Confederate States Of America (2005)

Yahoo Movies ^ | 12/31/04 | Me

[helen crump]

I can't believe that this project would actually get off the ground. I am definitely interested in it but I can't believe it will be a fair representation. I think the inaccurate interpretations of people today is that of southerners and christians.

[wardaddy]

ARE U FROM MEMPHIS?

[Non-Sequitur]

Does this ring a bell? "And this Yankee has known for many years that the War of the Southern Rebellion wasn't about slavery. At least, not from the Northern side.

I stand by that statement. From the Union side it was always about combatting the rebellion. Actions taken against slavery were secondary and only to further the war effort. But from the southern side the single most important reason for their rebellion was defense of the institutuion of slavery.

[Non-Sequitur]

Maryland would have joined the South, had not the tyrant Linkum arrested the duly elected members of the State House, and replaced them with pro Union stooges, very Stalinesque.

A persistent southron myth, but a myth nevertheless. None of the Maryland legislature was ever arrested until September of 1861. By that time the rebellion was well underway and those who would have supported joining it were liable for arrest.

Being a Stalin prototype, he also rounded up any suspected sympathizers closed down any freee press that would not spew the Federal claptrap. No trials, so many dissenters and innocents were placed in concentration camps for the duration. The NY Slimes and Maureen Dowd would be apoplecetic.

You do have it bad, don't you? No myth too outrageous for you to swallow?

Please tell me again how the CSA during its 10 day forays into Maryland imported slaves through the blockade under its own banner. Any slave ships arriving anywhere during the war would have flown the flag of oppression and tyranny (Federal Flag).

During both the 1862 campaign and the 1863 campaign, soldiers of the Army of Northern Virginia rounded up free blacks in Maryland and Pennsylvania and sent them back south into slavery. The total abducted runs into the hundreds, perhaps thousands. And you also have to remember that there were hundreds of blockade runners flying the flag of oppression and tyranny (confederate flag) on their runs from the southern state and places like Cuba. It would be highly unlikely if none of the captains of those ships didn't slip a slave or two through the blockade on their return run.

[Non-Sequitur]

What the South seceded over was the breach of contract of some States not abiding by parts of the compact they no longer liked, arbitrarily. The non enforcement of the fugitive slave act was in itself a breach of contract and under contract law the aggrieved party can elect to withdraw from said contract, as is just what the South legally did. The North had grown dependent on the wealth they were stealing from the South, and that is why they savagely attacked the South, as if it were solely a matter of slavery, they would have let them go and said good riddance, as the North would have "washed their hands over the issue of slavery.

ROTFLMAO

Another irony, is yes it was true that most Americans beleived blacks to be subcreatures, but it was the South that lobbied to count them a full human beings for the census, and the North that lobbied to ignore them totally as being only subcreatures. That is where the 3/5 compromise came about. This racist proportional human rating was not the Souths doing, but the best that they could do vs a racist North.

You manage to make it sound like the alutristic south vs. the intolerant North. What you forget is that the south wanted slaves counted in the census. Slaves, without any status in southern states other than property. Slaves, who couldn't vote and were not even considered citizens in southern states. And the reason why the southern states wanted them counted the same as a free person was for the purpose of padding the census count and gaining congressional representation. So the southern states wanted to use the slave population, not protect their rights. In the southern states they didn't have any.

[Non-Sequitur]

By calling the legally seceded States a "rebellion" one then can justify rounding up and arresting said opponents without establishing who is right.

Merriam-Webster defines a rebellion as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government." That is an accurate description of the southern actions.

[cyborg]

It reminds me of how Yankees love to crow about Jim Crow while migratory blacks huddled in squalid ghettos every bit as segregated....still are actually unless NYC has changed since 88.

*** There still are squalid ghettos and that's how some people like to live, like pigs. I went to go to a holistic retreat today and the place where the event was located was DISGUSTING. Anyway, did anyone black move TO the South when there was Jim Crow? I imagine a lot of people left, and while there was white racism in the North, at least you could pee in the bathroom of your choosing. Not everywhere in the South was a hotbed of oppression either, especially some place called Storyville, Lousianna which according to the PBS documentary had so much interracial sex going on they couldnt' segregate it. See? PBS is useful for something :o)

[Non-Sequitur]

The War of Northern Aggression prevented any election of a CSA president.

Well, yes and no. True Davis was appointed president. But the fact that he almost immediately launched a war with the U.S. did not stop him from staging an election in the fall of 1861. He ran unopposed, which is fortunate since throughout his political career, Jefferson Davis didn't once win an election where he was opposed. So rebellion or no rebellion there was a kind of presidential election.

You really should try reading up on the Civil War some time.

[cyborg]

I'll bet the movie is good, better than a lot of freepers would expect. Malcolm X as hard as it was to watch was excellent, and instead of Training Day, Denzel should have gotten the Oscar for that film.

[cyborg]

Depends on the blue stater, and which portrayal would be realistic enough for Southerners to accept without having their feelings hurt or Northerners to watch and not feel it was 'realistic' enough?

[BullDawg28]

yes, you're right it's destined to be that type of rhetoric. And yet libs cite Bush and Republicans as the divisive ones..

[NewLand]

I'll bet the movie is good, better than a lot of freepers would expect.

I gotta disagree with you here, my dear! This will be another one-sided, historically inaccurate, agenda driven hatchet job against the Christian culture of The South.

Sorry...

[cyborg]

or Northerners to watch and not feel it was 'realistic' enough?

** That should say 'not realistic' enough...

[cyborg]

You could be right. Either way, I wouldn't watch it. I find civil war films to be either depressing or annoying to watch. I think I have be on muscle relaxers to watch this movie *LOL*

[NewLand]

We'll find out I suppose. Maybe some of the local theaters will take a pass on it.

Personally, I loved 'She's Gotta Have It'...after that, I lost interest in Spike Lee.