CSA: Confederate States of America

CSA: THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA, through the eyes of a faux documentary, takes a look at an America where the South won the Civil War. Supposedly produced by a British broadcasting company, the feature film is presented as a production being shown, controversially, for the first time on television in the States.

Beginning with the British and French forces joining the battle with the Confederacy, thus assuring the defeat of the North at Gettysburg and ensuing battles, the South takes the battle northward and form one country out of the two. Lincoln attempts escape to Canada but is captured in blackface. This moment is captured in the clip of a silent film that might have been.

Through the use of other fabricated movie segments, old government information films, television commercials, newsbreaks, along with actual stock footage from our own history, a provocative and humorous story is told of a country, which, in many ways, frighteningly follows a parallel with our own.

After victory, President Davis brings slavery back to the northern states by offering a tax rebate to businesses and households who will buy and own them. Liberals move to Canada. The nation chooses an expansionist policy and conquers Mexico and South America. As world war looms, the CSA takes a non-aggressive stance toward the Third Reich and their move toward racial purity (although not condoning their wasting of possible slave stock by the Final Solution) and makes a preemptive strike on Japan on December 7, 1941.

Kennedy is assassinated soon after being elected, as it appears he will not only emancipate but also give women the vote. A growing black terrorist base stems from Canada and a Cold War breaks out...complete with the Cotton Curtain being built between the two countries.

Through it all, including a contemporary run for the presidency, we follow a political dynasty, the Fauntroy family, who lead the country through its triumphs and tragedies.

We arrive to a today that, in many ways, we recognize. Although a nation that is content and prosperous, there is a tremendous divide within and suspicious eye without. Current politicians refer to us as two countries and perhaps, other than geographically, there is no difference between Red and Blue or North and South states. We have always struggled as to whether we are the United or Confederate States of America.

"Liberals move to Canada."

Hey, I'll buy into that any day of the week!

Can't wait until the flame wars start on this tread. A Confederate States post is always good for 6-700 responses. Read a book a few years ago where some South African Afrikaners had a time travel machine and went back to the Civil War time here. They were able to bring shipments of automatic weapons when traveling and started equipping Lee's Army with some good stuff. Needless to say Lee won the war.

And actually, when you get right down to it, Lee won the battles and the South lost the war anyway.

"Current politicians refer to us as two countries..."

S/B "Certain current politicians of a certain political party." ;') Slate has/had a piece by Tim Noah, same topic. This one though came off (I think) Howard Dean's pre-scream campaign website.

Forget the South
by Ryan Lizza
December 14, 2003
(originally www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/magazine/14FORGET.html)
Al Gore's failing in 2000, they say, was not that he couldn't win in the South, but that he couldn't nail down New England. If Gore had been able to muster a few thousand more votes in New Hampshire, he would have won the presidency without a single Southern state. For some Democrats, this insight has led to a heretical theory about next year's presidential election: Forget the South. The Forget-the-South argument has little to do with anti-Dixie bias. Instead, it is based on simple mathematics. Consider the numbers. Democrats and Republicans agree that Bush and his eventual rival will each start the race with an ironclad base of states that are virtually unwinnable for the other party. Bush's base is rooted in the South, plains and interior West of the country, while the Democratic nominee can take for granted most of New England, the West Coast and a smattering of the Midwest.
John Kerry's Forget-the-South Strategy?
by Jake Tapper
January 26, 2004
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is discounting notions that any Democratic candidate would have to appeal to Southern voters in order to win the presidency, calling such thinking a "mistake" during a speech at Dartmouth College. Kerry's remarks Saturday were so starkly antithetical to how many southern Democrats feel their party should campaign for the presidency, that a former South Carolina state Democratic chairman told ABCNEWS that Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., who endorsed Kerry last week, perhaps "ought to reconsider his endorsement."

In his 2003 book, A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat, Miller wrote, "Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, looked South and said, 'I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.' Today, our national Democratic leaders look South and say, 'I see one-third of a nation and it can go to hell.'" Merle Black, a professor at politics at Emory University in Atlanta and co-author of the 2002 book, The Rise of Southern Republicans, said the "Forget the South" strategy is feasible as long as the Democratic nominee also wins 70 percent of the electoral college votes from the remaining states. But Black questioned the wisdom of making such remarks publicly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the CSA abolish slavery, around the beginning of 1865? The Confederates were running out of white men who could serve in the army, and they couldn't give guns to black soldiers and expect them to remain loyal, if they were still slaves. Thus, for the last three months of the war, it couldn't have been clear what the South was fighting for.

As for the Democrats, what they don't realize is that they can't win without the South. I have checked election records all the way back to 1800, and in every election the Democrats won, they carried at least four southern states. Bill Clinton got the minimium of four states from the Confederacy in both 1992 and 1996, while four recent Democratic candidates (McGovern, Mondale, Gore and Kerry) didn't win any southern states at all.

Moreover, I have noticed that of the nine Democratic presidents we have had since the end of the Civil War, six of them were Southerners. Those six were Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson (don't be fooled by his career in New Jersey, he was born in Virginia and raised in Georgia), Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. For the three Yankee Democrats, special circumstances can explain why each of them got elected. Grover Cleveland faced the dirtiest Republican campaign of the nineteenth century, the first time he won. The second time he won, he was up against an extremely uncharismatic opponent (one book I read described Benjamin Harrison as "looking like a withered gnome and having the handshake of a wilted petunia") and had some help from a strong third party, the Populists. Franklin Roosevelt had much in common with the previous Democratic candidate, Alfred E. Smith, who lost by a landslide in 1928, but desperation caused by the Great Depression made all the difference in his victory. John F. Kennedy barely pulled it off through several minor factors that worked in his favor:

He was a real war hero, whose wounds, decorations and military record could not be questioned.
His wife was one of the classiest first ladies to ever grace Washington. (Can anyone imagine Teresa Heinz Kerry in that role?)
He wrote an inspiring book (Profiles In Courage) before running for the presidency. I don't remember anyone getting excited over Algore's Earth in the Balance.
He had a charm and vigor that even Republicans could admire.
He wasn't as liberal as the New England politicians that came after him. In fact, if JFK was alive today, I believe he would have become a Republican by now.

Because of population shifts toward the sunbelt, winning the southern vote is more important than ever, but are Democrats trying very hard to court us? No!!!! Most non-southern Dems still think of us as uneducated Rednecks preoccupied with "God, guns and gays," as Howard Dean put it last year, while Kerry limited his southern activities to picking John Edwards for a running mate (who subsequently failed to deliver his home state) and a few campaign stops in Florida.

"The more Maureen (Dowd) gets on 'Meet the Press' and writes those columns, the redder these states get. I mean, they don't want some high brow hussy from New York City explaining to them that they're idiots and telling them that they're stupid." -- Georgia Senator Zell Miller, commenting on the arrogance of New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd

"Because of population shifts toward the sunbelt, winning the southern vote is more important than ever, but are Democrats trying very hard to court us?"

The Dhimmicrats court the same constituencies wherever they go in the country. :')

According to at least one source, FDR won an outright majority of the popular vote in 1944; LBJ won an outright majority in 1964; and that no other Dhimmicrat candidate for the Presidency -- even those who won -- has won a majority since 1944.

D - FDR (over 12 years)
D - Truman (over 7 years)
R - Eisenhower (2 terms)
D - JFK (almost 3 years)
D - LBJ (a little over 5 years)
R - Nixon (1 1/2 terms)
R - Ford (partial term)
D - Carter (one term)
R - Reagan (two terms)
R - Bush Sr (one term)
D - Clinton (two terms)
R - GWB (two terms)
? - in 2009

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.