Confederate States Of America (2005)

Yahoo Movies ^ | 12/31/04 | Me

[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?

[capitan_refugio]

"Secession was a matter for the People to decide, and its deliberation and enactment lay outside the scope and ambit of the Constitution."

The People decided for Union in 1776. The People ratified the Constitution of 1787. They made their decision, and that was for a perpetual, constitutional Union. Once they did so, they were bound by the laws of the government they formed. No state had the authority to unilaterally remove itself from the Union. The states did not possess the sovereignty to do so.

[capitan_refugio]

"Given a State that is being manifestly abused, obviously oppressed, and moreover is being abused by an unshakable majority in the Congress, who have amended the Constitution over your objections to allow your mistreatment; given a President who has come to the reluctant but highly statesmanlike decision that your State must suffer without recourse or reprieve pro bono the rest of the Union, what do you do? Are you free, or is your State a thrall to the others -- a Cinderella, a charboy, a slave?"

None of that is a "given."

[nolu chan]

Washington's Last Will and Testament expressed his will and desire that his slaves be freed upon the death of his wife. Washington personally drew up his will in July 1799 and died December 14, 1799. A year later, in December 1800, his slaves were actually freed prior to his wife's death. For about 30 years, the estate continued to care for those slaves who required assistance.

While Washington's will expressed his desire that his slaves receive their freedom at some future date uncertain following the death of his wife, it is inaccurate to say that Washington's slaves were freed upon his death. They were not. Martha could have kept the slaves until she died, and it is by her choice that they were freed prior to her passing. The PBS article asserts that Washington was the only Founder from Virginia who took such a measure to have his slaves freed.

LINK

George Washington

In the name of God, Amen.

I GEORGE WASHINGTON of Mount Vernon, a citizen of the United States, and lately President of the same, do make, ordain and declare this Instrument; which is written with my own hand and every page thereof subscribed with my name, to be my last Will & Testament, revoking all others.

* * *

Item Upon the decease of my wife, it is my Will and desire, that all the slaves which I hold in my own right, shall receive their freedom. To emancipate them during her life, would, tho' earnestly wished by me, be attended with such insuperable difficulties on account of their intermixture by Marriages with the Dower Negroes, as to excite the most painful sensations, if not disagreeable consequences from the latter, while both descriptions are in the occupancy or the same Proprietor; it not being in my power, under the tenure by which the Dower Negroes are held, to manumit them. And whereas among those who will receive freedom according to this devise, there may be some, who from old age or bodily infirmities, and others who on account of their infancy, that will be unable to support themselves; it is my Will and desire that all who come under the first and second description shall be comfortably clothed and fed by my heirs while they live; and that such of the latter description as have no parents living, or if living are unable, or unwilling to provide for them, shall be bound by the Court until they shall arrive at the age of twenty-five years; and in cases where no record can be produced, whereby their ages can be ascertained, the Judgment of the Court, upon its own view of the subject, shall be adequate & final. The negroes thus bound, are (by their Masters or Mistresses), to be taught to read and write; & to be brought up to some useful occupation, agreeably to the Laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, providing for the support of orphan & other poor Children. And I do hereby expressly forbid the sale, or transportation out of the said Commonwealth of any Slave I may die possessed of, under any pretence whatsoever. And I do moreover most pointedly, and most solemnly enjoin it upon my Executors hereafter named, or the survivors of them, to see that this clause respecting Slaves, and every part thereof be religiously fulfilled at the Epoch at which it is directed to take place; without evasion, neglect or delay, after the Crops which may then be on the ground are harvested, particularly as it respects the aged & infirm; Seeing that a regular & permanent fund be established for their support so long as there are subjects requiring it; not trusting to the uncertain provision to be made by individuals. And to my Mulatto man, William (calling himself William Lee) I give immediate freedom; or if he should prefer it (on account of the accidents which have befallen him, and which have rendered him incapable of walking or of any active employment.) to remain in the situation he now is, it shall be optional in him to do so: In either case however, I allow him an annuity of thirty dollars during his natural life, which shall be independent of the victuals and clothes he has been accustomed to receive, if he chooses the last alternative: but in full with his freedom, if he prefers the first: & this I give him as a testimony of my sense of his attachment to me, and for his faithful services during the Revolutionary War.

[capitan_refugio]

Madison conducted a thorough study of past and present republics and confederations prior to the Philadelphia Convention. The Netherlands was one he considered. It is not the model for the United States.

If I thought you actually understood what Madison wrote in No. 20, and particular, his conclusion in the last paragraph, I might discuss it with you.

[fortheDeclaration]

Thanks for the insight!

[fortheDeclaration]

"In war, the laws are silent." Even then, no one suspended the Constitution; however, the insurrectionists subjected themselves to the laws of war.

Yes, they want to hide behind a Constitution they themselves were violating with an illegal and immoral revolt.

[nolu chan]

[capitan_refugio #1560] "In war, the laws are silent."

The U.S. Constitution, according to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.''

Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 2, 120-121 (1866).

[rustbucket]

The text of the purported "diplomatic recognition" if the CSA by Coburg-Saxe Gotha has never been, to my knowledge, posted by any of the southrons.

The following refers to it: Confederate hand from the grave strikes capitan_refugio.

[Non-Sequitur]

Confederate hand from the grave strikes capitan_refugio.

Strikes and misses from the looks of it. Let's examine your 'evidence'.

"All of these agents but one had been recognized by the Government of the United States by exequatur as the duly authorized agents of the foreign governments by which they were respectively appointed, at a period antecedent to that when the several Confederate States revoked the powers previously delegated to the United States, and under which the Government of the United States controlled the relations, whether diplomatic or commercial, which grew up between those States and foreign countries."

So it looks like he is referring to those foreign representatives that were there prior to the rebellion, when the confederacy revoked the existing exequatur's.

"According to well-recognized principles, both of public and private law, these agents of foreign governments having been recognized as such by the agent of the several Confederate States prior to the revocation of the powers delegated to that agent, remained so recognized after the revocation, It was and is undoubtedly within the power of this Government, as it is within the power of all governments, to decline permitting the above-mentioned agents to remain within our limits, but for obvious reasons the exercise of such a power has been deemed unwise and impolitic. The one agent who is excepted from these remarks is Ernst Raven esq., who was appointed consul for the State of Texas by his highness the Duke of SaxeCoburg and Gotha, and wire applied to this Government for an exequatur on the 30th of July, 1861."

Looks like Benjamin is saying that it is probably in the confederacy's best interest to allow those formerly recognized by the U.S. to continue their work. But for some reason he excluded Ernst Raven from that.

"It is proper to add that a short time ago it came accidentally to the knowledge of the Department that a certain Baron de Saint Andre had assumed the functions of consul or consular agent for the French Government at the port of Charleston since the establishment of the Confederate Government and without applying for an exequatur to this Department. But just at a time this information was received intelligence was also received that Baron Saint Andre had left Charleston with his family for the United States with the probable intention of returning in the autumn. In the event of such return, proper action will be promptly taken by the Department to repress the offensive assumption of consular functions by a foreign agent without the sanction of this Government."

Oops, looks like Baron St. Andre, the self-appointed counsel to Charleston, has skipped town never to be seen again. Ah well. Maybe next time.

"The resolution further inquires 'whether said agents are subordinate or subject to the control and direction in any way, and to what degree, of the ministers of their respective countries accredited [to] and residing in the United States.' The Department has no information on this subject, but it is thought not improbable that the instructions sent by foreign governments to their consular agents within the Confederacy are transmitted through diplomatic agents residing in Washington. It is not thought probable that the foreign consuls within the Confederacy are under the control and direction of foreign ministers accredited to the United States in any other manner than is above indicated, but no positive information on the subject has reached the Department."

And from this it is clear that those who were recognized as consuls before the rebellion are continuing to communicate through their embassies in DC and not through Richmond. So it looks like they still think of DC as the capitol. Want to try again on that recognition thing?

[rustbucket]

The application for exequatur was made to the Confederate government by an agent of SaxeCoburg and Gotha. That's what counts. The stuff about other consuls or their unknown chains of command I file under "So What."

[M. Espinola]

I have been tied up and unable to respond until now. On the question of 'Aryan (white) supremacy' being an influence in the Plessy v. Ferguson case, the element in question existed in all states.

Is a schmuck any less a schmuck if he lives in Brooklyn, Brookline or Beaufort?

Who was Homer Plessy? He was a 30-year old shoemaker, jailed for sitting in the "White's" car of the East Louisiana Railroad. Plessy was a mix of seven-eighths white and one-eighths black. The Louisiana law still considered him black and, therefore, required him to sit in the "colored" car.

The one lone dissenter, who argued in favor of Plessy's case, and seemed to be the only one with a real understanding of equality, was Justice John Harlan. He wrote his own speech regarding the case and its decision.

"Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law...In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case...The present decision, it may well be apprehended, will not only stimulate aggressions, more or less brutal and irritating, upon the admitted rights of colored citizens, but will encourage the belief that it is possible, by means of state enactments, to adopted the recent amendments of the Constitution."

The law was not only wrong, but evil, just as Roe vs. Wade is wrong & evil.

Justice Harlan's words proved to be prophetic. It was not until the case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 that "separate but equal" would no longer be the law of the land.

[4CJ]

I'll put you down for taking delight in the rape and death of innocent women and children, and for relishing the unnecessary and illegal destruction of private property.

Additionally I'll give you credit for converting several to our side, for they could hardly believe that anyone would so callously gloat over such losses as have been posted by other posters.

[fortheDeclaration]

I'll put you down for taking delight in the rape and death of innocent women and children, and for relishing the unnecessary and illegal destruction of private property.

You want to give some numbers to those claims?

I laughed because your statment was so ridiculous.

Additionally I'll give you credit for converting several to our side, for they could hardly believe that anyone would so callously gloat over such losses as have been posted by other posters.

What losses?

Again, all you do is talk about the great destruction that Sherman inflicted.

How about some numbers?

Certainly it must have been in the hundreds of thousands of dead? Ten of thousands?

I am sure we can trace the trial that Sherman followed by the thousands of graves that he left behind.

Now, what other myths you have for us today?

In a work on 'Sherman's March to the Sea, the author notes how one Georgia woman cried out to Sherman that she hoped he got to South Carolina since they had started the war.

[M. Espinola]

You stated "I'm a native New Yorker.". Would that be Upstate, or The City - Long Island area?

All in all, even though it was similar to a verbal root canal in order to extract responses, I agree with the answers to the majority of the questions I asked.

[M. Espinola] 7) Which is the greatest threat confronting America today?

I think a terrorist biological attack with something like smallpox poses a larger potential threat.

Among other potential dangers from Terrorist Jihad Inc.

---

Now I shall respond to your four questions: 1) Consider hypothetically that secession was lawful in 1861 pursuant to Amendment 10 and reserved powers. Based on that hypothetical, would secession be lawful for the purpose of freeing all the slaves? Would secession be lawful to keep the slaves enslaved? If the legal right to secede existed, would such right exist regardless of why the state wanted to secede, whether for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all?

The only way to answer these hypothetical questions is to return to the real world of 1861, plus the pre-Civil War era in the South with quotations from pro-slavery Southerners, which by the way the majority of neo-confederates still share in 2005.

Methodist Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville, South Carolina: "The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South . . . This war is the servant of slavery." [The Glory of God, the Defence of the South (1861), cited in Eugene Genovese's Consuming Fire (1998).]

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the Confederate government: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30th, 1861.]

From the Alabama Constitution of 1861: "No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country." (This is the entire text of Article IV, Section 1 (on slavery).

So much for repeated false assertions by rabid neo-Confederates that the Civil War was "not about slavery".

Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]

Even in today's world 'ex' KKK "Kleagle" (Recruiter) Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia (Democrat), voted against Condi Rice.

Previously Robert 'Klan' Byrd voted against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

---

2) If an elected official has a proven conservative voting record would you still vote for them if they were an Arab American seeking higher office?

If the Arab American elected official supported Israel, of course I would vote for him.

3) Did Abraham Lincoln violate the Constitution on numerous occasions?

No. The premise of your question is pure revisionist 'DiLorenzoism'.

If one is honest and reviews the circumstances of the acts of multiple acts treason & terrorism being committed by fire eating, pro-slavery, Southern secessionists provoking an actual civil war on United States soil. In my opinion President Lincoln may have been far too lenient regarding pro-slavery, anti-Union traitors. We shall never know how President Lincoln's reconstruction plans would have unfolded under his 2rd term since a pro-Confederate conspiracy murdered our 16th President.

4) Do you agree with the Supreme Court opinion which said, "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.'' Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 2, 120-121 (1866).

In order to answer properly it would be contingent on if you are asking this question in terms of the post-September 11th jihadist multi-terrorist attack, or as in when the Court, for example, entertained the habeas petitions of an American citizen who plotted an attack on military installations during the Civil War, Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 4 Wall. 2, 18 L. Ed. 281 (1866), and of admitted enemy aliens convicted of war crimes during a declared war and held in the United States, Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 87 L. Ed. 3, 63 S. Ct. 2 (1942), and its insular possessions, In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 90 L. Ed. 499, 66 S. Ct. 340 (1946).

Can you gear the question to a specific case in the history of the Court? Recall: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus . . . unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it,"

[4CJ]

I laughed because your statment was so ridiculous.

Let's see, whom should I believe? Of course in your deluded world I should believe you, and just ignore everything documented by mine and other families. Please continue, with your #3lunatic ramblings, it's downright amusing to see yet another 'Confederate Holocaust' denier. Are Confederates your 'Jews'? Do you desire to pilot a plane into skyscapers in Atlanta, Charlotte or New Orleans?

[fortheDeclaration]

Consequences of the March Sherman's march frightened and appalled Southerners. It hurt morale, for civilians had believed the Confederacy could protect the home front. Sherman's March to the Sea Sherman had terrorized the countryside; his men had destroyed all sources of food and forage and had left behind a hungry and demoralized people. Although he did not level any towns, he did destroy buildings in places where there was resistance. His men had shown little sympathy for Millen, the site of Camp Lawton, where Union prisoners of war were held. Physical attacks on white civilians were few, although it is not known how slave women fared at the hands of the invaders. Often male slaves posted guards outside the cabins of their women. This is from the New Georgia Encyclopedia

No mention of thousands dying.

Hardship and destruction of private property, yes.

But save the nonsense of a southern genocide for your local Neo-Confederate lodge meeting.