Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Confederate States of America: The Movie"
The Boston Fishwrap ^ | 2/26/06 | Burr

Posted on 02/26/2006 1:56:28 PM PST by pabianice

Kevin Willmott's ersatz documentary "CSA: The Confederate States of America" is an act of provocation that's sheer genius in its conceptual simplicity. Fairly unoriginal, too. Writers and historians have been penning "what-if" scenarios predicated on the War Between the States going the other way for decades; I recall MacKinley Kantor's "If the South Had Won the Civil War" on my elementary school reading list years ago, and more recent authors such as Harry Turtledove and Roger L. Ransom have addressed the matter as well.

Willmott isn't interested in academic niceties. He wants to make you laugh and hurt at the same time, and then he wants you to think. So his film -- ostensibly a British documentary being aired on a local San Francisco station -- opens with an ad for Confederate Family Insurance, complete with a happy white family, soothing banjo music, and a smiling young African-American slave tending the garden. What follows is nothing less than a satiric takedown of our assumptions about racial progress.

Presented by Spike Lee and constructed as a finely tuned parody of the Ken Burns school of filmmaking (period music, old photos, talking-head experts), "CSA" sketches out a disquieting alternative history of the United States. It begins with the South winning Gettysburg thanks to the appearance of French and British troops alongside the Confederate Army, Europe's intervention having been won with the assistance of diplomat Judah Benjamin. (This prompts Jefferson Davis to later say, "Don't you evah forget, suh, that it was a blood-sucking Jew who saved this country.")

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: americanhistory; csa; dixie; moviereview
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-102 next last
To: pabianice

Spike who??


51 posted on 02/26/2006 6:40:50 PM PST by Bean Counter ("Stout Hearts!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
"Don't you evah forget, suh, that it was a blood-sucking Jew who saved this country."

No Southern gentleman would use a vulgar slur like "Jew" to describe one of the Conmfederacy's most admired figures. Mr. Benjamin and others of the Mosaic faith were referred to as "Israelites."

52 posted on 02/26/2006 6:42:41 PM PST by Alouette (Psalms of the Day: 135-139)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
With virtually all of his garrison in Fort Moultrie, totally indefensible from the landward side,

Having lived right their I think it would have been far easier to defend Fort Moultrie. I know all it's gun emplacements face the sea. But, Sullivan's Island would have been one tough nut to crack. You hunker down for the cannonade and then blast the little boats out of the water as they tried to cross. I think reinforcement would have even been easier.
53 posted on 02/26/2006 7:09:38 PM PST by smug (Tanstaafl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Maven

You liked it? It took me forever to get through the first in the series. Now the Gunpowder Empire series looks promising, the second book was better than the first


54 posted on 02/26/2006 7:17:28 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
And here I thought it was Lee sending my Gatling gun to support Pickett's charge that won us Gettysburg...

Awwww Darren, how we'll miss you...

55 posted on 02/26/2006 7:19:38 PM PST by Bender2 (Redid my FR Homepage just for ya'll... Now, Vote Republican and vote often)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rikkir; pabianice
I read a novel some years ago by the same name that was a fictional account of "what if". It was fairly well written, and I considered well thought out. There was no hatred to speak of, and the roles of north and south were reversed.
The north was a wasteland, and the south immensely prosperous (fairly visionary by today's standards).

For completeness, it should be pointed out that a similar situation existed after the CSA won the War of Southern Independence in Ward Moore's superbly wriiten Bring the Jubilee which was published 8 years before MacKinley Kantor's "If the South Had Won the Civil War"

56 posted on 02/26/2006 7:34:12 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (Liberal comes from "liber" the Latin word for "free" - Liberal Republic, you know it makes sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Luke21
>> Without the south, Albert Gore would be president. <<

Not likely, since Gore would be a citizen of the CSA, and therefore ineligible to run for President of the USA. Both Al Gore Jr. and Sr. launched their political careers in the south. Slick Willie would also be a citizen of the CSA, and based on tne number of southern states he won in 1992 and 1996, would have have a good shot at being elected President of the CSA.

>> Tennessee kept him from the presidency, his own state. <<

Yeah, and Illinois, Adlai Stevenson's own staet, voted AGAINST him as well, giving the Presidency to Einsenhower instead (this didn't stop most of the south from supporting liberal egghead Stevenson over war hero Ike)Your point being?

>> Try winning a presidential election without us. <<

Well that's true, the south's collective electoral votes pack quite a punch, though in 1924, the evil yankee states succeeded in electing conservative Republican Calvin Coolidge (who was a Reagan Republican 60 years before Reagan invented the term) while the southern states voted overwhemingly for segregationist RAT candidate John Davis:

I wish the same could be said for the 1976 election, because the north ALMOST elected a Republican, but the south just managed to put Hamas luvin', Panama-canal sellin' southern boy Jimmy Carter (who's nickname in college was "Johnny Rep") over the edge.

And don't get me started on the 1940s elections where Dewey and Wilkie ran neck-and-neck with FDR in the north, but Franklin's socialist agenda was racking up about 70-80% of the vote in the "conservative" deep south.

>> The north is basically communist. <<

Oh yeah, Indiana, Ohio, Nebraska, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota (where they just outlawed abortion-- let's see you guys do that), Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, all bastions of communism, eh? Let's see one of your RAT leaders like Tim Kaine or Robert Byrd get elected in a "communist" state like Idaho. Actually most of the northwest has voted for conservaive Republicans far longer than most of the deep south. They were against commies like Wilson and FDR and Carter when the south was beating the door to foist more socialist nanny state programs on the nation. The south didn't get a clue and start electing conservatives until a few decades ago. Sure took long enough.

>> Southern boys are fighting in Iraq now, and have given themselves for the USA in how many wars and how many generations? <<

Probably as many years as those evil yankee boys have been fighting for freedom in World War II, et. al. The fact that the individual solders are brave and righteous doesn't mean their government is likewise. I'm sure there were a lot of personally decent German privates in WWII but that doesn't change the fact that their government was run by facists.

>> Spike Lee is a bigot and a fool. << <<

Well you'll be happy to know Spike Lee had nothing to do with the making of this movie. The movie is written and directed by Kevin Willmott and produced by Rick Cowan. Spike Lee does lend his image to do an 5 min. intro to the movie, much the way Steven Speilberg will promote a movie for another director so it gets more publicity.

That said, lifelong southern boy Spike Lee (Georgia born and bred) has shown occassional talent from time to time... I'm a pretty big fan of 25th Hour.

57 posted on 02/26/2006 9:04:10 PM PST by BillyBoy (Find out the TRUTH about the liberal Democrat's FAVORITE Republican in IL ... www.nopinka.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
>> Please Non, you are not going to defend Spike Lee's vision of American history are you? <<

Well we had a couple dixiecrats defending liberal self-hating Steven Speilberg's "vision" of Abraham Lincoln about a year back on this forum....

In any case, here is a complete list of production credits for the film "Confederate States of America". Please locate the section where "Spike Lee" is responcible for the "vision" of this movie. Take your time, I know this is hard:

Directed by Kevin Willmott

Written by Kevin Willmott

Produced by
Marvin Voth .... executive producer
Andrew Herwitz .... executive producer
Rick Cowan .... producer
Sean Blake .... co-producer
Victoria Goetz .... co-producer
Benjamin Meade .... co-producer

Original Music by Erich L. Timkar

Cinematography by Tim De Paepe & Matt Jacobson

Film Editing by Sean Blake & David Gramly

Production Management
Stephanie Smith .... production manager
Second Unit Director or Assistant Director
Sean Blake .... first assistant director
Timothy Rebman .... first assistant director
Chris Weaver .... first assistant director
Rick Cowan .... second unit director
Niki Newland .... director of photography: second unit

Sound Department
Jeffrey D. Miller .... boom operator
Robert Sokol .... sound effects designer
Robert Sokol .... sound recordist

Other crew
Chris Blunk .... electrician
Jeffrey D. Miller .... electrician
Jeffrey Ruggles .... electrician
Leonard Short .... still photographer
Larry F. Levenson .... still photographer
Brad Roszell .... grip
Tanner Loewenberg .... grip
Jeremy Osbern .... swing grip
Matthew Osburn .... production assistant

58 posted on 02/26/2006 9:12:17 PM PST by BillyBoy (Find out the TRUTH about the liberal Democrat's FAVORITE Republican in IL ... www.nopinka.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

Post 57: "Spike Lee does lend his image to do an 5 min. intro to the movie"


59 posted on 02/26/2006 9:34:32 PM PST by stainlessbanner ((Gone Sheriff'n) - We'll Miss You Don Knotts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Is it really that hard to answer my question about how Spike Lee is responcible for the VISION of this movie?

Yes, he lends his image for an intro to the movie. Robert Graves lends his image for five minute intros to films on the history channel, does that mean Mr. Graves is responcible for the content of all those movies and agrees with the "vision" of the movies? It would certainly be news to Mr. Graves that he's responcible for the content of every movie he introduces.

You guys keep attributing this movie to "Spike Lee", so really, why it is so hard to show where this is HIS "vision" being made?

Besides, Spike Lee is a good lifelong southern boy. Y'all should be proud he's making movies instead of these evil yankees. My Congressman, Bobby "black panther" Rush, is a southern transplant too. We know much you guys dislike transplants moving to other regions and telling the locals how to live. We'll take our yankees back, and you have have our all "southern transplants" back. Can't wait for Bobby and Jesse Jackson to start packing and heading back south of the Mason Dixon line.

60 posted on 02/26/2006 11:09:39 PM PST by BillyBoy (Find out the TRUTH about the liberal Democrat's FAVORITE Republican in IL ... www.nopinka.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Alouette
>> No Southern gentleman would use a vulgar slur like "Jew" to describe one of the Conmfederacy's most admired figures. Mr. Benjamin and others of the Mosaic faith were referred to as "Israelites." <<

Well some of those "southern gentleman" in the Confederate Army had no problem refering to Catholics as "Papists" and "Romanists" (not to mention blacks being "coloreds" "darkies" and "negresses") so I don't see why a word like "Jew" would bother them. It's used in polite conversation all the time, including with people who practive Judiasm. I've never heard the word "Jew" itself being automatically offensive, though "blood-sucking Jew" would probably be.

Here's a classic quote from another eeeeeeeevil yankee president (conservative Vermont yankee Calvin Coolidge) that was overwhemingly rejected by the "conservative" southern electorate:

In a conversation with the president, secret service agent Edmund Starling referred to White House butler Arthur Brooks as "a fine, colored gentleman." Coolidge replied sharply, "Brooks is not a colored gentleman. He is a gentleman."

61 posted on 02/26/2006 11:31:42 PM PST by BillyBoy (Find out the TRUTH about the liberal Democrat's FAVORITE Republican in IL ... www.nopinka.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: billbears
And I might point out the union officers didn't hold disdain for just blacks but all non-white races. Or were Sherman's views on Indians and Jews just another example of his 'enlightenment'?

And I wait with baited breath and some indication that the southern leaders had a more enlightened view of Indians.

62 posted on 02/27/2006 3:38:14 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Come now, more revisionism?

Hardly.

We know Lee's beliefs on slavery (against)...

"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence." -- Robert Lee, 1856

"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both." -- Robert Lee, 1865

He was nothing if not consistent.

...we know Jackson's belief on relations with blacks (taught a Sunday school for blacks prior to the war)...

He also owned 9 or 10, and according to his wife believed that slavery was sanctioned by the Bible and it was not his place to question the instituion.

...and the loyalty his former slaves held for President Davis.

"We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Law in nature tells us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude. Freedom only injures the slave. The innate stamp of inferiority is beyond the reach of change. You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables him to be." -- Jefferson Davis, March 1861

Davis opposed the sale of Brierfield to one of his brother's former slaves, saying that they were not suited to running a business.

Surely you don't want to compare racial attitudes of these men to Grant, Sherman, and the union president do you?

Any day of the week. An objective view would reveal that at best the views of the confederates were not different from Grant or Sherman or Lincoln. And at worst they were much less enlightened. And you know it.

The Southerners could be said to have attitudes of enlightened men of the day (while we disagree with them now), while the other three were just outright racists, then and now.

The southerners all believed that blacks were suited for slavery and nothing else. That blacks had no rights at all that a white man was bound to respect. How enlightened is that?

63 posted on 02/27/2006 3:49:06 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Good premise, and I hate to say it, but Turtledove may be running out of things to write about.

I've always blown hot and cold on Turtledove. I admit to reading his Civil War alternate history, more guilty pleasure than anything else, but I've always found his grasp of history to be surprisingly weak, especially on military matters, and his characters shallow and usually uninteresting. He seems to have a soft spot for Martin Luther King. He wrote an alternate history where the U.S. had lost the revolution, and King was the Governor General at the time. I'm waiting for him to pop up in the camps of Featherstone.

Gingrich did a better job on characters and his grasp of military fundamentals was sound, but I found a lot of his premise to be far featched.

I was thinking of the Days of Infamy books for my upcoming vacation. But I think I'll stick with my original selections "Team of Rivals" and Simon WInchester's new one "A Crack In The Edge Of The World: America and the Great California Earthquake of 1906".

64 posted on 02/27/2006 3:58:56 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Maven
No - it is worthwhile?

Not bad, as alternate histories go. I think Gingrich and his partner are better writers that Turtledove, though I think Turtledove has the edge in imagination. The biggest problem is that in the first two books the confederates never make a mistake while in the third one they never do anything right. But worth the read, especially now that they're in paperback.

65 posted on 02/27/2006 4:01:19 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Please Non, you are not going to defend Spike Lee's vision of American history are you?

I said it was entertaining. I didn't say it was believable.

66 posted on 02/27/2006 4:01:53 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: smug
Having lived right their I think it would have been far easier to defend Fort Moultrie. I know all it's gun emplacements face the sea. But, Sullivan's Island would have been one tough nut to crack. You hunker down for the cannonade and then blast the little boats out of the water as they tried to cross. I think reinforcement would have even been easier.

According to accounts at the time there were civilian structures right up to the walls of the fort. Sand dunes had been allowed to build up to the point where they were overlooking the walls. Anderson didn't have the time or men to correct those problems. Sumter was the only solution.

67 posted on 02/27/2006 4:03:31 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Couldn't they have at least had a *plausible* cause for the alteration in history, like Lee's Lost order never having been lost?

Hell would have frozen over before the British or French would send troops to Virginia in 1863.

68 posted on 02/27/2006 4:05:43 AM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
If the confederacy won, slavery would not be an issue today as we would all be communists,Nazis or imperial Japanese subjects. The confederacy would have collapsed from mismanagement (its politicians were not of the same caliber as that of general lee) and our nation would have fragmented into a continent resembling Europe. We would not have had the collective power to fend off the 20th centuries foes and would have surely fallen.

No matter how one feels about the legitimacy of ones side on the civil war, god works in mysterious ways and there is a reason we were held together, to save humanity from its utter inhumanity.
69 posted on 02/27/2006 4:09:01 AM PST by spikeytx86 (Beware the Democratic party has been over run by CRAB PEOPLE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luke21
Lee refused to march on Washington after Bull Run. It was open and undefended. That decision ended southern prospects. You cannot fight a gentleman's war.

First Bull Run (or First Manassas, take your pick) was in July 1861.

Lee did not take charge of the Confederate field army in Virginia (not named the Army of Northern Virginia until later in 1862) until the end of May, 1862, when Joe Johnston was wounded at Fair Oaks/Seven Pines.

Ultimately, it was Jeff Davis's decision to not push on into Washington.

70 posted on 02/27/2006 4:11:46 AM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
Couldn't they have at least had a *plausible* cause for the alteration in history, like Lee's Lost order never having been lost?

That, if I recall correctly, is precisely the premise of Turtledove's 'How Few Remain'.

71 posted on 02/27/2006 4:18:02 AM PST by Riley ("What color is the boathouse at Hereford?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Renegade
If the South won, Spike Lee wouldn't exist !

Bull. Slavery was on its way out, even if grudgingly. Over 70% of those who fought for the South owned no slaves.

I am amazed at two things about the Civil War:
1) The absolute ignorance of those who post on it (who will then accuse you of "wanting to refight the Civil War"-- watch for it in a posting near you!)
2) The assumption that the South as a whole did not recognize slavery as an evil. They did, but argued (wrongly, I think), that an evil which had so ingrained itself into the structure of a society had to be eradicated slowly, so as not to cause excessive societal disruption (which begs the question of disruption to WHO? Blacks did not fit in to the equation).

The fact is that it was a war "over" slavery, but "about" whether states or the federal government were sovereign. We decided both issues, one for good, but the other for the destruction of the republic, although it has taken almost 150 years for the decision to really fruit out.

The fact that Spike Lee is a race baiting idiot does not detract from the fact that he makes good flicks.

72 posted on 02/27/2006 4:20:23 AM PST by When_Penguins_Attack (Smashing Windows, Breaking down Gates. Proud Mepis User!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
But the whole master race concept fit the view of blacks as fit only for slavery as espoused by Lee, Davis, Jackson, etc., etc

The Reader's Digest Condensed version of American History, perhaps?

73 posted on 02/27/2006 4:22:14 AM PST by When_Penguins_Attack (Smashing Windows, Breaking down Gates. Proud Mepis User!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Yeah, right. Satire. I get it.

What if we make a alternative history movie where the Communist win? The Kennedy family is to America what Kim Chung Il has been for NK. A laff riot. Hilarious gulags in the rockies. Silly escapees looking for food and a place to hide.

Yep. Satire. Like a broken drum. Ya just cant beat it.


74 posted on 02/27/2006 4:29:28 AM PST by truemiester (If the U.S. should fail, a veil of darkness will come over the Earth for a thousand years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: When_Penguins_Attack
The Reader's Digest Condensed version of American History, perhaps?

No, the Reader's Digest Condensed Version (Southern edition) would have us believe that they were all noble men concerned with the welfare of their black bretheren. In fact every one of them considered blacks as inferiors and not suited for much else other than slavery. And while the Northern leadership wasn't a whole lot different in beliefs on the subject of equality, they didn't believe in buying and selling anyone and men like Lincoln actually took the outrageous view that blacks were entitled to the same rights that the Declaration of Independence called for, the same rights as a white man!!!! Something that put him at odds with the southern leadership of the time.

75 posted on 02/27/2006 4:30:18 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
In fact every one of them considered blacks as inferiors and not suited for much else other than slavery. And while the Northern leadership wasn't a whole lot different in beliefs on the subject of equality, they didn't believe in buying and selling anyone and men like Lincoln actually took the outrageous view that blacks were entitled to the same rights that the Declaration of Independence called for, the same rights as a white man!!!! Something that put him at odds with the southern leadership of the time.

Are you in some kind of contest for how many historical inaccuracies you can cram into a post?

76 posted on 02/27/2006 4:40:20 AM PST by When_Penguins_Attack (Smashing Windows, Breaking down Gates. Proud Mepis User!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
opens with an ad for Confederate Family Insurance, complete with a happy white family, soothing banjo music, and a smiling young African-American slave tending the garden

Slavery was an institution destined for extinction even before the Civil War began. It would have taken longer, but in the U.S., its fate was almost inevitable. It's highly unlikely it would have lasted to today even if the South had won its independence. Social and economic forces simply dictated against it.

77 posted on 02/27/2006 4:41:21 AM PST by RogueIsland (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

National Sozialist Democrat Arbeit Partei (Nazi) propaganda should not be used to revise history to fullfil that ideological prejudice/hate as this movie appears to do.


78 posted on 02/27/2006 4:42:40 AM PST by MensRightsActivist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: When_Penguins_Attack
But Spike Lee probably still wouldn't exist . Any change in the time line down to a millisecond would have resulted in a different sperm fertilizing an egg that would have developed in to a totally different person . The odds of one person existing are phenomenal BTW , I hold to the "states rights " issue as the cause of the Civil War of which slavery was but one facet . Some people say blame Eli Whitney for the invention of the cotton gin . It created the need for more slave labor to harvest cotton because of the increase in the amount of cotton that could be cleaned with the machine.
79 posted on 02/27/2006 5:06:28 AM PST by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Well some of those "southern gentleman" in the Confederate Army had no problem refering to Catholics as "Papists" and "Romanists"

There was far more anti-Catholicism in the prewar North than in the South. The Know Nothing Party garnered far more support in places like New York and Massachusetts than in the states that joined the Confederacy. The few non-Northern places where that party had some strength, notably Maryland and Kentucky, were border states. General Pierre Beauregard, a Catholic, was an important Confederate general. Jefferson Davis attended a Catholic boarding school before going to West Point, and though remaining Episcopalian, was regarded as very sympathetic to Catholicism. Robert E. Lee had a nephew who was a Catholic priest. The Vatican state sent an ambassador to Richmond; only a few German principalities did likewise. During Davis' imprisonment after the Civil War, Pope Pius IX sent him a crown of thorns that he himself had made.

While anti-Catholicism was strong in the South of the late 1800s and early 1900s, its growth was due to the decline of the old aristocracy, the rise of Populism, and the relative decline of Episcopalian and Presbyterian churches and the rise of revivalist Baptist, Holiness, and Campbellite churches, with more emotional worship and (except for the Campbellites) apocalyptic theology.

Assuming that the antebellum South was a hotbed of anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism is a hallmark of a liberal interpretation of history.

80 posted on 02/27/2006 5:34:39 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And I wait with baited breath and some indication that the southern leaders had a more enlightened view of Indians.

The Confederacy had one more Cherokee general than the Union had Black generals (Stand Watie, Cherokee Regiment of Mounted Rifles). Whatever intertribal agenda Watie may have had- the immutable fact is that it is no small thing to be made a general officer in one's country's army.

Virtually all historical figures- with few exceptions- fall short, when one views history through modern eyes. It is really necessary to judge such men from within the ethical framework of the times in which they lived. In modern times, it is easy to find horrifying quotes from Confederate (and Union, for that matter) principals. By the standards of the 1860s though- Lee and Jackson were ahead of their time. Jackson's Sunday School- mentioned previously in this thread was not just about worship- but included also reading lessons. That was in open defiance of Virginia law in the 1850s. I have read (but in fairness have not yet substantiated or confirmed) that Jackson, as a young man, forged a pass for one of his uncle's slaves (whom he had also taught to read) so that he could escape to the North.

The North wasn't Heaven, and the South wasn't Hell. Neither is the reverse true. The more I study this period of history, the more 'shades of gray' and surprises that I find. And pretty much nobody carrying a rifle on either side, except for the black regiments of the Union Army and certain officers of both sides, was there with the specific intent of influencing slavery one way or another. By and large, Billy Yank was there because part of the Union was in rebellion. Johnny Reb was there because 'y'all are down here'. And of course- a lot of them joined up because it seemed at the time a grand and glorious adventure- for a short time, at least.

There is no doubt in my mind that the South of the 1860s was full of sentiment which is reprehensible to the modern eye. Such sentiment wasn't hard to find even in historically recent times. (I have an aunt who lived there during Segregation, and found it utterly repulsive). But also true- is that the North was no Eden to black people who made it there, either. Bottom line? We've grown a lot as a country, and those were different times altogether. You take a hundred randomly-selected modern Americans off the street and transport them back to say, a city in a border state in 1860- and most of them would be firebrand Abolitionists- a position which at the time was somewhere between Avant Garde and fringe-y counterculture. Today, it's the only position that makes any sense at all.

81 posted on 02/27/2006 5:39:47 AM PST by Riley ("What color is the boathouse at Hereford?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
The liberal interpretation of history makes Lincoln and the republicans, socialists and radicals and then condemns them for slavery and racism.

This movie is just a load of hate done in whiteface, to be viewed a bunch of squirming liberals as an art flic.
82 posted on 02/27/2006 5:53:02 AM PST by usmcobra (I always sing Karaoke the way it is meant to be sung, drunk, badly, and in Japanese)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra
This movie is just a load of hate done in whiteface, to be viewed a bunch of squirming liberals as an art flic.

To be fair- I have only seen the trailer. But from that, I derived the same impression.

83 posted on 02/27/2006 5:55:54 AM PST by Riley ("What color is the boathouse at Hereford?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Riley

If Harry Turtledove had continued The Guns of the South into a series, Dr Martin Luther King could have been the President of the CSA.

And if Spike Lee wasn't such a racist, this movie might have told that story instead. Now that I would pay to see done right.


84 posted on 02/27/2006 6:06:30 AM PST by usmcobra (I always sing Karaoke the way it is meant to be sung, drunk, badly, and in Japanese)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra

'Guns of the South' was a flight of whimsy- which he makes clear in the introduction to the book. The whole thing was based on an offhanded remark that someone made that captured his imagination. It wasn't really ample grist for a series like the other 'independent South' books that he did.


85 posted on 02/27/2006 6:12:47 AM PST by Riley ("What color is the boathouse at Hereford?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Robe
I've never heard that specific argument before.
86 posted on 02/27/2006 6:14:04 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And I wait with baited breath and some indication that the southern leaders had a more enlightened view of Indians.

The Cherokee Nation sided with the Confederate states in the war, some 26 independent Indian tribes/nations signed treaties with the CSA. The Cherokee said it best:

But Providence rules the destinies of nations, and events, by inexorable necessity, overrule human resolutions. The number of the Confederate States has increased to eleven, and their Government is firmly established and consolidated. Maintaining in the field an army of 200,000 men, the war became for them but a succession of victories. Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they sought only to repel invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves. They claimed only the privilege asserted by the Declaration of American Independence, and on which the right of the Northern States themselves to self-government is founded, of altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties.

Throughout the Confederate States we saw this great revolution effected without violence or the suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts. The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power. All division among the people disappeared, and the determination became unanimous that there should never again be any union with the Northern States. Almost as one man all who were able to bear arms rushed to the defense of an invaded country, and nowhere has it been found necessary to compel men to serve or to enlist mercenaries by the offer of extraordinary bounties.

But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in battle were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of their Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by Southern hands.

Whatever causes the Cherokee people may have had in the past, to complain of some of the Southern States, they cannot but feel that their interests and their destiny are inseparably connected with those of the South. The war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government.


87 posted on 02/27/2006 7:33:15 AM PST by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te fortuna sinet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
I don't see why a word like "Jew" would bother them. It's used in polite conversation all the time, including with people who practive Judiasm. I've never heard the word "Jew" itself being automatically offensive, though "blood-sucking Jew" would probably be.

I call myself a "Yid" and so does everyone else I hang with.

Quaint 19th Century notions of propriety considered the term "Jew" to be more vulgar and impolite than "Israelite."

I have studied the Civil War period extensively and have found that the Northerners had a far greater tendency than Southerners to anti-Semitism (the actual word "anti-Semite" did not exist at that time)

Trivia Question Time! The only Jewish military cemetery outside of Israel is located in what city?

88 posted on 02/27/2006 7:36:44 AM PST by Alouette (Psalms of the Day: 140-144)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

oh joy.


89 posted on 02/27/2006 7:41:55 AM PST by sauropod ("All you get is controversy, crap and confusion." Alan Simpson defining the WH Pimp Corps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alouette

Richmond, I think. Shockoe Hill?


90 posted on 02/27/2006 8:41:44 AM PST by Riley ("What color is the boathouse at Hereford?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Harry Turtledove is nine volumes into God knows how many books on an alternate history of the Civil War.

The first few were not bad, the next few were just CRAWLING through the day to day minutiae that the characters went through. The last couple have actually been excellent, but just a little disturbing.

Now if a yankee wanted to the the crap scared out of him by the idea of a successful slave owning society, they can pick up the Draka novels by SM Stirling. Those are awesome reads.

91 posted on 02/27/2006 8:51:10 AM PST by Centurion2000 (Islam's true face: http://www.fomi.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1627&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: When_Penguins_Attack
Are you in some kind of contest for how many historical inaccuracies you can cram into a post?

Gee I don't know. Why don't you point out the errors and we'll count them?

92 posted on 02/27/2006 3:26:45 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Riley
The Confederacy had one more Cherokee general than the Union had Black generals (Stand Watie, Cherokee Regiment of Mounted Rifles). Whatever intertribal agenda Watie may have had- the immutable fact is that it is no small thing to be made a general officer in one's country's army.

The confederacy had one more Cherokee general than it had black officers for that matter. Still, according to Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol. 4, there were 3,530 Native Americans who served with the Union Army. Including Ely Samuel Parker, Bvt. Brigadier General of Volunteers, Chief of Staff to the Commanding General of the U.S. Armies Ulysses S. Grant.

By the standards of the 1860s though- Lee and Jackson were ahead of their time.

On the contrary they were very much in keeping with their peers at the time.

Jackson's Sunday School- mentioned previously in this thread was not just about worship- but included also reading lessons.

A common tale but simply not true. Jackson taught a Sunday School sponsored by the Presbyterian Church of which he was member. There was nothing surprising or unusual in that, churches throughout the south believed that it was their mission to bring Christ to the slave population. But the claims that he taught slaves to read and write is simply not true. Jackson was a methodical man who kept to a strict syllabus. Byron Farwell laid it out in his biography of Jackson:

"School began promptly at three o'clock each Sunday, and there were no latecomers. Jackson locked the doors. Service began with a hymn, invariably "Amazing Grace," for this was the only song he could manage to make recognizably tuneful. (Dr. White, speaking of Jackson's ignorance of "the science of music," declared theat he had "neither ear nor voice for singing.") Jackson then led the school in prayer, which was followed by relating as story or reading them a passage from the Bible, after which the students were turned over to teachers for lessons drawn from the Shorter Catechism or perhaps Charles Colock Jones's A Catechism for Colored Persons (Charleston 1834). When called together again they sang, said a prayer, and were dismissed. Under Jackson's supervision, the entire session lasted exactly fourty-five minuted."

There were no reading lessons, or any other education except for exposure to the Bible.

I have read (but in fairness have not yet substantiated or confirmed) that Jackson, as a young man, forged a pass for one of his uncle's slaves (whom he had also taught to read) so that he could escape to the North.

Jackson lived with his uncle for 11 years between the time his father died and the time he entered West Point. He was very fond of his uncle and the idea that he would disobey him, or willingly break the law, are not supported by any evidence I've seen. Jackson had no problem with slavery, owning as many as 9 or 10 at one time himself.

93 posted on 02/27/2006 5:42:19 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
The Cherokee Nation sided with the Confederate states in the war, some 26 independent Indian tribes/nations signed treaties with the CSA.

And over 3,500 indians fought for the Union, including Cherokee who didn't cotton to Stand Waite and his band who had sold them out prior to the Trail of Tears. They included Bvt. Brigadier General Ely Parker, Grant's Chief of Staff. So Grant couldn't have too many problems with Indians.

But no doubt you have dozens of quotes from southern politicians post 1876 that show just how much they decried the treatment of Native Americans after the Custer fiasco. You do have those quotes, don't you?

94 posted on 02/27/2006 5:45:44 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Are you in some kind of contest for how many historical inaccuracies you can cram into a post?

Gee I don't know. Why don't you point out the errors and we'll count them?

It is called "google" and it is really cool. When you get done with your contest (which you will undoubtedly win), you should try it. It is amazing. If someone actually wants to have a clue what he is posting about (I know, I know, it is strange and dangerous territory, but the rewards are worth the risks), google is a great tool.

Here is Robert E Lee in 1856, 5 years before the war
There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy

As for Jackson In the nineteenth century, Virginia law prohibited whites from teaching blacks to read and write. Though Stonewall Jackson was known as an upstanding and law-abiding citizen in Lexington, he routinely broke this law every Sunday. The law was not strictly enforced, Jackson quietly practiced civil disobedience by having an organized Sunday school class every Sunday afternoon, teaching black children to read, and teaching them the way of salvation. There are still churches active today that were founded by blacks through Jackson's efforts. Jackson taught the Sunday school class for blacks while he served as a deacon in Lexington’s Presbyterian Church. In 1855 Jackson with the permission of his pastor, Dr. William S. White, began the class in a building near the main sanctuary. Jackson quickly gained the admiration and respect of blacks in the surrounding area as his zeal was apparent. Attendance often numbered more than one hundred. Once Gen. Jackson was a "collector" of a local Bible Society. On his list were a considerable number of names written in pencil, to each of which a very small amount was attached. The elders, recognizing very few of the names, asked who these were. Jackson’s reply was ‘They are the militia; as the Bible Society is not a Presbyterian but a Christian cause, I deemed it best to go beyond the limits of our own church.’ They were the names chiefly of free Blacks.

This relationship between Jackson and the blacks of his community was not all that uncommon in the South, particularly pertaining to whites who were devout Christians.

In Jackson’s mind, slaves were children of God placed in subordinate situations for reasons only the Creator could explain. Although Jackson could not alter the social status of slaves, he could and did display decency to those whose lot it was to be in bondage…he was emphatically a friend in an era when it was "beneath" white men of privelege to do so, be they Northern or Southern.

Lincoln, on the other hand, only "freed" slaves over whom he had no jurisdiction. The great "Emancipation Proclamation" did NOT free any slaves in the non-confederate states. In fact, it specifically EXCLUDED those states over which he certainly had the power to free them (he had, after all, suspended habeas corpus, what power could he NOT assume?). Name one slave in Kentucky, or Missouri, or any territory which Lincoln freed. He "emancipated" the slaves still in the south as pure theatre, and a military tactic, hoping they would rise up and rebel. Yeah, the great emancipator. Slaves in the territories/states under Lincoln's power were freed AFTER the war, not on Lincoln's watch.

You have a great command of cant, and "everybody knows that" type of falsehoods, and a typical appalling ignorance of what the situation really was. Besides that, though, your knowledge of what you are talking about is just peachy /sarcasm.

95 posted on 02/27/2006 6:24:28 PM PST by When_Penguins_Attack (Smashing Windows, Breaking down Gates. Proud Mepis User!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: billbears
You liked it? It took me forever to get through the first in the series. Now the Gunpowder Empire series looks promising, the second book was better than the first

Yeah, I really did like it. I prefer his straight speculative history to his other works. I haven't read any of the Gunpower Empire books. Right now, I'm reading Turtledove's "Every Inch a King," which is a stand-alone fantasy book. It was given to me as a gift, but I'm finding it slow going.

Maven
96 posted on 02/27/2006 11:40:59 PM PST by Maven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Not bad, as alternate histories go. I think Gingrich and his partner are better writers that Turtledove, though I think Turtledove has the edge in imagination.

Not to mention being just a slight more prolific. LOL!

But worth the read, especially now that they're in paperback.

I might give 'em a shot once I get caught up.

Maven
97 posted on 02/27/2006 11:43:38 PM PST by Maven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: When_Penguins_Attack
It is called "google" and it is really cool.

It's also a simple solution for simple minds, or those not willing to do some serious research.

Here is Robert E Lee in 1856, 5 years before the war...

You might want to read the entire letter some time. Lee says that "The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things." It's hard to read that as a strong condemnation of slavery, or anything other than an opinion that slavery was the proper place for blacks as they currently existed in the south. For whites slavery was a curse, for blacks slavery was instruction. He went on, "While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day." So while he claimed to decry slavery, Lee didn't believe that any action should be taken to hasten its end. And for those abolitionists who would advocate an end to slavery, he described their activities as "...an evil course."

And then 9 years later, when supporting legislation that would enlist blacks as combat soldiers, Lee made it clear that his support was most reluctant. He said, "Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population." So even 9 years later Lee was clear in his belief that slavery was a necessity, and the best situation for blacks. So how can people twist that into opposition to slavery? And best it was mild disapproval, at worst he supported the institution. Lee was like the person today who says that they disapprove of abortion and who would never get one themselves, but who does not believe that woman should have the right to choose and that abortion should be illegal.

The law was not strictly enforced, Jackson quietly practiced civil disobedience by having an organized Sunday school class every Sunday afternoon, teaching black children to read, and teaching them the way of salvation.

Nice, but nonsense. In the first place Sunday schools for blacks were not unusual. Throughout the south, churches saw it as their duty to teach the Bible to what the Presbyterian Synod of Texas described as "this benighted race in our midst." The Sunday school class that Jackson taught was not established by him, it was actually begun in 1845 by Dr. Henry Ruffner and the Reverend Tucker Lacy as the Presbyterian Sabbath School for Slaves. And Jackson did not teach slaves to read, they had lessons read to them. It was a typical Sunday school of the time and Jackson's syllabus survives, which I posted in reply 93.

This relationship between Jackson and the blacks of his community was not all that uncommon in the South, particularly pertaining to whites who were devout Christians.

Certainly not, especially in the fact that 7 of the slaves attending that school belonged to Jackson himself. Jackson's opionions on slavery were made clear in a letter he wrote concerning the plans of his half-brother, Wirt Woodson. In 1857 he wrote, "I do not want him [Wirt] to go into a free state if it can be avoided, for he would probably become an abolitionist; and then in the event of trouble between North and South he would stand on one side and we on the other." Jackson knew there would be trouble over the issue of slavery and he knew which side he would be on. Doesn't sound like someone opposed to slavery to me.

Lincoln, on the other hand, only "freed" slaves over whom he had no jurisdiction. The great "Emancipation Proclamation" did NOT free any slaves in the non-confederate states. In fact, it specifically EXCLUDED those states over which he certainly had the power to free them (he had, after all, suspended habeas corpus, what power could he NOT assume?).

OK, obviously Google did not make up for your lack of education in basic history or your failure to understand the Constitution. No the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves in those areas not in rebellion, because Lincoln lacked the authority to do so. Slavery was not forbidden by the Constitution. It took the 13th Amendment to free the slaves, an amendment that Lincoln strongly supporter, spoke out in favor of, and which he had added to the 1864 Republican platform. Yes, Lincoln did free some slaves in the North when he supported passage of legislation ending slavery in the District of Columbia, which was passed long before the Emancipation Proclamation. So your claims are not only wrong, they are so wrong as to be ridiculous.

He "emancipated" the slaves still in the south as pure theatre, and a military tactic, hoping they would rise up and rebel.

Any you, of course, have some documentation showing that this was Lincoln's plan? The proclamation itself contains the request, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages." It's clear that Lincoln was not out for slave revolt, that was a figment of the southron mind.

You have a great command of cant, and "everybody knows that" type of falsehoods, and a typical appalling ignorance of what the situation really was. Besides that, though, your knowledge of what you are talking about is just peachy /sarcasm.

So who has command of cant? So far I've provided evidence showing that most of what you claimed were fairy tales, and the rest weren't true. So far I'm batting a thousand. But don't give up, I'll give you another crack at it. My original post claimed that not a single one of the men I mentioned believed blacks to be their equals. Surely you can Google up a couple of quotes from Lee or Jackson or Davis which show the opposite to be true? Some quote that showed that Lee believed blacks to be his equal? Something that showed Jackson thought blacks were entitled to the same rights as whites? Somewhere where Davis believed blacks should vote? Or any other southern leader of the rebellion for that matter, I'll make it easier for you. Take your time, get it right. I'll be here.

98 posted on 02/28/2006 1:33:12 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Am i the only one who has noticed that if you are white you should be ashamed of who you are in this country? And minorities are allowed to have pride, but not a white male?
Sure, we have done terrible things in the past, but why is it that white american males are considered the evil of the world? Latinos can have their La Raza and talk about taking back their state of California (where i live), african americans can have a whole month dedicated to their history, sport malcom x and black panther attire, but if I fly a rebel flag I'm automatically associated with slavery and rascism? It's sad that the liberal and PC agenda wants to remove confederate history. Agree with it or not, it's history. I'm not an expert in the civil war, or the constitution. However, from everything i have read, I will conclude that I would agree with the south. Just look at the overgrown, out of control federal government today. DO you really think the framers would have wanted this? I think not. The gov is no longer a gov for the people by the people, and no longer holds the best interest of its citizens. Didn't the colonies revolt from england over a 13% tax? Now I pay 33% of every paycheck to the gov. And then get taxed again everywhere i go. So pockets of politician's can be lined. There is so much waste in this country and o ur tax dollars pay for it.
99 posted on 03/17/2006 7:04:46 PM PST by slow5poh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Luke21

"Without the south, Albert Gore would be president. Tennessee kept him from the presidency, his own state. Try winning a presidential election without us. The north is basically communist."

Not a one will see this obvious fact. Life in these United States has deterioriated since, The War of Yankee Aggression, and everybody pretends like it was just another day in the life of...


100 posted on 07/26/2006 3:02:06 PM PDT by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson