| 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?
Following your rationale, then, everyone in the South derived a benefit from slavery.
You are free to make that claim, but I do not.
No, all you have to do is multiply the number of slaveholding heads of households by the average family size. It's pretty simple, really.
If you're going to start mush-mouthing like that, then we're going to have to start counting a hell of a lot of Yankees who were in the cotton-warehousing business, the shipping and railroading businesses, law, banking......and everyone who derived a "benefit" from the United States Army, which was supported by tax dollars paid in from enterprises supported in turn by slave labor.
That means that antebellum settlers in New Ulm, Minnesota, should be counted, because they were protected from the Sioux by the Army.
they were German/Belgian/French/Benelux SOCIALISTS, if NOT outright COMMUNISTS!
free dixie,sw
ONLY the MOST RADICAL/LEFTIST of the REVISIONISTS/south-HATERS would agree with you.
free dixie,sw
to get the DISHONEST "slave ownership figures" that the RADICAL REVISIONITS quote, you essentially HAVE to count EVERYBODY in society, except the slaves, the incarcerated & the "poorest of the poor".
in other words the REVISIONIST's thesis is a KNOWING, INTENTIONAL, pack of LIES. nothing more; nothing less.
free dixie,sw
That's an odd response. Are the synapses mis-firing today?
Stanton, as I recall, was a Democrat. I presume he wanted to back a "winning" candidate.
Breckinridge can not legitimately be numbered among the "fire-eaters." "Breckinridge described himself not as proslavery but as a defender of the people's constitutional right to make their own territorial laws, a position that caused some Deep South extremists to accuse him of harboring abolitionist views."
In the election of 1860, though Breckinridge was certainly the main choice of the would-be secessionists, he was not, however, a secessionist candidate. He couselled against secession as a lame-duck vice president, and when he assumed his Senate seat in March 1861, he worked to avoid further secession. Breckinridge had "hop[ed] to persuade southerners to abandon secession."
I read a rebellion as being defined as,
An open and avowed renunciation of the authority of Government to which one owes allegiance, or the taking of arms traitorously to resist the authority of lawful government American Dictionary of The English Language, Noah Webster, 1828.
Sounds exactly like what the Confederacy did.
Boy, that Stanton had some power!
He could single handlily split the Democratic convention!
Lets look at the facts
Unsurprisngly, the Democratic Party was deeply and bitterly divided as it held its national convention in Charleston in April 1860....Buchanan and his associates threw in with firebrands from seven Southern states-Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas-who consulted beforehand on bolting the convention unless the platform included a federal guarantee of slavery in the territories, a provision that Douglas could not accept. The anti-Douglas forces proposed a platform that incorporated many of the Davis Senate resolutions, including the poison-pill provision. The Douglas forces opposed it, insisting on popular sovereignty in the territories, and after a bitter seven days of arguement forced through a compromise that did little more then acknowledge the deep divide over slavery. The bombastic William L.Yancy of Alabama demanded that the party stop pandering to the North and take a categorical stand in the defense of the 'peculiar institution'. The floor leader for Douglas, Senator George Pugh of Ohio, replied, 'Gentlemen of the South, you mistake us-you mistake us-we will not do it!. Thereupon a host of Deep South delegates walked out behind the Alabama delegation led by Yancy....The Southerners who had walked out held their own convention and adopted the platform based on the Davis resolutions, but took no action then on a presidential nominee....On June 28, 115 Southern Democrats who had walked out at the original Charleston convention and the like number who withdrew from the Baltimore meeting convened once more in Charleston. There dubbing themselves National Democrats, clearly a misnomer, they selected a nominee for their own, Vice President John C. Breckingridge of Kentucky, with Senator Joseph Lane of Oregon as his running mate. Their platform provided for the protection of slavery by Congress. The united party of Jackson was not more; if Douglas the popular-sovereignty candidate was to be elected he was going to have to accomplish it largely without the South....The Democratic Party was broken in two, at last succumbing to the reality that it was split between a Southern wing that clung to slavery and insisted on imposing it on the whole party, and the Northern wing that would no longer permit the South to do so....The Party of the People a history of the Democrats, Jules Witcover, pg.(205,207,211)
Gee, not a word about tariff's!
Also, he was ONE of the MAIN WAR CRIMALS, who cheered on the FILTH IN BLUE that abused/tortured/MURDERED tens of thousands OF helpless CSA POWS, in his "especial care".
free dixie,sw
this, of course, meant that the USA was NO LONGER their nation.
free dixie,sw
On the basis of what you are saying the USA was never their nation, the State was.
They always make so much sense!
LOL!
Gee, Waite, if you got rid of the planters, what would you do with their slaves?
Talking about how the Confederates dealt with opposition, how about those Germans in Texas who opposed leaving the Union, and that were massacred by those freedom loving Confederates?
I wonder if a writ of hebeas corpus was issued before they were slaughtered.
What do you really think?
The Germans, as most of the European immigrants, did not a slave tradition. The "crazy" Germans in Missouri fared much better than those in Texas, during the ACW. Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson would know about that.
spellcheckers #!%*#
A dark blot on Texas history.
"actually, one a state seceded, the citizens of that state owed allegiance to their STATE."
"this, of course, meant that the USA was NO LONGER their nation."
Is America your nation?
Knock off the improper printed English. The next time capitalize!.
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.