| 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?
Buncombe yourself. There's a letter of Madison's that describes it, and we've discussed it online, as you well know, since you were a participant. I'll find that letter. And it was a letter, to a fellow Federalist, worrying about the contingency that nine States might ratify, thus launching the new Constitution and the new Union, while the other four States, might not ratify, but would still be bound by the Articles.
The latter isn't true, and wasn't true of many Articles until bound to the States either by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, or by the 14th Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment's status in California is a case in point, where there is no corresponding State protection of RKBA. It's a struggle out there to own a firearm, and firearms-haters are vindictive and frequently demand draconian penalties for paperwork violations of requirements they invent, precisely in order to incriminate firearms owners at the drop of a hat, in order to intimidate them into giving up their right to appease the vanity, or the folly, of the gun-haters.
The SS tax that Reagan signed into law was the third highest peacetime tax increase in our history.
Now, the fact is that Reagan and Lincoln would have been very comfortable with one another in the same Republican party.
And this is what the original question was about, Lincoln and Reagan having the same political philosphy.
Well, it was!
War does require high taxes.
But if Ronald Reagan signs a bill that includes, among its minor provisions, a section that gradually increases the Social Security tax by a mere sixty-five hundredths of a single percentage point over the course of seven years it's treated as the most horrible and burdensome tax increase to hit the United States since FDR!
That 'minor'tax increase was the third largest peacetime tax increase in our history.
Now the point of this discussion was that Reagan had no qualms about raising taxes if necessary, as did Lincoln.
Actually they needed Lincoln's permission, which he refused.
LOL!
Thank you!
ftD: And who questions that? The Bill of Rights come from the principles of the Declaration, to protect individual rights from Central gov't and State governments as well.
The BOR asserts that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Glad to hear that you support it.
Lincoln and the Republicans apparently questioned the BOR. Democrats in the Congress in July 1861 listed how Lincoln had violated the first six amendments and parts of the main body of the Constitution. And he had only been in office since March. The 10th Amendment was cited on the US Senate Floor by none other than Senator Jefferson Davis as the constitutional backing for secession. Lincoln ignored that too.
IIRC, the BOR was originally considered to apply only to the actions of the Federal Government. Many states had their own Bills of Rights in their own constitutions. Also, many states had established religions even well into the 19th century. Back then the establishment clause of the First Amendment that banned established religions applied only to the Federal Government, not to the states.
As far as I know, the national Bill of Rights (i.e., Amendments 1 through 10) did not get applied to the states until sometime after the constitutionally shaky ratification of the 14th Amendment. The 10th Amendment, of course, specifically mentioned the states, so it always protected their powers and those of the people from the central government.
The 2nd Amendment is a perfect example of the states abusing the rights of the individual.
They cannot abuse the other Amendments, so why do they get away with abusing the 2nd?
The Federal gov't should step in and remove any law that violates that right.
The South started secession before Lincoln even entered office.
IIRC, the BOR was originally considered to apply only to the actions of the Federal Government. Many states had their own Bills of Rights in their own constitutions. Also, many states had established religions even well into the 19th century. Back then the establishment clause of the First Amendment that banned established religions applied only to the Federal Government, not to the states. As far as I know, the national Bill of Rights (i.e., Amendments 1 through 10) did not get applied to the states until sometime after the constitutionally shaky ratification of the 14th Amendment. The 10th Amendment, of course, specifically mentioned the states, so it always protected their powers and those of the people from the central government.
And the point is?
How does that justify secession?
The same Reagan who said:
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.""History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."
I don't know, but I do know Lincoln had nothing to do with it!
Maybe it was to pay for the cost of Reconstruction!
As for the Progressives, ofcourse, since they were looking for a model for a income tax, they would look to one that had been used.
The tax was temporary since it did end-didn't it?
I am sure the Confederates were taxing everything also. Quoth the ftD: "Tu quoque! Tu quoque!"
Neo-confederates-only Lincoln is a tyrant, Jeff Davis did the same things but you cannot bring them up!
and that is Lincoln's fault? He certainly never showed any plans for tapering it down as the war came to a close. In fact he hiked the thing in late 1864. Furthermore, his exhorbitant protective tariffs were just where he wanted them to stay after the war.
Well, first, Lincoln had a Congress to deal with, and with the war over, his power would have been greatly limited.
Second, since he was murdered, we will never know what he would have done.
You guys claim we worship Lincoln and here you are blaming him for something he had no control of. No control, ftD? Lincoln only SIGNED the damn thing! But let me guess...that was all the south's fault too.
Did he have any control of it lasting 6 years after his death?
I know you guys think he was omnipotent, but even he couldn't rule from the grave!
Yes, the same Reagan.
As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.
Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. Abraham Lincoln
Ironic. Even Jeff Davis went to Congress for funding and suspension of the habeas corpus.
And your measure/source that a sixty-five hundredths of a single percent increase on Social Security taxes is the 3rd highest peacetime hike ever is what again?
To put the 1983 hike over 7 years in further perspective, let's look at what the payroll tax rate did in other similar length periods...
1977-1983: increased from 5.85 to 7.00, a 1.15% increase
1970-1976: increased from 4.80 to 5.85, a 1.05% increase
1963-1969: increased from 3.63 to 4.8, a 1.17% increase
1956-1962: increased from 2.25 to 3.13, a .88% increase
1949-1956: increased from 1.5 to 2.25, a .75% increase
Placed in the context of its historical growth over the previous five seven-year periods, the seven-year increase of .65% from 1984 to 1990 is actually the SMALLEST social security payroll tax since the Truman administration!
Now, the fact is that Reagan and Lincoln would have been very comfortable with one another in the same Republican party.
Unsubstantiated. Lincoln never saw a tax hike he didn't like whereas Reagan consistently favored tax cuts.
The Morrill Tariff was drafted over a year before the war. All those other taxes were retained for several years after the war ended. "War measures" are initiated during the war and get repealed at their conclusions.
War does require high taxes.
So did peace, evidently, in the minds of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.
That 'minor'tax increase was the third largest peacetime tax increase in our history.
By what measure? In terms of percentage increases on the Social Security tax as measured over comparable seven year periods, Reagan's increase of .65% was the SMALLEST since the Truman administration.
He signed the thing and made absolutely no plans to repeal it as the war was winding down. The biggest of the tax increases supported by Lincoln - the Morrill Tariff - didn't even have anything to do with funding the war and was intended to be permanent from the get go.
Maybe it was to pay for the cost of Reconstruction!
And reconstruction was going to cost as much as fighting the war itself?
As for the Progressives, ofcourse, since they were looking for a model for a income tax, they would look to one that had been used.
No kidding, and Saint Abe the Taxman provided a perfect model for them. They also knew that in his ENTIRE political career Abraham Lincoln never saw a tax increase that he did not support.
The tax was temporary since it did end-didn't it?
Only because they realized the income tax component was unconstitutional. Then they got around to amending that little problem away. The protective tariffs, BTW, were retained.
Neo-confederates-only Lincoln is a tyrant, Jeff Davis did the same things but you cannot bring them up!
Quoth the ftD: "Tu quoque! Tu quoque!"
Well, first, Lincoln had a Congress to deal with, and with the war over, his power would have been greatly limited.
Not a problem with taxes. On that both Lincoln and Congress were in complete agreement: if it moves, tax it.
Second, since he was murdered, we will never know what he would have done.
His 30 year+ political career in which he never once wavered from his advocacy of higher taxes is more than enough reason to expect that he would've maintained that course.
Did he have any control of it lasting 6 years after his death?
Technically no, but by that same logic FDR cannot be blamed for Social Security at any point later than 1945. But just as FDR fathered Social Security when he could control it, Lincoln fathered the Income Tax.
The President got that approval from Congress in 1863.
As for the South,
If the South was so concerned about Constitutional rights, let's look at how the Confederacy dealt with constitutional issues on her own soil. Freedom of the press was always tenuous -- beginning with the Secession convention in Charleston. At that time Robert Barnacle Rhea advised the editor of the New York Evening Post not to send a reporter: "No agent or representative of the Evening Post would be safe in coming here . . . He would come with his life in his hand, and would probably be hung." On April 14, 1861, even before President Lincoln called out troops to suppress the rebellion, the Confederate States arrested a journalist, Lawrence Matthews, for his reporting in Pensacola, Florida. And throughout the Civil War, journalists were required to obtain travel passes. And the Confederacy's President, Jefferson Davis, had no philosophical turmoil suspending the writ of habeas corpus and jailing Southerners without specified cause. In fact, it was only 15 years after the Civil War, when Jefferson began writing The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, that he began to construct the myth of constitutionalism.
http://www.chicora.org/myth_conceptions.htm
That rating is given by conservatives, not liberals.
As for Lincoln and taxes, he was never President during peacetime, so we do not know if he would have cut taxes.
Nor, do we know how Reagan would have handled a massive war, I doubt it would have been with tax cuts.
And Lincoln was responsible for that-how?
Oh, I know he issued a decree from the grave.
Sometimes war measures do not get removed at all, like withholding tax, which was something that we got in WW2.
War does require high taxes. So did peace, evidently, in the minds of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.
And when was Lincoln alive to make policy during peacetime?
That 'minor'tax increase was the third largest peacetime tax increase in our history. By what measure? In terms of percentage increases on the Social Security tax as measured over comparable seven year periods, Reagan's increase of .65% was the SMALLEST since the Truman administration.
By amount of money it took in.
It is rated third after Bush's and Clinton's.
Amazing how you could predict what a post-war Lincoln adminstration would have done!
But myth does replace history in the imagination of the Neo-Confederates.
Maybe it was to pay for the cost of Reconstruction! And reconstruction was going to cost as much as fighting the war itself?
I don't know, the Confederates are a pretty stubborn bunch.
they are still giving people a hard time and they lost the war over a hundred years ago.
As for the Progressives, ofcourse, since they were looking for a model for a income tax, they would look to one that had been used. No kidding, and Saint Abe the Taxman provided a perfect model for them. They also knew that in his ENTIRE political career Abraham Lincoln never saw a tax increase that he did not support.
Since Lincoln had only one term as a Congressman and one full term as a wartime President, your statment is simply nonsense.
The tax was temporary since it did end-didn't it? Only because they realized the income tax component was unconstitutional. Then they got around to amending that little problem away. The protective tariffs, BTW, were retained.
So they did end it.
The protective tarriffs were constitutional.
Neo-confederates-only Lincoln is a tyrant, Jeff Davis did the same things but you cannot bring them up! Quoth the ftD: "Tu quoque! Tu quoque!"
And Jeff Davis did not raise taxes to pay for the war?
If he did, then he was no more a tyrant for doing so then was Lincoln.
Well, first, Lincoln had a Congress to deal with, and with the war over, his power would have been greatly limited. Not a problem with taxes. On that both Lincoln and Congress were in complete agreement: if it moves, tax it.
Well, that is why we have elections now isn't it?
It is called a Republican form of Government, and the people decide the make up of the Government.
If they vote in Republicans who want higher taxes, who are you to complain about it?
The Democratic Party was as competetive as the Republican Party and had every fair chance to win elections also.
Second, since he was murdered, we will never know what he would have done. His 30 year+ political career in which he never once wavered from his advocacy of higher taxes is more than enough reason to expect that he would've maintained that course.
He had two years as a congressmen and 5 as President, all of them were involved with war issues.
As a Congressman Whig, he had to vote to fund the Democrat's war on Mexico.
Did he have any control of it lasting 6 years after his death? Technically no, but by that same logic FDR cannot be blamed for Social Security at any point later than 1945. But just as FDR fathered Social Security when he could control it, Lincoln fathered the Income Tax.
No, because FDR made Social Security a part of the very fabric of our society, Lincoln put in a tax that was later ended.
Now I trust we have exhausted this very fascinating subject.
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.