| 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?
Did this quote spew forth from Bombastic Boxer, King for-a-day Kerry, or Hillary The Horrible?
Interesting that the Secret Six who backed John Brown's attempt to start a race war were mostly from New England and New York.
Keep playing innocent. On these threads, it won't play. Yeah, the North was just standing around smoking a cigarette, and -- holy hell! A Civil War broke out!
Yeah, right. History for the barroom crowd. Read a book, get smart and stuff.
x, how about it? Can you do something to smarten this guy up a bit? He seems to be having trouble with the causes of the ACW.
Note to M. Espinola: That's how I do ad hominem.
I wouldn't have, but you haven't stopped posting it yourself since I entered this thread.
I didn't say that I disagreed with that.
Better yet, read a book. Boy.
Then how could you have missed the fact that the people of Missouri voted against secession in March 1861?
I didn't. But that wasn't the end of the story, was it?
How could you have missed the rest of it?
No, wrong again, cigars, not cigarettes, Cubanos in glass tubes, and then the Civil War stated.
I must head back down to Louies Bar & Grill on the Bowery.
Yes you did.
But that wasn't the end of the story, was it?
No. There was the forces of secession getting weapons and artillery from the confederate government, the loyal forces firing on the southern mob in St. Louis, the governor and rump legislature trying to take the state out of the Union in spite of the will of the people as expressed in convention, and the expulsion of those people from office. Now, go ahead and present your slant.
Just practicing my modesty.
I am very relieved to hear that one of the neo-nazis was relieved of his posting privileges.
I was referred to this site by my protest warrior leader, who is an awesome guy (and his wife is pretty super too!) whose opinions I respect completely. He is a good pro-America, pro-Israel Christian and I just assumed that everyone on FR would be like him. I realize now that that was a naive assumption, but newly minted conservatives can sometimes be overly optimistic and zealous--sort of like an ex-smoker about smoking!
I am grateful to you nolu chan for your detective work. I apologize to you if I have misjudged you in any way. As a zionist in a hostile world, I tend to be over sensitive.
You'll find most of us to be supporters of Israel. And most of us on the Southern side also support tsunami relief efforts, and myriad other charitable causes. With PRIVATE funds, not with taxpayers monies, which is blatantly unconstitutional. George Washington understood that the best interests of the US of A would be best served without entangling foreign alliances - it's one thing to aid Israel if they are attacked, and another to allow them to spy on US!
Die hards, super glued to living in the past defeats of a Lost Cause. (i.e., Super-Spin-Land)
It wasn't even the beginning either. Missouri never had a secession referendum. The elected State Legislature did, however, adopt a secession ordinance in October.
Nor did South Carolina or Mississippi or Florida or Alabama or most other southern states. Like them, Missouri had a convention to decide the issue.
The elected State Legislature did, however, adopt a secession ordinance in October.
An impeached governor and a rump legislature.
FR provides a daily education for me. I always assumed opposition to aid to Israel was based on fear or hatred of the jews. While I still support govt aid to Israel, you've given me a new perspective on some of those who do not.
...and the only government in the state of Missouri that had actually been elected by the people.
I can tell you're about seven or eight threads behind, but that's okay.
Some of the people you call "neo-Confederates", with gratuitous inaccuracy and polemical intent, are Southern patriots who would automatically rise to meet any broad-brush condemnation of their homeland.
You can't point to this and that issue and then burn the whole place down. Which is what Lincoln and Sherman did -- it was a crime, and Southerners will be happy to point that out to you. You don't burn down half-a-dozen States just to make sure their senators vote with you. It's un-American, and posters to this and other threads have posted documentary evidence that the Framers never sanctioned the use of civil war to knock down political opponents incumbent in other States.
The discussion is contemporary since much of the screaming and yelling began over Thomas DiLorenzo's partisan (and sometimes deliberately shrill) reply to people like historian James McPherson, who were retailing modern political agenda under the guise of historiography. Now, if you want to go into it, there are several people on this thread who'll tell you what their problem is with McPherson (Battle Cry of Freedom) .
Basically, McPherson and other Leftist historians (notably Eric Foner of Columbia) are trying to build a historiographical equivalent of the NAACP's Confederate-flag wedge issue, i.e. a moral and intellectual attack on the South as an entity, a polemical political attack, to split off the conservative Midwest from the South, divide the Republican Party, and hand the Presidency to Hillary. That contemporary enough for you?
The genesis of this attack goes back before the Republican Congressional majority in the 1994 elections. The New York Times was attacking the Confederate flag to create an issue as long ago as 1991, and the MSM used the politics of personal destruction, aimed at Newt Gingrich, combined with commentary and (from the Clinton camp) political TV ads in "C" markets all through 1995 and into 1996 to tie Bob Dole to demonized Newt, and drag Dole down in the 1996 election, guaranteeing Clinton's reelection.
If you don't believe the last one, start doing key-word searches on MRC.com, Brent Bozell's media-review group (Media Research is its name) on the press's campaign to drive up Gingrich's negatives in 1994-5 in order to make him the anchor they'd tie to Dole or whoever the GOP nominated. Much of their hate-puppet rhetoric against Gingrich revolved around snarky personal stories, but much of it was cultural, attacking his Southern origins, culture, and values.
Let's start there.
It's contemporary, and the argument over Lincoln and the South is about what the liberal historians call "usable history" -- and what they're using it for, is to try to put Hillary in the Oval Office.
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.