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?

[M. Espinola]

"Who's paying you to post this garbage?" & "spewing venom and spitting defiance"....must be looking in the mirror

I wish someone was paying by the word! LOL...mmm, more, oil, more oil :)

You need serious medical attention after those cracks, rum pot.

[capitan_refugio]

"what will happen eventually is that Los Estados Unidos de Azatlan will leave & then perhaps we southrons also can depart the union, PEACEFULLY."

It will never happen. Ever.

"SECESSION is one of the POWERS RESERVED to the STATES or to the PEOPLE."

Not according to the United States Supreme Court and at least four pre-ACW Presidents of the United States.

"had the RIGHT to secession been CEDED to the central government, the document would have said so."

There are no "rights" reserved or created in the 10th Amendment. The "right" of unilateral secession did not exist in the "perpetual Union" under the Articles. No such "right" was created, or even contemplated, in the constitutional convention. No amendment has ever added such a "right."

"NO FREE STATE would have entered a contract, from which i[t] could NOT have just as FREELY departed."

Thirteen states did exactly that - twice - once in ratifying the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and again in ratifying the Constitution of 1787.

[lentulusgracchus]

Please don't bother to sober up this is a riot.

What makes you think I'm drunk, you rude little troll?

[fortheDeclaration]

Well, then we need to look at the circumstances themselves and see if they dictated the suspension or not. And yet with every case that the "circumstances" go against you, you refuse to look at it or invent some silly reason to neglect it as you did with the Merrick incident.

Has anyone ever denied that abuses occured?

The argument centers around Lincoln's motives and goals.

The pro-Southern view is that Lincoln was out to get the South and create some sought of economic new world order.

We hold that Lincoln was forced to take acts due to his own commitment to his oath the Constitution to take actions he did not like to take.

Thus, your constant reference to abuses is irrelevant unless you can prove Lincoln was himself was directly responsible for some crime.

Farber's view is that Lincoln did take extra legal actions but they were justified due to the responsibilties he had assumed as President (unlike Buchanan who let the South get away with illegal activities)

Moreover, Farber states that this is a classical liberal view, held by Jefferson.

Lincoln was not impeached and he was supported by Congress.

[lentulusgracchus]

Once again, the proof of true character is in his statements.

This is libel. Who's sponsoring you?

[lentulusgracchus]

...exemplifies his lack of morality....Once again, the proof of true character is in his statements.

This is libel. Who's sponsoring you?

[M. Espinola]

"your manners are bad."

It's something to intensely grieve over, day and night, like you & you puppy do ;)

Or, are you his puppy?

[lentulusgracchus]

You need serious medical attention after those cracks, rum pot.

More libel. You're getting a free ride, aren't you?

So, who's your daddy? Who is holding his hand over you, while you indulge in conduct that would get any newby banned in a heartbeat, and even old veterans run off?

Show your cards, Ace. Who gave you a hall pass to smear people? What's the job here?

[lentulusgracchus]

Who's your boss? Who put you up to this?

[fortheDeclaration]

As I stated to him, we know that these are atrocities even by wartime standards because we have a context to deal with.

Many acts are not considered so when the context is found out, like the Marine who shot those terrorists in the Mosque.

They may have been unarmed, but since others had gotten up and shot at our troops before the common sense approach was not take any chances.

See the Marines making sure the Japanese are dead after a battle by shooting them.

[M. Espinola]

"This is libel. Who's sponsoring you"?

Okay commandant, wherever. Talk about paranoid Peter here, you are a fruitcake loaded with nuts! LOLOL

[capitan_refugio]

I note with interest that in reply to this post, another poster cites a "book review" in a "peer-reviewed" journal. As that poster is known for providing amateur Internet book reviews, he should be well aware that they are not, in themselves, peer-reviewed. Some, like his, aren't even edited for content.

[fortheDeclaration]

He stated that Farber was 'even handed' as well.

The point was, when you quoted that statement, you left that part out, which does make a difference in how the statement is read.

Farber wrote a work for the public, not a scholary one for the professors.

By the way, the two other reviews by the scholars did like the work, so much for your view on the 'scholary community' rejecting his work.

[fortheDeclaration]

I thought he gave some very good quotes, I did not see any ranting in it.

It is your side that does all the ranting!

[fortheDeclaration]

Frankly, the notion that Lincoln would authorize a raid into Richmond to get Davis after freeing prisoners, is simply ridiculous.

Do you think the South could have pulled something like that off even with Jeb Stuart?

[capitan_refugio]

"The Claremont Institute is not a scholarly peer reviewed journal."

The poster probably refers to the the Claremont Review of Books, which is exactly as advertised - a book review. Otherwise, his thinking seems to be muddled.

[M. Espinola]

We are not dealing with a normal mindset by one which consistently makes excuses for sedition, secession, treason and rebellion thus he is only capable of logic contingent on his chosen side.

After the examples of his 'non-war crimes' I wonder what would constitute an actual war crime, if even the the worst slaughters of World War II do not even qualify, in his overview. It's sad and frightening as the same time.

In terms of Iraq our men deal with the daily threats of jihadic metal cases, sold out to to a death culture, yet the safety of our men is even questioned.

[fortheDeclaration]

First, where do you get the idea that it is held in low esteem by the 'scholarly community'. From the fact that a major scholar tore it to shreds in a peer reviewed academic journal.

A scholar tore it to bits (and frankly, I do not read the review that way).

So one scholar did not like it.

I gave you a link to two other scolars who did, both professors.

Moreover, how well received were Mise's works received by the scholars?

You cited one pro-Southern reviewer as evidence. You keep alleging and impugning Gutzman as pro-southern yet have offered no evidence to that, nor any evidence that anything Gutzman ever said about Farber was wrong. Why is that?

His constant harping on Farber's errors on nullification, referring to a five year old journal article he wrote for Southern History Journal as proof, that Farber was not up to date on the 'original sources'

Farber was not writing a scholarly work per se, but a popular one, for the average person.

So, I did not know that Farber's work is considered in low esteem by scholars nor do I know that now. And you'll never know as long as you invent phony reasons to dismiss and neglect every critical review out of convenience for Farber.

Well, since I have found scholars who approved of his work, your view of it being rejected by the 'scholarly community' proves to be an incorrect one (what a shock!)

Here is a favoritable review of the work, The Claremont Institute is not a scholarly peer reviewed journal. It is a Lincolnite hack machine that agrees with Farber because they share in his extreme partisan disposition toward Lincoln.

And what about the other two works that I gave you as proof?

I know you could not have missed them, they are only two posts away from the Claremont review.

[capitan_refugio]

Post #4412: "A disproportionate number of them do happen to be commies and socialists though. McPherson, Foner, and your buddy Wlat are prime examples.

Post #4428: “As I said, McPherson, Foner, and Wlat are all commies. That much is documented.

Post #4497 : "1. James McPherson, historian - known affiliate and contributer to the World Socialist Web Site, an official propaganda outlet of a communist political party.

2. Eric Foner, historian - self described neo-marxist

3. WhiskeyPapa, aka Wlat, banned freeper from your side of the argument and close associate of many of your allies here - avowed Bush-hater and known idolizer of Michael Moore.

He can’t keep his story straight. Notice the creep.

[fortheDeclaration]

In case you missed to other pro-Farber reviews, I will post them again.

These are by professors.

Here is part of what they had to say,

famous historian visited my undergraduate university half a century ago and announced that, except for a minor item or two such as a history of the quartermaster corps, the major work on the Civil War was completed. Since then several significant books have been published. Daniel Farber's Lincoln's Constitution is one of them. Reviewed by: Donald K. Pickens, Department of History, University of North Texas. Published by: H-USA (December, 2003) http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=103401078008870

Farber's Lincoln's Constitution deserves a place in this roster of important legal-constitutional history titles. Farber both restates the complex issues facing the bifurcating Union, 1861–65, and connects some, including federalism, judicial review, and presidents' crisis powers, to their prewar evolutions, wartime uses, and post-9/11 reappearances, thereby offering readers many useful insights. For example, he concludes correctly that "In practical terms ... the key issue [in the southern states' decisions for secession] was not sovereignty but power" (44). Harold M. Hyman Rice University http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/22.3/br_10.html

(emphasis added)