| 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?
Sorry, I figured you knew how to Google. Here is ex parte Milligan. This particular version of it has modern spellings. I can't give you a link to the text of Stidger's book. I don't think it is on the web, but you can purchase it at Amazon. I don't think Milligan was arrested for uttering the words I quoted, but he said them some time in 1864 before he was arrested.
i did.
if you did NOT, don't question the patriotism of those of us who DID.
allegience to and reverence for dixie and OUR sacred,bloodspattered battleflag is NOT being "anti-American", despite the HATEFILLED,arrogant,self-righteous STUPIDITY & LIES, promulgated out of the damnyankee-controlled "pubic screwl sistim".
fyi, YOU are a victim of those LIES & it makes you look like a DUNCE & an empty-head every time you post something as all-around DUMB as #3356.
free dixie,sw
Are you buying this whole "Texas declared war and captured a U-Boat" story? Are you buying that he's citing, by page number, a book he says he doesn't own and of which there's no trace anywhere, except as a four-page magazine article in 1972? The man makes things up to suit himself, and if, in this case, someone actually said what he claims they said, then they were out of line. But what Watie's said about me is way out of line.
why not "knock it off" & contribute something of VALUE to FR?
or you could head over to DU & waste their time.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Fine by me. Lets me spend more time discrediting what you say to others rather than simply responding to your increasingly hysterical attacks on me. Face it, Watie, I've busted you for lying once again. Please, anyone, do a Google search on Watie's "source" "Yachts Against Subs" by Gnaedinger
It would seem to me that you are mistaken. Santa Ana agreed to it per the Treaty of Velasco, which also had a provision requiring him to withdraw all Mexican troops to his side of the Rio Grande. Of course the Mexicans reneged on this almost immediately and renewed their efforts to reconquer Texas, but by that time Texas had already been welcomed into the community of nations whether Mexico liked it or not.
It is also false that the Mexicans acknowledged the Nueces River as their boundary with Texas. In fact they never even recognized Texas at all! In 1845 they still considered it a renegade province and were still trying to retake it. The Nueces River claim was nothing more than an arbitrary piece of specious nonsense they threw out after annexation in hopes of regaining the southern part of Texas since they knew they couldn't go up against the U.S. army. Thankfully General Taylor wasn't interested in playing their games.
The departing States didn't liquidate the Union. They merely withdrew themselves. They didn't need the consent of the full Union for that. They would have, if their purpose had been to abolish the Union entirely, but it wasn't. Each State's People spoke for themselves, and left the Union.
Their secession conventions were perfectly legal (Arkansas probably excepted), and their mode of withdrawal fully protected by the Constitution itself (Ninth and Tenth Amendments) -- as if they needed that, to speak and act for themselves, which they didn't, but nevertheless their acts were fully protected.
If you believe otherwise then by all means name one! Name a tax hike Lincoln opposed or a tax cut that Lincoln backed. There simply aren't any. There aren't any because Lincoln, unlike Reagan, was a lifelong adherant to the tax and spend philosophy.
Probably the title or the author is misspelt...... may have a look later when I get back from errands. Something to amuse oneself for a little bit, maybe, doing a fuzzy search of some kind. My cousin's wife is a research librarian, maybe I can charm her into sparing a few minutes (tho' she's working on her master's and is pretty fully occupied with her M.O.M. degree as well).
By all means, have at it. If it turns up, I'll learn a new place to reseach, because I did due diligence on this one.
First, though, you have to check this post by Watie last year which turned up in my first Google search of the title. (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1184555/posts, #36)
To: All
bet ya'll didn't know that the CG ARMED private fishing boats in the Chesapeake Bay AND provided arms (including water-cooled heavy MGs AND some "light deck guns", read CANNONS!) to the Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Texas (fyi,all TX gunboats are named/re-named for TX cities, when serving in wartime) and Virginia "state naval forces" (read:PRIVATEERS!), during WW2.
SOME of those fishing boats/yachts got into SHOOT-OUTS with German submarines & WON! all of the "privately-crewed gunboats did VALUABLE service to the war effort!
The CITY OF GOLIAD (formerly the 64-foot motor yacht, EEL) captured a U-boat in 1942 & towed it to Galveston,TX as a PRIZE OF WAR! (the U-boat is now berthed in the Galveston County Park.)
The CITY OF GONZALES (formerly the 88-foot sailing yawl, GRAY-HOUND)fought a 2-hour surface battle with another U-boat & SUNK the submarine, with a direct hit from a WW1-surplus ANTI-TANK GUN!
see the book YACHTS AGAINST SUBS by RAM(retired) L.B.N.Gnaedinger for more details! facinating book!
free dixie,sw
, So now we've got a title and an author. Search the author and the title on google and you get a reference to the magazine article in the USCG bibliography. So we can assume that the spelling of the author's name is accurate and that he did, indeed, write something that included the phrase "Yachts Against Subs," so the misspelling possibility diminishes. Search the University of Houston library website. Watie says that the book is availiable there. But it's not in their catalog. A title search for anything with the word "Yacht" or "Yachts" turns up nothing like Watie's book, and a search of the author's name yields a goose egg.. Search the Library of Congress site. No LBN Gnaedinger, no book called "Yachts Against Subs." So if you find this book, I'd like to know how you did it.
Thanks.
Lee's comments?
Not according to Lee it wasn't.
And the Mexican's repudiated the agreement that Santa Anna had made.
Compared to Democrates that means he was a conservative.
He could have easily been in the same political Party as Reagan, just as Ike could have.
Go find another litmus test.
Well, that is what the People should have done, not break up the Union through individual states.
You did not follow a constitutional means to deal with a constitutional problem.
do you have an ORIGIONAL SOURCE document for this quote?
free dixie,sw
EITHER would say or do anything to get more POWER.
BOTH were nothing more or less than CHEAP, scheming politicians & shyster lawyers.
had it been "popular" to promote cannibalism during their administrations, EITHER/BOTH would have come out for "the well-known benefits of consuming human flesh".
imVho, NEITHER deserves ANY of the hero worship bestowed on them by the left & popular media.
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.