CSA Movie--poorly researched, horribly done

I just got done reading today in This Week about a Kevin Willmott (sp?) movie due to come out sometime in the near future about a world where the CSA wins the Civil War. At first, I was excited that it would be based on the Turtledove novels, but was horrified as I read the article and found out what a travesty this man was making the movie into.

Firstly, there are a number of discrepencies that tell me his attitude toward the causes of the Civil War are grossly infantile, namely, that he believes it was ENTIRELY about race. His "modern" CSA has such wonderful commodities as "shackles", an electronic collar used to keep slaves in line, the "Home Slave Shopping Network", and "Darkie Toothpaste". This points to a CSA where slavery remained the primary economic commodity when in fact, leading up to the Civil War, slavery was beginning to go out of fashion. By 1900, slavery would have been de facto abolished if not legally so, so a modern CSA where so much is built around the slave economy is hardly realistic in the slightest.

And to top things off, the photo in the article was of a Confederate moon landing. I wonder which flag of the Confederate repertoire Willmott chose to place on the moon....that's right. The BATTLE flag, not the ACTUAL flag of the CSA.

The movie is poorly researched and has little insight into fact. I for one will not be watching it, and I am loathe to think about the impact it will have on those who do.

And the icing on the cake was that the reveiwer gave it 3/5 stars. So much for movie-goers knowing where the fallacies lie.
 
This movie has been extensively discussed here. See the thread in this forum called "CSA The Movie" and it was also somewhere in Chat.

I have seen it and it is not AH.
 
Criticizing this movie on the basis of historical implausibility is totally missing the point--it's a satire, people. Like I said on the other thread, this is analogous to criticizing "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (or, say, 'Mystery Science Theater 3000') on the basis of scientific implausibility.
 
I'm sure we all would though its bloody unlikely to happen, be thankful for what we get.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
1. People do NOT go to war over tariffs or any other "State's Rights". They negotiate a deal of some kind, usually in a Parliament or some other legisaltive body, if such happens to be available

2. If they were willing to fight and die for something, even if it _wasn't_ the only thing they were fighting and dying for, what makes you say it was "going out of fashion and would soon be abolished"

3. I hear that on here almost constantly. It should be fairly easy to prove, simply show that the number of slaves was declining.

TABLE 2
Population of the South 1790-1860 by type


Year
White
Free Nonwhite
Slave

1790
1,240,454
32,523
654,121

1800
1,691,892
61,575
851,532

1810
2,118,144
97,284
1,103,700

1820
2,867,454
130,487
1,509,904

1830
3,614,600
175,074
1,983,860

1840
4,601,873
207,214
2,481,390

1850
6,184,477
235,821
3,200,364

1860
8,036,700
253,082
3,950,511

Source: Historical Statistics of the U.S. (1970).
Slave Ownership Patterns
Which shows that not only was it increasing but the rate by which it was increasing was also increasing. (and the rate by which black freemen were increasing was declining) Why do you all say it was dying out?
 
The author of a book I'm reading now, Why the South Lost The Civil War, did make a very interesting comment on the whole supposed states rights issue.

Why did the supposedly 'states rights' loving south carolina not send any emassaries to the Northern States to entince them to leave the Union with her like she did Southern States, if it was all about state's rights? Is it really likely that simply being a Free state = disregard for the rights of all other states? Was forced universal abolition a priority or vote winner in the North? (No!) Were the people of Maine really rabidly anti-federalism?

Lincoln's republicans insisted on one thing, that slavery would not be extended into the territories, which were not states yet and thus FEDERALLY ADMINSTERED! He even acquieced to the idea of preserving the right to own slaves in perpetutity in those states which already possessed the institution through a constitution amendment. The Southern hardon for slavery was pathologic, and as such, I think pure economic considerations wouldn't of had the effect on Souther society that it would of had on (always hypothetical) purely rational actos.
 
as much as anything, the south seceeded not because of anything Lincoln said or did, it was who he was: not a southerner. The Presidency was the absolute last bastion of southern political power; they'd lost out in Congress due to the population imbalance, they were losing out in the economic section due to the north's industrialization, and were falling way behind in population due to immigration. With the loss of the Presidency to a northerner, they were shut out of any real political power. There wasn't any one cause of the war, but slavery was a big one, and it was woven into all the others...
 
The population of slaves proves NOTHING about people's opinion of slavery, just as the population of "rebels" in Rwanda in 1994 proved nothing about the actual Tutsi rebellion against the Hutu power government, or the "total population" of traitors, wreckers, and counterrevolutionaries proved anything about how "lawless" the Soviet Union was under Stalin.

The abolitionist movement was gaining momentum in the South particularly because of the number of educated free-blacks in the decades leading up to the Civil War. The South (socially) was becoming more and more aware of the possibility that perhaps human "property" had some contribution to society.

And people do go to war over tariffs and states' rights. We did it in the French and Indian War and again in 1776.

Slavery wasn't the primary cause of the Civil War, nor was it the "dominant" idea behind the Confederacy. Read their constitution. The Confederacy's political structure was based on the idea of individual liberty for the states and greater autonomy for state legislatures. And if you look at the political situation in the United States before and after the Civil War, we had much greater political freedom at the state level than we ever had after the Civil War.
Lincoln ruled as a military dictator during the Civil War, and Reconstruction brought an end to states' rights because it imposed not only the law but the will of the federal government on the South which set the precedent that it could be done in the North. And here we are today.
 
Heart of Darkness said:
The author of a book I'm reading now, Why the South Lost The Civil War, did make a very interesting comment on the whole supposed states rights issue.

Why did the supposedly 'states rights' loving south carolina not send any emassaries to the Northern States to entince them to leave the Union with her like she did Southern States, if it was all about state's rights? Is it really likely that simply being a Free state = disregard for the rights of all other states? Was forced universal abolition a priority or vote winner in the North? (No!) Were the people of Maine really rabidly anti-federalism?

Lincoln's republicans insisted on one thing, that slavery would not be extended into the territories, which were not states yet and thus FEDERALLY ADMINSTERED! He even acquieced to the idea of preserving the right to own slaves in perpetutity in those states which already possessed the institution through a constitution amendment. The Southern hardon for slavery was pathologic, and as such, I think pure economic considerations wouldn't of had the effect on Souther society that it would of had on (always hypothetical) purely rational actos.

I also read "Why the South Lost..." and agree with its premise. I have always been suspicious of TL's which have a successful Confederacy voluntarily abandon slavery shortly after the War of Succession. They are just too optimistic. The addiction to slavery was basic to the conservative agrarian aristocratic values of the CSA "founders". That being said, a modern, slave-owning, technological, totalitarian CSA in the late 20th century also makes no sense. At some point the essential inconguity between an agrarian aristocratic slave owning republic and a modern, populist, industrial state would come to a head, leading either to the collapse of the CSA as a meaningful independent nation or some sort of revolution as in Russia.
 
ShadowCommunist2009 said:
The population of slaves proves NOTHING about people's opinion of slavery, just as the population of "rebels" in Rwanda in 1994 proved nothing about the actual Tutsi rebellion against the Hutu power government, or the "total population" of traitors, wreckers, and counterrevolutionaries proved anything about how "lawless" the Soviet Union was under Stalin.

The abolitionist movement was gaining momentum in the South particularly because of the number of educated free-blacks in the decades leading up to the Civil War. The South (socially) was becoming more and more aware of the possibility that perhaps human "property" had some contribution to society.

And people do go to war over tariffs and states' rights. We did it in the French and Indian War and again in 1776.

Slavery wasn't the primary cause of the Civil War, nor was it the "dominant" idea behind the Confederacy. Read their constitution. The Confederacy's political structure was based on the idea of individual liberty for the states and greater autonomy for state legislatures. And if you look at the political situation in the United States before and after the Civil War, we had much greater political freedom at the state level than we ever had after the Civil War.
Lincoln ruled as a military dictator during the Civil War, and Reconstruction brought an end to states' rights because it imposed not only the law but the will of the federal government on the South which set the precedent that it could be done in the North. And here we are today.
Then why did the South leave? I have never read anything about Lincoln going to free the slaves. He just wanted to limit the spread, that's all. So, are you saying its ok to leave the Union over the results of an election? If so, I'd like get my county out of this nation now. I think Bush is an idiot and near tyrannical himself.
 
ShadowCommunist2009 said:
The abolitionist movement was gaining momentum in the South particularly because of the number of educated free-blacks in the decades leading up to the Civil War. The South (socially) was becoming more and more aware of the possibility that perhaps human "property" had some contribution to society.
Is that why there were movements to reenslave or banish Free Blacks? Not to mention the increasing limitations on emancipation.

I fear you need to read up on the writings of the Confederates themselves, as well as take an honest look at thier regard for the rights of the Northern States.

zoomar said:
I have always been suspicious of TL's which have a successful Confederacy voluntarily abandon slavery shortly after the War of Succession. They are just too optimistic. The addiction to slavery was basic to the conservative agrarian aristocratic values of the CSA "founders". That being said, a modern, slave-owning, technological, totalitarian CSA in the late 20th century also makes no sense. At some point the essential inconguity between an agrarian aristocratic slave owning republic and a modern, populist, industrial state would come to a head, leading either to the collapse of the CSA as a meaningful independent nation or some sort of revolution as in Russia.
Unfortunately, the result of the revolution (or it's supression) may not be a good thing and could indeed lead to the Totalitarian Slave State you think so improabable.

I also wonder what you mean by meaningful independence. Many an anarchic Banana Republic has survived into the present day.

HTG
 
Dave Howery said:
as much as anything, the south seceeded not because of anything Lincoln said or did, it was who he was: not a southerner. The Presidency was the absolute last bastion of southern political power; they'd lost out in Congress due to the population imbalance, they were losing out in the economic section due to the north's industrialization, and were falling way behind in population due to immigration. With the loss of the Presidency to a northerner, they were shut out of any real political power. There wasn't any one cause of the war, but slavery was a big one, and it was woven into all the others...
Very well put, Dave.
 

WFHermans

Banned
Calling a film you didn't see "poorly researched, horribly done" is another example of the Boobus Americanus.
 
Dave Howery said:
as much as anything, the south seceeded not because of anything Lincoln said or did, it was who he was: not a southerner. The Presidency was the absolute last bastion of southern political power; they'd lost out in Congress due to the population imbalance, they were losing out in the economic section due to the north's industrialization, and were falling way behind in population due to immigration. With the loss of the Presidency to a northerner, they were shut out of any real political power. There wasn't any one cause of the war, but slavery was a big one, and it was woven into all the others...
Well put. I would also add that the Rebs were very selective in their supposed reverence for "state's rights."
 
Dave's right, the south left because they realized that they didn't have much power in the country anymore, because the north dominated congress and lincoln became president without even being on the ballot in much of the south. Many southernors thought that without a huge say in the federal government, and without a huge amount of states rights, their way of life couldn't last. They were right about this, although trying to secede ended up bring it to an end faster then trying to do things politically would have.
 
WFHermans said:
Calling a film you didn't see "poorly researched, horribly done" is another example of the Boobus Americanus.
You are not necessarily incorrect here, but unfortunately people making comments about movies they haven't seen or books they haven't read is not something confined to America.

Now, I have seen the movie and it is poorly researched and horribly done, that is if it had been any type of attempt at Alternate History. It was more of an attempt (very lame in my opinion) of a commentary of the current state of race relations in the US. Not recommended for anyone to waste their time, not to mention their money to see.

What is sad is that we are not likely to see any type of serious attempt at a AH movie of this subject.

To repeat, do not go to see this movie.
 
Yossarian said:
Dave's right, the south left because they realized that they didn't have much power in the country anymore, because the north dominated congress and lincoln became president without even being on the ballot in much of the south. Many southernors thought that without a huge say in the federal government, and without a huge amount of states rights, their way of life couldn't last. They were right about this, although trying to secede ended up bring it to an end faster then trying to do things politically would have.
Then why didn't the slavocrat overlords that ruled the South do something about it?
 
Top