Posted on 02/26/2006 1:56:28 PM PST by pabianice
Kevin Willmott's ersatz documentary "CSA: The Confederate States of America" is an act of provocation that's sheer genius in its conceptual simplicity. Fairly unoriginal, too. Writers and historians have been penning "what-if" scenarios predicated on the War Between the States going the other way for decades; I recall MacKinley Kantor's "If the South Had Won the Civil War" on my elementary school reading list years ago, and more recent authors such as Harry Turtledove and Roger L. Ransom have addressed the matter as well.
Willmott isn't interested in academic niceties. He wants to make you laugh and hurt at the same time, and then he wants you to think. So his film -- ostensibly a British documentary being aired on a local San Francisco station -- opens with an ad for Confederate Family Insurance, complete with a happy white family, soothing banjo music, and a smiling young African-American slave tending the garden. What follows is nothing less than a satiric takedown of our assumptions about racial progress.
Presented by Spike Lee and constructed as a finely tuned parody of the Ken Burns school of filmmaking (period music, old photos, talking-head experts), "CSA" sketches out a disquieting alternative history of the United States. It begins with the South winning Gettysburg thanks to the appearance of French and British troops alongside the Confederate Army, Europe's intervention having been won with the assistance of diplomat Judah Benjamin. (This prompts Jefferson Davis to later say, "Don't you evah forget, suh, that it was a blood-sucking Jew who saved this country.")
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
The Confederacy had one more Cherokee general than the Union had Black generals (Stand Watie, Cherokee Regiment of Mounted Rifles). Whatever intertribal agenda Watie may have had- the immutable fact is that it is no small thing to be made a general officer in one's country's army.
Virtually all historical figures- with few exceptions- fall short, when one views history through modern eyes. It is really necessary to judge such men from within the ethical framework of the times in which they lived. In modern times, it is easy to find horrifying quotes from Confederate (and Union, for that matter) principals. By the standards of the 1860s though- Lee and Jackson were ahead of their time. Jackson's Sunday School- mentioned previously in this thread was not just about worship- but included also reading lessons. That was in open defiance of Virginia law in the 1850s. I have read (but in fairness have not yet substantiated or confirmed) that Jackson, as a young man, forged a pass for one of his uncle's slaves (whom he had also taught to read) so that he could escape to the North.
The North wasn't Heaven, and the South wasn't Hell. Neither is the reverse true. The more I study this period of history, the more 'shades of gray' and surprises that I find. And pretty much nobody carrying a rifle on either side, except for the black regiments of the Union Army and certain officers of both sides, was there with the specific intent of influencing slavery one way or another. By and large, Billy Yank was there because part of the Union was in rebellion. Johnny Reb was there because 'y'all are down here'. And of course- a lot of them joined up because it seemed at the time a grand and glorious adventure- for a short time, at least.
There is no doubt in my mind that the South of the 1860s was full of sentiment which is reprehensible to the modern eye. Such sentiment wasn't hard to find even in historically recent times. (I have an aunt who lived there during Segregation, and found it utterly repulsive). But also true- is that the North was no Eden to black people who made it there, either. Bottom line? We've grown a lot as a country, and those were different times altogether. You take a hundred randomly-selected modern Americans off the street and transport them back to say, a city in a border state in 1860- and most of them would be firebrand Abolitionists- a position which at the time was somewhere between Avant Garde and fringe-y counterculture. Today, it's the only position that makes any sense at all.
To be fair- I have only seen the trailer. But from that, I derived the same impression.
If Harry Turtledove had continued The Guns of the South into a series, Dr Martin Luther King could have been the President of the CSA.
And if Spike Lee wasn't such a racist, this movie might have told that story instead. Now that I would pay to see done right.
'Guns of the South' was a flight of whimsy- which he makes clear in the introduction to the book. The whole thing was based on an offhanded remark that someone made that captured his imagination. It wasn't really ample grist for a series like the other 'independent South' books that he did.
The Cherokee Nation sided with the Confederate states in the war, some 26 independent Indian tribes/nations signed treaties with the CSA. The Cherokee said it best:
But Providence rules the destinies of nations, and events, by inexorable necessity, overrule human resolutions. The number of the Confederate States has increased to eleven, and their Government is firmly established and consolidated. Maintaining in the field an army of 200,000 men, the war became for them but a succession of victories. Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they sought only to repel invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves. They claimed only the privilege asserted by the Declaration of American Independence, and on which the right of the Northern States themselves to self-government is founded, of altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties.
Throughout the Confederate States we saw this great revolution effected without violence or the suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts. The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power. All division among the people disappeared, and the determination became unanimous that there should never again be any union with the Northern States. Almost as one man all who were able to bear arms rushed to the defense of an invaded country, and nowhere has it been found necessary to compel men to serve or to enlist mercenaries by the offer of extraordinary bounties.
But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in battle were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of their Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by Southern hands.
Whatever causes the Cherokee people may have had in the past, to complain of some of the Southern States, they cannot but feel that their interests and their destiny are inseparably connected with those of the South. The war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government.
I call myself a "Yid" and so does everyone else I hang with.
Quaint 19th Century notions of propriety considered the term "Jew" to be more vulgar and impolite than "Israelite."
I have studied the Civil War period extensively and have found that the Northerners had a far greater tendency than Southerners to anti-Semitism (the actual word "anti-Semite" did not exist at that time)
Trivia Question Time! The only Jewish military cemetery outside of Israel is located in what city?
oh joy.
Richmond, I think. Shockoe Hill?
The first few were not bad, the next few were just CRAWLING through the day to day minutiae that the characters went through. The last couple have actually been excellent, but just a little disturbing.
Now if a yankee wanted to the the crap scared out of him by the idea of a successful slave owning society, they can pick up the Draka novels by SM Stirling. Those are awesome reads.
Gee I don't know. Why don't you point out the errors and we'll count them?
The confederacy had one more Cherokee general than it had black officers for that matter. Still, according to Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol. 4, there were 3,530 Native Americans who served with the Union Army. Including Ely Samuel Parker, Bvt. Brigadier General of Volunteers, Chief of Staff to the Commanding General of the U.S. Armies Ulysses S. Grant.
By the standards of the 1860s though- Lee and Jackson were ahead of their time.
On the contrary they were very much in keeping with their peers at the time.
Jackson's Sunday School- mentioned previously in this thread was not just about worship- but included also reading lessons.
A common tale but simply not true. Jackson taught a Sunday School sponsored by the Presbyterian Church of which he was member. There was nothing surprising or unusual in that, churches throughout the south believed that it was their mission to bring Christ to the slave population. But the claims that he taught slaves to read and write is simply not true. Jackson was a methodical man who kept to a strict syllabus. Byron Farwell laid it out in his biography of Jackson:
"School began promptly at three o'clock each Sunday, and there were no latecomers. Jackson locked the doors. Service began with a hymn, invariably "Amazing Grace," for this was the only song he could manage to make recognizably tuneful. (Dr. White, speaking of Jackson's ignorance of "the science of music," declared theat he had "neither ear nor voice for singing.") Jackson then led the school in prayer, which was followed by relating as story or reading them a passage from the Bible, after which the students were turned over to teachers for lessons drawn from the Shorter Catechism or perhaps Charles Colock Jones's A Catechism for Colored Persons (Charleston 1834). When called together again they sang, said a prayer, and were dismissed. Under Jackson's supervision, the entire session lasted exactly fourty-five minuted."
There were no reading lessons, or any other education except for exposure to the Bible.
I have read (but in fairness have not yet substantiated or confirmed) that Jackson, as a young man, forged a pass for one of his uncle's slaves (whom he had also taught to read) so that he could escape to the North.
Jackson lived with his uncle for 11 years between the time his father died and the time he entered West Point. He was very fond of his uncle and the idea that he would disobey him, or willingly break the law, are not supported by any evidence I've seen. Jackson had no problem with slavery, owning as many as 9 or 10 at one time himself.
And over 3,500 indians fought for the Union, including Cherokee who didn't cotton to Stand Waite and his band who had sold them out prior to the Trail of Tears. They included Bvt. Brigadier General Ely Parker, Grant's Chief of Staff. So Grant couldn't have too many problems with Indians.
But no doubt you have dozens of quotes from southern politicians post 1876 that show just how much they decried the treatment of Native Americans after the Custer fiasco. You do have those quotes, don't you?
Gee I don't know. Why don't you point out the errors and we'll count them?
It is called "google" and it is really cool. When you get done with your contest (which you will undoubtedly win), you should try it. It is amazing. If someone actually wants to have a clue what he is posting about (I know, I know, it is strange and dangerous territory, but the rewards are worth the risks), google is a great tool.
Here is Robert E Lee in 1856, 5 years before the war
There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy
As for Jackson In the nineteenth century, Virginia law prohibited whites from teaching blacks to read and write. Though Stonewall Jackson was known as an upstanding and law-abiding citizen in Lexington, he routinely broke this law every Sunday. The law was not strictly enforced, Jackson quietly practiced civil disobedience by having an organized Sunday school class every Sunday afternoon, teaching black children to read, and teaching them the way of salvation. There are still churches active today that were founded by blacks through Jackson's efforts. Jackson taught the Sunday school class for blacks while he served as a deacon in Lexington’s Presbyterian Church. In 1855 Jackson with the permission of his pastor, Dr. William S. White, began the class in a building near the main sanctuary. Jackson quickly gained the admiration and respect of blacks in the surrounding area as his zeal was apparent. Attendance often numbered more than one hundred. Once Gen. Jackson was a "collector" of a local Bible Society. On his list were a considerable number of names written in pencil, to each of which a very small amount was attached. The elders, recognizing very few of the names, asked who these were. Jackson’s reply was ‘They are the militia; as the Bible Society is not a Presbyterian but a Christian cause, I deemed it best to go beyond the limits of our own church.’ They were the names chiefly of free Blacks.
This relationship between Jackson and the blacks of his community was not all that uncommon in the South, particularly pertaining to whites who were devout Christians.
In Jackson’s mind, slaves were children of God placed in subordinate situations for reasons only the Creator could explain. Although Jackson could not alter the social status of slaves, he could and did display decency to those whose lot it was to be in bondage…he was emphatically a friend in an era when it was "beneath" white men of privelege to do so, be they Northern or Southern.
Lincoln, on the other hand, only "freed" slaves over whom he had no jurisdiction. The great "Emancipation Proclamation" did NOT free any slaves in the non-confederate states. In fact, it specifically EXCLUDED those states over which he certainly had the power to free them (he had, after all, suspended habeas corpus, what power could he NOT assume?). Name one slave in Kentucky, or Missouri, or any territory which Lincoln freed. He "emancipated" the slaves still in the south as pure theatre, and a military tactic, hoping they would rise up and rebel. Yeah, the great emancipator. Slaves in the territories/states under Lincoln's power were freed AFTER the war, not on Lincoln's watch.
You have a great command of cant, and "everybody knows that" type of falsehoods, and a typical appalling ignorance of what the situation really was. Besides that, though, your knowledge of what you are talking about is just peachy /sarcasm.
It's also a simple solution for simple minds, or those not willing to do some serious research.
Here is Robert E Lee in 1856, 5 years before the war...
You might want to read the entire letter some time. Lee says that "The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things." It's hard to read that as a strong condemnation of slavery, or anything other than an opinion that slavery was the proper place for blacks as they currently existed in the south. For whites slavery was a curse, for blacks slavery was instruction. He went on, "While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day." So while he claimed to decry slavery, Lee didn't believe that any action should be taken to hasten its end. And for those abolitionists who would advocate an end to slavery, he described their activities as "...an evil course."
And then 9 years later, when supporting legislation that would enlist blacks as combat soldiers, Lee made it clear that his support was most reluctant. He said, "Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population." So even 9 years later Lee was clear in his belief that slavery was a necessity, and the best situation for blacks. So how can people twist that into opposition to slavery? And best it was mild disapproval, at worst he supported the institution. Lee was like the person today who says that they disapprove of abortion and who would never get one themselves, but who does not believe that woman should have the right to choose and that abortion should be illegal.
The law was not strictly enforced, Jackson quietly practiced civil disobedience by having an organized Sunday school class every Sunday afternoon, teaching black children to read, and teaching them the way of salvation.
Nice, but nonsense. In the first place Sunday schools for blacks were not unusual. Throughout the south, churches saw it as their duty to teach the Bible to what the Presbyterian Synod of Texas described as "this benighted race in our midst." The Sunday school class that Jackson taught was not established by him, it was actually begun in 1845 by Dr. Henry Ruffner and the Reverend Tucker Lacy as the Presbyterian Sabbath School for Slaves. And Jackson did not teach slaves to read, they had lessons read to them. It was a typical Sunday school of the time and Jackson's syllabus survives, which I posted in reply 93.
This relationship between Jackson and the blacks of his community was not all that uncommon in the South, particularly pertaining to whites who were devout Christians.
Certainly not, especially in the fact that 7 of the slaves attending that school belonged to Jackson himself. Jackson's opionions on slavery were made clear in a letter he wrote concerning the plans of his half-brother, Wirt Woodson. In 1857 he wrote, "I do not want him [Wirt] to go into a free state if it can be avoided, for he would probably become an abolitionist; and then in the event of trouble between North and South he would stand on one side and we on the other." Jackson knew there would be trouble over the issue of slavery and he knew which side he would be on. Doesn't sound like someone opposed to slavery to me.
Lincoln, on the other hand, only "freed" slaves over whom he had no jurisdiction. The great "Emancipation Proclamation" did NOT free any slaves in the non-confederate states. In fact, it specifically EXCLUDED those states over which he certainly had the power to free them (he had, after all, suspended habeas corpus, what power could he NOT assume?).
OK, obviously Google did not make up for your lack of education in basic history or your failure to understand the Constitution. No the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves in those areas not in rebellion, because Lincoln lacked the authority to do so. Slavery was not forbidden by the Constitution. It took the 13th Amendment to free the slaves, an amendment that Lincoln strongly supporter, spoke out in favor of, and which he had added to the 1864 Republican platform. Yes, Lincoln did free some slaves in the North when he supported passage of legislation ending slavery in the District of Columbia, which was passed long before the Emancipation Proclamation. So your claims are not only wrong, they are so wrong as to be ridiculous.
He "emancipated" the slaves still in the south as pure theatre, and a military tactic, hoping they would rise up and rebel.
Any you, of course, have some documentation showing that this was Lincoln's plan? The proclamation itself contains the request, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages." It's clear that Lincoln was not out for slave revolt, that was a figment of the southron mind.
You have a great command of cant, and "everybody knows that" type of falsehoods, and a typical appalling ignorance of what the situation really was. Besides that, though, your knowledge of what you are talking about is just peachy /sarcasm.
So who has command of cant? So far I've provided evidence showing that most of what you claimed were fairy tales, and the rest weren't true. So far I'm batting a thousand. But don't give up, I'll give you another crack at it. My original post claimed that not a single one of the men I mentioned believed blacks to be their equals. Surely you can Google up a couple of quotes from Lee or Jackson or Davis which show the opposite to be true? Some quote that showed that Lee believed blacks to be his equal? Something that showed Jackson thought blacks were entitled to the same rights as whites? Somewhere where Davis believed blacks should vote? Or any other southern leader of the rebellion for that matter, I'll make it easier for you. Take your time, get it right. I'll be here.
"Without the south, Albert Gore would be president. Tennessee kept him from the presidency, his own state. Try winning a presidential election without us. The north is basically communist."
Not a one will see this obvious fact. Life in these United States has deterioriated since, The War of Yankee Aggression, and everybody pretends like it was just another day in the life of...
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.