreme Court.
[25] Buchanan to Black, Sept. 15, 1857, Black MSS., Library of Congress.
[516]
--------------
The Court is tasked with interpreting the Constitution, not with respecting the concept of a majoritarian rule.
[cr] You failed to notice that I was quoting from Fehrenbacher. You have his case study of the Dred Scott decision. You know it is a devastating indictment of Taney's conduct in the case.
Only in your imagination which is why you cannot post any such "devastating indictment," and defend it.
One can readily observe a similar opinion rendered by Chief Justice Daggett in Connecticut.
In 1833, Chief Justice Daggett in Connecticut instructed the jury in the Crandall case:
"Having read this law, the question comes to us with peculiar force, does it clearly violate the constitution of the United States? The section claimed to have been violated, reads as follows, to wit: Art. 4. sec. 2. 'The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.' It has been urged, that this section was made to direct, exclusively, the action of the general government, and therefore, can never be applied to state laws. This is not the opinion of the court. The plain and obvious meaning of this provision, is to secure to the citizens of all the states, the same privileges as are secured to our own, by our own state laws. Should a citizen of Connecticut purchase a farm in Massachusetts, and the legislature of Massachusetts tax the owner of that farm, four times as much as they would tax a citizen of Massachusetts, because the one resided in Connecticut and the other in Massachusetts; or should a law be passed, by either of those states, that no citizen of the other, should reside or trade in that other, this would, undoubtedly, be an unconstitutional law, and should be so declared.
"The second section was provided as a substitute for the 4th article of the Confederation. That article has also been read, and by comparing them, you can perceive the object intended by the substitute.
"The act in question provides, that coloured persons, who are not inhabitants of this State, shall not be harboured and boarded for the purposes therein mentioned, within this state, without the consent of the civil authority and select-men of the town. We are, then, brought to the great question, are they citizens within the provisions of this section of the constitution? The law extends to all persons of colour not inhabitants of this state, whether they live in the state of New-York, or in the West-Indies, or in any other foreign country.
"In deciding this question, I am happy that my opinion can be revised, by the supreme court of this state and of the United States, should you return a verdict against the defendant.
"The persons contemplated in this act are not citizens within the obvious meaning of that section of the constitution of the United States, which I have just read. Let me begin, by putting this plain question. Are Slaves citizens? At the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state was a slave state. Massachusetts had begun the work of emancipation within her own borders. And Connecticut, as early as 1784, had also enacted laws making all those free at the age of 25, who might be born within the State, after that time. We all know, that slavery is recognized in that constitution; and it is the duty of this court to take that constitution as it is, for we have sworn to support it. Although the term 'slavery' cannot be found written out in the constitution, yet no one can mistake the object of the 3d section of the 4th article: 'No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered, upon claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.'
"The 2d section of the 1st article, reads as follows: -- 'Representatives and direct taxes, shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.' The 'other persons' are slaves, and they became the basis of representation, by adding them to the white population in that proportion. Then slaves were not considered citizens by the framers of the constitution.
"A citizen means a freeman. By referring to Dr. Webster, one of the most learned men of this or any other country, we have the following definition of the term -- 'Citizen: 1. A native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides. 2. A townsman, a man of trade, not a gentleman. 3. An inhabitant; a dweller in any city, town or country. 4. In the United States, it means a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, and of purchasing and holding real estate.'
"Are Indians citizens? It is admitted in the argument, that they are not; but it is said, they belong to distinct tribes. This cannot be true; because all Indians do not belong to a tribe. It may be now added, that by the declared law of New-York, Indians are not citizens; and the learned Chancellor Kent, says 'they never can be made citizens.' Indians were literally natives of our soil; they were born here; and yet they are not citizens.
"The Mohegans were once a mighty tribe, powerful and valiant; and who among us ever saw one of them performing military duty, or exercising, with the white men, the privilege of the elective franchise, or holding an office? And what is the reason? I answer, they are not citizens, according to the acceptation of the term in the United States.
"Are free blacks citizens? It has been ingeniously said, that vessels may be owned and navigated, by free blacks, and the American flag will protect them; but you will remember, that the statute which makes that provision, is an act of Congress, and not the constitution. Admit, if you please, that Mr. Cuffee, a respectable merchant, has owned vessels, and sailed them under the American flag; yet this does not prove him to be such citizen as the constitution contemplates. But that question stands undecided, by any legal tribunal within my knowledge. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to determine that question.
"It has been also urged, that as coloured persons may commit treason, they must be considered citizens. Every person born in the United States, as well as every person who may reside here, owes allegiance, of some sort, to the government, because the government affords him protection. Treason against this government, consists in levying war against the government of the United States, or aiding its enemy in time of war. Treason may be committed, by persons who are not entitled to the elective franchise. For if they reside under the protection of the government, it would be treason to levy war against that government, as much as if they were citizens.
"I think Chancellor Kent, whose authority it gives me pleasure to quote, determines this question, by fair implication. Had this authority considered free blacks citizens, he had an ample opportunity to say so. But what he has said excludes that idea: In most of the United States, there is a distinction in respect to political privileges, between free white persons and free coloured persons of African blood; and in no part of the country do the latter, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites, in the exercise of civil and political rights. The African race are essentially a degraded caste, of inferior rank and condition in society. Marriages are forbidden between them and whites, in some of the states, and when not absolutely contrary to law, they are revolting, and regarded as an offence against public decorum. By the revised statutes of Illinois, published in 1829, marriages between whites and negroes, or mulattos, are declared void, and the persons so married are liable to be whipped, fined and imprisoned. By an old statute of Massachusetts, of 1705, such marriages were declared void, and are so still. A similar statute provision exists in Virginia and North-Carolina. Such connexions in France and Germany, constitute the degraded state of concubinage, which is known in the civil law. But they are not legal marriages, because the parties want that equality of state or condition, which is essential to the contract.' 2 Kent's Comm. 258.
"I go further back still. When the constitution of the United States was adopted, every state, (Massachusetts excepted,) tolerated slavery. And in some of the states, down to a late period, severe laws have been kept in force regarding slaves. With respect to New-York, at that time, her laws and penalties were severe indeed; and it was not until July, 4th, 1827, that this great state was ranked among the free states.
"To my mind, it would be a perversion of terms, and the well known rule of construction, to say, that slaves, free blacks, or Indians, were citizens, within the meaning of that term, as used in the constitution. God forbid that I should add to the degradation of this race of men; but I am bound, by my duty, to say, they are not citizens.
That you're either lying through your teeth or highly selective in your research. Jury's out on that.
Here's the April 30th legislation that I referred to earlier:
"Resolved by the Congress of the Confederate States of America, in response to the message of the President transmitted to Congress at the commencement of the present session, That, in the opinion of Congress, the commissioned officers of the enemy ought not to be delivered to the authorities of the respective States, as suggested in the said message; but all captives taken by the Confederate forces ought to be dealt with and disposed of by the Confederate Government.
"2. That, in the judgment of Congress, the proclamations of the President of the United States, dated, respectively, September 22, 1862, and January 1, 1863, and the other measures of the Government of the United States and of its authorities, commanders, and forces, designed or tending to emancipate slaves in the Confederate States, or to abduct such slaves, or to incite them to insurrection, or to employ negroes in war against the Confederate States, or to overthrow the institution of African slavery and bring on a servile war in these States, would, if successful, produce atrocious consequences, and they are inconsistent with the spirit of those usages which in modern warfare prevail among civilized nations. They may, therefore, be properly and lawfully repressed by retaliation.
"3. That in every case wherein, during the present war, any violation of the laws or usages of war among civilized nations shall be or has been done and perpetrated by those acting under the authority of the Government of the United States, on the persons or property of citizens of the Confederate States, or of those under the protection or in the land or naval service of the Confederate States, or of any State of the Confederacy, the President of the Confederate States is hereby authorized to cause full and ample retaliation to be made for every such violation in such manner and to suck extent as he may think proper.
"4. That every white person, being a commissioned officer, or acting as such, who during the present war shall command negroes or mulattoes in arms against the Confederate States, or who shall arm, train, organize, or prepare negroes or mulattoes for military service against the Confederate States, or who shall voluntarily aid negroes or mulattoes in any military enterprise attack, or conflict in such service, shall be deemed as inciting servile insurrection, and shall, if captured, be put to death, or be otherwise punished, at the discretion of the court.
"5. Every person being a commissioned officer or acting as such in the service of the enemy who shall, during the present war, excite, attempt to excite, or cause to be excited a servile insurrection or who shall incite or cause to be incited a slave to rebel shall, if captured, be put to death or be otherwise punished, at the discretion of the court.
"6. Every person charged with an offense punishable under the preceding resolutions shall, during the present war, be tried before the military court attached to the army or corps by the troops of which he shall have been captured or by such othermilitary court as the President may direct and in such manner and under such regulations as the President shall prescribe; and, after conviction, the President may commute the punishment in such manner and on such terms as he may deem proper.
"7. All negroes and mulattoes who shall be engaged in war or be taken in arms against the Confederate States or shall give aid or comfort to the enemies of the Confederate States shall, when captured in the Confederate States, be delivered to the authorities of the State or States in which they shall be captured, to be dealt with according to the present or future laws of such State or States."
My ORIGINAL SOURCE is here on page 386. That's why you can't find any evidence of black Union troops in confederate POW pens. They never made it that far.
It doesn't matter if they anticipated Napoleon. The only thing they "fought" were a bunch of tumbleweeds and indians. So I'll ask you once again: Who did they "capture" the fort from?
but the Texans had already skedaddled back to San Antonio - abandoning their wounded and sick along the way.
You do not know for certain what killed the one single corpse found at the fort. The yankees that camped there for a single night did not know for certain either and could only speculate that he was left. For all we know he could've been killed in a hasty Indian skirmish as they were withdrawing or even as the group from New Mexico was passing through. What we do know, however, is that the fort was abandoned as a worthless location in the middle of nowhere long before the union cavalry had their campout at it and that those yankees did not see any more point in occupying it than the confederates did.
Your problem obviously stems from your misinterpretation of my usage of the word "capture." We have been over this before. I used the word in the sense of a common defination: to take control of or seize. To "capture" may, does not necessarily, imply the use of force. One can capture prisoners. And one can capture an objective. One can capture an object by simply occupying it.
I cannot account for your miscomprehension and stubborn insistance of your own misinterpretation. Your continued filibustering the point shows, yet again, that you are not a poster who is serious about discussing or debating issues. You are a waste of my time.
"You do not know for certain what killed the one single corpse found at the fort."
I presume it was the arrow sticking out of him.
Already discussed in our previous conversation. The subject of this one is Fort Davis, or have you forgotten?
Your problem obviously stems from your misinterpretation of my usage of the word "capture."
I only intepret it in its common usage. You, on the other hand, interpret it much like John Kerry interprets the war in Iraq - nuanced, self contradictory, and ever-changing to suit your personal convenience at the present moment. We have been over this before. I used the word in the sense of a common defination: to take control of or seize. To "capture" may, does not necessarily, imply the use of force. One can capture prisoners. And one can capture an objective. One can capture an object by simply occupying it.
I asked you a simple question about your claim yet you cannot even answer it, thus demonstrating the truth of what I just said. Who did they "capture" the fort from, capitan? Answer that and put the matter to rest.
The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics, Donald E. Fehrenbacher, 1978. Particular reference is made to Chapter 13, "Voices in Confusion." The late Professor Fehrenbacher of Stanford University was one of the foremost authorities of 19th century American History, and of Lincoln and the Civil War in particular.
Read it and weep.
That is true. But they also represent the leadership of the secessionist movement. The godfather of unilateral secession, John Calhoun, I include in that group. Inasmuch as the post-war confederate apologists base their political theories on those developed by Calhoun, it should not come as a surprise that the leading voices for secession, pre-war, as used Calhoun's misguided theories as rationale.
"You, OTOH, are more interesting in vindicating Lincoln, the Rushmore school, and the National Greatness vision of corporatism rampant -- the 'age of combinations', as John D. Rockefeller put it. The age of trusts, and cartels, and rings, and holding companies, and of 'malefactors of great wealth'."
Actually, I see little need to vindicate Lincoln, as history has already adequately done so. Only fringists are interested in slandering Lincoln's legacy (Gay? Syphilitic? Illegitimate? Tyrannical? Megalomaniac? ad nauseum). I am more concerning with exposing the anti-american perfidy of the "neo-confederates."
"I've said before, and I'll repeat it now, that I think Lincoln's platform planks about "containing the expansion of slavery" ... were just so much campaign rhetoric disguising a settled and deadly intention of universal abolition by force if necessary, which I have suggested he first articulated at the Republican convention of 1856 in his famously undocumented address.
I believe you refer to the address Lincoln gave at the Illinois State Republican Party Convention at Bloomington. One website summarizes the main points of his speech, which evidently was not recorded in detail:
"1. That there were pressing reasons for the formation of the Republican Party.
2. That the Republican movement was very important to the future of the nation.
3. All free soil people needed to rally against slavery and the existing political evils.
4. The nation must be preserved in the purity of its principles as well as in the integrity of its territorial parts, and the Republicans were the ones to do it."
I agree with you that before his death, Lincoln moderated his view of black capabilities because of his contact with men like Frederick Douglass. Field hands wouldn't impress, but Douglass showed him what education could do in a black man.
The political problem, however, would remain, and I'm sure he saw that, too.
One of the bitter fruits of slavery was that it annihilated tribal, customary, and linguistic particularisms among the imported slaves, and Americanized them very rapidly, so that black Americans have reasonably been described as the most American of Americans, since so very little remains of their African cultural heritage -- although more and more of it is being gradually recognized by scholarship: "shotgun houses", I've recently been told by an archaeologist interested in slavery and antebellum historical archaeology, were actually an African floor plan replicated over here by emancipated slaves. The word "shotgun" itself is said to be a corruption of an African word that describes the floor plan, rather than the folk explanation we usually hear.
Nevertheless, blacks were almost universally seen as being outside American society, both North and South -- hence the colonization idea -- and Lincoln will have recognized that assimilation of the black population would always be controlled by the biological fact of partial dominance and the American distinction of all "colored" from white society. We never had "statutory white" people in the United States, just a few examples of people who "passed", with the connotation on both sides of the color line of fraudulence and deceit.
The political identity of the black man as an unassimilable Other, notwithstanding his actual high degree of cultural and linguistic assimilation, still rules in American politics today.
I think that you do that, in order to deliver what you think is an insult to Calhoun's memory.
He did not advocate secession, but rather worked for the Missouri Compromise. He does not belong in the ranks of the secessionists. His nullification theory was also aimed at preserving the Union and mitigating differences over the Tariff. The doctrine was erroneous and was swept aside. Nevertheless, his motive for offering it wasn't disunion.
It wasn't only Lincoln who was for colonization of the blacks and land for the whites. Here is Republican Senator Wade of Ohio in the Senate, Dec. 17, 1860 [page 104, Congressional Globe]:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] and my colleague [Mr. Pugh] have said we Black Republicans were advocates of negro equality, and that we wanted to build up a black government. Sir, it shall be one of the most blessed ideas of the times, if it shall come to this, that we will make inducements for every free black among us to find his home in a more congenial climate in Central America or in Lower Mexico, and we will be divested of every one of them; and then, endowed with the splendid domain that we shall get, we will adopt a homestead policy, and we will invite the poor, the destitute, industrious white man from every clime under heaven, to come in there and make his fortune.
Reminds me of Mugabe's land reform.
The Confederate government declared him an outlaw and criminal for hanging a man for taking down an American flag. The Federals were not in charge of New Orleans at the time the flag was taken down. A party of Federals went ashore, placed the flag on the Mint building, then retreated to their ship. The flag was then taken down by New Orleans citizens.
The People's Press of Salem, North Carolina, reports on this in their May 16, 1862 issue:
The Yankee flag placed over the Mint was torn down on Saturday evening, 26th ult., by some spirited citizens. The Crescent says:The men engaged in this gallant enterprise, we learn, were Vincent Hoffernan, W. B. Mumford, N. Holmes, John Burns and James Reed. They tore the flag in shreds, and each with a piece in his hand marched up town in triumph.
I never realized people other than Mumford were involved in taking the flag down. Mumford was the only one hung for it. The paper, which was reporting on news that happened before Mumford was hung by Butler, continued with the following:
The shots fired by the Federal vessel came very near demolishing several houses in the vicinity of the Mint, and a shell lodged in the roof of the dwelling of Mr. J. A. Lacour, corner of Victory and Frenchmen streets; but luckily, not exploding, inflicted no serious damage. Mr. Lacour got the shell out from his roof, and brought it up town. We would not have believed that a civilized people could have so forgotten their dignity as to have permitted themselves to have endangered the lives of unoffending women and children, in thus wantonly firing into a city; but the fact is patent -- the deed was done.
Of course, the Germans had given the British a foretaste of war against civilians during the Great War, with the Zeppelin raids. The British were particularly indignant, that the Germans had squarely nailed a pub. That was nothing, compared to what happened later, but it shows the gradual crudescence of war over the last 150 years, that more and more targets are considered fair game.
Speaking of which, have you seen this thread?
Cross Burning on Long Island
Not at all. You are quite correct in pointing out that Calhoun developed other political theories, such as "nullification" and "concurrent majority" to avoid the potential for unilateral secession. But it was Calhoun who, in the late 1820's and into the 1840's laid the theoretical framework for the confederate secession.
"The main argument of Calhoun and the other southern militants heavily depended on the presumption, reiterating it until it seemed to become an axiom, that slaveholding was a right anterior to the Constitution, which had been confirmed and guaranteed by the Constitution, but at the same time remained wholly exempt from Federal control. This combination of protection and immunity, according to the militant theory, extended to slavery wherever it existed in the Union." (Fehrenbacher, The Slaveholding Republic, p 80.)
Slaveholding is not defined as a right in the Constitution, and the Congress, prior to the ratification of the Constitution had established its power to regulate slavery in the territories (for instance, in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787).
"... John Calhoun had argued [in the 1830's] that the South needed to do more than drift so far as the Declaration of Independence was concerned. Preferring to begin the hard work of converting the South to a theory that could support both hierarchy and oligarchy, Calhoun wanted to reject Jefferson's old ideology ["All men are created equal"] outright, for, as he acknowledged publicly, it clearly included [Negroes] within its scope. The South Carolinian proslavery thinker/politician found this inclusion completely unacceptable and not correctable by bastardizing its original meaning. Few southerners followed his advice, preferring the easier course, advanced by Taney and Douglas, of merely restricting the Declaration for Whites only." (Fehrenbacher, p 289-290)
"... Calhoun's reformulation of the doctrine of state rights had as its necessary foundation the denial of any authority to July 4, 1776, as the time of the formation of the Union. For Calhoun, that date the the occasion for the independence of thirteen separate (not united) states, which at that moment became as legally independent of each other as of Great Britain. For Calhoun, the statement of principles at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence had no authority whatever for the constitutions, state and federal, that followed upon it.... [T]hat the Union became operative in 1789 was wholly dependent for its existence upon the ratification process, and that the ratification process was therefor competent to dissolve the union that had preceded it, is the heart of the argument for secession as a constitutional right." Jaffa, A New Birth of Freedom, p 189.
It might fairly be said that Madison anticipated that sort of reasoning in Federalist #43. In that issue, Madison provides a link between the Declaration and the proposed Constitutional Union - which was not a league or compact between independent sovereigns. Calhoun was a proponent of the "weak compact" theory of the Constitution. Almost without exception, all secessionists follow Calhoun's misguided lead.
That short article is just for "fun." Though you will immediately recognize some of the names involved.
Now tell everybody about the "battle" you invented.
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.