| 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?
Excellent links.
Didn't know that! Do you have the documents? Thanks
Don't know about that. McPherson and Foner are though.
Like the 18-month long bombardment of Charleston civilians. Oops! Union forces did that to Confederate civilians. My bad.
No, that is correct.
I want to see the evidence by which he came to that conclusion.
When I receive the book I will check it out myself.
He might be correct in his opinion.
I know that Lincoln's orders many times, were over-zealously carried out. Yes, and he also overzealously pursued them. The Merrick case is a prime example where Lincoln was DIRECTLY involved in harassing and abusing the judicial branch because they contradicted him on habeas corpus NOT over any genuine real or even imagined criminal but on the case of a teenage minor who was illegally being held in the army. Seward's orders and the court documents reveal that Lincoln personally instructed him to house arrest Judge Merrick, unconstitutionally suspend Merrick's salary, and intervene to prevent the delivery of a contempt summons against the general who placed the guards at Merrick's house.
Given recent events with courts, I am not at this moment feeling any great sympathy for them.
I will do some research on the matter and see what happened.
It would seem that instead of suspending the Writ, the military would just declare martial law.
But it does seem that the inability to get control of the resistance going on in the South, did hurt their war effort.
I posted an article by a Peace movement that resisted the Confederacy and one of their tactics was fighting the suspension of the Writ.
In the situation that each side found themselves in, strong Executive leadership was necessary, but lacking on the Southern side.
Why I thought that everyone you disagreed with was a commie. Or at least a Socialist.
Think in todays terms if a mob began firing rockets into a U.S. Army or U.S. Navy base in any state in the Union. What would the immediate reacting be from Washington?
The Civil War began with South Carolina's pro-slavers triggering domestic rebellion. Whatever methods were necessary in order to fully crush the hot bed of sedition were required in forcing the enemy into surrendering.
I've already given you several solid examples ranging from qualitative historical events to the scope of the 2 suspensions to statistical evidence, which tilts overwhelmingly against the north. There comes a point when further inquiries for evidence reach a point of slothfulness in which a strongly demonstrated fact is denied for no other reason than the denier's dislike for that fact. You crossed that point several dozen posts ago.
He might be correct in his opinion.
If he is correct (and you have offered absolutely no credible reason to believe he isn't) it is not opinion but fact. Either the north was worse or the south was worse. It can only be one of two things, and all the evidence is pointing at the north.
Given recent events with courts, I am not at this moment feeling any great sympathy for them.
Whatever idiocy emerges from the courts last week has absolutely no bearing on an unrelated case from 140 years ago. Unless you believe Ted Kennedy, not even the most partisan and justified critic of the courts today in Congress would ever advocate doing today what Lincoln did to Judge Merrick. Not even to George Greer, who actually did something wrong unlike Merrick.
Not everyone. A disproportionate number of them do happen to be commies and socialists though. McPherson, Foner, and your buddy Wlat are prime examples.
Awwwww. Poor babies!
Not at all.
That one number exceeds the other is not the crucial issue.
And it wouldn't be if the numbers were reversed and the South had the 38,000 number.
What is also important is the severity of the charges (which you also said, favored the North)
And, also, the justification for the suspension.
Out of the 38,000 how many were not defensible and likewise, out of the 4,000?
To say one number is larger then the other and therefore the conclusion must be that the North was more abusive then the South is simply simplistic thinking.
What the numbers represent must be looked at as well.
The only one being embarrased is you with your overly simplistic approach to the question.
Yet, that is still not the entire story You keep saying that, and every single time you keep claiming there is something more, but whenever pressed you've got nothing more to offer beyond vague, unsubstantiated, and unscholarly speculation. It's time to either put up or shut up, ftD. Your failure to do so only embarrasses you further.
No, because, I want to see Bensel's book and find out what those numbers represent.
I have ordered it and I should receive it soon.
The numbers are only part of the story.
As Bensel himself stated, alot of the suspensions of civil liberties came not from the suspension of the Writ but via marital law.
Finally, it may have been that the South erred in not suspending the Writ more, since she was weakened by internal dissent, while the North got it right, even if some abuses did occur.
It is when the disparity is almost 10 to 1. As I previously noted, you would have to demonstrate that each confederate arrest was 10 times as bad as each union arrest on average to reverse the trend indicated by those numbers, and that falls well in the realm of statistical impossibility. Out of the 38,000 how many were not defensible and likewise, out of the 4,000?
Any way you look at that question, you'd have to demonstrate that the northern arrests were 10 times more defensible than the southern arrests on average. That is simply too big of a burden for you to overcome no matter how many ways you recount it, Mr. Kerry.
Check your mail.
Nonsense. That is the result of being a racist. God created us one and all, all descendants of Adam and Eve. His Son Jesus the Christ paid for ALL Our sins. I am certainly not a racist but I do believe that secession was legal - the cause is not 'Lost'. I will never stop honouring my ancestors, and those that fought for self-government.
Not at all.
That one number exceeds the other is not the crucial issue.
And it wouldn't be if the numbers were reversed and the South had the 38,000 number.
What is also important is the severity of the charges (which you also said, favored the North)
And, also, the justification for the suspension.
Out of the 38,000 how many were not defensible and likewise, out of the 4,000?
To say one number is larger then the other and therefore the conclusion must be that the North was more abusive then the South is simply simplistic thinking.
What the numbers represent must be looked at as well.
The only one being embarrased is you with your overly simplistic approach to the question.
Yet, that is still not the entire story You keep saying that, and every single time you keep claiming there is something more, but whenever pressed you've got nothing more to offer beyond vague, unsubstantiated, and unscholarly speculation. It's time to either put up or shut up, ftD. Your failure to do so only embarrasses you further.
No, because, I want to see Bensel's book and find out what those numbers represent.
I have ordered it and I should receive it soon.
The numbers are only part of the story.
As Bensel himself stated, alot of the suspensions of civil liberties came not from the suspension of the Writ but via marital law.
Finally, it may have been that the South erred in not suspending the Writ more, since she was weakened by internal dissent, while the North got it right, even if some abuses did occur.
The following is from Farber's work, Lincoln's Constitution,
Lincoln's invocation of necessity was not unprecedented. According to Jefferson, 'a strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. Rather, Jefferson claimed, the 'laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving out country when in danger, are of higher obligation'.For to lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those enjoying them with us; thus abusurdly sacrificing the end to the means....Jefferson followed the classic liberal approach to the problem of emergency decisions. The executive had a moral duty to respond to grave emergencies, despite legalities, but necessity was not a legal defense for his actions. Even actions taken in good faith could result in damages or other sanctions such as impeachment, unless Congress ratified the action and shielded the executive, usually by indemnifying him from any damage award....Lincoln's defense of arguable illegal actions fell into two parts. First, he argued that his actions'whether strictly legal or not'were taken in response to public demand and public necessity, 'trusting, then as now, that Congress would readily ratify them'. Second, he argued that actions such as suspending habeas, even if illegal, were not inconsistent with his oath to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed'. Here, Lincoln argued that he lacked the ability to execute all of the laws. Instead, he was faced with the choice between violating a 'single law' 'to a very limited extent' or seeing every law, 'failing of execution, in nearly one-third of the States' Thus, his oath required him to choose the lesser of the two evils in terms of observance of the law....Congress did respond with legislation ratifying the president's military actions. Later, it augmented its support of the president with an immunity statute....The Supreme Courth upheld this statue in Mitchell v Clark When the Civil War began, the Court explained, no legal authority had existed to deal with dangerous, disloyal individuals, thus requiring officals to take extralegal action....This immunity covered most of Lincoln's actions. The transfer of money to private hands, the expansion of the military, the suspension of habeas, all were well within the power of Congress. Congress did not however, have power to authorize military trials of civilians in the North such as Milligan. Here, however, the officals responsible could rely for protection on the statue of limitations and the opportunity to remove suit against them to federal court. Thus in the end, Congress ratified as much as the executive's actions as it could, excusing the lack of prior authorization and tried to ensure a fair legal procedure for dealing with the remaining cases. Nowhere was there any thought that necessity alone gave the president an exemption from the legal consequences of violating statutory or constitutional requirements. Lincoln does not seem to have claimed such legal immunity. Nor did he claim that pressing circumstances overrode the 'take care'duty to follow the law. He merely observed that he was faced with the utter impossibilty of full compliance and had to choose the lesser of two evils. We tend to read his statements differently as if they claimed more, only because we no longer see them in their original context (p.192-195)
So your constant harping on what Lincoln did that was illegal is simply beating a dead horse.
He did take some illegal actions, but Congress supported them due to the circumstances that the nation found itself in.
Then you beleive that your parents, siblings and children are legitimate military targets?
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.