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?

[fortheDeclaration]

Hey argue with your friend GOP Capitalist, he agreed that Lincoln was like Bush or Ike (instead of Reagan) Courtesy normally dictates that you ping another poster when you are putting words in his mouth. I stated that Ike and Bush were moderates as opposed to conservatives in the modern sense. I did NOT say that Lincoln was on par with either of them though, and far from it. If you want a president who compares with Lincoln both in philosophy and political style there are three who come to mind: FDR, LBJ, and Clinton.

Actually, I thought I had pinged you.

I apologize for the oversight.

Well, then you to are in total agreement.

Wrong.

But in total agreement.

[fortheDeclaration]

Well, I guess that makes you smarter then Robert E. Lee, who stated that secession was simply rebellion, that the Union was meant to permanent, and that if there were problems with the Constitution, it should be dealt with by a legal constitutional convention.

Ofcourse, like Stephens, Lee did not know as much as you brilliant Neo-Confederates.

[fortheDeclaration]

The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration. President James Buchanan,(emphasis mine) a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to Pennsylvania protectionists, signed it into law. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States) to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent, Taussig writes.

Wait a minute!

Wasn't Buchanan a pro-Southern Democrat!

What is he doing signing in this anti-Southern tariff?

And Lincoln gets blamed for saying he would enforce the law (the tyrant)!

If the Southerners could muster a tie in the Senate, could they have not upheld Buchanan's veto?

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=952&fs=lincoln's%2btariff%2bwar

[fortheDeclaration]

Below is from Dilorenzo,

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=952&fs=lincoln's%2btariff%2bwar

But with the tariff it was different. He was not about to back down to the South Carolina tariff nullifiers, as Andrew Jackson had done,

Jackson backed down to the nullifiers?

The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject-my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. (emphasis mine) Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you-they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion, hut be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the head of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences-on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment-on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country. It cannot accede to the mad project of disunion, of which you would be the first victims-its first magistrate cannot, if he would, avoid the performance of his duty-the consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good government throughout the world.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/jack01.htm

Lincoln echoed the exact words of Jackson.

[Non-Sequitur]

Jackson backed down to the nullifiers?

Well you know Tommy DiLorenzo. Why let truth stand in the way of agenda?

[fortheDeclaration]

Hey, GOP, its seems that the Mises Institute agrees with me on Lincoln being a good Republican like Reagan.

In fact, modern Republicans are almost a mirror image of the original party. Protectionism was a high priority of the early Republican Party. They quickly enacted the Morrill Tariff, which raised tariff rates to extremely high levels, and their extreme protectionism continued throughout the era of Republican dominance. There is really little debate that these Republicans were the primary proponents of protectionism, particularly in the areas of steel and textiles. Modern Republicans, from Reagan to Bush II, have given us protectionism for a variety of favored industries, including steel, as well as the "managed trade" of NAFTA and the WTO.

What?

This can't be!

Reagan was a conservative and Lincoln a tyrant!

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1476

[M. Espinola]

"My name is Tommy 'Hyperspin' DiLorenzo. I wrote a little book that makes Abe Lincoln look like the worst deranged Klansman! Buy my book!"

[4CJ]

Bob, what's your problem? Why do you you hate Southerners?

Lincoln is ABUNDANTLY on record as using the word [*redacted* - per the mods, we can't quote Lincoln on anything that shatters the mythologocal status of his alleged sainthood], he even insunuated that if Pierce won he was a [*redacted*], and that the territories were to be free of [*redacted*].

[stand watie]

i personally know a merchant who PREFERS real CSA notes to federal.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

come dixie LIBERTY, the CSA $ will certainly be better traded than the $ of the "Peoples Socialist NANNY-state Republik of Amerika."

absent the dixie states, the new northern "peoples" republic will spend itself into the ground on WORTHLESS social experimentation & fall from within.

free dixie,sw

[M. Espinola]

"i personally know a merchant who PREFERS real CSA notes to federal."

They must love that guy at the bank ..LOL

[stand watie]

YET another DUMB post, from m. eSPINola.

how about finding something valuable to contribute to FR, rather than your usual MEANINGLESS, IGNORANT, silly DRIVEL???

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

don't you care that you are getting the reputation of being an EMPTY-HEAD????

free dixie,sw

[M. Espinola]

Bob(?)

Who stated anything concerning hate?

[M. Espinola]

I am losing sleep over it. Can't eat, function, nothing what-so-ever. It's horrible. What do you suggest?

[fortheDeclaration]

And did Lincoln believe that the African was to be a slave?

Check the CSA Constitution, they did.

The word that you accuse Lincoln used was a commonly used word of that day.

[fortheDeclaration]

YET another DUMB post, from m. eSPINola. how about finding something valuable to contribute to FR, rather than your usual MEANINGLESS, IGNORANT, silly DRIVEL???

M. he must mean like his post below. LOL!

come dixie LIBERTY, the CSA $ will certainly be better traded than the $ of the "Peoples Socialist NANNY-state Republik of Amerika." absent the dixie states, the new northern "peoples" republic will spend itself into the ground on WORTHLESS social experimentation & fall from within.

[Non-Sequitur]

come dixie LIBERTY, the CSA $ will certainly be better traded than the $ of the "Peoples Socialist NANNY-state Republik of Amerika."

A rump nation, trillions in debt, starting from scratch? In your dreams

[GOPcapitalist]

The point is that the Mexicans certainly did not (rightly or wrongly) hold to the Rio Grande as being the boundry.

That point is irrelevant though because the Mexicans did not recognize Texas' independence at all after reneging on the treaty. The rest of the world did though, and when the Mexicans yet again attempted to invade Texas' territory Zachary Taylor was waiting there to stop them.

[GOPcapitalist]

And what's your point now in flooding this thread with quotes from Mises institute articles? It still doesn't divert any attention away from the fact that your methodology of ranking tax hike sizes violates the Laffer Curve.