| 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?
Here is Lee in a letter to his son
The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen I take great pride in my country, her prosperity, and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded.
But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country then the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore,that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution (emphasis mine)
The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for a 'perpetual union'so expressed in the preamble and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of the all the people in a convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison and the other patriots of the Revolution.(emphasis added)
....Still a Union that can be only be maintained by swords and bayonets, in which strive and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me.I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind.(emphasis added) If the Union is dissolved and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people, and save in defense will draw my sword on none.
Memories of Robert E. Lee, by A.L.Long, The Blue and Grey Press,1983, p.88-89)
I guess you've missed the point... again.
But then again, I do undertand the problem that you neo-Confederates have, after all, rewriting history is difficult, espically when the facts go against you.
The Big Lie can only work for some of the people.
Anyone, wishing to 'personally' secede from the United States, from hippie, commie radicals, to neo-confederate secessionists, it's real simple, buy a airline ticket now and.... adios, arrivederci, auf wiedersehen, au revoir, bye-bye, cheerio, goodbye, sayonara, so long, skip the gutter, beat it & by the way, don't return!
"Not hardly." - Big Jake
Your editorial comments do not rise to the level of "corrections."
The section, later edited, read:
"[George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. [T]his piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. [Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold,] he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold]: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
Amen!
Yes, and it was the howls from some of the slave owners that stopped the passage from going into the Declaration.
Maybe they can find some deserted island and set up their 'new' confederacy.
Accurately quoting Lincoln.
Nothing editorial about it. You posted from a nonexistant decision, and posted from the trial arguments as being from the decision. You were notified, and continued the deception.
Last week, I cited trial comments and was notified by Non Sequitur. I will not continue that misquote, and thank NS for correcting me. I have no inclination nor desire to be associated with lies.
As usual, you're full of it. When I mistook one case for another, I retracted the error the next day.
I saw your retraction. I don't consider your error an intentional lie.
What's next from FTD, lecturing me on how the pro-lifers are on the right track thanks to people like Susan Estrich? Ever heard her rail about how horrible abortion is, and how hard it was for her to choose abortion all three times?
There were anti-slavery founders. There were pro-slavery founders. In the end, all of them chose slavery as an acceptable vice to carry, if it meant the new republic could not be forged without it (the same sin you accuse the Confederates of, by the way). However, per FTD, somehow they were so "against slavery" that they went home after a hard day's 'founding' and raped their slaves and sold thier children.
That is my American history. I do not feel the need to go back and clean it up for public viewing. Those who know me understand that I hold the same contempt for thier actions 200 years ago as I do for the abortocrats of today. It is to subsequent generations' benefit as well as their credit that the republic the founders formed overcame the evils they not only tolerated, but instituted. Credit where credit is due, criticism likewise.
It happened four times, you retracted one.
Go on and cite the argument in the Amy Warwick as the decision again.
Well look whose come slithering back from exile...
whose=who's
No, you phony.
That was not the same choice that the Confederates faced.
The rejected the idea that slavery was an evil to be ended.
They embraced it as a good to be expanded.
The Confederates became Confederates so they could expand slavery rather then accept the original goal of the Founders, (even the pro-slavery group) that it would one day be ended.
That is my American history. I do not feel the need to go back and clean it up for public viewing. Those who know me understand that I hold the same contempt for thier actions 200 years ago as I do for the abortocrats of today. It is to subsequent generations' benefit as well as their credit that the republic the founders formed overcame the evils they not only tolerated, but instituted. Credit where credit is due, criticism likewise.
And it is a distorted, warped, twisted history.
What you confederates hide behind is the courage of the fighting men who fought and died defending a wicked constitution, one that made slavery an explicit right, signaling out one race in particular to be enslaved.
You do not appeal to history, as noted with your posts with me, you attempt to rewrite it,(i.e. the Founders were not against slavery), to hide the real character of the Confederacy.
What are friends for ;o)
And the point is, THE PASSAGE DID NOT GO INTO THE DECLARATION, nullifying the point that you guys always try to use the Declaration to make: that the Founders wanted slavery dead, dead, dead, and that they wrote the Declaration to reflect that desire.
And thanks for the evidence.
No, they did not. Period. End of statement. End of argument. You're wrong. Dead wrong. Over and out.
So did the Founders, on the evidence you and Capitan_refugio adduce.
A deal is a deal is a deal is a deal.
The Founders preferred independence with slavery -- indisputable fact -- to squabbling, defeat, and forcible reconstruction under the hand of British officialdom.
Face it. The Declaration doesn't mean what you and Lincoln have said it means. Lincoln's reinterpretation of the Declaration was a fiction he concocted for contemporary political purposes -- namely, warring down the free citizens of the South.
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.