| 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?
John Brown was a martyr to the North - instead of condemning his murders, he was exalted.
Allegedly the Confederate states were in rebellion. Strange that the federal congress, the body charged with declaring war and calling forth the militia, failed to consider the actions of the South as rebellion, and adjourned.
We're told over and over that the South was in rebellion, but I never hear anyone mention that the governors of Connecticut, Rhode Island & Providence Plantations, and Massachusetts refused to provide militia during the War of 1812.
ONLY when the law is PURSUANT to a delegated power of the federal govenment within it's sphere of authority.
A prohibition that congress could easily remove, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions.
Meaning the federal government had YEARS in which to try Davis for treason before adoption.
As a MEMBER of the administation that waged war on the Confederate States, Chase should have been the LAST person to rule on the legality of his own administrations actions.
I see he's afraid to admit that he thinks its Saint Abe, or "Father Abraham" as they call him, sitting in a heavenly throne encircled in his cherubim Seward, Sherman, Grant, and Stanton and doling out responses from above to the intercessory requests of the elected heirs of the mystical order of "The Union," namely the Abratollah Jaffa.
Hey Non-Seq, doesn't your fake religion have something to say about denying the name of its fake deity Abe Lincoln? You better role out that prayer carpetbag and face Springfield for a prayer of atonement
Some sixty years have passed since Germany's defeat in World War II. Would Americans buy a claim by Germans that in readopting the swastika they are only showing "German pride" or celebrating "German heritage"?
Okay, there will be no more fighting in this joint.
Without dignifying your attempt at nazi-baiting by a response, I'll simply note that very few Americans were ever participants in the Nazi army.
"In examining the question of state sovereignty, the starting point must be the status of the states before the Constitution. Next comes the question of how the Constitution affected sovereignty. The Framers did not have a clear consensus about this as a matter of political theory. As a practical matter, however, the Constitution's expansion of federal powers clearly made major incursions into state autonomy. Indeed, if there is anything at all that is l=clear about the intent of the Framers, it is their desire to strengthen federal power."
Prof. Daniel Farber, Lincoln's Constitution
And you continue to spout your wild-assed political theories. The reason that the US Supreme Court was competent to decide the issue of secession is that, by agreement of all the states, the Supreme Court was the arbiter of "all cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution."
"Common sense: common sense says you don't stay in a union with a wife-beater or the kind of people who mourn a man like John Brown just because his prey was you."
A pretext. John Brown was a nutcase who accomplished little more than getting himself hanged.
Unilateral secession is never legitimate. However, Chief Justice Chase suggested there is a lawful way to leave the Union - with the consent of the other states.
"The Southern States were within their rights to leave the Union if they wanted to. It was the essence of freedom."
Unilateral secession was the essence of anarchy. You can repeat your mantra over and over again, but secession remains unlawful as a matter of law and condemned as a matter of history.
Which crackers have been the authors of several "San Francisco bathhouse" comments?
Read the second part of the Prize Cases if you don't believe me.
[lentulusgracchus #1168] Oh, baloney -- that didn't stop anyone from hanging Mary Surratt.
[Non-Sequitur #1170] OK, now we've worked our way down to the 14th Amendment which, had you read the Constitution that far, you would know was ratified on July 9, 1868. Mary Surratt was hanged just over three years before that.
"On the thirteenth day of May, 1867, Jefferson Davis sat in the United states court-room at Richmond accompanied by his counsel, Charles O'Conor and George Shea. After two years' captivity as a prisoner of war, he had been brought from frot Monroe in obedience to a write of habeas corpus and surrendered to the civil authorities for trial on an indictment for treason. ... O'Conor announces that the defendant is ready for trial on the indictment, William M. Evarts announces that the United States are not. A postponement until November is agreed to." (David Miller DeWitt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, 1903, p. 232-3)
"This incident served to quicken the flagging movement for impeachment. The committee were in session, having reassembled on the sixth of May, and were groping along in the dark to find food for the suspicion that Andrew Johnson was somehow a co-conspirator of Jefferson Davis, when this discharge of the arch-traitor with the consent of the government flashed a sudden light upon the track they were following. Members of the Cabinet were summoned -- Seward, Stanton and Stanbery; and, afterwards, Chief Justice Chase, Evarts, Judge Undersood and the district attorney, and Horace Greeley. But their testimony was a grievous disappointment. so far from implicating the President particularly, it appeared, rather, that he was the only official anxious to prosecute; the postponement and bailing having been managed without his interposition. Seward, whose scars were visible proof that he at least was free from plotting the assassination, told the committee that the infamy into which such professional witnesses as Conover had fallen rendered impossible the prosecution of Davis as an accomplice of Booth and Payne. Stanton, the author of the proclamation offering $100,000 reward for the capture of Davis as such accomplice, testified that he himself advised the return to the writ of habeas corpus. Stanbery swore that there was no evidence in his department to warrant any charge but that of treason; and that, in his opinion, after the suppression of the rebellion, prosecutions for treason ought to stop." (David Miller DeWitt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, 1903, p. 233-4) (Sourced to "Imp. Inv., pp. 644 et seq., 397, 371, 544, 578, 778.")
"On Saturday, the first of June [1867], the committee ceased to take testimony, and on Monday came to a vote. It was decided by a majority of on 'that from the testimony before them it did not appear that the President of the United States was guilty of such high crimes and misdemeanors as called for the exercise of the impeaching power of the House.' The five in the affirmative were Wilson (the chairman), Woodbridge and Churchill, Republicans, and Marshall and Eldridge, Democrats. The four in the negative were Boutwell, Thomas, Williams and Lawrence; all Republicans. (David Miller DeWitt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, 1903, p. 235) (Sourced to "Rep. Minority report on Imp. See also Globe, 1st Sess. 40th cong., p. 811.)
The trial of John H. Surratt closed August 24, 1867. (David Miller DeWitt, The Judicial Murder of Mary E. Surratt, 1895, p. 202)
"In the midst of his troubles, the President finds time to pardon Dr. Mudd (Feb. 8th [1868]), who soon returns to his family and friends." (David Miller DeWitt, The Judicial Murder of Mary E. Surratt, 1895, p. 203)
"The impeachment trial ends May 26th, the President escaping conviction by but one vote; and Stanton at last lets go his hold on the War office. (David Miller DeWitt, The Judicial Murder of Mary E. Surratt, 1895, p. 203)
"On the 1st of March, 1869, among the last acts of his stormy administration, the President undid, as far as he could then undo, the work of the Military Commission by setting Arnold and Spangler free; O'Laughlin having died from the effects of the climate. (DeWitt, The Judicial Murder of Mary E. Surratt, 1895, p. 204)
And here is some interesting background, including a radical conspiracy theory.
SOURCE: David Miller DeWitt, The Impeachment and Trial of President Andrew Johnson, 1903, pp. 288-93. [nc - original footnotes converted to endnotes, original footnote symbols converted to numbers]
The elections in the Northern states in the fall of 1867 indicated that the tide of popular opinion was running strongly against the reconstruction policy of the dominant party. In September, Maine at the extreme east reduced the Eepublican majority of 28,000 of the year before to 1,100; California at the extreme west elected (in the spring, however) a Democratic governor and two out of the three representatives in Congress. In October, Pennsylvania was carried by the opposition, and Ohio, though the Eepublican candidate for governor was successful by a narrow majority, elected a Democratic legislature which, the following year, revoked the ratification of the fourteenth amendment and elected a Democrat to succeed Wade. What was still more significant, the voters rejected a proposed amendment to the state constitution granting suffrage to the comparatively few negroes within her borders by a constitutional majority of fifty thousand. In November, New York went over to the Democrats by a "majority nearly as large. New Jersey went the same way, electing a legislature which revoked the ratification of the fourteenth amendment and sent back to the Senate the ejected Stockton. The people of Kansas and Minnesota -- sure Republican states -- cast a verdict against negro suffrage on a direct submission to them of that issue. Though it was an odd year in politics and the result could have no effect upon the composition of the Congress, in every state where elections were held, even in Massachusetts, the trend was in the same direction. All idea of selecting as a candidate for President a true expositor of the policy of the party was abandoned, and every eye was turned to the soldier who, though a member of the administration, bore the charmed title of the Conqueror of the Rebellion. [1] On the other hand, the President regarded the result as but another justification of his habitual confidence in the people, to which he alluded in a speech which he read to a crowd that gathered before the White House on the night of the thirteenth of November to congratulate him on the recent victories. "The remedy for the present unhappy condition of the country must come from the people themselves," he said.
''At the present time they cannot, according to the forms of the Constitution, repeal obnoxious laws; they cannot remove or control this military despotism. The remedy is nevertheless in their hands, and it is a sure one, if not controlled by fraud, overawed by arbitrary power, or from apathy on their part too long delayed. With abiding confidence in their patriotism, wisdom and integrity, I am still hopeful that in the end the rod of despotism will be broken, the armed heel of power lifted from the necks of the people, and the principles of a violated Constitution preserved." [2]To the advocates of impeachment on the judiciary committee which met two days after, the speech was but another high misdemeanour, and a printed copy was put in evidence. "The echo of his last speech," they say in their report, "is still lingering in our ears"; and on the twentieth the committee once more came to a vote. It will be remembered that last June they decided against impeachment by a vote of five to four. Notwithstanding the fact that, after the investigation was reopened at the solicitation of the minority, no testimony of any importance was taken except General Grant's which was not unfavourable to the President, the committee now reversed its decision; one of the Republicans, who had voted in the majority before, joining his radical colleagues. The convert was John C. Churchill from Oswego, New York, who never publicly accounted for his change of mind. The adjourned session of Congress opening the next day, the committee was given time until the next Monday to make a report; and during the two working days intervening, a fitting close was put to the investigation by the reexamination of Baker and the examination of Ashley. The fugitive witness having returned of his own accord was called on to disclose the whereabouts of his mysterious Mrs. Harris. He had seen her, he swore, but he could name no person who had seen her in his company, or who had seen her enter the hotels where he professed to have met her, or who had seen her while there. He had pointed her out to Matchett who subpoenaed her to come before the committee, but she would not come without money, he said. "How much was wanted?" inquired a member of the committee. "$25,000," answered Baker. "Who made that proposition?" "This woman made it"; and with this prompt reply Baker was dismissed. [3]
Ashley [nc - James M. Ashley, Representative from Ohio] was the last witness, called seemingly by the Democratic members of the committee. He admitted that from the beginning of the impeachment movement he entertained the belief that Andrew Johnson was implicated in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln; that he had stated to members of the House of Representatives that he had evidence which satisfied him of that fact; that he believed that letters were in existence from Andrew Johnson to Jefferson Davis and to Booth establishing that fact; that he had been engaged ever since the investigation began in an effort to unearth these letters and to obtain legal evidence to bring before the committee; that he had employed Matchett; that he had held repeated interviews with Conover-Dunham in jail by day and by night; [nc - Conover/Dunham was convicted of perjury in April 1867 and sentenced to Albany penitentiary for 10 years.] that after the conviction he had importuned the judges to stay the execution of the sentence until an application might be made for pardon; that he backed the convict's application to President Johnson for a pardon so that the convict might be used as a witness to accuse the man who pardoned him of complicity in the murder of his predecessor. The memorandum enclosed by Dunham in his petition of last July and which appeared in the report of the acting Attorney-General was produced and put in evidence. [4]
It begins:
"Shortly before the inauguration of Lincoln and Johnson, the latter, through or in connection with Booth, sent several letters to the Confederacy, one of which was intended for Jefferson Davis." These letters, it goes on, were taken to Richmond by one Allen who returned "bearing several letters from J. P. Benjamin" "enclosed to Booth.'' Allen delivered the package to Booth who taking one letter out "addressed to 'Andrew Johnson, Vice-President elect of the United States' " asked Allen to deliver it which he did in company with a friend whom Allen took along; both Allen and friend can be produced. There were two ex-rebel soldiers, one named Dawson, who would testify that they met Booth the second day before his death "near Garrett's" and he told them he had "killed Lincoln and thereby made a good southern man President." Dawson replied that on the contrary "if he meant that he had made Andy Johnson President, he had done the worse possible thing for the South, as he was more extreme in his views and a greater enemy to the South than Lincoln." "Booth replied that it was a mistake; that Johnson as a candidate and office-seeker had to say a great many things, but that as President he could do as he pleased; that he was bound to be a friend of the South; and that if he went back on him (Booth) he would have him hung higher than Haman."Ashley explained what he called his "theory about this matter":
"I have always believed that President Harrison and President Taylor and President Buchanan were poisoned, and were poisoned for the express purpose of putting the Vice Presidents in the presidential office. In the first two instances it was successful. It was attempted with Mr. Buchanan and failed. It succeeded with Mr. Taylor and Mr. Harrison. Then Mr. Lincoln was assassinated, and from my stand-point I could come to a conclusion which impartial men, holding different views, could not come. It would not amount to legal evidence.
"Q. Do you mean to say that you formed an opinion and expressed it to members of Congress that there was evidence to implicate Mr. Johnson which was not legal evidence?
"A. Yes, sir; it satisfied me.
"Q. State to the committee any evidence or fact that you know, tending in any degree to fasten the assassination on Mr. Johnson.
"A. I never withheld anything from the committee which I regarded as evidence.
"Q. Then you state now, as you did before, that you know of no other evidence tending to show that fact?
"A. I know none at present which I could bring to the knowledge of the committee, or I should bring it.' ' [5]
----------------------
[1] For the elections, see McPh. Recon., pp. 372, 353-4.
[2] Speech, Imp. Inv., p. 1175.
[3] Imp. Inv., p. 1193.
[4] See Ch. III, p. 281, supra.
[5] Imp. Inv., pp. 1204, 1194 et seq.; 1198-9.
Are you a Thespian?
"Courts that jump up and assert competence beyond their scoping and mission can be slapped down by the Congress."
However, nothing like that ever happened to the Court with regard to Texas v White. No subsequent act of Congress has ever legitimized the southern insurrection.
"The Congress in turn answers to the People."
A unitary "People"? I agree.
"The federal government's authority, under the Constitution, is binding on individuals, and not on States."
Chortle.
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.