| 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?
Preventing any American from their right to vote in any election is a federal crime, but what do you care.
Fish, meet bait ;o)
Then I'm happy to know that you condemn the 14th Amendment as illegal due to it's revocation of Confederate voting rights.
Supremacist advocating despots must be weeded out from of the ranks of Republican Party once and for all.
Yep. It's been real, but don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Nope - Paleo-confederates simply want the federal leviathan ended, and the Constitutional republic restored.
No. If YOU make an unsupported claim, it's up to you to provide documentation. In this case I've seen the secondhand evidence, what I want is primary evidence that the states considered secession treason, and the secondhand account of one federal representative is not overwhelming proof of your position.
If you wish to continue your position that a single, unsubstantiated account validates your position, then I readily adopt it to prove that secession was legal.
No. Secondly, Lee's letter documented that the fortunes of the Federalist Party were already oon the wane - I listed several reasons previously.
Below is from the Haynes-Webster debate
As soon as the public mind was sufficiently prepared for the measure, the celebrated Hartford Convention was got up; not as the act of a few unauthorized individuals, but by authority of the legislature of Massachusetts; and, as has been shown by the able historian of that convention, in accordancewith the views and wishes of the party of which it was the organ. Now sir, I do not desire to call in question the motives of the gentlemen who composed that assembly. I knew many of them to be in private life accomplished and honorable men, and I doubt not there were some among them who did not perceive the dangerous tendency of their proceedings I will even go further, and say, that if the authors of the Hartford Convention believed that "gross, deliberate, and palpable violations of the constitution" had taken place, utterly destructive of their rights and interests, I should be the last man to deny their right to resort to any constitutional measures for redress. But, sir, in any view of the case, the time when and the circumstances under which that convention assembled as well as the measures recommended, render their conduct, in my opinion, wholly indefensible. Let us contemplate, for a moment, the spectacle then exhibited tothe view of the world. I will not go over the disasters of the war, nor describe the difficulties in which the government was involved. It will be recollected that its credit was nearly gone, Washington had fallen, the whole coast was blockaded, and an immense force, collected in the West Indies, was about to make a descent, which it was supposed we had no means of resisting. In this awful state of our public affairs, when the government seemed almost to be tottering on its base, when Great Britain, relieved from all her other enemies, had proclaimed her purpose of "reducing us to unconditional submission,'' we beheld the peace party of New England (in the language of the work before us) pursuing a course calculated to do more injury to their country, and to render England more effective service than all her armies." Those who could not find it in their hearts to rejoice at our victories sang Te Deum at the King's Chapel in Boston, for the restoration of the Bourbons. Those who could not consent to illuminate their dwellings for the capture of the Guerriere could give no visible tokens of their joy at the fall of Detroit. The "beacon fires" of their hills were lighted up, not for the encouragement of their friends, but as signals to the enemy; and in the gloomy hours of midnight, the very lights burned blue. Such were the dark and portentous signs of the times, which ushered into being the renowned Hartford Convention. That convention met, and, from their proceedings, it appears that their chief object was to keep back the men and money of New England from the service of the Union, and to effect radical changes in the government -- changes that can never be effected without a dissolution of the Union.
It is unnecessary to trace the matter further, or to or what would have been the next chapter in this history, if the measures recommended had been carried into effect; and if, with the men and money of New England withheld from the government of the United States, she had been withdrawn from the war; if New Orleans had fallen into the hands of the enemy; and if, without troops and almost destitute of money, the Southern and the Western States had been thrown upon their own resources for the prosecution of the war and the recovery of New Orleans.
Sir, whatever may have been the issue of the contest, the Union must have been dissolved. But a wise and just Providence, which "shapes our ends, roughhew them as we will," gave us the victory, and crowned our efforts with a glorious peace. The ambassadors of Hartford were seen retracing their steps fromWashington, "the bearers of the glad tiding; of great joy." Courage and patriotism triumphed -- the country was saved -- the Union was preserved. And are we, Mr. President, who stood by our country then, who threw open our coffers, who bared our bosoms, who freely perilled all in that conflict, to be reproached with want of attachment to the Union? If, sir, we are to have lessons of patriotism read to us, they must come from a different quarter. http://www.constitution.org/hwdebate/hayne2c.htm
As noted in the article.
Haynes refers to it in his debate as such.
It is very hard to remain a viable national Party when you are considered a bunch of traitors.
We are not discussing murder, we are discussing political issues.
War places a context on actions.
In fact, killing in war is not murder because of its context.
The issue is context
'... if the authors of the Hartford Convention believed that "gross, deliberate, and palpable violations of the constitution" had taken place, utterly destructive of their rights and interests, I should be the last man to deny their right to resort to any constitutional measures for redress. But, sir, in any view of the case, the time when and the circumstances under which that convention assembled as well as the measures recommended, render their conduct, in my opinion, wholly indefensible. ... '... The point in contention is that members of the union, during war, resort to a convention. Not that secession is illegal itself.
Secondly, the speech you cite is from 1830. Why not cite what was said during that time itself:
The papers teemed with accusations against the south and the west, and the calls for a dissolution of all connection with them were loud and strong."If you do not wish," said a reverend clergyman, in a sermon preached in Boston, on the 23d July, 1812, "to become the slaves of those who own slaves, and who are themselves the slaves of French slaves, you must either, in the language of the day, CUT THE CONNECTION, or so far alter the national compact as to insure to yourselves a due share in the government," (OliveBranch p 319.) "The Union," says the same writer, (p. 320,) "has been long since virtually dissolved, and it is full time that this part of the disunited states should take care of itself."
I agree, but the slaughter of unarmed civilians by military force is - a policy adopted by the union forces. Per Lincoln's Lieber Code, the attempted assassination of President Jefferson Davis and cabinet was illegal, yet such was attempted. Such measures were appaluded, but these same sanctimonious, hypocritcal yankees then decry retaliatory measures, which were legal per Lincoln's own Military Code*.
[*Note: Admin Moderator - no one is advocating assasssination, this is a recitation of historical fact - I do not sanction the assassination/murder of a President, the Pope, public officials, unarmed civilians or anyone else*]
free dixie,sw
[GOPcap] Why am I not surprised at your inability to grasp the fundamental concepts of logical argumentation?
Before one moves on to the mechanics of logical construction, they must first apply the core symmetrics of ethical reasoning to their logic.
Fairness is one such ethical principle that even a child understands, but one you Lincoln-hating cultists have selectively chosen to ignore.
Questioning the fundamental ethical underpinnings of your argument is not Tu quoque. Your squawking otherwise is lipstick on a pig.
i told you that they will be PLEASED to enlighten you on that subject.
the TRUTH is you do NOT want to KNOW the TRUTH, as it makes damnyankeeland look like KLAN-land!
free dixie,sw
TRULY i did NOT know that you were that big a FOOL and/or a LIAR.
are you STUPID, a LIAR or are you BOTH????
the sound you hear is not thunder, but rather the SMART FReepers, of all sorts/opinions, RIDICULING your IGNORANT & FALSE post.
free dixie,sw
SADLY, my business requires that i travel "up there" frequently.
frankly, i know more than i really want to know about RACIST/ANTISEMETIC/HATEFILLED/IGNORANT damnyankees.
free dixie,sw
Margaritas ante porcos.
LOL. Normally, you would consider anything those organizations claim to be an utter lie. However, when they make a claim you like, you eagerly accept their claims as gospel. Those groups call your beloved League of the South a hate group. Do you agree with that conclusion, too?
Please. Do you really believe that what the NAACP considers "segregation" actually meets the legal definition?
What groups such as the NAACP call "de facto segregation" is not illegal. Following their rationale, my family reunion is "de facto segregated" since everyone there is white. The high school I graduated from in Michigan was about 95% white. Is that an example of unlawful segregation?
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.