| 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?
WHITE v. CANNON, 73 U.S. 443 (1867) [re: Louisiana]
"The ordinance of secession passed by the State of Louisiana, on the 26th of January, 1861, was a nullity, and did not affect the previous jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of that State, or its relation to the appellate power of the Supreme Court of the United States.""The objection that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana is to be treated as void, because rendered some days after the passage of the ordinance of secession of that State, is not tenable. That ordinance was an absolute nullity, and of itself alone, neither affected the jurisdiction of that court or its relation to the appellate power of this court."
WHITE v. HART, 80 U.S. 646 (1871) [re: Georgia]
"At no time during the rebellion were the rebellious States out of the pale of the Union. Their constitutional duties and obligations remained unaffected by the rebellion. They could not then pass a law impairing the obligation of a contract more than before the rebellion, or now, since."
Makes you wonder who was paying him to file state-by-state secession claims even after the Supreme Court ruled against him
President Andrew Johnson, on June 17, 1865 appointed Andrew J. Hamilton as Provisional Governor of the State of Texas.
Mr. Hamilton appointed George W. Paschal, the financial agent of the state, to represent the state as counsel.
Mr. E.M. Pease, a subsequent governor appointed by General Sheridan, renewed the appointment of George W. Paschal as counsel.
The Federal appointee of the Military Government of Texas (provisional Governor Andrew J. Hamilton) appointed George W. Paschal, the financial agent of said Military Government of Texas, to represent said Military Government. And thus it came to pass that the attorney purportedly representing the State of Texas argued that said State had never left the Union.
When the case was over, all the bonds in question were turned over to the Texas representative. That would be George W. Paschal. Mr. Paschal then claimed the full value of the bonds, $47,325 plus another $17,577 for his legal fees.
Governor E.J. Davis refused Paschal's claim and then dismissed him as financial agent for the state.
Mr. Paschal sued and won. He not only got to keep the bonds, but also the added 17 thousand.
And so it came to pass that Texas would have saved 17 thousand bucks plus the cost of litigation to just pay White & Chiles. (And that only considers one attorney in one phase of the litigation.)
In "winning" this lawsuit, it is a bit difficult to see how the State of Texas benefitted. But it would appear that neither the State of Texas, nor the people of the State of Texas, were the intended beneficiaries.
Moreover, it did allow the Federal Military Governor the opportunity to go to Federal Court and obtain a Federal decision saying Texas never ceased to be a state.
And so it came to pass that when the State of Texas sued White & Chiles, the beneficiary was the Federal Government in Washington. George W. Paschal didn't do too bad either.
Mr. Grier, in dissent, capably analyzed the legal insanity perpetrated by the majority.
It is a matter of utter insignificance to the government of the United States to whom she makes the payment of these bonds. They are payable to the bearer.The government is not bound to inquire into the bona fides of the holder, nor whether the State of Texas has parted with the bonds wisely or foolishly.
And although by the Reconstruction Acts she is required to repudiate all debts contracted for the purposes of the rebellion, this does not annul all acts of the State government during the rebellion, or contracts for other purposes, nor authorize the State to repudiate them.
Now, whether we assume the State of Texas to be judicially in the Union (though actually out of it) or not, it will not alter the case.
The contest now is between the State of Texas and her own citizens. She seeks to annul a contract with the respondents, based on the allegation that there was no authority in Texas competent to enter into an agreement during the rebellion.
Having relied upon one fiction, namely, that she is a State in the Union, she now relies upon a second one, which she wishes this court to adopt, that she was not a State at all during the five years that she was in rebellion. She now sets up the plea of insanity, and asks the court to treat all her acts made during the disease as void.
For any American, to view cold blooded killers of American Presidents as 'hero's, seriously calls in to question their true allegiance.
It's also ironic some in the diminutive neo-confederate movement (smoke screen for frenzied, bigoted segregationists) claim to be members of the GOP, while they consentingly make feeble, preposterous attempts to slander President Lincoln, the first ever elected Republican candidate in United States history.
The over whelming population of conservative GOP voters are either completely unaware of the neo-confederates existence, or simply ignore them as a bunch of self indoctrinated hotheads ranting about a frivolous lost cause.
The number one issue among normal Republicans seeking federal, state or local office in this last election was focused on our threatened national security from hordes of Muslim jihadist killers & their fellow travellers on the extreme Left. After reviewing comments from neo-confederates, their exclusive issue is to endeavour remaining self locked behind the door of fanatical Jim Crowism.
As stated previously, anyone vaguely familiar with the those in question treats them as a bad joke at best, to either be completely ignored, or repudiated each time their message of hate surfaces, since their lingering existence has nothing to do with the principles on which the Republican Party was founded and adheres to today.
Negligible one issue hate groups made up of hysterical ranters are eventual relegated to the back water of those most historically despicable, so shall it be with those in question.
Unfortunately in today's computerized world even repulsive scmendricks with borscht for brains can publicly proclaim their propensity for the absurd.
Three cheers to Madison! : )
Which is it -- Chase's mellifluous voice, or the lying?
Yeah, well, Chase spilled the beans in nolu chan's post anterior to yours. State sovereignty didn't "die" at Appomattox, Lincoln killed it -- because it was inconvenient.
Which, btw, is whistling past the graveyard on your and Chase's part. Those old wrongs can always be dug up and brought back to your doorstep. That's what Justice Rehnquist has been working on.
"Consent of all the parties" is total buncombe and you know it, too. Texas doesn't need "consent of all the parties" to ratify an amendment to the Constitution or send electors for President to the District of Columbia, and Texas didn't need "consent of all the parties" to leave the Union. Mr. Justice Chase, a guilty party himself to Lincoln's unconstitutional belligerence, lied in his teeth.
Sure there was. Lincoln was alive and well and coming to get them -- and he did.
And they could read his speeches and the Republican platform as well as anyone else.
After the first seven states purported to secede, and began a war through their aggressions and provocations, the rules of war, rather than the rules of peace, became the operative process in the war zone.
Bull. Lincoln came to office intending to levy war, and once in office he levied war. Your circumlocutions, squid ink, and bafflegab cannot shroud those basic facts in mystery for anyone above the age of ten. The South analyzed the North's sectional fury against them and they acted accordingly, and appropriately (for the most part).
You can not claim oppression by a country and a people who view you as faithless, thieves, and traitors.
Your vitriol betrays itself, and opens your fallacy and the cause it serves to inspection. Arguing your analogy, German Jews could not "claim oppression by a country and a people who view[ed] [them] as faithless, thieves, and traitors". Your argument, if you can call it that, is a form of begging the question: A hates B, and therefore, B has no right to complain about A's hatred [because it's assumed to be valid].
Retract that statement right now.
Cite and post any statement in which I called John Wilkes Booth a "hero". For that matter, cite and quote any statement made by any of your interlocutors to that effect.
If you can't, take that post down. It is cheap, slimy character assassination.
Cite and quote anyone on this board defending Jim Crow, slimer.
That's another one for you to take down.
It would be interesting to find the comments Lincoln made between his nomination and his inauguration that would even equate to the threat of oppression.
"Lincoln came to office intending to levy war, and once in office he levied war."
Your proof? It seems to me a state of armed insurrection already existed by the time he took office.
"The South analyzed the North's sectional fury against them and they acted accordingly, and appropriately (for the most part)."
If asking for a war they could neither afford or win, is acting "accordingly" and "appropriately," then I agree with you.
"Arguing your analogy, German Jews could not "claim oppression by a country and a people who view[ed] [them] as faithless, thieves, and traitors". Your argument, if you can call it that, is a form of begging the question: A hates B, and therefore, B has no right to complain about A's hatred [because it's assumed to be valid]."
Nice try, but a bad analogy. The leadership of the South were faithless in their disloyalty to the Union and the Constitution; they purported to secede, leaving debts in excess of $200 million; and they made war against their fellow countrymen.
The states retained the same degree of sovereignty they rightfully had prior to the war.
"Which, btw, is whistling past the graveyard on your and Chase's part. Those old wrongs can always be dug up and brought back to your doorstep. That's what Justice Rehnquist has been working on."
That must be some good weed you've got there.
"Texas doesn't need "consent of all the parties" to ratify an amendment to the Constitution or send electors for President to the District of Columbia, and Texas didn't need "consent of all the parties" to leave the Union."
Texas's ability to ratify an amendment or send electors were guaranteed within the text of the Constitution. Texas is also bound by an amendments ratified by the requisite super-majority of the states, despite any objections they might have. There is no evidence that the Founders or the Framers ever intended the Union to be anything but permanent. There were no exit clauses. There was no discussion of an ephemeral Union, in which the member states could come and go.
It doesn't matter who wrote the decision. It is the precedent at this time.
Madison very clearly differentiated "secession at will" (unilateral secession in modern terminology), from "secession from intolerable oppression ... another only for revolution."
Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Chase, and many others recognized the ultimate natural right of revolution. If revolution was what the South intended, there is no need to make the pretense of phony secession theories. If it was revolution, then it was not legal, and it was morally contestable.
Was your name mentioned in the comment you quote?
Very peculiar.
Original source?
2 t's in "attributed"
[lg #510 to M. Espinola] Cite and quote anyone on this board defending Jim Crow, slimer.
[M. Espinola #515 to lg] Beyond bewildering. Why are you addressing me? Was your name mentioned in the comment you quote? Very peculiar.
It was only nameless, non-specific theoretical posters whose comments were reviewed and found to have as their exclusive issue to endeavour to remain locked behind the door of fanatical Jim Crowism.
Very peculiar.
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.