| 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?
It just occurred to me that you might not know how to access the records of the Congressional Globe, the Confederate Congress, the Continental Congress, etc. I've cited them periodically. They can be accessed online Here
Try using the Search function on the left side. You can specify a particular session of Congress or a particular set of records. There is some very interesting history out there.
I have posted the statement on an earlier post.
Hey argue with your friend GOP Capitalist, he agreed that Lincoln was like Bush or Ike (instead of Reagan)
Maybe you think Bush and Ike were like Clinton?
Thanks Again!
free dixie,sw
Well, we agree on something.
I think he is wrong also-on everything but that.
GOP captialist is a "good ole boy" though & a H of a good ole reb, too.
free dixie,sw
Yet, something else we agree on!
NOW if i could just get you properly educated on the war for dixie LIBERTY!
free dixie,sw
You said it brother!
...putting them in breach of that agreement. After all, it wasn't Texas' fault that the Mexican government decided to overthrow their dictator a few months after Texas won its independence.
Of course Santa Anna returned to power in 1838, deciding he wasn't going to honor his agreement either making for a second breach of it. But by that time the Republic of Texas, as geographically defined under the treaty, was already recognized in the community of nations of the world so Santa Anna's whining didn't matter.
I never said he was like Ike. He was moderate for the Republican Party of the 1860's, which included more than its share of extremists and outright nutcases like Ben Wade, Chuckie Sumner, and Thad Stevens. But that Republican party ceased to resemble the current Republican party after the electoral realignment of 1896.
Compared to Democrates that means he was a conservative.
Nope. Prior to the electoral realignment of 1896 the Democrats were traditionally the conservative party. Their constitutional philosophy more closely resembled strict constructionism, whereas Lincoln and the Republicans adhered to loose constructionism.
He could have easily been in the same political Party as Reagan, just as Ike could have.
That remains to be substantiated. As I have noted, Lincoln differed substantially from Reagan on his tax philosophy (Lincoln never supported any significant tax cut at any point in his career and ALWAYS supported the tax hikes whereas Reagan consciously worked to reduce taxes). I'll add to that list that he differed from Reagan on his constitutional philosophy (Reagan was a strict constructionist and Lincoln a loose constructionist).
That is what they did -- the People called secession conventions, seceded, and left the Union.
State equals People does not equal "state government".
There is no amalgamated "uber-People" that acts, or has ever acted, in a "mega-convention" of All the People of All the United States. That ain't the way we do business. That is because the lumpen People is a fiction, something invented by Hamilton to give the populous, big, commerce-dominated States (and the businessmen who dominated them) an edge over the rest of the People of every State. Hamilton's attempted coup was rejected by the People, who modified his plan in convention and with the Bill of Rights, to draw the teeth of the corporofascist federal tiger that Hamilton meant to unleash on them.
You Northern triumphalists are just celebrating your unjust Civil War victory over the Southern States and denying, as false propaganda, that the States exist any longer except as departments and lackeys of the federal government -- which you own.
Your position is precisely analogous to Slobodan Milosevich's, and like him, you will eventually see your faction-leaders on trial for usurpation and lese majeste' against the People, i.e. the States, for insulting their paramountcy, their sovereignty, and their rights and powers.
Amen, brother.......and has anyone noticed, that Confederate money is already worth more than face value in Yankee money? This modern play-money, this multicolored cabbage that the Yankee mints are giving us, is losing its value so fast that pretty soon it "won't be worth a Continental!"
Hell, there's going to be a cottage industry in marking up Confederate money against the Yankee "funny money", so that people exchanging Confederate dollars for Yankee ones don't ax-dently cheat themselves! LOL!
Ain't that so, amigo?
"Save your Confederate money, boys, the South will riiiize ag'in!". Look out, Yankee neighbors -- it could happen! LOL!
Courtesy normally dictates that you ping another poster when you are putting words in his mouth. I stated that Ike and Bush were moderates as opposed to conservatives in the modern sense. I did NOT say that Lincoln was on par with either of them though, and far from it. If you want a president who compares with Lincoln both in philosophy and political style there are three who come to mind: FDR, LBJ, and Clinton.
And if I can get you properly educated to understand that dixie liberty is found in American liberty.
Thus, as far as they were concerned the border was still an open issue.
Big freakin' deal. Every U.S. coin or note from the 1860-1865 timeframe is worth more than it's face value, too. Now, trot out a confederate dollar circa 2005 and let's compare it's value with a U.S. dollar of the same denomination.
Now if I haven't lost the reader completely, let me throw in yet another curve ball: It's not at all clear that Reagan "cut taxes" on net! Yes, he cut tax rates when he first came into office, but in his second term he signed an "emergency deficit reduction act" that "closed loopholes" (and destroyed the real estate market). Thus it is difficult to assess the overall tax drain on the economy.(emphasis added) Let's be honest: We can bicker about statistics all day. But here's something that I bet will surprise you. Surely a roughly fair measure of the total amount of taxes (we're not even talking about spending, remember) taken by the government would be the percentage of gross domestic product. This particular statistic is not very sensitive to inflation, and it also incorporates the possible benefits of a booming economy. Now if the supply-side version of the Reagan years is generally correct, surely federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP should be much lower under Reagan than under Carter, right? Not really. For the fiscal years for which Carter can be held responsible (i.e. 1977 through 1980), tax revenues as a percentage of GDP were 18.0, 18.0, 18.5, and 19.0. The figures for Reagan's fiscal years (1981 through 1988) are 19.6, 19.2, 17.4, 17.3, 17.7, 17.5, 18.4, and 18.1. Yes, some of the lowest years occurred under Reagan, but the following is also true: The two years in which the greatest fraction of the economy was taxed occurred under Reagan,[3] and two of Carter's yearly figures were both lower than four of Reagan's yearly figures. (In fairness, I admit that the average of the above numbers for Carter is 18.4 percent, while for Reagan it is 18.2 percent. But hardly something to write Thomas Jefferson about.) http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1668
And another article,
A central theme of the supply-side school is that a sharp cut in marginal income-tax rates will increase incentives to work and save, and therefore investment and production. That way, few people could take exception. But there are other problems involved. For, at least in the land of the famous Laffer Curve, income tax cuts were treated as the panacea for deficits; drastic cuts would so increase stated revenue as allegedly to yield a balanced budget. Yet there was no evidence whatever for this claim, and indeed, the likelihood is quite the other way. It is true that if income-tax rates were 98% and were cut to 90%, there would probably be an increase in revenue; but at the far lower tax levels we have been at, there is no warrant for this assumption. In fact, historically, increases in tax rates have been followed by increases in revenue and vice versa. http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch10.asp
And again,
And on Reagan's tax cuts,
Taxes Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restricdons, which may require little government outlay. If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%. Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. (emphasis mine) It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection. But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.(emphasis mine) Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions. (emphasis mine) According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%. http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=488&sortorder=articledate
And again in the Laffer curve,
There are some other problems with the Laffer curve. The amount of time it is supposed to take for the Laffer effect to work is never specified. But still more important: Laffer assumes that what all of us want is to maximize tax revenue to the government. If--a big if--we are really at the upper half of the Laffer Curve, we should then all want to set tax rates at that "optimum" point. But why? Why should it be the objective of every one of us to maximize government revenue? To push to the maximum, in short, the share of private product that gets siphoned off to the activities of government? I should think we would be more interested in minimizing government revenue by pushing tax rates far, far below whatever the Laffer Optimum might happen to be. http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch2.asp
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.
The real problem is that you want to tear down Lincoln no matter what the historical context.
Lincoln was a war time President and every war time President in history with the only exception being George W.Bush, raised taxes.
You want to pretend that the Reagan tax increases were not as large as even conservative economists admit they were (third largest in peacetime history by dollar amount) and then appeal to some razzle-dazzle about rates.
"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 problem is you have an ego problem, you think you are lot smarter then you really are.
You also seem to have a nasty habit of accusing others of being dishonest.
May I suggest that next time you start throwing around words like 'dishonest'you best look in the mirror first.
Hate can make a man say anything.
As for Lincoln never being for a repeal of a tax,
Under these circumstances it remains with the General Assembly to determine, in their wisdom, whether any means can and shall be devised, to relieve the people from the payment of the two mill tax, (emphasis given), while at least, the collection of that tax is but a useless burthen upon them (Writings of Lincoln, v.2,p.209)
And what did GOP run on in the electorial realignment of 1894 (not 1896)
The outcome of 1894 had even larger significnce for Republicans. It represented what political scientists call a 'realigning'election, in which the electoral landscape of the nation was transformed....This congressional election was one of the most important in the nation's history because it laid the basis for a long period of Republican leglislative dominance (Grand Old Party, Gould, p.119)
The election of 1896 solidified the result in 1894 and meant the Republicans were now the majority party of the nation everywhere but in the Solid South(ibid,p.127)
What was happening in the Democratic South?
The late 1890's saw an upsurge of racial violence as Southerners imposed segregation firmly on the African-American population there.(Ibid,p.131)
So, in 1894-1896 what was the Republican Party running on?
It was running on a gold standard and high tariffs
Compared to Democrates that means he was a conservative. Nope. Prior to the electoral realignment of 1896 the Democrats were traditionally the conservative party. Their constitutional philosophy more closely resembled strict constructionism, whereas Lincoln and the Republicans adhered to loose constructionism.
It did?
Who was favoring the Dred Scott decision, Republicans or Democrats?
Who was supporting the expansion of slavery, Democrats or Republicans?
On some things, like economics, the Democrats can be seen as being more conservative, but in terms of individual liberty, the Republicans were (and that is what Conservatism is suppose to advocate, individual liberty)
He could have easily been in the same political Party as Reagan, just as Ike could have. That remains to be substantiated. As I have noted, Lincoln differed substantially from Reagan on his tax philosophy (Lincoln never supported any significant tax cut at any point in his career and ALWAYS supported the tax hikes whereas Reagan consciously worked to reduce taxes). I'll add to that list that he differed from Reagan on his constitutional philosophy (Reagan was a strict constructionist and Lincoln a loose constructionist).
Still do not know where you get the idea that Lincoln was a loose constructionist.
As for Reagan, how did his Supreme Court appointments turn out-strict or loose?
Jefferson was a ''strict constructionist'until the Louisiana purchase came up and necessity led him to act úunconstitutionally'.
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.