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.

Secessionist traitors in the legislature were not arrested until September.

Please note the dates in the following.

Resolutions of the General Assembly of Maryland in relation to the arrest and imprisonment of Ross Winans, esq., &c.

BALTIMORE, MD., July 29, 1861.

Whereas, Ross Winans, a member of the house of delegates of Maryland from the city of Baltimore, on his way to his home from the discharge of his official duties on the 14th of May last was arbitrarily and illegally arrested on a public highway in the presence of the governor of this State, by an armed force under the orders of the Federal Government, and was forcibly imprisoned and held in custody thereafter at Annapolis and Fort McHenry without color of lawful process or right by the command and at the arbitrary will and pleasure of the President of the United States; and

Whereas, sundry other citizens of Maryland have been unalwfully dealt with in the same despotic and oppressive manner by the same usurped authority, and some of them have in fact been removed by force beyond the limits of the State of Maryland and the jurisdiction of her tribunals in utter violation of their rights as citizens and the rights of the State as a member of the Federal Union; and

Whereas, the unconstitional and arbitrary proceedings of the Federal executive have not been confined to the violation of the personal rights and liberties of the citizens of Maryland but have been extended into every department of oppressive illegality, so that the property of no man is safe, the sanctity of no dwelling is respected and the sacredness of private correspondence no longer exists; and

Whereas, the senate and house of delegates of Maryland, recognizing the obligation of the State as far as in her lies to protect and defend her people against usurped and aribtrary power-- however difficult the fulfillment of that high obligation may be rendered by disastrous circumstances -- feel it due to her dignity and independence that history should not record the overthrow of public freedom for an instant within her borders without recording likewise the indignant expression of her resentment and remonstrance:

Now therefore be it

Resolved, That the senate and house of delegates of Maryland in the name and on the behalf of the good people of the State do accordingly register this their earnest and unqualified protect against the oppressive and tyrannical assertion and exercise of military jurisdiction within the limits of Maryland over the persons and property of her citizens by the Government of the United States, and do solemnly declare the same to be subversive of the most sacred guarantees of the Constitution and in flagrant violation of the fundamental and most cherished principles of American free government.

Resolved further, That these resolutions be communicated by the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of Honorable James Alfred Pearce and Honorable Anthony Kennedy, Senators of Maryland in the Senate of the United States, with the request that they present the same to the Senate to be recorded among its proceedings in vindication of the right and in perpetual memory of the solemn remonstrance of this State against the manifold unsurpations and oppressions of the Federal Government.

[Text presented to the United States Senate by Sen. Anthony Kennedy on direction of the legislature, August 3, 1861]

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF ANNAPOLIS, Federal Hill, Baltimore, May 15, 1861.

Lieutenant-General SCOTT:

Thus the carrying off of some 400 or 500 stand of arms was accompalished by the police under the direction of the board of police. I found certain other arms being shipped apparently for improper purposes to a place called Snow Hill. I have sent out and brought in forty minier rifles. The remaining arms stored opposite the customhouse amounting to 2,700 stand I have caused to be seized and sent to Fort McHenry. I have caused Mr. Ross Winans to be arrested and sent to Annapolis; but for great safety as I have no place of confinement save a jail I shall cause him to be removed to Fort McHenry, there to await the action of the civil authorities unless otherwise ordered. I have found several manufactures of arms, supplies and munitions of war for the rebels who are being constantly supplied from the city.

I have issued a proclamation a copy of which I inclose* and which I trust you will approve. It became necessary in my judgemtn in order to set right the thousand conflicting stories and rumors of the intentions of the Government as to Baltimore which were taken advantage of by the mob to incite insubordination and encourage a spirit of insurrection, and which whowed itself upon our taking possession of the Government arms but was instantly suppressed upon a show of force.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

BENJ. F. BUTLER,
Brigadier-General, Commanding.

[lg #550] Which was a rational policy, btw, considering that Lincoln appointed no fewer than four justices during his term of office

I demand a recount!

Lincoln appointed no fewer than 5 justices.

Associate Justices (1) Swayne of Ohio, (2) Miller of Iowa, (3) Davis of Illinois, and (4) Field of California.

Chief Justice (5) Chase of Ohio.

SUPREME COURT HOKEY-POKEY
By the radical-controlled Republican Congress

EXITED the Court:

May 31, 1860 -- Peter V. Daniel
Apr 4, 1861 -- John McLean
Apr 30, 1861 -- John A. Campbell
Oct 12, 1864 -- Roger B. Taney
------------------------------------------------
May 30, 1865 -- John Catron
Jul 5, 1867 -- James M. Wayne

JOINED the Court:

Jan 27, 1862 -- Noah Swayne
Jul 21, 1862 -- Samuel F. Miller
Dec 10, 1862 -- David Davis
May 20, 1863 -- Stephen J. Field
Dec 15, 1864 -- Salmon P. Chase
-------------------------------------------------
Mar 14, 1870 -- William Strong
Mar 23, 1870 -- Ward Hunt

As one may readily observe, including Justice Daniel who left the Court in May 1860, Lincoln had only four Justices to replace. However, Lincoln appointed five justices.

With the appointment of Justice Field on May 20, 1863 the size of the Court swelled to 10 members.

One may observe that Justice Catron and Justice Wayne left the Court in 1865 and 1867. However, no appointments were made between December 1864 and March 1870.

TRANSLATION:

In 1863, at the critical time of the war, in order to ensure domination of the Court and prevent any negative decisions, the size of the Court was swelled to 10 members so Lincoln could pack it with another member.

While Andrew Johnson was President, it would appear that there were two vacancies he failed to fill. In fact, in order to keep its hold on the Court, and to prevent President Johnson from appointing anybody who might not share their thoughts on reconstruction and trampling upon the Constitution, in 1866 the radical-controlled Congress reduced the size of the Court to seven justices and provided that no vacant seats could be filled until that number was reached.

The actual number of sitting justices only fell to eight, but reducing the official number to seven was an insurance policy against President Johnson ever appointing anybody to the Court.

In 1869, with Republican U.S. Grant in office, the radical-controlled Congress restored the authorized size of the Court to nine members. In 1870, President Grant was able to appoint Justices Strong and Hunt to replace Justices Catron and Wayne who had left the Court in 1865 and 1867.

And THAT is how Supreme Court hokey-pokey was played by the radical-controlled Republican Congress.

Excerpt from "The Liberty Manifesto" by P.J. O'Rourke, remarks given May 6, 1993.

I don't know what's good for you. You don't know what's good for me. We don't know what's good for mankind. And it sometimes seems as though we're the only people who don't. It may well be that, gathered right here in this room tonight,are all the people in the world who don't want to tell all the people in the world what to do.
This is because we believe in freedom. Freedom -- what this country was established upon, what the Constitution was written to defend, what the Civil War was fought to perfect.
Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights -- the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery -- hay and a barn for human cattle.
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.

"Evidently it did, as for a time we had four States operating under the "Perpetual" Articles, and nine States operating on a "new & improved" government."

Wrong again, Jethro.

There was no right to unilaterally secede from the Union created by the Declaration of Independence, and made perpetual by the agreement of all thirteen states.

Nor was never a time when nine states operated under the new form of government, and the remainder under the old for of government. You need to educate yourself some more, so you stop making these obvious errors. Then you might find that the outgoing Congress of the Confederation - attended by all 13 states - legislated the orderly transition to the first Congress under the Constitution. You might also find the new Constitution was declared in effect on March 4, 1789, not June 21, 1788.

Two states delayed their ratification, but even then they were provided for by the Congress. North Carolina even offered to pay taxes to assure its place in the new Congress! They waited only for a Bill of Rights to be proposed.

"just as the CSA did when they left for a "more perfect" Constitution themselves in 1861"

Sorry, wrong answer.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 only proposed a new Constitution. The existing government had to authorize its being sent to the states for ratification. The people of the states, in convention, ratified the new Constitution, and when the required nine states agreed to the new form of government, the old government acted to transition to the new government.

In the case of the southern secessionists, they did not bother to propose a new constitution first. Instead, they attempted to break up the Union. They were unwilling to work within the constitutional framework they had voluntarily ratified.

"the CSA could make the very same case for their even "more perfect" Constitution."

There are only two classes of people who would state the the confederate constitution was an improvement of the Constitution of 1787 - village idiots and racists. Which are you?

CR - "Secessionist traitors in the legislature were not arrested until September."
GOPc (dissenting) - "Please note the dates in the following.
BALTIMORE, MD., July 29, 1861.

So you make the point that one secessionist traitor from the Maryland legislature was arrested for criminal activity in July. Fair enough. The bigger round up was in September, but I'll stand corrected on the one case - even though it is still three months after the secession vote.

This still doesn't support the claim that Lincoln ordered the arrest of the legislators to prevent secession. They were past that and the Maryland secessionists were in eclipse. Lincoln just wanted to get the criminals off the street.

[capitan_refugio #559] On the contrary, liar. You made the association that the "White" in the three cases was the same. I made a very simple observation (so that you and the other crackers could understand it): "George W. White" was the White in Texas v White. That name does not register any hits when associated with either of the other two cases; nor does "George White," nor does "G. White." I made no search for who the "Whites" were in the other cases. If you know who they were, then post it. Otherwise, stand accused of misrepresentation - again.

I would recommend you read the opinion in WHITE v. HART, 80 U.S. 646 (1871) at 647, the line following "ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia."

Then get back to me with your next brilliant observation.

Also, perhaps you could tell me one more time about the case of Lemmon v. The People. I really like the way you spin that yarn. At cr #386 you told it so good: "Lemmon v the People was a case which foreshadowed Dred Scott. The Taney Court overturned a New York State statute which immediately freed slaves brought into the state. The decision guaranteed 'sojourn and transit' rights to slave-owners through free states. It did not address, to my knowledge, the issue of residence."

I have always admired the way you first obtain and read court opinions, and only after intense study, tell the world all the things you found that nobody else was capable of seeing.

[cr #569] Hence, the Federal government had, in times of insurrection, the power to call up the militia to enforce federal law and to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

U.S. Const, Art 4, Sec 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

The Militia Act of 1795: "That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion, from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders, for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper. And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."

I think you have argued more than once that the WBTS was not over slavery. Linkum even offered to allow the CSA to return and they could keep the slaves circa 1862. At first the entire argument was all about preserving the precious "Union". This is one of your positions, and you have also argued that it was ALL about slavery. It seems like Kerry you are perpetually debating yourself.

Let me type this really, really slow so you can follow along. I have never said that the goal of the Union in the Civil War was ending slavery. Slavery was a fortunate outcome of their victory but never, ever the primary goal. That goal was always the preservation of the Union.

Now having said that, I have also always said that by far the single most important reason why the south launched their ill-fated rebellion in the first place was defense of their institution of slavery.

Clear now? Or do I need to use smaller words?

You forgot Section 2:

"And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."

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.