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?

[GOPcapitalist]

As I said, the historians seem to have a problem with your view.

I've already given you a book reference to it and the page from the CSA Congress journal where it is documented. OTOH, I have yet to see any historian you've produced who denies it. In fact all you seem to have are a couple of googled websites that seem to be unaware of its existence entirely.

[fortheDeclaration]

I've already given you a book reference to it and the page from the CSA Congress journal where it is documented. OTOH, I have yet to see any historian you've produced who denies it. In fact all you seem to have are a couple of googled websites that seem to be unaware of its existence entirely.

Now why would the Museum of the Confederacy not be aware of it?

I have emailed them on the issue.

It might well be that this is a recent historical find and the histories may have to be rewritten.

Or, it might be that Saxe-Coburg-Gotha are not seen as having any political relevance.

[Non-Sequitur]

You have documentation that "the entire world agreed", of course. Post up. Stop lying and start documenting "the entire world agreed".

Want to split hairs, huh? OK, how about not a single country in the world indicated that they believed in confederate sovereignty by recognizing them as such? Is that better?

[M. Espinola]

Maybe not the answers you were seeking?

[GOPcapitalist]

Now why would the Museum of the Confederacy not be aware of it?

Given the plaque that's on display inside their building they evidently are. It seems that their webmaster is the one who is not aware of it.

I have emailed them on the issue.

By all means please let us know if you get a response.

It might well be that this is a recent historical find and the histories may have to be rewritten.

Don't know how recent it is. I first read about it a couple years ago when I was looking for information on confederate diplomacy then I saw it in the display at the museum last year. North and South Magazine recently highlighted it as well and the date on the book I gave you was 1994 I believe, so it's been known for at least a decade or so. It is however possible that it was either not known or had been overlooked in previous years. There surprisingly hasn't been much written on confederate diplomatic efforts, and most that has is all about England. Even the Vatican, which is very thoroughly documented in the Official Records series, seldom gets more than a couple pages in some of the older texts.

[GOPcapitalist]

K, how about not a single country in the world indicated that they believed in confederate sovereignty by recognizing them as such?

Funny. Prior to the German unification in 1918, Saxe Coburg and Gotha was a country, and they recognized the CSA. Seems like you are either wrong or lying again.

[fortheDeclaration]

I will let you know as soon as I get a response.

Until then, I will keep my eyes open for any comments regarding diplomatic recognition of the South.

[M. Espinola]

They were revolting from Washington because they wanted to keep the right to keep those people under bondage. This is correct.

'Fredrick Douglass feared that the [terrorist tactics] of the Klan would succeed in frightening blacks into giving up the civil rights they had gained in the South. "Rebellion has been subdued, slavery abolished, and peace proclaimed," he said, "and yet our work is not done.....We are face to face with the same old enemy of liberty and progress.....The South today is a field of blood."

The situation Mr. Douglass outlines in terms of the post Civil War terrorism via the KKK throughout the recently defeated secessionist South states, sounds very similar to the current dilemma in Iraq, where terrorist attacks are utilized to prevent the Iraqi people from voting.

The Klan engaged in identical terrorist tactics from 1867-8 extending to the 1960's in order to prevent black Americans from exercising their constitutional rights to vote.

If the general public is allowed to vote, the terrorists always lose.....always!

[lentulusgracchus]

OK, how about not a single country in the world indicated that they believed in confederate sovereignty by recognizing them as such? Is that better?

No, it isn't. Trying to crib silence into an endorsement of your side is a nice try, but you have some documenting to do before anyone on FR will accept your broad-brush claim.

Far from splitting hairs, I'm giving you a reverse Mohawk. You need one -- you have bad habits in discourse, you don't play well with others, and you fib a lot.

Getting Catholic with you for a minute, fibbing by omission, implication, or silence is just as sinful as telling people that Lincoln only wanted peace and freedom, or that "it was all about slavery".

So don't start.

[Gianni]

No people who denies the right of the consent of the governed to one people, can claim that right for themselves.

Then who claimed that right in 1776?

[Gianni]

Maybe not the answers you were seeking?

Not answers at all.

[lentulusgracchus]

Your gimmick is called "bracketing", and it's a black-propaganda technique. It's essentially a creative way to lie by implication -- ideal for guys like you who couldn't for five seconds build the bridge of logic adequate to tie American Klansmen to Wahhabist jihadi scum. There are parallels in their use of violence, but that's about it -- their belief systems are wildly divergent, and they present wildly different threat levels to society.

In short, your post is a lie. Now stop it. You wanna quote Frederick Douglass, fine -- he apologized later in life for a lot of things he said about white people in antebellum Maryland society; he had exaggerated a lot in his advocacy, and he admitted it. That remark about "a field of blood" is not an exaggeration only if you include the blood of Civil War casualties: the total number of blacks lynched in the South from 1865 to present is about 4700 people, or about the same number as the number of white people who get murdered by black criminals every year in the United States -- only nobody is checking how many of those murders have a significant racial component, precisely so we can't compare apples and apples. But Douglass's statement was an exaggeration, and would have been understood to be one by anyone who'd seen the Civil War.

Now get serious and quit posting demagogic trash.

[M. Espinola]

I understand Queens & Brooklyn are part of Long Island

Your irrelevant nonsense is noted as irrelevant.? You disagree with my response so instead of addressing the issue you sink back into mud slinging with the comment above. It seems when dragged back into the real world of 1861 you are unable to handle the realities.

Since when was it 'legal' for pro-slavers to What does the (((vague))) phrase, "supported Israel" mean?

It's about as (((vague))) as supporting traitors attempting to expand their slave empire. Is that vague enough? Give me a break.

Does it mean taxing Americans and giving their money to Israel? Oh no, Americans should send out tax dollars to the sand nazis of Hamas to blow up more Israelis. Would that make you happy?

Does it mean providing military equipment and personnel to support Israel should Israel make a pre-emptive strike against an Arab nation... Damn good idea, as in nuclear threatening, Persian Iran.

Go IDF!!

Your true sentiments were dramatically revealed in that little diatribe directed at Israel. Thanks for removing your mask on that issue as well.

On the Supreme Court issue, in so far as the Civil War, there were two sides. Pro-Union & anti-slavery or pro-slavery secessionists.

Which side would you have been on in 1861? I know which side I would have taken.

[M. Espinola]

Are you looking for anything other than pro-neo-Confederate spins on Civil War history?

[M. Espinola]

"Marxism finds it easy to ally with Islamic zealotism" Bingo! The statement is right on the money!

[lentulusgracchus]

Your true sentiments were dramatically revealed in that little diatribe directed at Israel. Thanks for removing your mask on that issue as well.

Based on the actual exchange, your imputation of antisemitism is unfair. Frankly, I think you're engaging in more ad hominem sand in the eyes.

He asked several clarifying questions so that he could answer your hypothetical clearly. He was right, your expression "support Israel" was too broad. His asking for clarification of what level of support you are talking about (the same level promised by IDF paratroopers at their swearing-in, for example?) is very reasonable under the circumstances. Give him some parameters and let him answer your question.

[reg45]

To this day I hear the term “nigger” used derogatorily more often in the North.

That's because Southerners say "niggra".

[ariamne]

I think it isn't so black and white (or red and blue). A lot of so-called blue staters are not anti-south, nor are they all liberal, and a lot of red staters are liberal dems (especially in the urban enclaves, Atlanta, New Orleans,etc.)

I am not comfortable with this kind of alternate reality scenario. It's too simplistic. Maybe there would have been no raising of a flag at Iwo Jima. Maybe there would have been no Neil Armstrong planting a flag on the moon.

That's the problem with alternate reality concepts; for every alternate reality, there are infinite alternate universes encompassing each possibility.

And I have no faith at all that Hollywood would give the south any kind of fair treatment.

[M. Espinola]

You really think my question 'do you "support Israel" was too broad? If someone asked you or I if either one of us 'support Iran' or 'support al Qa'ida' the response would be quick and too the point in an obvious 'no!'

In relation to the 'hypothetical', I prefer to deal in the real world when speaking on the Civil War.

[GOPcapitalist]

Von Mises knew exactly what he was talking about, and he made that statement three quarters of a century ago. Islamic theological economics actually have a lot in common with Marxism. Islam teaches that wealth should be redistributed from the haves to the have nots and treats many forms of economic success as immoral and exploitative.

It all fits in very nicely with the Marxist doctrine. That's why the radical leftists who hate all other forms of religion will cling to, defend, uphold, and "tolerate" radical islam even if its 7th century beliefs on gender and its barbaric warmaking tendencies (leftists only hate wars when they're waged by conservatives - they love wars as long as they advance a leftist cause) seem like an unusual alliance.