Confederate States Of America (2005)

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.

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.

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.

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.

"There was a fringy literature of slavery justification in the South, the most extreme exponents of which are the people that South-bashers like to talk about. Some of these authors were widely read but not widely believed ..."

"Fringy literature" like the notorious racist Albert Taylor Bledsoe's Essay on Liberty and Slavery (1856)? It was so "fringy" that it is being kept in print, 150 years later, by outfits that cater to wannabe rebs like yourself. Or perhaps you consider Bledsoe to be one of the "traditional" racists?

The "fringy literature" must have done its job well, inasmuch as the racial subordination of persons of African descent was deeply entrenched in the 1850's southern white ethos. Case in point, from Judge William Harris of Mississippi, Secession Commissioner to the Georgia Legislature, on Dec 17, 1860:

"Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality.... [Lincoln is determined] to overturn and strike down this great feature of our Union ... and substitute in its stead their new theory of universal equality of the black and white races."

After all, wasn't this essentially what southerner Chief Justice Taney expressed in the recent Dred Scott decision? Judge Harris continued to explain the choice before them: "This new union with Lincoln Black Republicans and free negroes, with out slavery; or, slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln black Republicans, or free negroes either, to molest us." The choice was "submission to negro equality" or "secession is inevitable."

"[Mississippi] would rather see the last of her race; men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile, than see them subjected to degradation of civil, political, and social equality with the negro race."

You neo-reb apologists ought to be proud of yourselves.

Again, it is a supposition wheather or not you think it is educated. And a very sound supposition at that since it is based on Lincoln's track record. Saying that Abe Lincoln would've continued his career-long tax and spend philosophy is about as safe as saying that John Kerry would've appointed pro-abort judges.

Once, again supposition.

The 20th century is not the 19th and Lincoln was dealing with different issues.

Historical context does matter.

And don't try to pretend that tax bills originate with the President, they don't. Don't try to change the subject. YOU attempted to pretend that Lincoln had nothing to do with all those tax bills he championed and signed. I caught you and called you to task on that, never once asserting that the tax bills originate with the president but rather only that he occupies what is probably the single the most dominant office in passing tax policy - the presidency.

Lincoln was an ex-Whig.

They were strong believers in a weak Presidency, letting the Congress do what it was suppose to do.

They saw their role as a check, not as a substitute.

Had not the war broken out, Lincoln may have been one of this nations weakest Presidents, instead of one the strongest.

A Republican controlled Congress would have called the shots and Lincoln would have simply made sure that the bills were constitutional.

Whigs did not believe in vetoing unless absolutely necessary.

So your complaint about Lincoln as a high taxer and driving the tax issue goes against the very political philosopy he adhered to.

He may have supported high tariff's but he would not have seen his role as interfering with the Congress in their role of making the tariff bill.

Oh, yea they gave FDR a real hard time. A harder time than anybody in yankeeland ever gave him!

It is not the Yankee's that we are discussing, it is the so-called conservative South, that had no qualms about FDR, Truman or Stephenson and for 6 states LBJ.

For the Confederate states, hatred is more important then truth, hence their resistance to anything Republican for 100 years.

The only reason the South is going GOP now is because so many Yankees have moved down here.

Real conservatives, like voting for Stephenson against Ike. Actually the south split between Stephenson and Eisenhower.

As they did with Goldwater.

Still-Stephenson!?

And only five Southern 'conservative' states supported him out of the 11 Confederate ones. ...as opposed to ZERO states out of all of yankeeland, which LBJ carried unanimously and without effort. So?

And only Southern states supporting Stevenson (no Yankee ones-with the possible exception of his home state, which I do not recall was)

So, he favored high taxes throughout his career exactly as I said. What excise taxes did he get passed? Several dozen during his presidency and several "internal improvements" taxes in the Illinois legislature.

In a Democrat controlled state?

He must have a very powerful legislater.

Fact is, the 19th century was not the 20th and internal improvements done by state governments were legimate and one could be a conservative and support them.

Ike gave us the interstate highway system, would you regard him as liberal?

The income tax was an emergency one. It was drawn out, developed, and adjusted (in an upward direction) over his four years in office, outlived him by six years, and served as a direct impetus for the establishment of the current income tax. That doesn't sound like an "emergency" to me. Nor does an "emergency" give Lincoln the power to directly violate the original constitution's prohibition on those types of taxes.

It was needed to fight a very costly war (ofcourse the South didn't have an income tax-or did they?)

It was ended.

And the fact that it was six years past his death shows that even his most severe critics cannot hold him responsible for it, or should I say, critics that have any sense.

So, they did end it. Under threat of a constitutional showdown, which lasted until Lincoln's successors mustered enough support to amend the constitution.

Getting any tax is removed is tough.

It was hard to get rid of wage and price controls after WW2 also.

Government does not like to give up its revenue.

And so they did end it. ...quoth the broken record who cannot/refuses to think for himself.

No, repeating an historical reality that you can't seem to recognize.

Alot like the South losing a war over a hundred years ago and still arguing about it!

They were constitutional. So is the income tax today. But that doesn't make Bill Clinton's tax hike any less repulsive. They were constitutional. ...quoth the broken record who cannot/refuses to think for himself.

Once again facts are still facts, no matter what you think about them.

That is why we elect people, to make decisions for us and if they make bad ones we get rid of them.

Clinton paid for his tax raise by losing control of Congress.

Totally constitutional as the GOP taking the power away from them.

That is how a republican gov't is meant to operate, on the basis of elections, not secession or threats of secession.

Lincoln was a candidate from a major party, the examples you give are goofy. No. He was a candidate from a regional party that had no organization or membership in most of the southern states.

Gee, and he won the presidency, imagine that!

He was a major candidate.

Were any of the other canidates kept off any other state ballots?

Well, I guess the people wanted him then. So you are saying that we have no basis for complaining about all the insidious things FDR did?

We have nothing to complain about if they were legal and constitutional.

We can do what we can to change them, but complain about them is futile if they were not criminal.

And yet we still haven't undone all the damage he did, so once again using your own illogic, who are you to complain about Clinton?

Where in my posts have I complained about Clinton?

You keep bringing him up, not me.

You left out what I said about Clinton, was that an accident or deliberate on your part. I did not say 'so'

So? ...quoth the broken record who cannot/refuses to think for himself. Well, back then the facts were pretty sketchy. Nah. General Taylor was very clear where he established his encampment, kept track of where he sent his patrols, and sent direct reports of what happened back to Washington.

Well, even today, it is conceded that there was some dispute over the borders, and the Mexicans saw that land as being Mexican.

Well, that is the how the history books have it written. There was some doubt when it happened however. Such as?

See above.

It ran into constitutional problems like so many other things Lincoln did. Lincoln's successors solved those problems by amending the constitution. And the tax was ended. ...quoth the broken record who cannot/refuses to think for himself.

Once, again a fact (you guys sure hate facts)

Why not? He gave us the first and got the ball rolling. Had Lincoln not given us an income tax its constitutionality would not have been challenged, meaning no 16th amendment would've been proposed, meaning no modern income tax. Because his tax ended ...quoth the broken record who cannot/refuses to think for himself.

A fact

[You, quoting me] "The Convention as a whole rejected the idea of amalgamation, so there was nothing in the Constitution that implied or stated it."

[You, making stuff up] The convention as a whole, chose to strengthen the Union by denying the states what little claim they had to full "sovereignty, freedom, and independence."

Better authorities than your imagination are available:

Prior to 1776 there was no central colonial American government. Each colony had its own government that was answerable to the Crown. Within the framework of some general laws established by the mother country, each colony acted with autonomy from the others. The signing of the Declaration of Independence furthered that autonomy by making the colonies separate and independent nations.....The Articles of Confederation provided a loose arrangement for cooperation among the sovereign states....
What emerges in the final plan of the Convention is not only a balance of interests but a system of control on the increased authority given the new national government. The weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation would be corrected, but the new power would be checked by diffusing authority. Federal power would be circumscribed, leaving important functions to the states, and the separation of powers vested in three branches of government would provide carefully crafted checks and balances.
-- Sen. Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., "The Story of the Constitution", in The Constitution of the United States of America: The Bicentennial Keepsake Edition, Bantam Books: New York, 1987, p. 85-95 passim.

"The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away?" "All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article."
-- John Marshall, Virginia Ratification Debates, June 16, 1788 (Elliot's Debates, Vol. III, p. 419)

[You, persisting] The Philadelphia Convention was a nationalist exercise.

You of course have support within the document itself for this gratuitous assertion of a national exercise rather than a federal one.

A "nationalist" exercise may have been what the Federalists intended to happen. That wasn't what eventuated, however, after all parties were consulted; and in the outcome, the People were not amalgamated but ratified the Constitution in their States, and retained in their States the power to convene, to amend, and even to terminate the entire enterprise without the assent of federal officialdom or the Congress.

The People, acting in their capacities as sovereign States, lent certain powers to the government of the Union on a perpetually renewing basis. They did not create a fascist Reich, nor did they surrender to one.

You claim not to want ad hominems but spend a lot of time attacking those who disagree with you as communist or socialist or somehow bigoted against your views. So far as I can tell, that's ad hominem.

First, just for the sake of argument, if you are a forensic purist and shun ad hominem yourself, then why are you wasting time on bringing a charge of inconsistency, hypocrisy, and ad hominem argumentation against me? Address my arguments.

Second, we haven't discussed it much, but I distinguish between people who are e.g. Communist in their private lives but fairminded in their writing -- like children's author Arthur Ransome, who let only the faintest breath of his anti-Americanism into his books for younger readers 65 years ago, even though he was on speaking terms with the entire CPSU Central Committee and was actually married to Grigory Zinoviev's secretary. In writing a book review of his Swallowdale or Winter Holidays, I wouldn't find much of his Leninism on display, and so I shouldn't criticize him on that account, never mind that he was a lifelong Communist.

James McPherson and Eric Foner are another story, since their overarching themes are Marxist. McPherson put his Marxism into the title of Battle Cry of Freedom, which is a clear reference to emancipation: ergo, McPherson is saying just by so titling his book, that the Civil War was about ending slavery and liberating the black man from bondage and racism. Welllll, maybe not. Maybe McPherson is selling a politically operational story of top-down, vanguard-led "liberation" Communist-style instead. And that is a theme Marx himself wrote about.

McPherson's extracurriculars and his critique of America as expressed in Pacifica transcripts make his writings fair game, since all are transacted in the public arena. Of course his views would be off the table if he held them privately, and then it would be immaterial if he were a Prohibitionist or a fugitive Parchamite. But he lives his public life around his Leftism, and it has demonstrably crept into his writing. Therefore, if he and Foner are grinding a contemporary or ideological axe on the Southa, we Southerners are going to say something about it if you bring in McPherson to support an attack of your own on the legitimacy of the Southern people -- if you start quoting McPherson to play "Spot" with the South, I'm going after McPherson and you both. We are not dealing here with reason and principle, but with animus, and so your and your favorite writers' animus is fair game.

That all said, I trust Farber or Neely or McPherson to get the time of day right when Lee sent his hapless regiments up Malvern Hill. I trust them to be able to count casualties and estimate costs. But when it comes to large arguments about the validity of secession, that is another story. That crack about "usable history" is telling -- was that Rakove, or Farber? -- because it means that these historians are using history to transact contemporary politics, and so their contemporary affiliations and the identification of their grinding axes is quite germane to any discussion of their arguments.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.