| 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?
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.
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? :)
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.
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.
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.
Then who is responsible for their being subjected to a bombardment, the Union or the Southern military?
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.
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.
Capitan will pull the thread if you keep that up.
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.
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!
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.
So I'm told. I hear that stating facts about past censures are completely out of the question.
Please don't bother to sober up this is a riot.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
Once again, the proof of true character is in his statements.
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.