| 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?
What's just compensation for a traitor?
There are some interesting things in the historical record.
SOURCE: Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, July 28, 1866
Pages 4291-2
ASSASSINATION REWARDS
The Senate, as in Committe of the Whole, resumed the consideration of House bill No. 801, authorizing the payment of the rewards offered by the President of the United States, &c.
Mr. DAVIS. I should like some Senator to give the Senate some assurance that Abraham Lincoln's murderer was in fact killed. I have never seen myself any satisfactory evidence that Booth was killed.
Mr. HOWARD. In order to prove it demonstratively, perhaps we should be compelled to send for Boston Corbett, who shot him. I suppose the honorable Senator is speaking of Booth.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. I submit to my friend from Kentucky that there are some things that we must take judicial notice of, just as well as that Julius Caesar is dead.
[nc - Senator Axel Foley: "Trust me."
Mr. DAVIS. I would rather have better testimony of the fact. I want it proved that Booth was in that barn; I cannot conceive, if he was in the barn, why he was not taken alive and brought to this city alive. I have never seen anybody or the evidence of anybody that identified Booth after he is said to have been killed. Why so much secrecy about it? Why was not his body brought up publicly to Washington city and exposed to the gaze of the multitude, that it might be identified? It may be that he is dead; but there is a mystery and a most inexplicable mystery to my mind about the whole affair. He may come back some of these days and murder somebody else.
I merely got up to make this suggestion. I supposed that some gentleman was in possession of facts going to show that Booth was identified. Identify Booth, and these men ought to have their reward, but I doubt whether this man Baker out to have anything. I believe he was a much bigger villain than any man he was pursuing. I do not doubt that at all; and I believe he is just such a man as to get up now a story of the capture of Booth when Booth had not been overtaken at all. If gentlemen will refer me to where I can get a narrative of facts to prove the identity of Booth, I will at my leisure read it with much interest. I want to be assured of the facts, not with a view to vote on this bill but with a view to the history of the transaction.
I do not see why, if Booth was in the barn, he should have been shot. He could have been captured just as well alive as dead. It would have been much more satisfactory to have brought him up here alive and to have inquired of him to reveal the whole transaction, to have implicated all who were guilty and to have exculpated all who were innocent. I do not see any reason why the matter had not taken that course. Bring his body up, carry it to the City Hall, expose it there to public gaze, let all who had seen him playing, all who associated with him on the stage or in the green room or the taverns and other public places, have had access to his body to have identified it. That was the way, where $100,000 was offered as a reward for capturing the man. I am certain I was as innocent of that murder as the child that is yet unborn; but I should have disliked to have $100,000 offered for me as an accomplice in that murder; it would have caused me to be hung or shot just as certain as fate.
Mr. CONNESS. That would be a big price.
Mr. DAVIS. I have no doubt that the honorable Senator from California could have had me captured or shot for $2.50 by some of his myrmidons.
Mr. ANTHONY. I am happy to relieve my friend from Kentucky by informing him that a small part of the skeleton of Booth is in the anatomical museum of the Surgeon General.
Mr. JOHNSON. Who knows that?
Mr. ANTHONY. I do not know how it is identified, but it is certified to be that.
Mr. SPRAGUE. I hope we shall have the question.
The bill was passed.
See LINK
BOSTON CORBETT
The Man They Called Sin Huevos
Boston Corbett became an evangelical Christian and began wearing his hair very long in the style of Jesus. To avoid the temptation of prostitutes, Corbett castrated himself with a pair of scissors.
He allegedly killed John Wilkes Booth.
After the war Corbett worked as a [mad] hatter in Connecticut and New Jersey. In 1878 he had a complete mental breakdown and lived in a dugout a few miles outside Concordia, Kansas.
Corbett was appointed assistant doorkeeper of the Kansas House of Representatives in Topeka. On 15th Febuary, 1887, he made an attempt to kill "heretics" in the legislature hall with a revolver. No one was hurt and after being arrested was declared insane and sent to the local asylum.
On 26th May, 1888, Boston Corbett escaped from the Topeka Asylum for the Insane. Except for a brief stay with Richard Thatcher, a man he had met while a prisoner at Andersonville during the Civil War, Corbett was never heard of again.
SOURCE: H. Donald Winkler, Lincoln and Booth, p. 188.
Corbett was a devout Methodist and an eccentric religious fanatic. Seven years earlier, after reciting passages from the Gospel of Matthew to a small gathering of prostitutes, Corbett castrated himself with a pair of scissors so that he would not succumb to sexual temptation. After his self-mutilation, he attended a prayer meeting, strolled for a while, ate a hearty dinner, then sought out a doctor for some sutures. Thus it is possible that the emotionally unbalanced trooper could have believed that God had instructed him to kill Booth.
SOURCE: Louis J. Weichmann, The True History of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and of the Conspiracy of 1865, p. 208
Colonel Conger gave Sergeant Corbett a stinging reprimand, and said to him, "why did you shoot without orders?" The Sergeant took the position of a soldier, saluted the Colonel, and with right hand pointed upward, said, "God Almighty ordered me to shoot." At this reply the Colonel mellowed in his manner, and said, "I guess He did," and then dropped the subject..
Blood on the Moon, Edward Steers, Jr., 2001, pp. 262-4
Stanton's order calling for an autopsy and identification of the body is contained in a letter that he and Navy Secretary Welles jointly sent to the commandant of the Navy Yard who had asked Stanton what should be done with the body:
You will permit surgeon General Barnes and his assistant, accompanied by Judge Advocate Genl Holt, Hon. John A. Bingham, Special Judge Advocate, Major [Thomas] Eckert, Wm. [Luther] Baker, Lieut. Col. Conger, Chas. Dawson, J. L. Smith, [Alexander] Gardiner [sic] (photographer) + assistant, to go on board the Montauk and see the body of John Wilkes Booth.Immediately after the Surgeon General has made his autopsy, you will have the body placed in a strong box, and deliver it to the charge of Col. Baker -- the box being carefully sealed.
* * *
Alexander Gardner, who had left Mathew Brady to become an independent photographer, was allowed to board the Montauk with an assistant, Timothy O'Sullivan, and photograph the body. Gardner returned to his studios accompanied by a military guard who had instruction to confiscate the photographic plate and subsequent print and bring them directly to Stanton. It is not clear why the government should have allowed pictures to be taken or what the photographs would prove that eyewitness testimony would not prove. Presumably Stanton wanted to personally see the corpse of Booth to satisfy himself that Booth had been killed, But photographing the body is one thing, taking a close-up photograph of the initials was another. It would be virtually impossible to photograph the initials so that they would be legible in a photograph and still see the rest of the body including the face. Rather than rely on photographic evidence that is subject to alteration, there are several witnesses who described the intials on Booth's hand and those seen on the corpse.
Gee, guess what? The witnesses were selected by the War Department. They do not include family or friends of Booth, both readily available. Arrested accomplices were also aboard the ship. They were not invited to the identification party either. A photographer was invited and photographed the body. Stanton confiscated all photographic evidence. And for Steers, "it is not clear why the government should have allowed pictures to be taken or what the photographs would prove that eyewitness testimony would not prove." Indeed, "rather than rely on photographic evidence that is subject to alteration, there are several witnesses...." Eyewitnesses selected by Stanton, no less.
Forgive me, but I will take the pictures, thank you very much. Oh, wait a minute. What pictures? Have you seen any pictures of that body? All photographic evidence was immediately hand-carried to Secretary Stanton and, along with half of the Booth diary, vanished.
The USSR constitution provided for secession at will of any member republic. Your claim about how you perceive the USSR to have dissolved is irrelevant to whether the USSR constitution provided for secession at will of any and all member republics. By its Article 72 it did, and that's the fact.
Paludan in his work (The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln) stated that the problem was the word used, blockade.
Nations do have a right to close their ports.
Jefferson did so when he tried to keep us neutral during the war between France and England.
http://usa-the-republic.com/jurisprudentia/judge%20black.htm
By the Act of 1795 the militia may be called forth '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 power vested in the marshals.' This imposes upon the President the sole responsibility of deciding whether the exigency has arisen which requires the use of military force, and in proportion to the magnitude of that responsibility will be his care not to overstep the limits of his legal and just authority.
Yet, no nations formally recognized the Confederacy as such.
More 'gnat straining' from the ACLU.
Well, non-sequitur is correct!
No nation could allow itself to be broken up and survive.
The Founding Fathers saw that in ancient history this was the undoing of the city-states and early Republics.
Obviously, seeing as you made an ignorant, uneducated blanket claim about the Maryland legislature arrests that postdated their beginning to 4 months after Lincoln hunted down Winans.
If a government cannot supplant or reconstitute itself (thus necessarily destroying its own previous government), then would you mind telling me how the Convention Parliaments of 1660 and 1689 acted, capitan? Don't tell me you're a Jacobite in addition to being a Jacobin...
They also gave the right to vote.
As meaningless as the rest of their constitution.
That's why it's called IMPLICIT.
As are those who believe anyone who hasn't swallowed the confederate kool-aid is a socialist. In fact, had you ever done any real reading on the confederacy, you would have seen more socialism in the Davis regime than anywhere else.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Sec. 2. 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, [words requiring notification by an associate justice or district judge were omitted in 1795 revision. The revision gave the President more authority] 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.
And just where did you come up with that piece of nonsense?
As far as the Sumter incident is concerned, I agree it was Davis playing into the hands of Linkum by giving him his "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, however since the Southern States had already departed the United States and formed their own nation, by the very same means they did in 1789, they were only enforcing their sovereignty.
The old "Davis was just so stupid" defense rears it's ugly head once again.
They did try to arrange for peaceful evacuation and compensation for the property, but once that was exhausted they had to excercise their duty in removing potentially hostile garrisons from their own territory.
So let's steal the property first and then, maybe, offer to pay for it? Ah yes, makes perfect sense.
The legislators, had not voted, so Linkum detained them (without trial) to prevent the crime of voting on secession. Sort of a preemptive arrest it seems. Wow, Linkum was way ahead of his time. Stalin and friends must have read his playbook.
The legislators were planning on voting to join an armed rebellion against the United States. Their arrest isn't surprising at all.
Shhhhh. I've found that when dealing with him it is better not to confuse him with facts.
Nolu chan almost never has a point to make. That's why I so seldom read his posts. Life is too short to waste time wading through his stuff.
Thanks.
I am painfully finding that out.
It caused half of Europe to officially declare neutrality between the United States of America and what other party?
It was more than a wrong word.
Just before the war ended, Lincoln issued an order closing the ports, rather than blockading them.
From Gideon Welles, Lincoln and Johnson, First Paper, Galaxy Magazine, April 1872, p. 523
Mr. Seward, who had been uneasy since his return, [nc: Seward had been thrown from his carriage and injured] read to the Secretary of the Treasury and myself the draft of a proclamation he had prepared for the President to sign, closing the ports of the Southern States. This was a step which I had earnestly pressed at the beginning of the rebellion, as a domestic measure, and more legitimate than a blockade, which was international, and an admission that we were two nations.* * *
The President reached Washington on the evening of Sunday, the 9th of April. When I called on him the next morning he was in excellent spirits, the news of Lee’s surrender, which however was not unanticipated, having been received. While I was with him he signed the proclamation for closing the ports and expressed his gratification that Mr. Seward and myself concurred in the measure, alluding to our former differences.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 5, Part 1, page 107
(Union Letters, Orders, Reports)
VII. April 11, 1865.-Closing certain ports.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas, by my proclamations of the nineteenth and twenty-seventh days of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one the ports of the United States in the State of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas were declared to be subject to blockade; but whereas, the said blockade has, in consequence of actual military occupation by this Government, since been conditionally set aside or relaxed in respect to the ports of Norfolk and Alexandria, in the State of Virginia; Beaufort, in the State of North Carolina; Port Royal, in the State of South Carolina; Pensacola and Fernandina, in the State of Florida, and New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana;
And whereas, by the fourth section of the act of Congress approved on the thirteenth of July, eighteen hundred and sixty- one; entitled "An act further to provide for the collection of duties on imports, and for other purposes," the President, for the reasons therein set forth, is authorized to close certain ports of entry:
Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim that the ports of Richmond, Tappahannock, Cherrystone, Yorktown, and Petersburg, in Virginia; of Camden (Elizabeth City), Edenton, Plymouth, Washington, New Berne, Ocracoke, and Wilmington, in North Carolina; of Charleston, Georgetown, and Beaufort, in South Carolina; of Savannah, Saint Mary's, and Brunswick (Darien), in Georgia; of Mobile, in Alabama; of Pearl River (Shieldsborough), Natchez, and Vicksburg, in Mississippi; of Saint Augustine, Key West, Saint Mark's (Port Leon), Saint John's (Jacksonville), and Apalachicola, in Florida; of Teche (Franklin), in Louisiana; of Galveston, La Salle, Brazos de Santiago (Point Isabel), and Brownsville, in Texas, are hereby closed, and all right of importation, warehousing, and other privileges shall, in respect to the ports aforesaid, cease, until they shall have again been opened by order of the President; and if, whole said ports are so closed, any ship or vessel from beyond the United States, or having on board any articles subject to duties, furniture, and cargo, shall be forfeited to the United States.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this eleventh day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty- ninth.
[L. S.]
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
Secretary of State.
Perhaps you can refresh our memory and point out where I said that ending slavery was a goal of the Union war effort? I have said many times that defending slavery was central to the southern rebellion, but the North? No.
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.
