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]

"Despite it being written in 09/62 vs 63, it still only freed slaves in CSA control, not in Union held areas."

So far so good.

"Now if are to believe the case you are defending that the Southern States were merely in "rebellion", that would mean that they were still part of the Union, and that there were only lawless areas within them."

Not exactly. In many of the states there were no functioning aspects of the Federal government, due to criminal, insurrectionist activity. All lawful government had broken down.

"So if Linkum (sic) had the "authority" to free slaves in one part of the Union, why would he need more authority to free them in the rest of the nation?"

Sorry, you were doing so well too.

Lincoln's authority to emancipate slaves in the rebellious areas stemmed from his position as commander-in-chief. He acted to deprive the insurrectionists with as much slave labor as possible, so as to injure their socio-economic infrastructure. Emancipation was a war-related necessity.

Where the rule of law prevailed, in the loyal states and in those part of the rebellious states that were under federal control, the existing laws concerning slavery were followed. That is why slavery had to be abolished by the 13th Amendment rather than by executive order or congressional legislation.

A dictator might have tried to abolish slavery by fiat, but Lincoln instead worked within the constitutional system.

[capitan_refugio]

Omitted the word "play" before "loose."

"Is this some sort of neo-ebonics?"

Are you really the racist you like to make yourself out to be?

[capitan_refugio]

I didn't think someone could come up with a lamer reply than nolu, but I've got to give you credit.

"quote Madison who said that secession or revolt (synonomous) was the right of a people to avail themselves of "intolerable oppression"?"

If your reading comprehension was at least on the high school level, you would realize that is nothing like what Madison said. He differentiated unilateral secession from revolution. (Sorry, I used a couple of big words there.)

[capitan_refugio]

"So tell me again there Rastus, what did we have going AFTER the nine ratified?"

Read some history books, stupid. Or re-read the posts in this thread I made to you on the subject.

When the ninth state ratified the Constitution of 1787, the sitting Congress of the Confederation began work on providing for the new government (setting elections, etc.). In the meantime, two additional states ratified.

The transition between the government under the Articles, and the new government under the Constitution, was seamless.

"The Nine were seperated from the other four, in Cracker town, that means two groups. Maybe at Crack High the math was different."

Yo are right about that - it is only an issue in dumb-a$$ cracker town.

"They could have exercised their Superior Power and opted not to ratify, and remain as independent Nation States. I like how you minimize the inclusion of the Bill of Rights as an aside. I am damn glad the Two held out for that "minor" addendum."

Didn't they teach you at Cracker Jr. High that the Philadelphia Convention considered the question of adding a Bill of Rights - and rejected it? North Carolina was going to ratify, without a doubt. The only questionable "state" was Rhode Island. They were in a virtual state of anarchy and were quickly becoming a failed state. The people in parts of Rhode Island were negotiating with neighboring states to pick up the pieces while Little Rhody disintegrated. Somehow, they got their act together.

"The States doing any transitioning were the ratified ones, duh!"

Were you weaned on jackass milk? I already told you, representatives from all thirteen states participated in the final Congress of the Confederation. Even while a state like North Carolina had not yet ratified, their representatives were actively involved in forming and authorizing the new government.

"As far as calling someone a racist after calling several posters here "CRACKERS" ..."

If you don't want to be treated like a dip, stop acting like one.

"typical M.O. of leftist/bolshevik types. We see the same with the DemonRats accusing the GOP of vote fraud, when they invented it, and are being exposed for in Washington now. Being amoral must be nice, as you never have to deal with shame eh?"

You tell me. You're the one living in a fantasy world. The old south is dead, bub. It's never coming back. You can't oppress your "darkies" anymore.

Someday, you might grow up and understand what Republicanism, and being an American, is all about. Until then, try not to drool too much on your keyboard everytime someone posts another confederate myth. "As far as Village Idiots go, you were the "Idiot" when posting quotes trying to make your case without reading (with understanding) first."

[capitan_refugio]

"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."

Posted to me? I don't think so. Got a link?

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

You have so few victories when discussing issues of the confederate treason, even an insignificant error takes on great meaning for you. Congratulations.

[GOPcapitalist]

Posted to me? I don't think so. Got a link?

Indeed it was. I believe there was even a photo of Winans posted at the time. You ignored it like you do everything. Dig up old threads on your own time if you can't remember.

You have so few victories when discussing issues of the confederate treason, even an insignificant error takes on great meaning for you. Congratulations.

Your documented fibs such as this one number in the dozens, perhaps hundreds by now, capitan. This is just further evidence of your inability to state basic facts without fabricating something. I could ask you to recount the story of the moon landing and you couldn't do it without adding in some gratuitous and false embellishment that attacks the confederacy or perhaps praises Saint Abe for making it all possible.

[4CJ]

A dictator might have tried to abolish slavery by fiat, but Lincoln instead worked within the constitutional system.

Amendment V: 'No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'

There are, without doubt, occasions in which private property may lawfully be taken possession of or destroyed to prevent it from falling into the hands of the public enemy; and also where a military officer, charged with a particular duty, may impress private property into the public service or take it for public use. Unquestionably, in such cases, the government is bound to make full compensation to the owner.
Justice Taney, Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 How. 115 (1851)

Just exactly HOW did Lincoln abide by the Constitution?

[Non-Sequitur]

So now is it that Linkum never arrested any State legislators in 1861? Did you vote for it before you voted against it?

My, my, my, you really are slow on the uptake, aren't you? Maryland voted against secession in April 1861 without Lincoln or anyone else arresting them. What you, in your haze, are thinking of was the attempt at some of the Maryland legislature to vote secession in September, long after the rebellion had begun. Some of them were arrested for supporting the rebellion, as they should have been. But where you make your biggest mistake is saying I believed that the arrests were to prevent their lawfully voting for secession. There would have been nothing lawful about that.

Are we finally clear?

[Non-Sequitur]

Better explain that to your side kick Refugio

I'm trying to explain it to you. But you seem unable or unwilling to grasp this most basic concept of the rebellion.

[Non-Sequitur]

This being at the invitiation of the State which encountered the insurrection. If not, then you have simply States making war on other States.

Rebellion is rebellion, and Lincoln was well within his authority as President to take whatever steps were necessary to suppress it. Regardless of whether the state participating in the rebellion invited him or not.

[GOPcapitalist]

Gotta love it how these Non-Seq and Cap'n R types go about affirming their own consequents! It's all one circular game to them. Pick any step to begin with and just move like it tells ya and repeat as often as necessary:

P1. The legislators deserved to be arrested because they were secessionists. (go to P2)
P2. Since they were secessionists, they deserved to be arrested (return to P1)

Corrollary to P1 and P2: Absolutely nothing else matters about the situation that could ever alter P1 or P2.

[nolu chan]

[cr] A union can exist in the absence of a constitution.

Your false claim was that no constitution ever provided for its own destruction.

A constitution for a union with no members is meaningless.

The USSR constitution provided for any or all members to secede at will.

[nolu chan]

[CSSFlorida] Except the caveat that, upon "legal seccession, 10 Soviet divions will accidentally occupy the countryside.

The USSR constitution provided for any or all members to secede at will.

The content of the Constitution is not changed by the strongest region with the biggest army imposing its will upon the weaker regions through UNconstitutional acts of coercion.

Consider it sort of like each member republic retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which was not by the Constitution expressly delegated to the USSR. And then the one with the biggest army decided to change the deal ex post facto.

[nolu chan]

[nc #502] The famous case of TEXAS v. WHITE 74 U.S. 700 (1868) involved the corporate entity White & Chiles. But this is not the only case to touch on the subject of secession. The following are two more cases arising from the states of Louisiana and Georgia. It appears that the ubiquitous White made a living by losing secession cases to the Federal government.

[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.

[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 #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 #663] 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.

[cr #669] 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!

[cr #669] 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.

In your #559, you called me a "liar."

In my #502 I said, "It appears that the ubiquitous White made a living by losing secession cases to the Federal government."

And so it does appear.

In response to your #507, I said, "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."

My statement is 100% correct.

You are still being the same dirtbag as ever, calling me a liar about court opinions you have not bothered to obtain or read.

Not only did your lame Google search not find a relationship between the parties in the cases, you did not even find the cases. You found nothing, and based on the nothing your incompetent search provided, you rendered your incompetent opinion.

In STATE OF TEXAS v. WHITE, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) at 717 and in WHITE v. HART, 80 US 646 (1871) at 647, the opinions clearly show that the SAME ATTORNEY argued for Mr. White in both cases.

His office was at the corner of C St. and Louisiana Avenue in Washington, D.C.

[fortheDeclaration]

That was your quoted comment that I responded to and destroyed. Destroyed with what? Facts, something your posts are notably void of. [nc] Considering the disclosure of the suppressed Booth diary with 43 sheets/86 pages missing without adequate explanation; the exculpatory material that remained in what was left of the diary; the disclosure of the panel recommendation for clemency for Mary Surratt which was withheld from the President; the failure to convict at the trial of John H. Surratt, and the imprisonment, for perjury, of a key witness from the military conspiracy trial, the government did not dare to bring Jefferson Davis to trial Once again, assumption with no facts. All facts. Deal with it. How do you jump to the conclusion that the Gov't was afraid that the South would [be] considered not guilty of rebellion based on the fact that Davis was not tried? That is quite a statement. Please post the link for it. I guess the real failure was on the part of the Confederate leadership who should have demanded a trial to get the verdict that they knew would be given. Davis and his attorneys showed up and said they were ready to proceed. After two years, the government said it was still not ready and obtained a delay. John Harrison Surratt had already been tried in civilian court. The half-missing Booth diary came out. The fact of the clemency recommendation came out. You do remember the charges, don't you? You do remember the exposing of perjury? You must have your tinfoil hat on this morning. You must have a tinfoil hat every morning.

Your phony conspiracy theory had been dealt with in other posts.

I guess you think repeating nonsense is going to make it non-nonsense.

Your 'facts'are half-truths woven into a idiot theory.