| 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?
Many southerners had mixed feelings about leaving the Union, especially if a father or grandfather had fought in the Revolutionary War. Among these was Robert E. Lee, the son of the Patriot hero, Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee. Robert E. Lee was strongly pro Union, but his first loyalty was to his native Virginia. His ambivalent feelings were expressed in a letter he wrote to one of his sons in January 1861: “Secession is nothing but revolution... the framers would not have devoted so much care to the formation of the Constitution if it was intended to be broken by any member of the Confederacy at will... In 1808 when New England states resisted Mr. Jefferson’s embargo law, and when the Hartford Convention assembled, secession was termed treason by Virginian statesmen; what can it be now? (emphasis added) Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. If the Union is dissolved and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people. Save in her defense, I will draw my sword no more.”
http://www.clis.com/friends/UnionOrSeces.htm
Everyone should read the "Daniel Webster vs Robert Hayne" debate. It details the real issues very well.
CONGRADS, morons.
free dixie,sw
That was pretty much what sectional discourse had become. Don't forget that the Wide Awakes and various abolitionist societies were marching under banners of black-and-white stripes with slogans in the canton like "NO UNION WITH SLAVERS", that kind of thing. Never mind that not one person in a thousand, even in New Orleans, could be even remotely called a "slaver", and only a fraction of the population had ever owned a slave, much less a gang of 10 or 12 or more.
Slavery was a rich man's arrangement -- like H-1B's and L-1's and offshoring and plant relocation to Mexico and illegal immigration. Even the Canadians are fighting it now: the Athabaska Tar Sands are a fabulous energy resource and need to be ramped up with new mines. But rather than hire Canadians, who are unionized, employers are making contracts with labor "contractor" firms, who then do the necessary dirty work by saying, "well, we tried to find workers at the below-market wage we want to pay, so <phony sigh> there's nothing to do but petition the provincial government for relief, in the form of permission to import 1,500 foreign workers whom we can pay those yummy low wages we like."
Sierra Oscar Sierra, in other words.
People in the South could no more do anything about what rich merchants and agriculturists wanted, than fly to the moon -- nor more than, as it turned out, the Knights of Labor could do about working conditions in the industrial North.
Awwwwwww. Did the bad man insult your pickup truck?
That's what I get for being halfway nice to you.
Yo, Stonewall, quote me on that one baby!
Yo, Cod! I did quote you -- now get on back to Beantown's bars and finish drinking your life away. I promise we won't miss you.
And now you're going to take that as a "stereotypical personal attack" and get this thread pulled, too.
Heard you were the ~last guy to post on the pulled thread, Espinola whose first name must not be used. What did you do, call down an airstrike on someone? You're real big on that laying waste Southern States (which would include Crawfurd, I guess) and doing away with people. Did you finally call the wrong name? Link in Arabic to some cabinet secretary's travel schedule? What up, thread-buster?
See that, stand? Be nice to him, he takes your arm off. Guess that's what they call the give and take of reasoned discourse, when they aren't calling us Stormfronters.
For once, I thoroughly agree with you. Southerners should have refused all contact with government, public life, and (insofar as possible) the tax man (which the distillers did anyway), and forbidden their children to vote, hold office, participate in public life, or volunteer for the military.
Massive passive resistance, in other words, like the Indian Congress Party.......who got independence in about 65 years, something like that. At the least, Southerners would have a) required the North to operate all levels of government, placing the federal theory and their own state governments at risk, b) required the Army to garrison the South, c) galled the North severely in one of the areas that drove Lincoln toward an emancipation policy, viz., his embarrassment at the existence of bond servitude in a free country, by requiring the North openly to rule the South in an imperial and despotic manner (think, "Ben Butler"); and finally d) required the federal government to make great exertions to collect the same amount of tax revenue they'd ordinarily have collected.
Before you scoff, show how the South would have been worse off under this arrangement.
Preconcession: The argument is made with hindsight and the benefit of the Indian experience in hand.
!@#$%^&*! idiot!
SADLY, i have to say that we did have a DY who was/is a "stormfronter". (fwiw, i regard them as as DENSE,hateful & arrogantly ignorant as the WORST of the south-HATERS & KKK-morons, which is saying something, imVho!)
btw, ONE of the damnyankees posted my picture,place of employment & address on "international a.n.s.w.e.r."'s website, which he took at a DC Chapter function, so i KNOW how unpleasant being identified can be.(also, talk about HATEFUL IDIOTS, "the answer" cretins are AWFUL.)
for just ONE example of what "semi-human garbage" the "answer folks" are, they had MANY "pretty yellow, diamond-shaped, signs" at their last DC "peace" rally/parade, with the legend,"KILL THE JEWS" in black letters about 4" tall! (isn't THAT a "peaceful thought"? !@#$%^&*! FOOLS/BIGOTS!)
free dixie,sw
abd you are SURPRISED that damnyankees are HATEFILLED.
it is their NATURE, just as it is the NATURE of a serpent to slither.
free dixie,sw
and you are SURPRISED that damnyankees are HATEFILLED.
it is their NATURE, just as it is the NATURE of a serpent to slither.
free dixie,sw
Let's get this straight.
Refusal to condemn, refusal to participate in, or sign off on, your rant (which is what it is), is not the same thing as endorsing, or excusing, or morally catering to whatever you're complaining about, capiche?
Just because I want Frank Nitti to have a fair trial, doesn't mean I'm in league with his rum-runners.
But you do that constantly, and I think you know better.
I agree with your overall policy aim, which is, no bond labor anywhere in North America -- it should be a free-labor zone and exempt from coolie labor (California -- we don't talk about that with moral rancor, do we?), peonage (New Mexico, in Spanish-speaking communities), or indenture (which Tata International tried to re-introduce to the Left Coast from India, 12 years ago, and promptly got sued by some Hewlett-Packard employees who found themselves competing with indentured bondmen from Bangalore).
That said, how you achieve your policy goals makes all the difference. You can't just take the community hostage and demand things be done your way when others disagree for substantial reasons having to do with their continuing to be able to get a living themselves. You will admit, won't you, it's a weak play to tender a moral demand that all roulette croupiers give up their careers so we can have a principle of roulette-free gaming?
Oh, and I'm not a "neo-Confederate", either. Let's get that straight, too, while we're at it. The only thing I've said like that is to suggest that southern New York and New England might profitably be kicked out of the Union and their blue voters cast adrift, to raft on a sea of misery with their socialist neighbors in Ontario and the Maritimes.
I've called your attention to the inappropriateness of that label a couple of times now.
Because Lincoln was in a position that he advertised as taking care that the laws be executed? Because he was the one who insisted that federal writ must continue to run inviolate in States that had left the Union?
Because the Confederates had the larger task, and the broader radius of action, of creating a new Confederacy and Government de novo under conditions of greater exigency that admitted of no delay, but allowed a broader toleration for compromises of ee.g. juridical and fiscal scruple?
either/or both may be true:
1. they are too stupid to know that there are NO such people (or at least i've never met even one!)
2. or they DO know the term is MEANINGLESS/DISHONEST & are just being their NATURAL hate-FILLED,ARROGANT, DIShonorable, self-righteous selves.
free dixie,sw
We are ONE NATION.
I, for one, like it that way. I will always love Texas best, but it does not mean that I don't love the other 49 states.
FRiends of mine have narrowed it down to one of 2 out-of-towners. i'm (ONCE MORE) NOT sure which was which.
free dixie,sw
As Kalifornia's governor famously said... "Too much caffeine perhaps?"
inquiring minds want to KNOW.
otherwise, back to your corner & put your pointed cap back on.
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.