Posted on 12/30/2004 11:00:21 AM PST by Ellesu
The cast member on the Dukes of Hazard movie that had the filmmakers scratching their heads has not been publicity-drenched Jessica Simpson or her rabble-rousing smart-ass co-star, Johnny Knoxville.
It's the General Lee, the bright orange 1969 Dodge Charger central to all Duke boys escapades. More specifically, it's the Confederate Flag emblazoned on the General's roof, a symbol that has become quite the object of controversy since the original TV series' seven-season run starting in 1979.
The filmmakers didn't want to alienate modern audiences, the Wall Street Journal reported recently in a story headlined "Flag wavering." Nor did the moviemakers want to anger long-time fans by tinkering with the Warner Bros show. "So they struck a compromise with the studio."
Quoting a source involved with making the film, the Journal says the film includes scenes where the flag is "derided as an inappropriate symbol of the dark past."
For example, Bo and Luke ask a group of African-American college students for directions. "Is this a joke? Some kind of reality show?" one of them asks. Bo, the dimmer of the Dukes, explains the flag is cool and that their friend Cooter, a Civil War buff, painted it when he fixed the car. But Luke understands, and explains to Bo that some people find the flag offensive and a "symbol of slavery." That Luke, he always was perty' smart.
"the CAUSE from the level where it mattered, ie; the political level which advocated and forced session, WAS slavery."
My friend,the United States government, circa 1861, disagrees with you. You see, there is a relatively easy way to determine why wars are fought. It is called a Declaration of War.
On July 22, 1861, the US Congress issued a "Joint Resolution on the War" that echoed Lincoln’s reasons for the invasion of the Southern states:
“Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor 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 all laws made in pursuance thereof 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.”
By "the established institutions of those states" the Congress was referring to slavery. As with Lincoln, destroying the secession movement took precedence over doing anything about slavery. SPECIFICALLY, THEY SAID THE WAR HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is not surprising. Only 4 months earlier, to lure the Southern states back into the Union, the northern Congress overwhelmingly passed the original 13th Amendment, that would have guarranteed slavery FOREVER--and Lincoln AGREED!!!!!!!!!!!
On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which passed the House of Representatives on February 28) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the Southern states. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Document No. 106-214, presented by Congressman Henry Hyde (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000). The proposed amendment read as follows:
ARTICLE THIRTEEN
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
Two days later, in his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln promised to support the amendment even though he believed that the Constitution already prohibited the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery. As he stated:
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Now, if the Southern states had TRULY seceded to protect slavery, here was their chance! Simply send their representatives back to Congress, approve this amendment, and slavery would have been safe forever!
BUT THEY DID NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!
I never said that the United States went to war with the South over Slavery. It was Lincoln's intention to preserve the Union - emancipation came gradually as events unfolded latter.
What I said, and which is true no matter how it is spun, is that the immediate cause of the war was SECESSION and that the cause for secession was slavery.
If you disagree with that my friend, then the Confederate states disagree with you. The declarations of secession from the Confederate states all place Slavery as the prime motivator for secession. The Secession commissioners, all who were sent BY seceding states TO potential seceding states use the protection of slavery as the reason they should be joined. That amendment was all face-saving. It never would have passed the house nor garner the required approval in the states and they knew it. The writing was on the wall for the south - with each passing year new free states would be joining and they would be doomed by numbers (in the house & senate).
I think we might want to shift this to another thread or reply privately from here on - this thread might not be the best place for the discussion (or I could be wrong - still new to Freeper Post Edicate).
I truly do agree with you on one point: secession did indeed cause the war; however, since the northern-controlled Congress passed an Amendment (which Lincoln agreed with) guarranteeing slavery FOREVER in an attempt to lure the Southern states back into the Union-- and the Southern States DID NOT RETURN-- then clearly, regardless what they may have said, slavery was not the real reason for the secession. My friend, you can always count on one thing: politicians, reguardless of their stripe, will LIE to get the results they desire. Their actions, if followed closely, are far more telling than their words.
I NEVER mentioned the Emancipation Proclamation, or the fact that Lincoln himself had once sold slaves he inherited from his father in law.
However, as an engineer whose job it is to determine the root cause of failure, I think we need to look closer to determine the real root cause.
It is very true that secession caused the war. The seceded states (being free and indepedent nations) would never pay the tarriffs. Lincoln clearly stated in his first Inaugural speech that if the States did not collect the tarriffs, they would 'bring war upon themselves' I think were the exact words he used.
He was right. We brought war upon ourselves, in the way of Lincoln unconstitutionally raising 75,000 troops to attack American citizens.
Secession, my friend, only causes war in one condition: if the ruler(s) of the government in power refuse to recognize the right of self-determination so eloquently expressed in the Declaration of Secession - er, Independence. This type of tyranny has ALWAYS caused war, be it with King George (who also claimed he was trying to 'save the Empire'), Mao Tse Tung (who, when asked about the Tienamin (sp) Square revolt, gave Lincoln as an example of how he was 'saving his country'), or any of dozens of other tyrants.
However, we have seen secession happen peacefully many times now: all the States of the former Soviet Union have seceded peacefully, as did India.
Tyranny- government using force to FORCE itself upon anyone- is ALWAYS evil. Use this rule as your guideline, and you'll NEVER go wrong.
Not offended bump
Some people just really need to get a life....cripes sake.
does anyoe remember the re-make of PEARL HARBOR??
Notice anything odd? Not a single person in the entire movie was seen smoking a cigarette. Now back then, probably the majority of sailers and regular folks smoked.
______________________________________________________
Bingo. The same is true for TV dreck like Happy Days, a show ostensibly set in 1956, where no one (not even Fonz the greaeser) lights up. In 1956, alomst 70% of the US population were regular smokers, and among teenagers the figure was probably higher. They even did a cornball episode where Joanie starts smoking and the Fonz gives her a public service announcemnt about cancer, etc. Hello script dept: the Surgeon General Report on smoking came out in 1964! Give the Fonz a pack of Luckies and suck it up!
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.