| 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?
m.eSPINola you're on a roll. rave on.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.Ok, so Lincoln wants to 'hold' the forts. Does he want the fort, to defend the fort from attack? Or does he want the fort for the invasion of South Carolina?The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union.
As long as he collects the revenues, 'there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere'. Blackmail?
Content to leave federal offices vacant? Lincoln sates, 'there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object.' So as long as South Carolina renders tribute, and sends the tariff imposts to Washington, DC, Caesar will be content to leave the federal offices vacant. No Senators, representatives, justices, postmasters, you name it, just send the money.
The Executive is responsible for seeing that the laws are obeyed. But he states, 'While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.' Dereliction of duty? No, the ONLY object that concerns him is the money.
What about the mails, will he wage war to deliver them? Nope, '[t]he mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union.' Nothing about ensuring their delivery.
What does Lincoln care about? Slavery? Nope - he supports an Amendment guaranteeing PERMANENT slavery. Federal offices? Nope. The delivery of the mails? Nope. The only thing Lincoln desires is the MONEY.
Lincoln: 'My fellow Americans. You know who you are. The Union must institute civil war and invade our own states for the sole purpose of collecting unpaid federal revenue. If they, and you know of whom I speak, do not cough up, I mean pay in full, we shall embargo all grit sales to those states in question. Thank you very much. You may depart and commence firing, now!'
Bravo, you DO understand!
posting cartoons is NOT a substitute for BRAINS.
smart FReepers are lol AT you.
you are becoming as big a target for RIDICULE as "heyworthLESS", the DUMBBUNNY/BIGOT/HATER of the unionist coven. (i don't bother to even look at his DRIVEL & vulgar nitwittery anymore.)
free dixie,sw
We lost that one. There are even some of them here on the thread.
As I've said before, I don't mind that you don't read my posts to you. You're clearly deranged in your hatred of the United States, whose pledge of allegiance you boast of altering to suit yourself. I post so that the others who read these threads don't accept your ravings at face value , and I refuse to accept your smearing of my ancestors, who fought under the United States flag, as bluebellies who delighted in raping and murdering civilians. If I only save someone from driving around Galveston looking for the U-Boat, I've done my job. If I force you to grow incoherent in your lunacy and reveal to everyone the true depths of hatred you hide behind your rhetoric, so much the better.
From the statements you typed your indication is South Carolina, a state producing vast amount of cotton & other agricultural crops, even with all the forced 'free' labour, earning huge profits for the South's upper crust, you still don't believe S.C. & the other rebel states should have paid their fair share of taxes. That's really something else. It equals free slavery profits and war to maintain the Southern empire.
All this crap about Lincoln wanting a civil war, ripping the nation in two? Additional Neo-Confed-P/C. Do you read directly off of 'Tommy Delarenzoos' how-to-be-a rebel script, or are the lies all memorized
"All admit that an ultimate dissolution of the Union is inevitable, and we believe the crisis is not far off. Then let it come now; the better for the South that it should be today; she cannot afford to wait.----Charleston Mercury, l860
Well, well what di that Charleston Mercury newspaper say in 1860? .."the better for the South that it should be today; she cannot afford to wait."
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery--subordination to the superior race--is his natural and normal condition." -----Alexander Stephens of Georgia, 1861
You and the rest of the rebels thinks everyone just got off the boat, right?...wrong! "The Constitution makes no provision for secession.... Constitutionally, there can be no such thing as secession of a State from the Union. But it does not follow that because a State cannot secede constitutionally, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Union"-------Dubuque Herald, 1860
The Southern political aristocracy had a 'good life' as they used slave labour to build roads, forts, grow & harvest crops & even raise the children of the slave master. This same aristocracy wanted expansion of their Cotton Empire and were more than willing to provoke sedition & civil war to get their way.
Edwin Ruffin, the white-haired South Carolinian madmen & bigot made sure war happened. Ruffin a prime 'hero' of today's Neo-Confeds killed himself when his slave kingdom was defeated. Some 'hero' you guys follow.
You & the other Jr-Confeds posting the same spins wanted the Confederates to defeat the United States government and continue their cotton slave based empire.
Have you ever tried dunking your head in a bucket of prune juice?
Prove the alleged distortion.
... you still don't believe S.C. & the other rebel states should have paid their fair share of taxes.
Not true. The state seceded from the voluntary federal union. As such, she was not obligated to send further revenues to Washington.
All this crap about Lincoln wanting a civil war, ripping the nation in two? Additional Neo-Confed-P/C. Do you read directly off of 'Tommy Delarenzoos' how-to-be-a rebel script, or are the lies all memorized
You can't refute Lincoln's speech, so this is your rebuttal? Lincoln said it, not me.
"All admit that ... the better for the South that it should be today ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea ... The Constitution makes no provision for secession
I'm underwhelmed - Three newspapers articles and a misguided politician. The two Southern newspapers stated what Northern newspapers stated in 1814 and 1861, Stephens was wrong, and the Dubuque paper said, 'it does not follow that because a State cannot secede constitutionally, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Union'.
The Southern political aristocracy had a 'good life' as they used slave labour to build roads, forts, grow & harvest crops & even raise the children of the slave master.
Just as was practiced legally by Yankees.
This same aristocracy wanted expansion of their Cotton Empire and were more than willing to provoke sedition & civil war to get their way.
Check your facts, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Southern states, it was the Northern aristocracy that wanted a lily-white west. There were only a handful of blacks in the Territories, the same that you steadfastly insist were the target of millions of Southerners. Judging by Lincoln's speech quoted above, it was he that provoked a war to get his way the money.
Edwin Ruffin, the white-haired South Carolinian madmen & bigot made sure war happened. Ruffin a prime 'hero' of today's Neo-Confeds killed himself when his slave kingdom was defeated. Some 'hero' you guys follow.
Check again. Those that I admire and have seen admired are men like Stonewall and Lee, General Stand Watie, even some on your side, for remaining gentlemen even in times of duress.
You & the other Jr-Confeds posting the same spins wanted the Confederates to defeat the United States government and continue their cotton slave based empire.
You're projecting again. No one yearns for a continuation of slavery which WAS STILL LEGAL IN THE NORTH when the Confederate states seceded - our ancestors seceded to distance themselves from folks like you - sanctimonious hypocrites pitching hissy-fits when others fail to do your bidding.
I honestly don't know what your problem is. When when placed Confederate flags in the local cemeteries, no blacks derided us, no protesters demanded we stop. One cemetery was downtown in the old section of town - we visited the grave sites of blacks and whites. While we placed our flags the cemetery was surrounded by blacks, all gentlemanly in their manner, no derisive comments or insults were thrown our way; on the contrary, they were reverent while we performed our duties. We honoured their ancestors as well as ours.
No, but you obviously need to drink a gallon of it ;o)
Lol! You're the one on the left playing Yankee Doodle, porkchop.
"No, but you obviously need to drink a gallon of it" ;o)
How disgustingly revolting, especially after Stand was dunking his head in that stuff?! LOL
"Not true. The state seceded from the voluntary federal union. As such, she was not obligated to send further revenues to Washington."
Capitol idea! I just became a state and seceded!! :)
"You can't refute Lincoln's speech, so this is your rebuttal? Lincoln said it, not me."
Lincoln said a lot of things, maybe he was having a bad hair day or something. Plus I don't want to refute his speech since he really didn't read it directly to me prior to the public, since I was preocupied
On those newspaper quotes, Johnny Rebs demand secession,even through they have no idea why, simply succeed from something, anything. It's in the blood.
"I admire.. Stand Watie"..... Even after he dunked his head in the prune juice? :)
"You're projecting again.." I was, now I am sitting in the computer chair.
.."our ancestors seceded to distance themselves from folks like you - sanctimonious hypocrites pitching hissy-fits when others fail to do your bidding." Is that why they seceded?? I thought it was because they did not want to be civilized. Is the reasoning identical today?
"When when placed Confederate flags in the local cemeteries, no blacks derided us.." They have historically learned with unreconstructed confederates, it does not pay when ardent confederates are aware of one's home address and within driving distance...at night.
It's truly amazing how these things circulate around the Wlat Brigade - like an FR venereal disease of sorts that they all share. This is far from the only case. Just look at their practices...
When Espinola floods the place with ripped off image files, the others start plastering them too.
When Non-Sequitur, the Tu Quoque parrot, makes his call of "tu quoque! tu quoque!" the others start squacking along with him and join in.
When ftD starts his idolatrous "amens" and "hallelujahs" before the altar of Saint Abe the others start shaking in the pews over "Father Abraham."
When a certain chronic liar starts forging supreme court decisions, the others join in defending him and his fraud.
When some unsavory character like Wlat shows up and dumps a bunch of left wing Michael Moore garbage, the rest start drifting to the political left.
That last one is a particularly bad infection to have because they go all out in the symptoms. That's when you start seeing them do things like defending Bill Clinton, trashing Bush, claiming that the communist party is a "legitimate political organization," putting up links to Morris Dees, and quoting reparationists and other left wing kooks like McPherson, Farber, and Rakove.
Of course symptoms like these are all CLASSIC signs of idolatry. When somebody's faith is misplaced in a fake deity like Abe Lincoln it will inevitably lead them to mistaken and often times repugnant accompanying beliefs because that faith is not grounded in any truth. Rather, it is grounded in a desire to prop up a fake god at all costs and by any means necessary. And just as a band of witchdoctors in the Haitian backwoods nether-regions is prone to a collective bloodthirsty rage of hedonistic insanity that would never be witnessed in the more routine, though nevertheless repugnant, rituals of a solo voodoo practitioner, the Lincoln idolaters, when in a group setting, tend to mass-adopt and collectively inflate the very worst attributes of each individual member on his or her own standing.
True, with the sole exception for those who, having been under oath to support the Constitution of the United States, gave aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States, or participated in insurrection or rebellion against them.
"In submitting the resolution for the amendment, 28 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the Senate in violation of Article I §3 and Article V. 42 Representatives were similarly denied seats. 15 of the 37 states rejected the Amendment."
Each house of Congress, as I'm sure you know, is the sole judge of its membership. There is no appeal to that decision, and therefore, no lawful claim can be made otherwise. This confederate mythology about the 14th Amendment has been thoroughly refuted.
"Did the amendment CRIMINALIZE their actions?"
The traitors actions were criminal in their own right. The 14th Amendment provided a disability for their treasonable conduct. The amnesties offered by Presidents Lincoln and Johnson had saved more than a few of them from the hangman's noose.
"It's not hard to comprehend."
What is not hard to understand, except for the exceptionally stubborn or the willfully ignorant, is that NO constitutional amendment is itself, unconstitutional. When proposed and ratified, it works to change the terms of the existing Constitution and Amendments, absolutely. That's why the process is exceptionally cumbersome.
That part of Dahlgren's speech provides no suggestion of assassination. Indeed, it suggests that the first option would be to capture them. Of course, if they were shot trying to esacape ...
As far destroying and burning the "hateful city" of Richmond, that seems to be a legitimate military goal. Not only was it the site of the insurrectionist government, but it contained numerous factories, warehouses, and armories that aided the war effort. In many ways, it is too bad the confederates burned it to the ground before the Union had the opportunity.
"Of course the military determines what is lawful, eh?"
Where the Laws of War, rather than the rule of law, prevails - YES.
Hey, Garbage_truck. Boosting other people's bandwidth, I see.
"http://www.americasstory.com/assets/sh/oddball/sh_oddball_mallet_1_e.jpg"
That your website?
And no, that isn't me in the picture -- although I think she's an old flame of yours.
Wipe the spit off Espinola's chin, will you? He looks stupid like that, drooling on himself.
Don't go by me.......ask one of your buddies if your posts make you look hateful and small. If they're sober when you ask them, they might tell you the truth.
Somebody open a window.
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.
