| 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?
Stephens himself admitted that the Founders had seen slavery as an evil to be dealt with, not a virtue to be defended.
Well, those States thought that defending the seceding states right to secede over slavery was more important then the Union.
Slavery was the root cause of the war, and all the smoke and mirrors will not change it.
Stephens even admitted that the new Constitution was superior to the old one in that it recognized that the African was to remain a slave.
No, I go with Stephens on this, he at least was an honest Confederate.
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other—though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man
Now, that it is the Vice President of the Confederacy who gave that speech and who believed in the cause for which he served.
The revisionist history of the Confederacy is that slavery was not an issue, that the north was just as racist as the south, that the Dred Scott was true.
You guys do not have the honor and virtue of any of the real Confederates who were at least honest in what they were fighting for.
He answered the question correctly, that Missiouri had voted to stay in the Union.
Since he was actually there and in the Confederacy, not inventing lies to defend slavery.
Stephens noted that the Founders had believed all men were equal despite slavery.
It was with the advent of evolution (Stephens calls it 'science') that a new view of the races had emerged, one in which the Negro was considered to be naturally inferior to the white.
That was the addition to the CSA Constitition that made it superior to the US one.
That was Stephens'views and they were met with applause.
Nice try, but read what he says in addition that statement.
He quoted Jefferson and says he is correct, that slavery was the rock on which the old union would break.
Slavery is the issue without which there would not have been a civil war.
The South was determined to make it acceptable in every state in the Union as a property right.
The North would protect the institution as a constitutional right, but they would not accept it as being 'good'.
Oh, if the South had men of the caliber of Andrew Stephens, Robert E. Lee and Davis-honest men, not men hiding behind double talk and evasion.
No error, slavery was the primary cause for the war.
In any war there are always various causes, but there is one overriding that ignites the fire.
Slavery was both the immediate cause and the primary cause.
The idea that slavery was not the issue of the war came after the war when dishonest confederates wanted to pretend that they were not fighting to uphold an immoral system.
Stephen's speech shows otherwise.
Well if Tommy DiLorenzo raves over it then it can only be hopelessly one-sided. So your opinion is understandable.
Well had you read the speech in the first place, you would see that Stephens' subject was the confederate constitution and the improvements it had over the U.S. constitution. One of those improvements was the fact that it clearly places the black population in their proper place in southern society, slavery. And, Stephens adds, the question of slavery was the reason for the rebellion to begin with. I can post a link if you are interested in actually reading the speech.
Just out of curiosity, what is the problem with Epperson? All he does is post documents on his site without editorial comment. Are you suggesting that he is somehow doctoring the documents or forging documents?
On this we are in agreement.
Did the South have another Vice President?
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. So where are all the other reasons that he saw fit to deal with first? Slavery was "not least", to be sure -- but it wasn't necessarily "first", either, whether in magnitude or certainly in order of his recitation. So where would Stephens put the emphasis, and would he agree with the inference you draw from his words quoted in part? You might also put on your thinking cap and reflect on the fact that an "immediate cause" isn't necessarily the greatest or most compelling cause, either
Well, Rustbucket has agreed that slavery was the main cause of the war, although not the only one.
Thank goodness that there are some people on your side of the issue who are honest enough to deal with facts.
I gave him a link to the speech.
I doubt it will help. He'll have to actually read it.
That's right. But he is a Southerner, one of them. A red-neck cracker, a knuckle-dragger. Feel the hate.
He didn't have to say anything to be excoriated as a hate-puppet by the press. Which is what happened. Newt bad, baaaaad Newt. We unbellyfeel Newt, Newt is an Oldthinker.
Newt got the Goldberg treatment from 1984. Content-free, it was pretty much pure hatred. That is the point Bozell was trying to make when he warned the GOP in advance, "Low bridge -- here they come!" He saw their ears laid back, he saw them coming as soon as the GOP conservatives took the Congress away from the MSM's boy, Slick. Bozell says he warned the GOP, but afterward they told him how stunned they were, that the ferocity was just incredible, they never imagined it would be that bad. But he knew it would be, because they had to destroy Gingrich and immolate the GOP's credibility with the voters. The politics of propaganda blitz was all they had left -- Newt had just about all the issues, through the Contract. So they resorted to GOP-wide character assassination.
You also brought up the New York Times. When was the last time you actually held a copy in your hands and read it.
I have a copy of one sitting on the brick bench next to my sofa, as it happens.
The editorial & much of the 'News' they deem 'fit to print' is most regrettably controlled by commie leftist Bush bashers, some of which are still trying to 'Dump Nixon'.
Worse. There's a quote from a NYT editor floating around the gay-themed threads somewhere, to the effect that more than half the editors of the NYT's front page are either openly or identifiably (by gaydar?) homosexual or bisexual. How did that happen? Pinchy had to have done something about stacking his editorial ranks with gays. He has been documented as pushing the gay line editorially and every other way (story selection, coverage, story treatment, issues identification). If Pinch is gay, that would explain it. If not, then something put a bee in his bonnet about gay issues -- he's been on the warpath since he got the keys to the executive washroom, a dozen years ago or more.
Blatant revisionist spins such as The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, is similar to statements by Nazi sympathizers denying the Holocaust took place.
No it isn't. The Holocaust deniers are lying. The Southerners who won't take guff off of you, are not.
If you are not one, simply state so, either way.
Why should I? You'll just lie about me anyway.
Besides, you haven't defined what you mean by that -- I'd be stupid to agree to a characterization you haven't defined yet. Because then you'll start putting words in my mouth and saying that I agreed with you, that I'm a knuckle-dragging, snaggle-toothed boogerman in a greasy slouch hat and dirty suspenders. With pellagra and scabies. And a three-day beard. And lice. And a 10-year-old black girl strapped to an ancient, stained mattress at home.<cue Leadbelly 12-string largo>
In terms of DiLorenzo, he is a white supremacist, an advocate of a return to (at least) the legal segregation of the Jim Crow era using all the familiar buzz lines the neo-rebels love hear.
See what I mean?
Post the part where he advocates segregation and Jim Crow. And put up the buzz lines about same. I'd like to see if they're the same ones "neo-rebels" (there was no rebellion) like to hear.
Post some of his white-supremacy advocacy, too, or at least a sentence or two that proves that he is a white supremacist. And I don't mean "well, he once posted a link to VDARE". I mean, quote him.
....in retrospect Lincoln and Sherman were far too lenient ....
Careful. Your scales and fangs are starting to show.
...the wedge issue would not even exist as a political football if bloody obstinate, red-neck minded fools would cease and desist from creating problems in the first place.
Riiiight, right. Just roll over and die. Like New Yorkers would, right?
Bite me.
No, it wasn't.
The root cause of the war was Northern will-to-power and hatred of the South, fomented by Abolitionists and the business interests who were using the Abolitionists.
The root cause of the war was arrogant, disrespectful, existentially offensive Yankee people like you.
Your opinion that I have an opinion is null and void.
I told you what Madison wrote. It wasn't my "opinion" about what Madison wrote.
And everyone on God's green earth knows what Jefferson thought about slavery -- it's been publicized to the four winds. It isn't my "opinion".
You're just studying to be a jerk like your amigo there.
Already did, years ago.
Now tell your little towel-buddy to post up the rest of it. The part where Stephens talks about the OTHER causes that fortheDeclaration isn't quoting.
It isn't about what Stephens thought any more. It's about your boy's refusal to post up.
Based on the Cornerstone speech it's an impossible question to answer, as you would know had you read it. Stephenson mentions only one cause for the rebellion, slavery.
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.