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]

Are you asserting that the President of the United States was notified by an associate justice or a district judge?

You're the one who claims that he needed it.

[capitan_refugio]

Of course you don't have link.

[nolu chan]

(With apologies to Willie Nelson)

Full of crap again
Just can't wait to spew your crap again
You just love spewing nonsense with your friends
And I just can't wait to see you spew again

Full of crap again
Goin' places reality's never been
Dreamin' things you may never dream again,
And I just can't wait to see you spew again.

[capitan_refugio #650] Don't be coy - why don't you just cite your proof? I'm not into playing your games right now. You still haven't shown it was the same person.

I'm not being coy, I am merely rubbing your nose in your do-do. I am demonstrating that, yet again, the lying sack of s--- called capitan_refugio went on and on and on about a court opinion he has neither seen nor read.

There is no game. I gave you the citation and the precise page number and the location of the precise line to read. You have only two problems, first is that, yet again, you have not read the opinion that you have gone on and on and on about and second, you can't find it with your Google engine. You are busted again.

[nc #613] 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.

[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.

[nc #547] You must be correct. You do not find the name George in the Supreme Court decisions re Hart or Cannon. Of course, you do not find any other first name in those decisions either. Correct me if I am wrong.

[capitan_refugio #543] The "White" in Texas v White was George W. White. I do not find his name associated with White v Hart or White v Cannon. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Non-Sequitur]

Then again, perhaps neither of you two experts has ever seen or read the opinion about which you "know" so much.

The first I heard of the case was when you pinged me to one of your POS posts. I had assumed as well that you had read it. But, it you haven't, well...

[nolu chan]

You said that no constitution ever allowed for its own destruction. Article 72 of the USSR constitution allowed for all member republics to secede at will. When a union has no members it ceases to exist.

[capitan_refugio]

"Are you asserting that the President of the United States was notified by an associate justice or a district judge?"

"If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority. And whether the hostile party be a foreign invader or States organized in rebellion, it is nonetheless a war although the declaration of it be "unilateral" .... The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact." - Prize Cases

[nolu chan]

[capitan_refugio #662] Of course you don't have link.

Of course, I do not have a link. It is not available at free services such as FINDLAW or LII. But then, free services on the internet are not the only source of information in the world. They are merely your only source.

But of course, I have a copy from which I quoted at my #502.

[nolu chan #502]

WHITE v. CANNON, 73 U.S. 443 (1867) [re: Louisiana]

"The ordinance of secession passed by the State of Louisiana, on the 26th of January, 1861, was a nullity, and did not affect the previous jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of that State, or its relation to the appellate power of the Supreme Court of the United States." "The objection that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana is to be treated as void, because rendered some days after the passage of the ordinance of secession of that State, is not tenable. That ordinance was an absolute nullity, and of itself alone, neither affected the jurisdiction of that court or its relation to the appellate power of this court."

WHITE v. HART, 80 U.S. 646 (1871) [re: Georgia]

"At no time during the rebellion were the rebellious States out of the pale of the Union. Their constitutional duties and obligations remained unaffected by the rebellion. They could not then pass a law impairing the obligation of a contract more than before the rebellion, or now, since."

Yet again you are caught going on and on and on about court decisions you have neither seen nor read.

(With apologies to Willie Nelson)

Full of crap again
Just can't wait to spew your crap again
You just love spewing nonsense with your friends
And I just can't wait to see you spew again

Full of crap again
Goin' places reality's never been
Dreamin' things you may never dream again,
And I just can't wait to see you spew again.

[capitan_refugio]

But a union is not its constitution. A union can exist in the absence of a constitution. A constitution provides the framework for the governance of that union.

The American Union has had two constitutions - the AoC&PU and the Constitution of 1787. Neither one of them provided for secession; indeed a perpetual union forbade it.

[capitan_refugio]

"I'm not being coy, I am merely rubbing your nose in your do-do. I am demonstrating that, yet again, the lying sack of s--- called capitan_refugio went on and on and on about a court opinion he has neither seen nor read."

No, you're just being the a-hole you normally are. Par for the course.

You made a boast. You can't or won't back it up. And you act like an insufferable pr*ck when you're called on it. That's nolu coward all over!

If you have the proof, post it. Argument over. Instead you want to play little games. Okay, smart a$$ - show post where I said I had read the decisions. I never said anything like that, liar. I said, I found no association of the name George W. White (or its derivations) with the other two cases. That's not "going on and on." It is stating a simple fact that your pea brain is incapable of understanding.

[GOPcapitalist]

So you make the point that one secessionist traitor from the Maryland legislature was arrested for criminal activity in July. Fair enough.

Read the resolution again.

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.

Then allow me to correct you a second time. He was arrested on May 14th, as the resolution clearly states.

[GOPcapitalist]

Come back when you have something coherent (and I do not mean #3coherent) to say.

[capitan_refugio]

Was the arrest after April 27, 1861? Yes

Did the arrest of the knucklehead traitor have any effect on the April 27 secession vote? No

The point I countered was that Lincoln arrested "legislatorS" in Maryland to prevent them from voting for secession. That is a confederate myth. Maryland wasn't going to secede and they had already voted once not to secede.

I suppose it is possible the traitors in the legislature might have tried a fast one like the insurrectionist Missouri legislature or the fraudulent convention in Kentucky. Like those two cases, it would have been of no practical consequence.

[GOPcapitalist]

Was the arrest after April 27, 1861? Yes

Did I ever say it wasn't, capitan? No. I did not.

You, however, did say that the arrests didn't happen until September, which was false. You then said Delegate Winan's arrest happened in July, which was also false.

Given your propensity for all these falsehoods, I simply saw it fit to provide corrections.

[capitan_refugio]

"Given your propensity for all these falsehoods, I simply saw it fit to provide corrections."

No falsehood about it. I was unaware of Winans arrest. Big deal. It makes no material difference to the crux of the matter - Maryland got its "secession vote" and secession was badly defeated.

But to make you happy, I'll modify my statement in #595 to read:

The Maryland legislature got its vote on secession, unimpeded by the Administration, on April 27, 1861. They defeated it 53-13. Secessionist traitors in the legislature were not arrested until September, with the exception of the knucklehead Winans.

See, I'm a very agreeable person.

[GOPcapitalist]

No falsehood about it.

The statements you made were false. Twice.

I was unaware of Winans arrest.

It has been brought to your attention before and was discussed in earlier threads on the Merryman arrest that happened around the same time. Your selective memory loss is amusing though.

Big deal.

A very big deal coming from a congenital liar such as yourself. You simply don't like the fact that you got caught...again.

[4CJ]

Bookmark.