| 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?
Any problem?
Indicating once again that you are bloviating about that which you have only a cursory understanding, the book entitled Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun is a simple compilation of major speeches and essays by Calhoun edited by Ross M. Lence and put out on a scholarly press. It is not a "polemic" and does not set out to "prove" some "polemical title." It is an edited compendium of well known historical documents by Calhoun!
In short, you don't have a clue what you're ranting about, Mister X, yet we all know that such shortcomings would never impede you from unleashing your verbal dairrhea all over the thread.
Yes, that was 1774, and that claim wouldn't wash because of the Articles' prominent mention of fealty to the British Crown as Sovereign. Oops.
I happen to believe that American nationalism goes back even further than that.
Ah, a mystic chords of memory kind of guy. Well, sorry, but we're talking about legally enforceable compacts and contracts.
The "United States of America" began, as a legal entity, with our Declaration of Independence
It began on that date as a revolutionary entity, not a legal one -- the only thing "legal" about the Declaration was the eligibility of the signers for a British rope. I'm glad they signed, and I'm glad we won, but that document isn't the legal cornerstone of the United States of America and the American Republic we now enjoy. Well, some of us enjoy, the rest of us -- the 13 States of the Confederacy -- being vassals, subject States, and playthings of the triumphant North and its dependent western marches.
Oh, my -- I guess that takes care of me!
Excuse me, I'll just run along and slit my wrists now.
Actually, it isn't. The devices on the field are a no-no, legally and heraldically, and the colors of the stripes are reversed.
Well, I didn't know that book, either, but then I didn't post up about it. Good catch, looks like you've administered the dreaded Shame of Abu Ghrabass Interrogation Technique: panties on head.
Well, we'd discussed graphics and how they make the page jerk around on my slow dialup connection while it posts up, but you pointed out that the front office apparently didn't have any problem with linking big files, so that was good enough for me.
Given that administrative indulgence, I was at a loss for how bushpilot got banned or sidelined for posting similar content. What the heck did he do? Ditto for CSSFlorida, who I don't think was posting things as large. I understand he was nuked globally and eis tous aionas.
As Lee stated, if a break up of the Union was to be contemplated, it should have been done with a national convention, representing the People of the United States, not individual state ones.
LOL!
No, once again, supposition is just that supposition
Historical context does matter. Evidently not to you. If you had your way we could just gloss over Lincoln's documented lifelong belief in tax hikes and pretend he wouldn't have kept that belief in his second term despite all evidence indicating that he would have.
No, a war was being fought which required high taxes.
The Confederates fight without high taxes.
Historical context-a war.
If Lincoln had lived out his second term we could have seen what his fiscal policies would have been like.
Moreover, not cutting taxes does not make one not a conservative.
The traditional view is that balance budgets are the issue and if the spending was necessary, so was taxes to raise revenue.
Lincoln was an ex-Whig. They were strong believers in a weak Presidency, letting the Congress do what it was suppose to do. And your example of this type of "weak" president is Abraham Lincoln? BWA-HAHAHAHAHA! Sure thing, ftD. And on that same note Hillary Clinton is a conservative! /sarcasm
And had there been no Civil War, Lincoln could have been one of the weakest Presidents in history, as had the ones that had preceded him and followed him for some time had been.
The war thrust him into a leadership role.
A Republican controlled Congress would have called the shots and Lincoln would have simply made sure that the bills were constitutional. Evidently not seeing as he signed many bills that were blatantly unconstitutional including the income tax.
Not during the emergency war they weren't.
The constitutionaly pure confederates did not have an income tax?
So your complaint about Lincoln as a high taxer and driving the tax issue goes against the very political philosopy he adhered to. Sorry to intrude upon your fantasy, but the reality of Abe Lincoln simply says otherwise. He was planning to push for a massive tariff hike whether there was a war or not and openly admitted that to his advisors and friends.
The Republicans favored high tariffs-so what!
The interstate trade between the States was one of the greatest free trade markets in existance.
There were sound arguments in the 19th century to keep cheap goods out of the nation, while the nation developed its own industry.
Doesn't Pat Buchanan advocate a return to protectism?
Would anyone consider him a 'raging liberal'?
He may have supported high tariff's but he would not have seen his role as interfering with the Congress in their role of making the tariff bill. His speech in Pittsburgh circa February 1861 where he pledges to push the tariff issue through congress says otherwise.
Well, according to you he did not have to push through anything, Congress was going to hand it to him.
It is not the Yankee's that we are discussing, it is the so-called conservative South And I cited some conservative southern movements against FDR that gave him more trouble than any yankee ever did.
What movements did you cite?
How did they cause him trouble?
The only reason the South is going GOP now is because so many Yankees have moved down here. Utter nonsense just like everything else you spew. The yankee transplants tend to vote democrat and are the primary reason why the otherwise conservative state of Florida is close in so many elections. Just look at that state's district level voting patterns to see the truth. Florida's most conservative section is its panhandle, which is almost entirely native born Floridians or transplants from neighboring Georgia and Alabama. The "chad corridor" of Fort Lauderdale through West Palm Beach, OTOH (aka the place that gave us Robert Wexler) is heavy on yankee transplants (the geezers from New York who move down there) and votes Democrat.
I was not talking about retiree's, but average working people.
Besides Florida went overwhelmingly Republican in the last two elections.
Still-Stephenson!? Still, Goldwater.
I will grant that five out of the 11 made a radical turn around.
That makes 6 that voted for LBJ, one of our most liberal Presidents.
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, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the south's record of voting Democrat prior to Goldwater is a basis for condemning them, yankeeland's unanimous support for the second biggest communist to ever run on a major ticket in 1964 is more than enough reason to condemn it. Furthermore, unlike Stephenson, LBJ actually got a chance to push his insidious programs through so the yankee states that elected him bear the blame for that as well.
What the ýellow dog'South did was give the control of Congress for 50 years to the Democrats and that is what allowed Johnson to get his polices through.
In a Democrat controlled state? Who said it was a Democrat state? Illinois had a sizable Whig party too from 1839 on and for many years in the late 1830's and early 1840's had no clear organized party system in its government.
No, the Democrats controlled the state in the 40's-50-s.
He must have a very powerful legislater. Evidently he was. In 1838 Lincoln even got the second highest number of votes for Speaker of the Illinois house and subsequently became one of the main Whig floor leaders.
That is because they recognzied his genius.
Ike gave us the interstate highway system, would you regard him as liberal? I already told you I regard Ike as a moderate. Robert Taft was the conservative at the time.
And both could be in the same Republican Party, as could have Lincoln and Reagan.
Which is what started this long drawn out series of posts.
It was needed to fight a very costly war The constitution is supreme, be it war or peace. Lincoln violated that constitution by imposing an income tax.
In war, extreme measures are necessary and one of them was the temporary tax.
Did the Confederacy ever violate its own constitution by taxation?
It was ended. It was later restored.
Not by Lincoln it wasn't.
Getting any tax is removed is tough. So is amending the Constitution, yet they did just that so they could restore Saint Abe's income tax.
No, it wasn't Lincoln's tax, it was a progressive income tax.
Lincoln's tax had been removed years earlier.
Just because something is like something else, doesn't mean it is the same.
It was hard to get rid of wage and price controls after WW2 also. That would've never been a problem had they not enacted them in the first place. Same goes for Abe's taxes.
Well, they were, but they to were temporary, as were the taxes.
Government does not like to give up its revenue. And neither did Abe.
Lincoln never had a chance to, he was killed before he could be a peace time President.
Exactly!
At least he is being honest.
Since the Confederate Constitution had slavery written in explictly, those who are defending the Confederates are defending slavery, no matter how much they deny 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.
That foreign nations recognized the Rio Grande, is irrelevant to what Mexico believed.
http://www.azteca.net/aztec/war/Mexican-American-War.html
How do you figure that?
If you move to California, do you call a convention of your neighbors first, to see if you can sell your house and go?
Just because you have deed restrictions?
a
You have yourself have stated that the people can call a constituional convention to disband the government.
If you are going to break up the Union, that it should have followed constitutional means.
Not while he was alive and was using the army to incarcerate judges, newspaper editors, writers, legislators state and national, and common people who spoke against him and to influence elections by preventing his opposition from voting. He even threatened to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
After he was dead, the Supreme Court finally felt brave enough to rule on at least domr his actions. Here are some excerpts from ex parte Milligan (1866):
Milligan insists that said military commission had no jurisdiction to try him upon the charges preferred, or upon any charges whatever; because he was a citizen of the United States and the State of Indiana, and had not been, since the commencement of the late Rebellion, a resident of any of the States whose citizens were arrayed against the government, and that the right of trial by jury was guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States.
The importance of the main question presented by this record cannot be overstated; for it involves the very framework of the government and the fundamental principles of American liberty.
During the late wicked Rebellion, the temper of the times did not allow that calmness in deliberation and discussion so necessary to a correct conclusion of a purely judicial question. [They were too scarred of Lincoln to decide a case in a Northern state outside of the war zone.] Then, considerations of safety were mingled with the exercise of power; and feelings and interests prevailed which are happily terminated. Now that the public safety is assured, this question, as well as all others, can be discussed and decided without passion or the admixture of any element not required to form a legal judgment. We approach the investigation of this case, fully sensible of the magnitude of the inquiry and the necessity of full and cautious deliberation.
The controlling question in the case is this: Upon the facts stated in Milligan's petition, and the exhibits filed, had the military commission mentioned in it jurisdiction, legally, to try and sentence him? Milligan, not a resident of one of the rebellious states, or a prisoner of war, but a citizen of Indiana for twenty years past, and never in the military or naval service, is, while at his home, arrested by the military power of the United States, imprisoned, and, on certain criminal charges preferred against him, tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged by a military commission, organized under the direction of the military commander of the military district of Indiana. Had this tribunal the legal power and authority to try and punish this man?
No graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole [71 U.S. 2, 119] people; for it is the birthright of every American citizen when charged with crime, to be tried and punished according to law. The power of punishment is, alone through the means which the laws have provided for that purpose, and if they are ineffectual, there is an immunity from punishment, no matter how great an offender the individual may be, or how much his crimes may have shocked the sense of justice of the country, or endangered its safety. By the protection of the law human rights are secured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers. or the clamor of an excited people.
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, [71 U.S. 2, 121] and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false ...
Here are some words that Milligan spoke in 1864 before he was arrested (from the Stidger book about Knights of the Golden Circle):
... we will maintain, peaceably if we can, but forcibly if we must, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of the person from arbitrary and unlawful arrest, and the freedom of the ballot box, from the aggression and violence of every person and authority whatsoever.
... we will resist by force any attempt to abridge the elective franchise, whether by introduction of illegal votes, under military authority, or by the attempt by Federal Officers to intimidate the citizen by threats of oppression.
domr = some
In fact, it links his name with Washington's does it not?
When you guys post these articles, could you also post a link along with it?
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.