| 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?
Here we go again. My dictionary defines 'perpetual' as continuing forever or valid for all time. The obvious meaning being that the union was permanent and unalterable. So from my understanding of the Articles, the states did NOT have the right to leave unilaterally. And if they didn't have that right before then I don't see where they had that right when the ratified the Constitution. One of the advantages to the Constitution was that withdrawl from the Union was possible, so long as it was done with the approval of the other states.
If it was permanent and unalterable, then 9 members could have NEVER formed a new union.
Leaving the Constitution out of it, because it wasn't one state dissolving it, the question was could a state under the Articles of Confederation unilaterally withdraw from the Union. And the answer clearly is that they could not. So if they did not have that right under the Articles then how can you say that they brought that right with them into the Constitution.
Rhode Island & Providence Planatations never sent a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. By your reasoning, our Constitution is illegal.
You're ignoring the question.
Nope. You assert that UNANIMOUS consent was required for changes. RI&PP did not attend, or particiapte in any way. Yet a new confederation was formed without them. Obviously, it didn't require unanimous consent to leave, only for changes.
Now you're all over the place. I'm asking how a state could take the right to secede unilaterally into the Constitution when they did not have that same right under the Articles of Confederation.
Nope. It didn't require unanimous consent to leave, only for changes to the AoC. They DID secede unilaterally fron the Articles. Or are you arguing they are still members of such?
Sorry, leaving wasn't an option according to the Articles. And the states didn't 'secede unilatrally'. The Congress approved a convention to propose changes to the Articles, and out of that came the Constitution.
Are the states still under the Articles? How can 12 members of the AoC modify the AoC without the required 13th member?
The study might uncover the missing link :)
Article 13. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
Next, tell me how the Constitution that replaced the Articles of Confederation was adopted. I'll give you a hint:
Article. VII. The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
In other words, the "perpetual union" that was purportedly so "perpetual" it required every single state to approve any changes to it wasn't so perpetual after all as it took only 9 states to replace the entire system.
Cause unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about its own perpetual nature (which in the Articles' case turned out to be not so perpetual after all)
They are facts .....from credible history sources, you just don't happen to agree if the sources don't worship your God, Abe.
I believe that Secession is an implied power reserved to the STATES.
First of all, let me say that I know slavery is wrong. I don't want to be misunderstood about that, but I am from the south, (Tennessee), and history and the media has grossly exaggerated the treatment of slaves by the southern plantation owners. No one should be able to own another human being but at that time, it was a way of life. History has changed the truth of the pre civil war south and the truth will never be told.
True and the north has kept the southern states poor ever since, but with this last election, the south is going to rise again!
The war was fought to stop the sucession of the southern states and forming their own country. Thats a fact.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. It says no such thing.
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.