| 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?
The 10th Amendment fallacy. The "right" of secession never existed and was not created by the Constitution or any Amendment. The powers reserved to the states, or to the people, were those powers needed to govern. Secession is the antithesis of republican democracy.
Please cite the act suspending the Constitution.
"They managed to install an amoral tyrant as president with 33% of the total vote..."
You have been corrected on that one before. Lincoln received 40% of the vote and a clear majority in the Electoral College. Lincoln was elected, lawfully, and re-elected, lawfully. No one was "installed." Sorry, but those are the facts.
"...as Linkum did arresting State Legislators to prevent their lawful voting."
Never happened. You've been shown that before. I guess you had to repeat a few grades in school, didn't you Jethro? You can't be taken seriously anymore.
Lincoln prosecuted a war on the secessionists, insurrectionists, and other criminals. It was not a war of his making.
You are correct the the southern states needed to "get back in line" - at least the buffoons that passed for leaders in the confederacy. They deserved to be destroyed and punished. I might even say a generation had to pass away so that their sins might be cleansed.
"The USSR showed more restraint in Hungary than Linkum (sic) did."
I didn't realize Lincoln had anything to do with Hungary.
That isn't at all evident. I believe the southern leadership had a bad case of wounded pride, due in no small measure to a large helping of sour grapes.
The fact of the matter was, for the first time since the ratification of the Constitution, the south was going to be largely out of power in the federal government.
Your analogy is fatally flawed. Any person or state who revolted against the Soviet rule exercised their natural law right of revolution form intolerable oppression.
The same cannot be said for the southern insurrectionists of the 1860's. There was no oppression. There was no threat of oppression.
"Now which is it, a few CSA "buffoons" or an entire generation that was responsible for the great crime of self determination?"
The buffoons in the leadership are culpable. Their followers paid the price.
40% of the popular vote was a "plurality." It was not a majority. Lincoln received a clear majority in the Electoral College, where he won states in the West, Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and New England. I would say Lincoln has a great a "national mandate" as George W. Bush, in terms of winning in large sections of the country. Lincoln's election was, after all, a four-way race.
"Even your god, Non Squirter (sic) acknowledged the arrest of the Maryland State House in 1861 to prevent their lawful voting on Secession."
Non Sequitur is a very knowledgeable poster - that's why he makes tends to destroy the silly insurrectionist arguments. I wouldn't say I consider him a god (no offense N-S).
The Maryland legislature got its vote on secession, unimpeded by the Administration, on April 27, 1861. They defeated it 53-13. Secessionist traitors in the legislature were not arrested until September.
"Maybe Rastus beez needin to go bak to Skool agin."
Speak for yourself, Jethro.
"By the principles of the American revolution, arbitrary power may and ought to be resisted even by arms if necessary. The time may come when it shall be the duty of a State, in order to preserve itself from the oppression of the general government, to have recourse to the sword." - Luther Martin, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, 1788
Did the "right" of unilateral secession exist in the "Perpetual Union" operating under the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union?
You failed to cite the act or proclamation by which Lincoln "suspended 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.