| 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?
Mmmmmm NO. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise in ex parte Milligan 9-0. Only if the Confederacy was a foreign nation - an independent sovereign, would all those constitutional rights be inapplicable.
Duck and weave all you want. Under the Articles of Confederation the individual states did not have the right to leave, unilaterally or otherwise. So how can you say that they had that right going into the Constitution?
Sure they are.
Yes, the people can unmake it. ALL the people. Not just the ones in the southern states.
Or do you have someone else in mind as sovereign of the United States? Non-Sequitur rolled over, he couldn't name anybody.
I suggested HRH King Lentulusgracchus the First. Surely you couldn't be any worse than Queen Liz or Prince Chuck over there in Britain.
Duck and weave?????? ROTFLMC*O!!!!!! Learn to read - I've said they had the right to LEAVE all along, but while they choose to remain in that union, any changes to that agreement had to be agreed on by ALL 13 members.
History PROVES my position - there is no final meeting of the 13 members agreeing to disband - they simply left. Now either you beleive that the states seceded, or you must believe that the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union are still in force - which is it?
Well, the approval for a convention to consider all matters necessary to improve the federal government was agreed to by Congress in February 1787 so that complied with the Articles. As to the discussions over the process that replaced the Articles with the Constitution, I'll be the first to admit that I need to do some more reading up on that. You might want to do the same since you seem to be guessing here as well.
You've missed the topic of discussion by a wide margin, GOP. 4CJ maintains that the ability to secede was a right that the states had prior to ratifying the Constitution. I'm questioning the validity of that claim because the states did not have that right under the Articles. Try and keep up.
Which is it? I think that it's you have no more idea on the process that led to the transition from Articles to Constitution than I am. I'm going to have to do some more reading on it. You might want to do the same.
Did someone do something to the 10th Amendment while I was away?
Implication is a Hamiltonian gimmick that says, I'm going to do everything I want to that you can't prove is prohibited by the Constitution. It is the opposite of the true spirit of the Constitution, which is that of strict construction. Jay and Marshall's discoveries of "implied powers" were exercises in legal positivism, which is juridical fraud.
Implied powers is a concept recognized by every court and every president from Washington to the current Bush.
There is no federal power to prevent a State so determined to secede from the Union.
There is no Constitutional provision allowing a state to secede unilaterally.
"I win" isn't an argument.
"I disagree" is no arguement, either.
The first duty of the Court is to get it right, not to Get It Right for Our Side. But the latter is what Marshall and Jay were doing, and Chase after them.
Just because you, the wise and wonderous lentulusgracchus, disagree doesn't mean that they got it wrong.
If it isn't on paper, you don't get the power.
By implication they do.
I certainly don't think we're under the AoC today.
No we are not. The question is the why's and wherefore's. It's a good day for a trip to Border's to see what they have on the subject of the Constitutional convention.
I would certainly agree.
Maybe, but I have heard sucession is legal. I don't know, I haven't checked. I don't like how the northeastern liberals have tried to change history and make the war all about slavery.
The bible devotes a whole chapter to marrying outside of ones culture. God said don't do it. As a matter of fact, He ordered the families split up where a man had married outside of his race or in that case it was culture. People have twisted the facts where they have placed too much emphasis on the physical differences. It was the cultural differences God was concerned with. When He ordered the families split up, He also ordered the men to provide the estranged wife and children with a home and their needs. But you are right, it was to preserve the purity of the culture. Its just like an Irish Catholic marrying an English Protestant. Same color, just different cultures. One would give up their culture to accomadate the other. That is what was behind God not wanting what He called mixed marriages. He knew people would be better off if the children learned about their true heritage but now cultures are so mixed, the ways of your people don't mean anything and I think sadly the knowledge of the kind of culture and people you came from is lost. It has nothing to do with one race being superior to another. The idea that races shouldn't mix because of physical differences or one race being superior to another is just a myth that man created and the real reason has been totally obscured and the way society thinks now, God would be a racist. I do think God made people different colors to make humanity diverse and to beautify His world and to make it easy for people to see the differences. But I think, too, that God was mostly concerned with the Jews remaining pure because whether people like it or not, they are God's chosen people. I think thats why they are so hated by the left.
Thanks for the reinforcement. I needed it. People just don't know or don't want to know the truth about the Civil war. My son is a Civil War buff. He has done alot of research and people have it so wrong.
There's your bass-ackwards Hamiltonian reasoning again.
"Where in the Constitution does it explicitly say I can't screw you?"
"No, no, no -- I'm screwing you with a Coke bottle, not with a regular corkscrew -- so I'm perfectly legit!"
"Where in the Constitution does it explicitly say I can't be President-for-Life?! The situation certainly calls for it -- and I detect the penumbra of an Implied Power! Yes, yes! It's all implied!!"
Lincoln's blockade was a preference. He ordered the Navy to divert ships and cargoes from the ports of one State to those of another, just like it says in the article.
Jewish rabbis today are very concerned about "marrying out" and are starting to discourage it more. Then there's the story of Phineas, who when a "mixed" couple (a Jew married to a gentile) appeared before him, killed them both -- from which charming episode the modern "Phineas priest" assassins take their names.
Then there's the story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. He married her, didn't he?
The phenomenon of "black Jews" goes back at least to the New Testament: remember how Philip encountered the man on the road who was coming down from Jerusalem, returning to his home in Ethiopia? The man was a treasury official appointed by Queen Kandaka (in the Greek spelling -- we recognize the name in its Latinized form, "Candace": bet Candy Bergen doesn't know she's named for a 2000-year-old Queen of Ethiopia). He was an Ethiopian Jew. They still have Ethiopian Jews. How'd that happen?
For the south slavery WAS a big part.
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.