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]

excellent post!

[fortheDeclaration]

Southron politicians made it clear that the Union was inviolable, that talk of secession was treason, and that any attempt to secede would be resisted with the utmost violence.

What?

Aren't the people of Wisconsin sovereign?

[fortheDeclaration]

IMHO, it was Lincoln's election and his dedication to protectionist tarrifs and the Morril Tarrif that were the final nail in the coffin that caused the seccessation of the Southern states. Lincoln promised that he would send in troops and FORCE states to pay the tariff if they refused. It was extremely unfair to force the south to pay these taxes that were used for public works projects in the north.

Certainly the tarrif issue was a sore point, but it was slavery that the key issue.

As for sending in troops to make the South 'pay'that was what the Constitution stated the States had to do.

No different then sending in troops to enforce the furgitive slave act.

[fortheDeclaration]

Two, there was a provisional attempt to begin negotiating these matters, which was blocked by Lincoln. He did not want to be seen to give the slightest recognition to the Southern States except on their bellies. Lincoln's policy was that there was to be no discussion with the Southern States.

There was nothing to discuss!

He told them their constitutional rights would be protected.

He pled them not to force his hand.

They thought they could get away with anything.

They underestimated the North's resolve to defend the Constitution.

[groanup]

Easily amused, I see. But you're wise to stay out of the discussion.

Oh no, my knowledge doesn't compare, my wisdom is far superior.

[fortheDeclaration]

Because they weren't defending. They were invading.

They invaded because the federal gov't was attacked.

The Consititution states that no state has a right to form a confederation with another state or states.

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;

The Confederate Constitition said the same thing.

[groanup]

Davis knew what he was doing. He just didn't expect the outcome.

You knew him? How old are you?

[groanup]

On the side of the Union.

You knew him? How old are you?

[groanup]

Excellent post.

Yes I know. He reminds me of one also. He thinks, for some reason, that everyone but he is a racist slaver. Never mind that the Southern people love the individuals of the black race and the Nothern people loved the race but hated the individuals. Sort of reminds you of a group think kind of thing.

[groanup]

They invaded because the federal gov't was attacked.

So you wouldn't attack if a foreign force had fortifications in your back yard? What kind of soldier are you?

[groanup]

They underestimated the North's resolve to defend the Constitution

Ha, ha, ha, hahahahahaha, ha, ha, ha, ha, are you serious?

[groanup]

And when the 'People'want to change a tyrannical gov't they always have the moral right to revolt, not to secede

There you go again, advocating violence. The Southern states had no revolt in mind. Do you think they wanted to go in and takeover Washington? You probably do if you were educated anywhere in the North in a goverment school. But, of course, if that is the case, you have more problems than can be solved by debate.

[af_vet_rr]

but it was slavery that the key issue.

If it was the key issue, then why did so many Christians fight for its continuation? That may sound like an off-beat question, but I've always looked at how important religion was at that time, and the fact that most Southerners didn't own slaves, and it leads me away from slavery being the key issue. Granted, many people who called themselves Christian seemed to have no problem enslaving their fellow Christians, and those sames types are around even now...they pretend to act like Christians, but don't live their lives like it.

It is definitely an interesting subject..

[Blood of Tyrants]

Jeez, can you not let go of it? Lincoln himself opposed slavery but he had absolutely NO PLANS to end it when he was running for president or after the war started! How could the PRIMARY reason have been slavery when Lincoln had no plans to end it?

[fortheDeclaration]

The difference between the North and South of that period was that even if the Northerner did not love the black man, he did not think he had a right to live of of his labor.

[fortheDeclaration]

They invaded because the federal gov't was attacked. So you wouldn't attack if a foreign force had fortifications in your back yard? What kind of soldier are you?

It wasn't a foreign force, it was built to protect the state, that is why its guns were pointed outward toward the sea, not at the harbor.

[fortheDeclaration]

Exactly.

The North did not believe the South would attempt to leave, and the South did not believe the North would attempt to make them stay.

Both sides underestimated the resolve of the other.

[groanup]

No, actually they attempted to leave.

No actually they left. Check your encyclopedia.

Historically we never had a break in the nation's history as a nation.

You must not have read history. We had a war that was predicated on half of the country declaring its independence from the other half.

We had a Civil War.

More properly called the War of Northern Aggression. And we almost won it despite being outnumbered 5 to 1 and be an agrarian, peaceful society vs. a northern industrial war machine. Many British observers considered our troops to be the greatest warriors to ever take to horseback in all recorded history.

But we were never two nations.

Yes we were. Again, go read your history books. At the time there was a country called the Confederate States of America. It had its own government, currency, military, and trash collectors. DUH!

So when do you and your neo-confederate buddies celebrate the birth of the Confederate States of America?

We don't celebrate the birth of a nation that no longer exists. We celebrate the sacrafices of those who came before us and we do it on April 26, May 10, May 30, and June 3. The Georgia State Government takes a day off on April 26. People like you and NS would not have the souls of those people remembered for their love of freedom but only for their love of slavery. 99 out of 100 of those people who died had no slaves nor had any family who had slaves. So the war was about what?

[fortheDeclaration]

And when the 'People'want to change a tyrannical gov't they always have the moral right to revolt, not to secede There you go again, advocating violence. The Southern states had no revolt in mind. Do you think they wanted to go in and takeover Washington? You probably do if you were educated anywhere in the North in a goverment school. But, of course, if that is the case, you have more problems than can be solved by debate.

When you throw off a gov't it usually leads to violence.

When you revolt, you are appealing to bullets instead of ballots, the very thing Lincoln wanted to prove was not necessary in a republican form of gov't.

[groanup]

The difference between the North and South of that period was that even if the Northerner did not love the black man, he did not think he had a right to live of of his labor.

Then why did New Yorkers (the last I checked this was a very northern state) riot when Lincoln (the racist) issue the Emancipation Proclamation?