Posted on 10/07/2010 8:12:40 AM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
Southerners who celebrate their cultural heritage, are among the most misunderstood people in America. Italians who celebrate Colombus Day, and Irishmen who celebrate St. Patricks Day, never have to suffer the grief that Southerners who want to celebrate Robert E. Lee's Birthday have to endure.
Southern identity is partly about celebrating the Anglo-Celtic culture, which is the core culture that existed in America at the time of the founding of America in 1776. It is the culture that gave us the King James Bible, Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, William Faulkner, and others. Most Southerners, both white and black, are descended from people who were in America before the Civil War in 1860.
It is often said that America is a nation of immigrants. Southerners are not immigrants to America. When the first Southerners came to Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, America did not exist as a nation. Southerners were the pioneers who built America. Southerners created colonial America in 1607, before the Mayflower folks arrived in 1620. Two sons of the South, the Virginians, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, led America to independence as a Constitutional Republic in 1776. Why shouldn't Southerners be proud of such a great heritage?
Many of the Northerners who love to mock and insult the South, are people whose ancestors came to America as immigrants, after the statue of liberty was put up in 1886. They love to mock the people who created and built the America that their ancestors immigrated to. If someone could create a time machine, and we could go back to the 1890s, we would tell our Southern ancestors to stop those European immigrants from getting off their boats at Ellis Island. It is time that the Southerners who created American culture and the American nation, are shown a little appreciation by the Ellis Island Yankees, who just got off the boat the other day. If you are a pro-Southern Yankee, this complaint does not apply to you, of course.
Beg to differ. Even very late in the war, when it was pretty obvious the CSA was going to lose, the minimum the South would consider accepting was separation and independence, which was exactly what the Union was fighting to prevent.
These types of differences cannot be compromised.
Of course, the war would not have occurred had the Union just rolled over on its back, as far too many jingoist southerners (believing their own propaganda) thought it would. But then no war would occur if one side pre-emptively surrenders.
My beef with CSA apologists is not that they defend southern heritage. I have great sympathy for this POV.
It is their contention that they alone represent American conservatism. Certainly the CSA represented an attempt to conserve some aspects of the American tradition. But then so did the Union resistance to the CSA. It was a fight between different ideas of what America was or should be.
IMO, on balance, the Union side was right. Not 100%, of course, and the CSA wasn't 100% in the wrong. But that is true of any conflict in human history, including the American Revolution, and all we can do is choose to line up on the side we believe in MORE.
For me, "all men are created equal" is a much more important principle of the American tradition than "states' rights." Others disagree. I respect their beliefs, I just believe them to be wrong.
RE: But until the decision is overturned, unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern states was and is illegal.
Not as simple as that.
I respect the decisions of the Supreme Court, but I will not cede ULTIMATE authority to it when it comes to the LEGALITY of everything.
Most of us today have been taught the idea that nullification, like secession, is unconstitutional; and further, that it is a discredited political doctrine.
The federal government is absolutely supreme, thus the states are subordinate entities that must obey federal edicts – this is the reigning dogma in American politics, and one of the ideas that the elites are laboring to teach to school children. If you ask for proof, the supporters of this dogma (generally federal officials and those who benefit from the favor of same - surprise, surprise) will usually throw a quote from Abe Lincoln at you and tell you that ideas like nullification and secession died at Appomattox, Virginia in 1865. Why? Well, because that’s the place where Lincoln and those who supported his authoritarian ideals finally wore down those who disagreed, and forced their surrender on the battlefield. Thus, nullification and secession are ‘discredited’ political doctrines largely for the same reason that your claim to your wallet can be ‘discredited’ by a mugger in an alley.
However, others of a less philosophically rigid sort understand that physical force cannot discredit an idea.
Nullification has a long and interesting history in American politics, and originates in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds, to the point of ignoring federal laws.
Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.
Other instances followed, most famously in 1833, when South Carolina nullified the federal Tariff of 1828, which it deemed to be unconstitutional because it was specifically a protective tariff, not a revenue tariff. This act of nullification created a conflict between South Carolina and President Andrew Jackson, and nearly led to war before a compromise tariff was adopted.
And lest it be assumed that nullification and state sovereignty were political doctrines unique to the Southern states, it should also be noted that there were times when the Northern states also asserted them (in particular, see the Hartford Convention of 1814 and the various “personal liberty laws” that Northerners enacted in defiance of federal fugitive slave laws).
So going back to your appeal to the Supreme Court as the final arbiter to what is constitutional ( Dredd Scott notwithstanding).
What about the federal courts? Aren’t they supposed to determine the constitutionality of a law or a given action?”
Over time, nationalists — thanks primarily to Chief Justice John Marshall’s decisions early in the country’s history — have been very successful at planting the idea in the American mindset that our federal courts are the final arbiters of any and all constitutional issues, but there is actually no constitutional justification for this notion.
In Federalist 81, Alexander Hamilton remarked that there is “not a syllable in the plan under consideration [the Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution.”
So, The role of the federal courts and the final determination of constitutional issues in dispute is, in my opinion, the thing we ought to ponder.
Article III empowers the United States Supreme Court with legitimate authority over all “cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution,” and Article VI states that the Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land…any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not with-standing.”
As a result, it follows that the Court should have authority to rule in situations where violations of some clear constitutional provision are alleged to have occurred. NO ARGUMENT HERE THUS FAR.
However, what if the question before the court is not how the Constitution applies to a given matter, but if the Constitution applies to it at all? Or what if a verdict of the court introduces some NEW doctrine, and thus somehow changes the fundamental relationship of the federal government to the states and individual Americans?
Don’t tell me that this has never happened in US history.
The Dredd Scott decision and the dubious reasoning of Justice Taney is exhibit A.
In this case, the question has undergone a radical change. We are no longer considering an overt – or, as Hamilton once put it, “evident” – violation of a constitutional provision or prohibition.
In this case, we are dealing with the question of what are the delegated powers of the federal government and what are the reserved powers of the states and the people, of whether the federal courts, by involving themselves in a given matter, are somehow changing the Constitution and the framework of our country by fiat. In other words, the notion of federal judicial supremacy creates a ‘separation of powers’ issue (in some instances) because it makes the states subservient to an arm of the federal government in the matter of their reserved rights and status.
Further, it turns the idea of delegated powers on its head by giving the federal government final authority in the matter of the scope of its own powers, thus giving it the ability to re-invent itself and evolve beyond its authorized scope.
Also, consider how the steady politicization of the federal courts has affected our society at large, given the steady expansion of judicial power ( heck, we are but one justice away from the Supreme Court practically inventing new laws out of thin air in the 21st century ).
This issue came to light in a particularly noteworthy way following the 2000 General Election. When the matter of recounting votes was thrown into the courts, suddenly the media was filled with stories of how “Judge so-and-so” votes, or who appointed him, and whether he was a Republican or Democrat; but, interestingly enough, what was not being discussed was the fact that we were openly admitting that our court systems have become politicized, and that Lady Justice was no longer blind but actually on the take.
The politicization of our courts is now all but openly admitted as such, and some politicians and special interest leaders take considerable pride in their efforts to tip the scales of justice in their agenda’s favor. Consider any typical Senate hearing on the appointment of a federal judge or Supreme Court justice. Senators parade before the television cameras asking candidates how they feel on various litmus test political issues. Judicial appointments come down, not to whether the judge understands the Constitution and has a history of upholding the law, but to whether he passes the political litmus test of the dominant party! Thus, our sacred liberties under the law have slowly been supplanted by the advancement of political agendas operating in the halls of justice. Due to the efforts of the nationalists, we have lost the concept of federalism and the separation of powers. Anything and everything is now subject to being read into the federal Constitution, and politics reigns supreme.
The Constitution never foresaw the development of political parties or the way partisan wrangling would play havoc with our system of government, particularly how it would corrupt the courts.
As such, nullification is an important means by which states can defend themselves against partisan abuses of federal power.
The Constitution is imperfect in this regard, and, I believe, should be updated to provide for Thomas Jefferson’s solution to the clash of federal versus state authority and constitutional ambiguities:
But the Chief Justice [Federalist John Marshall] says, ‘there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.’
True, there must, BUT WHO IS THE ULTIMATE ARBITER IF GOD DOES NOT SPEAK TO US THE WAY HE SPOKE TO MOSES? Does that prove it is either party?
I believe the ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two thirds of the States.
Let them decide to which they mean to give authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force.
The means by which secession was done in the 19th century that led to the civil war, I will grant, was belligerent. But the North was not without its fault as well.
However, unless shown to me convincingly, I still believe that SECESSION is a right every state is given as ORIGINALLY INTENDED.
My family has been in the same area of Hanover County since the early 1600’s. Generation after generation of ordinary farmers. Some were educated, some were not. But they loved the land, a love my grandfather passed on to me. Call me crazy (my family does)I have always been able to feel this history of the land.
But does that connection make me a Native American? Not even close.
The Virginia Tribes are still trying to undo the damage of Walter Ashby Plecker.
Their existence greatly disturbed Plecker. He was convinced that mulatto offspring would slowly seep into the white race. “Like rats when you’re not watching,” they “have been sneaking in their birth certificates through their own midwives, giving either Indian or white racial classification,” Plecker wrote...”
source: http://www.manataka.org/page1275.html
As I've said many times if you aren't living a "technicolor life" you just don't understand.
RE: Of course, the war would not have occurred had the Union just rolled over on its back, as far too many jingoist southerners (believing their own propaganda) thought it would.
Let’s just say the Union did leave the South alone and did not prevent them from seceding, what then ?
You wan tme to believe that slavery would not have ended?
You want me to believe that the South would attack the North?
I don’t believe those for a moment.
The term Civil War is a misnomer. The South did not instigate a rebellion. Thirteen southern states in 1860-61 simply chose to secede from the Union and go their own way, like the thirteen colonies did when they seceded from Britain.
A more accurate name for the war that took place between the northern and southern American states is the War for Southern Independence. Mainstream historiography presents the victors’ view, an account that focuses on the issue of slavery and downplays other considerations.
Up until the 19th century slavery in human societies was considered to be a normal state of affairs. The Old Testament of the Bible affirms that slaves are a form of property and that the children of a slave couple are the property of the slaves’ owner (Exodus 21:4).
Slaves built the pyramids of Egypt, the Acropolis of Athens, and the coliseums in the Roman Empire. Africans exported 11,000,000 Black slaves to the New World – 4,000,000 to Brazil, 3,600,000 to the British and French West Indies, and 2,500,000 to Spanish possessions in Central and South America. About 500,000 slaves, 5 per cent of the total number shipped to the New World, came to America. Today slavery still exists in some parts of Africa, notably in Sudan and Mauritania ( Horrible I know, but such is the state of the world ).
Britain heralded the end of slavery, in the Western world at least, with its Bill of Abolition, passed in 1807. This Bill made the African slave trade (but not slaveholding) illegal.
Later that year the United States adopted a similar bill, called the Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves, which prohibited bringing slaves into any port in the country, including into the southern slaveholding states. Congress strengthened this prohibition in 1819 when it decreed the slave trade to be a form of piracy, punishable by death. In 1833, Britain enacted an Emancipation Law, ending slavery throughout the British Empire, and Parliament allocated twenty million pounds to buy slaves’ freedom from their owners.
The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer rightly described this action as one of the greatest acts of collective compassion in the history of humankind. This happened peacefully and without any serious slave uprisings or attacks on their former owners, even in Jamaica where a population of 30,000 whites owned 250,000 slaves.
The Constitution of the Confederate States of America prohibited the importation of slaves (Article I, Section 9).
With no fugitive slave laws in neighboring states that would return fugitive slaves to their owners, the value of slaves as property drops owing to increased costs incurred to guard against their escape. With slaves having a place to escape to in the North and with the supply of new slaves restricted by its Constitution, slavery in the Confederate states would have ended without war. A slave’s decreasing property value, alone, would have soon made the institution unsustainable, irrespective of more moral and humanitarian considerations.
The rallying call in the North at the beginning of the war was “preserve the Union,” not “free the slaves.” Although certainly a contentious political issue and detested by abolitionists, in 1861 slavery nevertheless was not a major public issue. Protestant Americans in the North were more concerned about the growing number of Catholic immigrants than they were about slavery.
In his First Inaugural Address, given five weeks before the war began, Lincoln reassured slaveholders that he would continue to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
So, Did saving the Union justify the slaughter of such a large number of young men? The Confederates posed no military threat to the North.
If freedom of the slaves was to be accomplioshed, I would submit that would be better to let the southern states go, along with their slaves.
Eventually, like the rest of the western world and South America, slavery would have died a natural death. And this would have happened without killing 620,000 men.
great post but logic is lost on bigoted black avengers here
man....I wish they had stayed klowns and wideawakes you know?
i wish some powers that be here would just study them a bit...at least make them cloak better
Yeah, it is as simple as that. You and I may disagree with what the court may decide but that doesn't change the authority of the court or making something Constitutional that they say is not.
Most of us today have been taught the idea that nullification, like secession, is unconstitutional; and further, that it is a discredited political doctrine.
Nullification by definition is a violation of the Article VI supremacy clause.
Thus, nullification and secession are ‘discredited’ political doctrines largely for the same reason that your claim to your wallet can be ‘discredited’ by a mugger in an alley.
They are discredited because it's impossible to reconcile them with the Constitution itself. To believe otherwise is to believe that some states have more power than other states do, and that is simply wrong.
Other instances followed, most famously in 1833, when South Carolina nullified the federal Tariff of 1828, which it deemed to be unconstitutional because it was specifically a protective tariff, not a revenue tariff.
Deemed by South Carolina. If Pennsylvania, cor example, said that no it was a revenue tariff and not a protective tariff then what made them wrong and South Carolina right?
And lest it be assumed that nullification and state sovereignty were political doctrines unique to the Southern states, it should also be noted that there were times when the Northern states also asserted them (in particular, see the Hartford Convention of 1814 and the various “personal liberty laws” that Northerners enacted in defiance of federal fugitive slave laws).
Claims that the Hartford Convention advocated secession are greatly exaggerated and I would point out that every personal liberty law that came before the Supreme Court was overturned, state's rights be damned.
What about the federal courts? Aren’t they supposed to determine the constitutionality of a law or a given action?”
Article III reserves that jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.
Over time, nationalists — thanks primarily to Chief Justice John Marshall’s decisions early in the country’s history — have been very successful at planting the idea in the American mindset that our federal courts are the final arbiters of any and all constitutional issues, but there is actually no constitutional justification for this notion.
Chief Justice Marshall noted, "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."
So my question is where is Chief Justice Marshall wrong? If not the Supreme Court then who?
However, what if the question before the court is not how the Constitution applies to a given matter, but if the Constitution applies to it at all?
Again, if not the Supreme Court then who?
Don’t tell me that this has never happened in US history. The Dredd Scott decision and the dubious reasoning of Justice Taney is exhibit A.
I've never said the Supreme Court has gotten everything right. But at the end of the day who are we supposed to trust the decision to?
However, unless shown to me convincingly, I still believe that SECESSION is a right every state is given as ORIGINALLY INTENDED.
With the consent of the other parties to the compact, yes. Unilaterally, no.
The war had been underway for most of two decades in various border regions. Southern politicians saw that fortune was not moving affairs their way. They would all shortly lose office if they didn’t do something so they attacked.
Let me point out that the Union did leave the South alone until the confederacy resorted to war to seize control of a fort that did not belong to it.
The term Civil War is a misnomer. The South did not instigate a rebellion.
Rebellion is defined as open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or opposition to an established government. That is an accurate description of the Southern actions.
Thirteen southern states in 1860-61 simply chose to secede from the Union and go their own way, like the thirteen colonies did when they seceded from Britain.
Let me point out that that 'secession' of the colonies from Britain was followed by a seven year period of unpleasantness known as "The American Revolutionary War".
The Constitution of the Confederate States of America prohibited the importation of slaves (Article I, Section 9).
Oh please. Article 3 of the confederate constitution mandated a supreme court that was never established. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant the president the power to end slavery but that didn't stop Jefferson Davis from sending emissaries to Europe promising that in exchange for diplomatic recognition. The idea that the confederacy would have let something as meaningless to them as the constitution stand in the way of their slaves is sheer nonsense.
With no fugitive slave laws in neighboring states that would return fugitive slaves to their owners, the value of slaves as property drops owing to increased costs incurred to guard against their escape.
Or would it have led to an increase in their value since supply would drop but demand would remain. And that's assuming the South didn't look elsewhere to replenish its supply.
So, Did saving the Union justify the slaughter of such a large number of young men? The Confederates posed no military threat to the North.
The confederacy was the aggressor in the war. The Union fought the war that was forced upon them.
If freedom of the slaves was to be accomplioshed, I would submit that would be better to let the southern states go, along with their slaves.
As you yourself pointed out, ending slavery was not a goal of the Union. Preserving the Union was.
"The Radical Yankees then and now, as evidenced by many PC posters on this thread and on many others, were and still are not interested in leaving us alone. They react in orgasmic exultation about “leaving the South in ruins”. These pricks are on the other side in the presently raging “culture war” and can barely disguise their liberalism here on FR."
No, the people adhering to the FIRST STATEMENT about not leaving Southerners alone (to continue screwing around with the issue of black labor), are NOT on the other side of the current "culture war".
Regarding leaving the South in ruins, the political leadership of the South should have thought about that more ~ did they imagine they wouldn't get war ~ and most of it would be fought in the South?
Did they believe they could sit astride the trade of the Mississippi Valley? Hardly ~ once the Louisiana Purchase had been made that route belonged to the Union irrespective of what Southerners might imagine.
When you threaten to create economic chaos in half a nation, and reduce the residents there to penury (my ancestors), you really gotta' expect some serious retaliation!
They rejoiced as they burned your cities to the ground for darned good reasons.
Today the common foe that thinks it can whipsaw the United States around economically are the Chicago crowd. Who can doubt that we may, in the end, find it necessary to remove that great city from the planet itself ~ along with its voters.
Excellent post. You do a much better job of presenting your side than some of the foam-flecked screamers around here.
What your argument comes down to, in the final analysis, is that “states’ rights” are more important than the rights of individual human beings. That States, if those presently in control of them so decide, have the right to commit the greatest possible tyrannies upon those subject to their control. That is not what I consider a true American conservative position.
I think any reasonable person who looks at the situation with an open mind will agree that if war had not come at Ft. Sumter, it would have come eventually. As Lincoln said, it was not possible for us to separate. A couple divorces and they can move away. The states are stuck here on the same continent. The idea that separation could have been peaceful in the long run is based on the somewhat silly notion that the states would have been able to work out their differences more equitably as two separate nations than as part of one common nation.
Fairly obvious potential causes of conflict include: borders, fugitive slaves, attempts of the CSA to expand forcibly into Latin America (an explicit goal among many of the fire-eaters), western expansion, etc. Let’s take just the last. Southerners claimed the cause of the conflict was attempts to restrict movement by slaveowners into the territories. Would they suddenly accept total cutoff because it’s now part of a separate country? Or would they demand a chunk of the territories?
BTW, 13 states did not secede. 11 did. Factions in two others, MO and KY, attempted to do so, but their attempts were unsuccessful.
I am indebted to one of the foam-flecked screamers I mentioned above for the best single definition of WHY the South wanted out. Although not the way he meant it.
The quote is from Louis T. Wigfall, one of the more unbalanced of the fire-eaters (which is quite a distinction in itself):
“Let my neighbor believe that his wife is an angel and his children cherubs, I care not, though I may know he is mistaken; but when he comes impertinently poking his nose into my door every morning, and telling me that my wife is a shrew and my children brats, then the neighborhood becomes uncomfortable, and if I cannot remove him, I will remove myself; and if he says to me, “you shall not move, but you shall stay here, and you shall, day after day, hear the demerits of your wife and children discussed,” then I begin to feel a little restive, and possibly might assert that great original right of pursuing whatever may conduce to my happiness, though it might be kicking him out of my door.”
IOW, southerners, not unreasonably, became tired of being told their system was based on an evil institution, and wanted to get away from those repeatedly saying so. The problem is that their way of life WAS based on an evil institution, and they were willing to risk and wage war simply to try to avoid looking squarely at this great truth. Actually, I refer not to all southerners, but rather to those who promoted and blew up the sense of grievance until it exploded. The fire-eaters, like Wigfall.
Or go back in time to tell the Powahatan and Nottaway what they were getting into in 1607.
Because Southerners are pioneers and not immigrants, they deserve to be described as "Native Americans".
By that logic the Boers were "Native Africans" and heck, those immigrants who came here one hundred years ago were themselves "pioneers" of a sort.
Maybe the concept of "Native American" is a dubious one all the way around, but the idea that Southerners qualify in a way that others don't is nonsensical.
Some Northerners do dislike Southerners, and vice versa. But it looks to me like what people dislike are chauvinists, people who go on and on about why their region is better.
One "thingy" revisionists like you forget is that Southerners expelled the tribes that had assimilated and lived as Whites did. You know the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears.
So who was the racist in 1860?
Start with slaveowners and we'll work out the rest later.
“But it’s ill-advised to use our heritage to stir up trouble.”
The people using our heritage to stir up trouble are on the other side, my FRiend.
And what, pray tell, is a “Technicolor life”? It sounds suspiciously like PC “Multicultural” bull shit at first glance.
How about this? "If they don't have the right to use the term ..... nobody does."
Anthropologists trace premodern Amerind genotypes to three migrations across the Bering Strait.
However, recent (last 15 years) excavations in both Americas suggest that the old Clovis "limit" of about 11,600 BP is fallacious, and that humans of another type were present for thousands of years before that, who were related to primitive Cromagnards who *appear* to have brought a type of Solutrean tool tradition across the North Atlantic pack-ice from pleniglacial Europe (following seabird migrations like the auk, it's speculated).
This primitive type is thought to have been a branch of the old Eurasian type that is now represented only by tiny remnants, such as the Ainu of Hokkaido, who differ(ed) substantially from later east Asian Mongoloid types.
If that inchoate recension of North American anthropological history is right, or somewhat right, then a) none of the North American populations extant or (like the Eurasian type) extinct can claim the name of autochthon, and b) the people who now claim to be "Native Americans" can do so only by blinking their ancestors' mass-murder and genocide (possibly cannibalistic!) of a predecessor population.
“Nativist Americans”
You know that I like you a great deal, and love reading your posts, but that was a low blow to those of us who believe that immigration is what it should be.....legal.
I just reread your post, and believe I might have misunderstood it.
Sorry...and apologies if I did. ;o)
And yet Jefferson Davis's oration condemning Nullification, during his inauguration in 1861, was both powerful and dispositive. The Supremacy Clause is airtight in this regard: that any State remaining in the Union, so long as it does so, is positively bound by the Supremacy Clause and the federal Constitution.
The politicization of our courts is now all but openly admitted as such, and some politicians and special interest leaders take considerable pride in their efforts to tip the scales of justice.....
Conceded, and deplored. But Nullification, dead as it is, can offer us no relief from this plague of pleaders and their pleadings, their constant and restless forum-shopping and barratry, and the log-rolling of political-hack Justices.
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.