| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/13/2005 10:44:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Endless complaints. |
Posted on 12/31/2004 2:21:30 PM PST by Caipirabob
What's wrong about this photo? Or if you're a true-born Southerner, what's right?
While scanning through some of the up and coming movies in 2005, I ran across this intriguing title; "CSA: Confederate States of America (2005)". It's an "alternate universe" take on what would the country be like had the South won the civil war.
Stars with bars:
Suffice to say anything from Hollywood on this topic is sure to to bring about all sorts of controversial ideas and discussions. I was surprised that they are approaching such subject matter, and I'm more than a little interested.
Some things are better left dead in the past:
For myself, I was more than pleased with the homage paid to General "Stonewall" Jackson in Turner's "Gods and Generals". Like him, I should have like to believe that the South would have been compelled to end slavery out of Christian dignity rather than continue to enslave their brothers of the freedom that belong equally to all men. Obviously it didn't happen that way.
Would I fight for a South that believed in Slavery today? I have to ask first, would I know any better back then? I don't know. I honestly don't know. My pride for my South and my heritage would have most likely doomed me as it did so many others. I won't skirt the issue, in all likelyhood, slavery may have been an afterthought. Had they been the staple of what I considered property, I possibly would have already been past the point of moral struggle on the point and preparing to kill Northern invaders.
Compelling story or KKK wet dream?:
So what do I feel about this? The photo above nearly brings me to tears, as I highly respect Abraham Lincoln. I don't care if they kick me out of the South. Imagine if GW was in prayer over what to do about a seperatist leftist California. That's how I imagine Lincoln. A great man. I wonder sometimes what my family would have been like today. How many more of us would there be? Would we have held onto the property and prosperity that sustained them before the war? Would I have double the amount of family in the area? How many would I have had to cook for last week for Christmas? Would I have needed to make more "Pate De Fois Gras"?
Well, dunno about that either. Depending on what the previous for this movie are like, I may or may not see it. If they portray it as the United Confederacy of the KKK I won't be attending.
This generation of our clan speaks some 5 languages in addition to English, those being of recent immigrants to this nation. All of them are good Americans. I believe the south would have succombed to the same forces that affected the North. Immigration, war, economics and other huma forces that have changed the map of the world since history began.
Whatever. At least in this alternate universe, it's safe for me to believe that we would have grown to be the benevolent and humane South that I know it is in my heart. I can believe that slavery would have died shortly before or after that lost victory. I can believe that Southern gentlemen would have served the world as the model for behavior. In my alternate universe, it's ok that Spock has a beard. It's my alternate universe after all, it can be what I want.
At any rate, I lived up North for many years. Wonderful people and difficult people. I will always sing their praises as a land full of beautiful Italian girls, maple syrup and Birch beer. My uncle ribbed us once before we left on how we were going up North to live "with all the Yankees". Afterwards I always refered to him as royalty. He is, really. He's "King of the Rednecks". I suppose I'm his court jester.
So what do you think of this movie?
In a proclamation dated December 25, 1868 (15 Stat. 711), President Johnson proclaimed and declared:
* * * unconditionally, and without reservation, to all and every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion, a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.
This general pardon applied equally to Jefferson Davis as it did to others. It is this general pardon which terminated the possible prosecution of Jefferson Davis.
It was not as bad as the Grant nomination and the Senate approval of Edwin M. Stanton for Supreme Court Justice.
Davis should have screamed his head off for a trial. He should have gone to the newspapers, gone to New York, to see if he could find someone willing to prosecute that loser of a case.
Military officers who are severely criticized for nonperformance or malfeasance on their fitness or other reports can demand a court-martial. Davis should have done the same.
Ough -- you forgot the barf alert!
I sorry.
I'm afraid you don't understand.
Your sources, your posts, all your diligent typing, your original documents carefully transcribed, are a nullity because Non-Sequitur says they are -- they're "just your opinion". Nolu chan's posts, voluminous and original material, are "spam" -- because he supposedly can't read enough English, and doesn't have a PhD from Claremont-McKenna, to understand and contextualize what he is posting. Historical English, you see, is very mysterious and requires a Farber, a Neely, or a McPherson to elucidate properly.
Or a non-sequitur.
OTOH, our friend Non-Sequitur doesn't need sources, because he's dispensing the fifth essence of self-evidently divine Truth. It just glows, like the nimbus around the Buddha's head, so that people know that it has to be true.
You claim the right to decide what is constitutional and what is not. How arrogant is that?
Imboden led the cavalry column that set out to seize the arsenal from it's rightful owners, the federal government. The arsenal was burned to keep it out of the hands of the forces of the rebellion.
But what did they do, that constituted improper and warlike actions against the U.S. Government, or improper relations with a foreign power (the Confederacy)?
Seizing property which did not belong to them. If Virginia was still a state in the Union, as you insist, then they had no claim to federal property at Portsmouth or Harper's Ferry. But if they set out to seize said property then that would indicate that they no longer considered themselves a state in the Union, bound by the Constitution.
You're calling people traitors and insurgents -- back it up.
I'm not certain I used the word traitor, but since the Constitution defines 'treason' as levying war against the United States then the term 'traitor' does fit. And since Merriam-Webster defines 'insurgent' as "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government" then that term fits, too.
And what backs up the claim that, "The United States government realized how flimsy their case was. There was no way they could risk a trial." Both the Attorney General and the Federal Circuit Court judge responsible were eager to bring the matter to trial. The major sticking point throughout was Chief Justice Chase, first because Davis was in military custody and later because of the 14th Amendment.
...and the man Dishonest Abe called a "traitor" was released...
No bias here, is there? Still, idiotic name calling and outright lying does not advance your case. I am not aware of a time when Abraham Lincoln called Jefferson Davis a traitor. Perhaps you can find that quote as well?
Still waiting on the quote in context.
I don't think so. Now, where did you get the nonsense that states were responsible for dealing with rebellion and not the federal government?
Wether Abe did or not is not the issue. There are certainly enough Northern Yankee types that called Jeff Davis a traitor LONG after his death.
Chase knew that if Jefferson Davis was tried in VIRGINIA by a jury of his peers, they would NOT have been able to convict. That was his real concern.
No not at all, no more then the South forgot about the slaves right to rebel based on their 'natural rights'
But Calhoun had rejected the Declaration's view on all men being created equal and is this that makes the right to revolution a legimate one.
If you are going to deny others natural rights, do not expect yours to be upheld.
No, our Constitution had the Declaration, with its emphasis on natural (God-given) rights.
The Soviet Constitution was that of the South's, following Calhoun's rejection of natural law, but based simply on tradition and power.
I am trying to find it. I memorized it long ago, but don't remember the source. The quote is not as important as the facts behind it, which I have given you some sources on.
Do a "GOOGLE" search, type in Jefferson Davis, Treason, and read the MANY accounts, etc. They all point to one conclusion. The Feds would have LOST the case, and losing would have meant that secession would have been vindicated, and it would have showed the US Government for what it was: An invader of a sovereign nation, that unjust war was fought to conquer and subdue such nation at bayonet point.
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.