Confederate States Of America (2005)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Now that you have finished talking in circles

Borrowing the projector from the AV room again, eh ftD? After all, you're the one trying to pass off a tax's revenue effects as a measure of that tax's increase in violation of the Laffer Curve.

Answer me this, ftD: Congress has two bills before it. HR 1 raises the income tax on all brackets to 97%. HR 2 raises the top bracket from 35 to 40%. Questions:

1. Which bill is the bigger tax increase - HR 1 or HR 2?
2. Which bill would produce the most revenue - HR 1 or HR 2?

As for Lincoln and taxes, he was never President during peacetime

Yes he was. One month and 7 days of peacetime to be exact from March 4 to April 11, 1861. He also spent 30 years prior to that campaigning for higher taxes

so we do not know if he would have cut taxes.

He rode into office on a platform that pledged to raise taxes and consistently held pro-tax views for the previous 30 years. What makes you think he would've reneged on his lifelong belief and completely reversed his position on a key issue from campaign platform? Sure, Lincoln was a liar and all but not that good of a liar - to decieve people into thinking he was pro-taxes for over 30 years!

That month and and a half was spend dealing with the secession crises.

It was still peacetime and he still enforced the new Morrill Tariff that he had campaigned on.

What did you expect him to do veto it?

Why would he do that? Lincoln campaigned on passing protective tariffs and told an audience in Pittsburgh that he'd make them his top legislative priority a week before Congress passed the bill. When Congress passed the Morrill Tariff they gave Lincoln exactly what he wanted.

And just how many tax bills did he vote for?

Don't know without checking the Illinois legislature's journals. He did say in 1859 that he had given more speeches in the old days favoring higher tariffs than any other issue. He also said his pro-tax views in 1860 were still the same as they had been in 1830.

We are able to fight this war without effecting the entire society.

So 9/11 didn't affect our society? You're the first person I've ever met that's claimed that.

Amazing how you could predict what a post-war Lincoln adminstration would have done! It's not very hard when you go with what we know about Abe Lincoln. We know for a fact that Abe Lincoln never wavered in his support for higher taxes during his entire 30+ year political career. Based on that information and the absence of any indication at all that he was having a change of heart on taxes, it is a safe conclusion that he would not have deviated from the course he had been on since the 1830's.

It is still a supposition on your part.

Besides, it is Congress, not Lincoln who had control of the tax issue.

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. And the yankees loved to needlessly tax and spend. They are still taxing and spending like crazy 140 years after Abe Lincoln showed them how to do it.

I think the South is enjoying the taxing and spending as well.

The South was mostly Democratic until recently, and supported FDR, Truman.

In fact, the only electoral votes that the liberal Adlai Stephenson got in 1952 were from the deep South.

Since Lincoln had only one term as a Congressman and one full term as a wartime President, your statment is simply nonsense. Not at all. In addition to his term in congress, Lincoln openly espoused higher taxes during his many terms in the Illinois legislature, as an Illinois and presidential campaign stump speaker for the Whig and Republican parties, and as a peacetime candidate for President in 1860. When somebody asked him during the 1860 campaign if he was still a protectionist like he had been in the 1830's and 40's Lincoln answered "I was an old Henry Clay-Tariff Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than any other. I have not since changed my views."

And being for high tarriffs was a regional issue, that both Democrats and Whigs split on.

Besides the tariff what other taxes did Lincoln push?

So they did end it. It's unconstitutionality caused it to be ended. Evidently Ulysses Grant cared more about that document than his former boss.

So, they did end it.

The protective tarriffs were constitutional. But nevertheless exhorbitant taxation.

They were constitutional.

And Jeff Davis did not raise taxes to pay for the war? Not the way Lincoln did, tu quoque boy.

But he did, didn't he.

Well, that is why we have elections now isn't it? Too bad that Lincoln rigged every election he could get his hands on by sending in federal troops when there was a chance the people would vote against his guy.

He didn't rig the 1860 vote in which his name was kept off the ballot of the deep south states.

It is called a Republican form of Government, and the people decide the make up of the Government. The "people" one decided that FDR made up the government. That does not make his tax and spend policies and his despotic relationship with Joe Stalin any less insidious though.

No it doesn't, but that is why we have elections, to get rid of bad leaders peacefully, instead of having nothing but anarchy.

If they vote in Republicans who want higher taxes, who are you to complain about it? The guy paying those higher taxes, which the government has no real right to collect from me seeing as it did not earn the money it takes. Using your ever-bizarre logic, BTW, the people voted in Bill Clinton once upon a time so who are you to complain about gays in the military, vetoes of the partial birth abortion ban, the 93 tax hike, the assault weapons bill, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

And that is why we had the Republican take over of the gov't in 94.

Clinton won fair and we had to deal with it.

We won in 94 and we won in 2000 and 2004 and they have to deal with it.

The Democratic Party was as competetive as the Republican Party and had every fair chance to win elections also. Bob Dole was as competitive as Bill Clinton and had every fair chance to win the election.

So?

He didn't and that meant we have to wait for the next election, not get up and secede.

He had two years as a congressmen and 5 as President, all of them were involved with war issues. ...and a combined three decades of constant involvement in politics as a state legislator, Whig and Republican party official, senate candidate, stump speaker, and presidential candidate. He espoused higher taxes during them all.

Really, I know he was for a protective tarrif, but did not see any other taxes mentioned by him.

Maybe you can link me to some of his quotes advocating these other taxes.

And Lincoln wanted to see the spot on where the troops were shot.

They may have been on Mexico territory.

No, because FDR made Social Security a part of the very fabric of our society, Lincoln put in a tax that was later ended. Is the income tax not a part of the very fabric of society today? Lincoln's income tax was simply delayed for a couple decades till they worked out the problem of its unconstitutionality. It came back under his banner in 1913 and has been here ever since.

Hey, you just admitted that the Lincoln tax was ended.

Whatever taxes were put into play after cannot be linked to him.

His uses of taxes were for a specific, limited, purpose the Progressives had a different goal, to change the entire society.

No, only one with your lack of reasoning skills would even dare to make a logical leap like that.

I see the projector is still missing. You're the one that claimed we can't blame Lincoln for what the laws he signed became after his death. I simply noted that what's good for the Lincoln goose is good for the FDR gander. If we can't blame Lincoln for what his laws did after 1865 then we can't blame FDR for what his laws did after 1945. I'll be the first to admit the idiocy of that proposition for either man, but you're the one who took us down this road by applying it to Lincoln.

Some are temporary like Lincoln's war tax, and others aren't.

How do you know Lincoln's income tax was temporary? He did not say it was temporary, did he? And he certainly didn't place an expiration date on it as they often do with temporary "emergency" tax measures. We also know that his other tax bills such as the Morrill Tariff were intended to be anything but temporary.

So name them!

Already did - the Morrill Tariff. Other tax hikes Lincoln campaigned for as a Whig stump speaker included the 1842 Tariff, campaigning against the 1846 tariff cut, and campaigning to restore the 1842 tariff in the late 1840's and early 1850's, plus dozens of local and state tax bills he supported in the Illinois legislature.

Tell me just how many awful taxes Lincoln is directly responsible for.

At least three distinct types: (1) Protective tariffs, which he campaigned for all his life, (2) various excise taxes, which he supported at the state level in Illinois and signed as president, and (3) the income tax, which he fathered as president.

100-120 billion is alot of money-period.

Yes, but it's still a revenue effect and not the size of the tax hike itself.

The level of severity of differing taxes does not change the fact that the taxes that Reagan signed into law brought in over 100 billion dollars, the third highest total in peacetime history.

No, but it doesn't make the 0.65% tax increase Reagan signed the "third largest tax hike in history" as you were claiming just a few moments ago either.

By the way, did taxes go up or down under Reagan in Californa while he was Governor? They went up. Despite Reagan’s aversion to taxes, the corporate tax rate doubled during his tenure as California governor, and the top personal income rate jumped by nearly 60 percent. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3638299/

And you trust MSNBC, who still can't get the 1981 Reagan tax cuts right, on economic analysis such as this?

Now that you have finished talking in circles Borrowing the projector from the AV room again, eh ftD? After all, you're the one trying to pass off a tax's revenue effects as a measure of that tax's increase in violation of the Laffer Curve.

and since when was the Laffer Curve the final answer to anything?

The tax bill that Reagan signed into office is the third highest peacetime tax in our history.

Laffer Curve notwithstanding.

Answer me this, ftD: Congress has two bills before it. HR 1 raises the income tax on all brackets to 97%. HR 2 raises the top bracket from 35 to 40%. Questions: 1. Which bill is the bigger tax increase - HR 1 or HR 2? 2. Which bill would produce the most revenue - HR 1 or HR 2?

The bill that would bring in the most revenue is the one that would be the highest tax.

As for Lincoln and taxes, he was never President during peacetime Yes he was. One month and 7 days of peacetime to be exact from March 4 to April 11, 1861. He also spent 30 years prior to that campaigning for higher taxes

And that is alot of time to deal with tax issues.

And besides the tarrif, might you show me where he advocated other taxes?

so we do not know if he would have cut taxes. He rode into office on a platform that pledged to raise taxes and consistently held pro-tax views for the previous 30 years. What makes you think he would've reneged on his lifelong belief and completely reversed his position on a key issue from campaign platform? Sure, Lincoln was a liar and all but not that good of a liar - to decieve people into thinking he was pro-taxes for over 30 years!

Well, since the people elected him on that platform who are you to tell the people of that time what they should do with their money.

Talk about being despotic!

You Neo-Confederates want to dictate elections over a century ago.

If Lincoln and the Republicans ran on a high tariff plank and got elected, then what is your beef?

The people got what they wanted, a higher tariff.

The South did get a chance to vote did they not?

No taxation without representation, but they did have representation, did they not?

That month and and a half was spend dealing with the secession crises. It was still peacetime and he still enforced the new Morrill Tariff that he had campaigned on.

Ofcourse he did, he and congress got elected on putting it into place.

Why shouldn't he do what the people who elected him elected him to do?

What did you expect him to do veto it? Why would he do that? Lincoln campaigned on passing protective tariffs and told an audience in Pittsburgh that he'd make them his top legislative priority a week before Congress passed the bill. When Congress passed the Morrill Tariff they gave Lincoln exactly what he wanted.

And he got elected President on that plank, showing that either the tariff issue wasn't that important to the people or they wanted a high tariff for internal improvements.

And just how many tax bills did he vote for? Don't know without checking the Illinois legislature's journals. He did say in 1859 that he had given more speeches in the old days favoring higher tariffs than any other issue. He also said his pro-tax views in 1860 were still the same as they had been in 1830.

I still do not hear of any other taxes but tariffs.

We are able to fight this war without effecting the entire society. So 9/11 didn't affect our society? You're the first person I've ever met that's claimed that.

Not in the way the Civil war and the world wars did.

No, only one with your lack of reasoning skills would even dare to make a logical leap like that. I see the projector is still missing. You're the one that claimed we can't blame Lincoln for what the laws he signed became after his death. I simply noted that what's good for the Lincoln goose is good for the FDR gander. If we can't blame Lincoln for what his laws did after 1865 then we can't blame FDR for what his laws did after 1945. I'll be the first to admit the idiocy of that proposition for either man, but you're the one who took us down this road by applying it to Lincoln.

Lincoln's taxes ended.

FDR's Social Security is still intact.

Even someone as obtuse as you can see the difference.

Some are temporary like Lincoln's war tax, and others aren't. How do you know Lincoln's income tax was temporary? He did not say it was temporary, did he? And he certainly didn't place an expiration date on it as they often do with temporary "emergency" tax measures. We also know that his other tax bills such as the Morrill Tariff were intended to be anything but temporary.

Did it end?

then it was temporary.

you have a hard time with facts don't yoü?

So name them! Already did - the Morrill Tariff. Other tax hikes Lincoln campaigned for as a Whig stump speaker included the 1842 Tariff, campaigning against the 1846 tariff cut, and campaigning to restore the 1842 tariff in the late 1840's and early 1850's, plus dozens of local and state tax bills he supported in the Illinois legislature.

Well, so far all I hear of is a tariff, which is only one tax.

If I remember correctly, didn't Reagan raise some tariff's?

Tell me just how many awful taxes Lincoln is directly responsible for. At least three distinct types: (1) Protective tariffs, which he campaigned for all his life, (2) various excise taxes, which he supported at the state level in Illinois and signed as president, and (3) the income tax, which he fathered as president.

And Reagan raised taxes as Governor.

The income tax was temporary for the war that the South started.

As for state taxes, I would like to see some documentation on his influnence on raising taxes in Ill. which was a Democratic controlled state.

100-120 billion is alot of money-period. Yes, but it's still a revenue effect and not the size of the tax hike itself.

No, it is the size of the amount raised.

That is what makes it a big tax hike.

The level of severity of differing taxes does not change the fact that the taxes that Reagan signed into law brought in over 100 billion dollars, the third highest total in peacetime history. No, but it doesn't make the 0.65% tax increase Reagan signed the "third largest tax hike in history" as you were claiming just a few moments ago either.

Yes, it does, by the amount of money it raised, it is the third highest peacetime tax in our history.

Very simple fact to check, did those taxes go up or down under Reagan in California.

It is still a supposition on your part.

And an educated one at that based on his track record. The fact that he never wavered on tax hikes for three decades before 1865 is solid reason to believe he would continue that stance.

Besides, it is Congress, not Lincoln who had control of the tax issue.

The President signs/vetoes the bills, makes fiscal requests to Congress, and exercises legislative weight greater than almost any single member of Congress itself. Don't try to pretend that Lincoln was an innocent bystander to all the bills his people churned out, he advocated, and he signed.

The South was mostly Democratic until recently, and supported FDR, Truman.

The entire country supported FDR, who was a yankee himself. Interestingly enough though, what little serious opposition emerged against FDR during the depression came from conservative southerners in Congress and southern political movements like the Texas Regulars.

In fact, the only electoral votes that the liberal Adlai Stephenson got in 1952 were from the deep South.

So were the only electoral votes that conservative icon Barry Goldwater got in 1964. Meanwhile all of yankeeland was off supporting LBJ.

And being for high tarriffs was a regional issue, that both Democrats and Whigs split on.

It was also Lincoln's biggest issue from the old days and one he had not changed his views on in 1860. Lincoln was a career-long protectionist.

Besides the tariff what other taxes did Lincoln push?

Excise taxes and the income tax.

So, they did end it.

Under threat of a constitutional showdown, which lasted until Lincoln's successors mustered enough support to amend the constitution.

They were constitutional.

So is the income tax today. But that doesn't make Bill Clinton's tax hike any less repulsive.

He didn't rig the 1860 vote in which his name was kept off the ballot of the deep south states.

Angela Davis' name was kept off the ballot in the deep south states (and many other states) when she ran for president. So is Lyndon LaRouche's. Being a presidential candidate does not entitle you to be on the ballot in every state, especially when you're from a regional party.

No it doesn't, but that is why we have elections, to get rid of bad leaders peacefully, instead of having nothing but anarchy.

No election ever got rid of FDR for us. He stuck around through four of them.

And that is why we had the Republican take over of the gov't in 94.

And yet we still haven't undone all the damage he did, so once again using your own illogic, who are you to complain about Clinton?

And Lincoln wanted to see the spot on where the troops were shot. They may have been on Mexico territory.

Nope. It happened right here on present day highway 281 in Cameron County, Texas:

The mexicans crossed to our side of the river about 20 miles out from Brownsville. 5 Americans were killed, 11 wounded, and 47 taken captive.

Hey, you just admitted that the Lincoln tax was ended.

What's to admit? It ran into constitutional problems like so many other things Lincoln did. Lincoln's successors solved those problems by amending the constitution.

Whatever taxes were put into play after cannot be linked to him.

Why not? He gave us the first and got the ball rolling. Had Lincoln not given us an income tax its constitutionality would not have been challenged, meaning no 16th amendment would've been proposed, meaning no modern income tax.

It is still a supposition on your part. And an educated one at that based on his track record. The fact that he never wavered on tax hikes for three decades before 1865 is solid reason to believe he would continue that stance.

Again, it is a supposition wheather or not you think it is educated.

It is meaningless in terms of historical facts

Besides, it is Congress, not Lincoln who had control of the tax issue. The President signs/vetoes the bills, makes fiscal requests to Congress, and exercises legislative weight greater than almost any single member of Congress itself. Don't try to pretend that Lincoln was an innocent bystander to all the bills his people churned out, he advocated, and he signed.

And don't try to pretend that tax bills originate with the President, they don't.

The South was mostly Democratic until recently, and supported FDR, Truman. The entire country supported FDR, who was a yankee himself. Interestingly enough though, what little serious opposition emerged against FDR during the depression came from conservative southerners in Congress and southern political movements like the Texas Regulars.

Oh, yea they gave FDR a real hard time.

Real conservatives, like voting for Stephenson against Ike.

What the yellow dog democrats did was give political power to the left wing Democrats.

In fact, the only electoral votes that the liberal Adlai Stephenson got in 1952 were from the deep South. So were the only electoral votes that conservative icon Barry Goldwater got in 1964. Meanwhile all of yankeeland was off supporting LBJ.

And only five Southern 'conservative' states supported him out of the 11 Confederate ones.

Not exactly the 'solid South'

And being for high tarriffs was a regional issue, that both Democrats and Whigs split on. It was also Lincoln's biggest issue from the old days and one he had not changed his views on in 1860. Lincoln was a career-long protectionist.

So?

Besides the tariff what other taxes did Lincoln push? Excise taxes and the income tax.

What excise taxes did he get passed?

The income tax was an emergency one.

So, they did end it. Under threat of a constitutional showdown, which lasted until Lincoln's successors mustered enough support to amend the constitution.

And so they did end it.

They were constitutional. So is the income tax today. But that doesn't make Bill Clinton's tax hike any less repulsive.

They were constitutional.

He didn't rig the 1860 vote in which his name was kept off the ballot of the deep south states. Angela Davis' name was kept off the ballot in the deep south states (and many other states) when she ran for president. So is Lyndon LaRouche's. Being a presidential candidate does not entitle you to be on the ballot in every state, especially when you're from a regional party.

Lincoln was a candidate from a major party, the examples you give are goofy.

No it doesn't, but that is why we have elections, to get rid of bad leaders peacefully, instead of having nothing but anarchy. No election ever got rid of FDR for us. He stuck around through four of them.

Well, I guess the people wanted him then.

They had a choice and they made it.

And that is why we had the Republican take over of the gov't in 94. And yet we still haven't undone all the damage he did, so once again using your own illogic, who are you to complain about Clinton?

So?

I am not complaining about Clinton since he is no longer President.

As a Congressman Whig, he had to vote to fund the Democrat's war on Mexico. But Mexico attacked a U.S. garrison and fired the first shot. That is, after all, what it takes to start a war according to you, is it not? And Lincoln wanted to see the spot on where the troops were shot. They may have been on Mexico territory. Nope. It happened right here on present day highway 281 in Cameron County, Texas:

Well, back then the facts were pretty sketchy.

The mexicans crossed to our side of the river about 20 miles out from Brownsville. 5 Americans were killed, 11 wounded, and 47 taken captive.

Well, that is the how the history books have it written.

There was some doubt when it happened however.

Hey, you just admitted that the Lincoln tax was ended. What's to admit? It ran into constitutional problems like so many other things Lincoln did. Lincoln's successors solved those problems by amending the constitution.

And the tax was ended.

Just like the Civil War ended.

Whatever taxes were put into play after cannot be linked to him. Why not? He gave us the first and got the ball rolling. Had Lincoln not given us an income tax its constitutionality would not have been challenged, meaning no 16th amendment would've been proposed, meaning no modern income tax.

Because his tax ended

and since when was the Laffer Curve the final answer to anything? Since right now, and you are ignoring its implications for your idiotic measure of tax hikes.

No, you are ignoring the fact that the 1983 tax hike was one of the most massive in our history, and your appeals to the Laffer curve cannot undo its effects.

In constant dollars, it was over 100 billion dollars.

The bill that would bring in the most revenue is the one that would be the highest tax. You aren't answering the question honestly. It's a very simple answer, BTW. What is a bigger tax hike: the one that raises the rates 5% or the one that raises the rates by over 60%? You can answer by drawing in a greater than or less than sign, just like you do in math class every day. Or have you gotten that far yet?

No need.

The 1983 tax hike brought in over 100 billion dollars.

It is ranked as the 3rd highest peace time tax in our history.

Now all you have to do is find three other ones (in peacetime) that brought in more dollars.

Save the double-talk for someone who has time to listen to it.

During and after the war, many in the United States placed the majority of the blame for the Mexican-American War squarely on the shoulders of Mexico. There may be a grain of truth in this ultra-patriotic view (Combs 99). President Polk sent troops under General Zachary Taylor to the region between the Rio Grande and Nueces Rivers. Texas believed that its southern boundary was represented by the Rio Grande River. The Mexicans, however, did not acknowledge this boundary and instead believed that it was the Nueces River. So, the Americans believed they were on Texan (soon to be American) soil, while the Mexicans believed that the Americans were on Mexican soil (Lavender 130). When Mexican forces attacked the Americans in this region, Polk believed that Mexico "invaded our territory, and shed American blood upon the American soil" (Richardson 442). With this information in hand, Polk proceeded to ask the Congress for a declaration of war, which he received easily. However, according to Polk's diary and other sources, he planned to ask Congress for a declaration before word of the Mexican "attack" ever reached Washington (Quaife 386). Refuting this "Mexico's Fault" theory even more is the fact that the government of Mexico at this time was in a period of chaos (Garraty and Gay 811). Still, the attack proved an effective scapegoat for not only Polk, but many other pro-war politicians. The Mexicans can not be totally blamed for this war. The attack that many patriots were so fond of using as justification for the war was simply an attempt by Mexico to defend land that it believed belonged to Mexico. Of course, Mexico could have responded in a more peaceful manner to the idea of Texas annexation. And Mexico could have responded better to American desires to purchase California and other areas of the Southwest (Lavender 130). If only it could be as easy as the Louisiana Purchase had been, Polk must have thought.

nonetheless these THREE states DID lawfully declare war on the Axis powers,

the State of Maryland DID arm & operate STATE-OWNED armed motor & sailing (!) vessels, under their rights to arm/train/utilize STATE naval MILITIA forces AND

RI & TX DID grant letters of marque & reprisal against Germany/Italy/Japan.

NOTE: the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (sitting in Houston, TX) DID find in the case of the privateer gunboat,CORPUS CHRISTI, (concerning the German U-Boat gun battle at sea, 1942) in 1945-6 that the Letter of Marque & Reprisal , issued by the Legislature of the State of Texas in Jan 1942, was LAWFUL under the Law of War,

that the SEIZURE of the U-Boat in battle was LAWFUL under the Law of War & that the U-Boat was a lawful PRIZE of WAR, which was rightly the property of the STATE of TX(the submarine is on display in the County Park in Galveston.).

AND that the crew of the captured submarine were NOT prisoners of war of the UNITED STATES, but rather of the SOVEREIGN STATE of TEXAS!

once again, may i suggest that you read YACHTS AGAINST SUBS. (sadly, i do NOT own a copy of the book BUT the University of Houston has at least one copy that can be borrowed through Interlibrary loan.)

fyi, since i wrote about this subject yesterday, i found out that the State of New York MAY have granted some PRIVATE vessels permission to be ARMED & "to prey on enemy shipping & vessels" during WW1. (is this the SAME as a letter of marque? i do NOT know the answer to that question, as i'm NOT a maritime lawyer, but it certainly sounds like the same thing.)

free dixie,sw

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.