| 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?
Because Chief Justice Chase believed that with the passage of the 14th Amendment any further trial of Davis would violate his 5th Amendment protections.
Why didn't they try Davis for high treason? The war had lasted four years. There were nearly a million dead. Where's Jeff Davis's trial?
There were plenty who wanted to try Davis, Lee, and the whole crew. But Chase's position, and the position of those who wanted to put the whole business behind, won out.
Yes they did. And the Constitution does not give the states to make a treaty with foreign countries or other states.
To put it a little more bluntly: Who's your daddy, servile belly-crawler? Who do you crawl for?
Certainly not you.
Actually their unilateral acts of secession did violate the Constitution, as the Supreme Court determined.
Lincoln, however, did violate the Constitution -- repeatedly. And never more blatantly than when he used the Army and a political fiction to partition Virginia.
Actually no he didn't, at least I'm not aware of any Supreme Court judgement that said he did.
Nonresponsive ad hominem again.
Prove me wrong. Put up or shut up. I said Lincoln broke the Constitution by partitioning Virginia in violation of Article IV, previously posted ad nauseam.
What, you going to argue that nobody can read the Constitution except a lawyer who agrees with you? The Constitution's an original source document, published for all the People to read -- that's why Constitutions are written down and published.
Get busy, smart guy.
You're everybody's chump.
More ad hominem. Do you have anything to say, or do you just like to throw trash from the sidelines like an illiterate, incoherent malcontent? Would you like to shoot a gun off and send us all home?
Oh this is almost too easy. You're wrong. Constitutionally the President plays no part in any of the actions outlined in Aricle IV, Section 3 so you cannot say that he violated the Constitution in the admission of West Virginia. Also, the fact that you say Lincoln violated the Constitution is meaningless. Since the Supreme Court has never ruled that Lincoln or Congress or anyone else violated the Constitution in the admission of West Virginia then that alone is proof that you are wrong.
What, you going to argue that nobody can read the Constitution except a lawyer who agrees with you? The Constitution's an original source document, published for all the People to read -- that's why Constitutions are written down and published.
What, we're supposed to accept that some action is unconstitutional because you say it is? The Constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction over matters relating to Constitutionality, not you. Your opinions mean nothing...from a legal standpoint.
Do you have anything to say, or do you just like to throw trash from the sidelines like an illiterate, incoherent malcontent?
No, you can keep that position for yourself. You do such a fine job at it.
Misleading analogy.
Neighbors aren't States. Neighbors aren't The People.
The People are entitled to do all these things, and to use deadly force as well. Those are the attributes of sovereignty -- being a sovereign, master of one's own country.
Either the People are sovereign or they are not, and if they are not, someone else is sovereign. So I'll put to you the same question I put to Non-Sequitur: who is the sovereign? Or more bluntly, who is your sovereign? Who's your daddy, subject?
Well then, aren't the People entitled to defend themselves against your aggression?
Operative word: were. The Southern States seceded from the Union. They left.
And you are right: they were not part of a colonial system: they were sovereign entities, entitled to make their own future as they saw fit.
It's also #3discourse.
And why am I not entitled to surmise that Chase, who was in intimate communication with the Black Republican political gang and indeed a charter member (the very reason he had been elevated to Chief Justice in the first place -- to make the Black Republican faction's will the law of the land: or will you dispute that?) was not animated by the same desires and agenda as his fellow factionalists?
Why do you insist that we accept Chase's theorizing for public consumption at face value?
Are you really that stupid, or do you just insist that everyone else be that stupid for your own convenience?
Your neighbors just declared that they were The People, forming a new State, and that your property is in their new nation's territory.
The People are entitled to do all these things, and to use deadly force as well. Those are the attributes of sovereignty -- being a sovereign, master of one's own country.
And they just declared their newly-declared State to be sovereign over your land, and demanded that you leave immediately. No mention of compensation for said land--they just want you gone.
Now, are those People sovereign, or are you going to impose your tyranny upon them?
[ns] Because Chief Justice Chase believed that with the passage of the 14th Amendment any further trial of Davis would violate his 5th Amendment protections.
SOURCE: David M. DeWitt, The Impeachment and Trial of President Johnson, (1903), p. 406-7
Another conspicuous circumstance there was which enhanced the air of unreality hovering over the trial. [nc - of President Johnson] This was the absence of the defendant. [406]* * *
To crown it all, the irony of events was seen playing round the hollow spectacle. Another trial had been set down for the coming month. Another President of another and vanished republic was under prosecution. and, in his case, there was no need of pageantry to swell the proportions of the charge. Treason of no constructive character was the high crime; and the presence of the distinguished defendant was certain to be forthcoming. but, as it was shrewdly said, Jefferson Davis could hardly be tried for "insisting that the Southern States were out of the Union whilte Andrew Johnson was being tried for insisting they were in." The real trial was made to give place, therefore, to the sham trial; Chief Justice Chase protesting with much reasonableness that he could not act in both at the same time. [407]
That explains why the trial that was never to be was delayed, yet again.
When the radical whackos lost the Surratt trial and then lost the attempt to unseat Johnson, it was time to give up. Chief Justice Chase provided a face-saving way out.
You can surmise anything you little heart desires. Lord knows that history will show that you do.
Are you really that stupid, or do you just insist that everyone else be that stupid for your own convenience?
No, I'm just not as paranoid as you are.
Ex Parte Milligan, 9-0.
All those military trials of civilians were unconstitutional and unlawful.
To reinforce that, here are the first two sections of Article 1 from the Tennessee State Constitution:
Sec. 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indfeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.Sec. 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
And here is one section from the Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The Constitution of Tennessee can say anything it wants to. Any actions supposedly sanctioned by it but which violate the U.S. Constitution are illegal.
Not what I asked you. Who?! Who's your daddy?
Come on, willing subject. Come on, Non-sequitur -- or any of the rest of you unmen who think the People are not sovereign, not masters of their own house -- tell us, signify to us, who do you crawl for, who's your daddy? You keep wearing this "I am not sovereign-- kick me" sign.....so who is the boss of you?
It's a simple question, guys. Who is the sovereign of the United States? Answer up, willing-worms-who-would-fain-be-ruled. What's the answer?
I give up. Who do you believe to be the sovereign of the United States? King Lentulusgracchus the First?
Correct, the war was not fought to free the slaves, but to maintain the Union. Nevertheless, slavery was the single overarching issue seperating north from south. It dominated the decision on states coming into the union and the issue over which side, slave or free, would have dominance. If you look at virtually every conflict between north and south 40 years prior to the war it is slavery which is at the heart of the conflict. Fact is, without slavery there would never have been a civil war. As to the Emancipation Proclamation. That old "it didn't free a single slave" is worn out and totally irrelevant. Lincoln declared slavery forever illegal in all States as a political move. He knew fully well it wouldn't free a single slave until the war was over and it took the issue of returning the South to it's former role off the table with the peace Democrats who were screaming for "peace talks." He didn't do it earlier because he had border states to contend with. It also forced the British to decide if they were willing to side with the South and thereby defend slavery.
Slavery was not the issue for the war--but it was THE issue behind secession.
Incidentally, before 1860, Wisconsin made some noises about seceding over their disagreement with the Fugitive Slave Laws.
Southron politicians made it clear that the Union was inviolable, that talk of secession was treason, and that any attempt to secede would be resisted with the utmost violence.
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.