| 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?
i would suggest that you find/read the arguments of the legislators from RI,CT,VT & GA, reference how FEARFUL they were about VA & NY always "running over them".
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
do you have a POINT or are you just being a TROLL?
i went into harms way TWICE, wearing a US Army uniform. how many times did YOU do that?
since the answer is likely NO TIMES, i'd suggest you remain silent until you HAVE done so, AND prior to questioning ANYBODY's patriotism.
free dixie,sw
BULL
NO? i thought NOT.
in other words, "you are talking through your hat."
may i remind you of the old saying:
"'Tis better to remain silent & be thought a fool, than to speak & remove all doubt."
simplistic, DUMB comments like "Bull", UN-supported, incline every reader to think you either KNOW NOTHING or choose to close you eyes to the TRUTH.
PITY!
free dixie,sw
There was no talk of secession or breaking up the new Union in 1778, when the Articles were sent to the States for approval. None whatsoever. They had their eyes on the war for FREEDOM they were conducting and their future as a FREE nation. All 13 states entered a Perpetual Union FREELY and without any reservations!
And yes, I am familiar with the argumnets made by the smaller states with regard to the potential "tyranny" of the larger states. Which is why the Philadelphia Convention addressed those issues and why the compromise was reached on proportion suffrage in the House and equal suffrage in the Senate.
You'll see I added additional information after looking up the exact dates of ratification of the Articles by the states. (Although my one-word answer is self-explanatory!)
the SMALL states were "scared to death" (NOT without reason!)that VA & NY would ALWAYS dominate the smaller/less populated/poorer states.
free dixie,sw
and you DID NOT serve, did YOU?
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
I was not drafted (the draft had ended before I was eligible) and did not serve my country in the military. Instead, I went to school and served by country as a Fed.
There were many a confederate officer and soldier, who did honorable military service prior to the ACW, who sullied their reputations by their association with traitors.
And before you ask the question, no, I did not serve. I was blessed to pass my military age under the Pax Reagana, too young for Vietnam, too old for the Gulf.
Still having trouble with that "original" spelling, huh?
Rather than post a bunch of links, just Google "Nueces Massacre" and "Great Gainesville Hanging."
Meanwhile, I'm still trying to find a trace anywhere of that "Yachts Against Subs" book you cited. The World Catalog, which searches thousands of library catalogs, doesn't have it. Except there is that magazine article...
Governor Murrah was representative of this changed sentiment and he was in constant controversy with the Confederate government and the military authorities in an effort to preserve some of the powers of the state and the rights of the people. His messages to the legislature are filled with complaints of usurpation of the state’s powers and violation of the people’s rights. The truth was that the situation was becoming so desperate for the South that extreme measures were frequently adopted, such as the last conscript law of the Confederate government, which did not show a too scrupulous regard for either the powers of the state or the rights of the people. Everything was being subordinated to the main task of "winning the war." Indeed, it soon became the task of postponing defeat. http://www.kwanah.com/txmilmus/wortham/4345.htm
A goal that the southron contingent will use to excuse a myriad of confederate transgressions, but not a single Northern one.
Before I close out this area, I am compelled to mention the so called "Battle of The Nueces In Kinney County, Texas" which occurred on August 10, 1862. The Handbook of Texas describes this event as follows:
"In this battle sixty-five German Unionists, attempting to reach Mexico and then New Orleans to join the Union Army, were attached by a Confederate force of ninety-six men. Nineteen were killed in the battle, and thirty-seven escaped. The rest were captured and then executed by the Confederate force (Handbook of Texas Online)."
A different view of this event can be found in the book Civil War in Texas and New Mexico Territory by Steve Cotrell:
"When the Confederacy initiated the conscription in the spring of 1862, many citizens objected so strongly that the situation nearly developed into a serious rebellion in Texas. Among the most adamant Union supporters opposed to the draft in the State were German immigrants located primarily in the six counties along the west coast. Confederate authorities declared the counties in a state of rebellion and sent a dispatchment of cavalry to apprehend the ringleaders. In August a party of sixty-one German Americans planning to flee to Mexico was overtaken by the Texas cavalrymen on the Nueces River. The troopers opened fire on the refugees and massacred thirty-four German men in cold blood, taking no prisoners (Cottrell 74)."
Support for a reality closer to that as described by Cotrell (and further from the view presented by the Handbook of Texas) can be found in the book Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans by T. R. Fehrenbach:
"In the summer of 1862, one group of Germans, who were actually neutralist in sentiment fled this region for Mexico. They armed themselves, under the command of Major Tegener, but their purpose was to flee the state rather than fight the Confederacy. Tegener rode south with some 65 men and boys. When Duff learned he had gone, he dispatched a force under Lieutenant McRae in pursuit.
The refugees camped on the Nueces River, about two hundred miles from where they started. They did not expect close pursuit. On the night of August 9, under a full moon, Tegener and the group held a lively discussion about the meaning of 'fatherland,' 'citizenship,' 'Civil War,' and Mexico. According to the statements of John William Samson, who was there, most of the German farmers were deeply confused as to what the war was all about.
McRae rode down upon the camp while the Germans lay sleeping. He surrounded it and opened fire indiscriminately. The result was a massacre. Nineteen Germans were killed by gunfire, and six more trampled to death by McRae's cavalry. Nine surrendered. McRae ordered them shot, and they were executed on the spot. In his report to Duff, the lieutenant stated he met 'determined resistance', hence I have no prisoners to report (Fehrenbach 363 - 364)."
http://www.angelfire.com/tx5/texasczech/Studies/Settlement%20PatternThree.htm
No need to respond, the facts speak for themselves.
No doubt you will respond with some meaningless rant about Lincoln being a tyrant.
And the justification for the Confederates was a fair one, since war demands that extreme measures be taken.
Hence, both sides had to stretch the limit of the law.
Why are extreme measures justified for the Davis regime but an unforgivable crime for the Lincoln administration?
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.