| 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?
Funny that I seem to recall the ones doing the burning & murdering some how only targeted one particular group of people.
Did I mention the killers also prevented the same people they would burn out & murder from voting to too?
Tell me I am a liar. But, you don't wish to speak further?
War of Northern Aggression What's that today's Confederate PC spin?
That is very gracious for you to say.
I am sure N-S has your check in the mail!
The fact is, both men believed in constitutional government and the rule of law, but both men were pushed to take actions due to the war that they would have preferred not to take.
Those actions in hindsight might have been wrong, but they are understandable considering the historical context.
No, that was not the problem.
In fact, Calhoun became an ardent nationalist advocating strong national growth.
I think that says enough of what most people thought of New England's attempts to secede. Ixnay on the documentation?
On what documentation?
I gave you documentation by Lee on what Virgina (and Lee) thought of the attempts to secede by New England.
The demise of the Federalist Party due to it's attempt at secession is very clearly laid out in any history book.
Nationalism buried the state's rights Federalists in the grave dug by the Hartford Convention. Once Nationalism had been the very soul of Federalism, as it was the bete noire of Republicanism, bu the Federalists has since shifted to states rights, and the Republicans, observing to what depth their rivals had been interred, quickly switched to nationalism. The movements leaders John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay, had a formula called the 'American system' which included a protective tariff for the manufacturing industry developed during the war, a home market for national products and improved transportation. (Robert Leckie, Wars of America, p.318)
And that made it right?
Jefferson put the responsibility of slavery existing on the British.
That was why the Founders wanted slavery banned in new States, since they did not want those States burdened with the same problem they had been.
Maybe it was all a Yankee myth put forth to justify conquering the South? Yep. Lincoln and Congress specifically stated that the war was not to free a single slave.
Well, then Lincoln did not use slavery as an issue for the war then, now did he?
He fought the war because he had taken a vow to uphold the Constitution and that meant enforcing the laws.
The deep South fought for slavery expansion. Bravo Sierra. There were only a handful of blacks in all the territories, which had been open for decades. There was not going to be any 'Tara' West.
I said the Deep South, like Mississippi.
Are you telling me that slavery expansion was not the crucial issue in Kansas and Missouri?
Are you telling me that slavery 'rights' were not the reason for the Southern Democrats rejection of Douglas and the splitting up the Democrat party?
The border states that remained loyal to the Union would not even give up their slaves for compensation. Slave states for Union, slave states for non-union. The seceded sates REFUSED to return to the union even when promised an Amendment guarateeing slavery FOREVER. Then the cause must have been something other than slavery, eh?
No, because it was about slavery expansion (you guys seem to be very dense on that issue)
The South was not concerned about the slaver it had already,but were worried about the loss of political power due to the entrance of free states into the Union.
The South had developed a philosophy (supported by certain Christian churches) that slavery was a right that had to be defended like a property right. That certainly never stopped the Yankee slave trade as long as it was legal.
And what does that have to do with anything?
If slavery was so unimportant to the 'noble freedom loving Southerners' why then was it written into their Constitution as a explicit right? Because it was a state issue, not one for the federal government. States were free to abolish slavery whenever they desired.
The Confederacy stated explicitly that one race had a right to be enslaved.
That had nothing to do with the freedom to end slavery in any state.
As a matter of fact, each state had to allow slaves into its state no matter what it itself outlawed to its own citizens, effectively making every state in the Confederacy a slave state, no matter what they wanted to be.
The U.S. constitution never directly mentions slavery because the Founders expected it to eventually to end. It doesn't mention women voters either, or abortion, or homosexual marriage - are they constitutional? Depends on if they are moral or not, now doesn't it?
The Confederacy was intent on making sure that never happened. Where is Emancipation enumeration in the US Constitution? Oh wait, I forgot - Lincoln et al offered to make slavery PERMANENT.
Lincoln attempted to ensure the South that they had nothing to fear from him in violating the Constitution.
They had a legal right for slaves in their states and for their return.
The one principle that Lincoln refused to budge on was slavery expansion and that was what the South was really concerned about.
Frankly your attempts at revisionist history are getting wearisome.
New York City 12 Jun 1863: the 'Draft Riots' - up to 100 people, most blacks, killed, some hung from lamposts. A BLACK church and the 'Colored Orphan Asylum' burned to the ground. One website states that Guiness Book of World Records numbered the dead at 1200.
Tell me I am a liar.
Ok, you're a liar.
Did I mention the killers also prevented the same people they would burn out & murder from voting to too?
Let me get this straight - it's a mortal sin to prevent people from voting?
That you did.
I stand corrected.
'Ex Parte Milligan', isn't that the decision where Lincoln is put into the same ranking with Washington?
Strange to put a 'tyrant' in the same category with the Founder of our nation, don't you think?
This nation, as experience has proved, cannot always remain at peace, and has no right to expect that it will always have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln;
How come we have any Chinese left in the nation, if they were being killed every payday!
You would think word would get back to China not to come to America and get killed, but they kept on coming!
Riiiiiiiight.
Sort of like how unlawful segregation still goes on in the North.
Found any evidence of that, yet?
check your mail.
free dixie,sw
makes you unionist loonies look RIDICULIOUS!
free dixie,sw
Oh, Watie tells this story all the time, and it always happened just last week. Apparently he could be in Jewish deli on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and someone will make an anti-semitic slur. It's probably just a manifestation of the persecution complex that he constantly exhibits. He'll also tell you that there's never been any anti-semitism in the south, the lynching of Leo Frank notwithstanding.
During the War of 1812 it was understandable, to protect the states. Afterward, seeing the abuses of the federal government, Calhoun grew out of his predilection for nationalism, and became a strong supporter of sectionalism and state sovereignty.
I gave you documentation by Lee on what Virgina (and Lee) thought of the attempts to secede by New England.
You provided a secondhand account of the opinion of one, possibly two people out of millions. I simply asked for a firsthand account, or perhaps more accounts.
The demise of the Federalist Party due to it's attempt at secession is very clearly laid out in any history book.
The demise of the Federalist Party was due to loss of effective leaders, it's support of the Alien & Sedition Acts, it's opposition to Madison and the War of 1812, opposition to the Louisiana Purchase. One minor convention by a few Northeastern states did not destroy the party.
I just don't see that to be the case.
Where in SC are you?
Right. Everywhere you go in NYC, people are throwing around anti-semitic remarks. I must have missed that when I lived there.
It's just like SW's claim that segregation goes on all over the North.
Found evidence for that yet, SW?
free dixiei,sw
it's just like the damnyankees dismiss that,
"hanged Negroes decorated every lamp-pole for MILES"
after the NY DRAFT RIOTS, despite the FACT that it happened & was published in the NY papers & in the LIBERATOR!
comes down to this: ya'll talk a GOOD GAME & remain the same HATERS& LIARS as forever has been the case.
free dixie,sw
The majority would agree with this statement that Yankees are more honest because if they don't like you, you get a finger pointed into your chest, and a "You I don't like!".
Conversely a southerner is more apt to smile, wave, say "Hi frend, hare ya doing?" and under his breath say "What an a*ssh*le!"
I have seen this first hand a thousand times, so don't try to deny or spin this.
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.