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 sure like these self-claimed "living authorities," capitan. Was there a dollar sale at the "living authority" bookstore or something? Or is that simply a term of convenience to assign to any and every source you quote so as to bolster its ad verecundiam value for want of any surer substance to what you post?
I also find it curious that your chosen passage provides a relatively standard timeline of the independence movement yet says absolutely nothing that could even remotely be construed as denying that, when Virginia said they were "TOTALLY DISSOLVED" with Great Britain they meant anything other than totally dissolved!
(1) Prior to the Declaration of Independence, the political entities were called, and called themselves "colonies." Colonies are never independent and sovereign. None of the American colonies were "states" prior to the Declaration.
BZZT! Wrong. Nor does your "living authority" of the hour suggest anything even remotely supportive of that. As I have ALREADY SHOWN YOU, the June 1776 Constitution of the COMMONWEALTH of Virginia (the name it is STILL officially known as today) uses the term "State" no less than four instances and "Commonwealth" no less than five.
That same document uses the term "colony" or "colonies" four times - three to refer to previous acts of the colonial legislature prior to its adoption and once to define the COMMONWEALTH's geography in relation to its neighbors, which were still "colonies" at the time.
Throughout the document it is also evident that, in enacting the constitution, Virginia became a commonwealth:
The government is to operate "according to the laws of this Commonwealth"
Commissions are to be granted "In the name of the Commonwealth of Virginia"
Government documents are to be affixed with "the seal of the Commonwealth"
Criminal indictments are to be stated "Against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth"
All penalties and forfeitures previously owed to King George "shall go to the Commonwealth" now
Yet nowhere do we find anything about the laws of the colony, commissions in the name of the colony, the seal of the colony, indictments for crimes against the colony, forfeitures to the colony, or any reference to the colony whatsoever beyond that which is in the PAST TENSE. As of the adoption of that constitution before the Declaration of Independence passed, the colony of Virginia CEASED TO EXIST. It became a Commonwealth, or State, in its own right and by its own declaration.
(2) Forming an autonomous government is not, in itself, a declaration of independence.
No, but "totally dissolv[ing]" all existing ties to the former government sure is! You'll also note once again that your "living authority" of the hour says not a word that even remotely suggests otherwise despite your claim to be summarizing his content.
(3) You might have noticed, if you read the passage, the colonials turned to the Continental Congress for sanction to form colonial governments and write constitutions. That is not the action of a independent and sovereign state either.
No. It's the action of a colony seeking the advice of its like-minded neighbors. That South Carolina sends a message to its neighbors in Congress saying "guys, we're talking about declaring our independence from the King. What do you think about it? Wanna do the same with us?" in no reasonable way proves that in taking the step of independence itself they did not obtain it individually.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was re-authorized in 1789 by the 1st Constitutional Congress with the appropriate edits and other minor changes to reflect the structure of the new form of government. Though all of the old Northwest Territory is now within the jurisdiction of states, aspects of the ordinance, and other pre-consitutional law, remain in effect today.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was also known as the "Freedom Ordinance." Care to hazard a guess what that was the case?
Unfair? Go back and read the original question. The printed decision was heavily edited and changed by Taney, and the proof doesn't come from some testimonial by the other concurring justices, but rather, from the dissenters (who had cause to be concerned and take note) and from the physical evidence in the National Archives.
That Taney changed the Dred Scott decision, from the time he read it from the bench to the time it was finally published, is indisputable. Even Taney admitted he changed it. Aside from the fact that Taney wasn't supposed to change anything to begin with, under the rules of the Court, the question becomes whether the changes were substantial. Fehrenbacher presents proof that the changes added about 50% more text to the decision and in critical portions of Taney's arguments.
The Bill of Rights, I would say, amplified the original text of the Constitution, rather than changed the terms of the document. In fact, in convention, when George mason suggested a "Bill of Rights," every state voted against him.
The Federalists had argued that "too precise an enumeration of the people's rights was dangerous, 'because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the Government without usurpation.'" (I'm sure you see here the inspiration for the 9th Amendment.)
Gordon Wood wrote, "In a crucial sense the Antifederalists had lost the struggle over the Constitution when the New Jersey Plan, embodying the essential character of the Articles of Confederation, was rejected in the Philadelphia Convention in favor of a national republic stemming mostly from and acting on individuals. Faced with this national republic instead of a league of independent states, the Antifederalists were compelled to argue its merits on Federalists terms.... the question could no longer really be the one the Antiffederalists would have lied: should America have a national republic or a confederated system? but necessarily had to be the one the Philadelphia Convention had dictated: what should be the structure and powers of this proposed national government?"
It remained, then, for the Antifederalists to do their best to limit the powers of the "general" government. To this end, they agitated for a Bill of Rights. Once the Constitution was ratified, Madison was more than happy to change course in the 1st Congress and present a Bill of Rights on his own terms, rather than those of the Antifederalists. It was a political calculus and it worked. Madison was careful to propose nothing that substantially altered the intent of original text.
Your approach to debate and discussion is to basically bluster and filibuster. Now that is what I call "intellectual dishonesty."
Aren't you the guy who, just a few posts back, said John Wilkes Booth was heaven-sent?
Do you know who Gordon Wood is?
Are there scholars who support the points you attempt to make? Who are they?
"As I have ALREADY SHOWN YOU, the June 1776 Constitution of the COMMONWEALTH of Virginia (the name it is STILL officially known as today)"
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has its own autonomous local government, its own constitution - and it is most certainly not an independent state. Neither was Virginia until July, 1776. Or any of the other colonies. So much for that argument.
In Rhode Island, the people elected a governor and a legislature which enacted a statute on May 4, 1776: "Whereas, in all states existing by compact, protection and allegiance are reciprocal, And whereas" George III "forgetting his dignity, regardless of the compact," had acted contrary to the "duties and character of a good king," -- so the recitationsns went, unmistakably taken from the formalities in the Act of the Convention Parliament on February 13, 1689, which began the reign of William and Mary. The statute then repealed the act which prescribed oaths of allegiance to George III, and ordainedthat, from thenceforth, all commissions, writes, and processes should go out under the name and authority of the governor and company of Rhode Island.Judge William Staples, the most eminent constitutional lawyer in the history of the State, remarked that this statute, not a declaration of the Second Continental Congress, "severed the connection between Rhode Island and the British Crown."
Source: John Remington Graham, A Constitutional History of Secession, 2002, p. 90
In June 1776, the Convention of Virginia formally declared, that Virginia was a free, sovereign, and independent state; and on the 4th of July, 1776, following, the United States, in Congress assembled, declared the Thirteen United Colonies free and independent states; and that as such, they had full power to levy war, conclude peace, etc. I consider this as a declaration, not that the United Colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent states, etc. but that each of them was a sovereign and independent state, that is, that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority, and its own laws, without any control from any other power upon earth.Before these solemn acts of separation from the Crown of Great Britain, the war between Great Britain and the United Colonies, jointly, and separately, was a civil war; but instantly, on that great and ever memorable event, the war changed its nature, and became a PUBLIC war between independent governments; and immediately thereupon ALL the rights of public war (and all the other rights of an independent nation) attached to the government of Virginia; and all the former political connection between Great Britain and Virginia, and also between their respective subjects, were totally dissolved; and not only the two nations, but all the subjects of each, were in a state of war; precisely as in the present war between Great Britain and France. Vatt. Lib. 3. c.18,s.292. to 295. lib.3.c. 5.s.70.72 and 73.
Source: Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796), opinion of Justice Samuel Chase of Maryland, one of the signers of the Declaration of American Independence.
I find it interesting that the Constitution that the States agreed with stated that No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation (Art.1,20,Sec.10) and the Confederacy repeated the same restriction!
Answer: A history professor.
This is very distinguished legal company, and I confess to wondering about my qualifications to be a commentator on Justice Scalia's paper. I do not seem to have too many of them. I have never been to law school, so I have not experienced that intellectual rebirth which Justice Scalia says every first-year law school student experiences. I am not a jurist. I am not a legal philosopher. I am not even a legal or constitutional historian. I am just a plain eighteenth-century American historian who happens to have written something on the origins of the Constitution. I am not sure that this suffices.
Source: Gordon Wood, from his essay which appears in A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, by Antonin Scalia, 1997, p. 49.
THAT IS GORDON WOOD.
[nc] Do you know who Samuel Chase was?
Answer: A Supreme Court justice appointed by George Washington.
[cr #807 to GOPcap] Are there scholars who support the points you attempt to make? Who are they?
Screw history scholars, try a Supreme Court justice in a SCOTUS case.
In June 1776, the Convention of Virginia formally declared, that Virginia was a free, sovereign, and independent state; and on the 4th of July, 1776, following, the United States, in Congress assembled, declared the Thirteen United Colonies free and independent states; and that as such, they had full power to levy war, conclude peace, etc. I consider this as a declaration, not that the United Colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent states, etc. but that each of them was a sovereign and independent state, that is, that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority, and its own laws, without any control from any other power upon earth.Before these solemn acts of separation from the Crown of Great Britain, the war between Great Britain and the United Colonies, jointly, and separately, was a civil war; but instantly, on that great and ever memorable event, the war changed its nature, and became a PUBLIC war between independent governments; and immediately thereupon ALL the rights of public war (and all the other rights of an independent nation) attached to the government of Virginia; and all the former political connection between Great Britain and Virginia, and also between their respective subjects, were totally dissolved; and not only the two nations, but all the subjects of each, were in a state of war; precisely as in the present war between Great Britain and France. Vatt. Lib. 3. c.18,s.292. to 295. lib.3.c. 5.s.70.72 and 73.
Source: Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796), opinion of Justice Samuel Chase of Maryland, one of the signers of the Declaration of American Independence.
That power is also in the Confederate Consitution.
quite the contrary, it is said that when Jackson said he was going to hang someone, someone was already looking for a rope.
He shot one man in the head after being severely wounded because he had insulted his wife.
He stated that 'he would have killed the man if he had been shot in the head'.
The man he shot was also a much better shot then he was.
He hung a couple of British subjects in Florida who were stirring up the Indians
Jackson never made idle threats, and Calhoun knew it.
All you have referred to so far are printed drafts of unknown date. You have no evidence that anything in any of them was ever read from the bench.
As Fehrenbacher observed, "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." The newspaper version was less than one-fourth of the published version.
Your B.S. is hilarious.
So the Census collected data on who volunteered?
The census is performed every 10 years. Do you refer to the census of 1860 before the war, or the census of 1870 after the war?
(With apologies to Willie Nelson)
Full of crap again
Just can't wait to spew your crap again
You just love spewing nonsense with your friends
And I just can't wait to see you spew again
Full of crap again
Goin' places reality's never been
Dreamin' things you may never dream again,
And I just can't wait to see you spew again.
[jsuati #697] There were plenty of free blacks in Illinois....
In 1860 Illinois claimed 7,628 free blacks. Lincoln thought that was 7,628 too many. Considering the time and effort they spent passing Black Laws, most of Illinois agreed with Lincoln.
Lincoln was typical of the racist bilge that Illinois selected as leaders for that pitiful state. "...Republicans ruefully admitted that large parts of the North were infected with racism. 'Our people hate the Negro with a perfect if not a supreme hatred,' said Congressman George Julian of Indiana. Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois conceded that 'there is a very great aversion in the West -- I know it to be so in my State -- against having free negroes come among us. Our people want nothing to do with the negro.'" (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 275)
The slave state of Maryland had 83,942 free blacks; Virginia had 58,042; North Carolina had 30,463; Delaware had 19,829; Louisiana had 18,647; Kentucky had 10,684; South Carolina had 9,914.
Another fact-free post from justshutupandtakeit. The few, the loud, the Brigade.
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older then the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was 'to form a more perfect Union' (Lincoln's 1st Inaugural Address)
Were any of these states ever able to form alliances with other nations or wage war on them?
Now, as a Misean, you should no better then that!
It was Jackson who took on the Bank of the United States with the words, I will kill it or it will kill me'
He destroyed the Central Bank and returned the nation to the Gold standard.
He also rejected the Supreme Court in the Cherokee Indian issue (Marshell has made his ruling let him enforce it)
No, Jackson was not a President to be trifled with and he had no use for anyone suggesting secession or nullification of Federal laws.
We, his majesty's most loyal subjects, the delegates of the several colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, the three lower counties of Newcastle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, and South-Carolina, deputed to represent them in a continental Congress, held in the city of Philadelphia, on the 5th day of September, 1774, avowing our allegiance to his majesty, our affection and regard for our fellow-subjects in Great-Britain and elsewhere, affected with the deepest anxiety, and most alarming apprehensions, at those grievances and distresses, with which his Majesty's American(emphasis added) subjects are oppressed; and having taken under our most serious deliberation, the state of the whole continent, find, that the present unhappy situation of our affairs is occasioned by a ruinous system of colony administration, adopted by the British ministry about the year 1763, evidently calculated for enslaving these colonies, and, with them, the British Empire.
In prosecution of which system, various acts of parliament have been passed, for raising a revenue in America, for depriving the American subjects, in many instances, of the constitutional trial by jury, exposing their lives to danger, by directing a new and illegal trial beyond the seas, for crimes alleged to have been committed in America: And in prosecution of the same system, several late, cruel, and oppressive acts have been passed, respecting the town of Boston and the Massachusetts-Bay, and also an act for extending the province of Quebec, so as to border on the western frontiers of these colonies, establishing an arbitrary government therein, and discouraging the settlement of British subjects in that wide extended country; thus, by the influence of civil principles and ancient prejudices, to dispose the inhabitants to act with hostility against the free Protestant colonies, whenever a wicked ministry shall chuse so to direct them.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/contcong/10-20-74.htm
Margaret Munnerlyn Mitchell
1900-1949
"If the novel has a theme it is that of survival. What makes some people able to come through catastrophes and others, apparently just as able, strong and brave, go under? It happens in every upheaval. Some people survive; others don't. What qualities are in those who fight their way through triumphantly that are lacking in those who go under...? I only know that the survivors used to call that quality 'gumption.' So I wrote about the people who had gumption and the people who didn't." Margaret Mitchell @ Macmillan 1936
Author of the best-selling novel of all time, Margaret Mitchell was born Nov. 8, 1900 in Atlanta to a family with ancestry not unlike the O’Hara’s in Gone With the Wind. Her mother, Mary Isabelle “Maybelle” Stephens was of Irish-Catholic ancestry. Her father, Eugene Muse Mitchell, an Atlanta attorney, descended from Scotch-Irish and French Huguenots. The family included many soldiers - members of the family had fought in the American Revolution, Irish uprisings and rebellions and the Civil War.
The imaginative child was fascinated with stories of the Civil War that she heard first from her parents and great aunts, who lived at the family’s Jonesboro rural home, and later, from grizzled (and sometimes profane) Confederate veterans who regaled the girl with battlefield stories as Margaret, astride her pony, rode through the countryside around Atlanta with the men.
“She was a great friend of my cousin,” recalled Atlanta resident Mrs. Colquitt Carter. “My cousin always said that when Peggy would spend the night, she would get up in the middle of the night and write things. She was always obsessed with expressing herself.”
The family lived in a series of homes, including a stately home on Peachtree Street beginning in 1912. Young Margaret attended private school, but was not an exceptional student. When, on one memorable day, she announced to her mother that she could not understand mathematics and would not return to school, Maybelle dragged her daughter to a rural road where plantation houses had fallen into ruin.
“It’s happened before and it will happen again,” Maybelle sternly lectured the girl. “And when it does happen, everyone loses everything and everyone is equal. They all start again with nothing at all except the cunning of their brain and the strength of their hands.”
Chastened, Margaret Mitchell returned to school, eventually entering Smith College in the fall of 1918, not long after the United States entered World War I. Her fiancé, Clifford Henry, was killed in action in France. In January 1919, Maybelle Mitchell died during a flu epidemic and Margaret Mitchell left college to take charge of the Atlanta household of her father and her older brother, Stephens.
Although she made her society debut in 1920, Margaret was far too free-spirited and intellectual to be content with the life of a debutante. She quarreled with her fellow debs over the proper distribution of the money they had raised for charity, and she scandalized Atlanta society with a provocative dance that she performed at the debutante ball with a male student from Georgia Tech.
By 1922, Margaret Mitchell was a headstrong “Flapper” pursued by two men, an ex-football player and bootlegger, Berrien “Red” Upshaw, and a lanky newspaperman, John R. Marsh. She chose Upshaw, and the two were married in September. Upshaw’s irregular income led her to seek a job, at a salary of $25 per week, as a writer for The Atlanta Journal Sunday Magazine where Marsh was an editor and her mentor.
“There was an excitement in newspapering in the 1920’s, famed editor Ralph McGill recalled. Margaret Mitchell, he said, “was a vibrant, vital person – excited, always, and seeking excitement. And this excitement, I think, was a sort of a hallmark of the 20’s.”
The Upshaw marriage was stormy and short lived. They divorced in October 1924, and less than a year later, she married Marsh. The two held their wedding reception at their new ground-floor apartment at 979 Crescent Avenue – a house which Margaret affectionately nicknamed “The Dump.”
Only months after their marriage, Margaret left her job at the Journal to convalesce from a series of injuries. It was during this period that she began writing the book that would make her world famous.
Gone With The Wind was published in June 1936. Margaret Mitchell was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for her sweeping novel in May 1937. The novel was made into an equally famous motion picture starring Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable. The movie had its world premiere at the Loew’s Grand Theater in Atlanta Dec. 15, 1939 with Margaret Mitchell and all of the stars in attendance.
On Aug. 11, 1949, while crossing the intersection of Peachtree and 13th – only three blocks from “The Dump”, Margaret Mitchell was struck by a speeding taxi. She died five days later and is buried in Atlanta’s Oakland Cemetery with other members of her family.
" Copyright 2000 - 2004 Margaret Mitchell House and Museum™
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.