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?
Reading comprehension problems?
None whatsoever. I just don't understand the relevance. The southern states were never out of the Union.
Bump. My bad. He just railed against the President attempting to suborn a Senator. Either way he thought it unconstitutional. To bad he didn't feel that way a decade later about state congresses and Federal judges.
Check it again, please. That quote was made by Stephen Douglas and not Abraham Lincoln.
The court ruled that 'when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish the same'.
Exactly what occured in the seceeding states.
Then, 'the courts of the United States are bound to follow the decisions of the State tribunals'. Not that the federal government can substitute it's will for that of the state.
The only limit was that a state may not forcibly alter it's government 'while a State remains in the Union'. It does not state that a state must remain in the union, or that secession is prohibited.
That explains that.
You're on a role today. That quote is from the statement for the plaintiff and not from the majority decision written by Chief Justice Taney.
No, the point is that you attributed a quote to Lincoln which he did not say. Accuracy has never been that important to the southron contingent I guess.
No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition, that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure.As was this:
[48 US 1, 41]
'Undoubtedly the courts of the United States have certain powers under the Constitution and laws of the United States which do not belong to the State courts. But the power of determining that a State government has been lawfully established, which the courts of the State disown and repudiate, is not one of them. Upon such a question the courts of the United States are bound to follow the decisions of the State tribunals.'
[48 US 1, 41]
He also states that the President,
'is to act upon the application of the legislature or of the executive' of the state.
[48 US 1, 43]
Nonsense. The quote is from Douglas - I looked it up myself after you pointed it out. I simply asked 'so Lincoln never saw anything unconsitutional about coercion of the Senate, state congresses or federal judges?'
Judging by his actions, I can see why you failed to respond with an answer.
"In the course of his reply, Senator Douglas remarked, in substance, that he had always considered this government was made for the white people and not for the Negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so, too."
Abraham Lincoln, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois", 16 Oct 1854, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, (Roy P. Basler, ed.), Vol. II, p. 281."Now I protest against that counterfeit logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either, I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others." [italics in original]
Abraham Lincoln, "Speech at Springfield, Illinois", 26 Jun 1857, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, (Roy P. Basler, ed.), Vol. II, p. 405.
Well thank you for finally clearing that up.
I simply asked 'so Lincoln never saw anything unconsitutional about coercion of the Senate, state congresses or federal judges?'
I don't know, I've never looked it up. Judging by his actions, I can see why you failed to respond with an answer.
I was refuting your misquote.
So should we start referring to deliberate misquotes as a'4CJism'?
This WAS stated by Taney
Yeah, but what he didn't say was, "The court ruled that 'when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish the same'." like you claimed.
NS: I don't know, I've never looked it up.
Based on Lincoln's actions, do have have any idea what his policy was?
OK, and now what are these quotes in reference to?
Sorry, but nothing deliberate about it. A mistake on my part, but not a deliberate attempt to have the justice. In contrast, one Capitan Refugio continued to post misleading statements even after being corrected by nolu chan and myself.
Yeah, but what he didn't say was, "The court ruled that 'when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish the same'." like you claimed.
What he did say was 'the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure'.
For thoughtful reflection on the saint of the Republican party.
So, was Lincoln wrong in those comments? Were black men and women considered equal anywhere in the country? Forget the south for a moment, we know that blacks were considered useless and fit for nothing but slavery by the southern leaders and the southern people. Were they considered equal up North? Were they going to be afforded the same opportunities as whites up North? They may no longer be slaves, but were they going to be free to do what they wished and say what they wished and and live where they wished anywhere in the country, North or south? So what was Lincoln being but brutally honest with the delegation, and telling them what they probably already knew? And then he finished with a strong suggestion at colonization, a program he believed in along with men like Robert Lee and John Breckenridge. So what, exactly, are you trying to show in your post?
'MISSISSIPPI STATE SECRETS reveals the extent to which the state government was involved with halting the advance of Civil Rights in Mississippi. Recently released files document the activities of the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, an agency that spied on people suspected of involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. One observer has called the commission a mixture of George Orwell's 1984 and the Keystone Cops. In its files are the names of some 80,000 people and evidence of criminal acts taken against them, like the beating of a white minister who refused to close a preaching school for African Americans.'
'MISSISSIPPI STATE SECRETS is an extraordinary look at the other side of the Civil Rights Movement, revealing the incredible extent of institutionalized resistance'
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.