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?

[lentulusgracchus]

Does your figure include the four millions slaves in the south?

Read Justice Grier's opinion in the Prize Cases. He spared nobody living in the "enemy territory", even noting the presence of Unionists living there -- he declared the entire South a free-fire zone.

[lentulusgracchus]

...the insurrectionists subjected themselves to the laws of war.

There was no insurrection. Secession is not insurrection, nor is it rebellion. There is no authority, none, higher than the People, save the God of Abraham. Take a note.

Second, Lincoln subjected them to the laws of war, not they. He declared war on Virginia and North Carolina, for openers, on April 27th. And Northern war preparations, which are never discussed in detail by persons holding copies of the Constitution in their hands, was well advanced before Sumter, as per our discussion upthread about how it was that the Fourth and Sixth Massachusetts already had their boots on when Lincoln delivered his proclamation calling for war on the South.

Notice also that Lincoln, in his proclamation calling for troops, mentions past grievances against the South -- this is clearly a call for a vindictive, punitive war and an appeal, not to law and order, but to animosity. So don't give me that pious crap.

[lentulusgracchus]

Not only did the wartime South see men conscripted and crops impressed,....

Accusing a country in extremis of being unable to manage its affairs prudently or properly is the kind of teleological, vindictive low I would expect you to sink to. Please try to disappoint me sometime.

This is the same logic that lay behind the Ostend Manifesto. We've discussed that before, but perhaps you weren't in long pants yet and missed the conversation.

[lentulusgracchus]

.....not a single foreign country recognized confederate sovereignty.

And this argument is valuable to your processes of thug logic how, exactly? Remind me, my brain keeps doing these sanitary purges.

[lentulusgracchus]

None of that is a "given."

It is in my premise. Operative word, "my". You don't get to change it.

Now, what do you do? What's your solution to my hypothetical? You might try to forget how much it resembles the causes of the Civil War, and just give 'er a go. Let's see if you have any resources of intellectual honesty. What do you tell the people in this State?

[Non-Sequitur]

Remind me, my brain keeps doing these sanitary purges.

Sanitary purges? Well that confirms my suspicion that it's full of sh...well, full of something.

But the point is that the only people who thought that the confederacy was an independent, sovereign nation were the people in the confederacy itself. Everyone else in the world recognized them as a rebellious part of the U.S.

[lentulusgracchus]

I am sure we can trace the trial that Sherman followed by the thousands of graves that he left behind.

Now, what other myths you have for us today?

The route of Sherman's March to the Sea was still visible on aerial photographs taken during the World War II era, thanks to the salt his soldiers sowed as they marched.

Kinda hard to "myth", if you can see it from outer space.

[lentulusgracchus]

No state had the authority to unilaterally remove itself from the Union. The states did not possess the sovereignty to do so.

There is nobody I've ever met in my life who was more wilfully and boneheadedly wrong about anything, ever.

Yes, they damn well did.

[lentulusgracchus]

If I thought you actually understood what Madison wrote in No. 20, and particular, his conclusion in the last paragraph, I might discuss it with you.

I'm done with your patronization -- you don't have the hosses for it, boy.

Put up or shut up. Post it or go away.

[lentulusgracchus]

Well that confirms my suspicion that it's full of sh...well, full of something.

Yeah, I keep reading your stuff.

[lentulusgracchus]

But the point is that the only people who thought that the confederacy was an independent, sovereign nation were the people in the confederacy itself. Everyone else in the world recognized them as a rebellious part of the U.S.

Which is different from 1777 how? And what sort of large point are we supposed to draw from the reluctance of foreign countries to brown off the Lincoln Administration?

[fortheDeclaration]

Well considering that Sumter was under seige for months before Lincoln took office, the North had every right to prepare for war.

As for bringing God in, that is an appeal to divine/natural law, the very thing that Calhoun and the South rejected when the rejected the principles of the Declaration.

Lincoln told the South, war was up to them.

They did not have to violate the constitution, but he was sworn to uphold it.

[fortheDeclaration]

Not only did the wartime South see men conscripted and crops impressed,.... Accusing a country in extremis of being unable to manage its affairs prudently or properly is the kind of teleological, vindictive low I would expect you to sink to. Please try to disappoint me sometime. This is the same logic that lay behind the Ostend Manifesto. We've discussed that before, but perhaps you weren't in long pants yet and missed the conversation.

Maybe you missed Capitan_Refugio post on war leading to actions that in peace would not ordinarly be made.

And then Nolu coming back with the ex-part Milligan decision and how war is not an excuse to violate the Constitution.

It seems the South had as much trouble protecting individual liberty as did the evil, tyrannical, North.

[fortheDeclaration]

.....not a single foreign country recognized confederate sovereignty. And this argument is valuable to your processes of thug logic how, exactly? Remind me, my brain keeps doing these sanitary purges.

Yes, I can see that.

[fortheDeclaration]

Iam sure we can trace the trial that Sherman followed by the thousands of graves that he left behind. Now, what other myths you have for us today? The route of Sherman's March to the Sea was still visible on aerial photographs taken during the World War II era, thanks to the salt his soldiers sowed as they marched. Kinda hard to "myth", if you can see it from outer space.

Hey, no one questions the march, but where are the graves?

Why don't you admit that Sherman did not kill your relatives and move on.

[fortheDeclaration]

Which is different from 1777 how? And what sort of large point are we supposed to draw from the reluctance of foreign countries to brown off the Lincoln Administration?

Don't you dare bring up our revolution (when I say our, I mean the American revolution, not yours).

You Neo-Confederates have rejected the Declaration (defending Dred Scott and Calhoun) and your revolt was to defend the right to keep tyranny not end it.

The United States did eventually get recognition from major powers, the confederates never did.

[fortheDeclaration]

Kinda a mute point now though, isn't it!

Sherman saw to that! LOL!

[Non-Sequitur]

Which is different from 1777 how?

Not so much 1777 as 1778, where France, and later Spain, signed treaties with the United States thus recognizing the United States as a free, independent, and sovereign nation.

And what sort of large point are we supposed to draw from the reluctance of foreign countries to brown off the Lincoln Administration?

Why the fact that the entire world agreed that the confederacy was nothing more than a bunch of states in rebellion against their legitimate government.

[Gianni]

Now I shall respond to your four questions:

Respond, but not answer.

[Gianni]

Well considering that Sumter was under seige for months before Lincoln took office, the North had every right to prepare for war

Was it you or El Capitan who posted this before? Either way, I can't remember, but is it typical in Bizarroworld to supply the subjects of a seige with food and supply?

It's just another example of your hyperbolous and unsupportable crap.