| 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?
You are assuming that the arrests themselves were wrong, but they may not have been.
There may have been justification for many of them.
Now, Bensel says that the North was more severe in its handling of the suspension, but maybe they were justified in being so.
It may have been that rather then 38,000 being too high, 4,000 was too low, and that the South did not make enough arrests and therefore weakened their own war effort. The first responsiblity both Lincoln and Davis had was to win the war that they were in, and getting control of illegal activities in their own areas was a major part of that responsibilty.
It would seem that Davis did not have enough power to accomplish the job given to him, at least as far as the Writ was concerned.
Amen!
Dear clueless: If the Confederacy had won they certainly would NOT have attempted to dictate to the Union anything - the Confederate States of America seceded. Doh!
Do you recall something termed 'Jim Crow?'
Nope, I wasn't alive then.
Once again benevolence to traitors was a massive mistake.
Absent their constitutionally guaranteed right to trial, to have witnesses &c, I take it that you are once again advocating the extermination of Confederates.
Are you in agreement with the return to segregation in the Deep South if that condition was the only method of a modern 'Confederate separation' from the United States?
Of course NOT. No one here is clamoring for segregation, but it does appear that you habitually project your fixations on others.
War would have been averted if Lincoln had not invaded, but he had to attack to claim the impost revenues, as he stated in his inaugural speech.
Please refrain from profanity.
The hardback was 100$!
I am glad they had a used paperback to buy!
They could have simply surrendered.
Your illiteracy is showing again, Espinola. As I said, McPherson, Foner, and Wlat are all commies. That much is documented. I can't speak for anybody else and certainly hope that others aren't communists among you, however given the track record of unsavory charactors to populate your ranks, the discovery of another would not surprise me.
After reading your comments maybe GITMO should be expanded for additional customers.
Farber's work has not been well received in the community of scholarly peers.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Farber104.htm
To cite it as an authoritative or unbiased source is accordingly misleading and unjustified. At its best it is a heavily tilted legal brief for the Lincoln defense team. At its worst it is a sloppily written low grade panegyric.
Tis no matter of assumption. Even the most partisan Lincoln sycophant will acknowledge that at least some of his arrests were unjustified.
There may have been justification for many of them.
Then that is your burden to prove, not mine.
I profess no fantasies, Espinola. Some of your friends around here and favorite historians, however, are indeed marxists though.
???? The 1861 bombardment of Fort Sumter came from the various forts and artillery at Fort Moultrie, Morris Island, Point Johnson, Sullivan's Island, Cummons Point, etc., not from cannon in the city (if there were any in the city at that time). Crowds of spectators lined the Battery in Charleston watching the distant battle.
Two big cannon having an effective range of five miles were placed on the Battery in 1863, but the first one blew up on the first shot. I don't know how effective those cannon ever were. Fort Sumter was in Confederate hands then anyway. There had been cannon on the Battery for the War of 1812, but a modern painting I've seen shows no guns on the Battery in 1860.
I took a walking tour of Charleston last fall. The guide showed us pictures of houses that were standing then that are still standing now. We did walk the Battery in that tour. The carriage tours were better though. More humor and easier on the feet.
I'll let your 'extremist' remark pass because you don't know any better.
I think there is a problem with your mental health.
What is the matter?
You don't want me to read Bansel for myself?
The problem is that you have assumed that suspending the Writ is a bad thing.
Based on that overly simplistic assumption, you then conclude that the Union did 38,000 bad thing to the Souths 4,000.
But, the suspension of the Writ, while it may have been illegal, may not have been the worse action, a far worse action would have been to allow traitors to operate behind your lines.
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.
Again, you are assuming the suspension of the Writ was always wrong.
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.
What we saw recently is simply a failure of the two other branches of Government to reign in an out of control judicary.
LOL!
Yes, there were indeed children killed or wounded in the bombardment. Here is a list of some of the casualties I've found (posted to you before).
Mrs. Hawthorne
In the afternoon, between four and five o’clock, the enemy again opened on the city. Sixteen shells were fired. One white woman, a Mrs. Hawthorne, was severely wounded by a fragment of shell striking her on the left side of the head. (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 2, 1863)Mrs. Hawthorne, the woman who was wounded Tuesday afternoon, was still alive up to seven o’clock Wednesday evening. Dr. Frost is the attending physician. Very little hopes were entertained for her recovery, as (the left side?) of the head is fractured, and the ----- (can’t read). (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 3, 1863)
Church in danger
Whereas the Congregation of the St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church are prevented from worshipping in their Sanctuary in consequence of the missiles of destruction which are being thrown into their vicinity by our remorseless and infidel foe; Therefore, Resolved, That the above named Congregation be most earnestly and affectionately invited to worship with us in the Morris-street Lutheran Church, as long as their necessities or inclination may require. (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 19, 1863)
Firemen, William Knighton, Miss Plane, and others
Charleston, Dec 25 – The enemy commenced shelling the city last night, keeping up a steady fire which is still going on at 9 o’clock this morning. A fire broke out about 9 o’clock, destroying some ten or twelve buildings, and causing a few casualties. Heavy firing is heard in the direction of Stone. The shelling of the city has continued with only an interval of an hour at noon. One white man was mortally and a white woman slightly wounded by shells.
Three firemen were badly wounded by the falling of walls of burnt buildings, and some eight or ten others were slightly wounded. Affairs at Sumter remain quiet. (The Memphis Daily Appeal [Atlanta, GA]. December 28, 1863)The gunners always increased their rate of fire when they saw a blaze, but in spite of the shells bursting near their engine, the firemen worked uninterruptedly. Four firemen and four soldiers were injured in fighting the fire, and a little further up the street, an 83-year old man had his leg shot off at the knee. It was a memorable Christmas night… (The Siege of Charleston, 1861-1865 by E. Milby Burton, p 257-258, December 25, 1863)
An old gentleman named William Knighton, 83 years of age, was sitting by the fire on his hearth, had his right leg shot off below the knee, His sister-in-law -- a Miss Plane – also sitting by the fire, had her right foot severely crushed by a fragment of shell. (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 28, 1863).
Mr. William Knighton mentioned in our report of casualties caused by the enemy’s fire on Friday, has since died from the effects of his wounds. (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 29, 1863)
Miss Plane, the lady reported as injured from a shell on Christmas morning, died on Wednesday from the effects of the injuries received. (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 31, 1863, as reported in The Daily Picayune, Jan 17, 1864)
German man wounded
One man, a German, whose name we could not learn, was wounded in the right hand by a stone from the middle of the street, torn up by a shell on Wednesday morning. (Charleston Daily Courier, Jan 14, 1864).
School Children
The St. Philip Street school-house remained untouched. A frame house adjoining it has nevertheless been hit by one of the shells, and fears were entertained for the safety of the school-house. Shells were flying round it constantly during the bombardment. The teachers, however, still keep the school open and the little girls and boys attended it in great numbers very regularly. (From The New York Herald, as reported in The Daily Picayune, Feb 12, 1864)
Mrs. Kennedy
One white woman, a Mrs. Kennedy, was seriously wounded in the leg about three o’clock Thursday morning. She was asleep when a shell entered her house and in passing through, shattered the bed posts, the pieces striking her on the leg, fracturing the bone. It was believed that amputation would be necessary. (Charleston Courier as reported in The Memphis Daily Appeal [Atlanta, GA]. March 8, 1864)
Nine killed. Men, women and children wounded
There have been lately two large fires in Charleston, caused by our shells. Deserters say the city is now divided into two districts, viz: 'in range' and 'out of range,' and that no other expression is used. Nine persons were killed a few nights since, and a large number wounded, including men, women, and children, and twelve homes burned to the ground. (Washington Republican, Feb 26, 1864, as reported in The Daily Picayune March 11, 1864)
Firemen injured
…the engine of the Phoenix Company was struck by a shell and blown to atoms, injuring several firemen (The Siege of Charleston, 1861-1865 by E. Milby Burton, p 259, from Schirmer Diary, May 13, 1864)
Colored woman killed
The firing since our last has been about as usual. Eighty-six shots have been fired from six P. M. Monday evening to six P. M. Tuesday, at Fort Sumter, and twenty-nine shots at the city, most of which were time fuse shells. A colored woman, named Adstine Rostersats (? hard to read the name) was mortally wounded about 12 M. Tuesday, by the fragment of a fuse shell, and died about four o’clock Tuesday evening. (Charleston Daily Courier, Aug 31, 1864).
Child’s arm shattered
Forty-two shells have been fired at the city since our last report. A child’s arm was badly shattered by one of these missiles. (Charleston Daily Courier, Sept 2, 1864)
Man and two children wounded
In the city three persons, one man and two children, were wounded by pieces of shell. One child was severely wounded. (Charleston Daily Courier, Sept 9, 1864)
Colored man killed
A colored barber named William, was struck in the head by a Parrott shell Friday morning and instantly killed. (Charleston Daily Courier, Sept 10, 1864)
Men and women wounded
During the twenty-four hours ending six o’clock Wednesday evening eighty-eight shots were reported fired into the city. A number of casualties occurred, but mostly from flying bricks or splinters.
Mr. A. W. Ladd was severely and dangerously wounded in the left shoulder by a fragment of shell, which exploded in the building where he was writing. Three other young men in the same room and building as Mr. Ladd, very narrowly escaped being killed. The shell passed through the desk of one (Mr. C. J. Porcher) just as he had risen to close a shutter of the window against the heat of the sun. It went under the desk, passing through the legs of Mr. W. Lambert, breaking the leg of the chair and leaving Mr. W with only a slight bruise on the ankle.
Another shell, which exploded in a building, wounded four females of the family of Mr. John Burkmyer, one of them seriously, breaking her collar bone, besides inflicting several slight bruises.
A man by the name of Collins, a laborer, had his leg taken off Wednesday evening by the explosion of a shell in the building in which he resided. (all from the Charleston Daily Courier of Sept 29, 1864)
However, the reviewer does say,
Beyond his general approach and his choice of sources, what is one to make of Farber's attitude toward his subject? It is generally even-handed. Thus, in summarizing Lincoln's constitutional record, Farber writes, "Although Lincoln cannot fairly be accused of dictatorship, he did stretch the power of the presidency to its outer reaches. He also authorized unprecedented exercises of government power over individuals: arrest and detention without military process, trial by military tribunals, and whole-sale destruction of individual property (most famously in Sherman's march through Georgia). After decades in which nearly everyone had agreed that slavery in the South was beyond the reach of federal power, he ordered the freeing of millions of slaves with a stroke of the presidential pen. It is little wonder that the constitutionality of his actions has been hotly disputed since almost the day he took office" (pp.20-21).
Farber displays great understanding of the extraordinarily difficult situation President Lincoln faced, and this prompts him to judge him less harshly than extreme libertarians sometimes have done (p.175).
In his Afterword, Farber considers "The Lessons of History." "It was," he writes, "Lincoln's character … that brought the Union through the war with the Constitution intact" (p.200). Here, Farber assumes much of what was at issue during Lincoln's presidency: that the Union was simply a territorial unit, not a group of sovereign states voluntarily joined; that the Constitution was what Lincoln said it was, not what his opponents to the south held it to be. Farber's assumptions on these scores shape most of the rest of his book. In sum, LINCOLN'S CONSTITUTION is a partisan work, more a lawyer's brief for the Lincoln administration to be argued before a contemporary American court or group of academics than an exercise in historiography. It is none the less interesting for that.
We've had him figured all wrong. He's been so incensed about the unilateral, ex post facto, never-ratified abrogation of ex-Confederates' voting rights, that he's been trying to talk us into bad-mouthing Lincoln and the Radicals.
How could I have been so wrong about our Roxbury Rebel?
Bet he's got three or four Confederate flags at home -- all different patterns.
Now, I didn't say all could be justified now did I?
Even Lincoln would admit some of the arrests were unjustified, but he never denied the need to do so.
There may have been justification for many of them. Then that is your burden to prove, not mine.
I feel no burden to prove anything.
The right to suspend the Writ is in the Constitution.
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.