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.

http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/faqs.cfm#case

The Case Against Jefferson Davis
What, exactly, happened in the case of The United States v. Jefferson Davis? Enough intrigues, maneuvers, plot twists, and changes of the political wind exist to fill a book (and it would make a good one). It is quite a complex matter, but the bottom line is that the case never went to trial and the indictments were dismissed. The proceedings dragged on into 1869, but Davis himself was only in the courtroom on two separate days.

Davis was captured by troops and held at a military base (Fort Monroe) in a state (Virginia) under martial law. Had he been linked to the Lincoln assassination, his trial would have taken place before a military tribunal, but the fabricated case connecting him to the assassination (the primary informant was convicted of perjury) fell apart before Davis was charged. The government soon decided that any trial for treason would have to be in a civil court, and in Virginia, the base of Davis' alleged treasonable activities, directing armed rebellion against the United States. Neither John C. Underwood, circuit court judge for the District of Virginia, nor Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, who presided over the circuit including the Virginia district, felt he had any authority as long as Davis was held by the military. Chase in particular wanted to avoid such dangerous legal waters, and he continued to find excuses to avoid hearing the case. Underwood's competence was questionable, and he was known to be overly zealous (he had bragged to a congressional committee in 1866 that he could pack a jury to insure a conviction), so Chase's presence was essential for a respectable verdict.

Because of the issues of military control of Davis' imprisonment, Chase refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus in June 1866, but almost a year later, in conjuction with an order to the military authorities from the president, a writ of habeas corpus brought Davis to Richmond to be transferred to the authority of the federal courts. He appeared before Underwood on May 13, 1867, bail was set at $100,000, and the bond was immediately posted. "Deafening applause" broke out in the courtroom when Davis was freed. Horace Greeley, one of a growing number of northerners who wanted the case settled so the country could get on with the healing process, had secured backing for the bond and personally guaranteed a quarter of it. He was in the courtroom that day and met Davis after his release.

After half a year with his family in Canada, Davis returned to Richmond in November 1867 for what was supposed to be the beginning of the trial. Court convened on the 26th, but Chase was not present, and the government asked for a postponement. Davis was released on his own recognizance, and the defense asked that some sort of consideration be given him so he would not be "subjected to a renewal of the inconvenience" of making the trip to Richmond if a trial was not going to be held. As it turned out, Davis would not have to appear in court again during any of the subsequent proceedings.

As time passed, many elements changed, and so did the players. U.S. attorneys general came and went (three different men were involved in the Davis case). Andrew Johnson was impeached and nearly convicted. And the 14th Amendment was passed and ratified. Johnson began to fear that if Davis were tried and acquitted--a very real possibility with a Virginia jury--he (Johnson) would be impeached again and removed from office. For a variety of reasons, no significant action was taken until after the 1868 election.

In an unusual twist, Chase made known to Davis' attorneys, a distinguished group of northern and southern litigators, his opinion that the third section of the 14th Amendment nullified the indictment against Davis. His contention was that by stripping the right to vote from high Confederate officials, a punishment for treasonable activities had been legislated, so Davis could not be punished again for the same crime. Davis' friends reminded his lawyers that Davis (who was in Europe and out of telegraphic range) wanted a trial because he saw it as an opportunity to vindicate both himself and the actions of the Confederacy, i.e. the constitutional right to secede. Davis' lawyers, however, pointed out that Davis' life was at stake, and there was a general agreement that they could not pass up the opportunity to arrange what they believed to be an honorable settlement. One of the attorneys later wrote Davis that the defense team also felt that if they could establish a precedent based on the 14th Amendment, it would lift the threat of prosecution for other Confederate leaders as well.

On November 30, 1868, Davis' lawyers filed a motion requiring that the government attorneys show cause why the indictment (the latest of at least four indictments which had been handed down with the same charge--another long story) should not be quashed. A hearing on the motion was held before Chase and Underwood on December 3-4, and on the 5th they announced their finding. The vote was split--Chase favoring laying aside the indictment, and Underwood, who had overseen the grand juries responsible for the indictment, wanting the case to be tried. Chase's anger with Underwood was obvious, and he stated for the record why he believed the 14th Amendment exempted Davis from further prosecution.

The certificate of division between Chase and Underwood was forwarded to the Supreme Court, and the indictment technically remained pending, but there would be no more action taken. It was clear that Chase would favor overturning a guilty verdict, making the government hesitant to proceed. The Davis case remained on the circuit court docket for February 15, 1869, but the government indicated at that time that it would not prosecute (nolle prosequi). The indictment was, therefore, dismissed, as were indictments against thirty-seven other ex-Confederates, including Robert E. Lee. Davis' lawyers contacted the Justice Department to make sure that other indictments against him in Washington and Tennessee were not going to be prosecuted.

The full story of the case remains to be told, but there are a couple of articles which provide good background information. Eberhard P. Deutsch, "United States v. Jefferson Davis: Constitutional Issues in the Trial for Treason," American Bar Association Journal, 52 (Feb. and March 1966): 139-45, 263-68, deals with the legal matters of the case. Roy F. Nichols, "United States vs. Jefferson Davis, 1865-1869," American Historical Review, 31(Jan. 1926): 266-84, covers many of the political issues involved. Bradley T. Johnson's detailed court record is reprinted in Davis, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist, edited by Dunbar Rowland (10 vols., 1923), 7:138-227. No work has been done on public perception of the case in North and South. The involvement of influential northerners, with Horace Greeley at the center of activity, was a major factor in what transpired. There is also much left to be written about the maneuvering of Chase, Johnson, and the Justice Department.

http://hnn.us/articles/508.html

The problem of Davis, however, still remained. He was in custody, accused of guilt in the assassination conspiracy by Holt, with the judge advocate general logically maintaining that Davis should be charged with treason, tried before a military commission, and a date with the gallows the logical outcome.

According to historian William Hanchett in his book, The Lincoln Conspiracy Murders, "While it is unlikely that Holt doubted for a moment that Davis and the others were guilty, as charged, he and Stanton were too able and experienced to fail to recognize that the evidence presented at the conspiracy trial was not proof of guilt but only hearesay and that it was only as credible as the eyewitnesses who gave it."

As a result, on July 21st, a mere two weeks after Mrs. Surratt and the others were hanged for conspiring to assassinate Lincoln with Booth, Davis, and other Confederate leaders, the government decided to charge Davis with treason and not assassination. What's more, it determined that Davis would be tried in a civil court rather than a military one, with even Stanton voting in favor.

Jefferson Davis was eventually released from prison on bail in May of 1867 and never brought to trial. The tide had shifted, with the preoccupation of the Republican-dominated Congress moving from punishing Davis to removing Johnson from office.

A month later, John Surratt, who had been serving as a zouave in the papal guard at the Vatican before being turned over to the United States government, stood trial for murder for his alleged involvement with Booth in the plot to assassinate Lincoln. It was a trial before a civil court and in many respects a replay of the case against Mrs. Surratt, the first woman ever executed by the United States government. Her son was acquitted, with eight jurors reportedly in favor of a not guilty verdict and the other four against.

The proclamation of May 2nd, signed by President Johnson, charging Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders with involvement in the plot to assassinate President Lincoln was never revoked.

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

You seem unaware that a military trial was held and 8 people were convicted.

I can understand why you are unwilling to post the charges and specifications. They spell out the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory.

SOURCE: Pitman Transcript, pp. 18-19

CHARGE AND SPECIFICATION
AGAINST
DAVID E. HEROLD, GEORGE A. ATZERODT, LEWIS PAYNE, MICHAEL O'LAUGHLIN, EDWARD SPANGLER, SAMUEL ARNOLD, MARY E. SURRATT, AND SAMUEL A. MUDD.
CHARGE. -- For maliciously, unlawfully, and traitorously, and in aid of the then existing armed rebellion against the United States of America, on or before the 6th day of March, A. D. 1865, and on divers other days between that day and the 15th day of April, A. D. 1865, combining, confederating, and conspiring together with one John H. Surratt, John Wilkes Booth, Jefferson Davis, George N. Sanders, Beverly Tucker, Jacob Thompson, William C. Cleary, Clement C. Clay, George Harper, George Young, and others unknown, to kill and murder, within the Military Department of Washington, and within the fortified and intrenched lines thereof, Abraham Lincoln, late, and at the time of said combining, confederating, and conspiring, President of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof; Andrew Johnson, now Vice-president of the United States aforesaid; William H. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States aforesaid; and Ulysses S. Grant, Lieutenant-General of the Army of the United States aforesaid, then in command of the Armies of the United States, under the direction of the said Abraham Lincoln; and in pursuance of and in prosecuting said malicious, unlawful, and traitorous conspiracy aforesaid, and in aid of said rebellion, afterward, to-wit, on the 14th day of April, A. D. 1865, within the Military Department of Washington aforesaid, and within the fortified and intrenched lines of said Military Department, together with said John Wilkes Booth and John H. Surratt, maliciously, unlawfully, and traitorously murdering the said Abraham Lincoln, then President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, as aforesaid; and maliciously, unlawfully, and traitorously assaulting, with intent to kill and murder, the said William H. Seward, then Secretary of State of the United States, as aforesaid; and lying in wait with intent maliciously, unlawfully, and traitorously to kill and murder the said Andrew Johnson, then being Vice-President of the United States; and the said Ulysses S. Grant, then being Lieutenant-General, and in command of the Armies of the United States, as aforesaid.

Bear in mind that the military tribunal returned CONVICTIONS for that insane rant.

Congress never authorized the tribunal. It was authorized by a presidential proclamation. The civilian courts were open and functioning.

In a civilian court, the prosecution of John H. Surratt failed miserably.

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

Your inability to rebut anything I wrote is noted.

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

I posted historical facts. Here they are again. Deal with it.

[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.

[ftD] So with Federal forts under siege the President needs to wait until he gets the call from either an associate or district judge before he can act to maintain the Constitution?

That is what the text posted by NON-SEQUITUR says. Of course, I take no responsibility for the validity of idiocies posted by the Brigade Minister of Propaganda. But if he wants to post that text, I am willing to go along with the joke and inquire about the notification requirement inherent to the text that he posted.

[NON-SEQUITUR #638] [ LINK ]

And it continues:
"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."

FROM THE ABOVE TEXT PROVIDED BY NON-SEQUITUR:

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

IT IS NON-SEQUITUR AND HIS BRAIN-DEAD, IGNORANT POST WHICH CLAIMS THAT "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"

I'm just going along with the joke posted by the Minister of Propaganda. According to NON-SEQUITUR #638, there was a requirement of POTUS being notified by an associate justice or the district judge.

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.