| 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?
What with that short-term memory loss of his and all, and his deletion of everything from his home page, it is unlikely he can remember or find his village. It is unlikely anyone will report him missing.
I will be more than happy to compensate nolu chan the full value his research is worth. Anyone got change for a penny?
What I need to do is quit wasting time reading your bullshit, but it's so darned funny that I can't help myself.
Yes.
I think your problem is that Nolu Chan can refute your anti-southern revisionist dogma, and you don't like it.
Not suprising either....
You mean kind of like how you feel when I blow your anti-Northern nonsense right out of the water? That kind of feeling?
Nolu chan can create huge posts that say absolutely nothing. Buried deep in his garbage is the dirty little secret that all he's doing is expressing an opinion. He proves nothing. Like with his latest nonsense about the Militia Act. So by all means look up to him if you wish. He's like a southron "Seinfeld". A show about nothing.
NS: Yes.
Well, then by the explicit power of a state to control it's assent to ratification (i.e. unilateral assent), IMPLICITLY each state controls the right to depart by the same means - an act of the people of that state in convention.
No, because new states ratified nothing. They assented to nothing. New states were admitted only with the approval of a majority of the people through a vote in the House and Senate. Constitutionally the incoming state doesn't even have a say in the matter. So if they don't control their admission then how can you say that they control their departure?
Without getting into a big, hairy argument that I don't have time for, Justice Story in his opinion made the President the judge of exigencies -- in deciding a case involving invasion.
Story's opinion involved an invasion, so his remarks about a case involving insurrection or domestic violence would be obiter dicta.
Story's assignment of the President's power under the Militia Act of 1795 to judge the facts in an exigency must be modified, in a case involving domestic violence or insurrection, by Article IV, Section 4 (q.v.) when that is the exigency at hand.
In such cases, either the Executive or the Legislature of the affected State(s) must apply to the United States (the clause is not specific as to whether the States must appeal to the President, the Congress, either, or both).
Bottom line: You just can't quote the Militia Act and apply it to the Southern secession of 1861.
Better take another look, amigo. That's your ass I'm handing you.
Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio never had slavery under the American flag. The Northwest Ordinance forbade slavery in these three states. All three states did have Southern sympathizers, mainly in the southern counties, due to the fact that those counties were largely settled by Virginians and Kentuckians.
I prove that Non-Sequitur, the Brigade Minister of Propaganda, is a bozo clown who posts the text of the Militia Act of 1792, even though he knows that it is the wrong Act.
You TWICE posted what you purported to be the text of the Militia Act of 1795 and incorrectly quoted from the Militia Act of 1792. The text that you posted was incorrect. it was wrong. Keep trying until you get it right or somebody might read the crap you post and believe it is the actual text of the act you purport it to be.
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 ]
Wrong. Does the government simply appropriate territory, and grant it statehood, or is their a process of federal law (petition for statehood, enabling acts etc) that is followed?
But you look at this from the standpoint of the 14th state forward. What you should consider is the original 13 states DID assent unilaterally. Numerous US Supreme Court decisions have repeatedly held that new states (the 14th forward) were admitted to the union 'on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatsoever'. Thus, each state controls the right to depart by the same means - an act of the people of that state in convention.
Wrong. The state of Illinois admitted that it practiced slavery, disguised as 'involuntary servitude' up until 1865.
In your dreams.
Fallacy. The original States sure as hell did in 1787. And the new States have first to organize themselves to apply for admission to the Union; that is the first required act, which is theirs, not Congress's or the Union's.
Furthermore, all the States admitted since 1791 have the same status and powers as the original States.
Second Fallacy: exclusive premises (two negative premises) or if you prefer, drawing a positive conclusion from a negative premise, in this quote:
So if they don't control their admission then how can you say that they control their departure?
Which is also an example of affirming the consequent, which is a variety of -- ahem! -- non-sequitur.
Just because the Congress has a say in admitting new States to the Union (it didn't in the case of the original States), doesn't mean that it has a mirroring power to deny egress from the Union.
The powers of the Congress come from the affirmative statements in the Constitution, not from strings of non-sequiturs, causal fallacies, and fallacies of distraction.
The fallacy of distraction consists in this, that you posit that, because the Constitution does not specifically enunciate a State power to secede unilaterally, the power is deemed not to exist, and the State's sovereignty over its participation in the Union to be false. That particular fallacy is called arguing from ignorance. Not general ignorance, but specific ignorance. Notwithstanding that we keep pointing to the highly clueful language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which are dispositive of your claim.
There's more, but that will do for now.
Read my last post and check again, ass-boy.
No I like to deal in theories such as the one that holds that a free people have the right to throw off the shackles of an overreaching government. NS would bow down and lick the hand that feeds him.
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.