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?

[stand watie]

i was/AM speaking about the SLAUGHTER of the American Indians.

i believe you are smart enough to know that.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

i wonder if he doesn't get tired of being laughed AT????

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

since MOST of the helpless, UNarmed people who were raped,assaulted,tortured & murdered in the southland by the invading damnyankee army were civilian asians,blacks,indians,jews,latinos & the "poorest of the poor whites", one could logically assume that from the damnyankee's point of view that they were doing "ethnic cleansing".

i'd say that makes the damnyankees, who committed those ATROCITIES, FILTH of the worst sort.

what say you?

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

there are NO neo-confederates. or at least i've never met one.

otoh, there ARE hundreds of thousands of us, who are desendents of the old rebel families AND who have NOT (& WILL NOT) forgotten that we once had our own nation.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

well, since the WBTS really started in 1855, when the damnyankees from KS started attacking UNarmed, PEACEFUL farmers & preying on small villages in IT/AR/MO, i'd say you are INNCORRECT!

the jayhawkwers,redlegs, wide awakes & KS "volunteer cavalry" were nothing but savage FILTH & PREYED on helpless civilians on BOTH sides, for FUN & PROFIT.

pardon me, but your "publick screwl edumakasun" is showing.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

very true, as lincoln was TOO DUMB to do so.

had he had a brain, lincoln would have welcomed the new nation & traded with the CSA, as we would have needed THINGS from the USA forever.

but since he was too DUMB and/or POWER-MAD to do so, the war came to the east & a MILLION people NEEDLESSLY died.

face it, N-S, lincoln was just a cheap,scheming POLITICIAN, who would do/say anything to get ahead. he was the 1st SLICK WILLIE!

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

i note that despite you're wasting of bandwidth with your inane, DUMBbunny response, that you didn't answer the questions i asked.

so, i'll ask it yet again in a simpler form:

YES or NO, do you believe that torturing,assaulting,raping,robbing & MURDERING helpless CSA POWs and UNarmed civilians by the TENS of THOUSANDS was OK???

if YES, why do you fail to condemn the RACIST, murdering filth in blue that DID these ATROCITIES??? inquiring minds want to know.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

truthfully, more intelligent unionist freepers than "m. eSPINnola" have tried & failed to SILENCE me, as they understand that what i post is TRUTHFUL and that the PROPAGANDA promulgated by the damnyankee, REVISIONIST academic elites are SELF-serving LIES.

TRUTH will OUT fight lies every time.

free dixie,sw

[4CJ]

Nice talk....

If the shoe fits ... The problem is that you are attempting to get posters banned. You have an advantage. I cannot post quotes where Lincoln referenced blacks as "NI*****" - it seems the moderators are not tolerant of historical truth. You continually attempt to have TRUE conservatives - us - respond to flamebait. You desire for us to rise and respond to racist comments - I state unequivocally for you and all gathered here that I consider our dear Cyborg and stand watie my sister and brother, regardless of skin color or ethnicity - I claim them. If we lived near each other I'd socialize with them both, which is far more than your revered Lincoln would have done - his policy was one of repatriation/colonization/extermintation.

You take offense that Lincoln was assassinated, yet ignore the fact that per the Lieber Code - which Lincoln had instituted - made assassination unlawfully, but RETALIATION perfectly legal, 'a reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage".

Just in case you are unaware, Lincoln had Gen. 'Beast' Butler attempt to capture President Davis and cabinet which failed. Lincoln had sent Hooker a telegram which stated, there 'was not a sound pair of [Confederate] legs in Richmond, and that our men, had they known it, could have safely gone in and burnt every thing & brought us Jeff Davis'. Such compassion for the civilians! </sarcasm>

Unfortunately for Lincoln worshippers, Lincoln was adamant about capturing/killing President Davis, a few weeks later KilPatrick and Dahlgren led another raid which failed, Dalgren having papers that states, 'the City [Richmond] it must be destroyed' and 'Jeff Davis and his cabinet must be killed on the spot.' As Commander-in-Chief, Lincoln is responsible for all actions of the men in his command.

Lincoln violated his OWN code of war, and thus made himself a legitimate target. Your attempts to bait others simply demonstrates your lack of manners and ability to wage civil debate.

[4CJ]

Because there was nothing to negotiate. Lincoln had the choice to accept the southern ultimatum or not. He chose not to.

Cry me a river. If Confederates had captured Ms. Lincoln and held her hostage ... never mind, forget that one, if Confederates had capured TAD Lincoln, certainly no one of sane mind would doubt that Lincoln would have negotiated for his release. Lincoln rejected ALL attempts at negotiation. A diplomat, a statesman would have met with any of the delegations in an attempt to PEACFULLY negotiate settlement of the issues. Lincoln didn't.

[Non-Sequitur]

Lincoln rejected ALL attempts at negotiation.

There were no attempts on the part of the Davis regime to negotiate. Only a demand for recognition. What is there to negotiate in that?

A diplomat, a statesman would have met with any of the delegations in an attempt to PEACFULLY negotiate settlement of the issues. Lincoln didn't.

And what was he supposed to have negotiated? Tell me that.

[M. Espinola]

So {only} those in the modern 'Confederacy' are the only "TRUE conservatives."

How could I, a bumbling, unsophisticated schnook, be such a total ignoramus in not grasping this obvious revelation previously?

Resulting from your profound knowledge, I shall promptly inform scores of other inept schlemiels, living under the false impression of the impossibility of conservatism without adhering to the failed agenda of the neo-confederates.

I have never heard of your "dear Cyborg" and in terms of 'stand', he should be deported, not banned.

You guys remaining in the early 1860's, have bails of fun romping through the cotton fields of the lost cause.

[cyborg]

bttt

[M. Espinola]

"truthfully, more intelligent unionist freepers than "m. eSPINnola" have tried & failed to SILENCE me."

Can you blame them? lolol

Have you actually reviewed your most recent verbal hysterics of no-stop.... "jayhawkwers,redlegs, wide awakes & KS "volunteer cavalry" were nothing but savage FILTH and the RACIST, murdering filth in blue that DID these ATROCITIES"..

The NYPD?

Always remember..."there are NO neo-confederates"

[lentulusgracchus]

i wonder if he doesn't get tired of being laughed AT????

The cat deals in flamebait. He's trying to bait you and 4CJ (and me, too) into a bannable flame war. Pay him no more mind than to reply to what needs replying to, in order to set the record straight, and to pour oil on his waters, and water on his flames.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen!

[fortheDeclaration]

Thanks to Lincoln and his adherence to the principles of the Declaration, following in the footsteps of Washington himself. Cue the violins. The third-graders will now bow their heads for the mandatory Honest Abe solemnities.

Nothing wrong with that!

One was responsible for creating the nation, the other for preserving it.

[fortheDeclaration]

It only says that Washington did free and he did, making provision for that in his will, which Martha honored. I wasn't aware that he put that into his will. I thought Martha freed them on her own initiative, and that during his lifetime, Washington himself did not.

No, those were Washington's wishes.

He left it in Martha's hands to do when she saw fit.

That was how I have read it but I will check it to make sure.

So, what do you think of the Declaration's statement that all men are created equal as it relates to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? They were talking about their own society, i.e. European society, of which they didn't -- not all of them -- consider Africans to be part.

It was a statement to the entire world, not to Europe.

They were not saying that they were Englishmen who had rights, but men who had rights.

Jefferson got the idea from Locke, who got it from the Bible.

It had a universal aspect to it, not limited to Europe.

Or,do you take the Confederate view that there were certain men born to be ruled as slaves? That's Natural Law, and no, I don't think that. People are born slaves in Mauritania every day, but I don't think that should determine their status for life.

Well, that is the view of the Declaration and that is exactly what the Founders believed.

Another aspect of Natural Law is that differences among men are recognized and paid court to; that if I am able, somehow, by main force or trickery to overcome you and bind you to my will by force or deceit, then you are of course my natural prey. I don't accept that, either, and define such conduct as simply misconduct, and possibly criminal, and in some circumstances justiciable.

And the Declaration states that also, since these rights are from God and not from man and thus man has a right to fight for them when they are taken away (hence the justification for the revolution).

Moreover, these rights do mean everyone is the 'same' only equal in having the same right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

It doesn't guarantee outcome in life.

Sorry you had to wait so long for a reply, but I had my hands full.

No problem.

[fortheDeclaration]

The immediate cause meant that slavery was what was what was driving the secession movement.

That there were other complaints that the South had does not change the fact that it was slavery that was driving the move for secession.

This was the motivation for the deep south states.

[fortheDeclaration]

I am sure Soviet history is also being rewritten to depict them as the 'good guys'