| 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?
Well then I'll make this short and sweet. Your question was about the Constitutionality of the Militia Act of 1795. True, the circumstances were an invasion, but the question before the court was whether the President had the authority to call out the Militia at all, or whether Congree alone could do that. The court ruled that the President could call out the Militia under the terms of the Militia Act of 1795, so the act itself was Constitutional.
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).
Not according to Section 2.
Bottom line: You just can't quote the Militia Act and apply it to the Southern secession of 1861.
Certainly can. On the one hand, if the southern actions were a rebellion then Section 2 gives the president that authority. If you are correct, and the confederacy was a sovereign nation, then the militia act allows Lincoln to call up the militia to repel an invasion, i.e. the confederate invasion of Fort Sumter. Either way I win.
In theory it can since according to the Constitution only Congressional approval is necessary to admit a state. In actuality, of course, that doesn't happen. States are admitted with the approval of the people of the territory. But even then their wishes are meaningless. The people of Colorado voted in favor of statehood in 1865 but Congress didn't admit them for another 11 years.
But you look at this from the standpoint of the 14th state forward.
Of course, because the 14th through the 50th were admitted under the provisions of the Constitution. Since all 50 states are in equal equal footing, as the Supreme Court says, then by ratifying the Constitution the 1st through the 13th agreed to abide by those same restrictions.
BWAHAhahahahahahahahahaha! You think the Supreme Court ruled that this generation is bound by FUTURE events?
The court repeatedly stated the the NEW (14+) states were on an equal footing with the original (unilaterally admission) states.
Wrong. Section 2 simply says POTUS is CINCUS and Militia commander, when the Militia is called to federal service.
It doesn't say he can call out the Militia at his discretion.
You are really something....
First of all, oh Mouthpiece of Abe:
The only anti-northern info I give out is backed up by my credentials. In other words, a degree from an established, well recognized University.
And I don't recall you ever "blowing me out of the water"
His long tomes are no worse than yours by any means, and a lot more factual.
There was no rebellion, but Section 2 doesn't give POTUS that power even in cases of genuine rebellions (like Shay's).
If you are correct, and the confederacy was a sovereign nation, then the militia act allows Lincoln to call up the militia to repel an invasion, i.e. the confederate invasion of Fort Sumter. Either way I win.
The Confederates didn't invade Fort Sumter. They just concussed it until the C.O. came to his senses and realized that he was on someone else's property.
Canada's exercising eminent domain over a jointly-operated air force base or an American-owned oil company and its leases does not constitute an "invasion" of the United States. They can even decide not to recognize the U.S. Government any more, and close our embassy there. Not a damn thing we can do about it.
Try reading the Constitution some time. It's a short little document, all things considered, and shouldn't tax you too much. Of if it does then just read Article IV. Constitutionally only Congress matters. Now it's true that from a practical standpoint Congress does act with the approval of the people of the territory to be made a state, but even then Congress acts when Congress wants to. The people of Colorado voted statehood in 1865 but had to wait until 1876 before Congress approved it.
Furthermore, all the States admitted since 1791 have the same status and powers as the original States.
No, the original 13 agreed to abide by the same Constitution which all states since 1791 have been admitted under.
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.
Congress has the only say. And once admitted, the state cannot change their status or their borders in any way without Congressional approval. By implication this should include leaving as well.
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.
Nor do they come from you. Something is not constitutional or unconstitutional just because you say it is.
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.
No, the fallacy of distraction consists of your claim that the Constitution can require Congressional approval in every matter affecting the status of a state, except one. Or that the Constitution can require Congressional approval in actions a state takes that have a negative impact on the interests of other states, except one. That is what makes absolutely no sense here.
Notwithstanding that we keep pointing to the highly clueful language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which are dispositive of your claim.
And you keep ignoring the fact that the 10th Amendment makes it clear that there are powers, implicit and explicit, that are reserved to the United States and that there are powers, implicit and explicit, that are denied the states.
There's more, but that will do for now
Oh goody.
Check your FReepmail.
If that were true then states would not need the approval of Congress before being admitted, since the original 13 did not. They would just vote to ratify the Constitution, send their delegates to Congress, and carry on from there. But that is not what happens, is it? Congressional approval is needed for admission. The Constitution requires it. And when the original 13 states ratified the Constitution they agreed to abide by it's restrictions. And that includes Congressional approval for changes in their status, either by combining with another state or changing their borders by a fraction of an inch or, by implication, leaving altogether. In that all 50 states ARE on an equal footing.
Beats hell out of being a non-sequitur.
Yes, but if they were only backed up by facts....
Well, about two thirds of the people anyway.
...have the right to throw off the shackles of an overreaching government.
Ah well, it is their God given right to try. Where you seem to have a problem is that the south tried and got it's ass kicked in the process. Southron cry-baby at it's worst.
You want to quote your Section 2? I think we're looking at different documents.
Sure there was, the southern rebellion. Started in April 1861 and was finally suppressed in the summer of 1865.
The Confederates didn't invade Fort Sumter. They just concussed it until the C.O. came to his senses and realized that he was on someone else's property.
Sure. And the Japanese didn't invade the Philppines. They just concussed it until we came to our senses.
Sumter wasn't anyone's property except the United States. If the confederacy was an independent country, as you claim, then their actions were an assault on U.S. territory.
Canada's exercising eminent domain over a jointly-operated air force base or an American-owned oil company and its leases does not constitute an "invasion" of the United States.
Read that pesky Constitution again. Sumter wasn't 'jointly owned', it was the property free and clear of the U.S. government. Only Congress could exercise authority over it.
Which is a far better than being a lentulusgracchus, whatever the hell that is. IMHO, of course.
It's really quite simple. One set of states entered unilaterally. Another group via acceptance by their soon-to-be peers. Once admitted, ALL the states possessed the rights of the ORIGINAL states - the Constitution does not divest the original of any powers, in fact the original members ensured that the federal agreement could not deprive them of said powers.
The US Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, '[u]pon the admission of a state it becomes entitled to and possesses all the rights of dominion and sovereignty which belonged to the original states', not vice versa.
Notice how his level of discourse seems to decline as the level of foam around his mouth increases. Somebody ought to do a scientific study on it.
So then why couldn't all states be admitted unilaterally since ALL states posessed the rights of the ORIGINAL states? They didn't need Congressional approval, did they?
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.