North & South George & Orry Aruge

John Jakes North & South Book 1, Orry & Brett visit the Hazzards, Virgilia starts an argument with Orry which leads to an argument between George & Orry.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• John
• Jakes
• North
• &
• South
• Patrick
• Swayze
• Lesley
• Ann
• Down
• James
• Reed

[gibsyboy]

great acting

[GirlieRat]

So slavery would have eventually died out, we don't know when or just how. As a black person, it is offensive to hear anyone say that. Just as it would be offensive to Jews or other descendants of Holocaust survivors to say that WW2 wasn't really necessary because it would have ended eventually naturally. Even if "naturally" means when all "undesirables" were exterminated.

[Schone23666]

Question for any Irish viewers out there, or anyone familiar with the Irish dialect...how accurate is Constance's Irish accent? Decent, so-so or atrocious?

[JohnAnderssonTV]

@nazanin681 Search for "North And South" on Amazon or something

[markmeetsworld]

@gibsyboy yes, especially kirstie alley. she gave complete life to virgilia!

[nazanin681]

i want this film

can u help me?

this is so hard for dl because  its part and part and part

i want complate this film please

thanks

[falstoffe]

@falstoffe Correction: West Virignia violates Article *IV*, section 3: No state may be created in the boundries of another state.

[falstoffe]

@SDhunter2020 So what basically happened legally matched the reality: The south seceded legally. Ft. Sumter, ALSO legally owned by the Fed with a title deed in a South Carolina Court House, was wrongully fired on. DC, with its quorum of senators, declared war. The South, no longer US citizens, had no US constitutional rights and cannot complain their mansions are burned or used as a Union Barracks, etc, or West Virgina is carved out of VA. The south was conquered as a foreign country.

[falstoffe]

@SDhunter2020: 9th and 10th Amendment. "Not delegated, nor prohibited." Secession was not delegated, nor prohibited.

If North 'declared war', then by definition the South was its own country. If the south was 'in rebellion', then Southerners still had constitutional rights, including:

- W. VA is unconstitutional, it violated Article V, Section 3.

- Non combatants still had 3rd (no quartering) and 4th (no seizure) protection.

- 22 missing senators = no quorum, so no work.

[falstoffe]

@SDhunter2020: 1st, I'll grant you correct points: The south wanted Mexico to extend slavery. That was invasive and expansionist. Correct, and hypocritical of South. They were also the first to attack.

They did however have a constitutional 'right' to secede, and the Constitution was (*IS*) designed to limit Washington DC. The "govern as they see fit" argument was the same explanation England had about the colonies. The Fed was created by the states, not the other way around.

It gets

[SDhunter2020]

@falstoffe How am I wrong? The constitution does not say that secession is legal. The Federal government was the North! Thus having the right to govern the south as they see fit. The south wanted to bring slavery into new territories and saw the power of the government as a threat to their way of life. The South wanted more power, plain and simple. The had no constitutional right to seceed and were the first to attack. North had no option but to declare war and protect the Union!

[falstoffe]

@SDhunter2020 Wrong. Read Federalist Paper #45 and get back to me on the legality of Secession. Then I recommend two papers from (Abolitionist) Lysander Spooner. He wrote "The Unconstitutionality of Slavery" in the 1840's. He also wrote "No Treason" in 1870.

His conclusion: BOTH sides were right, and both sides were hypocrites.

NORTH: It's wrong to force blacks to stay, but ok for me to force south to stay.

SOUTH: It's wrong to force me to stay, but ok for me to force blacks to stay.