| 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?
...punching out a straw man I love this line :)
Once again you do indeed bring up valid points. In terms of a particularistic invective.. that is hitting below the belt since I for one would equally chasten any 'Northerner' involved in profiteering from slavery either directly or indirectly.
You mentioned Willy Sutton...here he is..
If old Willy had a proven method of breaking thrown peek NY traffic and head 80-90 blocks south to downtown in record time, yea I [might] hop a ride, wouldn't you?
On you're next response regarding my comment on Reconstruction and the Jim Crow..
Maybe it my sense of fair play. When Taiwan was being sold down the river by Jimmy Carter in favour of Red China naturally I backed the ROC 100%. When the overwehemly military might of surrounding Arab nations would & will gang up on tiny Israel, I side with Israel against the bullies. The same during World War II, assist the hapless tortured victims of the Nazis in Europe and in Asia work overtime to defeat invading Japs forces as well. Slavery comes in various forms. I have this thing about defending the little guy against tyrants.
Keep in mind, that the attack isn't motivated by the past, it's motivated by the map of the present.. When the present is a carbon copy of the past what's the difference?
Would you admit the primarily British colonial leadership of New York and New England was paramount in the formation of this nation from the 1600's onward?
David Horowitz's critique of the left should be viewed as an insiders investigative report since he was for a number of years a key leftist player, who woke up, saw the light and is now a leading conservative spokesman exposing the 'enemy within'.
In relation to NGO's (501C3's, foundations, so-called nonprofits) I fully understand the threat radical leftist controlled NGO's poise domestically and on the international level.
Beantown biases, Won the Super bowl! :) ..but watch out: lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
I have ample supply of flea powder.
In terms of the The Illinois Black Code, in 1865 was this code not abolished?
There is a lot of water under anyone's historical bridge between the years of 1848 to 1865.
Lincoln changed his views during that time frame as many Americans also did.
"mumblin' word" .....It does not compute
In crediting those in the North who contributed to the formation of the country, don't forget the role of the Virginians nor the Southern patriots who dealt Cornwallis body blows at Cowpens, Kings Mountain, and Guilford Courthouse prior to Yorktown. We all pulled together.
The historic map of New England-Greater New York-Lower Canada was found at the The New-York Historical Society's website. Unfortunately the date under the heading was not provided for this particuler map 'Henry G. Taliaferro, co-author of Degrees of Latitude, is a well-known dealer of rare maps and prints in New York. He compiled Cartographic Sources in the Rosenberg Library (1987) and has authored several articles on Virginia genealogy and 17th- through 19th-century mapmaking.' My guess would be 1660's - 1670's(?) This is another map, lower Manhattan, from the same website:
What you stated in terms of Virgina from is very true in conjunction with the Plimouth colony from 1621 onward and then Boston's founding in 1630-1631 coupled the expansion into what became Rhode Island and north into New Hampshire & Maine (which was governed by the Mass Bay colony.
New York on the othr hand, (New Amsterdam, a fort in lower Manhattan) founded by the Dutch in 1626 & remaining under Dutch control until August 27th, of 1664, when royal English Governor replaced Peter Stuyvesant through the surrender of Dutch forces to superior English naval forces can not be placed in English American history until after 1664.
The famous Dutch 'New Netherland' $24 'buyout' of the island of 'Manhattes' or 'Manna-hata' (an old Indian term meaning "'island of hills' from native Americans, was really $669.42, based on a recalculation by a Dutch bank.
I shall follow up on this posting later.
What thread have you been reading?
So when you state ...No one is saying that those who are defending the confederacy are defending slavery.. that is pure bunk.
Section 2, subsection 3, from the 'The Constitution of the Confederate States of America' states as follows: No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.
Confederate provisions in their 'Constitution' limiting the power of the national government, protecting 'state rights'(buzz line) and, most important, protecting slavery was THE reason why South Carolina hotheads began shelling an United States fort, which was a blatant act of treason whether the act took place in 1861 or 2005...treason is treason.
You can not have it both ways. A Confederate victory would have clearly mandated a continuation & expansion of slavery.
So, does the "M" stand for MORON? Take a look at who posted that, then get back to me.
thus if the pro-slavery South had defeated & overthrown the United States government replacing our republican form of government with a pro-slavery dictatorship slavery would have expanded westward, plus under pressure from revengeful rebel occupying forces, they would have forced slavery on free states.
Fear-mongering crapola... you might be selling, but nobody, even the most staunch Unionists here, aren't buying. Next are you going to tell us all about Social Security solvency?
protecting slavery was THE reason why South Carolina hotheads began shelling an United States fort,
They shelled a fort in response to an attempt to land an invasion force. I know you've seen the discourse, but have chosen to ignore it and replace it with your own version. Lentulusgracchus has had you pegged, Mess-pan-yoyo.
which was a blatant act of treason whether the act took place in 1861 or 2005...treason is treason.
Treason, blatant treason, would be a provable offense.
Gianni, post #1884:
Which of the members of the 2nd CC do you also classify as "Founders" and what were their votes on the NWO?
Enlighten us.
This is some additional information on the Dutch in New Amsterdam.
'The development of town life in New Netherland had been greatly retarded by the individualism of the settlers. Apart from the patroonships there was no immigration in groups as in New England. Defense of the scattered farms against the Indians was very difficult, and the Dutch West India Company repeatedly tried to force the colonists to build towns and forts. Incorporation into a town not only provided better defense but gave its inhabitants the added advantage of being permitted to have their own court of justice. Even so the growth of towns was extremely slow.'
Nieuw Amsterdam was destined by its location to become the trading center of the colony. In May 1647, when its last and famous governor Pieter Stuyvesant stepped ashore, its population was generally estimated at seven hundred, but some sources state that at that time no more than a hundred people were living there. The town stretched from the fort at the waterfront to the palisades which had been erected against Indian raiders. In Dutch these were called de wal. Look at a map of present-day New York City. Pearl Street marks the limit of what was dry land in those days, the areas south and east of it having been drained and filled in later. The northern boundary -- de wal -- gave its name to the Wall Street of today.'
In August 1664, Peter Stuyvesant was forced to relinquish all control over New Amsterdam.
Fort Amsterdam then became Fort James, as New Amsterdam was renamed New York.
Between 1672 and 1674 Dutch raiders, smarting from their defeat by the English and the loss of their colonies in what is now New York, carried out a series of raids on the coast of America & eastern Canada.
The Dutch fleet arrived in Ferryland, Newfoundland from New Amsterdam, which they had successfully recaptured from the British in July 1673. (From Frank C. Bowen, The Sea: It's History and Romance to 1697, vol. I (London: B.F. Stevens & Brown, 1924-1926) 269. Original in Arnoldus Montanus, De Nieuwe en Onbekende Weereld, of Beschrijving van America (Amsterdam: 1671).)
You mean anyone not residing in the fantasy spin-land of today's hardcore confederates.
They shelled a fort in response to an attempt to land an invasion force..The last time I check, even in 1861 South Carolina was part of the United States and therefore United States troops could not launch an invasion force. Whose the MORON now? You mamook redneck!
Like I stated previously, protecting slavery was THE reason why South Carolina hotheads began shelling an United States fort. The truth hurts otherwise you would not fly off the handle and act like a hothead.
Not everyone in secessionist states were traitors, now were they?
Yo spinmaster, spin this!
Barf! There were barely 1000 slaves in ALL the territories combined prior to the War of Northern Agression. It was Yankee desires for a LILY-WHITE West that objected to the presence of a few blacks. Their paranoia was manifested in Lincoln's fervent and often manifested desire to have blacks leave the US of A. The Southern states were the ones who wanted blacks counted as a whole person, and yankees that didn't want to count them as a person at all. A Union victory would ensure the Yankee's lily-white (and non Native American) dream.
There is a nonmilitary reason the Confederacy lost the Civil War. Think about it.
This sluggardly realization on my part was partly the result of this topic's never having been really discussed in the traditional accounts. Certainly I'd never seen the implications discussed, although my father, who was a Civil War buff after his own generation's fashion (he read Catton and Sandburg), probably will not have let the implications escape him.
My dad was a Unionist, being an Indiana man conscious that his ancestors had served in both the Union Army and Navy (one man, a Timothy Radigan, was wounded in the hand in some engagement or other; the hand becoming gangrenous, the Union medicoes applied the bluebottle cure, which was described to me in some detail, including Radigan's personal recollection of the strange sensation of having bluebottle larvae crawling around in his hand, cleaning up his gangrene problem and saving his hand), and so he won't have made a big deal out of it, but he will have noticed -- not many things like that escaped him. He was, after all, a prosecutor's son and had the gift (when he went out dressed in his long tweed coat and leather gloves, people would ask him if he were an FBI agent -- just because he came across that way), and if the Massachusetts Fourth and Sixth Regiments were ready to deploy south on the day of Lincoln's proclamation and call, the Old Man will have noticed that. And he knew all about the suspension of habeas -- I remember his mentioning it to me, and his dimming view of some of Lincoln's war measures, although I wasn't yet old enough to engage the subject beyond a boy's level of interest in the Civil War.
But, if a State may lawfully go out of the Union, having done so, it may also discard the republican form of government; so that to prevent its going out, is an indispensable means, to the end, of maintaining the guaranty mentioned; and when an end is lawful and obligatory, the indispensable means to it, are also lawful, and obligatory."
This is one of the clearest statements of "the end justifies the means" I've ever seen. And I would call our interlocutors' attention to it, to notice that he privileged ends above means (he was, after all, a Rational personality, in the language of Myers-Briggs). I've made the same argument about his advocacy of abolition and the Civil War which accomplished it: that abolition being IMHO Lincoln's end, then the Civil War is understandable as his means. He was at some pains to disguise his purpose in his public speeches during the 1860 campaign, but his private papers from the mid-1850's published by David Donald and others discover his fixation on slavery as The Problem, and so it is not unreasonable to conclude that he finally decided that a military, extraconstitutional solution was the only viable road to abolition.
If that intermediate goal is recognized, of curing "the slavery problem" with a hot poker, then it is possible to trace the outlines of his slow, steady course of baiting the Southerners to violence (the same strategy followed by Martin Luther King, by the way), to give himself the pretext for war, while shoving its onus, as he himself declared in the First Inaugural, onto his intended victims. The same steady progress to war, moreover, that was noticed and thoroughly approved of, even if he didn't perhaps grasp his principal's full arc of intention, by John Nicolay, whom I have quoted above.
Not only did Lincoln not quote the rest of the clause, as you pointed out, he also "slid in" the imputation, the insinuation that the guarantee that he spoke about, of a "republican form of government", would be broken by the Southern States, i.e. that they would abandon republican government and immediately become something completely different, which insinuation is an operational lie. None of the Southern States abandoned republicanism, and in fact were better conservators of it than the North -- a point that, in the passages you quoted, even James McPherson concedes. Lincoln's insinuation that they would, was a convenient fiction that covered operative violence on the spirit of the Constitution -- which still bound him, if it didn't bind the States that had withdrawn from it.
Contrary Lincoln, the Southern States kept the Consitution better than he did, who said he was defending it, but was in fact trampling it.
Some of us have speculated about that outcome, and what you say is only partly true.
Slavery would have continued, since the planters were prospering, for how long I don't know, but the institution wouldn't have "greatly expanded westward and northward".
There is a dry line running from the vicinity of Minot down through the plains and west of Fort Worth, beyond which 19th-century agriculture would have been unable to raise the only cash crops that made it worth sustaining slavery, which were tobacco, sugar cane, and cotton.
When Stephen A. Douglas offered his Kansas-Nebraska Act and dangled the possibility of extending slavery to the Territories north of Kansas, he was offering an empty bag in return for the very concrete Southern concession of the eastern terminus of the Transcontinental Railroad. Only the bottomlands in a couple of narrow belts up the Missouri were capable of sustaining cotton, sugar, or tobacco plantations. The same thing is true of most of New Mexico and almost all of Arizona. Douglas put California into play, but California freesoilers handled the problem themselves and snuffed out the pro-slavery sentiment there; California entered the Union as a freesoil state.
Recognition of property rights in slaves in Northern States by the courts had more to do with retrieving runaways than with anyone's burning desire to establish a plantation in the Old Northwest: the climate of public opinion would have remained forbidding, so that the idea that somehow the South could have forced Ohioans and Illinoisans to accept cotton plantations in their midst is essentially a roorback. That wasn't going to happen, any more than that William Lloyd Garrison was going to establish, in the open, a public waystation for the Underground Railroad in Kentucky or Tennessee.
Baja Canada! -- LOL!
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.