| 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?
BUT the damnyankees (as a group) are STILL the biggest LIARS, RACISTS/BIGOTS & HYPOCRYTES i've met anywhere.
and i've been LOTS of places.
free dixie,sw
But you yourself just last week listed the four or five papers that could actually be relied on for accurate reporting at the time and those papers weren't among them.
Then there's the fact that the papers in question were Radical Republican papers in a Democratic town, eager to make the Dems look bad, that no reputable academic source places the death count anywhere near that total, or, in typical Watie fashion, that you can' t actually show any evidence for what you claim.
In other words, same old Watie. Say, maybe that practical 1850s cotton picking machine is on board the U-Boat in the Galveston Park.
Maybe if you would provide some evidence for your claims, we could dismiss it.
Have you found any evidence to back up your claim that schools in the North routinely practice segregation?
No. Non-Seq raised a question that was inescapably a Tu Quoque argument, and thus may be rejected as a logical fallacy.
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.
If you want to play the comparison game, I'll indulge you momentarily on my own terms: habeas corpus and its ensuing arbitrary arrests, which is a fair enough issue since it is also the most well known and far reaching civil war era abuse of civil liberties and rights.
Of course a comparison between Lincoln and Davis on habeas corpus quickly reveals stark differences in the degrees to which they exercised these policies. Davis exercised what has been described as caution, obtaining a limited suspension on the constitutional authorization of the Confederate Congress. Lincoln, by contrast, suspended it widely and unilaterally without Congressional authorization for two years straight. In doing so he also frequently made unilateral extensions of his suspension orders and ignored five separate federal court rulings against him for doing so.
"Let me get this straight - it's a mortal sin to prevent people from voting?"
Preventing any American from their right to vote in any election is a federal crime, but what do you care.
Your regrettable & predicable sentiments are now known on preventing people from voting who disagree with your 'Confederate' outlook. Would grant approval for those burning churches & houses, terrifying selected targets, sending a 'message' to those which should 'not be allowed to vote'? How about drive-bys in the middle of the night? Please also inform the audience why you feel it is correct to prevent some Americans from voting, while allowing others.
It's laundry day & the truth comes out from the dirty linen. What real shame the shoe could not be on the other foot. A study in well deserved reciprocity would be fascinating. Better yet bring back prohibition only where this element reside.
Supremacist advocating despots must be weeded out from of the ranks of Republican Party once and for all.
There are also more churches and stray dogs in the south...
That is incorrect. If the actions of Lincoln with regard to civil liberties during the war are to be examined critically, then so should the actions of his counterpart Davis. Failure to do so violates the "fairness" standard of ethical reasoning.
"The War Between the States (The Civil War?) was not a rebellion. There was no rebellion -- except in West Virginia, which threw off the lawful authority of the State of Virginia and her government, and sought protection from a military tyrant." The elected United States government is the military tyrant?
The rebellion continues in 2005!
Quoting: 'Isham G. Harris, the fire-eating governor of Tennessee, wrote to Jefferson Davis, "The burning of railroad bridges in East Tennessee shows a deep-seated spirit of rebellion in that section. Union men are organizing. This rebellion must be crushed out instantly, the leaders arrested, and summarily punished."
Wow, what was that again? Pro-slaver secessionists arresting elected popular political leaders in Eastern Tenn & loyal Americans fighting for the Union must be "crushed out instantly, the leaders arrested, and summarily punished!"" (i.e., gunned down for being loyal American citizens?)
'The vote for secession followed closely the distribution of slaves or the number of bales of cotton produced in Alabama. Winston County held only 122 slaves, or 3.41% of the population, and in most of the loyal counties, the proportion of slaves was less than 20%. However, substantial Unionist sentiment was found even in the plantation counties. In Green County, with 76.5% of the population being African slaves, nearly 40% of voters wished to remain within the Union.'
'The Confederates felt justified in executing men who had left the Confederate Cause to join the Union. Yet, these men claimed the only reason they wore the Gray was because of the draft, and had they been given a choice, they would have worn the Blue in the first place.'
Below another example of insane pro-slavery double talk:
"Every one acquainted with Southern slaves knows that the slave rejoices in the elevation and prosperity of his master." Virgina Professor Thomas R. Dew, 1852
Today's Neo-Confederate hidden agenda is dedicated to turning the clock back some 150 years.
As usual, garbage_truck is full of garbage. Tu quoque, meaning roughly "you too," is a specific type of logical fallacy in which the arguer asserts that a noted wrong stated by a claimant to be dismissed, negated, or otherwise diminished due to an inconsistency, alleged or otherwise with other actions vis-a-vis the claimant or his/her claim.
The tu quoque fallacy is a variation upon genetic fallacies and fallacies of diversion in which the subject of an argument is reoriented or diverted onto a characteristic, alleged or otherwise, of the argument's participants and line of argument rather than the actual content of that argument itself. Therein lies the fallacy - it attempts to dismiss or diminish a noted point of argument without actually addressing or negating that argument per se.
In non-sequitur's case (a non-sequitur being another type of logical fallacy, btw) he attempted to diminish, dismiss, and/or negate the claimant's critiques of Abraham Lincoln's civil liberties abuses on the basis of an alleged inconsistency with the absence of a critique for Jefferson Davis over allegedly doing the same acts. As such, he committed a textbook case of the tu quoque fallacy, which, other than his namesake, is his favorite fallacy of indulgence. In this case, the fallacy is demonstrated by non-seq's attempt to divert attention away from Lincoln's asserted wrongdoings by calling upon what he perceives and alleges to be an equal and opposite wrongdoing on the part of Jefferson Davis who, though a comparable period figure, has no direct bearing upon whether or not Abraham Lincoln committed the wrong or the nature of that wrong.
In short, the Non-Sequitur, our resident Tu Quoque Parrot, squacked "tu quoque!" rather than addressing the critique of Lincoln posed before him. Therefore he avoided the argument.
Where do you dig up this stuff? Could it be from le parti socialiste Québécquois' (reality) of Canada?
The one in question, coupled with the other members of Fabrication Inc require living in the land of secessionist make believe, since the 'good old days' are gone forever. They just can't grasp the majority of Americans are not even aware of the existence of "neo-condeferate cultists". (good one :)
Why am I not surprised at your inability to grasp the fundamental concepts of logical argumentation? And why am I not surprised that you respond to a demonstration of your inability by yet again deflecting by way of genetic fallacy onto a matter of ethical reasoning that was never legitimately a part of the fallacious tu quoquery you now attempt to hide to begin with?
The answer, of course mac, is you've demonstrated yourself previously to indulge in and celebrate logical sloth whenever AND so long as it assists you in propping up one of your own or putting down another.
I suspect you have the capabilities to know better, but you choose not to use them and accordingly find yourself extolling not only every single argument made by the most rabid Lincoln idolaters on this forum, mac, but also the really bad arguments among them, including but not limited to your pet Tu Quoque Parrot's instintual tu quoquery.
What GOP doesn't say is that he and his buddies can squack till the cows come home, but he only gets into his hissy fit when a he thinks a Northerner has crossed his tu quoque line.
Lee's letter pointed out what Virgina thought of Secession in 1812
To be sure, the meeting at Hartford put an end to the already waning national fortunes of the Federalist Party while giving a legitimacy to the notion of nullification which would haunt the nation later.... That faith, however, could have many consequences and take many forms. It was the dark legacy of the Hartford Convention not only to taint ineradicably the Federalist Party with disloyalty and irrelevance, from which it died in 1820, http://earlyamerica.com/review/winter2000/federalist.html
How about comparing the resistance Davis got from State righter's who were upset with his own (what they preceived to be) abuse of power.
Stop playing games and deal with the central issue.
As any rational man would believe.
Amen to your post!
No one is excusing anything, only putting it into some type of historical context.
A context that you rapid anti-Lincoln haters refuse to see.
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.