| 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?
Sounds okay to me.
Yeah, it would. Well, here's your Nixonian education.
We're going to run out another one just like it -- and then apply it to your State, and more specifically to your property because your politics is all wrong and we don't like you.
You'll lump it, of course, out of tender deference to what the omnipotent federal government is entitled to do out of iits illimitable raison d'etat, as is so clearly shown in the title of the original Act.
Assuming it was actually constitutional. This was the same Congress, IIRC, that wrote the Alien and Sedition Acts.
No, it doesn't, but I thought you addressed it to me anyway.
You need to lay off that stuff -- and the apology is still called-for.
The CORRECT text of Section 2 of the Militia Act of 1795 is this, not the crap you posted:
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed in any State, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress.
Non-Squirter brain-dead post #620
To: nolu chanYou forgot Section 2:
"And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
620 posted on 01/10/2005 4:36:02 AM CST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Non-Squirter brain-dead post #638
To: nolu chanAnd it continues:
"And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
Then, of course, there is also Section 3:
"That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time
638 posted on 01/10/2005 6:04:43 AM CST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You know my opinion of "justice" Chase and his so-called ruling.......:) Good for toilet paper :)
The Constitution forbids it to the United States, however. Article I, Section 9.
It was not a decision by any court.
Yeeeeee-haaaaaaa!
Ahem. Not that it's all that significant or anything.....
Let me guess: You are applying for the position.
So your theory is that the party, by possessing explicit right of admission, implicitly controls the right of departure?
The Militia Act of 1795 was held to be Constitutional in an 1827 case Martin v Mott .
Of course it could. The Scandinavian kingdoms merged and split up numerous times. Denmark gave up Greenland -- an island many times its own size -- and survived, just as it had survived the sundering of the personal union in King Canute the Mighty of England and Denmark.
England survived the loss of Aquitaine and Normandy -- and later the loss of America. Portugal's independence didn't break Spain, or her empire. Poland was partitioned numerous times -- and guess what! It's still there, with Maria Theresa and King Frederick centuries in their graves -- and the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, too, for that matter -- all dead and gone to hell with von Ribbentrop and Molotov, but Poland is still there, and smiled upon by a Polish pope to boot.
You really ought to read a book before attempting some of these generalizations.
No, merely pointing out that nolu chan is neglecting his duties.
Substitute Iceland for Greenland.
Icelanders still hate "the bloody Danes", but Denmark is still there. So's Iceland. Point.
How does Article I, Section 9 forbid it? (I already know your answer but, hey, this is going to be fun)
Unless the sovereign people of the United States of America make a treaty with an Indian nation.
U.S. Supreme Court
LONE WOLF v. HITCHCOCK
187 U.S. 553 (1903)
LONE WOLF, Principal Chief of the Kiowas, et al., Appts., v. ETHAN A. HITCHCOCK, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
No. 275.
Argued October 23, 1902.
Decided January 5, 1903.
The power exists to abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty, though presumably such power will be exercised only when circumstances arise which will not only justify the government in disregarding the stipulations of the treaty, but may demand, in the interest of the country and the Indians themselves, that it should do so. When, therefore, treaties were entered into between the United States and a tribe of Indians it was never doubted that the power to abrogate existed in Congress, and that in a contingency such power might be availed of from considerations of governmental policy, particularly if consistent with perfect good faith towards the Indians.
|LINK|
Aug. 21, 1847. | 9 Stat., 908. | Proclamation Apr. 7, 1848.
Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. II (Treaties).
Compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler.
Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904.
ARTICLE 1.
It is agreed that the peace and friendship which exists between the United States and the Indians, parties to this treaty, shall be perpetual.
|LINK|
July 18, 1815. | 7 Stat., 123. | Ratified, Dec. 26, 1815.
Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. II (Treaties).
Compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler.
Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904.
ART. 2.
There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between all the citizens of the United States of America, and all the individuals composing the said Poutawatamie tribe or nation.
|LINK|
Preamble of the Canandaigua Treaty
A Treaty Between the United States of America and the Tribes of Indians Called the Six Nations:
The President of the United States having determined to hold a conference with the Six Nations of Indians for the purpose of removing from their minds all causes of complaint, and establishing a firm and permanent friendship with them; and Timothy Pickering being appointed sole agent for that purpose; and the agent having met and conferred with the sachems and warriors of the Six Nations in general council: Now, in order to accomplish the good design of this conference, the parties have agreed on the following articles, which, when ratified by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, shall be binding on them and the Six Nations....
ARTICLE 1. Peace and friendship are hereby firmly established, and shall be perpetual, between the United States and the Six Nations.
|LINK|
Aug. 7, 1790 | 7 Stat., 35. | Proclamation, Aug. 13, 1790.
Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. II (Treaties)
Compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler
Washington : Government Printing Office, 1904
ARTICLE I.
There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between all the citizens of the United States of America, and all the individuals, towns and tribes of the Upper, Middle and Lower Creeks and Semanolies composing the Creek nation of Indians.
|LINK|
7 Stat. 414, February 14, 1833, Proclaimed April 12, 1834.
Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded at Fort Gibson, on the Arkansas river on the fourteenth day of February one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three, by and between Montfort Stokes, Henry L. Ellsworth and John Y. Schermerhorn duly appointed Commissioners on the part of the United States and the undersigned Chiefs and Head-men of the Cherokee nation of Indians west of the Mississippi, they being duly authorized and empowered by their nation.
ARTICLE 1. The United States agree to possess the Cherokees, and to guarantee it to them forever, and that guarantee, is hereby pledged, of seven millions of acres of land, to be bounded as follows viz: Beginning at a point on the old western territorial line of Arkansas Territory, being twenty-five miles north from the point, where the Territorial line crosses Arkansas river, thence running from said north point, south, on the said Territorial line, to the place where said Territorial line crosses the Verdigris river, thence down said Verdigris river, to the Arkansas river, thence down said Arkansas to a point, where a stone is placed opposite to the east or lower bank of Grand river at its junction with the Arkansas, thence running south, forty-four degrees west, one mile thence in a straight line to a point four miles northerly from the month of the north fork of the Canadian, thence along the said four miles line to the Canadian, thence down the Canadian to the Arkansas, thence, down the Arkansas, to that point on the Arkansas, where the eastern Choctaw boundary strikes, said river; and running thence with the western line of Arkansas Territory as now defined, to the southwest corner of Missouri, thence along the western Missouri line, to the land assigned the Senecas; thence, on the south line of the Senecas to Grand river; thence, up said Grand river, as far as the south line of the Osage reservation, extended if necessary, thence up and between said south Osage line, extended west if necessary and a line drawn due west, from the point of beginning, to a certain distance west, at which, a line running north and south, from said Osage line, to said due west line, will make seven millions of acres within the whole described boundaries. In addition to the seven millions of acres of land, thus provided for, and bounded, the United States, further guarantee to the Cherokee nation, a perpetual outlet west and a free and unmolested use of all the country lying west, of the western boundary of said seven millions of acres, as far west as the sovereignty of the United States and their right of soil extend; Provided however, that if the saline, or salt plain, on the great western prairie, shall fall within said limits prescribed for said outlet, the right is reserved to the United States to permit other tribes of red men, to get salt on said plain in common with the Cherokees, and letters patent shall be issued by the United States as soon as practicable for the land hereby guaranteed.
Bump. I'll take 'Compensation for War Damages caused by the American Tryrant Lincoln Illegally Instigating A War Against The Constitututional Right of Self-government' for 45,000,000 Alex.
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.