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.

[ftD] And you see the problem with declaring a blockade? One cannot blockade ones own country either.

[Non-Sequitur] No, I'm afraid I don't. While blockades are subject to some international law, I'm not aware of any international law or treaty in effect at the time that said blockades were only allowed on sovereign nations. The U.S. had the right to control its own ports in any way it determined was necessary. Lincoln made clear the reasons for his actions, as a tool to combat the rebellion. He did nothing illegal.

Declaring a "blockade" (an international act) rather than a "closing of the ports" (a national act) was not unlawful. However, it incurred a political problem. Declaring a blockade recognized the CSA as a separate power and undermined the goverment's legal fiction that there was no second power.

LINCOLN GOOFED AND PROCLAIMED A BLOCKADE

Lincoln goofed. However unintentionally, he proclaimed the international act of a blockade. The international community responded with a chorus of declarations of neutrality. By definition, a declaration of neutrality applies to the relations of the declaring state relative to two or more other states. In this case, the two states were the USA and the CSA.

Lincoln declared "a blockade of the ports" and referred to "the blockading vessels." The British government immediately declared neutrality. These proclamations were performed under international law as it existed at the time of declaration. By definition, a declaration of neutrality does not apply to purely internal conflicts (civil wars) but only between states.

Belligerency. In international law, the status of de facto statehood attributed to a body of insurgents, by which their hostilities are legalized. The international status assumed by a state (i.e. nation) which wages war against another state. Quality of being belligerent; status of a belligerent; act or state of waging war; warfare.
Belligerent. In international law, as an adjective, it means engaged in lawful war. As a noun, it designates either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively co-operating, as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a "neutral."
Black's Law Dictionary, 6 Ed., 1990.

NEUTRALITY, international law. The state of a nation which takes no part between two or more other nations at war with each other.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition

Now observe how that internationally accepted definition of "neutrality" changed duiring the century and a half following the release of that edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

NEUTRALITY, The state of a nation which takes no part between two or more other nations at war.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 1990

And here is an up-to-date source on International Law and Neutrality

http://www.eda.admin.ch/sub_dipl/e/home/thema/intlaw/neutr.html
1. Definition and characteristics
The term "neutrality" is defined by the international community as non-participation in armed conflicts between other states. A distinction must be made however between the law of neutrality and the policy of neutrality.
The law of neutrality is the area of international law that contains the provisions that must be observed by the neutral states in times of international armed conflict and the provisions that the parties of the conflict must observe in the same context. For the most part these concern the right of the neutral states to be left undisturbed during such conflicts and their obligations of impartiality and non-participation. In practice such obligations do not interfere greatly with the freedom of action of neutral states. The sources of the international law of neutrality are customary international law on the one hand, and the 1907 neutrality agreements of the Hague on the other (SR 0.515.21). The law of neutrality is applicable only in conflicts between states, and not in purely internal conflicts (e.g. civil wars). Neither does the law of neutrality apply when the United Nations decide on coercive measures against a lawbreaker in order to maintain international peace and security.

"The law of neutrality is applicable only in conflicts between states, and not in purely internal conflicts (e.g. civil wars)." That just about sums up what Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles said in 1861.

When the war was almost over, the U.S. Government essentially admitted its diplomatic error and corrected it by announcing a closing of the ports -- on April 11, 1865. At the time of this proclamation, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles said: "This was a step which I had earnestly pressed at the beginning of the rebellion, as a domestic measure, and more legitimate than a blockade, which was international, and an admission that we were two nations."

The British declaration of neutrality (and all other such declarations of neutrality declared by other nations) recognized the CSA as an independent nation, flowing from Lincoln's proclamation of a blockade which proclaimed to the world that the CSA was a separate nation. In international parlance, a nation can close its own ports but cannot blockade itself.

[4CJ] The penalty for treason was death, not imprisonment.

[Non-Sequitur] OK, so if they tried Davis they might have hanged him. Lucky for him that 14th Amendment was passed, wasn't it?

As the Davis case proceeded, one charge or indictment would be dropped and replaced by another. Imposition of death penalty assumes the case wound up being charged as treason under the Constitution. J.W. Schuckers, in his bio of Chief Justice Chase, asserts it was under a Federal act which carried a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and 10 thousand dollars fine.

The Life and Public Services of Salmon Portland Chase
by J.W. Schuckers, 1874
D. Appleton and Company, New York
Reprinted by Menmosyne Publishing Co., Inc. Miami, Florida
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 73-89432
Page 534

Not long after, he was indicted in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for the crime of high-treason; but Jefferson Davis had not committed the crime of high-treason in the District of Columbia, and, although some public men held that the commander-in-chief of the rebel armies was constructively present with all the insurgents who prosecuted war in Northern States and in the District where the indictment was found, the Government abandoned the doctrine of constructive presence as unconstitutional, and advised that the proper place for trial was Virginia.
Accordingly, at the May term (1866) of the District Court of the United States for that State, Jefferson Davis was indicted -- not for the crime of high-treason -- but that, "owing allegiance and fidelity to the United States of America, and not having the fear of God before his eyes, nor weighing the duty of his allegiance, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil; and wickedly devising and intending the peace and tranquillity of the United States to disturb, and the government of the United states to subvert, he" did, in order to effect his "traitorous compassings, imaginings and intentions," "on the 5th day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four, in the city of Richmond, in the county of Henrico and District of Virginia .... with a great multitude .... to the number of five hundred persons and upward, armed and arrayed in a warlike manner, that is to say, with cannons, muskets, pistols, swords, dirks, and other warlike weapons .... most wickedly, maliciously, and traitorously ordain, prepare, levy and carry on war against the United States, contrary to the duty of allegiance and fidelity of said Jefferson Davis" to the Constitution and the Government, and the peace and dignity of the United States.
If convicted of the offenses charged in this indictment, Jefferson Davis might be fined any sum not exceeding ten thousand dollars or be imprisoned not exceeding ten years, or both! [fn 1]
-----
[fn 1] The indictment against Davis was found under the act of Congress of July 17, 1862; and Judge Field, of the U.S. Supreme Court in the "Chapman case," determined at San Francisco, held that participation in rebellion after the passage of that act, as was charged against Davis, was punishable as I have stated in the text.

The Act under which Shuckers claims Davis was indicted.

CHAP. CXCV. -- An Act to suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for other Purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That every person who shall hereafter commit the crime of treason against the United States, and shall be adjudged guilty thereof, shall suffer death, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free; or, at the discretion of the court, he shall be imprisoned for not less than five years and fined not less than ten thousand dollars, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free; said fine shall be levied and collected on any or all of the property, real and personal, excluding slaves, of which the said person so convicted was the owner at the time of committing the said crime, any sale or conveyance to the contrary notwithstanding.
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That every person guilty of either of the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and disqualified to hold any office under the United States.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall not be construed in any way to affect or alter the prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person or persons guilty of treason against the United States before the passage of this act, unless such person is convicted under this act.

LINK

When Salmon P Chase was Secretary of the Treasury he had been accused of being lax in the way he handled the cotton permits which allowed some trading with the south to keep the cotton mills in the north active. The capture of a Confederate blockade runner in 1864 threatened to discredit Chase who had just been appointed Chief Justice and Lincoln would have suffered from the scandal; Chases son-in-law Senator William Sprague of Rhode Island was implicated in a scheme of running guns through though Texas where they were exchanged for cotton for Spragues cotton mill back in Cranston, Rhode Island. The act if true would have been treason. Stanton for the sake of his party, Lincoln and his friend Chase, hushed the matter and the damning evidence disappeared from the War Department.

I N C O M I N G ! ! !

[ftD #708] So, the President must wait for formal notification while guns are being pointed at US forts, and other federal installations are being taken over? Do you work for the ACLU?

Oh well, I suppose I can go along with your ACLU joke as well as the one foisted upon you and capitan_refugio.

The parties are:

nolu chan, the party of the first part, Heavenly Endowed Regimental Officer of Truth, hereinafter referred to as HERO of Truth.
Non-Sequitur, the party of the second part, hereinafter referred to as BOZO #1.
fortheDeclaration, the party of the third part, hereinafter referred to as BOZO #2.
capitan_refugio, the party of the fourth part, hereinafter referred to as BOZO #3.

The HERO of Truth, at #617, properly identified the Militia Act of 1795 and correctly quoted Section 1 of said Act, which explicitly addresses invasion and insurrection.

BOZO #1 responded at #620:

LINK

To: nolu chan
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."
[Hero of Truth: boldface added]

BOZO #1 repeated his quote of "Section 2" with his #638.

BOZO #2 joined in at #642, and reached the summit of his legal and academic achievement at #708, quoted supra.

BOZO #3 joined the chorus with his #652 and #656.

Now BOZOS #1, #2, and #3 were singing in three part harmony.

BOZO #1, at his #709 to BOZO #2, stated, "Oh just wait. Somewhere along the way Nolu Chan (sic - nolu chan) will say something that will drop your jaw even farther and get your head to shaking yet again. When it comes to idiotic theories, the southron contingent have a seemingly limitless supply."

The HERO of TRUTH included the following disclaimers in his accurate posts.

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.
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.

BOZO #1, at his #620 and #638 wrote to nolu chan, "You forgot Section 2" and he proceeded to quote the BOZO #1 version of Section 2 of the Militia Act of 1795.

Although I have corrected this error many, many times in the past, BOZO #1 selected and posted text from the Militia Act of 1792, not the Militia Act of 1795. The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed in 1795, that being 209 years ago.

"Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That the act, entitled "An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," passed the second day of May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, shall be and the same is hereby repealed."

And so it came to pass that BOZO #2 and BOZO #3 were high-fiving and backslapping BOZO #1 for posting invalid and misidentified text from an Act that was repealed 209 years ago. And they joined together, in a Brigade display of legal and academic expertise, singing their praises in three-part harmony.

And so passed another episode in the life of the Bozo Brigade.

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.