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?

[wardaddy]

IL, OH and IN never had slaves,

well,

Human slavery had been installed within the borders of what now is the state of Illinois by the early French colonizers in the eighteenth century. Amazingly, the institution was never legally abolished before 1818 under French, British, or American administrations. During the American territorial administration, slaves had been brought into the Illinois by some of the most prominent officials of the territory and state, and remained in bondage until and after the admission of the state into the Union. To understand why the institution remained in existence for such a long period of time, the patterns of migration which brought the vast majority of European settlers to Illinois must be understood. The great majority of the residents of the state who arrived before statehood in 1818 came from slave-holding states located below the Ohio River. These settlers were accustomed to and comfortable with the terms of the institution of human slavery. Therefore, there was no attempt or even a thought to abolish slavery before the territory became a state. Those who held slaves and brought them to Illinois favored and encouraged the system while the majority of those people without slaves tolerated the system. In fact, during territorial days, the issue did not become a vital question of subject of controversy for the citizens living within the future borders of Illinois.

Even though the prohibition of slavery in the Northwest Ordinance seems clear, it must be emphasized that this provision did not affect slaves already living in the territory and did not prevent some slaveholders from bringing slaves into Indiana and Illinois territories. In parts of the Old Northwest, there was strong pressure for slavery. In 1802, a convention in Indiana Territory asked Congress to allow slaves to be brought into the region. Later, an indentured servant act allowed de facto slavery in the territory. It was only in 1823 that Illinois defeated the efforts of a proslavery party. These antislavery victories drew heavily on the precedent of the Ordinance of 1787.

http://www.bccns.com/history_slavery.html (Canada slaves)

I have always been of the opinion that the North never took to slaves like the South simply for one reason....they simply did not work well there...no Cotton, Indigo, Rice or SugarCane and these new Ibos and Yorubas and Coramatees did not much cotton to the cold. Course...both north and south had tried Injun slaves aplenty but the Red Man was less pliant.

Do-goodery only ever counted for the abolitionists and it was a self virtue enhancing moral superiority thing...not unlike today's lefties. Praise murdering John Brown, scold the South, meanwhile commit genocide against the Indig Indians with glee and rationalization aplenty. Southerners have never cornered the market on rationalization.

Funny how history repeats isn't it? We still loathe Yankees preaching to us down here or moving here to force on us their "ways" they purport to have escaped from.

Alas...it should also be noted that plenty of Yankees came south during the antebellum days to plunder white gold from the slave's sweat....even old Roundheads.

I have a new book about Lost Mansions of Mississippi...one really has to study these things to see what a long lasting upheaval the war had on this region for all down here and it is still in high frequency doppler even now. Like Mississippi....40% black....down there, it actually matters a whole lot how blacks vote and govern. It's more than just a well intentioned ideal...it has real ramifications.

The solid South means the white Solid South obviously...and a handful of brave blacks. Course 40% of them voted to keep the MISS flag....I think they resent Yankees too a bit..lol

Sorry for rambling.

[WKB]

Sorry for rambling.


That'a OK we're used to it. :>)

[x]

Slavery was officially abolished in the United States when the 13th Amendment was passed in 1868.

The 13th Amendment was ratified and became law by 6 December 1865. In 1859 or 1860 slavery was firmly established in a large part of the United States, by 1866 it was gone. That was quite an achievement. I certainly wish it could have been accomplished without war, but it won't do to minimize or demean what was done.

Lincoln couldn't free all the slaves by executive proclamation. That would have been unconstitutional, and would have been regarded as tyrannical, so the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to areas in rebellion against the US. It derived its legitimacy from the President's war powers, and those wouldn't have applied to areas not actively in rebellion.

But three years later, the remaining slaves in America were freed by a constitutional amendment. It was the only way it could have been done. Lincoln had pushed for it, and the Republicans urged ratification of the amendment as a tribute to him after his assassination. Well before 1865, slaveowners could see the "handwriting on the wall" and chose a side to fight on accordingly, effectively choosing slavery and rebellion or emancipation and union.

If they'd had their way, the Confederates might have waited generations before freeing all the slaves on their territory, and you complain that three years elapsed between the Emancipation Proclamation and the final emancipation of the last slaves. That looks cockeyed.

Frederick Douglass, no fan of Lincoln's, summed up: "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."

So many of the "arguments" made by defenders of the Confederacy are false or weak. People blame Lincoln for not having felt a certain way or done a certain thing at a given point in time, ignoring the real progress that he made in his lifetime, and give Confederates or Southerners an eternity to get "right" on questions like slavery, segregation or racial equality. Or they blame Northerners for having slaves in 1770 or 1820, and absolve Southerners who had slaves in 1860 and weren't going to get rid of them.

So much of the talk of "Northern hypocrisy" just amounts to Southern hypocrisy. We've had faults and weaknesses as a nation, but there's no justification for the kind of slight of hand that some people practice to make Southern slaveowners come off looking better than they should and better than their opponents.

[x]

Slavery was abolished by constitutional amendment by December 1865. The Emancipation Proclamation was justified as a war measure, but complete abolition of all slaves required a constitutional amendment, and that took time. Would you allow the Confederates a generation or two to end slavery and begrudge the Unionists three years to do so?

As it was, Southern planters tried hard to institute means of control over their labor force that came close to reestablishing slavery. I think we can understand, why, from their point of view they wanted to, or felt they had to do that. Just don't think that you can make them look better than those who actually did get rid of slavery and not have people argue with you.

If it is in fact true that no slave ever arrived under the Confederate flag, that may have something to do with the fact that the CSA was under blockade throughout its history, and had few merchant ships to spare on unnecessary operations. As for illegal slave traders, really, how large a portion of the Northern population were they? Certainly far more Southerners would have been connected with the illegal importation of slaves -- taking delivery, keeping the slaves in bondage, selling, buying and transporting slaves -- than Northerners were.

I suppose we can take some comfort in the success of many American Blacks, but the price of that shouldn't be ignoring their case against slavery or making slavery into a particularly benign institution. It wasn't simply a question of participating in slavery and the slave trade or letting slaves rot. The hated "do gooder" spirit of Britons and Americans did a lot to break up the slave trade.

And Maryland? These Border States are bleeding under Lincoln's "oppression" until you need them to make a point, in which case they become "Northern" States. If you want to argue that Marylanders were Southerners held in the union by force, it won't do to attack them for "Northern hypocrisy." But it might get us further to consider Maryland a slave state that had made the right choice, for union and in time, for emancipation.

[Non-Sequitur]

I've seen it. It was done by a Kansas University professor and has had a limited run at film festivals and the like here in the Kansas City/Lawrence area. It's a satire, not too bad but you can tell it was made on a small budget. Still, I pretty much guarantee that the southron contingent will get their shorts in a twist over it.

[Non-Sequitur]

Slavery was not the primary reason that the vast majority of people fought for the Confederacy.

But it is by far the single most important reason why their political leaders dragged them into a war in the first place.

[Non-Sequitur]

Hell, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slave in the Confederacy! Maryland was a slave state and in the Union yet they retained their slaves.

As did Missouri, Kentucky, and Delaware. Slavery wasn't unconstitutional, so only a Constitutional amendment could end it. If you read the Emancipation Proclamation you would notice that it merely freed the southern slaves, it didn't outlaw slavery. That may seem like a minor difference but what it meant was that southern slaves fleeing the confederacy wouldn't be returned to their owners as the Fugitive Slave Act required. It was also issued by Lincoln in his position as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy and as a war-time measure.

[Non-Sequitur]

Even with Robert E. Lee supporting his one slave acquired through an inheritance in retirement – the slave was too old to work – and U.S. Grant owning several slaves, people (Yankees) still insist the War of Northern Aggression was all about slavery.

You've got that backwards. Lee managed over 60 slaves left to his wife by her father, and didn't free them until December 1862. Grant owned a single slave in his life and freed him in 1859 before moving to Illinois.

And this Yankee has known for many years that the War of the Southern Rebellion wasn't about slavery. At least, not from the Northern side.

[Non-Sequitur]

Only those gullible enough (room temp IQ) to listen to the CNN/CBS/Jesse Jackass version of history ascribe to the notion that the war was fought over freeing the slaves.

And I see that you've been guzzling the Konfederate Kool-aid by the gallon.

[Non-Sequitur]

Maryland as the rest of the hypocritical North retained slaves until 1867.

Maryland amended her state constitution to end slavery effective November 1, 1864. Slavery was abolished completely in the United States once the 13th Amendment was ratified in December 1865. I have no idea where you are getting your information from.

An irony here is that no slave was ever transported under the flag of the CSA from Africa, it was all under the flag of the Union.

Slaves were imported in to the confederacy from the United States under the flag of the csa during Lee's two campaigns in the North.

[R. Scott]

You've got that backwards. Lee managed over 60 slaves left to his wife by her father, and didn't free them until December 1862. Grant owned a single slave in his life and freed him in 1859 before moving to Illinois.

From 1853-1863, Julia continued to use four slaves, whom she mentions specifically in her Memoirs. At the time, what the wife owned was the property of her husband.
What I have been able to find on Robert E. Lee concerning Lee’s management of – not ownership – of slaves:
Robert E. Lee vigorously opposed slavery and as early as 1856 made this statement: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." Lee also knew that the use of slaves was coming to an end. Cyrus McCormick’s 1831 invention of the mule-drawn mechanical reaper sounded the death knell for the use of slave labor. Before the Civil War began, 250,000 slaves had already been freed.
Robert E. Lee did not own slaves, but many Union generals did. When his father-in-law died, Lee took over the management of the plantation his wife had inherited and immediately began freeing the slaves. By the time Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, every slave in Lee’s charge had been freed. Notably, some Union generals didn’t free their slaves until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

I know, a minor technicality.

[Non-Sequitur]

From 1853-1863, Julia continued to use four slaves, whom she mentions specifically in her Memoirs. At the time, what the wife owned was the property of her husband.

True, but there is a considerable body of evidence to support the fact that the slaves were not owned by Julia Grant, but that ownership remained with her father Colonel Dent. The slaves in question remained in Missouri during periods were the Grants were living in free states. The slaves in question were freed early in 1863, the same time as Missouri records show that the rest of the Dent family slaves were emancipated, and Julia Grant is not seen with any of the slaves on visits to Grant's headquarters after 1863.

Robert E. Lee vigorously opposed slavery and as early as 1856 made this statement: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."

If you read the letter in full one would have to conclude that Lee's opposition to slavery was, at best, tepid. In his letter he opposes any attempts to end slavery by legislation, but would instead rely on the will of God to end it in His own time. Lee's views might be best compared to a woman who says that while she would never have an abortion, she does not believe that it is the government's right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body.

Lee also knew that the use of slaves was coming to an end. Cyrus McCormick’s 1831 invention of the mule-drawn mechanical reaper sounded the death knell for the use of slave labor.

Had Lee ever bothered to investigate McCormick's mechanical reaper he would no doubt have noticed that it was for use in harvesting wheat, a crop not in wide-spread cultivation in the south at the time. Harvesting cotton is a much different matter. In fact, the first successful mechanical cotton harvester was not introduced until the 1940's.

Robert E. Lee did not own slaves, but many Union generals did.

Name a couple.

[R. Scott]

…McCormick's mechanical reaper he would no doubt have noticed that it was for use in harvesting wheat, a crop not in wide-spread cultivation in the south at the time.

But in combination with the cotton gin, the writing was on the wall for slavery. It was more economical to mechanize.

[Restorer]

Your post agrees that slavery was never legally allowed within the states of IL, IN and OH; inasmuch as the Ordinance establishing the territories these states grew out of prohibited it. I never claimed that the laws were always enforced.

I have always been of the opinion that the North never took to slaves like the South simply for one reason....they simply did not work well there...

I know of no intelligent person who would disagree. Abe Lincoln himself was very clear on this point.

At the time of the Revolution and for about 40-50 years thereafter the attitude towards the institution differed little between North and South. Just about all agreed that slavery was a horrible institution, but the practical difficulties in getting rid of it were immense. Slavery disappeared in the North primarily because it was uneconomical and therefore these practical difficulties were much less imposing, rather than because of any moral superiority. As I understand it, when laws were passed banning slavery in each state, many if not most of that state's slaves were sold to slave states rather than being freed.

Starting around 1820 slavery in the South became immensely profitable. The horrible thing is that southerners gradually developed an ideology whereby this institution they had formerly denounced became a positive good that should be upheld and spread. An immense betrayal of the principles of the American Resolution their fathers had fought for.

Do-goodery only ever counted for the abolitionists and it was a self virtue enhancing moral superiority thing...not unlike today's lefties.

Got to disagree with you here, in part. Many abolitionists suffered greatly for their views, both in the North and the South. Very different from today's limousine liberals.

Nobody has ever given me a logical reason why it was right and proper for the American Revolutionists to fight for their freedom against a regime that from a historical standpoint was only very mildly oppressive, yet it was wrong for real slaves to fight for their freedom from some of the worst oppression in history. And if it was morally proper for the slaves to fight for their freedom, then it was equally morally proper for like-minded others to assist them, just as Lafayette and von Steuben volunteered to fight for American freedom.

Actually, I take it back. There is a perfectly good logical reason why American revolutionists could be justified in using force but not American slaves or their sympathizers. This is the belief that black American slaves were not fully human and did not therefore have the same human rights as white Americans.

This belief was the basis of the Confederacy's official ideology, but few will openly advocate it today. But it is the only logical belief system that allows one to celebrate George Washington as a great hero and denounce John Brown as a great villain.

(Okay, JB is a poor example, as he was a homicidal maniac. But that homicidal maniacs fight for a cause does not by itself invalidate that cause).

[Non-Sequitur]

But in combination with the cotton gin, the writing was on the wall for slavery. It was more economical to mechanize.

Oh please. The cotton gin was patented in 1794 and is what brought about the need for all those slaves in cotton plantations in the first place. The gin removes the seeds from the boll, a manual process prior to that. With a gin a single slave could process hundreds of pounds of cotton, as opposed to a few pounds manually. This is a case where mechanization furthered the institution of slavery, not hastened it's demise. You would be hard-pressed to find a quote from southern leadership of the time indicating a belief that slavery was on its way out. On the contrary, they believed that their institution was so strong and so vital that it was worth rebelling over.

[wardaddy]

I would have no beef with ya if you would stay off the high horse and quit trying to turn what was an economic pursuit quite prevalent in it's day and beyond into a region versus region moral superiority equation that suits you.

Slaves fared exponentially better here than anywhere else in that period. That is "my fact"...lol

Did white southerners feel blacks inferior? Indeed...as did most whites ALL OVER THE WORLD ..even in Massachusetts...in fact many still do. Blacks were viewed as inferior because they were tribal and lacked modern Euro technology etc. A not illogical conclusion for a 17th century slaver living in an already harsh world of war and pestilence. I mean....if I wander into the Amazon and view some genuine Yanomamie tribals running about in loin cloth...I will (did) view them as primitive and inferior insofar as modern life. They would be superior insofar as jungle survival.

You claimed there was "no slavery in the old Northwest" I merely demonstrated that there was "some".

I pointed out hypocrisies between lamenting the southern slave institution and ignoring the genocide (and slavery at times) of Amerindians. It reminds me of how Yankees love to crow about Jim Crow while migratory blacks huddled in squalid ghettos every bit as segregated....still are actually unless NYC has changed since 88.

This is the sort of stuff that aggravates Southerners like me. The high and mighty stuff and this notion that slavery is the worst thing to have ever happened. Like I said, I don't think it was. From the early 1500s-1865 was a pretty harsh time, and inhumanity abounded from the Catholic purges of my ancestors the Huguenots to massive wars in which civilians died same as combatants to the assault on indig folks around the world to class based societies in the west to a degree we would never comprehend...etc.

Slavery was an idea whereby folks with more technology decided to exploit the labour of more primitive folks for profit and there were plenty who did profit from all sides. It was a bad for those enslaved but it beat being tortured and killed after conquest and those who survived and their descendent's were(are) in my view better off in the American South. Enslaved or butchered by inter-tribal conflict that was neverending? Not a great choice.

But to some around here, slavery is where the worst evil resides. I've read and even seen with my own eyes worse. But, it is too bad it still exists and it's also too bad that most blacks have still not truly assimilated to the degree of others. That's the worst legacy...150 years later...and I have no idea what the cure for that is. Happy New Year Again btw....the nuances of slavery and north versus south are infinite are they not?

[wardaddy]

btw...speaking of harsh.

even though we rose above slavery before the 20th century, it was still pretty rough wasn't it and the 21st is looking grim too. I would argue that the 20th century saw much worse inhumanity than slavery repeatedly.

I don't have any answers...only observations.

[Borges]

Do you want only characters who are saintly cardboard cutouts? Where's the drama in that? The best fiction, from Shakespeare on down, deals with the positive aspects of fallen people and the negavtive aspects of good people. I think the reason '25th Hour' was so good is that Lee was working from another's person's screenplay which he had to stick to. He could just do what he does best which is photograph New York City. That movie was in and out of theaters in about 3 weeks. It's a shame people missed it.

[wardaddy]

were not fully human

I'm not sure about that....like I said....most folks felt they were more primitive than they were as Westerners, but they felt the same about many Asian tribals and Beduoins too.

Course many Southerners though Abe was a gorilla hybrid...lol

Don't forget...Whites Man's Burden was not specific to only Southerners.