| 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?
NO, Booth was NOT uniformed. State militia members need NOT be uniformed, under the state Police & Militia Act.
being uniformed is NOT required for VA state/private militia members then/NOW, though the Commonwealth DOES encourage such uniforming of BOTH state & private militias (like the Richmond Howitzers for example) & other military forces operating in VA, "for the public purpose of identification".
free dixie,sw
Congress by itself couldn't amend the Constitution to make what he did legal.
A web search of "Yachts Against Subs," which you claim as a book (and on another thread idenfity by author, Gnaedinger), turns out to be a five page article in "Motor Boating and Sailing Magazine" from 1972. In that other thread (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1184555/posts) In that thread, you also identify the capturing ship as the "City of Goliad," not the "Corpus Christi"
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/Auxiliary_Bib.html
Gnaedinger, L. B. N. "Picket Patrol: Yachts Against Subs." Motor Boating & Sailing (Dec 1972), pp. 46-49.
It is no "fact" that simply bringing in revenue defines the size of a tax hike high. If your inept definition of a tax hike were valid, then technically speaking a tax CUT that brought in more revenue by inducing an outward movement along the Laffer Curve would constitute a "hike."
The real problem here, ftD, is that you've staked out a position to defend Saint Abe at all costs even if it means putting down everybody else including Reagan. So you twist, turn, and contort the numbers to the point that a SS tax increase of sixty-five hundredths of a single percentage point is somehow larger than Smoot-Hawley, the FDR income tax, the WWI income tax, the Morrill Tariff, the Tariff of Abominations and virtually every other exhorbitant tax hike in our nation's history save two. Leave it to a Claremonster to back himself into defending the absurd, all in the name of defending Saint Abe.
No need.
"No need" only because you are not even honest enough to answer the simple straight forward question of which is the bigger tax hike: raising the rates by 5% or raising the rates by 60%.
You're dishonest to boot, ftD, and just like liberalism and neo-nazism, chronic dishonesty places you in good company within the Wlat Brigade.
the PURITAN, a privateer out of Providence RI, was 123 feet long at the waterline & about 140 foot on deck with 4 cannons, a 5" deck gun & at least 12 fifty-caliber machine guns.
she had a crew of about 40 persons.
to ME that's pretty BIG & really WELL-armed!
free dixie,sw
Actually, Mexico had previously defined the Rio Grande as the boundary of Texas. Article IV of the 2nd Treaty of Velasco:
A treaty of Commerce, Amity and limits will be established between Mexico and Texas. The territory of the latter not to extend beyond the Rio. Bravo del Norte.
Signed:
David G. Burnet, President of the Republic of Texas
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, President of Mexico
May 14, 1836
Mexico later reneged on both that clause establishing the border and its promise to recognize Texas independence all together and from 1837 to 1845 made several unsuccessful attempts to invade and reconquer Texas. Meanwhile Texas established its own government and obtained foreign recognition of its sovereignty and boundaries from the United States and all the major European powers. What Mexico was now asserting as its "border" in 1846 after a decade of violating that border and every other was of no merit by that point.
"What is at stake between us here is the 175-year-old dispute between the "loose constructionist’ and the "strict construc tionist" interpretations of the Constitution. Professor Jaffa is, of course, entitled to his loose-constructionist position; he has distinguished company, men so different in other respects as Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. It does seem rather odd to me, however, that, considering the honored antiquity of both positions, Professor Jaffa should imply that all constitutional tradition is on his side of the argument...The issue beween the two interpretations of the Constitution is brought to a head by Professor Jaffa himself when he writes: "The principle of a free constitution rests not in any particular distribution of the powers of government, but in the recognition that all men have rights which no government should infringe." A happy thought -- the only problem is what to do about government when a "particular distribution" of power lands all the power in the hands of a government that does "infringe." It is the genius of the American Constitution, understood as a constitution of radically divided powers (the strict-constructionist view) that it provides, for the first time in history, guarantees that no one shall have sufficient power to infringe upon the freedom of the individual person. Professor Jaffa’s airy and cavalier lack of concern with how power is distributed leaves him with no defenses, except hope, against the innate tendency of government to concentrate power and to ride roughshod over the individual. It fully explains his admiration of Jackson, Lincoln, et al." - Frank Meyer, National Review, 1/25/66
As you can see, nothing has changed with Harry Jaffa in the decades since.
It seems, then, that Booth was not acting in any military capacity. He was simply a disgruntled political assassin. He had no orders. Which means his actions were those of a criminal, not a soldier.
I found the following news story involving a German submarine and Robert E Lee (German sub).
Hmm. Not according to their catalog. Nothing by Gnaedinger, no book called "Yachts Against Subs."
You really need to stop making up evidence that is so easily proven wrong.
And a very sound supposition at that since it is based on Lincoln's track record. Saying that Abe Lincoln would've continued his career-long tax and spend philosophy is about as safe as saying that John Kerry would've appointed pro-abort judges.
And don't try to pretend that tax bills originate with the President, they don't.
Don't try to change the subject. YOU attempted to pretend that Lincoln had nothing to do with all those tax bills he championed and signed. I caught you and called you to task on that, never once asserting that the tax bills originate with the president but rather only that he occupies what is probably the single the most dominant office in passing tax policy - the presidency.
Oh, yea they gave FDR a real hard time.
A harder time than anybody in yankeeland ever gave him!
Real conservatives, like voting for Stephenson against Ike.
Actually the south split between Stephenson and Eisenhower.
And only five Southern 'conservative' states supported him out of the 11 Confederate ones.
...as opposed to ZERO states out of all of yankeeland, which LBJ carried unanimously and without effort. So?
So, he favored high taxes throughout his career exactly as I said.
What excise taxes did he get passed?
Several dozen during his presidency and several "internal improvements" taxes in the Illinois legislature.
The income tax was an emergency one.
It was drawn out, developed, and adjusted (in an upward direction) over his four years in office, outlived him by six years, and served as a direct impetus for the establishment of the current income tax. That doesn't sound like an "emergency" to me. Nor does an "emergency" give Lincoln the power to directly violate the original constitution's prohibition on those types of taxes.
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.
...quoth the broken record who cannot/refuses to think for himself.
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.
...quoth the broken record who cannot/refuses to think for himself.
Lincoln was a candidate from a major party, the examples you give are goofy.
No. He was a candidate from a regional party that had no organization or membership in most of the southern states.
Well, I guess the people wanted him then.
So you are saying that we have no basis for complaining about all the insidious things FDR did?
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?
...quoth the broken record who cannot/refuses to think for himself.
Well, back then the facts were pretty sketchy.
Nah. General Taylor was very clear where he established his encampment, kept track of where he sent his patrols, and sent direct reports of what happened back to Washington.
Well, that is the how the history books have it written. There was some doubt when it happened however.
Such as?
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.
...quoth the broken record who cannot/refuses to think for himself.
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
...quoth the broken record who cannot/refuses to think for himself.
??? I wasn't arguing that the State of Texas ever captured a German submarine, only that they were in the neighborhood. I know what the article I posted said, and I know what you were disputing with stand.
My apologies, then. Apparently the best book on the whole subject is "Torpedoes in the Gulf: Galveston and the U-Boats 1942-1943" by Melanie Wiggins, Texas A&M Press.
I've been in the sub at Seawolf Park in Galveston. Like you said, it's an American sub.
Privateering was outlawed by the Paris Declaration of 1856 which the United States agreed to abide by in 1861. And in any case states are forbidden to issue Letters of Marque as per Article I, Section 10.
http://uboat.net/fates/losses/cause.htm
The only German sub in captivity is the U-505 at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.
Being called "dishonest" by a confederate apologist is a badge of honor. None of them have the slightest moral frame of reference.
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.