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?

[M. Espinola]

Here is a question: Which types of response would be forth coming from the Federal Government, if, for instance, leftist, Islamic jihadist or neo-confedetate insurrectionists attacked a number of United States army or naval installations in 2005?

[fortheDeclaration]

Preventing Diplomatic Recognition of the Confederacy

One of the most important victories won by the United States during the Civil War was not ever fought on a battlefield. Rather, it was a series of diplomatic victories that ensured that the Confederacy would fail to achieve diplomatic recognition by even a single foreign government. Although this success can be attributed to the skill of Northern diplomats, the anti-slavery sentiments of the European populace, and European diversion to crises in Poland and Denmark, the most important factor stills rises from the battlefields on American soil. The Confederate states were incapable of winning enough consecutive victories to convince European governments that they could sustain independence.

www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cw Cached page

[rustbucket]

The right of consulship was taken away from some of the consuls. An article in the Memphis Daily Appeal of June 10, 1863, was what peaked my interest in consuls and led to the discovery of the Benjamin letter. The Daily Appeal article was reporting correspondence of the Charleston Mercury and said:

Letters Patent revoking the exequatur of British consuls are a novelty in these parts. Mr. Moor's offense is not merely a refusal to "show his papers," as requested, but his claiming power to protect British subjects, who had forsworn their allegiance, voted, and acquired property here. Nobody knows or seems to care what will be the effect of Mr. Moore's [this time spelled with an 'e'] dismissal. He was not unfriendly with our cause, but rather the other way.

[fortheDeclaration]

Did any foreign countries recognize the Confederacy? No. Although the Confederacy found sympathy in several foreign nations, namely Great Britain, international recognition was never attained.

This is from the Museum of the Confederacy

[rustbucket]

I found the Letter Patent concerning George Moore, British consul. It was in another article in the same June 10, 1863, issue of the Memphis Daily Appeal, this time attributed to the Richmond Whig:

LETTERS PATENT REVOKING EXEQUATUR OF GEORGE MOORE HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S CONSUL AT RICHMOND

To whom it may concern:

Whereas, George Moore, Esquire, Her Britannic Majesty's Consul for the port of Richmond and the State of Virginia (duly recognized as such by a former Government, which was, at the time of the issue, the duly authorized agent for that purpose of the State of Virginia,) did recently assume to act as consul for a place other than the city of Richmond, and a State other than the State of Virginia, and was, thereupon, requested by the Secretary of State to submit to the Department of State, his consular commission, as well as any other authority he may have received to act in behalf of the Government of her Britannic Majesty before further correspondence could be held with him as her Majesty's consul at the port of Richmond; and whereas the said George Moore has lately, without according to said request, entered into correspondence as(?) her Majesty's consul with the Secretary of War of these Confederate States, thereby disregarding the legitimate authority of this Government.

These, therefore, are to declare that I do no longer recognize the said George Moore as her Majesty's consul in any part of these Confederate States, nor permit him to exercise or enjoy any of the functions, powers, or privileges allowed to the consuls of Great Britain. And I do wholly revoke and annul any exequatur heretofore given to the said George Moore by the Government which was formerly authorized to grant such exequatur, as agent of the State of Virginia, and do declare the said exequatur to be absolutely null and void from this day forward.

In testimony whereof, I have caused these letters to be made patent, and the seal of the Confederate States of America to be herewith affixed.

Given under my hand this fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three.

(Signed) JEFFERSON DAVIS

By the President:

(Signed) J. P. Benjamin
Secretary of State

I guess the Federal Government of the US, as the authorized agent of the State of Virginia, had issued an exequatur to Mr. Moore before the war. The Confederate Government let him operate under it until he exceeded his authority.

[GOPcapitalist]

Did any foreign countries recognize the Confederacy? No

There you go fibbing again. As you are well aware, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha recognized the confederacy.

[rustbucket]

Consuls are a form of diplomatic recognition, and one from SaxeCoburg and Gotha requested that recognition and the authority from the Confederate government to act as consul for that foreign government.

Someone has posted on another thread that in 2004 one of the WBTS history magazines noted that SaxeCoburg and Gotha had recognized the Confederate States of America. Perhaps they read my 2003 post about it or perhaps Benjamin's letter mentioning it was a previously well known fact that I blundered into. I do blunder into things, lol.

Consuls are low ranking diplomatic agents whose powers lie in the commercial area.

From Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary:

DIPLOMATIC AGENTS. This name has been given to public officers, who have been commissioned, according to law, to superintend and transact the affairs of the government which has employed them, in a foreign country.

2. These agents are of divers orders, and are known by different denominations. Those of the first order are almost the perfect representatives of the government by which they are commissioned; they are legates, nuncios, internuncios, ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiaries. Those of the second order do not so fully represent their government; they are envoys, residents, ministers, charges d'affaires, and consuls.

And:

Before a consul can perform any duties in the United States, he must be recognized by the president of the United States, and have received his exequatur.

[fortheDeclaration]

Someone needs to write to the Confederate Museum and correct their error.

I am sure either you or GOP is up to it.

[fortheDeclaration]

I only quoted the Museum of the Confederacy.

I think you ought to write them and give them your opinion on the matter and if they do not accept it, accuse them of lying as well.

[fortheDeclaration]

Here is the link.

www.moc.org/exfaq.htm

[GOPcapitalist]

I only quoted the Museum of the Confederacy.

Then either you or their webmaster has it wrong. The Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond has a display in which they note the Saxe Coburg and Gotha recognition.

You can also find it mentioned in several books. I have one of them on hand right now:

See Page 204 in the Civil War Book of Lists (1994, Combined Books). It was also in an issue of North and South a few months back.

[rustbucket]

Are you referring to the museum in Richmond? I was a little disappointed when I visited it in 2003 because it focused mainly on things that occurred in Virginia and gave less coverage to things in other states. It did, however, have one of those chamberpots with "Beast" Butler's picture on the inside. Made the whole visit worthwhile.

[GOPcapitalist]

The Museum of the Confederacy's website is evidently inconsistent with their own collection. I was down there about a year ago and it was in their exhibits. They have a display containing government documents that mentions some of the diplomatic efforts, including the Saxe Coburg Gotha recognition. The plaque on the wall next to the exhibit also states that it was the only diplomatic recognition the CSA received.

[rustbucket]

Thanks. I missed it.

[GOPcapitalist]

Here's a copy of the letter you found in the Journal of the Confederate Congress:

According to the letter, the Confederate Government also at least at the time possessed the application for an exequatur (a document officially receiving a diplomatic agent) from the government of Saxe Coburg and Gotha. If it survived the war it is probably buried somewhere in the National Archives. Since that particular consulate was in Texas there may be a copy in the Texas State Archives as well.

[fortheDeclaration]

I will email them and find out what they say.

[fortheDeclaration]

http://www.civilwarnews.com/reviews/bookreviews.cfm?ID=314

Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America

For those who wish to idealize the Confederate home front as a place of gentility and order, Davis provides a vivid description of how dramatically law and order deteriorated in the South during the war. Davis also, following the lead of Emory M. Thomas, convincingly describes how Southerners radically expanded the power of government during their war for independence.

Not only did the wartime South see men conscripted and crops impressed, it also saw the emergence of socialistic policies in just about every sector of the economy, from the procurement and distribution of salt to the construction and management of railroads, as well as the establishment of what Davis describes as “virtually a welfare state ahead of its time.”

[fortheDeclaration]

The plaque on the wall next to the exhibit also states that it was the only diplomatic recognition the CSA received.

What about the Vatican?

[Non-Sequitur]

It would be interesting to know what the state other than Richmond was and what the state other than Virginia was. But this is another instance where former consular officials refused to accept the authority of the regime in Richmond and therefore can hardly be held up as an example of foreign recognition of confederate sovereignty. I think it actually shows the opposite.

[Non-Sequitur]

Rather, it was a series of diplomatic victories that ensured that the Confederacy would fail to achieve diplomatic recognition by even a single foreign government.

Which supports the claim by capitan_refugio that not a single foreign country recognized confederate sovereignty.