Confederate States Of America (2005)

Yahoo Movies ^ | 12/31/04 | Me

[fortheDeclaration]

and another 26 that fought for self government in the War of Northern Agression.

Those fought (even if were not their primary reason for fighting) to stop others from self-governing themselves.

No different then any German or Japanese who fought to defend their 'homeland' from 'aggression' by the allies.

[M. Espinola]

Excerpts from your latest frenzied outburst directed at almost everyone in here, with the exception of the rapidly, dwindling 'Crazed Confed-Club'.

Blind-fuming-rage: "an FR venereal disease", "unsavory character", "the Lincoln idolaters", "prop up a fake god", "a fake deity like Abe Lincoln",.."certain chronic liar", "Non-Sequitur, the Tu Quoque", "thieving bug" "ftD starts his idolatrous "amens" and "hallelujahs"," before the altar of Saint Abe parrot", "a band of witchdoctors in the Haitian backwoods" (must have placed a loony bird spell on you, LOL)

In addition to reminding everyone of something they occasional pick up on the soles of their shoes, you also sound like an old lady employed at a major bank, acting like all customer cash withdrawals are her personal property. Does that seem to fit you Mr. Temper Tantrum :)

If you had your way the only people posting anything on here would be frustrated, fanatical, Neo-Confederate, bigoted humanoids, none of which including you, have capabilities to post a graphic, otherwise you would have flooded this joint with giant, personalized autographed pictures of your favourite seditionists.

Bonkers? Need another drinky now? :)

[GOPcapitalist]

Dear Admin Moderator -

Would you kindly ask M. Espinola to cease his excessive and habitual theft of other people's bandwidth by posting image files all over these threads? I picture here and there is fine, but this guy's been averaging more than a picture a post for months. Several of us have addressed it to him publicly and privately but he doesn't seem to realize that he's making these threads take forever to load. Thanks.

[lentulusgracchus]

The traitors actions were criminal in their own right.

No, they weren't. If they were, where was the trial? Other than the hanging of Wirtz, over Andersonville, you can't produce the name of a single general or field-grade officer of the CSA who was tried for treason. The U. S. Government held Jefferson Davis for years and didn't try him.

Your saying it doesn't make it so. The Confederates changed their allegiance openly and supported their People in what they wanted to do, which was to leave the Union and found a new republic. That isn't treason, and neither is levying war against the United States treason, for anyone who has openly renounced United States citizenship and declared for another sovereign -- or for no sovereign. These people were citizens of another country, and not citizens of the United States. The partisan and clearly expedient declarations and decrees of the United States Government and its courts to the contrary notwithstanding.

[fortheDeclaration]

The President of the United States "invaded".. the United States? LOL, This is ridiculous!

Yes, to think that he was going to collect revenue passed legally and signed into law by a Democrat President.

But it was all Lincoln's fault!

Funny, the Democratic Party did not reject Douglas because of the Tariff, but over the slave issue.

Thus the Slave states seceded first from the Democratic Party not over a difference of opinion over the Tariff, but over the slave states demanding that Douglas agree that slavery could go into any terrority no matter what the people of that terrority wanted.

Ofcourse, this was the logical conclusion of Dred Scott, that Lincoln saw.

[fortheDeclaration]

They could have simply surrendered. They were Southern, not French.

Then who is responsible for their being subjected to a bombardment, the Union or the Southern military?

[GOPcapitalist]

Here's the text of the orders portion of the Dahlgren documents. As usual Cap'n Crunch is lying.

We will try and secure the bridge to the city, (one mile below Belle Isle,) and release the prisoners at the same time. If we do not succeed they must then dash down, and we will try and carry the bridge from each side. When necessary, the men must be filed through the woods and along the river bank. The bridges once secured, and the prisoners loose and over the river, the bridges will be secured and the city destroyed. The men must keep together and well in hand, and once in the city it must be destroyed and Jeff. Davis and Cabinet killed.

[lentulusgracchus]

If you had your way the only people posting anything on here would be frustrated, fanatical, Neo-Confederate, bigoted humanoids....

Open smear. "Hate speech", sounds like something out of Signal. ....., none of which including you, have capabilities to post a graphic, otherwise you would have flooded this joint with giant, personalized autographed pictures of your favourite seditionists.

You foolish, stupid man. Look back up thread and you'll see a couple of graphics I linked to, before someone patiently explained to me why it isn't good Netiquette to do so, and is an imposition on someone else's resources.

Your premise is wrong, your conclusion is wrong, and your manners are bad.

[lentulusgracchus]

Hey, you're not permitted to post anything that proves that Capitan_Refugio, overplaying his hand as usual, has posted a manifestly and palpably untrue statement.

Capitan will pull the thread if you keep that up.

[fortheDeclaration]

War places a context on actions. In fact, killing in war is not murder because of its context. The issue is context Wow, I'll bet the Nuremberg defense lawyers would have liked to consult with you...... "Malmedy wasn't murder because of its context...." "The Ardeatine Caves incident wasn't murder because of its context......" "Khatyn Forest wasn't mass murder because of its context........" Hmmmmmm. Can we "contextualize" our way to innocence for the SS-Wiking Division and the Death's-Head Division, the Black Hundreds, the Viet Minh and the Special Republican Guards? If we just "contextualize" history properly, can we come to a greater appreciation of the sacrifices imposed on leadership by context that requires them to kill large numbers of people (Cambodia, the Rape of Nanking, the Cultural Revolution) in order adequately to support policy? Naaaaah, lipstick on a pig.

You guys certainly do have a problem with thinking clearly don't you?

The examples that you cite are considered artrocites because they did violate the reasonable context of war.

Without a context, all killing in war would be murder.

Because we recognize a context for killing in war, we can identify those acts that are considered murder and those are not, even in war.

That is why we have trials for those acts to see what led to those acts and if they can be justified due to the war situation.

Context, once again is the issue.

Nice try, professor. Sure you aren't #3Fascist with a new computer?

Not at all.

Your rejection of context and principle, reveals the problem that you pro-Southerners have with reality and truth.

[sully777]

If the South won? France would have driven up into a thoroughly weakened CSA from Mexico with Emporer Maximillian. Britain's plans to retake Florida and their former colony would have started out with a multi-pronged attack from Canada, Jamaica, Bermuda, and the Bahamas after instigating massive riots in the North among the Irish immigrants. Russia would retake California, Washington, Oregon, and parts of Alaska only to lose it in an agreement between London and Tokyo after Japan annihilated the Tsars forces called in from the Crimean, Ukraine, and Afghanistan to reinforce a beleagured Pacific Imperial Army. Japan would have won consessions and taken all of its Pacific regions, bringing about a power vacuum in the Middle East, Asia Minor, and British-french possessions in Asia.

Considering the former scenario, without a USA no one would have fed starving France after the Franco-Prussian war, allowing the spread of disease throughout Europe. The Kaiser and Hitler would have been victorious without the USA existing to turn the tide in both wars for the allies. Japan would have invaded and conquered Australia and India and become the sole ruler of the Pacific.

No one would have stopped communism.

Good thing the CSA was dissolved by act of war to retain the USA. The world would have been a different place. GoUSA!

[GOPcapitalist]

Your premise is wrong, your conclusion is wrong, and your manners are bad.

That basically sums it up with M. Espinola. I just counted fifty ripped off stolen images in his last 100 posts. Last week I counted his previous 200 and found in excess of 230 images, again all of them ripped off. Sadly it clogs up virtually every thread he posts on with tons of needless image files that are ALL stolen bandwidth. It makes the threads take forever to simply load for ANYBODY trying to read them & also wreaks havoc with the "my comments" page when posts the pictures to you. He's been asked to stop both politely and not so politely by many people, all to no avail. At most the images drop off for a day or so after he gets admonished and then it's back to normal.

[GOPcapitalist]

So I'm told. I hear that stating facts about past censures are completely out of the question.

[M. Espinola]

You are whimpering again, coupled with your flea ridden puppy, the pathetic confederate stool pigeon. ;)

Please don't bother to sober up this is a riot.

[fortheDeclaration]

The facts are that the Hartford Convention was considered an act of treason. Really? How many hanged? Anyone brought to the bar of justice, as in Ex Parte Bollman?

The Hartford Convention did not advocate secession and the day after they submitted their demands to the Federal gov't, it was learned that the peace treaty with the British had been signed.

Still the Federalists never shook their association with the Convention which was viewed as treasonous since the nation was at war.

It was the same taint of treason that the Democratic Party had to fight against after the Civil War.

Considering some of their post-Civil War history, (Wilson, FDR, Truman, Carter, Clinton), the charges can be considered as having a basis of plausibility.

[capitan_refugio]

I am glad the your clarified your position.

"Note that it states 'the sternest retaliation should follow...'"

Complete the sentence: "The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority."

Even if you believe that the Dahlgren Raid was a planned assassination attempt, it was a failure. There was no assassination. There was nothing to retaliate against.

Furthermore, the whole of Article 148 is intended to reinforce the idea that even an enemy should be accorded the opportunity for a hearing ... before he is executed for his treasonable conduct.

" Lee might have surrendered in April 1865, but other Confederate forces did not surrender until May 1865. Among them, Richard Taylor, son of former President Zachary Taylor, brother-in-law to President Davis. Brigadier General Stand Watie did not surrender until 23 Jun 1865."

True. However, the confederate government had collapsed and its remnents were in flight. The insurgent government of Virginia had also collapsed and "Extra Billy" Smith was on the run. There was no "command and control" (to use a modern term) left to direct rebel military activities in Virginia. Whatever direction Booth may have had, it was certainly non-existant by April 14, 1865. Booth and his fellow conspirators can, in no way, be considered military operatives.

"On [Dahlgren's] person he had orders stating, '[t]he men must keep together & well in hand & once in the City it must be destroyed & Jeff. Davis and Cabinet killed.'"

You continue to err by mischaracterizing Dahlgren's personal notes as "orders."

"Article[s] 27 & 28 [are cited as authority for retaliation]"

Did you read them? "Retaliation will, therefore never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution ..." (Art 28)

You appear to try to make that case that the Lincoln assassination was an authorized form of justifiable retaliation ("Per the Lieber Code - implemented by Lincoln, LEGALLY justifed retailitory measures - in fact - it demanded them.). Capture was in no way contrary to any of the Laws of War. You fail to make the case.

[capitan_refugio]

You, and your fellow neo-confederates, live in a worth of mythology of your own construction. Like the so-called "arrest warrant" for Roger Taney, the is no "order" to be found for Col. Dahlgren. Even if one admits that every facsimile and document from the confederate archives of the Dahlgren affair was an authentic reproduction, there still exists no "order." All you have is your wild supposition.

[lentulusgracchus]

Let's cut to the chase, Espinola.

Who's paying you to post this garbage? To come on here and play troll day after day, night after night, not even worrying about whether what you're posting makes sense, but just spewing venom and spitting defiance against anyone who disagrees with the South-bashing agenda?

Who put you up to this?

Who wants the Southerners run off of FR?

Who wants conservatives to stay locked in the attic until election day?

Who's your daddy, troll?

[fortheDeclaration]

Check out the other two reviews that I posted, both from professors of universities.

Both of them were favorable.

As for Gutzman's review, his gripe is that Farber was not following his own views on nullification, and therefore must not be aware of the conclusive evidence supporting it.

He cites as an example the fact that Farber did not cite his own five year old work in the Southern Historical Journal.

[M. Espinola]

'Lentulusgracchus' frivolously dragging his typical twisted logic with such subjects as "Malmedy", "The Ardeatine Caves incident", "Khatyn Forest" and other horrific war crimes as NOT being "mass murder" only exemplifies his lack of morality, plus then he throws in the brutal SS-Wiking Division and the Death's-Head Division into a debate over the Civil War(??)

Once again, the proof of true character is in his statements.