| 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?
Got a link?
Want my prediction?
The secession conventions and referenda of 1861 were not a "violation without cause", but were precisely revolutionary, sovereign, privileged acts of the People, made in redress of their grievances against the North.
You have just stated that the secession was in fact a revolution.
That is not what the South claimed it was doing, it claimed a legal right to secede not the right to revolt, which is a natural right, the very right that by the way, Calhoun denied when he rejected the Declaration of Independence's statement that all men were created equal.
As for grievances, the only grievance the South had was that it was losing power in Congress and could no longer block attempts to limit slavery's growth into the territories.
Consistency and predictability are important for the legal system, especially for business interests. If the entire legal system viewed each case on its own, and ignored any precedent, it would make it nearly impossible for a business to determine whether a prospective course of action would be held lawful or unlawful.
The system is not perfect.
Texas gave up the right to be a nation when it agreed to join with those states to the East.
No one forced Texas to join the Union.
Once it did, it gave up its right to exist as a nation.
Had he carefully read the opinion in WHITE v. HART, 80 U.S. 646 (1871) at 647, he would not be so froggy right now.
Your idea that the reason why Davis was not tried is utter nonsense.
After two years, the people wanted healing not treason trials.
In that, they were followig Lincoln's wishes for 'charity towards all, malice toward none'
Just like Wlat to get it backwards.
Nor did I say LG was incorrect.
In full cognizance of what you just said, I merely took the union of lg and his statement and proffered a new statement to effect a more perfect union.
Just as with the Articles of Confederation, once all the members departed, that constitution was dead.
No, Non-Squirter, section 2 deals with domestic disturbances requiring assistance to be given to the marshals of the courts. It was the War Between the States, not the Great Civil Disturbance.
capitan_refugio specifically said "in times of insurrection" and I specifically quoted the sections dealing explicitly with "insurrection."
[cr #569] Hence, the Federal government had, in times of insurrection, the power to call up the militia to enforce federal law and to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
I think the South needed to explain why there were free blacks owning property, (even other slaves) since they regarded the black as being property themselves.
Lincoln stated that the South claimed the blacks as property yet outlawed the slave trade as immoral and had blacks among them who were free and worth alot of money.
It was the South that was being inconsistent in its views on defending slavery.
Amen to your post!
Bullshit.
That was your quoted comment that I responded to and destroyed.
Your post is a bunch of diversionary nonsense.
Considering the disclosure of the suppressed Booth diary with 43 sheets/86 pages missing without adequate explanation; the exculpatory material that remained in what was left of the diary; the disclosure of the panel recommendation for clemency for Mary Surratt which was withheld from the President; the failure to convict at the trial of John H. Surratt, and the imprisonment, for perjury, of a key witness from the military conspiracy trial, the government did not dare to bring Jefferson Davis to trial.
And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.
Destroyed with what?
Your post is a bunch of diversionary nonsense.
Funny, that is exactly what I thought your post was.
Considering the disclosure of the suppressed Booth diary with 43 sheets/86 pages missing without adequate explanation; the exculpatory material that remained in what was left of the diary; the disclosure of the panel recommendation for clemency for Mary Surratt which was withheld from the President; the failure to convict at the trial of John H. Surratt, and the imprisonment, for perjury, of a key witness from the military conspiracy trial, the government did not dare to bring Jefferson Davis to trial
Once again, assumption with no facts.
How do you jump to the conclusion that the Gov't was afraid that the South would considered not guilty of rebellion based on the fact that Davis was not tried?
I guess the real failure was on the part of the Confederate leadership who should have demanded a trial to get the verdict that they knew would be given.
You must have your tinfoil hat on this morning.
"And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
Then, of course, there is also Section 3:
"That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time
And it continues:
"And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
Then, of course, there is also Section 3:
"That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time
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.