FLOL... Movie!.. "what if the south won the war?" - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - FLOL... Movie!.. "what if the south won the war?" (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 2/20/2006 6:44:40 AM EDT

[#1]

Interesting that most of the Blue Staters are still trying to punish the South for something that happened 150 years ago. Mostly through liberal propaganda like this crappy movie.

Sez who? Try a preschool level economics class. The supermajority of economists would disagree with you...and they've studied the subject more than both of us

Why make the claim? Because the South was a Representative Republic...unlike the plethora of dictatorships you spouted off...name one REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC that has slavery now. How about one that has had slavery IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS?

Stupidity has never been eradicated either. Neither has murder, but lets ban guns anyway

Posted: 2/20/2006 6:46:26 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
So will this movie generate more threads than Brokeback Mountain?

It'll generate as many award nominations, that's for sure.

Posted: 2/20/2006 6:50:28 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So will this movie generate more threads than Brokeback Mountain?

It'll generate as many award nominations, that's for sure.

"Ah just kant quit you, General Lee"

edit-You're probably right.

Posted: 2/20/2006 6:56:52 AM EDT

[#4]

This movie will further denegrate race relations in the US.

Posted: 2/20/2006 7:13:05 AM EDT

[#5]

Yup, Southerners are and were a bunch of black hating rednecks. That's why the Confederate Army was racially integrated, while American forces were segregated even in WWII.

Posted: 2/20/2006 7:35:50 AM EDT

[#6]

The civil war was about slavery. The south wanted to keep one group of people enslaved and the north wanted to enslave everyone. Look at the example of those fine free northern states like California and New York.

Posted: 2/20/2006 8:26:00 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Interesting that most of the Blue Staters are still trying to punish the South for something that happened 150 years ago. Mostly through liberal propaganda like this crappy movie.

Sez who? Try a preschool level economics class. The supermajority of economists would disagree with you...and they've studied the subject more than both of us

Why make the claim? Because the South was a Representative Republic...unlike the plethora of dictatorships you spouted off...name one REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC that has slavery now. How about one that has had slavery IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS?]

The South was a rep republic? It was no such thing.

You must mean the C.S.A., then. OK, if it was a representative republic, please tell us of how the slaves were represented.

Stupidity has never been eradicated either. Neither has murder, but lets ban guns anyway

Posted: 2/20/2006 8:32:05 AM EDT

[#8]

Stupid.

Posted: 2/20/2006 8:39:00 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Interesting that most of the Blue Staters are still trying to punish the South for something that happened 150 years ago. Mostly through liberal propaganda like this crappy movie.

Sez who? Try a preschool level economics class. The supermajority of economists would disagree with you...and they've studied the subject more than both of us

Why make the claim? Because the South was a Representative Republic...unlike the plethora of dictatorships you spouted off...name one REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC that has slavery now. How about one that has had slavery IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS?]

The South was a rep republic? It was no such thing.

You must mean the C.S.A., then. OK, if it was a representative republic, please tell us of how the slaves were represented.

As soon as you tell us how the Indians were represented by the Union...

Posted: 2/20/2006 8:46:47 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Too bad for Spike.. but the Civil War wasn't over slavery.

I could be wrong but I think the main reason for the Civil War was that the North wanted to impose export taxes on the farm products of the South.

Most things seem to come down to money.

Posted: 2/20/2006 8:58:35 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Too bad for Spike.. but the Civil War wasn't over slavery.

It was for lots of reasons but Slavery certanly was a main one, if not the instigator. Also FWIW, the North treated blacks horribly as well.

That's all very fine about why the South left the Union, but to say that 'slavery was the issue' you would have to show that its eradication was the announced purpose of Lincoln's War...and it wasn't.

Not a whole lot of Yankees would have fought to 'End Slavery, Now!'

But to 'Preserve the Union'?

History answers the question nicely.

Eric The(Unreconstructed)Hun

Posted: 2/20/2006 9:00:28 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Too bad for Spike.. but the Civil War wasn't over slavery.

It was for lots of reasons but Slavery certanly was a main one, if not the instigator. Also FWIW, the North treated blacks horribly as well.

That's all very fine about why the South left the Union, but to say that 'slavery was the issue' you would have to show that its eradication was the announced purpose of Lincoln's War...and it wasn't.

No, slavery was not the issue for the Union...but it WAS a big issue for the South. Slavery didn't cause the Union to declare war on the CSA, secession did. But the South seceeded because of slavery, among other economic reasons.

Posted: 2/20/2006 9:00:30 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Interesting that most of the Blue Staters are still trying to punish the South for something that happened 150 years ago. Mostly through liberal propaganda like this crappy movie.

Sez who? Try a preschool level economics class. The supermajority of economists would disagree with you...and they've studied the subject more than both of us

Why make the claim? Because the South was a Representative Republic...unlike the plethora of dictatorships you spouted off...name one REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC that has slavery now. How about one that has had slavery IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS?]

The South was a rep republic? It was no such thing.

You must mean the C.S.A., then. OK, if it was a representative republic, please tell us of how the slaves were represented.

As soon as you tell us how the Indians were represented by the Union...

They weren't. They were members of sovereign nations by treaty, remember?

Posted: 2/20/2006 9:02:23 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Interesting that most of the Blue Staters are still trying to punish the South for something that happened 150 years ago. Mostly through liberal propaganda like this crappy movie.

Sez who? Try a preschool level economics class. The supermajority of economists would disagree with you...and they've studied the subject more than both of us

Why make the claim? Because the South was a Representative Republic...unlike the plethora of dictatorships you spouted off...name one REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC that has slavery now. How about one that has had slavery IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS?]

The South was a rep republic? It was no such thing.

You must mean the C.S.A., then. OK, if it was a representative republic, please tell us of how the slaves were represented.

As soon as you tell us how the Indians were represented by the Union...

They weren't. They were members of sovereign nations by treaty, remember?

In theory...
Reality was something else. The point is, neither side was lilly-white (so to speak) in this matter. Yes, the South DID support slavery and seceeded to preserve it, among other reasons. But the Union government didn't give a crap about slavery until it suited their purposes.

Posted: 2/20/2006 9:05:09 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Too bad for Spike.. but the Civil War wasn't over slavery.

It was for lots of reasons but Slavery certanly was a main one, if not the instigator. Also FWIW, the North treated blacks horribly as well.

That's all very fine about why the South left the Union, but to say that 'slavery was the issue' you would have to show that its eradication was the announced purpose of Lincoln's War...and it wasn't.

Not a whole lot of Yankees would have fought to 'End Slavery, Now!'

But to 'Preserve the Union'?

History answers the question nicely.

Eric The(Unreconstructed)Hun

The V.P. of the Confederacy was quoted earlier in this threas as saying that slavery was "...a first cause of the War..." (emphasis mine).

NOT secondary.

NOT tertiary.

A FIRST cause. Not the only cause, to be sure. But right up there with the big few.

How some of you can continue to deny this fact is beyond me.

Posted: 2/20/2006 9:10:31 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

You must mean the C.S.A., then. OK, if it was a representative republic, please tell us of how the slaves were represented.

The same manner in which the slaves were represented in the North....the 3/5ths Rule.

You know the agreement that the Yankees made with Southerners simply in order to form that 'More Perfect Union.'

Walked into that one with both eyes wide open, didja?

From the World Book - 'The African American Journey'....

'By 1860, the nation had about 490,000 free blacks. But most of them faced such severe discrimination that they were little better off than the slaves.'

Not very pretty history on either side of the Mason-Dixon Line, eh, m'boy?

Eric The(SincerelyUnreconstructed)Hun

Posted: 2/20/2006 9:12:43 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Interesting that most of the Blue Staters are still trying to punish the South for something that happened 150 years ago. Mostly through liberal propaganda like this crappy movie.

Sez who? Try a preschool level economics class. The supermajority of economists would disagree with you...and they've studied the subject more than both of us

Why make the claim? Because the South was a Representative Republic...unlike the plethora of dictatorships you spouted off...name one REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC that has slavery now. How about one that has had slavery IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS?]

The South was a rep republic? It was no such thing.

You must mean the C.S.A., then. OK, if it was a representative republic, please tell us of how the slaves were represented.

As soon as you tell us how the Indians were represented by the Union...

They weren't. They were members of sovereign nations by treaty, remember?

In theory...
Reality was something else. The point is, neither side was lilly-white (so to speak) in this matter. Yes, the South DID support slavery and seceeded to preserve it, among other reasons. But the Union government didn't give a crap about slavery until it suited their purposes.

Well, I have answered YOUR question. Still waiting for an answer to MY question about how the slaves were "represented" in the Confederacy.

As for your latter statement, well, I'm shocked, SHOCKED that Lincoln would be so pragmatic as to utilize any tool at his disposal to win the War.

If the Confederates had had the good sense to abolish slavery at any time almost up to the end, they might have won foreign support and staved off defeat.

Ever wonder why they didn't take this obvious step?

Posted: 2/20/2006 9:14:37 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

The V.P. of the Confederacy was quoted earlier in this threas as saying that slavery was "...a first cause of the War..." (emphasis mine).

NOT secondary.

NOT tertiary.

A FIRST cause. Not the only cause, to be sure. But right up there with the big few.

How some of you can continue to deny this fact is beyond me.

It takes two to tango, m'boy!

What number was 'The War to end Slavery' as one of Lincoln's announced war aims?

First? Second? What?

Face it, Jedidiah, the Yankees would not have fought to free the slaves and everyone knows that.

Everyone.....except you, it appears.

Are you purposefully trying to be clueless?

Eric The(StillUnreconstructed,TryAsTheyMight)Hun

Posted: 2/20/2006 9:18:05 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Well, I have answered YOUR question. Still waiting for an answer to MY question about how the slaves were "represented" in the Confederacy.

I don't mean to speak for Rikwriter, but I answered your question, above.

And Lincoln was an idiot...IMHO.

He could have waited out the South...and allowed cooler heads than his to prevail.

Ah, but History is a bitch, ain't she?

And in this case a real Yankee bitch!

Eric The(AndTheyAreTheVeryWorseKindOfBitches)Hun

Posted: 2/20/2006 9:21:02 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
You must mean the C.S.A., then. OK, if it was a representative republic, please tell us of how the slaves were represented.

The same manner in which the slaves were represented in the North....the 3/5ths Rule.

You know the agreement that the Yankees made with Southerners simply in order to form that 'More Perfect Union.'

Walked into that one with both eyes wide open, didja?

From the World Book - 'The African American Journey'....

'By 1860, the nation had about 490,000 free blacks. But most of them faced such severe discrimination that they were little better off than the slaves.'

Not very pretty history on either side of the Mason-Dixon Line, eh, m'boy?

Eric The(SincerelyUnreconstructed)Hun

Actually, the 3/5 rule was used in determining the Census.

This determined the number people within a State, and hence the number of Reps in the US House.

Underlying point is that not being allowed citizenship, the slaves were NEVER represented in any Legislature of any kind, except by their Masters, who had their own interests in direct contradiction to those of the slaves.

To compare the deplorable condition os some free Blacks in the North to the MANY Black slaves in the South is absurd. To do so equates the fundamental SIN of slavery with simple abuse and maltreatment.

Posted: 2/20/2006 9:23:38 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I have answered YOUR question. Still waiting for an answer to MY question about how the slaves were "represented" in the Confederacy.

I don't mean to speak for Rikwriter, but I answered your question, above.

And Lincoln was an idiot...IMHO.

He could have waited out the South...and allowed cooler heads than his to prevail.

Ah, but History is a bitch, ain't she?

And in this case a real Yankee bitch!

Eric The(AndTheyAreTheVeryWorseKindOfBitches)Hun

We'll never know if Lincoln, left to his own devices, would have waited. Seems like the Confeds firing on Ft. Sumter took that option off the table.

Posted: 2/20/2006 9:26:05 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The V.P. of the Confederacy was quoted earlier in this threas as saying that slavery was "...a first cause of the War..." (emphasis mine).

NOT secondary.

NOT tertiary.

A FIRST cause. Not the only cause, to be sure. But right up there with the big few.

How some of you can continue to deny this fact is beyond me.

It takes two to tango, m'boy!

What number was 'The War to end Slavery' as one of Lincoln's announced war aims?

First? Second? What?

Face it, Jedidiah, the Yankees would not have fought to free the slaves and everyone knows that.

Everyone.....except you, it appears.

Are you purposefully trying to be clueless?

Eric The(StillUnreconstructed,TryAsTheyMight)Hun

Just quoting from the Confed V.P., who was there at the time, and knew what he was talking about.

He, at least, had the honesty to admit the truth of the matter, and nothing you can say or do will change that fact.

Posted: 2/20/2006 10:28:31 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Wasn't Abraham Lincoln a Republican? If so, black people should be forever thankful of the Republican party

Yup. And George Wallace and all of the other segregationists the civil rights movement fought against were Democrats. And JFK sent the first troops into Vietnam, LBJ dramitcally increased the war (both Democrats) and Nixon got us out (Republican).

Yet the Democrats view Republicans as racist warmongers.

Posted: 2/20/2006 10:49:25 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I have answered YOUR question. Still waiting for an answer to MY question about how the slaves were "represented" in the Confederacy.

I don't mean to speak for Rikwriter, but I answered your question, above.

And Lincoln was an idiot...IMHO.

He could have waited out the South...and allowed cooler heads than his to prevail.

Ah, but History is a bitch, ain't she?

And in this case a real Yankee bitch!

Eric The(AndTheyAreTheVeryWorseKindOfBitches)Hun

We'll never know if Lincoln, left to his own devices, would have waited. Seems like the Confeds firing on Ft. Sumter took that option off the table.

I said that History was a Yankee Bitch, didn't I?

But Lincoln decided NOT to wait, as he was being urged to do by all around him, to reinforce Fort Sumter.

As regrettable as the War Between the States was, what followed was even more Hell.

Eric The(Unreconstructed,ISay)Hun

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:05:05 AM EDT

[#25]

Although there were many issues, even the slavery issue was economic not morality:

Slavery as a cause of the War

Focus on the slavery issue has been cyclical. It was considered the main cause in the 1860-1890 era. From 1900 to 1960 historians considered anti-slavery agitation to be less important than constitutional, economic and cultural issues. Since the 1960s historians have returned to an emphasis on slavery as a major cause of the war. Specifically, they note that the South insisted on protecting it and the North insisted on weakening it. The cotton-growing export business or "King Cotton," as it was touted, was so important to the world economy, southerners argued, that they could stand alone. Indeed being tied to the North was a hindrance and an economic burden. The South would do better by trading directly with Europe and avoiding extortionate Yankee middlemen.

In the view of many northern Republicans, the Slave Power ruled the South, not democracy. This "Slave Power" was a small group of very wealthy slave owners, especially cotton planters, who dominated the politics and society of the South. However, historians more recently have emphasized that the South was much more democratic than the Republicans of North believed.

The specific political crisis that culminated in secession and civil war stemmed from a dispute over the expansion of slavery into new territories. This argument grew out of the acquisition of vast new lands during the Mexican War (1846-8). Free-state politicians such as David Wilmot, who personally had no sympathy for abolitionism, feared that slaves would provide too much competition for free labor, and thus effectively keep free-state migrants out of newly opened territories. Slaveholders felt that any ban on slaves in the territories was a discrimination against their peculiar form of property, and would undercut both the financial value of slaves and the institution itself. (Slaves comprised the second most valuable form of property in the South, after real estate.) In Congress, the end of the Mexican War was overshadowed by a fight over the Wilmot Proviso, a provision that Wilmot tried (and failed) to enact to bar slavery from all lands acquired in the conflict.

The dispute led to open warfare after the Kansas Territory was organized in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the prohibition on slavery there under the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and put the fate of slavery in the hands of the territory's settlers, a process known as "popular sovereignty." Proslavery Missourians expected that Kansas, due west of their state, would naturally become a slave state, and were alarmed by an organized migration of antislavery New Englanders. Soon heavily armed "border ruffians" from Missouri battled antislavery forces under John Brown, among other leaders. Hundreds were killed or wounded. Southern congressmen, perceiving a Northern conspiracy to keep slavery out of Kansas, insisted that it be admitted as a slave state. Northerners, pointing to the large and growing majority of antislavery voters there, denounced this effort. By 1860, sectional divisions had grown deep and bitter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Economic_Interpretations

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:07:06 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Too bad for Spike.. but the Civil War wasn't over slavery.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:09:48 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

That's all well and good, but it doesn't excuse their little "red state map" covering the whole country. That was nothing but liberal propagandistic bullshit and if it was approved by your friends, they're fucking pieces of shit.

LOL - so THAT is your beef? If it had been reversed and it was a blue taking over the map, would that have made it better?

Who really fucking cares what color they used. Blue and red are obvious choices.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:10:20 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Anything Spike Lee does is racist.

Again - Lee had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAKING OF THIS FILM.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:12:02 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
What a crock. Read the "Timeline" portion of the movie site. The war against the "Muslim Menace". The reviews has it as one of the "nerviest" films about race and "US Imperialism". I got a question. If I pull my pants down will Spike Lee really jerk me off?

What - you dont think that was catchy?

I think that would have looked awesome with one of those spinning news papers - The Muslim Menace!!

And if you buy me dinner I might jack you off, as *I* wrote the time line - not Spike Lee.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:12:11 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Anything Spike Lee does is racist.

Again - Lee had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAKING OF THIS FILM.

He's probably kicking himself that it didn't occur to him, then.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:13:52 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:

That's all well and good, but it doesn't excuse their little "red state map" covering the whole country. That was nothing but liberal propagandistic bullshit and if it was approved by your friends, they're fucking pieces of shit.

LOL - so THAT is your beef? If it had been reversed and it was a blue taking over the map, would that have made it better?

Who really fucking cares what color they used. Blue and red are obvious choices.

1)Blue would have been a more HONEST choice, since the South was solidly DEMOCRATIC at the time.
2)Don't pretend there wasn't a "red state" reference in there...you may THINK we're stupid enough to believe that, but trust me, we aren't.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:14:17 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Interesting that most of the Blue Staters are still trying to punish the South for something that happened 150 years ago. Mostly through liberal propaganda like this crappy movie.

Sez who? Try a preschool level economics class. The supermajority of economists would disagree with you...and they've studied the subject more than both of us

Why make the claim? Because the South was a Representative Republic...unlike the plethora of dictatorships you spouted off...name one REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC that has slavery now. How about one that has had slavery IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS?

Stupidity has never been eradicated either. Neither has murder, but lets ban guns anyway

This movie is not about the serious hypothesis of "what if" the South had won. It is a hypothetical, more of a "Twilight Zone" what if.

PS - The film comes from Kansas which is a Red state.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:15:07 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
What a crock. Read the "Timeline" portion of the movie site. The war against the "Muslim Menace". The reviews has it as one of the "nerviest" films about race and "US Imperialism". I got a question. If I pull my pants down will Spike Lee really jerk me off?

What - you dont think that was catchy?

I think that would have looked awesome with one of those spinning news papers - The Muslim Menace!!

And if you buy me dinner I might jack you off, as *I* wrote the time line - not Spike Lee.

Then you're the scum. Not quite up to Spike Lee's level, but damn close.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:19:08 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
1)Blue would have been a more HONEST choice, since the South was solidly DEMOCRATIC at the time.
2)Don't pretend there wasn't a "red state" reference in there...you may THINK we're stupid enough to believe that, but trust me, we aren't.

Democratic - sure. Liberal - I dont think so.

As for the red state reference, that was done by the flash designer. Maybe he put it in as a reference, but who fucking cares. If it was the other way around then the "blue staters" would be pissy. Shit, its only been since the last election or two since the whole "blue state/red state" thing came about.

I guess the only way to not offend anyone would be to use purple and green. But the film isnt made to cater to the PC. It will probably offend some people. Its still a good movie.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:21:51 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Then you're the scum. Not quite up to Spike Lee's level, but damn close.

Oh? Why is that? Because I wrote a FICITONAL TIMELINE ABOUT A FICTIONAL COUNTRY.

LOL. Wowsa!

Hell- with all the muslim bashing I see here, I would think that a country that recognized the threat early on and went after it would be praised. Fictional or not.

If you think it sounds a bit Orwellian and a nod to cold war propoganda, then you are right.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:22:23 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

As for the red state reference, that was done by the flash designer. Maybe he put it in as a reference, but who fucking cares.

Anyone interested in the truth cares.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:23:25 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Then you're the scum. Not quite up to Spike Lee's level, but damn close.

Oh? Why is that? Because I wrote a FICITONAL TIMELINE ABOUT A FICTIONAL COUNTRY.

Stop pretending that you didn't intend the analogies. Anyone with two brain cells can see right through you.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:25:19 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:

As for the red state reference, that was done by the flash designer. Maybe he put it in as a reference, but who fucking cares.

Anyone interested in the truth cares.

You should be pleased to know there is no red state/blue state reference in the film.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:30:44 AM EDT

[#39]

At least they come right out and admit that it's bullshit revisionist history crap.

"A movie that's MAKING history"

You said it, asshats.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:30:46 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Stop pretending that you didn't intend the analogies. Anyone with two brain cells can see right through you.

What analogies?

I was taking current events and trying to imagine what an Impirialistic CSA who is prone to strike first would do. I also enjoyed the "Red Menace" propoganda from the '50s. I thought that with the threat found from the Al Quida etc, they would further demonize the muslims and strike first.

Since the CSA in the film made Christianity the only allowed religion, using a Crusade metaphor back to the holy land is not far off.

If you want to spell out a few things better, perhaps I can reply better.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:42:35 AM EDT

[#41]

this is tagtastic.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:49:24 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
But the film isnt made to cater to the PC.

Yeah. Right!

Posted: 2/20/2006 12:08:34 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Just quoting from the Confed V.P., who was there at the time, and knew what he was talking about.

He, at least, had the honesty to admit the truth of the matter, and nothing you can say or do will change that fact.

The war was fought to bring the southern states back to the Union, the Southern states seceded from the Union due to a growing threat to State's Rights and the ability to decide things for the individiual state, one of which was slavery. There are 4 things that ae considered by Gov't professors as to limiting State rights, one of which is the Civil War.

Posted: 2/20/2006 12:40:01 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Interesting that almost all agree here that "slavery would eventually have died out".

Sez who? On what basis do you make that assumption?

Why do you make that claim when slavery in modified forms exists today in countries ranging from China to the Sudan? The former Soviet Union used slave labor until recently. Currently, Russia still has "Labor Camps".

Stealing has never been eradicated, so why should we expect that the practice of stealing another's labor by force (slavery) would be any different?

It would have died out due to both moral as well as financial pressures.

All the North would have had to do is stop buying southern cotton. Britain most likely would have done the same (sure, they were looking at the CSA, but Britain was against slavery, and it is doubtful that a true alliance ever would have stood).

Not saying it would have collapsed overnight, but it wouldn't have lasted long.

Not everyone in the South was for slavery, either, just like not everyone in the North was against it.

Bingo. How does Wal-Mart exert its influence over its suppliers? By voting with its pocketbook. Sometimes the pocketbook can be the "Big Stick".

Posted: 2/20/2006 12:42:58 PM EDT

[#45]

seems a few of the "southern redneck" crowd isn't happy with their portrayal.

Posted: 2/20/2006 12:50:42 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So I guess this "joint" is implying that Southerners deep down inside really are racists, and that if we could have things our way that's how it'd be. Allied with Hitler? WTF?!?!?! I'm really sick of spike lee's shit.

First off - other than his name on the poster, Lee had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAKING OF THIS FILM.

Next, in the film we didnt ally with Hitler. The CSA were isolationists. They didnt see them going after Germany was their duty (spoiler - the Germans still lost).

Actually - I think with the way a lot of you are all "gun ho" about war and shit, you would LOVE the CSA. They didnt wait around for the Japanesse to attack, we went after them first.
And no - the film doesnt imply Southeners "deep down are racists". America was - at one time - racist. Now - I dont fault anyone for that. It was a norm of the time. People have done all sorts of things in history that were the norm back then that we now find wrong.

The "what if" of this story is that slavery never becomes "wrong". But this racist "CSA" is one from the twighlight zone. It isnt about the south today per se.

Gung ho, isolationist warmongers?

WTF,O?

Posted: 2/20/2006 12:54:58 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The V.P. of the Confederacy was quoted earlier in this threas as saying that slavery was "...a first cause of the War..." (emphasis mine).

NOT secondary.

NOT tertiary.

A FIRST cause. Not the only cause, to be sure. But right up there with the big few.

How some of you can continue to deny this fact is beyond me.

It takes two to tango, m'boy!

What number was 'The War to end Slavery' as one of Lincoln's announced war aims?

First? Second? What?

Face it, Jedidiah, the Yankees would not have fought to free the slaves and everyone knows that.

Everyone.....except you, it appears.

Are you purposefully trying to be clueless?

Eric The(StillUnreconstructed,TryAsTheyMight)Hun

Just quoting from the Confed V.P., who was there at the time, and knew what he was talking about.

He, at least, had the honesty to admit the truth of the matter, and nothing you can say or do will change that fact.

raf,

You're assuming/presuming that "The V.P. of the Confederacy" was being straightforward. Wasn't he a politician, too, though?

Part of your answer might be found here: A New Look at the "Civil War" by Carl Pearlston.

It's a really good article I came across whilst searching for my favorite Dickens quote:

Originally Posted By Charles Dickens:
The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

Oh, though I'm not his biggest fan, would I were that Dickens had been an arfcommer!

P.S. I know that, like everyone involved, the Brits *also* had a bridge they wished to sell us......

Posted: 2/20/2006 12:57:08 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
seems a few of the "southern redneck" crowd isn't happy with their portrayal.

If only you knew a tenth as much as you thought you know.

Posted: 2/20/2006 12:58:39 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop pretending that you didn't intend the analogies. Anyone with two brain cells can see right through you.

What analogies?

Christ, you've got to be kidding.

Posted: 2/20/2006 1:06:33 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
The Civil War WAS about slavery...don't kid yourself. But the fact is, slavery would have been on the way out for economic and technological reasons within a generation with or without the Civil War, so this "alternate history" of theirs is nothing but idiotic bullshit.

perfectly put!

except that it was not for the moral reasons people try to claim. Lincoln would be considered a racist today by almost anyone's standards.

It was about economic control, and since the slave was the most efficient way to pick cotton, the north targeted that. They didn't give two shits about them. Much less send their husbands and fathers off to fight for a bunch slaves.

The spin that has been put on the slavery issue is just incredible!!!

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - FLOL... Movie!.. "what if the south won the war?" (Page 2 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us