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]

However, though Davis did not use the Writ as often as Lincoln, it does not mean he did not want to, or in fact, should have been restricted from doing so.

As usual you are simply wrong. Per Bensel, "even when granted this power, Davis never used suspension as sweepingly or with as much overt political purpose [as Lincoln]." (p. 142)

The fact is that suspension of the Writ is a necessity in times of war.

Convenient, useful, and sometimes even justified, yes. A necessity for times of war, no.

And Lincoln may have been in most cases justified in using it.

There is no such indication, and in fact Lincoln is widely known to have used it to detain innocents (including some very high profile ones), political opponents, underage minors enlisted in his armies, and newspaper editors who disagreed with him in their editorial policies. In a military sense, suspension of the writ is sometimes justified WHEN DONE THROUGH THE PROPER LEGAL CHANNELS (and Lincoln did not for the first two years of his suspension). It is not proper for dissenting newspaper editors, opposition party officials, judges, and 16 year old kids stuck in the military.

[GOPcapitalist]

Of course you'd like that review - it's nothing more than an extended exercise in tu quoquery!

[GOPcapitalist]

Another thing for your consideration. Given the current numbers of 38000 to 4000 arrests the north begins this comparison at a numerical disadvantage of almost 10 to 1.

Put another way, you would need to demonstrate that each southern arrest averaged at least ten times more abusive than each northern arrest. Since, as Bensel notes, the majority of the southern arrests appear to have been for a single minor offense in which an arrest was legitimate - selling alcohol to the troops on camp grounds - you are going to be extremely hard pressed to meet that threshold at which the severity of southern habeas corpus abuses surpasses northern abuses. And that goes without factoring in Lincoln's less-than-constitutional use of unilateral suspension for the first two years of the war.

In short, contrary to your claims, the raw numbers DO matter. If, for example, it was 5000 arrests to 4000 you may have a point. But we're talking 38000 arrests in the north to 4000 in the south, and demonstrating that every southern arrest was 10 times as bad as every northern arrest is a statistical impossibility given everything we know about those arrests. Just a word of warning before you embarrass yourself further.

[fortheDeclaration]

However, though Davis did not use the Writ as often as Lincoln, it does not mean he did not want to, or in fact, should have been restricted from doing so. As usual you are simply wrong. Per Bensel, "even when granted this power, Davis never used suspension as sweepingly or with as much overt political purpose [as Lincoln]." (p. 142)

That sounds like an opinion, not a fact.

The fact is that suspension of the Writ is a necessity in times of war. Convenient, useful, and sometimes even justified, yes. A necessity for times of war, no.

Ofcourse it is a necessity, that is why it is justified.

That is why it was allowed in the Constitution.

And Lincoln may have been in most cases justified in using it. There is no such indication, and in fact Lincoln is widely known to have used it to detain innocents (including some very high profile ones), political opponents, underage minors enlisted in his armies, and newspaper editors who disagreed with him in their editorial policies. In a military sense, suspension of the writ is sometimes justified WHEN DONE THROUGH THE PROPER LEGAL CHANNELS (and Lincoln did not for the first two years of his suspension). It is not proper for dissenting newspaper editors, opposition party officials, judges, and 16 year old kids stuck in the military.

I know that Lincoln's orders many times, were over-zealously carried out.

[fortheDeclaration]

Of course you'd like that review - it's nothing more than an extended exercise in tu quoquery!

Or in other words, it is dealing with facts.

[fortheDeclaration]

I haven't embarrased myself at all.

You threw out some numbers.

I said that the numbers were not the entire issue.

In fact, had the numbers been reversed, and the South's arrests were still on the trivial side, then the numbers would have been totally irrevelant.

As it is, it is clear (according to Bensal) that the Writ was used more by the North then the South and for more severely.

Yet, that is still not the entire story (I know you love simplistic arguments).

It may have been that the South did not use the Writ enough and that was a factor in losing the war.

It may have been that the North was totally justified in most of those who were arrested, hence negating the large number by the justification of their arrests.

So far you have the North arresting more people with the Writ and dealing with them more severely.

What has to also been shown is that the use of the Writ was greatly abused.

From what I have read, although there were abuses, they were not that many and most were justifiable.

[fortheDeclaration]

This is from The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln, by Philip Shaw Paludan,

Yet the triumph and the irony of his administration resided in Lincoln's commitment to the Constitution; without that there would have been no promises to keep to 4 million black Americans. Because so many Americans cherished the Union that the Constitution forged, they made war on slave masters and their friends, on a Government that Alexander Stephens claimed rested 'on the great truth that the negro is not the equal of the white man; that slavery...is his natural and normal condition. Without the president's devotion to and mastery of the political-constitutional institutions of his time, in all probablility the Union would have lacked the capacity to focus its will and its resources on defeating the Confederacy. Without Lincoln's unmatched ability to integrate equalitarian ends and constitutional means he could not have enlisted the range of supporters and soldiers necessary for victory. His great accomplishment was to energize and mobilize the nation by affirming its better angels, by showing the nation at its best: engaged in the impertative, life-perserving conversation between structure and purpose, ideal and institution, means and ends. (p.318-19)

[M. Espinola]

Thanks for the detailed links>

Today's most frenzied 'Neo-Confeds' perpetually & deliberately fostering further divisions within this country have a lot of nerve making statements toward any writer presenting factual, historic Civil War presentations, as being somehow "notoriously biased", while they deliriously scream for 'confederate' insurgency & full scale insurrection, against their own government & the majority of the citizenry, most being totally oblivious to the existence of these raging extremists

Their treason knows no bounds, which should not come as any surprise, considering the contemptible 'heroes' they try and emulate. This disgraceful element should be throughly ashamed of themselves, as so-called 'Americans'.

In retrospect, President Lincoln should have been considerable firmer toward the prime insitgators of the pro-slavery rebellion & resulting plung into a terrible civil war.

For the President's attempted leniency & now realized mistaken forgiveness toward the enemy, they murdered him in cold blood, shot from the back! Fortunately the majority of loathsome rebel conspirators were captured and tried for high crimes.

[4CJ]

"Confederate voting rights?" What is that, another illusion from the demented neo-confeds? Try voting for the 'Confederate ticket' the next time at the polls.

I don't know if you're that dumb or obtuse, or simply ignorant. Giving you the benefit of a doubt the 14th Amendment enacted ex post facto Bills of Attainder (both unconstitutional) measures that deprived ex-Confederate soldiers and politicians of the right to vote, as well as prohibiting the same from holding elected state/federal offices.

So I repeat, I'm happy to know that you condemn the 14th Amendment as illegal due to it's revocation of Confederate voting rights.

Just as an aside, with the readmission of states that the union said never seceded, each state was required to allow blacks the right of suffrage (the vote). That meant blacks could vote in the South, but were denied the vote in 16 yankee states.

What's the matter, does the quote I made "Supremacist advocating despots" fit you like a wet glove, that is why you responded so viciously?

I referred to you as the despot - your posts are full of hatred for all things Southern. I'll type slower if you're having a problem reading what I typed.

You & your comrade secessionists are the only 'conservatives'? lol ..please give anyone a break. So, now hate groups are conservatives?

See, you prove my point! We're not a hate group, but you repeatedly attempt to paint us as such. A belief that secession is and was legal does not fill someone with hate - the only hate-filled, obsessed, erudite, boorish, sanctimonious posters here are the Claremonsters. I never claimed we were the only conservatives, you really should apply for a remedial reading comprehension program.

Instead of focusing on the real threats America is confronting, you and your rabble fights for a lost cause which was lost 150 years ago. If you truly wanted secession, you would move....out of the country.

Typical yankee, telling others what to do. I don't want to secede, I love this republic. I simply want the government our founders gave us. As for us leaving, why? So yankees like you can take our land and possessions again?

[stand watie]

finding ONE picture of our battleflag in the hands of FOOLS doesn't make it.

should i post the pictures of the last HUGE KKK RALLY in DC, where there was over 20,000 USA flags and THOUSANDS of CROSSES, but NOT EVEN ONE battleflag????

because the FOOLS denigrate the CROSS of my eternal Savior, should we get rid of the CROSS too. is the CROSS a HATE SYMBOL, in YOUR eyes????

or are you just being a NITWIT and/or TROLL????

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

how about EVERY PUBLIC SCHOOL that practices DE FACTO segregation in Boston,MA. that's what the naaLcp says is true.

i'm sure you didn't seek the "wise council" of the "black leadership" on this.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

and you can PROVE that DE FACTO SEGREGATION in damnyankeeland was historically "the exception rather than the rule"????

i think NOT, as damnyankees have ALWAYS been INTOLERENT,RACIST & BIGOTS. it is their NATURE.

free dixie,sw

[mac_truck]

GOP doesn't realize that Logic is to be an aid in thinking, not a substitute for it.

Agreed. All that Latin he tosses around is just lipstick on a small minded pig.

[Modernman]

how about EVERY PUBLIC SCHOOL that practices DE FACTO segregation in Boston,MA. that's what the naaLcp says is true.

Right. The NAACP is a reliable source. Would you also agree with their views on the League of the South? Or are you, as usual, cherry-picking?

Any group can claim a lot of things. In this case, that claim is not backed up by facts.

[Modernman]

should i post the pictures of the last HUGE KKK RALLY in DC, where there was over 20,000 USA flags and THOUSANDS of CROSSES, but NOT EVEN ONE battleflag????

Go ahead. Members of the KKK are, unfortunately, Americans. Them using the American flag at their rallies is logical. However, their use of the CSA battle flag is a clear effort to ally themselves with the ideals of the Confederacy. These groups also use the Swastika as a symbol. Why do you think that is? Maybe because they agree with the ideals of the original bearers of that symbol?

Like it or not, the CSA battle flag now has a close association with hate groups such as the KKK and the Aryan Nation.

[stand watie]

mr SPIN, your INTOLERENCE & IGNORANCE is showing yet again.

FReepers are lol AT your DUMBBUNNYn posts. don't you care that you are being RIDICULED for being a MORON & a HATER????

wouldn't it be better to post your nonsense on DU???

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

had we won your war for LIBERTY in 1861-65, i feel that the USA would have fought on the GERMAN SIDE in WW1.

the damnyankees just can't stand the thought of FREEDOM.

what they DO want is NATIONAL CONTROL of every facet of everyone's life. and of COURSE, they ALWAYS KNOW what is GOOD FOR YOU & YOUR FAMILY (SARCASM BUTTON: ON!)

free dixie,sw

[Modernman]

and you can PROVE that DE FACTO SEGREGATION in damnyankeeland was historically "the exception rather than the rule"????

I can prove that segregation, in general, was the exception, rather than the rule in the North. Few Northern states had laws that instituted segregation. Some cities and school districts practiced de facto segregation on the sly, but they gave the practice up after lawsuits and public pressure.

On the other hand, de jure segregation was the law of the land in every Southern state, AFAIK. White people who spoke out against this practice were intimidated, assaulted, ostracized and occasionally murdered. Let's not even talk about what happened to blacks who opposed such laws. After SCOTUS outlawed segregation, Southern states went into near-open rebellion. Federal Marshals and troops had to be called in to enforce the order. In Virginia, the state actually closed its schools for a few years rather than integrate them.

So, to say that segregation in the North was anywhere near as bad as in the South defies reality. It wasn't a governor of Maine that proclaimed "Segregation forever."

And you have yet to provide evidence of government bodies engaging in segregation anywhere in the US today.

[Modernman]

FReepers are lol AT your DUMBBUNNYn posts. don't you care that you are being RIDICULED for being a MORON & a HATER????

Insults from a neo-confederate are a badge of honor for loyal Americans.

[stand watie]

ONCE MORE, may i remind you that i'm using the naaLcp as a SOURCE because damnyankees tend to believe ANYTHING THEY SAY!

just as you believe what the shysters/morons/scalawags at the splc say about the LOS!

i'm pointing out that you're a DUMBBUNNY, who believes ANYTHING BAD, no matter how STUPID and/or FALSE, about dixie & IGNORES EVERYTHING that proves what MORONS/HATERS/BIGOTS that damnyankees demonstrable ARE nad always have been.

free dixie,sw.