| 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?
Such schemes as are here discussed will do no good to the blacks nor the whites, unless a scheme of forced expatriation be at once started; and that is attended with formidable obstacles. The North will become in turn the worse than masters of the slaves. For very self-protection and to prevent such a ruinous and adulterous mixture of society, the North will rise to drive the free blacks from their soil. Interest, which is stronger in society, in the end, than philanthropy, will issue its edict of expatriation, and no good will accrue to the black or white. If you would barbarize the war, undignify its object, and, indeed, make it a failure in every sense, you may follow the impracticable schemes of New England politics, and their neophytes in the country. These emancipation schemes will divide the North, and create new dissension and rebellion in the border States. They will paralyze the efforts of the army, and make cold and indifferent the now ardent and anxious friends of the Union. This division of the North now, when all are united by State legislation and Federal action to defend our flag and sovereignty, would tend to destroy the hope which has buoyed us in this great conflict. It would be an act of fraud on the soldiers and officers of the grand Army of the Republic. They were called out by a proclamation of the 3d of May, which was in harmony with the action of Congress. The Crittenden resolutions were an explicit avowal of the only and legitimate object of this war. (House Journal of last session, p. 129.)The referenced resolution staing the object of the war:To divert it now into a war against the institution of slavery will be to make it the "violent and remorseless revolutionary struggle" which the President fears. Besides, it would make it a gigantic swindle upon the people, upon our votes for taxes, and upon the soldiers who imperil their lives in defence of the Union and its authority.
Samuel S. Cox, Eight Years in Congress, from 1857-1865. Memoir and Speeches, New York, NY: D. Appleton & Co, 1865, p. 234
Crittenden-Johnson Resolution (passed House 22 Jul 1861 117-2, Senate 25 Jul 1861 30-5)Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the southern States, now in arms against the constitutional government, and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged on their part in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.
'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.' But even then Amendment XIV states, 'But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.' The 14th was not a hindrance to his trial.
This was not a Bill of Attainder or a law, ex post facto or otherwise. This was an amendment to the Constitution itself.
But even then Amendment XIV states, 'But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.' The 14th was not a hindrance to his trial.
It most certainly was. The disability was in place and Davis was forbidden, because of his leadership in the rebellion, from holding office. A trial and punishment would have been unconstitutional, thanks for the 14th Amendment.
BS. The Constitution is the supreme LAW of the land. And a law existed that prohibted ex post facto laws. Until repealed, it is the law.
The section in question was ex post facto - it criminalizes an act committed before the passage of the 14th - which was not illegal at the time - and punishes such action by loss of civil rights. Additionally, it ludicrously overlooked Amendment VI which required that the accused have 'the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.'
A trial and punishment would have been unconstitutional, thanks for the 14th Amendment.
'3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
All congress had to do was vote to REMOVE the 'disabilty' with regard to President Davis. Then the trial could commence. There was no legal hindrance to the trial of Davis.
BS yourself. This was not a bill of attainder or a law. It was an amendment to the very Constitution itself. It could not be unconstitutional.
All congress had to do was vote to REMOVE the 'disabilty' with regard to President Davis. Then the trial could commence. There was no legal hindrance to the trial of Davis.
But they did not, the restriction was in place. And as long as it remained in place then a trial of Davis would have violated his constitutional protections. And the restriction was never lifted where Davis was concerned. So a trial would have been double jeopardy.
"The power confided in me," he said, "will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion--no using force against, or among the people anywhere"."We are going to make tax slaves out of you," Lincoln was effectively saying, "and if you resist, there will be an invasion." That was on March 4. Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates. No one was hurt or killed, and Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North.
With slavery, Lincoln was conciliatory. In his first inaugural address, he said he had no intention of disturbing slavery, and he appealed to all his past speeches to any who may have doubted him. Even if he did, he said, it would be unconstitutional to do so.
Let's look at the whole quote. In context, for a change.
" In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections."
Lincoln is speaking of the duties of the government. To hold on to government property. To fill government posts and deliver the mail and, yes, collect tariffs. Yet you latch on to one item and screech, "He's threatening invasion!!!" while ignoring the pledge that force would not be used unless forced upon the government.
Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates.
Complete crap, except for the bombardment part, of course. Fort Sumter was an army post, not a 'tariff collection point'. The customs house in Charleston was on East Bay Street. Not one dollar of tariff was ever collected at Sumter and not a single customs official ever set foot in the fort. So how was it a 'tariff collection point'?
No one was hurt or killed, and Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North.
So your arguement is that Jefferson Davis was too stupid to see through Lincoln's plot and fell right into is trap? In spite of the warnings that his cabinet gave him? No wonder the south lost with a leader like that!
With slavery, Lincoln was conciliatory. In his first inaugural address, he said he had no intention of disturbing slavery, and he appealed to all his past speeches to any who may have doubted him. Even if he did, he said, it would be unconstitutional to do so.
And by that time seven southern states had entered into a rebellion to protect slavery.
I give up. You simply will not believe anything other than the official government endorsed cause for the War of Northern Agression. They would never lie to you, right?
Why should I believe the nonsense that you and Tommy DiLorenzo put out? You give opionion and expect the world to accept it as fact. When challenged, you give up.
Easiest way to shut me up is prove me wrong. Let's take an easy one. Support your claim that Fort Sumter was a tariff collection point. That should be very easy for you to do. Show where some duties were collected there, or that there was a customs collector assigned there, or that it wasn't a fort in the first place. You're so sure of yourself, certainly you can do that? Can't you?
Your arguement is ludicrous, by your reasoning any legislature could simply passing a new EX POST FACTO law and criminalize anything. And it was a bill of attainider - 'a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial' (Chief Justice Willam H. Rehquist, The Supreme Court: How It Was, How It Is, New York, NY: William Morrow & Co, 1987, p. 166).
It was an amendment to the very Constitution itself. It could not be unconstitutional.
'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.' One of these LAWS states 'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.'
Nonsense, as you would have realized had you actually read my post. Any legislation would have to pass Constitutional muster. If it was an ex post facto law then, of course, it would be struck down because even if it didn't violate the state constitution it certainly violated the federal constitution. And when you get right down to is, it wasn't an ex post facto law to begin with. Ex post facto means to make illegal that which was legal when it was done. I'm pretty sure rebellion was just as illegal in 1861 as it was when the 14th Amendment was adopted.
Please cite the section of the Constitution which prohibits the states from resuming their delegated powers.
Article I, Section 10. Article Iv, Section 3. Both by implication render unilateral secession as practiced by the confederate states illegal.
Now please cite the section of the Constitution which allows it?
No State shallNothing prohibiting secession or the resumption of delegated powers in my version.
enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal;
coin Money;
emit Bills of Credit;
make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,
or grant any Title of Nobility.No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress,
lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,
lay any duty of Tonnage,
keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,
enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article Iv, Section 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.Nothing prohibiting secession or the resumption of delegated powers in my version.The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Hmmm. You must be right, secession is not forbidden by the Constitution. So secession must be allowed.
But then again, what form shall it take? Look at the 10th Amendment again:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution reserved to the United States alone the power to create a state by admitting it to the Union. It reserves to the United States the power to approve a change in borders, to allow a state to split in two or to combine with another state that removes one state from the Union where before there had been two. Implicit in this is that Congress must approve all changes in the status of a state and that includes leaving the Union altogether.
The Constitution prohibits the states from entering into agreements or alliances with other states or foreign countries. States cannot lay tariffs on another states goods or tax them when they cross the border, unless Congress first approves. They cannot refuse to give up a fugitive wanted in another state. They cannot make war or maintain armies. All these actions, if allowed, could have a negative impact on the interests of another state. Implicit in this is that the states cannot take actions where the interests of the other states may be negatively impacted, or can take those actions only with the approval of congress. And that includes leaving the Union altogether.
So you're half right, 4CJ. No, secession is not forbidden. But nowhere, either explicitly or implicitly, is the idea that the states can secede without the consent of the other states through a vote in Congress. The southern actions were illegal, as the Supreme Court ruled. They remain illegal. And will remain illegal unless the Constitution is amended or a future court overturns or modifies the Texas v White decision. So the actions of Davis and the other were criminal, probably treasonous, and would have led to a trial if not for the 14th Amendment.
Nothing I could provide would be enough for you, so why should I waste my time?
Try proving something sometime and see what happens. You offer nothing but opinion and call it fact. And all to often that opinion is easily shown to be incorrect. Your opinion about Sumter. Your opinion of Lincoln's motivations. When challenged you run away.
The 10th is pretty EXPLICT. All powers not delegated nor prohibited are reserved to the states.
I'd quote Chief Justice Chase again but that wouldn't make a difference to you would it? So let me try another tack. WhoIsJohnGalt has been around a lot lately, he's wacky enough to be admired by the southron contingent, and at one point a few says ago he posted a quote from a majority decision written by Justice Thomas, a man he apparently admires. That quote was:
"As far as the Federal Constitution is concerned... the States can exercise all powers that the Constitution does not withhold from them. The Federal Government and the States thus face different default rules: where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power - that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication - the Federal Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it. These basic principles are enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, which declares that all powers neither delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States - are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people [of the States]." -- U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 1995
Implicit in the Constitution is the need for Congressional approval for any change in the status of a state, and the fact that states cannot act, or cannot act without congressional approval, where the interests of other states is involved. The southern acts of unilateral secession violated the Constitution. They were illegal.
And just pointing to the fact that AFTER the War of Northern Agression ended (not during and not before) the Union decided to end slavery and saying "SEE! IT WAS SLAVERY!!!" proves nothing either.
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.