| 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?
the FACTS are that FEW people north or south cared a damn about the plight odf the slaves. almost NOBODY would have fought one skirmish over slavery, much less a major war.
saying that the war was about slavery is a LIE, nothing more & nothing less.
free dixie,sw
TYRANTS & WAR CRIMINALS will always find a self-righteous "reason" for having committed ATROCITIES against the HELPLESS!
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
.....which he worked very hard to bring about as one of his major life goals.
Don't you guys have any coffee around your office?
What they did was ratify the Constitution in Convention - several of them unanimously - and suggest possible amendments, within the documents own amendment process. A process which, by the way, allows a supermajority to bind a minority. Quite the opposite of the unworkable Articles.
Not every suggested amendment submitted to the Congress by the individual states was adopted, or even discussed. No state's ratification was even remote contingent upon the adoption of its suggested amendments - if any.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Whose got the "eye" among the neo-rebs?
However, am I to read that your position is that "amalgamation" did occur prior to the ratification of the 9th and 10th Amendments? Sounds to me like you have a logical problem on your hands.
If you don't stop being rude to me, I'm going to drag out Madison and the Federalist and spoon-feed your words back to you, one syllable at a time.
You know what I posted is true, we've been over that before and proved it. Who the hell are you, to turn America into a Nazi Reich? Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer!!!! -- what a pantsload!
The People of the United States are the People of the States, first and foremost. Each and every People, in each and every State. That's the geography and the history; live with it.
It's the complete average person's federal tax burden, so I suspect it did. Even if it did not, comparatively minor adjustments on Social Security are nowhere near enough to reverse a 12% downward shift.
What are you babbling about?
Ignoring the facts, I see.
Who said SS was a Reagan program?
Well, you for one blamed him for its byproducts.
Nothing liberal about my contentions.
That's what they all say.
The fact are that taxes have gone up under Reagan to pay for his first priority, defeating the Soviet Union.
Utter nonsense. The average federal tax burden dropped 12% under Reagan.
He saw that Government had a role to play in certain areas, like defense, and increased spending accordingly.
Yeah, but he also cut taxes.
Domestic spending did not go down
Actually, in some years he succeeded in cutting domestic discretionary spending. Welfare, which was an inherited problem from LBJ, continued to rise.
Reagan and this current Bush, would have the same exact view of Gov't that Lincoln had
Maybe Bush, but not Reagan.
And the South could have blocked that Tariff had they not seceded.
Not so. They didn't have anywhere near the votes in the House and the new president was against them. The last block was the Senate, and they lacked the votes in the new incoming senate to force anything more than a tie (to be broken in favor of the president by the VP).
Tariffs were supported by both Parties depending on what area of the country they came from, so this was not a simple Whig vs Democrat issue.
The whig party was essentially dead by 1860. It was a regional issue by then with nearly unanimous southern opposition and nearly unanimous northern support. The north outnumbered the south in the Senate, thus even with picking off a few northern democrat votes the best they could expect to muster was a tie.
Anytime the Confederate Government is brought up, you guys run for the caves!
I'm not here to discuss the Confederate Government and your only purpose of bringing it up is the tu quoque fallacy, that is to divert attention away from Lincoln's shortcomings.
When did I say anything about decreasing the amount of handouts?
You didn't, but that's what a "tax" on half of the social security payment check is.
The issue is who is paying and who is not.
And you seem to know neither.
And I will repeat myself again, SS is a tax, for whatever it is used.
No ftD. SS is a handout program. It is a handout program financed by taxes as almost all handout programs are, but the program itself is a handout.
Now, why do you keep bringing up taxing the SS handout checks when that is not what is being discussed.
You are discussing the 1983 Social Security Amendment, which levied a tax on the first 50% of SS handout reciepts for most persons, are you not? If not, then what the hell are you ranting about? Do you even know what you are ranting about? Or are you simply repeating some left wing mantra you heard somewhere about the eevviiiilll Ronnie Reagan who taxed social security?
As for a person who receiving a 'reduction' on the handout they receive, it is still a net gain for them and net loss for me.
And as I noted previously, that was FDR's program - not Reagan. So why then are you still blaming Reagan for FDR?
Oh, as I said, I did not blame Reagan
Then what are you ranting about with Reagan?
If extra revenue is coming in to the treasury and it is being spent, does that mean that Gov't has gotten bigger or smaller?
Depends entirely on how its being spent.
The cuts stimulated economic growth and did lead to greater revenue, but Reagan also signed a massive SS tax increase at the end of his term (Dole was a part of that I believe)
You need to name the specifics. The main social security bill from the Reagan administration was the 1983 amendment, and it taxed the handouts. Are you talking about that bill or something else, and if something else what is it you are talking about?
Wars cost money.
Hence the problem with wars.
Had there been no secession, Lincoln could not have grown the gov't to the size he did.
Had there been no Lincoln, Lincoln would not have grown the gov't to the size he did.
You can thank the South for the growth of the national gov't under Lincoln.
Gotta love that illogical Lincolnian line: "don't blame me for what I did! The south made me do it!" Kinda like his blasphemous second inaugural: "Don't blame me for this war! It's God's fault!"
Once again, run to the hills!
The only running is on your part. Rather than face the issue of Lincoln you run for the tu quoque fallacy to divert attention from him by highlighting the sins of the confederacy.
I think we should use the Lockean approach, if you mix your labor with it, you can keep it.
That still leaves us with the problem of defining land claims and asserting specified property rights. Only a market mechanism can do that efficiently, and government handouts are not a market mechanism.
No, just believe in a small, limited government, that gives the individual the ability to own his own home and business. Just like Lincoln did.
Nah. Lincoln's philosophy was give the northerners a handout then tax the hell out of everybody.
Those taxes were passed without representation.
In practice so was Lincoln's income tax given his propensity to arrest, harass, and otherwise physically impede congressmen who opposed his plans.
A sales tax allows you to pick which item is worth spending tax money on. It is far fairer then an income tax. Especially a progressive one.
You're still avoiding the fact that Lincoln enacted both types.
Go figure that it was wartime, and temporary.
Lincoln's income tax outlived him and the war by over six years. That doesn't sound very temporary to me.
No, it didn't -- the Constitution (you remember, we have a Constitution?) -- was ratified by each and every State, individually and independently. Conclusive and total non-amalgamation.
Now turn off those Eva Braun home movies and go do something American.
Hey, sounds like you have a problem with the concept of "temporary taxes"! Remember the federal excise tax on tires? IIRC it was an emergency war measure, back in 1942 or something.
i KNOW that you & the other damnyankee apologists on FR would like to ignore the MASS MURDERS of INNOCENT civilians & helpless POWs, rapes,tortures, looting of churches & synagogues,arsons & armed robberies of UNarmed civilians, etc., BUT the TRUTH is that they OCCURRED!
no amount of blather from damnyankee REVISIONISTS can wash away the FACTS or the river of innocen blood shed by the invading damnyankees.
come to DC & i'll take you to the KILLING GROUND & SHOW you what REALLY happened at Point Lookout DEATH CAMP! (a visit to the Point Lookout Museum,at the state park, is NOT proper pre-bedtime entertainment for the squeamish or small children!)
it is a grim PLACE OF DEATH, which is in no way different than DACHAU or AUSCHWITZ! MOST visitors leave the museum & grounds SADDENED & with tear-streaked faces.
free dixie,sw
it is PURE REVISIONISM to do so.
free dixie,sw
bump
Aren't you going to cite that dead professor who told you that way back when? Please explain 250,000 members of the American Anti-Slavery Society by 1838. Did none of them actually care about the plight of slaves. And if that was the case, why was the south so afraid of them?
Concerning this point, Professor Potter wrote:
"One other belief shared by men of the South in 1860 was especially important because they felt just uncertain and insecure enough about it to be almost obsessively insistent and aggressive in asserting it. This was the doctrine of the inherent superiority of whites over Negroes. The idea was not distinctively southern, but it did have a distinctive significance in the South, for it served to rationalize slavery and also to unite slaveholders with nonslaveholders in defense of the institution as a system, primarily, of racial subordination, in which all members of the dominant race had the same stake.
"The racial prejudice against Negroes cannot, of course, be dismissed as nothing but a rationalization to justify subordination of the blacks, for in fact it was in part just such prejudice which had made blacks and Indians subject to enslavement, while servants of other races were not.... "Doctrines of race not only served to minimize the potentially serious economic divisions between slaveholders and nonslaveholders, but also furnished southerners with a way to avoid confronting an intolerable paradox: That they were committed to human equality in principle but to human servitude in practice. The paradox was a genuine one, not a case of hypocrisy, for the southerners were more prone to accept social hierarchy than men in other regions, still they responded very positively to the ideal of equality as exemplified by Jefferson of Virginia and Jackson of Tennessee.... [T]his only made the paradox more glaringly evident, and no doubt it was partly because of the psychological stress arising from their awareness of the paradox that southern leaders of the late 18th and early 19th centuries ... acceded to the exclusion of slavery from the Northwest Territories in 1787 and to the abolition of the African slave trade in 1808....
"By the 1830's, however, this notion had begun to lose its plausibility, fro even the most self-deceiving of wishful thinkers could not completely ignore the changes under way. In the lower South the great cotton boom was extending slavery westward across Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and into Arkansas and Missouri. Texas was set up as an independent slaveholding republic. The traffic in slave between the new states and the older centers of slavery was probably greater in magnitude than the traffic from Africa to the thirteen colonies ever had been."
The Impending Crsis, pg 458-460.
True, but it apparently gives him more moral authority than a "damnyankee" in your estimation.
Please do - if you reiterate them enough times, you may even begin to understand them!
Sometimes, to be totally honest, one must be brutally frank.
Or do you wish to revise your statement?
MD,RI & TX (and perhaps some other states) declared war on the Axis powers AND commissioned armed gunboats with state naval militia and/or private gunboats under "letters of marque & reprisal".
SEVERAL of those privateers & STATE-owned GUNBOATS ACTUALLY destroyed enemy vessels & one (the gunboat Corpus Christi) actually captured a German submarine (with all the surviving crew), after a surface gun-battle that lasted several hours.
to give you an idea of how NASTY & close quarters the shooting between the gunboat & sub was, consider that MOST of the wounded/dead German sailors "suffered from BUCKSHOT or PISTOL wounds, inflicted during the fight at sea". (source the Galveston,TX County Courier.)
also see: YACHTS AGAINST SUBS, published in 1947 & SUDDEN DEATH ON THE BAY, published in 1960 by the Cheaspeake Bay Historical Assn.
free dixie,sw
Refuting treasonable doctrines, traitors, and their fellow travelers is about as American as one can get.
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.