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.

Actually their unilateral acts of secession did violate the Constitution, as the Supreme Court determined.

1. Every ratification and secession is necessarily "unilateral". Pretending that "unilateral" acts are somehow illegitimate acts is just a clever way of impugning the People's just powers.

2. Supraconstitutional acts like ratification and secession are not Constitutionally bound. The States -- the People -- may do as they please.

3. Ratification and secession acts cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court; they are ultra vires that court, and are in fact instruction sets to that court. It is for the Supreme Court to listen and obey, not the People.

Therefore, the States did not "violate" the Constitution in making secession their remedy for an untenable position. Any Supreme Court opinion to the contrary is null and void on its face, just as a decree cancelling elections or pretending to overturn the First Amendment would be.

Nevertheless, slavery was the single overarching issue seperating north from south.

Not quite correct. Slavery was the wedge issue, a moral issue used by Northern Whig and Republican politicians to split the Democratic Party on sectional lines and to split off the agrarian Midwest from the agrarian South.

It dominated the decision on states coming into the union and the issue over which side, slave or free, would have dominance.

Partly true -- whether a new State permitted slavery was a pretty good indicator of which bloc in Congress it would adhere to. John Quincy Adams and the Federalist/Whig bloc kept Texas out of the Union for 10 years for that very reason.

If you look at virtually every conflict between north and south 40 years prior to the war it is slavery which is at the heart of the conflict.

That's incorrect. The Nullification Crisis of the 1830's was precipitated by regional bad feeling over the Tariff of Abominations of 1828. That crisis was all about money.

Fact is, without slavery there would never have been a civil war.

Without the Big Bang, there would never have been a Civil War, either. Slavery was a factor in the Civil War, which was nevertheless a leadership struggle and a battle among proud and ruthless men over political power and which States got to stick it to which other States. The triumph of Republicanism put the whole country on a timeclock and made its people thralls, in one way or another, to the private interests of the few, and the political power that rested on those interests.

Every ratification and secession is necessarily "unilateral". Pretending that "unilateral" acts are somehow illegitimate acts is just a clever way of impugning the People's just powers.

Why were the only 'people' allowed a say in this the ones in the rebelling states? The southern were walking away from obligations like the national debt, taking with them federal facilities which belonged to the nation as a whole. And the people in the remaining states had no say in the matter. Why not?

Supraconstitutional acts like ratification and secession are not Constitutionally bound. The States -- the People -- may do as they please.

Nonsense. The states were bound by the Constitution, which did not specify any 'supraconstitutional' acts. And far from 'doing as they please', the Constitution, that the states either ratified or else agreed to abide by when they were allowed to join the Union, is full of actions both explicit and implicit that the states are forbidden.

Ratification and secession acts cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court; they are ultra vires that court, and are in fact instruction sets to that court. It is for the Supreme Court to listen and obey, not the People.

Absolute, utter bullshit.

More of the same.

[Me] Every ratification and secession is necessarily "unilateral". Pretending that "unilateral" acts are somehow illegitimate acts is just a clever way of impugning the People's just powers.

[You, replying] Why were the only 'people' allowed a say in this the ones in the rebelling states?

Because it's a State decision that the People in each community have to make for themselves, for better or worse. They couldn't make the decision to ratify in 1787-91 for one another, and they couldn't deliberate secession jointly in 1860, and in fact they talked to one another, but took their decisions separately.

The southern were walking away from obligations like the national debt, taking with them federal facilities which belonged to the nation as a whole.

One, they were also walking away from fantastic resources in mining and agriculture. They capitulated the debate over planters' rights to emigrate to the Territories and left millions of acres to the Northern freeholders (which would be my preferred outcome anyway, by the way), as well as fabulously rich mines in Colorado and Montana and big oil fields from the Rockies to the Williston Basin. What was all that worth?

Two, there was a provisional attempt to begin negotiating these matters, which was blocked by Lincoln. He did not want to be seen to give the slightest recognition to the Southern States except on their bellies. Lincoln's policy was that there was to be no discussion with the Southern States.

And the people in the remaining states had no say in the matter. Why not?

Well, they did, but only for each of their own States. They had no right or power to accept an amendment to the Constitution for another State, or to ratify the Constitution for another State, or to forbid another State to ratify or amend, or to secede.

At the end of the day, you have to concede people what is theirs. If you don't, you are robbing them.

[Me] Ratification and secession acts cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court; they are ultra vires that court, and are in fact instruction sets to that court. It is for the Supreme Court to listen and obey, not the People.

[You] Absolute, utter bullshit.

Why is it bullshit for the People to own the Courts, and not the other way around? Why do the People have to look up to the Court's tribunal from their knees, when they own the entire Republic?

When the People amend the Constitution, does the Court have the authority to interpose? Have you ever heard (yet -- don't worry, it will come) of an attempt by the U.S. Supreme Court to nullify an amendment to the Constitution, analogous to the court nullification of Colorado's Proposition 2 several years ago? No. Through the amendment process, their untrammeled power to ratify amendments, the People hold absolute sway over the Courts, as I said, and could abolish the entire court system with the stroke of a pen if they wished. That is the true relationship.

On the other hand, you haven't yet shown me authority conferred in the Constitution or anywhere else, that would make the U.S. Government the Sovereign over the People of the United States.

You may not know the footman and the chambermaid, and you may not know the cook, but you damn sure have to know the relationship.

Because it's a State decision that the People in each community have to make for themselves, for better or worse.

So you are saying that even when the decision has a negative impact on the interests of another state, the people have no say in that action?

One, they were also walking away from fantastic resources in mining and agriculture.

Oh nonsense. Whatever resources they had within their borders they were taking with them. We're not talking about assets in other states, we're talking about obligations entered into by the nation as a whole while they were part of it, and of physical property owned by 'the people' in their status as citizens of the United States. Since the southern states were prepared to walk away from the debt and take what they wanted in terms of community property then why didn't the people of the remaining states have a say in the matter?

Complete bullshit yet again. In the first place, those alleged offers came after the fact, after the south had walked away from its obligations and after they had appropriated what they wanted. The time for negotiations was before the split where everyone's concerns could be addressed. Having walked out and taken what they wanted what guarantee did the North have of good faith negotiations? And in the second place, those negotiators were there for one reason, to obtain recognition of confederate independence. Any other vague offer to discuss 'issues of concern' were predicated on recognition.

So according to you they had the right to sit back and watch themselves be cut off from access to the ocean, for example, but no right to have a say in the action that cut them off? Once again, in your world only 'the people' of the southern states had rights. The other's had none.

So you are saying that even when the decision has a negative impact on the interests of another state, the people have no say in that action?

The People of the other State don't, no, no more that any State has a say in the election of other States' officials. I don't steal from you and you don't steal from me, and I don't ratify for you and you don't ratify for me.

[You, quoting me] One, they were also walking away from fantastic resources in mining and agriculture.

[You, retorting] Oh nonsense. Whatever resources they had within their borders they were taking with them.

No, I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about the Territories and their undeveloped assets. Other than a lot of oil and some coal and a little bit of iron, lignite, and bauxite, the mineral resources of the South are exiguous. But be that as it may, of course the South was taking their own territory and resources with them -- they owned it.

You had made an equity point with reference to community property -- United States property -- in the South and the national debt. I replied clearly to that point, that it was negotiable, but Lincoln would not negotiate.

[You, shifting your ground] We're not talking about assets in other states, we're talking about obligations entered into by the nation as a whole while they were part of it, and of physical property owned by 'the people' in their status as citizens of the United States.

Yes, that's right, and my point was that Southern dollars as much as anyone's paid for the Louisiana Purchase, most of which was going to wind up in the hands of the Northern States. You seem to want to share the debt obligations, while ignoring the natural treasurehouse that the Territories represented.

All of that was subject to some sort of negotiation, mediation, and arbitration, eventually.

Since the southern states were prepared to walk away from the debt and take what they wanted in terms of community property then why didn't the people of the remaining states have a say in the matter?

One, they weren't necessarily walking away from the debt. They didn't "take what they wanted" in "community property", they conscribed the federal government facilities to the State governments. They didn't take over any federal facilities in Ohio, but gave up ownership interests in all federal property outside the South, which was absolutely massive holdings of land, timber, and so on.

You can't make the South's secession into a big federal bank robbery, so just give it up. Your characterization of it as such is just so much old Unionist rodomontade warmed over and served up as a fresh prosecution brief against free people's decision, freely taken, to leave the Union and do something else.

I get the impression that you are trying -- as the Unionists did in 1861 -- to work up a good head of indignant steam and use it to justify the national equivalent of going over to your ex-wife's house and shooting her because you found out she'd taken the family flatware.

The issue isn't the property, is it? It's the fact that they left. And now you have to justify beating them to a bloody pulp for having inconvenienced you by thinking they were free.

Why is it bullshit for the People to own the Courts, and not the other way around? Why do the People have to look up to the Court's tribunal from their knees, when they own the entire Republic?

Becuase the Constitution, which they agreed to abide by, gives jurisdiction on matters of law and equity arrising under the Constitution to the Supreme Court. And that extended to matters between the citizens of several states or matters where the United States is a party. To the Supreme Court. Not the state courts, not to you, not to the mob, but to the Supreme Court.

When the People amend the Constitution, does the Court have the authority to interpose?

No, because the grounds for amending the Constitution are clearly contained in the document itself.

Through the amendment process, their untrammeled power to ratify amendments, the People hold absolute sway over the Courts, as I said, and could abolish the entire court system with the stroke of a pen if they wished. That is the true relationship.

It would take more than 'a stroke of a pen'. It would take a two thirds vote in both houses of congress and the approval of three forths of the states. In short, it would take the approval of an overwhelming majority of the people. The southern states acted without the concerns of the people.

On the other hand, you haven't yet shown me authority conferred in the Constitution or anywhere else, that would make the U.S. Government the Sovereign over the People of the United States.

The people of the United States? What do you care about the people of the United States? Did you care about them when the people of Louisiana were seceding, taking forts and facilities with them, and cutting off access to the sea for people in the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys? Did you care about the people of the United States when the seven states were walking away from the obligations that they had incurred when they were part of the people of the United States? Hell, no. In your world the states are supreme, then the people. Or at least some of the people. Your sudden interest in the people of the United States is laughable.

In the first place, those alleged offers came after the fact, after the south had walked away from its obligations and after they had appropriated what they wanted.

I take it that you construe the South's primary "obligation" to have been to remain in the Union as a good little meat-puppet for the Yankee merchant interest to gnaw on? To be dominated and smothered by the North? Yes, I thought so.

The time for negotiations was before the split where everyone's concerns could be addressed.

Poisonous advice, poisonously offered. The Southerners knew exactly what Lincoln would do if elected. If they didn't leave before he was inaugurated, they'd have all received the same treatment Maryland and Missouri got -- Northern troops in their cities, citizens shot down in the street, their leading men arrested on political charges and thrown into federal fortresses. The Southerners were educated men; they knew about the feeding habits of tyranny, and they were correct in their estimate of Lincoln, that he would attempt to crush them with menaces or with violence, no matter whether they stayed or left.

With the election of a factional tyrant acting by and for his faction, it was all over for the old Republic, as far as the South was concerned -- one way or another, they were going to be crushed, beaten down, dominated and colonized.

And I'm not just talking about fear-fantasies: that is exactly what happened to Maryland and Missouri, campaigns that Lincoln had in hand well before his inauguration, as shown by the activities of the Wide Awakes and the "Home Guards" in Missouri.

Having walked out and taken what they wanted what guarantee did the North have of good faith negotiations?

Well, they had title to all the Territories, for one thing, including New Mexico and Arizona, without which the Confederacy would never have had a chance to extend to the West Coast.

And in the second place, those negotiators were there for one reason, to obtain recognition of confederate independence.

If you say so. Lincoln sure was determined to deny them that, wasn't he?

Any other vague offer to discuss 'issues of concern' were predicated on recognition.

Of course. Because nonrecognition meant Lincoln intended war, in which case there would have been nothing to discuss, anyway.

Your analogy is way off the mark. What a state does within it's borders is its own business. But when a state's actions impact the interests and well being of those in other states then the people in those states should have a say in the matter. Yet you would deny them that.

No, I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about the Territories and their undeveloped assets. Other than a lot of oil and some coal and a little bit of iron, lignite, and bauxite, the mineral resources of the South are exiguous. But be that as it may, of course the South was taking their own territory and resources with them -- they owned it.

What's your's is your's and what everybody else has is your's too? Is that it? Well then if the wealth of the territories in on the table, then the wealth of the seceding states should be on the table, too. The south was denying the rest of the country the wealth from cotton and tobacco and rice and the rest. The south owned whatever property it had within it's borders. That ownership did not extend to federal facilities. And just because the south was walking away from whatever benefit the country as a whole might gain from the territories did not give it the right to take whatever else it wanted without negotiation.

No, you ignored the fact that it was a vague offer made after the south had seized property and repudiated obligations. What person in their right mind would consider that a serious offer? You take, and then offer to pay for? You leave, and then offer to settle obligations? Would you handle your personal transactions in such a manner?

All of that was subject to some sort of negotiation, mediation, and arbitration, eventually.

When? A year after the fact? Ten years afer the fact? Whenever the south felt like it? Again, the proper time for negotiation was before the southern states left and not after.

They didn't "take what they wanted" in "community property", they conscribed the federal government facilities to the State governments.

They seized federal property illegally. Why not call it what it was? Theft.

This from the man who has been in an arm waving, mouth foaming, name calling rage all afternoon? And let me point out that in addition to stealing the family flatware, the spouse took a shot at us on the way out the door.

The issue isn't the property, is it? It's the fact that they left.

No, it's the fact that they tried to leave illegally.

And now you have to justify beating them to a bloody pulp for having inconvenienced you by thinking they were free.

If you want to use the fight anaolgy, then if you're going to throw the first punch you can't count on the other guy throwing a punch in return. And when you pick a fight, don't be disappointed if you lose. Even if it results in your being beaten to a bloody pulp.

the Constitution, which they agreed to abide by, gives jurisdiction on matters of law and equity arrising under the Constitution to the Supreme Court.

It sure does. Operative word, "under". Not everything is "under" the Constitution. The People can convene at any time, with or without their legislatures or the national legislature's acting, to unmake the Constitution -- everyone recognizes this. If all the people in America were determined to abolish the Constitution, they could do it, even if their legislators didn't cooperate. The logical sequel being, that they have a power superordinating the Constitution, in order to operate on the Constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution could never be amended.

People, up here. Constitution, down there. Supreme Court, somewhere below that.

And that extended to matters between the citizens of several states or matters where the United States is a party. To the Supreme Court. Not the state courts, not to you, not to the mob, but to the Supreme Court.

Oh, so now the People are "the mob"? Smoking you out, am I?

Ah, yes, the Supreme Court -- with Salmon P. Chase and four other Lincoln-appointed justices sitting up there, Chase with the presentation gavel in his hand, lovingly inscribed, "With complete confidence that you will catch our backs, A. Lincoln."

Yeah, right.

Well, for one thing, as I explained above, the People themselves and their superordinating power over the Constitution, which is a reserved power, by the way -- you didn't think we weren't going to talk about reserved powers, did you? -- are absolutely ultra vires, no matter what commercial disputes over frozen chickens the Court might be called on to referee among citizens of various States.

You're correct in this, that as long as a State is in the Union, they are under the Constitution and can't not be under it and must abide by the Supremacy Clause. But you have no tool and no document with which to strip the People of a State of their reserved power, their right, to take their State out of the Union if they wish.

If they can't, then the People are not sovereign, and somebody else is. If the Supreme Court be invested with the powers you say it has, to unmake plebiscites and set the will of the People at defiance, then by operation of logic, the Supreme Court is the Sovereign of the United States, and "the laws of England are in my mouth," as the bard once wrote.

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.