| 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 People is the State and vice versa. There is no amalgamated, lumpenproletariat People of the Whole United States -- we always act in our States, because we are our States. That is how we have our political identity. We are not a nation-state revolving around a centralized governmental monopole.
Not everyone.
If all the people in America were determined to abolish the Constitution, they could do it, even if their legislators didn't cooperate. The logical sequel being, that they have a power superordinating the Constitution, in order to operate on the Constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution could never be amended.
The process for amending the Constitution is clearly outlined in the document itself.
Ah, yes, the Supreme Court -- with Salmon P. Chase and four other Lincoln-appointed justices sitting up there, Chase with the presentation gavel in his hand, lovingly inscribed, "With complete confidence that you will catch our backs, A. Lincoln."
So your arguement is that only Supreme Court decisions that you agree with are valid. Where is that written down?
Well, for one thing, as I explained above, the People themselves and their superordinating power over the Constitution, which is a reserved power, by the way -- you didn't think we weren't going to talk about reserved powers, did you? -- are absolutely ultra vires, no matter what commercial disputes over frozen chickens the Court might be called on to referee among citizens of various States.
Bullshit.
There was a moment ago when you referred to them. And anyway, I disagree. There are the people of the United States, of which I am one. And that loyalty is above any local or regional affection. At least that's what George Washington said. But hey, what did he know?
"Take what they want" sounds like you're still pushing the bank-robbery imagery. Which I carefully explained it wasn't, since the South left so much more on the table.
As for access to the sea, the Great Lakes and the Erie Canal certainly provided that -- the latter paid for by everyone.
And no, I don't think the Southerners thought, "Constitution be damned" -- more like "Black Republicans be damned". They weren't going to stay where those people could hurt them -- and very sensibly so.
Keep squirming NS. I'm enjoying this.
Well, Lincoln picked the fight, and very skilfully. He needed the fight, he got the fight. Good job of starting a war.
Absolutely I would deny them that, and you are way out of line suggesting that other people should have a veto over what my State does -- no way does Louisiana get to vote in Texas elections, even if Mexico does.
These Mexican immigrants are going to run a clinic for us on the folly of your point of view.
So what? The power isn't. It's firmly in the hands of the People.
That's the singular/plural business about the word "people" again, which the Founders always constructed and used as a plural, and for which they didn't use a superplural form the way we do when we say "peoples". The German word for "people" is "Leute", and "die Leute" is always plural. But "populus" was always singular in Latin.
And anyway, I disagree. There are the people of the United States, of which I am one.
Well, we've been all over the amalgamation issue on these threads, discussing passages from The Federalist and the ratification debates, the outcome of all of which was, and still is, that the People means the People of a State, and that we always but always consult each People in each State for the big decisions like amending the Constitution or sending electors to DC to elect national officers.
And that loyalty is above any local or regional affection. At least that's what George Washington said. But hey, what did he know?
Well, he didn't know about John Brown, did he? Trying to start a race war is bad enough, but it was the Northern editorial and popular response to his attempt to reproduce a Haitian revolution in America that really tore the knickers. They were sorry Brown failed, and they wept big wet tears when he was executed. Where do you think George Washington would have been on that issue if he'd been still around in 1859?
"I would be pleased if you and your family and neighbors died horribly under a machete" kinda puts finis to the old bond of loyalty, don't you think?
The country had exceeded its supply of tolerances. It was time to go.
Easily amused, I see. But you're wise to stay out of the discussion.
When your state's actions affect my state then there is no reason why I shouldn't have a say.
These Mexican immigrants are going to run a clinic for us on the folly of your point of view.
You are the last one to be classifying someone elses views as folly.
Back to the "Davis was too stupid to see though Lincoln's plan" I see. Well regardless, Davis knew what he was doing. He just didn't expect the outcome.
As for access to the sea, the Great Lakes and the Erie Canal certainly provided that -- the latter paid for by everyone.
Which did the people in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys no good. Or can't you read a map?
On the side of the Union.
Maybe if we don't accept his sovereignty he will secede from the Union!
And what are the excuses for the other blue states?
However, since Virgina was in revolt, those who were loyal to the Union needed to be protected. Is that why Lincoln partitioned all those other States? Oh, wait -- he didn't. There goes that argument.
No, because W.Virgina was a unique case, in which they asked to be separated from their parent state.
What W.Virgina does show is the logical outcome of allowing secession as a means of dealing with political disagreements. Read the Constitution. Read The Federalist.
And so....?
I think Andrew Jackson and Lincoln read both of them.
States are the sovereign political entities that embody the People. Counties are not. A rump convention isn't a State (the Unionists in Virginia lost the secession issue by 3:1), but Lincoln interposed the U.S. Army and said it was. In so doing he violated Article IV of the Constitution himself.
And States do not have the right to vote to revolt against the Constitution.
Get it straight. The seceding States did not violate the Constitution. They withdrew from the Union and formed their own federation. Lincoln, however, did violate the Constitution -- repeatedly. And never more blatantly than when he used the Army and a political fiction to partition Virginia.
So firing on federal forts is not a violation of the Constitution?
Taking over federal installations is not a violation of the constitution?
There is no 'right'to secede in the Constitution.
Just as there is no right for the Federal gov't to throw out any state or states from the Union.
Get used to this: At some point, you're going to have to admit that Lincoln was engaged in political gamesmanship at the highest level, enabled by war and greased by the blood of the People.
No, what Lincoln did was what he was suppose to do as the President, defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
They sure have the what if's of history all figured out don't they?
No, actually they attempted to leave.
Historically we never had a break in the nation's history as a nation.
We had a Civil War.
But we were never two nations.
So, when do you and your neo-confederate buddies celebrate the birth of the Confederate States of America?
You know non-Sequitur was addressing the constitutionality of W.Virgina
The 'people'are ofcourse based on the consent of the governed.
And when the 'People'want to change a tyrannical gov't they always have the moral right to revolt, not to secede.
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.