| 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?
No doubt you think Dred Scott was also correct.
Forced segregation goes against the principles of the Declaration.
Unlike you and the Neo-confederates, principles guide my views, not loyalty to people, places or things.(Calhoun)
Let's see if you can respond to the following questions?
1) Would you favour the reinstitution of state enforced racial segregation in only Southern states?
2) Do you agree with the anti-Jewish comments you reprinted such as "The Israelites especially should be kept out."?
3) Are you glad President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated (shot in the back) by a southerner?
4) In your opinion, do you consider the KKK & neo-nazis 'conservative' or 'hate groups'.
5) Should America support the state of Israel.
6) If an elected official has a proven conservative voting record would you still vote for them if they were an African American seeking higher office?
7) Which is the greatest threat confronting America today?
You resemble that remark.
[M. Espinola] In relation to skirting the issues via reprints from views you obviously share, how about being a little honest for a change and place your cards on the table.
I did not skirt anything. You said or implied that segregation and racism were strictly Southern matters. I documented them as being American national matters. Racism North and South was the norm, not the exception. Does the Anti-Defamation League ever consider things that happen outside the South?
[M. Espinola] Let's see if you can respond to the following questions?
Let us see.
[M. Espinola] 1) Would you favour the reinstitution of state enforced racial segregation in only Southern states?
No. I would favor equality of treatment in all the states, Southern and Northern.
[M. Espinola] 2) Do you agree with the anti-Jewish comments you reprinted such as "The Israelites especially should be kept out."?
The official orders of General Grant exist in the Official Records. They were wrong. Such orders are a stain on the man who issued them and those who tolerated it. But I point out that Union generals were involved in such things while a Jew was a cabinet-level official in the Confederacy (Judah Benjamin).
[M. Espinola] 3) Are you glad President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated (shot in the back) by a southerner?
Perhaps you should ask your questions of a Southerner. I'm a native New Yorker.
To the best of my knowledge, Booth was from Maryland which was a border state and a Union state, so your question appears to proceed from a false assumption.
I'm not glad Lincoln or anyone else was shot a century and a half ago. I did not even have ancestors here that far back.
[M. Espinola] 4) In your opinion, do you consider the KKK & neo-nazis 'conservative' or 'hate groups'.
The KKK and neo-nazis are hate groups.
Prejudice is a learned behavior. They were not born that way. And prejudice and discrimination exist in the North. It is not a regional affliction.
It is easy to see how Whites and Blacks can be readily distinguished, one from the other. The same is less easy to discern between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Of course, the issue there is not really religion, and Catholics and Protestants are not born hating each other. But Whites can learn to hate other Whites just as they can learn to hate Blacks or other races or ethnic groups.
[M. Espinola] 5) Should America support the state of Israel.
This question is somewhat vague. Without including every specific which could be extrapolated from your vague question, the general answer is "yes."
[M. Espinola] 6) If an elected official has a proven conservative voting record would you still vote for them if they were an African American seeking higher office?
Yes, up to and including President. I would not mind Justice Thomas as Chief Justice, but my preference would be Justice Scalia.
[M. Espinola] 7) Which is the greatest threat confronting America today?
I do not know. I cannot rank one as the greatest.
A terrorist dirty bomb or nuclear bomb gets the most press.
I think a terrorist biological attack with something like smallpox poses a larger potential threat.
With enough uncontrolled government spending we may yet crash the economy.
My turn.
1) Consider hypothetically that secession was lawful in 1861 pursuant to Amendment 10 and reserved powers. Based on that hypothetical, would secession be lawful for the purpose of freeing all the slaves? Would secession be lawful to keep the slaves enslaved? If the legal right to secede existed, would such right exist regardless of why the state wanted to secede, whether for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all?
2) If an elected official has a proven conservative voting record would you still vote for them if they were an Arab American seeking higher office?
3) Did Abraham Lincoln violate the Constitution on numerous occasions?
4) Do you agree with the Supreme Court opinion which said, "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.'' Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 2, 120-121 (1866).
As for Dred Scott, be specific. Was the decision correct about what? Provide your legal theory of whatever point you are vaguely making.
State a position, and provide the legal basis for your position.
You know that Dred Scott went against the principles of the Declaration by stating that the Declaration was not referring to the Black man in its statement of all men being equal.
Well, don't be bashful now. If you have a point to make, make it. Get it on out there. Talk about the trial of Henry Wirz.
That is the difference between those who hold to natural rights and positivism.
He has to wait to see how the courts rule on them.
We have courts of law.
That is the difference between B.S. and reality.
Where have we heard that defense before? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Wirz/Impact1.htm
As for assailing it's legality, that has done by legal scholars already-as you well know.
It is even questioned if the Court had a right to make a ruling on the case in the first place.
Law isn't what man says it is, law must reflect what God says it is.
Trivia establishing nothing of relevance. Try again.
No. We have courts of law and not courts of morality.
Morality, or lack thereof, does not determine legality. Porno videos are not illegal. Some might question their morality.
Please continue to demonstrate your lack of any legal argument whatsoever.
My ancesters lived there.
God did not write the Constitution or the Federal laws. Man did. Law is what man says it is.
If man amends the Constitution to say booze is unlawful, then the law is that booze is unlawful.
If man amends the Constitution to say boos is lawful again, then the law is that booze is lawful and we may all, once again, partake of the nectar of the gods.
Please do continue to demonstrate your legal knowledge.
That is the morality of which I am speaking, the morality that no legal decision can alter or change.
One cannot take away any individual rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by a legal decree.
What you are selling is legal positivism, and it is nothing but tyranny under legalistic guise.
What you are pushing is what the German's pushed in the 30's, right is what the state defined it to be.
That is why we have a natural right to revolt, when the state attacks those God-given rights.
Were they alive when Sherman marched through the area?
LOL!
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.