| 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?
You really are quite nutty.
Now, history doesn't record mass starvations or murders.
Sorry, but that is the case.
Moreover, the Confederates were under orders to have a scorched earth policy, so they did not seem overly concerned about the civilian population.
Physical attacks on whites were few? Just how many are justified? Is the hanging of a Georgia Supreme Court Justice ok by you? Simply to get an old man's gold? How many deaths and rapes of innocent women and children is acceptable to you Mr. Goebbels? Mr. Stalin? How many casulties are you willing to accept in YOUR family? How would you feel if you wife and 11 year old daughter were raped repeatedly and then shot in the head?
Again, history shows that there were few and those that were found out were dealt with.
I know myths die hard in the South, I mean what else do you have to live on?
[M. Espinola #1515 to fortheDeclaration] "The comparisons during the 1930's in Germany with it's government enforced segregation of the Jewish population, and state enforced segregation in the South have numerous similarities. In both stains on the history of man, 'Aryan (white) supremacy' as you stated, were indeed the root cause."
You emphatically and explicitly stated that the root cause of enforced segregation in the South was "Aryan (white) supremacy."
The question is not whether it existed in all the states, but whether 8 of the 9 Supreme Court justices in 1896 were "Aryan White Supremecists"?
If those 8 justices were indeed possessed of "Aryan (white) supremacy" why did Republican presidents stack the Supreme Court with a majority consisting of Aryan White Supremecists?
If, indeed as you now waffle, "the element in question [nc - Aryan (white) supremacy] existed in all states," then why did you say that enforced segregation in the South had similarities to Nazi Germany? How did it differ from enforced segregation in the North (or elsewhere), as found Constitutional by the United States Supreme Court consisting of a majority of justices appointed by Republicans who upheld segregation.
The only dissent came from Justice Harlan from Kentucky, appointed by Republican President Hayes.
The decision was rendered by:
Justice Brown of Michigan appointed by Republican President Harrison.
The decision was concurred in by:
Justice Woods of Georgia appointed by Republican President Hayes
Justice Matthews of Ohio appointed by Republican President Garfield
Justice Gray of Massachusetts appointed by Republican President Arthur
Justice Shiras of Pennsylvania appointed by Republican President Harrison
Chief Justice Fuller of Illinois appointed by Democrat President Cleveland
Justice White of Louisiana appointed by Democrat President Cleveland
Justice Peckham of New York appointed by Democrat President Cleveland
NYC/LI area, noting that most of NYC is on Long Island, namely Queens/Brooklyn.
[M. Espinola #1578] All in all, even though it was similar to a verbal root canal in order to extract responses, I agree with the answers to the majority of the questions I asked.
All in all, you asked once, you received direct answers, and now you want to complain about receiving answers you cannot assail.
[M. Espinola #1578] Now I shall respond to your four questions: 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?
[M. Espinola #1578] The only way to answer these hypothetical questions is to return to the real world of 1861, plus the pre-Civil War era in the South with quotations from pro-slavery Southerners, which by the way the majority of neo-confederates still share in 2005.
Your irrelevant nonsense is noted as irrelevant.
IF a legal RIGHT to secede existed, does the holder of said RIGHT required a good reason to exercise said RIGHT?
What other RIGHTS cannot be exercised without providing prior justification?
Does the RIGHT to free speech extend only to speech in a good cause, said good cause to be determined by some government entity?
[M. Espinola #1578] 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? If the Arab American elected official supported Israel, of course I would vote for him.
What does the vague phrase, "supported Israel" mean? Does it mean to politically support Israel's right to exist? Does it mean taxing Americans and giving their money to Israel? Does it mean providing military equipment and personnel to support Israel should Israel make a pre-emptive strike against an Arab nation, sparking a shooting war? Does it include releasing Israeli spies caught spying against the United States? What level of "support" is being asserted as the litmus test.
3) Did Abraham Lincoln violate the Constitution on numerous occasions?
[M. Espinola #1578] No. The premise of your question is pure revisionist 'DiLorenzoism'.
No. The premise of my question is the specific provisions of the U.S. Constitution compared with the actions of President Lincoln.
Lincoln himself defended his actions by writing, "Other calls were made for volunteers, to serve three years, unless sooner discharged; and also for large additions to the regular Army and Navy. These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon, under what appeared to be a popular demand, and a public necessity; trusting, then as now, that Congress would readily ratify them. It is believed that nothing has been done beyond the constitutional competency of Congress."
Lincoln was not Congress. The Supreme Court has flatly rejected the argument of "public necessity" waiving the requirements of the Constitution.
To Congress was given, the power "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; ...."
The Constitution contains a specific prohibition, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to apply "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."
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).
[M. Espinola #1578] In order to answer properly it would be contingent on if you are asking this question in terms of the post-September 11th jihadist multi-terrorist attack, or as in when the Court, for example, entertained the habeas petitions of an American citizen who plotted an attack on military installations during the Civil War, Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 4 Wall. 2, 18 L. Ed. 281 (1866), and of admitted enemy aliens convicted of war crimes during a declared war and held in the United States, Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 87 L. Ed. 3, 63 S. Ct. 2 (1942), and its insular possessions, In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 90 L. Ed. 499, 66 S. Ct. 340 (1946).
[M. Espinola #1578] Can you gear the question to a specific case in the history of the Court? Recall: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus . . . unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it,"
Regarding habeas corpus suspension, it is listed in Article I with Congressional powers. Suspending habeas corpus is not a suspension of the Constitution, as such suspension is provided for by the Constitution.
There is no need to consider any specific case or venture beyond the Civil War era.
The Supreme Court found that "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.
The question is very simple. It is a very simple "yes" or "no" question. Do you agree with the Supreme Court statement that "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.
No, like the millions of southerners who explicitly indicated that they no longer wished to be governed by Washington. A slave revolt is another matter in itself and has no bearing on whether or not the southern states consented to be governed by D.C.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you were discussing recognition by foreign nation-states, right? In that sense, I suppose the Vatican City is technically a nation-state, but I was referring to their role as a religious institution.
No people who denies the right of the consent of the governed to one people, can claim that right for themselves.
They were revolting from Washington because they wanted to keep the right to keep those people under bondage.
That may be your opinion, but in terms of accuracy you owe it to others to tell the truth. Thus you should state that the confederacy received at least one foreign nation's recognition rather than denying it all together.
I do not think the Vatican meets that critera, nor, it seems, did the Museum of the Confederacy, where you saw that plaque.
Even the Museum of the Confederacy did not state that a nation had recognized the Confederacy.
I have emailed them on the issue.
Until then, if you have a complaint, it is not only with me, but with a number of other historical sources that do not mention this 'recognition' as such.
It wasn't. Read the chronology. They were fully supplied from town until about April 7th. "Under siege" in your usage means that Sumter was geographically surrounded by Carolinians. You really know how to kid.
....before Lincoln took office, the North had every right to prepare for war.
No, they didn't.
As for bringing God in, that is an appeal to divine/natural law, the very thing that Calhoun and the South rejected when the rejected the principles of the Declaration.
Natural law says that the bondman unable to free himself is a natural bondman. Do you ever read about the things you talk about?
Your references to the Declaration of Independence are just a truckload of discredited Jaffa-speak. I refer to you GOPcapitalist and nolu chan on the subject of Jaffaspeak -- I'm not interested in shills, myself.
Lincoln told the South, war was up to them.
You're going to make me quote John Nicolay to you again, aren't you? Lincoln maneuvered the Carolinians into firing the first shot. He deliberately goaded them into their course of action by the course of action and representations he made. You cannot look at the totality of Lincoln's activities from the time he was elected until he made his proclamation calling for troops, and not conclude that his entire policy -- the whole of it -- was to precipitate open hostilities so that he could get around the Constitution and deal with the South on the basis of armed violence. Lincoln had a war policy that belied his words.
They did not have to violate the constitution, but he was sworn to uphold it.
Lincoln deliberately took the disagreement out into the parking lot, precisely to get away from the Constitution. He precipitated a war to settle political differences.
You have documentation that "the entire world agreed", of course. Post up. Stop lying and start documenting "the entire world agreed".
"The entire world agreed" -- what a joke.
Careful, boy, your words can bite you. Did you notice, there's a Texan in the White House?
You denied the South their rights in 1865. Turn about is fair play -- by your own words.
They were revolting from Washington because they wanted to keep the right to keep those people under bondage.
There was no "revolting" except you.
"It was all about slavery!" -- again. GOP, I thought you had house-trained this little feller.
"If you disagree with me, you have no rights" -- that what you want to argue? Where have you been taking debating lessons? Who the hell have you been listening to -- Trotsky?
I'd be very upset if someone pointed a porter or a deacon at me, much less a canon.
Pointing bishops and cardinals at people is very unfriendly, I agree.
Ever thought of saving that one for the mirror at the next Claremont Institute conference? Lincoln's speeches were loaded with "consent of the governed" rhetoric, yet it cannot be disputed that he denied the consent of the governed to the southern states.
Then that would be Saxe Coburg and Gotha, since they appointed a political consul to conduct their affairs with the CSA.
The Vatican diplomacy was initially conducted by a CSA state department agent with a Catholic Cardinal, so I guess in that sense one side was political. But as soon as this initial visit was over the CSA turned over his job to a Catholic Bishop from South Carolina, so further contact came from two church officers.
Actually that thought came from Lincoln.
I haven't found one yet to support it, but I will continue looking.
Their retention capabilities are unusually short. From time to time you can shame them into stopping their habit of dirtying the carpet in a single room. At first it seems like they've finally learned, but the next thing you know they've moved into another room and left the same old pile of dung on the carpet there as if the previous scolding never happened!
Which would make him a hypocrite in addition to a despot who denied the consent of another by force.
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.