Posted on 07/21/2017 2:08:41 PM PDT by impetrio1
Only certain people get to make the potential big money productions in Hollywood and they have ways to get around anything potentially uncomfortable. HBO-Game of Thrones' David Benioff and D.B. Weiss are going to make a TV movie surrounding the Confederacy and slavery.
These things have to be handled delicately and in this case, all it took was a cheap meal to get the ball rolling.
(Excerpt) Read more at blackandblondemedia.com ...
Not to mention that the last Black Republican Congressman elected from a Black Majority district, Oscar Stanton De Priest of Chicago (1929-1935) bitterly opposed FDR’s New Deal and Socialist welfare policies, pointing out that they would utterly devastate the Black community in breeding dependence. It cost him his reelection in 1934, but he was proven 100% right.
People often do not want to hear truth. They want to hear things that sound good to them. Too many of us have become unserious people.
Losing Kennedy and later King and RFK put a zap to America for which it really never recovered. The leftists took advantage of this and never looked back. Ronald Reagan was a saving grace just as President Trump is today. The GOP is worthless though and DNC is full Commie.
They also immediately start spouting the “but in the 1960s, they (the parties) all switched sides” nonsense.
Revisionist history (which they have been incorrectly taught as well).
Except for site like this, nobody will ever know of the guy.
Until now, I hadn’t.
Always an education here.
Yep, up is down and left is right for the whole world except you (rolls-eyes). Honestly - you should seek help.
Turtledove revisited the theme in the “Southern Victory” series of 11 novels which followed a time-line from a Civil War where General Order 191 had not been lost to the 1940’s.During the course of the series two world wars are fought, but the great battles of the wars are fought on the North American landmass.
In short - it's been done before. I shan't bother watching.
DiogenesLamp: "It was, in fact, a real possibility.
Lincoln announced in his inaugural address that he would agree to the "Corwin Amendment."
The Corwin Amendment would have made it virtually impossible to eliminate slavery before the 20th century."
Or even in the 20th century, except it was unconstitutional.
While DiogenesLamp often weaponizes the 1861 proposed Corwin Amendment to demonstrate that wicked Northerners supported slavery while saintly Southerners did something else, the fact is Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin responded to the new pro-slavery Confederate Constitution by offering reassurances to Border States like Kentucky and Maryland, that the Federal Government would not attack their "peculiar institution."
And Lincoln is alleged to have supported the amendment, but in fact Lincoln's view was: such an amendment was unnecessary because it was already implied by existing laws.
That's because Lincoln had not run for office on a platform to abolish slavery, only to restrict it from US territories and Northern states.
But that was enough anti-slavery for Southern Fire Eaters to declare their secession and Confederacy.
Ohio Representative Corwin's Amendment was intended to keep Border States in the Union, and it did help succeed in that.
But in the end it was ratified by only two Border States and three others, one of questionable validity and another quickly rescinded.
But the biggest problem with Corwin's amendment was its utter unconstitutionality -- it attempted to dictate what future amendments could, or could not, be passed & ratified and that is simply not possible.
Nobody can bind the future in that way.
Corwin's was clearly an act of desperation (one of several), to preserve as much as possible of the remaining union by providing reassurances to Border States that their "peculiar institution" would not be unconstitutionally attacked.
In that, at least, it worked, DiogenesLamp's efforts to weaponize it against the Union notwithstanding.
Will they show the confederate flag like they do on the dukes of hazzard?
Look at how you start out a comment. Your entire approach is dripping with disdain in tone, and also inaccurate. Lincoln launched the war. Lincoln agreed to support the Corwin amendment which would have made slavery virtually permanent.
You substitute "wicked Northerners" for Lincoln in the context I made the comment. It is quite likely that Northern legislators would balk at the Corwin Amendment. I don't know, but the salient point here is that Lincoln was going to support it, and he is the guy that launched the war.
And Lincoln is alleged to have supported the amendment, but in fact Lincoln's view was: such an amendment was unnecessary because it was already implied by existing laws.
If you had read my quotes of what Lincoln said, you would have noticed that yes, he did regard slavery as constitutionally legal at that time. Of course this makes you wonder how he could suspend at will something that he had previously regarded as constitutionally legal, but supporters of his war don't bother to look at such logical contradictions as that.
But the biggest problem with Corwin's amendment was its utter unconstitutionality -- it attempted to dictate what future amendments could, or could not, be passed & ratified and that is simply not possible.
How would it be unconstitutional if it was passed by the means laid out by the Constitution? If the Constitution created the amendment process, why couldn't a "no further amendment allowed on this issue" be part of a valid constitutional amendment?
Corwin's was clearly an act of desperation (one of several), to preserve as much as possible of the remaining union by providing reassurances to Border States that their "peculiar institution" would not be unconstitutionally attacked.
And it is significant today because it clearly demonstrates that the principle for which the war was fought was not the freedom of slaves. It demonstrates that the effort of the Union to claim credit for freeing the slaves is hollow, because that is not at all why they sent invading armies into the south.
DiogenesLamp: "So is it a gross distortion to say that Lincoln was going to make a deal to keep slavery permanently?"
Yes, because Lincoln believed, like all Americans of his time, that slavery already was permanently part of the Constitution.
So Corwin did not offer a "deal", only reassurances to Border States that Washington, DC, would not attack their "peculiar institution."
Lincoln did not address the constitutionality of making an amendment "irrevocable".
He may well have understood that's impossible -- on logical grounds and was clearly demonstrated when the 18th amendment from 1920 was revoked by the 21st in 1933.
But Corwin's amendment did help reassure Border States like Kentucky & Maryland, and for that I'd guess Lincoln would plead, "guilty as charged".
You know very well Jefferson Davis "launched the war", just as he promised in his February Inaugural Address.
And yet you continually claim otherwise -- for what reason, except to "drip with disdain in tone" regarding Lincoln, Northerners and Republicans in general?
Corwin was simply one of several Congressional attempts to find "compromise" that would appeal to Border State & secession state Unionists.
All failed with Confederates because they would have none of it, but did help preserve Border States in the Union.
Once again you demonstrate either a complete ignorance of the issue or completely dishonest agenda.
No. One. Ever. Claimed. That. The. Union. Fought. The. Civil. War. To. Free. The. Slaves. Except. Lost. Causers.
Perhaps if someone used a ballpeen hammer it would drive the point home for you.
A line in a speech is not a “deal”. By the time Lincoln was inaugurated most of the confederate states had already succeeded. That was a last ditch plea to get them to return and maintain the union. The Southern pols had whipped up a hysteria that painted Lincoln as an ape who would take their slaves away. Kind of like the Russia-Trump media today there was no basis in fact, and Lincoln was pointing out that he had no authority to do so. What really bothered the southern slaveowner aristocracy was the long term effects of the Republican platform of no new slave states. They could see that eventually there would be so many free states that they could amend the constitution to abolish slavery.
Of course once the south started the war, it was moot. The whole strategy of the south was to force the north to negotiate, and Lincoln refused.
LOL at the pic.
Ugh at the article. I can’t imagine a “Confederacy won” alternate history show by HBO will be anything but offensive to the truth.
D@D are clowns. I learned recently that he did Dorne the way they did solely because they wanted to “show off” Indira Varma, they weren’t doing it at all in Season 5 and decided to tack it on at the last minute cause they are fans of hers from “Rome”.
First, you well know that Davis launched his war at Fort Sumter and Lincoln responded, just as FDR did to Pearl Harbor and GW to 9/11.
Of course your FRiend jeffersondem claims Sumter was not Pearl Harbor, but rather Gulf of Tonkin.
However, there was a real attack by North Vietnam on August 2, 1964, admitted to by their own General Giap -- yes, minor & probably not repeated on Aug 4 as claimed.
Also, no serious damage was done.
By contrast, at Fort Sumter two Union soldiers died & four more wounded -- as percentages of the Union force, roughly equivalent to our losses at Pearl Harbor.
And the Union surrendered its fort!
That's vastly more significant than Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
WWII equivalents would be MacArthur's loss of the Philippines or the British loss of Hong Kong.
And you know all that, but simply refuse to acknowledge the truth.
Second, Ohio Representative Corwin's proposed amendment passed the House & Senate in early 1861 but was ratified by only five state legislatures -- Border States of Kentucky & Maryland and three others, one of dubious legitimacy, another quickly rescinded.
So Corwin's amendment proposal had only one important effect -- it helped reassure Border States the Federal Government would not unconstitutionally emancipate their slaves.
DiogenesLamp on Lincoln: "...he did regard slavery as constitutionally legal at that time.
Of course this makes you wonder how he could suspend at will something that he had previously regarded as constitutionally legal, but supporters of his war don't bother to look at such logical contradictions as that."
But Lincoln obeyed the US Constitution regarding slaves in Border States loyal to the Union.
He also knew that war creates a category of property called "contraband of war" which from time immemorial armies seized whenever possible.
Since slaves fell into that category, Lincoln called it "military necessity" as a basis for his Emancipation Proclamation.
Slaves in Union states were freed constitutionally by the 13th Amendment.
And of course, you know all that, but still grasp desperately for any history you can weaponize against Lincoln, Northerners or Republicans in general, right?
DiogenesLamp: "How would it be unconstitutional if it was passed by the means laid out by the Constitution?
If the Constitution created the amendment process, why couldn't a "no further amendment allowed on this issue" be part of a valid constitutional amendment?"
Lawyers will have to explain the legal principle involved, but I am certain it's inviolable, and indeed has never been violated, witness the 18th & 21st Amendments.
DiogenesLamp: "And it is significant today because it clearly demonstrates that the principle for which the war was fought was not the freedom of slaves.
It demonstrates that the effort of the Union to claim credit for freeing the slaves is hollow, because that is not at all why they sent invading armies into the south."
You well know that's just nonsense.
By their own words, protecting slavery motivated Fire Eaters to declare secession and Confederacy.
Protecting the Confederacy motivated Jefferson Davis to launch his war at Fort Sumter.
The Union went to war in response to Fort Sumter (just like Pearl Harbor), initially just to restore its properties seized by the Confederacy.
But as war dragged on, Union goals became broader -- first to destroy the Confederacy and then to free its slaves, finally to free all slaves.
So Civil War began to protect slavery and ended with total abolition.
Lincoln & Republicans (but Northern Democrats, not so much) can rightly take credit for that, FRiend.
And you know it all, but you continue to weaponize distortions to make Lincoln, Northerners & Republicans in general look bad, right?
I don't think so. Sentiment in both North and South was moving against it. The plantation economy was doomed by economics, and I seriously doubt it would have survived much past 1880-90.
The biggest problem is that the Republicans wanted to free the slaves by fiat, which meant financial ruin for many in the South, pro-slavery or not. If the Republicans had proposed an approach that would reimburse the slave-owners for their monetary value, the Civil War likely would not have happened. And it would probably have been cheaper overall.
Actually there were several proposals for compensated emancipation but no one - north or south - seemed interested or willing to commit to such a huge financial gamble. The south rebuffed any notion of emancipation of any kind or under any circumstance.
Not all of us. Two parts alternate history mixed with one part vivid imagination doesn't lend your posts a whole lot of credibility.
White Supremacy = Abraham Lincoln
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.