| 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?
International recognition of a nation as a nation has to meet a realistic critera.
If the United States had lost the American Revolution before diplomatic recognition by a major power (France) it would have been viewed historically as a failed attempt by colonies to revolt, not a separate nation.
Your analogy doesn't hold up since major nations are involved in the coalition and the failture to recognize the coalition as such is the failure to acknowledge simple facts.
No different then claiming that the Confederacy was a recognized nation.
Since each side was bent on extermination of the others men, women and children, the meaning was not racial as much as it was political.
The indian problem was going to be dealt with once and for all, even if it meant total destruction of the Indians.
Read what the Indians did to the settlers before you start jumping on your high horse and crying racism.
Sherman was the most pro-Southern Union General of the war.
From the pen of the genocidal, racist Sherman [*SPIT*] "Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people."
If he's the most pro-Southern, that speaks volumes about the rest.
Sherman did not do that much to the South, at least not to its people.
He destroyed the farms and railways.
But he did love the South.
[ftD #1482 to nolu chan] Hey Nolu, stop beating a dead horse. The wrong word was used 'blockade'....
Just to add some context, which is very important, especially for those who have learned to read....
The U.S. Supreme Court found that a blockade was an admitted fact and had been formally declared and notified by President Lincoln.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "the President had a right, jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion, which neutrals are bound to regard.
The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1862) [ LINK ]
From the Prize Cases, Opinion of the Court, Mr. Justice Grier
That a blockade de facto actually existed, and was formally declared and notified by the President on the 27th and 30th of April, 1861, is an admitted fact in these cases.
* * *
Let us enquire whether, at the time this blockade was instituted, a state of war existed which would justify a resort to these means of subduing the hostile force.
* * *
The parties belligerent in a public war are independent nations. But it is not necessary to constitute war, that both parties should be acknowledged as independent nations or sovereign States. A war may exist where one of the belligerents, claims sovereign rights as against the other.
* * *
As soon as the news of the attack on Fort Sumter, and the organization of a government by the seceding States, assuming to act as belligerents, could become known in Europe, to wit, on the 13th of May, 1861, the Queen of England issued her proclamation of neutrality, 'recognizing hostilities as existing between the Government of the United States of American and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America.' This was immediately followed by similar declarations or silent acquiescence by other nations.
After such an official recognition by the sovereign, a citizen of a foreign State is estopped to deny the existence of a war with all its consequences as regards neutrals. They cannot ask a Court to affect a technical ignorance of the existence of a war, which all the world acknowledges to be the greatest civil war known in the history of the human race, and thus cripple the arm of the Government and paralyze its power by subtle definitions and ingenious sophisms.
* * *
If it were necessary to the technical existence of a war, that it should have a legislative sanction, we find it in almost every act passed at the extraordinary session of the Legislature of 1861, which was wholly employed in enacting laws to enable the Government to prosecute the war with vigor and efficiency. And finally, in 1861, we find Congress 'ex majore cautela' and in anticipation of such astute objections, passing an act 'approving, legalizing, and making valid all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President, &c., as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.'
* * *
On this first question therefore we are of the opinion that the President had a right, jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion, which neutrals are bound to regard.
The Holocost was entirely political. O-fer, another shot?
Since when were the Indians bent on extermination of men, women and children? Whose land was it? Who broke peace treaty after peace treaty?
What was the Indian problem? They had good land and we meant to have it. That, in ftD-world, justifies the "total destruction of the Indians."
What did the Indians do to the settlers? Whose land was being taken by these settlers?
Nothing 'justifies' the destruction of the Indian.
What you neo-confederates want to do, as do the Left, is drop historical context .
Most Indians did not own land, not by Lockean standards of adding labour to the land.
The Indian wars were brutal on both sides and atrocity beget atrocity.
But to compare Sherman with Hilter in kind or degree is beyond the pale.
If you want to start throwing around 'Nazi' comparsions, maybe we should talk about the commmander of Andersville prison camp who was hung for war crimes.
It was?
Well that is the biggest lie I have ever heard.
The Jew was persecuted for his race, not his politics.
Most Jews were loyal Germans.
Many Jews had intermarried with Gentiles and never even practiced their faith.
Nazism is a racial based ideology, based in Aryan (white) supremecy.
Very compatable to the philosophy of Calhoun (although Calhoun did not go as far as the Nazi's)
No natural, God-given individual rights (Declaration of Independence) only 'blood' 'family' and 'state' mattered.
The Jews were persecuted to provide a political rallying point for the Nazis.
He 'loved' them so much he left thousands to die without food and shelter, his army stole what personal properties they had - including cash, bonds, jewelry &c, destroyed their crops and livelihoods, deported hundreds to serve as yankee slaves (including several hundred white women and childred), raped and murdered others, and you call that LOVE?
What misguided, pathethic, psychotic lunatic would call that 'love'?
On Tuesday night (1-25-05) the documentary 'From Swastika to Jim Crow' will air on TV.
That they used them as a means to unite Germany (as a whipping boy for Germany losing WW1), does not explain the determination to wipe them out even as late as 1944-45 when the war was over.
And they want to talk about Sherman!
I think you have a very distorted view of Shermans' march.
There was very little abuse of the people.
Those caught raping were hung.
Sherman wanted to end the war that had dragged on for four long years and wanted ended as much for the South as he did for the North.
He knew the only way to end the war was to make the South see that they did not have an army that could protect them.
I wonder what the root cause of the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was. It must have been those Aryan White Supremecists from Michigan, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Ohio.
In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court determined that segregation was the law of the land according to the United States Constitution. That was the United States Supreme Court, not a Confederate court. The decision was 8-1, with only Justice Harlan of Kentucky dissenting. The decision was rendered by Justice Brown of Michigan. The decision was concurred in by Chief Justice Fuller of Illinois, Justice Peckham of New York, Justice Shiras of Pennsylvania, Justice Gray of Massachusetts, Justice Matthews of Ohio, Justice White of Louisiana, and Justice Woods of Georgia.
Excerpt from Plessy v. Ferguson, United States Supreme CourtThe object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation, in places where they are liable to be brought into contact, do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power. The most common instance of this is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and colored children, which have been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of states where the political rights of the colored race have been longest and most earnestly enforced.
O.R. Series 1, Vol. 17, Part 2, p. 330
LA GRANGE, TENN., November 9, 1862.
Major-General HURLBUT, Jackson, Tenn.:
Refuse all permits to come south of Jackson for the present. The Israelites especially should be kept out.
What troops have you now, exclusive of Stevenson's brigade?
U. S. GRANT,
Major-General.
O.R. Series 1, Vol. 17, Part 2, p. 337
LA GRANGE, November 10, 1862.
General WEBSTER, Jackson, Tenn.:
Give orders to all the conductors on the road that no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the railroad southward from any point. They may go north and be encouraged in it; but they are such an intolerable nuisance that the department must be purged of them.
U. S. GRANT,
Major-General.
GENERAL ORDERS,
HDQRS. 13TH A. C., DEPT. OF THE TENN.,
Numbers 11.
Holly Springs, December 17, 1862.
The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.
Post commanders will see that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one returning after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters.
No passes will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits.
By order of Major General U. S. Grant:
JNO. A. RAWLINS,
Assistant Adjutant-General.
O.R. Series 1, Vol. 17, Part 2, p. 421
O.R. Series 1, Vol. 17, Part 2, p. 422
HDQRS. THIRTEENTH A. C., DEPT. OF THE TENN.,
Oxford, Miss., December 17, 1862.
Honorable C. P. WOLCOTT,
Assistant Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.:
I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the spice regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officer at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department, but they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel everywhere. They will land any wood-yard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves they will act as agents for some one else, who will be at military post with a Treasury permit to to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold.
There is but one way that I know that I know of to reach this case; that is, for Government to buy all the cotton at a fixed rate and sent it to Cairo, Saint Louis, or some other point to be sold. Then all traders (they are a curse to the army) might be expelled.
U. S. GRANT,
Major-General.
O.R. Series 1, Vol. 24, Part 1, p. 9
Washington,
January 21, 1863.
Major-General GRANT,
Memphis:
GENERAL: The President has directed that so much of Arkansas as you may desire to control be temporarily attached to your department. This will give you control of both banks of the river.
In your operations down the Mississippi you must not rely too confidently upon any direct co-operation of General Banks and the lower flotilla, as it is possible that they may not be able to pass or reduce Port Hudson. They, however, will do everything in their power to form a junction with you at Vicksburg. If they should not be able to effect this, they will at least occupy a portion of the enemy's forces and prevent them from re-enforcing Vicksburg. I hope, however, that they will do still better and be able to join you.
It may be proper to give you some explanation of the revocation of your order expelling all Jews from your department. The President has no objection to your expelling traitors and Jew peddlers, which, I suppose, was the object of your order; but, as it in terms proscribed an entire religious class, some of whom are fighting in our ranks, the President deemed it necessary to revoke it.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
H. W. HALLECK,
General-in-Chief.
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.