| 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?
No. After his death, Washington was dead.
Martha Washington freed her slaves and his about a year after George Washington died.
The Washington's were among the wealthiest families in America.
You asked if anyone had freed their slaves. I provided documentation that the eminent jurist, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney freed his slaves early in his life and provided for them thereafter.
If you don't like that example, provide your own.
Sure there was.
Lincoln started the war. Or do you want me to quote Lincoln's personal secretary to you again? It's the smoking gun, N-S.
You can quote who ever the hell you want. Long and short is that the southern states chose to escalate the issue to armed rebellion by bombarding Sumter. They chose war, not Lincoln. And if you choose to follow that tired old "Jeff Davis was too stupid to see through Lincoln's plot" excuse then so be it.
Time for your slothful induction to stop.
Time for the southron myths to stop. Fat chance of that ever happening, though.
All who observe your desperate gropes more than I.
Human beings are known to be inconsistent.
So, once again, were slaves freed and slavery outlawed in the states after the Constitution was ratified?
I don't think you do, quite. Horowitz's point -- and he knows whereof he speaks, as we previously agreed -- is that the Left is allied at a very high level to the industrial and investor classes whose antecedents won the Civil War. These people have a hell of a lot of money, having had a free hand in looting the continent from 1865 to the beginning of the Progressive Movement, and then only with a slight hindrance until the election of Franklin Roosevelt and the inauguration of his pro-syndicalist tilt, which meant only that the Triumphant Class had to "trickle down" faster, and share the riches that they had hitherto enjoyed in serenely isolated splendor -- what Paul Fussell calls "top-out-of-sight" riches, the kind that truly marks the victors of the Civil War and the Gilded Age. They've still been a-gittin' it, as we say down South, even after FDR's imperium began, although things have changed a lot in the last 40 years.
There is no issue. They did not end slavery, not even in their own homes.
the issue is the mealy-mouthed double-speak b-s spewed by Abraham Lincoln eulogizing Henry Clay.
When it comes to desperation in posts we have all learned a great deal from you.
LOL -- you ain't never bin to a gun show?!
'Bout every fourth or fifth one, someone from the Klan shows up and rents a table, hangs up the Klan flag, and sets out a big tray of knives and badges with their emblems on them.
Usually a pretty quiet table.
It is!
What does Clay have to do with the principles of the Declaration and the fact that the South was against them-as stated very clearly by Stephens.
Taney was NOT inconsistent.
In his private life he freed his slaves, helped to free others, and provided for them afterwards.
As a Judge, he rendered decisions based on the law that was then in existence, whether he agreed with it or not.
That is no different from Justice Story of Massachusetts.
"When Massachusetts neighbors criticized Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story for having upheld the fugitive slave law in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, he [nc - Story] wrote, "You know full well that I have ever been opposed to slavery. But I take my standard of duty as a judge from the Constitition." (Walker Lewis, Without Fear or Favor, p. 355)
Yeah, well, crack open your copy of the U.S. Constitution and you'll see that that section is virtually a verbatim quote.
Your point doesn't have a point. The Northern States agreed to that language in 1787, and you can't get around the fact that their attempts to retrieve runaways had been pre-approved by the Peoples of the Northern States by ratification, the highest level of legislation there is. It was in the social compact, dude.
That fact that he preached one thing, and in practice did the opposite, proves what he conveniently said was not what he believed.
Actions speak louder than words -- just like a stain on a blue dress.
As a judge he went beyond legality and gave an opinion he had not business giving and a wrong opinion at that.
Oh, did Clinton preach against adultery, I don't remember that sermon.
The word of the Declaration were words from Locke, who got them from the Bible.
Jefferson personal failures have nothing to do with the fact that the nation believed those words to be true.
The Confederacy did not-as Stephens himself said.
Stop the word games, Washington left it in his will that they be freed, as long as Martha was not hurt by freeing them.
Martha was following Washington's wishes.
And much of that wealth was tied up in slaves!
Moreover, Washington being a decent man, also knew he could not 'free'his older slaves who could no longer work but had to continue to care for them.
Likewise children who had to be cared for.
Slavery was a burden on the slaver owner as well as the slave.
You got a disagreement on what the Founders believed take it up with your vice president, he is the one who stated that the Founders were against slavery as a moral evil, and they had been mistaken in that believe and the confederacy was going to correct that notion.
I will be glad to refresh your memory regarding my earlier posts, and the issue at hand, as many times as you attempt to avoid it and change the subject.
Lincoln's speech was praising Henry Clay. See my #2110 to fortheDeclaration to remind you that it specifically named and referred to Abraham Lincoln, Henry Clay and Thomas Jefferson. The Henry Clay being praised by Abraham Lincoln did not free his slaves. Neither did Jefferson. They objected to slavery "in principle" but never freed their slaves. States which passed laws banning slavery did not free their slaves either. They declared the children of slaves would be free at a certain age or at some date certain. The slaves were not freed -- the owners were given economic impetus to sell their slaves South where they could obtain full value. The Northern slaves were not freed -- the North was ethnically cleansed of its undesired Black presence. When the WBTS broke out there were more free Blacks in the South than in the North. The North did not free slaves, they moved them South and then passed laws and/or amendments to their state constitutions to keep Blacks out.
Now, to return to Lincoln, Henry Clay, and Thomas Jefferson and my #2110.
[fortheDeclaration] Must be nice to continue to live a world of self-delusion
As in a world where folks such as Henry Clay are praised to the heavens for mouthing that they are against slavery "on principle." In practice, he and his ilk kept as many slaves as possible and never let them go. What was important, per Lincoln and his apologists, is that his mentor said he opposed slavery "on principle."
Source: Alexander Stephens, Cornerstone Speech, Savannah; Georgia, March 21, 1861
The Cornerstone Speech was delivered extemporaneously by Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, and no official printed version exists. The text below was taken from a newspaper article in the Savannah Republican, as reprinted in Henry Cleveland, Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, before, during, and since the War, Philadelphia, 1886, pp. 717-729.
[Extract]
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
SOURCE: Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced Into Glory, 215-17.
The first address, a eulogy delivered in the Hall of Representatives in springfield, Illinois, on Tuesday, July 6, 1852, in honor of his mentor, Henry Clay, brought together the two dominant themes of his life, the grandeur of "the white man's" Declaration of Independence and the need to defent it and keep it White and pure by banishing all Blacks -- be deportation, colonization, emigration -- from what he considered a White Eden.Lincoln inherited both ideas from Clay and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom said the words all men et cetera with great eloquence and kept their slaves and never stopped apologizing and asking others to repent before it was too late by sending their slaves -- not the capital derived from thesalves -- "back" to Africa. Lincoln was especially indebted to Clay who, he said, taught him all he knew about slavery. I think the word all is too strong, but that's the word Lincoln used, and he was in a position to know what he was talking about. Did he not tell a crowd of White people at Carlinville, "I can express all my views on the slavery question by quotations from Henry Clay. Doesn't this look like we are akin?" (CW 3:79)
--------
How could a slaveholder lead a movement in favor of the idea that all men are created equal?Lincoln anticipated that question, saying that although Clay owned slaves he "ever was, on principle and in feeling, opposed to slavery" (CW 2:130). The key words here are on principle and in feeling. Everybody knew that Clay was one of the biggest slaveowners in Kentucky and the major architect of the series of compromises that had saved slavery in American, perhaps forever. Lincoln's fellow Illinoisan, H. Ford Douglass, said that Clay "did as much to perpetuate Negro slavery in this country as any other man who has ever lived" (Zilversmit 65). That elementary fact, known to everybody and most especially to Clay's slaves, who slaved and bled and died not in principle but in fact, was unimportant in the Lincoln ledger. What was important, Lincoln said, was that Clay was opposed to slavery "on principle."
[<in Mexican>]
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!
Long and short is that the southern states chose to escalate the issue to armed rebellion by bombarding Sumter.
There was no rebellion.
They chose war, not Lincoln. And if you choose to follow that tired old "Jeff Davis was too stupid to see through Lincoln's plot" excuse then so be it.
Fire, fire, pants on liar.
Squishbob Liarpants rides again.
Still ain't true, Bubba. Only everyone reading this thread knows it, now.
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.