Recently in Civil War & Reconstruction Category
"'He was really a pioneer, demolishing the magnolia and mint juleps view of slavery," said Eric Foner, a professor of history at Columbia. 'And the Reconstruction book was in the same revisionist mode, sweeping away myths. Among serious history scholars, nobody is going to go back before Stampp.'" Kenneth Stampp, 1912-2009. (By way of Ted.)
Score one for eBay: After three-score years lost to the winds, a long-missing Lincoln letter is returned to the National Archives by the Arizona collector who ended up with it. "Federal officials, who have not ruled out its possible theft from a government collection, discovered it two years ago during routine monitoring of online auctions."
"'It's a great, great project,' Brolin told us. 'The script was already out there; I read the script, I loved it. It would be a very tough character for me to play. We're going to do some tests once I'm done with this, but it's a great script and story. Somebody who I know, because of Howard Zinn's thing, and I know the character really well.'" After Jonah Hex and the next Woody Allen film, will Josh Brolin be frontlining a new John Brown biopic? That's the word I'm hearing from my abolition-minded colleagues at Coming Soon.Net. Let's just say the authorities at Harpers Ferry had best be wary.
"I was able to sit at Lincoln's side and see how he thought and how he acted, and how he felt about what was going on around him. I felt the pressures that were on him. You can see what people were writing to him, how they were nudging him." Historian David Herbert Donald, 1920-2009. "'It is the most balanced of the biographies out there," Mr. Foner said in a telephone interview Monday. 'It is not a work of hero worship, nor does it have a prosecutorial brief. He presents Lincoln as a rather passive figure, not at all in charge of the forces raging around him, which is quite accurate.'"
As many readers here well know, I've spent a good bit of time over the past decade studying US history. (In fact, over the past few years, I've occasionally helped my advisor keep a textbook up to date that recently drew the ire of right-wing blowhard Bill O'Reilly. Apparently, those damn pesky facts were somehow mitigating O'Reilly's ability to spew forth the usual idiotic blather.)
Anyway, over that period of time, I believe I have in fact learned me a few things. So, as a public service of sorts, and because, after this morning's revelations, I've reached the limit of craven and/or patently stupid falsehoods that I can feasibly ingest over so short a time, some "U.S. History for Dummies." I expect most everyone who comes by this site with any frequency knows all this, but ya never know. Apologies for the didacticism in advance -- if this were this a Coors Light commercial, this would be where i vent. (And thanks to Lia for the timely visual tax lesson, above.)
At any rate, as most people remember from high school, the original 1773 Tea Party was not a protest against high taxes or high prices at all. (In fact, legally imported tea -- i.e. that of the East India Company, which was both suffering serious setbacks over in India and losing market share to smuggled Dutch tea at the time -- was actually cheaper in the colonies after the Tea Act, since it was now exempt from the usual obligations.)
In small part a reaction of the East India's commercial rivals to this sweetheart deal, the Boston Tea Party was mainly held to uphold the principle of No taxation without representation. Which I don't think I need to explain. So, with the minor exception of DC-area conservatives who attended the tea gathering in Washington (without crossing over from Virginia or Maryland), the, uh, "teabaggers" don't really have a leg to stand on here. This is particularly true after you consider that both ruthless gerrymandering and the vagaries of the Electoral College (I'm looking at you, Wyoming) actually tend to lead to over-representation of conservative Republicans in our halls of governance, even despite heavy losses for the "Grand Old Party" in 2006 and 2008.
Well, in fact, no state in the Union has any legal right to secede. (Not even Texas.) The existence of such a right was posited and debated quite often in the early years of the republic: by Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, by the members of the Hartford Convention, by South Carolina's philosopher-politician John C. Calhoun, and countless others.
But the illegality of secession was eventually confirmed -- in blood -- when eleven states attempted to pull out of the Union in 1861, due mainly to differing opinions on the institution of slavery and its expansion into the western territories. As a result of this insurrection by the southern states, a violent conflict broke out, which we call the Civil War. It lasted four years, and it was kind of a big deal.
Prior to the war, the states of the Confederacy believed secession to be their natural right, while those remaining in the Union believed it to be tantamount to an act of treason. With the Union victory in that conflict, and the subsequent readmittance of southern states in such a manner that reaffirmed that no right of secession exists, the question was settled. So it remains to this day.
Another argument we've heard lately -- today Sen. McCain made it with his usual comrades-in-arms, Sens. Lieberman and Graham, while trying to protect Dubya's lawyers -- is that the CIA officials who actually conducted these recent acts of torture should be exempt from prosecution, because they were following the legal dictates of those higher-up in the administration. (To follow the reasoning around the circle, the torturers should be exempt because they were listening to the lawyers, and the lawyers should be exempt because they didn't do the actual torturing. Cute.)
Anyway, whatever you think of the merits of this argument, this is usually referred to as the Nuremberg defense, and it is in fact no defense at all. Argues Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles, devised by the Allies after WWII to determine what constituted a war crime: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." Insert "CIA interrogator" for person in that last sentence and you can pretty much see the problem.
America is not a Christian nation. This will be patently obvious to anyone who's ever heard the phrase "separation of church and state." Unlike, say, England, America does not have and has never had an official, established church. This is very much by design. For proof of this not-very-radical claim, see the very first clause of the very first amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
If that doesn't do it for you, see George Washington's famous 1790 letter to the Jewish residents of Newport, Rhode Island. "May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."
Or consider that Thomas Jefferson skipped his presidency on his tombstone to make room for his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." (We could also make mention of the Jefferson Bible, but let's start slow.)
Is the reasoning here too circuitous for Rove, Gingrich, et al to follow? Ok, then, here's the cheat sheet: the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, passed by a Congress of our Founders without declaim and signed into law by President John Adams. It begins: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." Did y'all catch it this time? Good, let's move on.
After the picture was taken, conservatives went predictably livid, with Matt Drudge headlining the offending photograph with the usual red text, Dick Cheney deeming Obama "a weak president" on FOX News, and Gingrich arguing that it made Obama look "weak like Carter." "We didn't rush over, smile and greet Russian dictators," said Newt, and he wasn't the only potential 2012'er aghast at Obama's behavior. Sen. John Ensign of Nevada called the president "irresponsible" and the consistently shameless Mitt Romney painted Obama a "timid advocate for freedom".
Um, ok. Well, let's see here...
I could go on. With regards to that last one -- Reagan yukking it up with Mikhail Gorbachev, then of "the evil Empire" -- it didn't take long before (surprise) Newt was caught in a contradiction. Apparently, Gingrich had previously argued on his website that Ronald Reagan's good humor with Gorby was a sign of strength, not weakness.
Speaking of which, as Lawrence O'Donnell noted on MSNBC the other day, saintly old Ronald Reagan didn't just smile and shake hands with America's enemies. His administration sold them weapons under the table. So, please, assorted puddin'-heads of the GOP talkocracy, spare me your warmed-over tripe about poor diplomacy and weak leadership. As with everything else above, I've swallowed enough of your swill over the past few weeks to last me a lifetime.
"A source close to Spielberg says the director is busy with his next film, Tintin, and is not wringing his hands over Paramount's decision. But another source associated with the project, asked about the process, said, 'I think it's called water-boarding.'" Will Steven Spielberg's long-gestating Lincoln biopic (with Liam Neeson and Sally Field as the president and first lady respectively) become a victim of the downfall of Dreamworks? "This past weekend, he's been waiting for executives at Paramount--the studio he ditched last year--to decide whether to make the film and hire him to direct it."
Well, the dubious merits of Amistad notwithstanding, I can think of a couple dozen other movie projects I'd like to see the plug pulled on before this one.
Two recent and choice Columbia-related links by way of Ted at The Late Adopter:
"Lincoln is important to us not because of his melancholia or how he chose his cabinet but because of his role in the vast human drama of emancipation and what his life tells us about slavery's enduring legacy...In the wake of the 2008 election and on the eve of an inaugural address with 'a new birth of freedom,' a phrase borrowed from the Gettysburg Address, as its theme, the Lincoln we should remember is the politician whose greatness lay in his capacity for growth." In The Nation and on the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, Eric Foner evaluates the continuing legacy of the 16th president.
"Economic orthodoxy -- which gave high priority to balanced budgets and fiscal restraint -- remained a powerful force in the 1930s, even as its limitations became increasingly obvious. Similar arguments can still be heard today...The New Deal was least successful when it was least aggressive--when it let concerns about fiscal prudence override the urgent need to pump enormous sums of money into a moribund economy." And, over in TNR, Alan Brinkley notes what the Obama administration can learn from the New Deal.
Update: "Most Americans, I suspect, if asked whether they would prefer a president with strong principles or one who prefers pragmatic politics, would choose an idealist over a realist in a flash. But almost all successful politicians combine principle with pragmatism constantly." In a TNR piece that ties the two above together quite well, Prof. Brinkley speculates on the fatal flaw in Dubya's make-up: certitude. "For whatever reasons...Bush has seemed to be comfortable only when he could make quick and firm decisions, however complicated the issue, and then move on. Admitting mistakes or changing course seems almost contrary to his nature."
"African-Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow -- long after both systems were formally abolished -- through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty, the frustration of careers and professional lives, and the long-term loss of income and opportunity." The House looks set to pass a resolution apologizing for slavery and Jim Crow. Well, better late than never, I suppose.
Lincoln laughs last? It seems that due to rewrite issues with the rumored Abbie Hoffman film, Steven Spielberg has put his Lincoln biopic back on the front-burner, to be shot right after Tintin (a la Jurassic Park/Schindler's List and War of the Worlds/Munich.) Other than Liam Neeson and Sally Field as President and Mrs. Lincoln respectively, no other casting has been announced.
"Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion," said the memo written by John Yoo, who was then deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel." (Nor, apparently, does the Fourth Amendment apply.) An unsettling memorandum by Dubya stooge John Yoo which advocates both dictatorial rule and the legality of torture is released to the public, five years later. "'The whole point of the memo is obviously to nullify every possible legal restraint on the president's wartime authority,' Jaffer said. 'The memo was meant to allow torture, and that's exactly what it did.'"
More than anything, I'm reminded of Lincoln's remarks to the Indiana fourteenth: "'Whenever I hear anyone arguing over slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.'"
And, just in case anyone was under the impression that this sort of thing only happened in the dark days of 2003, witness Attorney General Mukasey last week getting publicly verklempt and making up 9/11 tales as he goes along, all to help preserve the NSA's warrantless wiretaps. At this point, Chuck Schumer has a lot to answer for.
"Not one lawyer in 100 can identify Ohio congressman John Bingham as the main drafter of the 14th Amendment. Yet Bingham is a fascinating historical figure: he served in Congress in the 1850s as the country was torn apart and in the 1860s as it was stitched back together. He was a federal judge and the nation's minister to Japan. As a prosecutor, he convicted John Wilkes Booth's co-conspirators, and as a member of Congress he gave closing arguments in President Andrew Johnson impeachment trial. All that, plus he drafted Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which is perhaps the single most important paragraph of our Constitution." Over at TNR, Doug Kendall pleas with Obama and others to remember the Reconstruction amendments.
"This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn...your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sound of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanks-givings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour."
Breaking news! As an eagle-eyed commenter at TPM discovered, it appears one Frederick Douglass, an orator of some repute in the African-American community, and one whom Senator Clinton has called "one of my heroes" and "a great American," actually despises our great nation, and has given public remarks filled with hate-mongering toward patriotic Americans.
I for one was planning to vote for Senator Clinton, but now I am very concerned. She should reject and denounce this fellow Douglass immediately, although it may be too late. After reading this, I totally feel Clinton is not proud of America and I fear where she would lead this country.
Update: All kidding aside, Sen. Obama gave some eloquent remarks on the politics of division in Indiana today, citing RFK's elegy for MLK in Indianapolis. "I just want to say to everybody here that as somebody who was born into a diverse family, as somebody who has little pieces of America all in me, I will not allow us to lose this moment, where we cannot forget about our past and not ignore the very real forces of racial inequality and gender inequality and the other things that divide us. We have to come together. That’s what this campaign is about. That’s why you are here. That’s why we're going to win this election. That’s how we're going to change the country."
|
The whole thing, really, is a fairy tale. I mean, give me a break: The guy gives a good speech. Yes. Give him that. But are we electing a toastmaster or a president of the United States? Let's look at his record to see what qualifies him for the highest office in the land: Eight years in the Illinois legislature? He was a party loyalist and a temporizer who too often put politics ahead of principle and was cautious rather than bold when it came to controversial issues. Two years in Washington? Yes, he pontificated about how he opposed the war, but at crunch time he voted to fund it. And his legislative record on Capitol Hill is thin. Other accomplishments? The enthusiasm for his candidacy was sparked by one big successful speech and is carried along by his gift for uplifting rhetoric. Consider, in contrast, the senator from New York who is his top rival for the nomination: A history in public life going back 30 years. Solid reform credentials. Clearly far more ready for the Oval Office than the younger, audacious Mr. Slim Silver-tongue from Illinois. |
Take that, Lincolnbots. The Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn makes the "experience" case for William H. Seward of New York.
"Obama's no Abe Lincoln. But, as I observed last February...Abe Lincoln was no Abe Lincoln at this stage of the game either. I point this out simply as a reminder that Lincoln and history went on to make fools of those whose obsession with his shortcomings and failures blinded them to the singular promise of his gifts. Not often, but fairy tales do come true."
"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." From deep within the Library of Congress, new photos emerge of Lincoln's second inauguration.
By way of Dangerous Meta, a cardiologist argues in a new, soon-to-be-published e-book that Abraham Lincoln might be the earliest known case of a rare genetic disorder. "Sotos believes Lincoln had a genetic syndrome called MEN 2B. He thinks the diagnosis not only accounts for Lincoln's great height, which has been the subject of most medical speculation over the years, but also for many of the president's other reported ailments and behaviors."
"The upshot was that by 1980, race and ideology had become so commingled that one's stand on racial issues served as a proxy for one's partisan preference. Previously, economic issues had been the chief dividing line between the parties. By 1980, though, according to the Edsalls, the changes that followed the civil rights movement had crystallized, and racial politics figured just as strongly." Slate's resident historian David Greenberg weighs in on the recent furor at the NYT (and elsewhere) over Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign kickoff speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, site of the 1964 Schwerner-Chaney-Goodman murders. (Coincidence? Sheah.) Therein, Greenberg correctly and succinctly argues that Reagan's "I believe in states' rights" was, in an apt turn of phrase, "a dog whistle to segregationists."
Honestly, I'm not really sure how you could dispute this, unless you want to argue that Reagan and his political handlers were completely ignorant about the civil rights struggle, massive resistance, and the significance of Philadelphia, Miss. in those struggles. (Of course, then you'd have to explain how Reagan remained blissfully unaware of the fact his 1966 gubernatorial bid often relied on similar loaded language.) Was Reagan a racist? I dunno, that's not the issue. Did Reagan rely on coded racial messages to appeal to white conservatives, akin to what Dubya does these days with pro-lifers and Dred Scott? Obviously.
Liam Neeson has his Mary Todd: Sally Field joins Spielberg's forthcoming Lincoln biopic as Abe's First Lady.
"'Now, if Gen. Meade can complete his work so gloriously prosecuted thus far, by the litteral or substantial destruction of Lee's army,' Lincoln wrote, 'the rebellion will be over." Trevor Plante, a researcher for the Discovery Channel, discovers a lost handwritten note penned by Lincoln after Gettysburg in the National Archives. Meade did not complete his work, of course -- like McClellan before him, he remained overcautious with the Army of the Potomac, prompting Lincoln's wrath in an unsent letter dated a week after the discovered note: "My dear general, I do not believe you appreciate the magnitude of the misfortune involved in Lee's escape. He was within your easy grasp, and to have closed upon him would, in connection with our other late successes, have ended the war. As it is, the war will be prolonged indefinitely. Your golden opportunity is gone, and I am distressed immeasureably because of it."
"This session will be remembered for a lot of things, but 20 years hence I suspect one of those things will be the fact that we came together and passed this resolution." In related news, the Virginia General Assembly unanimously expresses "profound regret" for Virginia's hand in slavery, becoming the first state to do so. "The measure also expressed regret for 'the exploitation of Native Americans.'"
"Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." In vaguely-related news, conservative congressman Rep. Don Young trots out an obviously-fake Lincoln quote to bash Dems on Iraq. [ThinkProgress has the video.] '''Now that he's been informed these are not the actual words of Lincoln, he will discontinue attributing the words to Lincoln. However, he continues to totally agree with the message of the statement,' [spokeswoman] Kenny said." (For the record, and despite his suspension of habeas corpus, President Lincoln was a lenient sort, and assuredly not a believer in the reforming potential of public hangings.)
Get well soon, Tim Johnson. Oof, talk about terrible news on several levels. One hopes the Senator will make a full and complete recovery after his AVM surgery, and we won't have to think too deeply about the possibility of a Senate turnover. Fortunately, there seems to be a good deal of precedent for long absences from the chamber -- my first thought (other than Nate Fisher and Narm!) was Charles Sumner's three-year absence after the caning, but there are apparently many 20th century examples too.
In a wide-ranging interview with one of his fansites, Steven Spielberg talks Indy 4 and other projects in his possible short-term future, including his long-rumored Lincoln biopic (with Liam Neeson, and based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's recent Team of Rivals) and a new hard sci-fi project entitled Interstellar.
A very happy Juneteenth (a.k.a. Emancipation Day, the 141st since its first celebration in Galveston, TX on June 19, 1865) to you and yours.
"Observers describe Bush as 'messianic' in his conviction that he is fulfilling the divine purpose. But, as Lincoln observed in his second inaugural address, 'The Almighty has His own purposes.' Invoking also Lincoln's remarks on the Mexican War, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. laments the rise of preemption, senses dark forebodings in Dubya's saber-rattling with Iran, and concludes that "there is no more dangerous thing for a democracy than a foreign policy based on presidential preventive war."
"Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities." As seen all over the place, historian Sean Wilentz wonders aloud in Rolling Stone if Dubya is the worst president in American history.
To my mind, the only other president that even comes close is James Buchanan. Sure, Warren Harding was lousy, but he knew it ("I am a man of limited talents from a small town. I don't seem to grasp that I am President."), and thus didn't go out of his way to be actively terrible like Bush has been. (Plus, for all the corruption of the Ohio gang, Harding's cabinet also included Charles Evans Hughes, Andrew Mellon, and Herbert Hoover, all impressive in their own right.) Speaking of Hoover, both he and Ulysses Grant have been given a bad shake. Even if the Depression basically ate his administration alive, Hoover -- once renowned as the "Great Engineer" -- was a more innovative president (and empathetic person) than he's often remembered. And Grant's administrations, although plagued by corruption, at the very least tried to maintain Reconstruction in the South. (In fact, I'd argue that Grant's sorry standing in presidential history is in a part a reflection of the low esteem in which Reconstruction was once held by the now-woefully obsolete Dunning School.) Regarding the other Reconstruction president, Andrew Johnson is assuredly down near the bottom too, but to be fair, he faced an almost impossible situation entering office in the time and manner he did, and -- as with Clinton -- his impeachment was a bit of a frame-job. And Richard Nixon, for all his many failings, had China (as well as the EPA despite himself, and, although it didn't pan out, the Family Assistance Plan.) Nope, I think it's safe to say that we may be experiencing perhaps the most blatantly inept, wrong-headed, and mismanaged presidency in the history of the republic. Oh, lucky us.
Steven Spielberg announces he's taking a hiatus in 2006, meaning that both his Lincoln biopic with Liam Neeson and Indy 4 (currently being polished by Spiderman scribe David Koepp) might take longer than expected to hit theaters.
"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism...The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them...let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield." -- George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.
"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." -- Abraham Lincoln, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865)
"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." -- George Washington
"It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: 'And this, too, shall pass away.' How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! How consoling in the depths of affliction!" -- Abraham Lincoln, "Address Before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, Milwaukee, Wisconsin" (September 30, 1859)
"If you are going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you." This savvy George Bernard Shaw quote introduces Kevin Willmott's razor-sharp documentary-satire C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America, which opened at the IFC Center tonight (followed by a Q&A), and, by that measure, Willmott's film is a rousing success. At times both blisteringly funny and quietly devastating, C.S.A is a take-no-prisoners alternate history of our Confederacy -- Yep, the South won -- done in the style of Ken Burns' The Civil War (or Andy Bobrow's Old Negro Space Program), right down to bizarro versions of Shelby Foote and Barbara Fields. Punctuated throughout by offbeat television commercials that are eerily similar to today's TV, C.S.A. is one of the best (and most ruthless and unflinching) satires I've seen in some time. And it illuminates a central fact often obscured in so many Brother-against-Brother tributes to America's bloodiest conflict (as well as drek like Gods and Generals): The Civil War was begun and fought over slavery. In the words of C.S.A. Vice-President Alexander Stephens -- in his inaugural address, no less -- the Confederacy was founded "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery --subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition."
To kick off its conceit, C.S.A requires that you make two leaps of logic from the history of the Civil War: First, that, after the Emancipation Proclamation is issued, C.S.A. Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin managed to convince England and France to join the war on the side of the Confederacy. (This was less likely, I think, than the film makes it out to be. Popular support in England -- who had abolished slavery in 1833 -- was pretty clearly on the side of the Union, particularly after Lincoln's Proclamation, and "King Cotton diplomacy" just wasn't going to work when England and France could import cotton instead from India, Egypt, and other waystations in their respective empires. And, even if the European powers had recognized the CSA, which they might've done had the South won more battles, they weren't about to send troops across the Atlantic to fight on the side of slavery without severe popular repercussions.) Second, and more unlikely, is that, after capturing Washington DC, the South managed to subdue and annex the entire North, leveling Boston and Philadelphia (a la Sherman's March) in the process. Even despite the Union's hold on the Mississippi in the Western theater, the South might well have won the war, if Northern public opinion had collapsed in 1863 and 1864 (As it was, timely Union victories -- and particularly the fall of Atlanta -- buoyed Lincoln's reelection.) But, had that happened, IMHO, there would likely be two nations uneasily living side by side for decades to come, as you find in Harry Turtledove's How Few Remain series.
Ok, all that history geekery notwithstanding (which is somewhat unfair to the movie -- it's an alternate history satire, after all, which also explains the more recognizable battle flag replacing the official Stars and Bars on the moon and elsewhere), once you make the conceptual leap that the Confederacy managed to win the war and annex the Union, the rest of C.S.A is remarkably well-thought-out, and at times even scarily plausible. Like Jeff Davis, Lincoln is captured trying to escape in costume (on the Underground Railroad) and sent to Fort Monroe -- Here, it's dramatized in the 1915 D.W. Griffith film, The Hunt for Dishonest Abe. While the South contemplates various "Reconstruction" plans to reintroduce slavery to the North (and Nathan Bedford Forrest reenacts Fort Pillow over and over again), William Lloyd Garrison leads an abolitionist/transcendentalist contingent to Canada. Rather than the Chinese Exclusion Act, the C.S.A. passes a "Yellow Peril Mandate" providing for the enslaving of Chinese laborers. And, as in our world, the nation comes together again to fight a (here much broader) Spanish-American War.
As we get to the 20th century, C.S.A. continues to adroitly riff on American history. Audiences swarm to the Civil War musical, A Northern Wind. ("You tried to take my blacks, But I still want you back.") In WWII, the C.S.A. plays nice with Germany while despising Japan. (Thanks to the service of Judah Benjamin, Jews can still live in the Confederacy, provided they stay on their "reservation" in Long Island.) Eventually, an armed, highly defended border -- the "Cotton Curtain" -- descends between Canada and the C.S.A., and '50's Confederates scour the nation for the "Abs" (abolitionists) in their midst. Later still, slave riots break out in Newark, Watts, and elsewhere in the turbulent '60s, as many white Confederates reconsider slavery (due to global sanctions, give or take South Africa) and women begin to demand the vote.
Equally as nimble as the mirror-image counterhistory of the CSA are the many commercial breaks throughout the fake documentary, with ads that are both jaw-droppingly brazen and laugh-out-loud funny. (You can get a sense of this from the trailer -- Think Spike Lee's Bamboozled, itself an excellent satire, to the nth degree.) They range from fake ads for unfortunately real products (Darky Toothpaste, Coon Chicken Inn) to all-too-possible modern innovations -- The Slave Shopping Network, a LoJack "Shackle", a Claritin-ish drug to treat drapetomania (the runaway disease "discovered" by Dr. Samuel Cartwright in 1851), a COPS-style show called RUNAWAYS, etc. etc. As you can see, this is withering stuff, and some might find it in horrible taste. But, there's method to CSA's madness. As I noted before, we tend to do a pitiful job of facing up to slavery, America's Original Sin, and for ninety hilarious, cringeworthy minutes, CSA forces us to look the peculiar institution square in the eye. If we're serious about our proclaimed role as a Beacon of Freedom to the world, that's something we need to start doing a lot more often. (But, don't worry -- C.S.A. sweetens this tonic with quite a few laughs.) At any rate, if it's anywhere near you, definitely go check it out.
In related news, a site is chosen for the National Museum of African American History and Culture (at 14th and Constitution NW, near the Washington Monument.) As I argued before, some museum along such lines on our nation's Mall is long overdue.
"Foner's field of special expertise is what might be called without exaggeration the crucible of American freedom: the Civil War, the emancipation of the slaves and the ambiguous, myth-shrouded period that followed known as Reconstruction. He never puts it this directly, either in this new, somewhat compressed popular history or in his 1988 magnum opus, 'Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,' but he sees Reconstruction, with all its contradictions and unrealized possibilities, as the key to all of American history." Salon's Andrew O'Hehir takes a gander at Eric Foner's latest book, Forever Free.
"The message in The Lord of the Rings is, in a way, that the struggle to destroy the evil also destroys the good. The very effort to mobilize against the evil unalterably changes what you're trying to defend. So at the very end of that trilogy, the heroes -- Frodo the Hobbit, Gandalf and Elrond -- sail away. They can't live in this world that they've created, because it's so different from what they started out to defend. It's a metaphor; Abraham Lincoln didn't sail away, he was killed, but the world after the Civil War was not Lincoln's America anymore." By way of a friend in the program, Columbia's Eric Foner picks his five most personally influential books, and guess what made the list...
