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?
How do you consider it reneging on a treaty when it was never approved by the Mexican government?
1894 was a congressional election year, ftD. 1896 was the McKinley/Bryan realignment.
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)
Gould's got his dates wrong just like you do. The McKinley-Bryan electoral realignment of 1896 is universally seen by political scientists as the first watershed in the emergence of the two modern political parties.
So, in 1894-1896 what was the Republican Party running on? It was running on a gold standard and high tariffs
No. It was running on RETAINING high tariffs that had more or less been in place since Lincoln save a few slight interuptions. The Gold Standard it ran on was anti-Lincolnian to the core as Lincoln favored centralized bankings and greenbacks.
It did?
Yes ftD. It did. Or have you forgotten Lincoln's arguments used for habeas corpus and the income tax during the war? They were all loose constructionists.
Who was favoring the Dred Scott decision, Republicans or Democrats?
Dred Scott does not fit neatly into either the loose constructionist or strict constructionist category. That is one of the major critiques made by Robert Bork against Harry Jaffa - Jaffa's constitutional philosophy is single-mindedly obsessive around the Dred Scott case to the detriment of all else and naturally lost in the process is the strict/loose construction dispute that has dominated the court since day one.
Who was supporting the expansion of slavery, Democrats or Republicans?
That's a political question, ftD, not a matter of strict versus loose construction.
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)
Economics is essentially half of what the government does. There cannot be any true liberty if there is not economic liberty, which is what economic conservatism espouses. Whereas Lincoln did advocate some degree of political liberty for some former slaves (albeit often for less than moral purposes) he was also openly hostile to economic liberty and thus has no claim to a monopoly on liberty in even the simplest sense.
He could have easily been in the same political Party as Reagan, just as Ike could have.
Nah. Lincoln would've seen Reagan's tax cuts and bolted. He would've bolted because tax cuts were intolerable to him. He never saw a tax hike he didn't like.
Still do not know where you get the idea that Lincoln was a loose constructionist.
It's called habeas corpus for starters. Whether you adhere to it as valid or dismiss it as junk, it cannot be denied that Lincoln's habeas corpus argument was a loose constructionist view. Same goes for his other stretches of the wartime powers.
As for Reagan, how did his Supreme Court appointments turn out-strict or loose?
One turned out strict (Scalia). A second leans toward strict most of the time (Kennedy, who it should be noted was his third choice after trying to name two bona fide strict constructionists that the Dems would not approve). The third swings between strict and loose (O'Conner). As for Reagan, his own espoused constitutional views were always closer to Scalia.
In that one case Jefferson believed the gain from the Louisiana purchase substantially outweighed any constitutional harm it did, and once complete he did everything in his power to justify the action to Congress and bring about constitutional compliance. Not so for the loose construction of Abe Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus on his own brazen act and essentially told the courts and congress where to go if they didn't like it.
Wasn't Buchanan a pro-Southern Democrat!
Nope. He was a moderate Democrat from Pennsylvania who urged a conciliatory policy toward the south but also opposed them on many issues such as tariffs and secession.
What is he doing signing in this anti-Southern tariff?
Being a pro-tariff Pennsylvanian.
He signed the compromise tariff that the nullifiers forced to be considered, did he not?
The Laffer curve deals with income tax, not other taxes, which can offset the effects of the curve.
Since the beginning of the Reagan administration, the much heralded "cuts" in the officially dubbed "income-tax" segment of our payroll taxes have been more than offset by the rise in the "Social-Security" portion. But since the public has been conditioned into thinking that the Social Security tax is somehow not a tax, the Reagan-Bush administrations have been able to get away with their pose as heroic champions of tax cuts and resisters against the tax-raising inclinations of the evil Democrats.
http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch18.asp
Well, did the Republicans gain in the Congress or not?
What would you regard 1994 as?
So, in 1894-1896 what was the Republican Party running on? It was running on a gold standard and high tariffs No. It was running on RETAINING high tariffs that had more or less been in place since Lincoln save a few slight interuptions. The Gold Standard it ran on was anti-Lincolnian to the core as Lincoln favored centralized bankings and greenbacks.
The issue was that the Republican Party has traditionally been a high tariff party,so in 1896 there was no switch to free trade.
It did? Yes ftD. It did. Or have you forgotten Lincoln's arguments used for habeas corpus and the income tax during the war? They were all loose constructionists.
They were using emergency powers of the Presidency!
I would not regard that as being 'philosophically loose constructionist!
No more the Jefferson was!
Who was favoring the Dred Scott decision, Republicans or Democrats? Dred Scott does not fit neatly into either the loose constructionist or strict constructionist category. That is one of the major critiques made by Robert Bork against Harry Jaffa - Jaffa's constitutional philosophy is single-mindedly obsessive around the Dred Scott case to the detriment of all else and naturally lost in the process is the strict/loose construction dispute that has dominated the court since day one.
No, Dred Scott showed that the Republicans did not accept a judical tyranny based on a bad reading of the case.
Who was supporting the expansion of slavery, Democrats or Republicans? That's a political question, ftD, not a matter of strict versus loose construction.
It relates to who is the question of which party was the conservative one, one advocating freedom or one advocating slavery.
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) Economics is essentially half of what the government does. There cannot be any true liberty if there is not economic liberty, which is what economic conservatism espouses. Whereas Lincoln did advocate some degree of political liberty for some former slaves (albeit often for less than moral purposes) he was also openly hostile to economic liberty and thus has no claim to a monopoly on liberty in even the simplest sense.
You see a high tariff (put in legally) as bad as keeping a man in bondage?
I think you have your values out of whack.
The man in bondage has no economic freedom.
He could have easily been in the same political Party as Reagan, just as Ike could have. Nah. Lincoln would've seen Reagan's tax cuts and bolted. He would've bolted because tax cuts were intolerable to him. He never saw a tax hike he didn't like.
Well, he sure would have liked Reagan tax hikes now wouldn't he?
Still do not know where you get the idea that Lincoln was a loose constructionist. It's called habeas corpus for starters. Whether you adhere to it as valid or dismiss it as junk, it cannot be denied that Lincoln's habeas corpus argument was a loose constructionist view. Same goes for his other stretches of the wartime powers.
The operative word is wartime.
Those were taken in an emergency situation, just like Jefferson used his.
That doesn't make Jefferson any less an advocate of narrow interpetation of the Constitution because of the situation he found himself in.
As for Reagan, how did his Supreme Court appointments turn out-strict or loose? One turned out strict (Scalia). A second leans toward strict most of the time (Kennedy, who it should be noted was his third choice after trying to name two bona fide strict constructionists that the Dems would not approve). The third swings between strict and loose (O'Conner). As for Reagan, his own espoused constitutional views were always closer to Scalia. Kennedy and O'Conner?
I am not so sure about Kennedy.
Shall we go through the 8 years of the Reagan administration and see how much he 'stretched' the Constitution?
Lincoln had a little problem of a war to fight.
And when did Lincoln ever say anything that would infringe on their power?
As for the courts, he did what he could to obey them as far as national security would allow.
Actually, I admit not carefully following the all critical passage of the tariff that destroyed America.
From your posts one would think it was Lincoln who had it passed, when it was Buchanan, a Democrat.
All Lincoln said he would do is enforce it!
Just like Jackson did.
Wasn't Buchanan a pro-Southern Democrat! Nope. He was a moderate Democrat from Pennsylvania who urged a conciliatory policy toward the south but also opposed them on many issues such as tariffs and secession.
He was a dough face solidly pro-Southern.
He jumped all and down over Dred Scott and attempted to put in a pro-slave state in Kansas.
Even Douglas had to fight him on that one.
Yea, and he did oppose the South on the right to secession, but then cried that he could not anything and so let the South walk off on his watch.
Which is pretty funny, considering he signed the dreaded tariff that caused all of this (according to Delorenzo and you)
But ofcourse, the South wasn't mad at Buchanan, they were mad at Lincoln because he was going to enforce this hated tariff.
So, why didn't the South reject the election of Buchanan since they must have known he was a strong protectionist?
What is he doing signing in this anti-Southern tariff? Being a pro-tariff Pennsylvanian.
And how did a pro-tariff Democrat get elected, if tariff's were the key issue that the South was concerned about?
Clay got a compromise bill together.
Had South Carolina attempted to leave the Union, jackson would have done exactly what Lincoln said he would do, enforce the laws, including the collection of the tariff.
Is that not what Jackson said?
Doesn't Delorenzo take Lincoln to task for saying the same thing in the his inaugural address?
Isn't what he then states that was what really set the South off, that Lincoln was actually attempt to do what the Constitution demanded he do-enforce the laws!
Oh, the awful tyranny the poor, poor South had to endure!
learn the TRUTH.
and then post something VALUABLE on the FoRum, rather than NONSENSE. it need NOT be about the WBTS, as long as it's important, rather than trivial.
free dixie,sw
every major LEFTIST,statist,worthless, socialist program came out of the northeast. every one.
free dixie,sw
did i say LIBERTY & starting a new CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC would be EASY? i think NOT.
AND the damnyankees could have the sort of imperialist,socialist-collectivist NANNY-state that they seem to want. thus, EVERYBODY WINS.
give us a NO-FAULT DIVORCE & we'll be JUST FINE, thanks.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Or just do what Watie does. Make up some quotes, then tell everyone that they're in some source that no one else can find. Cite page numbers, even though you confess not having the book. Accuse people of saying things on deleted threads, but refuse to pull them up out of your archive. Cite, as unarguable proof, something someone who's now dead told you once.
Oh, and when someone calls your bluff, launch into the standard Watie diatribe about damnyankee haters so familiar to everyone on these boards.
What constitutes a no-fault divorce in this?
we'll be FINE, thanks.
free dixie,sw
Every white racist I've ever known, got that way by his or her own repeated bad experiences in adolescence (schoolyard violence, etc) -- in some cases, despite strong parental teaching to the contrary.
A missionary friend of mine some years ago, spent some time evangelizing skinheads. Once I asked him, what drove these kids to become skinheads? His answer was, that every single one of them had a girlfriend, sister, mother, or other close woman in his life, who had been raped by blacks. (Convincing them to quit being skinheads is apparently a lot more about convincing them to FORGIVE, rather than simply REPENT.)
The only whites I ever knew, who DID have racist teachings instilled at home, rebelled against them -- the guy married a Latina and had 6 kids (after his black girlfriend aborted his baby and dumped him). The girl had a Turkish boyfrinend and last time we talked, was the only white girl at her otherwise all-black church.
otoh, when a group of us from "Jesusland" went to Ground Zero to pray, we had several people who made fun of us & one guy who told my business partner what she could do for him while "she was on her knees".
i don't believe THAT sort of thing would have happened down here.
free dixie,sw
lincoln cared NOTHING for slaves & their plight. he said so himself.
AND according to him, we "red savages must be driven out of our dominions OR exterminated".
nice guy, your clayfooted, secular saint!
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.