Confederate States Of America (2005)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where is the Confederacy today? That's not what I asked you.

Your question is irrevelant to my statement, that the secession was attempted-that is-it failed.

But it is teleology -- an attempt to settle all questions by pogoing up and down while chanting, "We won! We won!"

No, the issue you cared to make a point was was about my phrase, attempted secession, which means, that despite the fact that no taxes were gathered from Confederate states, the secession failed, thus the term attempted secession.

I was calling you Dean for your anti-American rant. Quote me saying something that remotely resembles an "anti-American rant". Go on -- you can't.

And furthermore, the connection of the rise of the robber barons to the election of Lincoln is not post hoc ergo propter hoc -- the Republicans were the party of business and industry (no matter what happened with slaves or ex-slaves), and they served those interests avidly all through the Gilded Age, right down to the present day. The only time their hold on the party has been threatened has been when Main Street, conservative Republicans briefly took over the GOP to nominate Barry and elect Ronnie -- and before Ronnie left office, the hand of Manor Bush had taken a steel grip on the whole party. I went to the 1988 caucuses, and they were a joke. We got Bush I rammed down our throats by a bunch of blue-haired ladies in upmarket pret-a-porter, who just sat there saying not a thing all evening, then voted the straight Bush ticket, got into their Lincoln Continentals, and went home. The party has been subserving their interest at the expense of everything else ever since. Housemaids, gardeners, drywall installers -- what immigration problem? Basta! What this country needs is a serious reduction of the minimum wage! Oh, and big tax cuts in the higher brackets. Better still, turn the entire income tax into a sales tax. Like Leona Helmsley said, "paying taxes is for little people!" Point: the GOP has been, and still is, the party of really rich people running really large economic machines that the GOP privileges above the interests of mere voters (employees, hands, churls). Ergo, the common men who fought in Union blue to "save the Union" in 1865, gave their lives so that John D. Rockefeller could monopolize the illuminating-oil industry, Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick could break the Knights of Labor with an army of Pinkertons and the Militia during the Homestead strike (in order to preserve Carnegie's sacred right to cut wages in half), the owners of the South Fork Dam (Carnegie and Frick again, among others) wouldn't have to face their responsibility for the Johnstown Flood (2200 dead, five years to recover), and Mrs. Vanderbilt could give out precious stones as party favors to her plutocratic guests. Everyone else got Hobson's choice, time clocks, company stores and company towns, private armies of security police, mile-long assembly lines where workers lasted 18 months (maybe), ten-dollar death benefits for workers, and all the rest of the things we've been used to associate with 19th-century HR administration. Only a few people won the Civil War, claywit. Smell the coffee.

You don't think that rant was anti-American?

Unless you equate America with monopolies and trusts and cartels and union-busting and wage-breaking and using employees like rolls of toilet paper and throwing them away. That what America means to you? You some kind of Newport tennis bum, kissing butt on the vacationing Vanderbilts, or maybe handling their SLAPP suits for them?

Once, again a Marxist rant.

Just wondering.

No, I am not a Marxist and do not see the Republican party out to get the 'little guy'

Only it was not the North fighting an invading Army deep within her borders. Operative word, invading.

No, the context was how a southern man might perceive what was happening.

If he was against secession he would (as I said- rightfully so) see the Union army as the American army (hence an army of liberation).

If for secession, he would see it as an invading army, in which case, the difficulty that the Confederates had in raising troops without a draft is hard to understand.

More Confederates were shot for desertion then were Union troops.

You don't think that rant was anti-American?

More to the point, YOU DO?!

You're trying to make a case for banning, aren't you, Claywit?

Called in the mods yet?

Well, smell the coffee.....I'm a Main Street Republican and a Barry Goldwater man, a real Reaganaut as opposed to those phony ones who went to chi-chi prep schools like Andover, pretended to be conservatives for a while, and then gave all the Reagan people the push, first chance they got.

And you're probably just like them......a National Greatness McCainiac, a McKinleyite who never met a payroll he didn't want to break wages on -- which distinguishes McKinleyites from ethical capitalists like the Objectivists, who emphasized paying on time, in full, in hard money at the agreed-on rate. McKinleyites are always looking to weasel on wages -- but that ain't Marx (you really ought to read a book); that 's from Milton Friedman, who's about as strong a hard-money Republican as there is.

Speaking of McCain, that reminds me of what Camille Paglia, who is one of two honest lesbians in the United States (and who lunches with Rush Limbaugh) once said about him back in 2000 , that McCain was "positively bulging with protofascist impulses".

American principles call for no special favors, no lobbyist payoffs, no influence-peddling.........now, you gonna complain about my saying that? And yet, I'm forthrightly attacking corporate welfarism and dirty insider deals -- like the Credit Mobilier and the Whiskey Ring and the Lincoln Savings and Loan and Madison Guaranty and The Ballpark at Arlington sweetheart deal, like Teapot Dome and Al Gore's arranging the sale of Teapot Dome to Oxy while Gore was a) in office and b) holding a bucketload of Oxy stock he got from his coal-company-coddling daddy.

Or are you going to complain about my saying that, too?

Having a security policy is okay. Having a forward security policy is okay. Having a forward security policy that requires frequent engagement.......and then trying to do it on a budget so you can cut taxes......just ain't military-friendly, okay? And it isn't the conservative thing to do.

You don't have to be a paleocon to know that something fishy is going on in DC under the Bush incumbency.

At least they're getting over the Ba'athists.

Now go whine to the mods if you want to. You and Espinola too, who got a thrice-better poster than himself banned -- and then did an end-zone dance about it on the thread, to show everyone that his spirit is as small as his cranium.

So, did taxes go up overall or not? They did not. Per aCongressional Committee on Joint Taxation study conducted in 2000, the average person's tax burden under the 1980 tax code was 33.2% of their income. After the Reagan cuts it was 21.4% on average. You seem to be suffering from the strain of liberalism that commonly infects mid-stage Lincoln idolaters.

Did that include the SS taxes?

He just shifted where the tax burden would fall. Utter left wing Reagan-bashing nonsense. You seem to be suffering from the strain of liberalism that commonly infects mid-stage Lincoln idolaters. Per Dr. Peter Sperry of the Heritage Foundation the federal tax burden of your beloved social security handouts - which were never a Reagan program to begin with - consistently decreased between 1981 and 1989 for four out of five taxpaying quintiles and only increased slightly (by 2%) for the fifth - the top 20%

What are you babbling about?

Who said SS was a Reagan program?

Did tax levels go up to pay for SS or not during those years?

Stop playing word games. The only word games here are yours, ftD, and they're emitting a strong liberal stench not uncommon to your Wlat Brigade predecessors.

Nothing liberal about my contentions.

The fact are that taxes have gone up under Reagan to pay for his first priority, defeating the Soviet Union.

So, save the rhetoric about Reagan being a 'small gov't' guy.

He saw that Government had a role to play in certain areas, like defense, and increased spending accordingly.

Domestic spending did not go down, but revenues did increase to pay for the increased spending due to the cut in the tax brackets which increased investment.

Reagan and this current Bush, would have the same exact view of Gov't that Lincoln had,that it had an important role to play, which meant, taxes had to be collected to pay for that role.

Yes, there was a little matter of a war being fought. ...and a big matter of taxes being raised at Lincoln's wishes dating back to the Morrill Tariff's introduction in 1860 over a year before that war began.

And the South could have blocked that Tariff had they not seceded.

Tariffs were supported by both Parties depending on what area of the country they came from, so this was not a simple Whig vs Democrat issue.

So, how did Davis do with taxes? Quoth the ftD: "Squack! Tu quoque! Tu quoque!"

Well, he had a war to fight did he not?

Anytime the Confederate Government is brought up, you guys run for the caves!

Is that not the government that was suppose to be so different then the évil'Lincoln government?

Yet, both Davis and Lincoln dealt with the problems they faced in much the same way.

I mean (and you know it) is that the source of revenue is a tax. The source of virtually all revenue these days is a tax of some sort, ftD. Why do you single out a decrease in the amount of handouts for a single program then when calculating your tax assessments?

When did I say anything about decreasing the amount of handouts?

The issue is who is paying and who is not.

The producers are paying for the non-producers hence in net they are paying all the taxes.

Yea, and it comes out of our pay checks! Your reading comprehension is lacking of late, ftD. I'll repeat myself. Taxes are coming out of our paychecks, but Social Security is not and never has been a true paycheck financed retirement trust as it is often billed. In reality Social Security is nothing more than a welfare program for the elderly. It taxes workers and redistributes the revenues in the form of handout checks. "Taxing" part of those SS handout checks is no different than "taxing" some AFDC/TANF welfare queen on the handout she receives - in reality it is nothing more than a reduction in the total handout they receive, and from a conservative perspective that is a good thing.

And I will repeat myself again, SS is a tax, for whatever it is used.

Now, why do you keep bringing up taxing the SS handout checks when that is not what is being discussed.

If you do not get a SS check, then you are paying for someones else's SS with a tax.

As for a person who receiving a 'reduction' on the handout they receive, it is still a net gain for them and net loss for me.

Again, you bring up a irrelevant issue, what do I care about any reduction on the handout they receive?

Anyone receiving a handout/welfare/gov't check is not a producer, he is a tax consumer.

Such is the nature of handout programs, and for that particular one you need to be blaming FDR, not Reagan.

Oh, as I said, I did not blame Reagan, I do blame FDR, not Lincoln as you guys attempt to do.

Ah,we are not talking about brackets now, but overall revenue going to the treasury from tax revenues. Revenue increases when economic activity increases (as happened in the 1980's). That doesn't mean taxes went up, and quite to the contrary if a tax cut spurs that increase in economic activity. Don't you remember how the Laffer Curve works?

If extra revenue is coming in to the treasury and it is being spent, does that mean that Gov't has gotten bigger or smaller?

The cuts stimulated economic growth and did lead to greater revenue, but Reagan also signed a massive SS tax increase at the end of his term (Dole was a part of that I believe)

Because he had to fight one of the greatest wars in history. So claimed Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, and every other tyrant who ever lived.

And so did the winners of the wars that we won.

Wars cost money.

Hence taxes are raised to pay for them.

Had there been no secession, Lincoln could not have grown the gov't to the size he did.

You can thank the South for the growth of the national gov't under Lincoln.

What was the size of the 'libertarian' Confederacy by wars end? Quoth the ftD: "Squack! Tu quoque! Tu quoque!"

Once again, run to the hills!

We cannot talk about the Confederate Gov't-only Lincoln.

As for the homestead act, what could be more conservative then giving the 'government' land to the people-free! It wasn't the government's land though. It was the land of the whole United States and its people, the government only being the mechanism by which it was rationed. The conservative would espouse using the market mechanism of prices to ration that land (using the revenues, in turn, to alleviate the federal tax burden on the people and finance the operations of a limited government) whereas the liberal would espouse rationing by giving it away to persons who meet certain social categories by way of a handout program administered through the bureaucracy, all the while financing the government through taxation measures that are enacted to coincide with that handout program.

I think we should use the Lockean approach, if you mix your labor with it, you can keep it.

Now, if you want to sell it to pay off the national debt that is fine also, but it shouldn't be in government hands.

We should do the same thing now. Your liberal bug has reached the state of a fever, ftD. Don't worry though. It happens to all Lincoln idolaters sooner or later because liberalism is the inevitable logical conclusion of Lincoln idolatry.

No, just believe in a small, limited government, that gives the individual the ability to own his own home and business.

Just like Lincoln did.

Yes, but no one forces you to buy a particular good, so a sales tax allows alot more freedom of action. Is that supposed to make me feel better when the sales tax is an exhorbitant 50% or 100% on the total value of the item (as was frequently the case with the value added onto imports by protective tariffs)? Am I supposed to conclude "well, I have the freedom not to drink tea or play cards so I guess those silly stamps King George wants me to buy are fair enough" and fish the crates out of Boston harbor?

Those taxes were passed without representation.

The South had representation.

A sales tax allows you to pick which item is worth spending tax money on.

It is far fairer then an income tax.

Especially a progressive one.

Now, with your income taxed, you have no choice in the amount of taxes you are willing to pay, unless you cut back on your income. Funny how Lincoln figured that out and exploited it to the fullest with his Internal Revenue Act of 1862 - the same Internal Revenue Act of 1862 that established the first American income tax, which you denied and evidently still deny to have been an issue in the Lincoln administration. Go figure.

Go figure that it was wartime, and temporary.

It isn't temporary anymore.

Did the Confederacy have an income tax?

The greatest increase of national gov't came in the early 19th century with the progressives, with the income tax and direct elections of senators. Nah. And I presume you mean early 20th century, BTW. If that is the case they were only acting on the precedents of Lincoln before them. Lincoln invented the income tax in 1862 and it stayed in place for a decade until people started making a stink about the fact that it was unconstitutional. Needless to say, only half a century later the progressives picked up the "Saint Abe did it" banner and crammed the 16th amendment through to restore the Lincolnian economic system. Interestingly enough, the "progressives" 1% tax rate on the main bracket ($3000+ a year) that included everybody but the poor and the super rich was but a tiny fraction of the rates imposed on ALL of Lincoln's income tax brackets! For comparison: Lincoln Income Tax of 1862: 3% bracket: $600 to $10,000 ($650 to $10,700 in 1913 dollars adjusted for inflation) 5% bracket: $10,000 plus Lincoln Income Tax Hike of 1864: 5% bracket: $600 to $5,000 ($470 to $3900 in 1913 dollars adjusted for deflation - yes, there was deflation back then) 10% bracket: $5000 + "Progressives" Income Tax of 1913: 1% bracket: $3,000 to $500,000 individually or $4,000 to $500,000 for married couples 7% bracket: $500,000+

Very nice statistics, but Lincoln was fighting a war that was forced upon him, so preserving the Union was worth the cost.

You don't think that rant was anti-American? More to the point, YOU DO?!

Yes I do, haven't I made that clear to you?

You're trying to make a case for banning, aren't you, Claywit?

No, would you get banned for being anti-American?

Called in the mods yet?

I have never called in a mod for anything.

Can you say the same?

Well, smell the coffee.....I'm a Main Street Republican and a Barry Goldwater man, a real Reaganaut as opposed to those phony ones who went to chi-chi prep schools like Andover, pretended to be conservatives for a while, and then gave all the Reagan people the push, first chance they got.

Yea, you sound like a real grass roots Republican alright.

Milton Friedman?

Are you kidding me?

He is a Chicago School guy, advocated Gov't control of the money supply.

Very inflationary.

I am a hard money, Austrian myself-Mises, Rothbard.

Yea, and if runs to bring back the Confederate flag, your bunch would vote for him in a minute.

American principles call for no special favors, no lobbyist payoffs, no influence-peddling.........now, you gonna complain about my saying that? And yet, I'm forthrightly attacking corporate welfarism and dirty insider deals -- like the Credit Mobilier and the Whiskey Ring and the Lincoln Savings and Loan and Madison Guaranty and The Ballpark at Arlington sweetheart deal, like Teapot Dome and Al Gore's arranging the sale of Teapot Dome to Oxy while Gore was a) in office and b) holding a bucketload of Oxy stock he got from his coal-company-coddling daddy.

No, I agree that no government should be corrupt, but that does not mean America and her principles are corrupt, only that individual man fail.

Or are you going to complain about my saying that, too? Having a security policy is okay. Having a forward security policy is okay. Having a forward security policy that requires frequent engagement.......and then trying to do it on a budget so you can cut taxes......just ain't military-friendly, okay? And it isn't the conservative thing to do. You don't have to be a paleocon to know that something fishy is going on in DC under the Bush incumbency.

Why?

According to your buddy GOP Capitalist that is what Reagan did!

He cut taxes and raised military spending.

So why can't Bush?

At least they're getting over the Ba'athists. Now go whine to the mods if you want to. You and Espinola too, who got a thrice-better poster than himself banned -- and then did an end-zone dance about it on the thread, to show everyone that his spirit is as small as his cranium.

Now, did you ping M.Espinola, having mentioned him in your post?

As I said, I do not complain to MOD's.

You just keep rampling, that is enough to reveal what you really believe in.

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.