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?

[4CJ]

Luther v. Borden, 48 How. 1, (1849)

The brief filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error recited the facts contained in the bill of exceptions and documents attached thereto, in chronological order, and concluded thus:-- [G]overnment is instituted by the people, and for the benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. And that when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish the same, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. [A] revolution to change the form of a State government can never be resorted to within the limits of the United States Constitution, while a State remains in the Union.

Undoubtedly the courts of the United States have certain powers under the Constitution and laws of the United States which do not belong to the State courts. But the power of determining that a State government has been lawfully established ... is not one of them. Upon such a question the courts of the United States are bound to follow the decisions of the State tribunals.

Imagine that, the US Supreme Court stating 'while a State remains in the Union'. Not that it cannot leave. And even then, the decision is not up to FEDERAL authorities.

[Gianni]

Who said it?

Can you really trust the words of a love letter, no matter who writes it?

[Gianni]

We've had three guys disappear,

Three?

[Gianni]

Lincoln did not believe one man had the right to own another, that is the essential principle of the Declaration.

Certainly they would have wanted it to state the essentail principle in clear, unmistakable text. So where is it?

Or will this fall into the dustbin of questions directly brought on by comments you've made that fall into the, "I can't answer it" category?

Which men that you classify as "founders" were members of the second continental congress, and what were their votes on the Northwest Ordinance?

[Gianni]

If you can't stand Lincoln quotes except those you agree with, perhaps you might feel more at home on one of the Lincoln sites that provides transcripts of his speeches but in them changes Lincoln's use of the n word to 'negro'. I ran across that once. It was pure PC revisionism. The site was trying to make the words of a 19th century politician conform to today's standards.

You forgot to ping M. to this post (who thinks that Lincoln's words are... what was that again? Oh yeah, "carbon copy Klan postings").

[M. Espinola]

Buy a ticket, see the movie

[rustbucket]

Nice quote. I don't know Luther v. Borden. Thanks.

[fortheDeclaration]

Lincoln did not believe one man had the right to own another, that is the essential principle of the Declaration. Certainly they would have wanted it to state the essentail principle in clear, unmistakable text. So where is it?

What, you cannot read English?

The reason the Declaration was written to the world, was to state the case of why the colonies felt they had a right, nay a duty to revolt.

That no one had a right to rule over another man without their consent?

Because all men were created equal endowed with their creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The rest of the Declaration lays out how those rights were abused by the British.

Or will this fall into the dustbin of questions directly brought on by comments you've made that fall into the, "I can't answer it" category?

It might be that I did not see your question.

I know how you neo-confederates think you are the center of the universe, hence your love of slavery in the South.

This is not the only thread I am on and I am pinged by other people.

Which men that you classify as "founders" were members of the second continental congress, and what were their votes on the Northwest Ordinance?

I would classify every man that was in the first and second congress as Founders.

As for your question on the Northwest Ordinance, who voted for what is irrelevant since it passed

Now, what has this to do with the fact (stated by Stephens himself) that the Founders intended for slavery to be ended and believed the words of the Declaration of Independence, that all men were equal in the eyes of God?

Plan to do some gnat straining?

[Gianni]

That no one had a right to rule over another man without their consent?

So it is you contention that the Founders were just amazing hypocrites. It would seem (to me) that returning to their homes to be waited on by slaves on a daily basis after penning lofty rhetoric about how no man had the right to rule them would pretty much discount statements they made concerning how, in principle, they were opposed to slavery. In practice they were clearly not.

To project our more enlightened view of the Declaration into their time is sick revisionism. Demanding that slavery was a stain on the character of the South while whitewashing the sins of our Nation as a whole. Those slaveowners were bad because of it, but my slaveowners were good in spite of it.

It might be that I did not see your question.

I've posted it probably 5 times since you've said that the "Founders" passed the NWO as a start to the end of slavery.

I would classify every man that was in the first and second congress as Founders.

You were doing better at backpedalling and ignoring the question altogether.

[fortheDeclaration]

That no one had a right to rule over another man without their consent? So it is you contention that the Founders were just amazing hypocrites. It would seem (to me) that returning to their homes to be waited on by slaves on a daily basis after penning lofty rhetoric about how no man had the right to rule them would pretty much discount statements they made concerning how, in principle, they were opposed to slavery. In practice they were clearly not. To project our more enlightened view of the Declaration into their time is sick revisionism. Demanding that slavery was a stain on the character of the South while whitewashing the sins of our Nation as a whole. Those slaveowners were bad because of it, but my slaveowners were good in spite of it.

Slavery was legal in every colony at the time of the Constitution, how many outlawed it?

In fact, many in the Southern states at the time of the Civil war wanted to end it as well, including Lee.

I guess he was a hypocrite also, since he did not believe in slavery or secession yet still fought for the South.

It might be that I did not see your question. I've posted it probably 5 times since you've said that the "Founders" passed the NWO as a start to the end of slavery.

And If I had seen your 'deep''profound'questions I would have answered it.

Stephens states very clearly that the Founders did want to end slavery, that they had compromised with the Constitution but that slavery was never intended to last forever.

Stephens proudly states that the Founders erred in this and that slavery was made explict instead of inplicit in the Confederate Constitution.

I would classify every man that was in the first and second congress as Founders. You were doing better at backpedalling and ignoring the question altogether.

Well, if you have some profound point to make instead of blowing hot air.

The Founders intended to end slavery.

I posted a list of men who were anti-slavery who were considered Founders.

Stephens agrees with my view, that the Founders did believe that all men were created equal before God.

Stephens states that slavery was the primary issue of the Civil War.

And the deep South states state the same.

So, if you have some great point to make, that will prove Stephens wrong, please, let us see it!

If not, don't bother me with your gnat-straining nonsense.

[4CJ]

Gianni to ftd: You were doing better at backpedalling and ignoring the question altogether.

It's the yankee revisionist way.

[4CJ]

I guess he was a hypocrite also, since he did not believe in slavery or secession yet still fought for the South.

BWahahahahaha! His ALLEGIANCE was to his country - Virginia - who LEFT the union it voluntarily joined. For Lee to fight for the union would be like Washington fighting for England.

[4CJ]

Good ;o) Try this one

'When the American people created a national legislature, with certain enumerated powers, it was neither necessary nor proper to define the powers retained by the States. These powers proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several States; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before, except so far as they may be abridged by that instrument.'
Chief Justice Marshall, Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, (1819).

[4CJ]

And another:

"What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature. The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve."
Justice Patterson, Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304, (1795)

[4CJ]

A good one by Lincoln:

"The words 'coercion' and 'invasion' are in great use about these days. Suppose we were simply to try if we can, and ascertain what, is the meaning of these words. Let us get, if we can, the exact definitions of these words - not from dictionaries, but from the men who constantly repeat them---what things they mean to express by the words. What, then, is 'coercion'? What is 'invasion'? Would the marching of an army into South California Carolina, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit." - Abraham Lincoln, February 11, 1861

[4CJ]

How about this from a Senator, on attempts by the Executive to control the voting of Congress:

I replied to him, ``you did not elect me, I represent [my state] and I am accountable to [them only], as my constituency, and to God, but not to the President or to any other power on earth.''

And now this warfare is made on me because I would not surrender my connections of duty, because I would not abandon my constituency, and receive the orders of the executive authorities how I should vote in the Senate of the United States. I hold that an attempt to control the Senate on the part of the Executive is subversive of the principles of our constitution. The Executive department is independent of the Senate, and the Senate is independent of the President. In matters of legislation the President has a veto on the action of the Senate, and in appointments and treaties the Senate has a veto on the President. He has no more right to tell me how I shall vote on his appointments than I have to tell him whether he shall veto or approve a bill that the Senate has passed. Whenever you recognize the right of the Executive to say to a Senator, ``do this, or I will take off the heads of your friends,'' you convert this government from a republic into a despotism. Whenever you recognize the right of a President to say to a member of Congress, ``vote as I tell you, or I will bring a power to bear against you at home which will crush you,'' you destroy the independence of the representative, and convert him into a tool of Executive power. I resisted this invasion of the constitutional rights of a Senator, and I intend to resist it as long as I have a voice to speak, or a vote to give."

Who spoke these words, railing against all attempt to suborn his vote? Was it Alexander Stephens, Jefferson Davis, Andrew Johnson, Louis Wigfall or Robert Hunter?

None of them, it was Abraham Lincoln.

[Non-Sequitur]

A good one by Lincoln:

It's better in context. Lincoln went on to say,"But if the Government, for instance, but simply insists on holding its own forts, or retaking those which belong to it, or the enforcement of the laws of the United States in the collection of duties upon foreign importations, or even the withdrawls of mails from those portions of the country where the mails themselves are habitually violated; would any or all of these things be coercion? Do the lovers of the Union contend that they will resist coercion or invasion of any state, understanding that any or all of these would be coercing or invading a State? If they do, then it occurs to me that the means for the preservation of the Union they so greatly love, in their own estimation, is of a thin and airy character."

[4CJ]

See 2701 and the decision of the court.

[Non-Sequitur]

Who spoke these words, railing against all attempt to suborn his vote? Was it Alexander Stephens, Jefferson Davis, Andrew Johnson, Louis Wigfall or Robert Hunter?

None of them, it was Abraham Lincoln.

No it wasn't. It was Stephen Douglas. Seventh debate. In Alton. Lincoln was never in the senate.

[Non-Sequitur]

See 2701 and the decision of the court.

And?