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?

[Non-Sequitur]

The route of Sherman's March to the Sea was still visible on aerial photographs taken during the World War II era, thanks to the salt his soldiers sowed as they marched. Kinda hard to "myth", if you can see it from outer space.

We had photography from outer space in World War II? Cool! No wonder we won.

Just out of curiosity where did the salt come from? I mean, if they salted enough fields that it could be seen from outer space then we're talking tons and tons and tons of the stuff.

[Non-Sequitur]

There is nobody I've ever met in my life who was more wilfully and boneheadedly wrong about anything, ever.

Speaking for captain_refugio and myself I think I can safely say that we know exactly how you feel.

[fortheDeclaration]

We had photography from outer space in World War II? Cool! No wonder we won

LOL!

[fortheDeclaration]

Was it you or El Capitan who posted this before? Either way, I can't remember, but is it typical in Bizarroworld to supply the subjects of a seige with food and supply? It's just another example of your hyperbolous and unsupportable crap.

Oh, pointing canons at them and not allowing supplies in isn't a seige?

I will surround your house, point a canon at it and send food in and you tell me if you under seige or not.

[Gianni]

Well considering that Sumter was under seige for months before Lincoln took office,

Oh, pointing canons at them and not allowing supplies in isn't a seige?

Cannons were pointed at them for months before Lincoln took office?

Get your poop in a group, then figure out what lie your going to go with before you post next time, k?

[4CJ]

Oh great Swami, pray tell how thousands survived with no food, clothing, shelter, crops, livestock etc? Heck, the filth in blue even stole what money they had, their gold and silver, jewelry, etc besides raping the women, and killing old men, women and children alike. Without transportation, no one to provide for them, no possibility of bringing in a crop, no money to purchase any food even it it were available, how would a family survive? By the relief efforts of one genocidial William T. Sherman [*SPIT*] and his armies?

You allege that Sherman [*SPIT*] didn't level a town, but you missed Atlanta. Oh I guess you mean 100% leveled, not just 98% isn't close enough? And just ignore hundreds if not thousands of chimneys being the only remnants of buildings for miles around.

Physical attacks on whites were few? Just how many are justified? Is the hanging of a Georgia Supreme Court Justice ok by you? Simply to get an old man's gold? How many deaths and rapes of innocent women and children is acceptable to you Mr. Goebbels? Mr. Stalin? How many casulties are you willing to accept in YOUR family? How would you feel if you wife and 11 year old daughter were raped repeatedly and then shot in the head?

[nolu chan]

The Duchy of Saxe Coburg Gotha was a sovereign state until about 1918. It was one of those tiny European states similar to Monaco today.

SOURCE: North & South, Volume 7, Number 3, May 2004, Page 87

Sidebar: Do You Know?

3. This is the only foreign state to officially recognize the Confederacy.

Answer: The duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

---

LINK

BRIT KING QUEEN

Prior to July 17, 1917, the British royal family was the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The name was changed to the House of Windsor during WW1 for political reasons.

1917 Jul 17, The British royal family adopted the Windsor name. King George V changed the family name to the House of Windsor from the German-sounding House of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. [see Jun 17,19]

(AP, 7/17/97)(SFEC, 1/19/97, Par p.2)(DTnet, 6/19/97)

---

LINK

So far as the position of Great Britain in this respect toward the European powers is concerned, that position has been greatly modified by the declaration of Paris of April 16, 1856. That declaration was signed by the ministers of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey.

The motives for making that declaration, and for agreeing to the articles of maritime law which it proposes to introduce with a view to the establishment of a "uniform doctrine" and "fixed principles," are thus shortly enumerated in the declaration:

"Considering that maritime law in time of war has long been the subject of deplorable disputes;

"That the uncertainty of the law and of the duties in such a matter gives rise to differences of opinion between neutrals and belligerents which ma occasion serious difficulties and even conflicts;

"That it is consequently advantageous to establish a uniform doctrine on so important a point;

"That the plenipotentiaries assembled in congress at Paris cannot better respond to the intentions by which their governments are animated than by seeking to introduce into international relations fixed principles in this respect- "The above-mentioned plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized, resolved to concert among themselves as to the means of attaining this object, and having come to an agreement have adopted the following solemn declaration:"

1st. Privateering is and remains abolished.

2d. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war.

3d. Neutral's goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemy's flag.

4th. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective-that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the 'enemy.

The powers signing the declaration engaged to bring it to the knowledge of the states which had not taken part in the congress of Paris, and to invite those states to accede to it. They finally agreed that "the present declaration is not and shall 'not be binding, except between those powers who have acceded or shall accede to it."

The powers which acceded to the declaration are Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, Bremen, Brazil, Duchy of Brunswick, Chili, the Argentine Confederation, the Germanic Confederation, Denmark, the Two Sicilies, the Republic of the Equator, the Roman States, Greece, Guatemala, Hayti, Hamburg, Hanover, the Two Hesses, Lubeck, Mecklenburg Strelitz, Mecklenburg Schwerin,

148 'ANNUAL MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT.

san, Oldenburg, Parma, Holland, Peru, Portugal, Saxony, Saxe Attenburg, Saxe Coburg Gotha, Saxe Meiningen, Saxe Weimer, Sweden, Switzerland, Tuscany, Wurtemburg, Anhalt Dessau, Modena, New Grenada, and Maguay.

Mr. Secretary Marcy, in acknowledging, on the 28th of July, 1856, the communication of the declaration of Paris made to the government of the United States by the Count de Sartiges, proposed to add to the first article thereof the following words : "and that the private property of the subjects or citizens of a belligerent on the high seas shall be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of the other belligerents, except it be contraband ;" and Mr. Marcy expressed the willingness of the government of the United States to adopt the clause so amended, together with the other three principles contained in the declaration.

[rustbucket]

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.

We should listen to you about the respective powers of states and the Federal Government? You can't even get the difference between states and cities right. LOL.

In the Memphis Daily Appeal issue that I've been quoting from was a June 5, 1862, letter from Benjamin to British Consul George Moore. I'll post the start of it.

Sir: The President of the Confederate States has been informed that, in consequence of your assuming to act in behalf of the Government of her Britannic Majesty on matters occurring in the State of Mississippi, you were requested to submit to this department your consular commission, as well as any other authority held by you, to act in behalf of her Majesty's Government, before further correspondence should be held with you as British consul for the port of Richmond. ...

As I quoted from the Daily Appeal in their report from the Charleston Mercury (my post 1583), "Letters Patent revoking the exequatur of British consuls are a novelty in these parts." So the other British consuls must have been acting within their prescribed boundaries. When one acted improperly, however, they revoked his powers.

[Non-Sequitur]

So the other British consuls must have been acting within their prescribed boundaries. When one acted improperly, however, they revoked his powers.

It appears from other sources that the alleged impropriety was the fact that these counsels all insisted on dealing through their embassies in Washington, in keeping with the fact that none of these countries recognized confederate sovereignty.

[rustbucket]

What other sources?

[Non-Sequitur]

What other sources?

Benjamin's letter to the confederate congress for a start.

[GOPcapitalist]

The Vatican is a different type of diplomacy as it is a religious state rather than a nation state. Saxe Coburg and Gotha's diplomacy came because they wanted to appoint a consul to the CSA for commercial purposes. The Vatican's dealings with the CSA were for moral and religious purposes.

[rustbucket]

[n-s, post 1629]: It appears from other sources that the alleged impropriety was the fact that these counsels all insisted on dealing through their embassies in Washington, in keeping with the fact that none of these countries recognized confederate sovereignty.

In September 1862 Benjamin's assessment was that the foreign consuls within the Confederacy were not under the control and direction of ministers accredited to the United States. It didn't appear that Benjamin had any problem with consuls to the CSA forwarding documents through their country's offices in Washington. From Benjamin's letter:

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.

Got any other 'proof' of your contention? As Benjamin's later letter shows [correct date June 5, 1863, not 1862 as I cited in post 1628], Moore got the axe for trying to act as consul in Mississippi where he was not authorized to do so, not for any supposed dealing with the Washington embassy.

[GOPcapitalist]

You Neo-Confederates have rejected the Declaration (defending Dred Scott and Calhoun) and your revolt was to defend the right to keep tyranny not end it.

Garbage. There can be no greater rejection of the Declaration than the use of force to deny the consent of the governed, and Lincoln did just that.

[GOPcapitalist]

For the record, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was about 2000 square kilometers in land size. For comparison:

Rhode Island is 2709 km2
Monaco is 2 km2
Guam is 549 km2
Singapore is 692 km2
Andorra is 468 km2
Liechtenstein is 160 km2
Luxembourg is 2586 km2
Hong Kong is 1092 km2

So Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was one of the larger small countries in Europe at the time - roughly comparable to Luxembourg today.

[Non-Sequitur]

From Benjamin's letter:

Also from Benjamin's letter:

"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."

The consuls in question had all apparently acted in that office prior to the rebellion. During the rebellion they continued to hold their offices, communicating with their home country not through the confederate secretary of state but through their embassy's in Washington, D.C. It's clear that they did not regard themselves as credited to the Davis regime but instead to the Lincoln administration. In no way does that convey recognition, instead it indicates the opposite.

[fortheDeclaration]

Garbage. There can be no greater rejection of the Declaration than the use of force to deny the consent of the governed, and Lincoln did just that.

The consent of the governed?

Like the millions of slaves held in bondage?

Do not attempt to appeal to that which the South (Calhoun/Dred Scott) had rejected, the principle that all men are created equal and have the God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[fortheDeclaration]

And in terms of importance relating to the diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy it rates no more,at best, to a footnote in history, a trivial pursuit question.

[fortheDeclaration]

So the Vatican doesn't count in the type of recognition we are discussing-right?

[rustbucket]

It's clear that they did not regard themselves as credited to the Davis regime but instead to the Lincoln administration. In no way does that convey recognition, instead it indicates the opposite.

Making up stuff again?

In response to my statement that "When one acted improperly, however, they revoked his powers.", you said "It appears from other sources that the alleged impropriety was the fact that these counsels all insisted on dealing through their embassies in Washington, in keeping with the fact that none of these countries recognized confederate sovereignty."

I posted the reason for the revocation of Moore's credentials in Benjamin's own words, and it was not what you said.

You also said in another of your posts, "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."

Did one of those Kansas tornadoes pick you up and drop you on your head? Moore's defrocking, so to speak, wasn't held up as an example of foreign recognition of Confederate sovereignty. Have you been taking posting lessons from Wlat? Come on, non-seq, you're better than that.