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 ...
There is your problem - a limited vocabulary.
To "capture" _necessarily_ means to take possession of that which previously belonged to another, and virtually always means doing so against the will of the previous owner. So I'll ask you again: Who did they capture it from?
Your continued failure/unwillingness to answer that simple question will be taken as a latent concession that you cannot support your previous description of the events at Fort Davis despite your public proclamations otherwise.
"THE BALLAD OF FORT JEFF DAVIS"
In 1860 the temperature increased
So we went with Genr'al Carlton cross the desert to the east.
We loaded up our hard tack but it fell a little short
Then we fought hallucinations there at old Jeff Davis' fort.
CHORUS:
We fired our guns and the mirage kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Rio Grand-e to the Gulf of Mexico.
We looked 'cross the desert and we see'd the rebels come.
Some bouncen apparitions of'em beatin' on the drum.
They zagged across the evening sky an floated through the night
We tried to shoot then cap'n said "ain't dat the Marfa light?".
CHORUS:
We fired our guns and the mirage kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Rio Grand-e to the Gulf of Mexico.
Old Carlton said we could camp there for a bit
So we had a great big weenie roast, that fort it looked like sh*t
We slept inside the baracks on the dusty earthen floor
Till the injun's came a stirrin an they made off with the door!
CHORUS:
Well, we fired our guns and Apaches kept a'comin.
There soon was twice as many as there was a while ago.
They came right back an' we began to runnin'
Back up the Rio Grand-e from the Gulf of Mexico.
We fired at the injuns till the ammo horde was down down
So we grabbed ourselves a cactus & we fought another round.
Stuffed it full of carpetbags and dried up desert mud
But when we touched the powder off, fizz! It was a dud!
CHORUS:
Yeah, we tripped through the sinkholes and we ran through the cactus
We flopped across the desert where the scorpion wouldn't go.
We ran so fast old Fort Davis couldn't keep us
And we left the Rio Grand-e and the Gulf of Mexico
We pulled back to the mill site there in old El Paso town.
And we told 'em bout the battle with the ghost rebs we had found.
We'd made a charge an taked the place but time was runnin' short
Yet we struck a blow to Richmond now by takin' Davis Fort!
Yeah, we tripped through the sinkholes and we ran through the cactus
We flopped across the desert where the scorpion couldn't go.
We ran so fast old Fort Davis couldn't keep us
And we left the Rio Grand-e and the Gulf of Mexico.
Flip, two, three four,
Flop, two three four,
Flip, two three four,
Flop...
Really? Where is that written in the Constitution? Who tasked them?
"Only in your imagination which is why you cannot post any such "devastating indictment," and defend it."
Wrong. Copyright laws prevent me from posting Fehrenbacher's multichapter indictment. You have the reference I posted. Read it yourself.
And I have no doubt that his former secretary, surrounded in a shrine of Fehrenbacher photos and funeral memorabilia, is sitting at her computer with a mouse clicker in one hand rapidly pounding the reload button to see if you've posted anything and a phone in the other hand with the U.S. copyright office on speed dial.
Technically speaking though, you could excerpt the relevant portions here as fair use and for discussion purposes without penalty. The reality of the situation though is you simply do not want to, either out of laziness or knowledge that you've overstated and exaggerated the claims of the passage (much like you exaggerate just about everything, a certain "capture" of a fort coming to mind). So you hide behind "copyright" law as an out. What lame excuse will it be next time, capitan?
"As the weeks passed, and Taney's full opinion did not appear in print, the word spread that he was undertaking extensive revisions. The rumor had reached [Justice] McLean by the end of march, and he wrote to Montgomery Blair: 'Can it be true that the opinion of the court has been modified in the Dred Scott case? This, it appears to me, to be unusual, if not improper.' At about the same time, James Harvey investigated the matter and reported his findings to McLean: 'There are strong surmises about the manipulation to which the majority opinions have been subjected.... Last week, they had not been filed and were inaccessible. Taney's had been twice copied for revision, and an application from the intelligencer to publish was refused, owing to non-completion.'" (Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case, p 316.)
Taney rationalized his changes by writing to Curtis, "And until the Court heard them denied, it had not thought it necessary to refer to proofs and authorities to support them - regarding the historical facts and principles of law which were stated in the opinion as too well established to be open to dispute." As Fehrenbacher notes, Taney's denial was "covered over with a good deal of self-righteous indignation," but was the "plain acknowledgment that the ... revisions were indeed rebuttal to certain parts of the dissenting opinions."
"Taney's denial of having made any significant changes, though perhaps not untruthful according to his own peculiar lights, must be labeled inaccurate."
I don't know that I could disagree with the first part of this statement. However, I would include most of the fire-eaters in the "radical/extremist" category.
I am not going to post 30 to 40 pages. But I have posted appropriate excerpts and conclusions. See the last few posts to nc.
The reality is, you're basically a blockhead.
You really aren't very smart, are you? You can continue to get your jollies off on your own. You're just beiing a pest now. I have nothing more to say about the issue.
[Fehrenbacher p.320] "Unfortunately, the opinion that Taney read from the bench was not preserved, and the newspaper summary is inadequate for systematic comparison with the published version."
As Fehrenbacher admitted that it is impossible to document what was read from the bench by Chief Justice Taney, it is impossible to prove what was changed. Deal with it.
After Taney's opinion was published, not one justice, not even Curtis, filed any complaint of misconduct. Not one concurring justice filed any complaint that he no longer concurred with the decision of the Court. The eight justice, McLean didn't say a mumbling word. The ninth justice, Curtis, resigned from the Court before it reconvened.
Fehrenbacher cites as his primary source for the Taney-Curtis correspondence, the papers of Carl Brent Swisher.
Carl Brent Swisher, Roger B. Taney, 1935, p. 514 (quoting Taney to Curtis)
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.
Carl Brent Swisher, Roger B. Taney, 1935, p. 515
He [Curtis, replied to Taney that 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.
Walker Lewis, Without Fear or Favor, 1965, pp. 396-97
Unlike Fehrenbacher, Walker Lewis was a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law. He started legal practice in Baltimore and later had an office in Washington, D.C.
The decision was announced Friday, March 6, 1857, each of the justices reading an opinion in open court that day or the next. Taney's covered all the issues in the case and was reported as the opinion of the Court, although only Wayne concurred with him fully and without qualification.By vote of 7 to 2 Dred Scott was held to be a slave. But the justices' views varied and the confusion of issues and lack of solidarity inevitably weakened the force of the decision. Still more unfortunate was the manner in which the opinions became public.
Illness, coupled with the fatigue and exposure of the Inauguration ceremonies, had exhausted the Chief Justice, who eleven days later would be eighty. During the two hours it took him to read his opinion his voice occasionally dropped to a whisper. This not only gave his words an impression of weakness but led to faulty reporting in the newspapers, and the defects were not rectified until the decision was officially published on May 29. Justices McLean and Curtis, on the other hand, gave copies of their opinions to the press and they were widely distributed long before the Court Reporter released official copies of the opinions.
This led to a most unhappy exchange of letters between Taney and Curtis. Some of the justices were tardy in filing their opinions with the Clerk of the Court, and some wished to make revisions. This led to delays and subjected the Clerk to public criticism. Partly to protect him and partly, no doubt, because they were nettled by the advance release of the dissenting opinions, Taney, Wayne, and Daniel, the only justices remaining in Washington after adjournment of the Court, ordered the Clerk to deny all requests for opinions until the Court Reporter could publish them as a group. Meanwhile Curtis had heard, apparently by way of McLean's friend, James E. Harvey, that the opinion of the Chief Justice had been substantially altered (the word used by Harvey in his letter to McLean was "manipulated"), and he wrote William Carroll, the Clerk of the Court, for a copy. Carroll referred to the order he had received and suggested that Curtis write the Chief Justice.
The ensuing letters were anything but pleasant. Curtis regarded the order as pointedly critical, and in his anger questioned not only the right of the three justices to adopt it but also Taney's right to change the opinion of the Court without a further conference of the justices. Taney, for his part, was nettled by Curtis's statement that the majority had no right to pass upon the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise and that their opinion on this point was not binding. He also felt that Curtis and McLean, by delivering their opinions to the press before the others were available, had materially contributed to the public criticism of the decision. The pride of each was touched on a sensitive spot. The bitterness of the case welled over and the correspondence became acrimonious. Before the Court reconvened Curtis resigned, ostensibly on the ground that he found it impossible to support his family on his $6000 salary.
It would be difficult to find two individuals more deeply courteous and understanding than Taney and Curtis. That they could write each other so cuttingly shows the depth of emotion generated by the Dred Scott case. Fortunately, such feelings did not last. When the Chief Justice died seven years later Curtis was unstinting in his praise; indeed, his tribute to Taney exceeded all others in depth and beauty.
Walker Lewis, Without Fear or Favor, 1965, pp. 472-474
Samuel Freeman Miller, Republican and abolitionist of Iowa, was appointed to the Supreme Court by Lincoln in 1862 and in twenty-eight years of service on the Bench won recognition as one of the greatest of the justices. He had this to say: "When I came to Washington, I had never looked upon the face of Judge Taney, but I knew of him. I remembered that he had attempted to throttle the Bank of the United States, and I hated him for it. I remembered that he took his seat upon the Bench, as I believed, as a reward for what he had done in that connection, and I hated him for that. He had been the chief spokesman of the Court in the Dred Scott case, and I hated him for that. But from my first acquaintance with him, I realized that these feelings toward him were but the suggestions of the worst elements of our nature; for before the first term of my service in the Court had passed, I more than liked him, I loved him. And after all that has been said of that great good man, I stand always ready to say that conscience was his guide and sense of duty his principle."Benjamin Robbins Curtis of Massachusetts was one of the most successful lawyers of his day and one of the ablest members of the Supreme Court. He attacked Taney in his Dred Scott dissent and resigned from the Court after an acrimonious exchange of letters. But at memorial proceedings held in the First Circuit Court in Boston on October 17, 1864, he said of him: "In respect to his mental powers there was not then, nor at any time while I knew him intimately any infirmity or failure whatever... In consultation with his brethren he could, and habitually did, state the facts of a voluminous and complicated case with every important detail of names and dates with extraordinary accuracy, and I may add with extraordinary clearness and skill. And his recollection of principles of law and of the decisions of the Court over which he presided was as ready as his memory of facts.
"He had none of the querulousness which too often accompanies old age. There can be no doubt that his was a vehement and passionate nature; but he had subdued it. I have seen him sorely tried, when the only observable effects of the trial were silence and a flushed cheek...
"The surpassing ability of the Chief Justice, and all his great qualities of character and mind, were more fully and constantly exhibited in the consultation-room, while presiding over and assisting the deliberations of his brethren, than the public knew, or can ever justly appreciate. There, his dignity, his love of order, his gentleness, his caution, his accuracy, his discrimination, were of incalculable importance. The real intrinsic character of the tribunal was greatly influenced by them; and always for the better...
"He was as absolutely free from the slightest trace of vanity and self-conceit as any man I ever knew... The preservation of the harmony of the members of the Court, and of their goodwill to himself, was always in his mind...
"It is one of the favors which the providence of God has bestowed on our once happy country, that for the period of sixty-three years this great office has been filled by only two persons, each of whom has retained, to extreme old age, his great and useful qualities and powers. The stability, uniformity, and completeness of our national jurisprudence are in no small degree attributable to this fact..."
[capitan_kerryfugio #587] Taney's changes, in violation of Supreme Court Rule #25 ("All opinions delivered by the Court shall, immediately upon delivery thereof, be delivered over to the clerk to be recorded."), accounted for about 18 additional pages. The Rule was designed to prevent an unscrupulous and dishonest Justice from doing what Taney did.
Read Fehrenbacher's footnote. "Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (Washington, D.C., 1874), 398. Apparently the rule was not strictly enforced.
And here is a modern day example of how it works in real life. Read it and weep.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/022323.html
There are several versions or parts of this case provided by the court. More recent version usually contain corrections, updates, or other important information.O CENTRO ESPIRITA v. ASHCROFT
No. 022323 - 09/04/03O CENTRO ESPIRITA v. ASHCROFT
No. 022323v2 - 11/12/04
Above is the link to the RJ Norton site. The introductory sentence is below.
Although no verbatim report of the speech exists, it seems clear from statements of those present that the key ideas Lincoln stressed were as follows:
It also appears here with the same introduction, verbatim.
Excellent post!
His nullification theory was an attempt to make the States dominant over the Federal government.
After the peoples representives had been sent to Congress, what Congress passed the States were obligated to accept as law.
It was for this reason that President Jackson threatened to hang Callouhn if the nullification wasn't revoked.
"As the weeks passed, and Taney's full opinion did not appear in print, the word spread that he was undertaking extensive revisions. The rumor had reached [Justice] McLean by the end of march, and he wrote to Montgomery Blair: 'Can it be true that the opinion of the court has been modified in the Dred Scott case? This, it appears to me, to be unusual, if not improper.' At about the same time, James Harvey investigated the matter and reported his findings to McLean: 'There are strong surmises about the manipulation to which the majority opinions have been subjected.... Last week, they had not been filed and were inaccessible. Taney's had been twice copied for revision, and an application from the intelligencer to publish was refused, owing to non-completion.'" (Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case, p 316.)
See my #611.
Taney responded. Curtis withdrew to saying he was -NOT- accusing Taney of any official misconduct. Curtis resigned from the Court. Upon seeing the published opinion, none of the justices filed any complaint.
Now why are you are expecting evidence, this is after all, Southern history we are talking about.
Thousands of blacks rushing to defend the South!(but no record of them)
Blacks taken prisoner and treated as prisoners of war (but we cannot find any record of them)
The South does like her myths
Smithhaven Mall gets its name from Smithtown, NY, though it is situated in Lake Grove. Also next door are St. James and Centereach and Nesconsett.
I personally recall a petition that went around to keep Blacks from moving into the area and driving down property values (circa 1960).
It is the first cross-burning in the county (Suffolk) since 1998.
Interesting that the records are incomplete.
Now, if there were these all black units were they composed of free black men or slaves being promised their freedom?
Ofcourse, the South was benevolent to its slaves.
This nonsense was brought up when the South tried to point out the conditons of laborers in the North.
Lincoln noted that it was strange that no laborer went South and voluntered to become a slave.
In fact, slaves have to be hunted down by the Federal authorities to bring them home to their benevolent masters.
Here the 'State Rights'advocates had no qualms about using Federal power against other States to defend their 'properity'
In the immortal words of Ian Anderson:
"Really don't mind if you sit this one out.
My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT.
I may make you feel but I can't make you think.
Your sperm's in the gutter -- your love's in the sink.
So you ride yourselves over the fields and
you make all your animal deals and
your wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick."
Somehow appropriate, don't you think?
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.