| 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?
I will be glad to. Come up with one that shows that the southern acts of unilateral secession were constitutional and we'll talk.
One that had a long life in the south during the Civil Rights era, and which lives on today in places like Los Angeles and the OJ trial.
Thanks.
I take it then that you do not consider the Vatican or Saxe Coburg Gotha to have been sovereign states? I am uninterested in what you think of their sizes, however it does concern me when you fib about their existence.
Again, in English?
If you insist. However, it is somewhat of a mystery why you addressed the above only to TexConfederate1861. It is not clear if your heart is really in it.
The simplest refutation of your nonsense is the impossibility of establishing the requisite elements of proof for the charge.
The most obvious impossibility appears to be mens rea or proof of a guilty mind. For a criminal prosecution it would be insufficient to show that Chief Justice Chase considered secession unlawful. It would have been required to show that Jefferson Davis did not believe secession to be lawful. If you think you can make an offer of proof that Jefferson Davis did not believe secession to be lawful, have at it.
For treason you also need two witnesses to the same overt act of levying war. Please identify the specific act and name your two witnesses who were going to testify.
A prime witness (Sanford Conover, alias Charles A. Dunham), for the prosecution in the trial before the military tribunal had been tried, convicted, sentenced, and was serving ten years in the Federal penitentiary at Albany -- for perjury.
For his part, from the bench Chief Justice Chase ruled for the indictment to be quashed.
Charles Adams, When in the Course of Human Events, 2000,
[185-6] Shortly after Bledsoe's book came out in 1866, the attorney general decidedto bring in outside, independent counsel to try Davis (as in the Watergate case more than a century later). They needed someone of great stature to stand up to the lawyers defending Davis. They chose as their leading trial prosecutor John J. Clifford. But after reviewing the case, Clifford withdrew, arguing that he had "grave doubts" about the case and that the government could "end up having fought a successful war, only to have it declared unlawful by a Virginia jury." The case was, in short, a loser with disastrous consequences for the cause of the war against the South.[186] President Johnson thought of an easy way out. He would parton Davis as he had pardoned so many other Confederates. But Davis refused a pardon: "To ask for a pardon would be a confession of guilt."
* * *
[186] A year passed after the withdrawal of John J. Clifford. Another special counsel was appointed to handle the case, the famous author and lawyer Richard Dana of Boston, who had written the great novel Two Years Before the Mast. But he too decided the case was a loser. He wrote a lengthy brief, given to the president, taking Clifford's position. Dana argued that "a conviction will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled ... as a rule of law by war."
Varina Davis, Jefferson Davis, A Memoir, 1890, Vol 2, pp. 791-4
[791] On December 3, 1867, Robert Ould, counsel for Mr. Davis, argued that the fourteenth amendment punished Mr. Davis by disfranchisement, and this punishment was chosen by the voice of the American people as a merciful substitute for the penantoes of death and confiscation contained in the constitution of the United States; that the punishment of Mr. Davis commenced upon the date of the adoption of the fourteenth article, and he therefore could not now be punished in any other way; that the latest expression of the will of the people, in their Constitution, was the law, and repealed all former provision made for those who engaged in rebellion; that the fourteenth article was that latest expression, intended expressly for and covering the cases of all engaged in the late rebellion; and that no man could be punished twice for the same offence.[791] R.H. Dana, Esq., counsel for the United States, said that Mr. Ould's proposition was, in the nature of things, entirely new, and was unexpected to the Government counsel, and he expected also to the court.
[791-2] Chief Justice Chase said the argument of counsel was not unexpected to the court, it haveing supposed, after the announcement of this motion to quash, that it was based on the fourteenth article, that this line of argument would be pursued.
[792] Time was given the government counsel to confer, and the Court took a recess at noon.
[792] After reassembling, Governor H.H. Wells and Disrict Attorney Beach for the Government, replied, contending that the fourteenth amendment merely created a disability, and not a penalty, which is the subject of judicial sentence, and was not inconsistent with the act against treason. The amendment was permanent and prospective, and could not be reasonably construed to repeal existing punishments for past and future treasons. The Court then adjourned. Dana closes tomorrow for the Government, and O'Conor for Mr. Davis.
* * *
[794] After hearing the argument the Court stood: For quashing the indictment, Chief Justice Chase; against it, John C. Underwood. The division was certified to the Supreme court, that the question may be considered and decided by it.
[page 800-2] In the autumn of 1867 Mr. O'Conor, after incessant efforts, aided by men of all parties succeeded in getting a time appointed for the decision of Mr. Davis's case, either for trial or a nolle prosequi, but both would have preferred the former as a test question. As winter drew on Mr. Davis was summoned to Richmond, but the nolle prosequi was filed.
Sorry, I don't speak Iowa. Let me try again. It isn't hard to believe that had Davis been brought to trial then the defense would try and get at least one person on the panel who did support the confederate cause. Such a person wouldn't have voted guilty regardless of what evidence the prosecution presented. And jury nullification such as that has had a long history in American jurisprudence. Throughout the last part of the 19th century and well past the middle of the 20th southern juries readily acquitted white defendants accused of crimes against blacks. And, of course, there is the OJ trial which some believe to be jury nullification at it's worst.
[Gianni] Again, in English?
I think he may be referring to the serial perjury and tampering with evidence by the LAPD.
SOMETHING WRONG
TESTIMONY OF DR. HENRY LEE
AUGUST 25, 1995
MR. SCHECK: And when we're talking overnight, what range of hours?
DR. LEE: Usually between eight to 10, 12 hours.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, Dr. Lee, given your experience with how long it takes swatches to dry, let me ask you to assume that the swatches in question here were put into test tube at around 6:30 on the evening of June 13th and then removed and placed in a bindle, at the earliest, 7:30 A.M. the next morning.
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Would you expect those swatches to be dry?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Given that, Dr. Lee, how can you explain the wet transfer patterns you have identified on the bindle from item 47?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: What is your opinion as to the mechanism of transfer that you~
THE COURT: That created these bloodstains.
MR. SCHECK: --that created these bloodstains? Thank you.
DR. LEE: The mechanism of creation of those bloodstain has to have a wet swatch touch the surface of the paper and with certain pressure cause such a transfer.
MR. SCHECK: Can you tell us anything about the manner of transfer?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Based on this bloodstain pattern, what is your opinion with respect to the method of transfer -- manner of transfer?
DR. LEE: I don't know. I only can report a scientific fact. As far as manner --
MR. GOLDBERG: No question pending.
THE COURT: Overruled. He's not finished his answer.
DR. LEE: As a manner, something, somebody has to put the swatch in the bindle, cause such a transfer. Who did it, what happened, I don't know.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. SCHECK: All right. On the face of it, are the existence of these wet transfer patterns, based on your experience, inconsistent with the swatches having been put in the test tube 6:30 P.M. on June 13th and then removed at 7:30 A.M. on June 14th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Speculation, conjecture, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Would you--let's put it-start it this way. You told us that one would expect that these swatches, having been put in a test tube at 6:30 P.M. on June 13th and removed at 7:30 A.M. on June 14th, to be dry.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Given that fact --
THE COURT: Given that opinion.
MR. SCHECK: Given that opinion, what is your opinion about the existence of these transfer stains?
MR. GOLDBERG: Overly broad, no foundation, calls for conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Only opinion I can giving under this circumstance, something wrong.
MR. SCHECK: No further questions, your Honor.
TESTIMONY OF DR. RIEDERS
July 24, 1995
MR. BLASIER: Dr. Rieders, have you reviewed materials from the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to how much EDTA you can expect to find in human blood from diet?
DR. RIEDERS: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And what is the range that would be in the human blood from diet?
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: That is exactly what we--
THE COURT: Overruled. EPA records from FDA records that are in the public--part of the public record, he can testify to.
MR. BLASIER: What range are we talking about for net--EDTA in the blood from diet?
DR. RIEDERS: Normally, from--in normal individuals, four part--no more than four parts for billion, per billion.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the amounts of EDTA found on the sock and the back gate, what range are they?
DR. RIEDERS: It's in the parts per million. So a thousand times more.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion on whether the EDTA found in the sock and the back gate could have come from food?
DR. RIEDERS: From food eaten by the person whose blood it is; is that it?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
DR. RIEDERS: No. In my opinion, that is so unlikely that I wouldn't even consider it.
The problem was that they could not find one reputable attorney who thought he could establish the elements of proof and win the case in a civilian court.
They couldn't win the trial of John H. Surratt. The jurors were W.B. Todd, Robert Ball, J. Russell Barr, Thomas Berry, George A. Bohrer, C.G. Schneider, James Y. Davis, Columbus Alexander, William McLean, Benjamin Morsell, B.E. Gittings, and W.W. Birth. Some of them were said to be among "the best citizens in the District."
Yes, The District. That trial was in Washington, D.C. John H. Surratt walked.
The only conspirator tried before a civilian jury, John H. Surratt, tried in Washingdon, D.C., WALKED.
100% of those tried before an Article III court WALKED.
Apparently, Davis had a 100% chance of WALKING.
Try it sometime, because Kansan seems to be too confusing for normal people to follow. First you say that the Gov't has a long history of insuring conviction by stacking juries, then claim to have been saying that the defense attornies have a way of introducing at least one spoiler.
Figure out which one you mean and ping me back.
Surratt was also tried two years after the assasination and was in upstate New York when Lincoln was murdered. And he also walked because of a hung jury, not a verdict of innocent.
John F'n Kerry had to learn somewhere.
Here is a link to de Tocqueville's Democracy in America . The chapter on race relations is actually Volume I, Chapter 18 and that quote is nowhere to be seen, but on the off-chance I missed it elsewhere in the book perhaps you would be so kind to tell us where to locate the 'stink of the black man' quote? I suspect that de Tocqueville said nothing of the sort, and you're just regaling us with your creative imagination again but feel free to show me wrong.
And it's been pointed out where you would be wrong in that belief.
Then, after its dubious passage, Johnson's pardon of 25 Dec 1868 covered EVERY person, rendering the 14th moot.
Johnson's pardon covered every southern leader not under indictment, which was everyone except Jefferson Davis.
Typical hypocritical yankees.
Yeah, no hypocrisy to be found among the rebs, was there?
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.