Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 04/13/2005 10:44:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

Endless complaints.



Skip to comments.

Confederate States Of America (2005)
Yahoo Movies ^ | 12/31/04 | Me

Posted on 12/31/2004 2:21:30 PM PST by 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?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; History; Miscellaneous; Political Humor/Cartoons; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: alternateuniverse; ancientnews; battleflag; brucecatton; chrisshaysfanclub; confederacy; confederate; confederates; confederatetraitors; confedernuts; crackers; csa; deepsouthrabble; dixie; dixiewankers; gaylincolnidolaters; gayrebellovers; geoffreyperret; goodbyebushpilot; goodbyecssflorida; keywordsecessionist; letsplaywhatif; liberalyankees; lincoln; lincolnidolaters; mrspockhasabeard; neoconfederates; neorebels; racists; rebelgraveyard; rednecks; shelbyfoote; solongnolu; southernbigots; southernhonor; stainlessbanner; starsandbars; usaalltheway; yankeenuts; yankeeracists; yankscantspell; yankshatecatolics; yeeeeehaaaaaaa; youallwaitandseeyank; youlostgetoverit; youwishyank
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,721-1,7401,741-1,7601,761-1,780 ... 4,981-4,989 next last
To: Non-Sequitur
I didn't say that I disagreed with that.

No, I did. Then, as usual, Non-Sequitur came charging out of left field stating irrelevent factoids, and is now dragging us on a tangent the likes of which haven't been seen since... oh.... the last Non-sequitur diversionary episode.

Was it satisfying?

1,741 posted on 01/29/2005 7:38:55 PM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1725 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; Non-Sequitur
How could you have missed the rest of it?

Maybe it was a 'short' book?

1,742 posted on 01/29/2005 7:47:32 PM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1729 | View Replies]

To: ariamne
I always assumed opposition to aid to Israel was based on fear or hatred of the jews.

No, some of it has been, but you're talking now about snotty "Arabist" State Department types who have been documented exercising antisemitic social enthusiasms in policy formulation in the 30's and 40's. They haven't been a factor in ages.

Isolationists are another matter. Not necessarily antisemitic, they nevertheless got their panties in a wad years ago over AIPAC and AJC's effectual political lobbying for close American engagement in support of Israel, for reasons we shouldn't have done, viz., because some AJC representatives, in the story told by Margaret Truman (I remember hearing it in the 50's, from my dad, who was in the Air Force at the time), dropped in on Harry Truman during the 1948 presidential race and told him that if he wanted another term as President of the United States, he'd better get on the stick and recognize David Ben-Gurion's government and the State of Israel. Otherwise, all that political money would be going to Thomas Dewey. It was political blackmail -- the AJC called every chip it had, put everything it could muster on one proposition. Israel needed to be recognized, and so the United States Government had to recognize Israel, right now.

Of course, the "Arabists" were screwing around in the background and trying to prevent recognition of Israel; but jerking the arms off a sitting president and beating him over the head with them doesn't get you a lot of brownie points with most people I know.

Of course, the antisemites went nuts, because the AJC beat their play, but Israel won and Truman got reelected. Truman could possibly have arrested the AJC reps for making such a play, but it was Democratic politics not armed robbery, so he let it go; the alternative would probably have busted the Democratic Party wide open at a tender juncture and handed Dewey the White House. But repping as they were for Ben-Gurion, the AJC men should have registered as political agents for the Haganah, which would have made their approach legal and their advocacy lawful and protected. AFAIK, though, not only did they not register, but historians of the Zionist movement have yet to admit to this day that the story was true.

More to the point, though, is the fact that the U.S. began to support Israel militarily and politically as Ben-Gurion hoped, and the rest is history, as the U.S. tried for a long time, and still tries today, to square its "honest broker" aspirations with its guarantees of Israeli security.

I understand the reasons for supporting Israel, but people politically wedded to George Washington's advice against foreign entanglements still think that we need to avoid these involvements in order to preserve American exceptionalism -- the American exemption from internecine struggles abroad that puts the FBI on the trails of Provo-IRA men trying to raise money in America (my own grandmother gave the IRA money, I blush to admit -- she hated the English, including her daughter-in-law, my mother) and shuts down any attempt by Greeks and Armenians in this country to exact revenge on the Turkish nation for their own reasons. Despite having a substantial Armenian-American community, USG supported the Turks against the Kurdish Communists and separatists who were committing terrorist acts in Turkey.

American exceptionalism basically means that we aren't going to have the rest of the world's experiences with intestine hatreds and factionalism here; we can't have other people's wars spilling over into the United States because so to do disturbs our own experiment in government. We have decided as a society long ago, that we won't permit the importation of ethnic and religious squabbles. That policy has become muddied by our postwar internationalism and alliance-building, which was another policy decision taken by Truman, Eisenhower, and John Foster Dulles that put the "America-firsters" like Pat Buchanan permanently in the minority, and for a while, in the minority of the Republican minority. Even Barry Goldwater endorsed containment policies and Dulles's structure of international alliances ("entanglements"), as did his political heir, Ronald Reagan.

All of those developments left the Buchananites (for want of a better word) out in the cold -- but their continued engagement of AIPAC and other internationalist opinion centers like the Trilateral Commission and the CFR does not make them antisemites.

Pat Buchanan isn't Joe Sobran: both were tried in print by William F. Buckley, Jr., and Sobran was convicted and banned from National Review, but Buchanan was exonerated of Abe Foxman's highly political accusations (after the "amen corner" comment). Buchanan may be an antisemite, but his public statements AFAIK are reconcilable with "America-first" sentiments instead, so that anyone wanting to prove Buchanan or another paleoconservative an antisemite has to post up.

1,743 posted on 01/29/2005 8:46:19 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1738 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
That title (Battle Cry of Freedom) just catapults you directly over the hood of your pick up truck. Does it not? lolol.

You mention Newt. I for one happen to like Newt, and thus far, at least via TV, had never heard the Speaker ever ramble on about any of this neo-confederate nonsense.

You also brought up the New York Times. When was the last time you actually held a copy in your hands and read it. In terms of the newspaper format, layout, of the NYT, its one of the best in the nation. The editorial & much of the 'News' they deem 'fit to print' is most regrettably controlled by commie leftist Bush bashers, some of which are still trying to 'Dump Nixon'. In their spare time they are limo riding back & forth from one 'protest to the other. Anyway, the NY Post is easier to read on the subway, plus one can read it without yelling in public.

Blatant revisionist spins such as The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, is similar to statements by Nazi sympathizers denying the Holocaust took place.

Some of the people you call "neo-Confederates", If you are not one, simply state so, either way.

In terms of DiLorenzo, he is a white supremacist, an advocate of a return to (at least) the legal segregation of the Jim Crow era using all the familiar buzz lines the neo-rebels love hear.

"Southern patriots? How about simply 'American patriots' for chance? Let me jolt you a little further, in retrospect Lincoln and Sherman were far too lenient when dealing secessionists plunging this nation into a horrific civil war.

The overview you issued on the wedge issue would not even exist as a political football if bloody obstinate, red-neck minded fools would cease and desist from creating problems in the first place.

Hillary's leftwing machine will suffer a resounding defeat in the next Presidential race, provided the victorious conservative movement continues on course and is not sidetracked.


1,744 posted on 01/29/2005 10:54:28 PM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1740 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; M. Espinola
M. Espinola isn't really a person, but a failed A.I. project written by a first year comp-sci student at a community college in New York. More commonly known as M_Espinola.exe, it began as a program to run on a voice mail server. M_Espinola.exe was loaded onto the college's voice mail server and quickly crashed the system, leaving most of the stored messages jumbled as well as the outgoing messages for individual voice mailboxes. Most were deleted or overwritten. While technicians were trying to reinstall the old program, M­_Espinola.exe was transfered to the school's LAN. An intern accidentally ran the program and before it could be shut down, it migrated to the router controlling the campus' access to the Internet.

Most sites infected with this virus-like program were able to contain and delete it. Unfortunately, some Ukrainian script-kiddies came across a copy of M_Espinola.exe and modified it so it could get through the firewalls used by most blog and chat servers. FR seems to be especially vulnerable. It's best to put the screen name "M. Espinola" on bozo until this problem is addressed by the sysadmin.

In the meantime, take jackasspirin for symptomatic relief.

1,745 posted on 01/30/2005 12:33:44 AM PST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1723 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Your post is nothing but hot air.

So how many of your relatives were killed by Sherman anyway?

1,746 posted on 01/30/2005 3:28:40 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1719 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan


1,747 posted on 01/30/2005 3:50:35 AM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1745 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
...and the only government in the state of Missouri that had actually been elected by the people.

That does not excuse them from quorum requirements. A quorum required 19 senators and 68 representatives. According to Goodspeed's account there were only 10 senators and 39 members of the house present in Neosho. Their legality of their actions is questionable.

1,748 posted on 01/30/2005 4:14:18 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1739 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
Maybe it was a 'short' book?

Well, it's not too long but is available online. However, there are no pictures. Would you still like a link to it?

1,749 posted on 01/30/2005 4:15:26 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1742 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
No, I did. Then, as usual, Non-Sequitur came charging out of left field stating irrelevent factoids, and is now dragging us on a tangent the likes of which haven't been seen since... oh.... the last Non-sequitur diversionary episode.

Actually you questioned why the country wasn't split along slave state lines. And I offered one explanation, which went way over your head it seems.

1,750 posted on 01/30/2005 4:17:11 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1741 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Just practicing my modesty.

Well I suppose that there is a first time for everything.

1,751 posted on 01/30/2005 4:19:11 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1732 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Speech by the Vice President of the South,

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html

1,752 posted on 01/30/2005 4:31:31 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1719 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
The Vice President of the South said so.

As for it not being split between slave and non-slave, it was because those border states still holding slaves, did not think it worth while to break up the United States over defending it's expansion.

1,753 posted on 01/30/2005 5:11:32 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1694 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
That is why the Founding Fathers had always intended to end slavery as a moral evil. I'm less than convinced, especially since they codified it into the Constitution 10 years after declaring independence.

Read what the Vice President of the Confederacy said in his speech, I have just posted it.

However, in the Civil War, the South was fighting for slavery as a moral right. The South was fighting in defense of their homes, their families, and, yes, their way of life, which included slavery. If the radical islamists invaded tomorrow with the stated purpose of ending abortion (note: this should be an easier case, since the Union never made claim to end the evils of slavery), I would do everything within my power to repel such an invasion. That does not make me a defender of abortion, or an abortocrat, or whatever the next idiotic word y'all are going to make up to paint us all as lovers of slavery. None of us are. Get over it.

The cause for the war was slavery.

No doubt many fought for different reasons, such as Lee, who was against slavery and secession.

Yet, the political cause for the South seceding was over the election of Lincoln and his platform to limit the growth of slavery.

That is history-deal with it.

The British did note the apparent contradiction with the colonists and slavery. So, then, do you believe the revolution of 1776 was immoral?

No, because we intended to end slavery, as Andrew Stephens noted in his speech.

1,754 posted on 01/30/2005 5:15:47 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1696 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
You must remember that the winners write the history...but the losers write the myths Amen! And you two, to write the bull$hit.

Well, history does not support the Southern myths.

Cursing doesn't change facts.

1,755 posted on 01/30/2005 5:17:37 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1697 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
Still fighting for the Lost Cause is for losers. Now it's your turn to go bail some cotton, boy :)

LOL!

1,756 posted on 01/30/2005 5:18:17 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1700 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Interesting that the Secret Six who backed John Brown's attempt to start a race war were mostly from New England and New York

They were abolitionists, not 'money men'

It was slavery they were trying to end, albeit, a stupid and criminal way.

1,757 posted on 01/30/2005 5:20:27 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1723 | View Replies]

To: Gianni; Non-Sequitur
Because slavery was weakening the farther North you went. Mr FTD claimed that (no slavery) = (no war).

You can't really be that simplistic a thinker can you?

No slavery, no secession.

It was the slave states that chose to depart.

However,because not all the slave states chose not do so, doesn't make slavery any less a reason for the war for those that did secede

1,758 posted on 01/30/2005 5:23:23 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1704 | View Replies]

To: ariamne
Israel is America's best friend.

More importantly, Israel is still under God's protection (Rom.11:25), so it is to the benefit and blessing of this nation to stand by Israel even if we have to stand against the entire anti-semitic world in doing so.

1,759 posted on 01/30/2005 5:25:54 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1705 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan; M. Espinola
The fact is that I would not vote for any Republican who is not pro-Israel-period.

Whoever goes against the Jew goes against God (Gen.12, Zech.2:8)

Israel's enemies are our enemies, and we better wake up that fact very quickly since we are now in a war with them.

1,760 posted on 01/30/2005 5:34:45 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1708 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,721-1,7401,741-1,7601,761-1,780 ... 4,981-4,989 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson