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]

"the damnyankees just can't stand the thought of FREEDOM."

stand, you do realize that the states of the south can lawfully leave the Union right now! But not by the unconstitutional principle of unilateral secession.

If "dixie" is so terribly oppressed by the rest of the nation, the people can invoke their natural right to revolution. By all means, exercise your "inalienable" rights guaranteed to you by your Creator.

But if you are not so inclined to go on a revolutionary rampage, then Chief Justice Chase left the door open for you in Texas v White. A state can leave the Union with the consent of the other states.

I believe you've said you were in Virginia (or at least are a member of the DC Chapter). Petition your state government to request disunion. See if you get the popular support of the people. It would be a wonderful exercise in civics.

Otherwise, you'll need to accept that you southern separatists are a minority within a minority; with no real power, no voice, and no future.

[fortheDeclaration]

FtD, did Congress ever condemn Lincoln's emergency war measures? As I recall they endorsed, sooner or later, almost every action he took, including the suspension of the priviledge of the writ of habeas corpus. And, in addition to Congress's approval, during the war the Court found no fault with Lincoln's actions and policies.

Correct.

Congress supported Lincoln's actions.

Farber discusses this in his work, p.193-95.

He holds that Lincoln was following the classical liberal view of the use of executive power, as stated by Jefferson.

[capitan_refugio]

"If it was done under duress, or the amendment was not ratified by the requisite 2/3 majority, or is a violation of existing Constitutional terms."

Did you learn that principle at Bob's Law School and Service Station?

What do you think amendments are for, if not to sometimes change the original terms of the Constitution? Do the 18th and 21st Amendments mean anything to you? Or how about the 12th Amendment? Where do you come up with this stuff?

[Non-Sequitur]

...you have to wonder how he got to be an expert on who is or isn't a commie.

GOP is a legend in his own mind, always has been.

[Non-Sequitur]

Here is another favorable review of the work.

But Citron has got to be a Godless Commie Socialist bastard, or at the very least incredibly biased. Just ask GOP.

[fortheDeclaration]

But Citron has got to be a Godless Commie Socialist bastard, or at the very least incredibly biased. Just ask GOP.

I am sure he is!

That is why I posted a couple more reviews.

They can't all be commies!

LOL!

[Non-Sequitur]

They can't all be commies!

They can to GOP. Or incredibly biased. One of the two.

[4CJ]

After reading your comments maybe GITMO should be expanded for additional customers.

Glad I could convince you to go - enjoy your stay.

[M. Espinola]

Innocent children, in the coastal city in question were victims of the Confederate secessionist's starting the Civil War in the first place.

None of these children, or on either side would have been caught in the middle, if it were not for the insistence of South Carolina's Confederate politicians rejecting the Presidential election results and attacking Fort Sumter.

[4CJ]

Bet he's got three or four Confederate flags at home -- all different patterns.

ROTF!

[M. Espinola]

Whom in here are "marxists" or "commies". Name them.

[4CJ]

What your ancestors fought for was the right to deny self-government to others.

No. I have over 20 direct and collateral familial ancestors that fought for freedom from England in the Revolutionary War, and another 26 that fought for self government in the War of Northern Agression.

[M. Espinola]

"War would have been averted if Lincoln had not invaded".. Reversed logic, Confed-P/C style.

The President of the United States "invaded".. the United States? LOL, This is ridiculous!

.."but he had to attack to claim the impost revenues, as he stated in his inaugural speech."

I see, President Lincoln was not reacting to the southern rebellion, he was only concerned with tax issues ? Where you taught this in 'southern-spin' grammar school history classes?

Ladies and gentlemen I give you the 'new' version of Lincoln's inaugural speech. The short and to the point version:

"My fellow Americans. You know who you are. The Union must institute civil war and invade our own states for the sole purpose of collecting unpaid federal revenue. If they, and you know of whom I speak, do not cough up, I mean pay in full, we shall embargo all grit sales to those states in question. Thank you very much. You may depart and commence firing, now!"

[M. Espinola]

.."the War of Northern Agression"(??)

Man do they keep trying :)

[M. Espinola]

What happened? Did the pub close up early?

[4CJ]

4ConservativeJustices has never gotten a solid handle on ex post facto laws (unconstitutional in criminal cases) versus retrospective legislation (constitutional).

Did the amendment CRIMINALIZE their actions? Yep. Ex post facto. With a penalty that was not enumerated previously by law? Ex post facto. It's not hard to comprehend.

As far as some provisions of the 14th Amendment being, in essence, a bill of attainder (legislative punishment) - that is quite true.

And Bills of Attainder are STILL unconstitutional.

... at least 2/3rds of each house of Congress approved and at least 3/4ths of the States ratified the Amendment.

Wrong. In submitting the resolution for the amendment, 28 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the Senate in violation of Article I §3 and Article V. 42 Representatives were similarly denied seats. 15 of the 37 states rejected the Amendment.

[4CJ]

Had you actually read General Orders No. 100 (Lieber Code) you would have seen the policy on Insurrection - Civil War - Rebellion in Section 10, Articles 149 to 157, inclusive.

I've read the Lieber Code - 'unarmed resistance by citizens of the United States against the lawful movement of the troops is levying war'. Of course the military determines what is lawful, eh? Is failure to provide food or shelter 'levying war'? Lieber invented this tripe to EXCUSE the atrocities committed by Union troops.

Regarding Dahlgren, you wrote:

His "orders," as can best be derived from the prepared speech to the raiders, was to free Union prisoners, to burn Richmond, and disrupt the confederate war effort - which is a reasonable and lawful military goal. From the "speech": "We hope to release the prisoners from Belle Island first, and having seen them fairly started, we will cross the James River into Richmond, destroying the bridges after us and exhorting the released prisoners to destroy and burn the hateful city; and do not allow the rebel leader Davis and his traitorous crew to escape."

"[T]o burn Richmond ... to destroy and burn the hateful city ... do not allow the rebel leader Davis and his traitorous crew to escape."

Clueless, what part of that do you not understand?

[4CJ]

I would like to know which Article of the Lieber Codes you cite as authority for retaliation.

Article 27 & 28, noted below.

Without saying so, explicitly ...

Lee might have surrendered in April 1865, but other Confederate forces did not surrender until May 1865. Among them, Richard Taylor, son of former President Zachary Taylor, brother-in-law to President Davis. Brigadier General Stand Watie did not surrender until 23 Jun 1865.

Booth's action was wrong and is condemned. Regardless of my feelings for Lincoln, his planned treatment of the Confederate states was far more lenient than that of the following Congresses.

Possibly, if you have the cajones, you could explain yourself more fully.

Why, so you or M. Espinola can hit the abuse button again?

Again, for those that are not aware of the FACTS of this case, President Lincoln ordered Gen. Butler to capture President Davis and burn Richmond. That failed. Afterward Col. Dahlgren was killed by Confederate forces outside Richmond in yet another failed raid. On his person he had orders stating, "[t]he men must keep together & well in hand & once in the City it must be destroyed & Jeff. Davis and Cabinet killed."

Lincoln had tried not once, but twice to capture or kill President Davis and his cabinet. Per the Lieber Code - implemented by Lincoln, LEGALLY justifed retailitory measures - in fact - it demanded them. In spite of this, the Confederate leadership REFUSED to order the assassination of President Lincoln.

For those unfamiliar with the military rules of conduct drafted by Frances Lieber for Lincoln & the Union forces:

Art. 148. The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.'

Note that it states "the sternest retaliation should follow..."

Again, from the Code:

'Art. 27. ... [C]ivilized nations acknowledge RETALIATION as the STERNEST feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage.
Art. 28. Retaliation will therefore never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of PROTECTIVE retribution...'

Regarding the knowledge of Lincoln and his approval:

'The idea originated with General Kilpatrick, and, on being submitted in all its details, met the approbation of the Secretary of War, and of the President of the United States.'
Admiral John Dahlgren, Memoir of Ulric Dahlgren, Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott & Co (1872), p. 205

On 26 Feb, Ulric wrote his father, 'I have not returned to the fleet, because there is a grand raid to be made, and I am to have a very important command. If sucessful, it will be the grandest thing on record.'

[Admin Moderator: My comments do not indicate that I wish for the death of ANY President, only that per existing code it was legal as a retaliatory measure. The murder/assassination of anyone is reprehensible, and in no way condoned or advocated.]

[rustbucket]

They could have simply surrendered.

They were Southern, not French.

[4CJ]

They were Southern, not French.

BWaahahahahahahahahaha!