What if the South had won the Civil War?

[gatorboy]

I've been waiting to see this for awhile though I have a feeling, living in the South, I'll have to wait for DVD.

Check out the trailer.

http://www.csathemovie.com/

[Teaser]

1. They have.

nt

[Skidmore]

2. You beat me to it.

[FarLeftRage]

3. My Confederate money would be real

and I'd be rich!

[gordianot]

To a large degree it never ended.

[fleabert]

4. it's a good film.

made my stomach churn though. The commercials are the kicker.

[Swede]

5. Alternate reality stories always tell us about our own.

I've never heard of this one,but it looks interesting.

[YOY]

6. Interesting...but a lot of shock value and probably very little real

"alternative history" as you might see in Harry Turtledove's books.

Could be a good watch, but I sometimes doubt Lee's actual sense of being in-touch with things since he made it big.

[Newsjock]

7. A big thumbs-up for the movie

Saw it in San Francisco weekend before last. It's not just a film about racial issues; it presents a warped vision of America that's eerily close to what we've become, demonstrating how utterly fragile our social fabric is.

But, be warned: The film says things that you just don't say in polite society, with racial language that would even make "South Park" blush. You and the rest of the audience will feel very uncomfortable at times, not knowing whether to laugh or hiss.

[Clark2008]

20. So - really though, if the South had won, then we wouldn't be

living in this hell, now?

I mean - because the South did NOT win the Civil War.

Geesch.

[SoCalDem]

8. They didn't win??

There's a bunch of people who are acting like they did.

[ck4829]

9. This guy would be President

[BlueEyedSon]

14. "would"?

[Harry S Truman]

10. That is totally absurd

A CSA victory would've meant two nations, not one.
And any slave-holding CSA would have been on Hitler's side in WW2.

[DBoon]

16. And that's the scary part of a true CSA win

would be having Hitler's Luftwaffe parked right across the Potomac, making raids on the industrial centers of the north.

[adwon]

37. No

Nazi sympathizers were primarily in the Midwest and the Northeast, not in the South. In fact, the most ardent segregationists were usually the most ardent opponents of the Nazis. The extension of the peacetime draft in August 1941, which ensured that America would have the nucleus of an army in the war, was passed because of near-unanimity among southerners in Congress. The Neutrality Acts, which hurt the victims of Nazi aggression, were a brainchild of the west, not the south. Further, with their dependence on export of cotton and other products, it's illogical to suggest that they would choose Hitler, whose dominance of Europe could only hurt them economically, as an ally because he represented the type of centralized government that has always been anathema to the south.

This is no defense of the CSA. It is simply a correction of a simplistic belief that racism (American) would naturally support racism (Nazi). It didn't in World War 2 and, in this alternate universe, it would still be very unlikely.

[tom_paine]

51. I disagree, you are speaking of a South which was forced to civilize

itself at the end of the Civil War. It didn;t take, for the most part and brutal barbarity reigned there for black for 100 years after.

But imagine the arrogance of such people who had WON. It doesn;t take much. Think Bushevik arrogance times 100,000.

The South of the old USA would not even be close to the South of a victorious CSA.

I still believe such arrogance who's vestiges can still be seen today give a nurturing nation, would have been much closer to the Nazis than the South which lost and was forced to rejoin the USA.

Just my opinion.

[adwon]

58. This makes no sense

So, the loss in the Civil War forced the south to civilize? And, via this forced civilization, southerners had a Saul-to-Paul moment and realized that Hitler should be opposed? This is inane. What does that say about the widespread sympathy for the Nazis outside the south? Was that the hubris of the victors? Seriously, this proposition of arrogance seems weak when you consider what the winning side did under the same circumstances. After all, are we to consider the brutal barbarity of forced ghettoization and de facto second class citizenship of the same cut as Jim Crow? What's the practical difference between the two? It seems like a difference in degree, not kind.

My point is simple: the idea that influential southerners would forego economic and political ramifications in order to kiss Hitler's ass for ideological reasons is ludicrous. Is it plausible that a CSA that fought and killed their own countrymen in order to secede would simply roll over and become a client state of the Nazis? That was their choice: be a client state or take their place on the list. To assert this proposition is to assume that the CSA was about slavery for slavery's sake when it was about slavery for economic reasons. The Nazis wanted to kill off 'inferiors' which would have been anathema to slaveowners for the simple fact that it would have cost them money.

[tom_paine]

65. No, the South had no Saul to Paul moment

They were still lynching and burning blacks long after WWII.

No, but they were part of the old USA (1776-2000, RIP) which happened to have at it's head the spiritual and actual descendants of those Yankee & Midweswtern Liberals. It was THEY who, in the end, opposed Hitler. FDR, that Yankee Liberal, and his policies created the first stirring that would end in Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1980, when Ronald Reagan symoblically explained to the Confederacy that the Party of Lincoln had officially switched to the Party of Lee.

"what the winning side did under the circumstances?" That's pretty funny. What awful arrogance. Setting up schools for African-Americans, enforcing the law for African-Americans, and even creating possible when African-Americans were elected to office.

Then the deal of 1876 ended Reconstruction effectively, and the South re-barbarized. African-Americans budding successes became Jim Crow, lynchings and burnings.

How arrogant of those Yankee Liberals!

And whatever happened in the North (forced ghettoization, etc.) is NOTHING compared to the systematic terrorism waged upon African-Americans in the South. Does that make it OK? But to put it on a level with a time & place where black men could be killed for looking at a white woman or trying to vote, now THAT is inane.

As I said, it is very possible that the South wouldn;t have become a Nazi client state. Sitting it out would likely have been sufficient to tip the balance in Hitler's favor.

You seem to couch it as "rolling over and becoming a client state of the Nazis," but in fact I suspect that, much like todays NeoCon(federate) Busheviks, it would have been viewed as "being on the right side of history".

No Saul to Paul moment for the South. As the 1960s showed, Yankee Liberals had to go back down there and essentially refight a relatively nonviolent (but still PLENTY violent) Civil War to get them to stop terrorizing African-Americans.

And to assert that there was only an economic reson for slavery and NOT a White Supremacist reason for slavery, THAT is the most inane of all.

[adwon]

67. What a skewed view

Frankly, this isn't worth my time. The essence of alternate history is that you cut the timeline off at a certain point and extrapolate from both the past and the real future what could have happened. Rather than acknowledge the extremely valid points I made, such as the fact that there was quite a bit of pro-Nazi sentiment in the northeast and work from there, you choose to level a broadside at the south generally (for whatever reason). Essentially, you want to refight the Civil War, rather than take part in a intellectual exercise. That's fine, but this is not the thread for it.

Simply, I attempted to refute a single contention. I had no intention of getting into yet another debate over the causes of the war and the evils of Jim Crow. I didn't see a point to it. It's not as though the average southerner doesn't realize that slavery and segregation were inherently evil. All I wanted to point out was that the assumption that southerners would support Hitler based on some 'Aryan brotherhood' was misguided and simplistic. It assumes that southerners are dumb hicks who simply chase whichever white supremacist shows up. That's not quite right. Southerners in Congress during the 30s and 40s were racists and rabid segregationists generally (though a few exceptions existed). That's not a fact in dispute. What is in dispute is the idea that this made them necessarily stupid. Necessarily narrow-minded and willing to indulge in homegrown evil, yes. Necessarily dumb enough to be neutral? Only if you think white supremacy outweighs money (which it generally didn't for the Bourbon South) and if you ignore the recurrent war fevers throughout American history that are usually centered in the south (only exception being 1898). The assumption that an independent south would sit out a war...well, that's just laughable (I say this as a southerner). The assumption that they would rather fight Britain and France instead of finishing the job from the Great War? That's just odd as well.

Ultimately, it seems to be a question of how one views the south, especially its leaders during segregation. Were they entirely evil men? No. Mostly evil? I'm inclined to vote yes on that one. The fact that both Richard Russell and Douglas MacArthur were both rabid anticommunists didn't deter Russell from guiding the committee that pulled Dugout Doug's fangs after Truman fired him. The fact that Nixon and Sam Ervin likely shared the same views about minorities didn't deter Ervin from playing a prominent role in the Congressional hearings that sealed Nixon's fate. Small examples, but potent ones. It's absurd to assume that the south would follow a given course due to one characteristic. It ignores the fact that many factors come into play and those factors have to be weighed accordingly.

Anyway, I spent a lot more time than I meant to on this damned tome. Hope you enjoy.

[Bridget Burke]

60. I agree with you.

I have no patience at all for The Glorious Lost Cause. But I don't see a 20th centry CSA allying itself with the Nazis. Wouldn't England remain a major market for cotton?

A USA without the Southern States would have been smaller & weaker. Fewer European immigrants would have been welcomed--perhaps the Irish would have remained the underclass. The country would have been less valuable member of the Allies--if it hadn't just remained Isolationist.

[Strawman]

39. exactly

I wonder why they didn't explore that possibility? It almost happened. Lincoln was anticipating losing and getting ready to turn over power to McClellan and the Democrats until the tide turned on the battlefield. The Democrats would have made peace with the CSA and who knows what would have happened.

I'm curious how they explain how a Southern takeover of the North might have went down. That's highly implausible. I have to imagine that it would have involved a British and French alliance with the CSA (which almost happened as a result of the Trent Affair), but even a Southern victory under that scenario would have almost certainly resulted in two states (USA and CSA), not one (CSA).

As far as possible CSA allegiances in WWII, who knows? Who knows if the CSA would have survived that long as a slave holding state if it had won the war? And they may have opposed the Nazi's for other pragmatic reasons that would have trumped any racist ideological affinity.

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. No the film says only one nation

but you're right about Hitler and WWII.

Hate to post spoilers but the part about how Lincoln escaped at the end of the Civil War is hilarious. Harriet Tubman is involved. LOL

[NoPasaran]

59. At least two nations, if not more

I have always believed that a Southern victory resulting in independence would have led to further fragmentation of what remained of the US. I think that at a minimum the Pacific West would have seperated, given the vast distances and poor communications with the East---plus the fact that they had only been annexed to the US recently.

And I also question whether a North America fragmented into several states would have participated in any meaningful way in the First World War. Had the US not intervened in 1917, and seriously gotten into the fighting in 1918, I think Germany would have won that conflict. Certainly the course of world history for the last eighty or so years is unimaginable had Europe come to be dominated by the Kaiser.

[SaveElmer]

11. Glad to see it is Spike Lee's film...

I saw the title and thought it was another "Lost Cause" wet dream!!!

[SheilaT]

24. Spike Lee did not make the film.

He came on board very late to help get it more widely distributed. It's actually been around in a partial version for a number of years now -- I've been aware of it for at least five years, perhaps longer. Every so often it would get shown, usually through the University of Kansas, and was always widely admired by those who saw it. I think that funding to complete it was always a problem.

My husband saw it this past Saturday while I was at a Democratic Party event in Topeka, and he liked it a lot.

But yes, if the Confederacy had won, and slavery remained in this country, we would never have become the industrial powerhouse that we did become in the 20th Century. At best we would have been completely ineffectual in WWII, and at worst an ally of Hitler.

I do love good Alternate History stuff, and as someone else has pointed out, Harry Turtledove has written a lot of it.

[SaveElmer]

25. Thanks for the correction...

I saw Spike Lee all over the home page and just assumed.

I'm not too into Alternartive history, and didn't want to malign anyone in particular. I've never seen Mr. Turtledove's work. I used to be a Civil War reenactor, and came across many of the "Lost Cause" type books.

[SheilaT]

32. Check out Turtledove.

Start with Guns of the South in which time travelers from about 2025 go back to 1862 or 63 (I forget the exact year) and arm the south with AK-47s and sufficient ammunition to win. It only takes us to about 1865 or so, but is very good.

Then there's another whole series which does not require the magic of time travel for the south to win, but just a few plausible changes in specific events. Turtledove clearly does not romanticize the "Lost Cause" and he's a historian by profession, so he absolutely does his research and gets all actual historical facts and events correct. He does not give you 20th or 21st century people dressed up in funny clothes, but rather real, live, breathing 19th century people who are products of and living in their time.

[unblock]

12. then maybe WE would control all three branches of government?

hmmm.

[DBoon]

17. and the "yankee" US would look more European

having a leftist Social Democratic government? How much of the New Deal was watered down to accomodate the Dixiecrats?

[Tesha]

28. If only, if only...

I still think the answer is for the Northeast and Northwest
to secede; anything else will just prolong the agony, because
the CSA and the heartland simply don't share our values.

Tesha

[tn-guy]

57. Maybe in the USA, almost certain in the CSA

It's hard to say how voters would have treated the Republican party in the USA following a defeat under Lincoln's leadership. It may well have killed that party in its infancy. However; the Democratic Party would very likely have prospered in the South. Practically all the secessionists were Democrats and support for slavery was a major part of the party's platform at the time. In the North the Copperheads may well have had a political ascendancy which would have ensured Democratic dominance for a long time.

[havocmom]

13. Team Bush would have stayed in New England?

Never gone all oily?

The shrub would have served in the military then had to work for a living?

Oh, the possibilities...

[Kerrytravelers]

15. I saw it a short while ago. Here is my archieved thread on the film.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=521974

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. I remember that thread

It inspired me to go see it this past weekend. Thanks! I loved it.

[Kerrytravelers]

63. Good for you.

It's always good to look at other people's ideas about our country and the way we treat people. What really blew me away were the products--- ALL OF THEM REAL! W-O-W! :wow:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tesha]

29. No, the truth just hurts. (NT)

[Clark2008]

47. The truth that you accused me of being backward?

I'm not - but your response shows that you're prejudiced against a whole region for the actions of some: that's the definition of bigotry. Look it up.
If you'd claimed all women were stupid or all black people were idiots, you'd sure as hell get called that and worse. And deservedly so. Why is it OK to blanket-judge an entire region? The truth is that it's NOT.

[Tesha]

55. I'm perfectly willing to judge individual Southerners as individuals.

I'm perfectly willing to judge individual Southerners
as individuals.

I also see what your region produces *WHEN VIEWED AS
A WHOLE*. And we all suffer under the exagerated your
region exerts on American politics. Wake me the next
time we have a president who isn't "from the South"
(even when he's really more Kennebunkport than Texan).
Wake me the next time the Federal Government isn't
busy stuffing Southern Baptist religious tenets
down our throats. Wake me the next time "gun rights"
and race-baiting doesn't swing an election. Wake me...

Tesha

[AllegroRondo]

36. In the CSA movie, the North is taken over by the South

after Grant's army is defeated, the Confederate army overwhelms the northern states. Many northerners attempt to flee to Canada, including Lincoln, who is captured at the border.

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. Lincoln's escape!! LOL

I think that is my favorite scene.

[yurbud]

19. they won when we ended Reconstruction which should have been done

the way it was in Nazi Germany.

Find out who killed or raped slaves and put them on trial. Confiscate the property of those who profited from it and distribute it to their slaves. And give some an automatic self-defense justification for shooting anyone wearing a white hood.

[Rocknrule]

21. The USA would be Republican free

[gordianot]

26. Or Democrats would never have become Progressive.

Many Republicans represent the old Dixiecrat ways.

[Strawman]

53. Wrong. The Republicans would be progressive on racial issues

The orignial Republicans were a Northern based party. There would have been no "Southern Strategy" without the South. The Republicans may have continued to be more progressive on racial issues and economically liberal in the traditional sense of the term. But it's also possible they may not have survived as a party after leading the North into and then losing the Civil War.

[Clark2008]

22. Well, I won't be seeing this tripe.

More trumped up, faux excuses to blame Southerners for the ills of the entire country when the fucking war ended 140 years ago.

Jeezus Christ on a trailer hitch.

Why is it OK to be bigoted against an entire region but racism and sexism isn't OK? Because that's basically what's going on here.

[Rocknrule]

33. "There are 2 things I can't stand...

...people who are intolerant of other cultures, and the Dutch!"

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. Oh no that is not what it is like at all

It is fabulous satire. It isn't making fun of anybody really - except the fictional characters in the film. Go see it. I would think southerners would especially like it.

[Clark2008]

48. The problem has been more the responses on this thread.

People above accusing all of the South of being backward, stupid, conservative and bigoted are just as bigoted against Southerners as they claim Southerners are.

How come some of these so-called "enlightened" people don't see their own prejudices?

[proud2BlibKansan]

49. They probably never will

It's a battle I wouldn't want to fight.

Go see this movie - really.

[gunsaximbo]

27. Who say's they haven't?

[FloridaPat]

30. Interesting. Is the assumption of the film that we would still be one

country and not 2?

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. Yes one country

[Tsiyu]

31. What if the Spanish, Dutch, French or British hadn't come to the New World

I want to see that film.

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. They are a big part of why the south won the war

Hate to post any more spoilers.

[grytpype]

34. There was a hilarious thread on fark.com about this subject...

My favorite:

[Ignacio Upton]

68. Mexico will probably look like that in 50 years

If Hispanics living in the Southwest end up feeling alienated in the same way that Algerians and Moroccans are in France. If they're living in unassimilated barrios in LA, then they might consider nationalism as a false opiate for their problems.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. Oh it is wonderful

I saw it Saturday. Awesome awesome film.

[Rageneau]

38. Civil War students know that there's no "truth" being shown here.

The film should be named: "What if Slavery Still Existed Today?" -- not, "What if the South Had Won the Civil War."

How do I know that just from the trailer?

A number of ways -- including little things such as the movie makers don't know what the actual national flag of the CSA was. If they won't bother to look even superficially into the ACTUAL history of the Confederacy, their suppositions about it can hardly be correct.

The Civil War was complex. We do ourselves no favors by oversimplifying it, and trying to pass that oversimplication off as educated conjecture.

Which is what Spike is up to here.

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. LOL I take it you haven't seen this movie

1. Spike Lee didn't make it. A film professor at The University of Kansas did. Spike helped with distribution and I think he is listed as a producer.

2. It is definitely NOT about slavery. That's just an interesting side plot.

[tom_paine]

50. Then Hitler wins WWII and all European Jews are killed, for starters

NOTE: Apologies to all the good and decent Southerners who post on DU. This is not a slur upon the South in general nor it's people. It is merely how I feel, for which I believe I can back up my point.

Consider this: How close are the views of the KKK, perhaps our best look into Confederate thought processes preserved for us today, to the Nazis? Pretty darned close.

Second, as we know, even in the USA where the North won, many many people supported Hitler in this country (including the Bush Family) right up until and even after they declared war on us on Dec. 8th, 1941 (I believe).

Many Busheviks, so very representative of the Confederate and Neo Confederate modes of thinking, take pleasure in simply opposing those "Yankee Liberals" for it's own sake.

Had the Rebs won, even if the North was permitted to remain, I strongly feel that CSA President Gingrich would have either allied with Hitler because they shared similar racial views (even if their ideas on how to solve the "problem were different) and also becase Hitler loathed Yankee Liberalism as much as they did.

Even IF they had not been allies, the CSA almost certainly wouldnot have fought against them. The Liberal North would have stood alone, and it may be possible that the CSA would have maneuvered to prevent their entry into the war or mitigate the intensity with which the Liberal North was able to throw itself into the struggle for Global Freedom.

And yes, the Confederacy struck me ultimatly as being as sincerely interested in freedom as the Busheviks are today. Which means in the end, the Confederacy, for all it's freedom (for White People) rhetoric, would have been a BushPutinist state with rigged elections much sooner than the USA has become one.

For these reasons and others, I believe the CSA would have either been a part of the Axis or would have stayed neutral. Hitler would have captured Russia and Britain and the veil of darkness would have closed over the world.

Think what it took to make the Rebs stop burning and murder blacks EVEN AFTER they lost the Civil War. Imagine how they would have been if they'd never had that humbing experience,or hadn;t been forced to join the 19th Centruy by the Union. Many Rebs would have appreciated the "conservatism" of the Nazis and their approach to handling liberal elements of their society (they may have disagreed with the specifics, but the approval of the whole would have een overwhelming.

Again, apologies to all DU Southerners, but that is how I feel. If the CSA who won, most of you would now live up North anyway, chased awawy form your homelands, you filthy unpatriotic liberals. :sarcasm:

[Bridget Burke]

62. What makes you think the North would have been Liberal?

It would have been a small, weak country run by an Anglo-Saxon & German majority. The Irish might have remained the permanent underclass, since fewer immigrants would have been needed.

[tom_paine]

66. Um...it already was by the time of the Civil War

(liberalism being a realtive thing, of course, so even a Liberal North would to our eyes seem very conservative)

Abolionists were the Liberals of their time, equally reviled by the spiritual descendants of the Rebs who revile the Liberals today.

Licoln was a Big Government, Big Spending Liberal for his time. Even his gentle policies for dealing with a beaten South were Liberal.

[FreedomAngel82]

52. That looks really good

Is this the film Spike Lee mentioned when he was on Bill Maher not long ago?

[Taverner]

54. They did win

Time to fight back, my fellow Union Soldiers and Southern Abolitionists!

[DBoon]

56. CSA = Argentina in the 1970's

I knew someone who had the interesting theory that if the South had seceded, the CSA would end up being like a Latin American military dictatorship, similar to Argentina in the 1970's, while the North would more closely resemble a Northern European social democracy.

I think the influence of the South has been to hold back racial and economic progress, especially where labor and social welfare legislation is concerned. I also think the economy of the South, based on large plantations, focusing on agricultural exports with an underdeveloped middle class, would have ended up as a military dictatorship.

[Ignacio Upton]

69. Latin America is/was heavily class-based

The white criollos have traditionally held most of the land and wealth at the expense of mestizos (inter-racial European-Native American people who are the majority of Hispanics in the US and the Latin America) and the Native American indigenous peoples. Latin America is just as bad or worse than the United States in terms of race relations.

[WilliamPitt]

61. Um...they did win.

Took an extra 140 years, but they won.

For now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. They did until the Civil Rights Act.

After the "moderate" Republicans teamed up with Democrats to end reconstruction, the freed slaves were returned to servitude.

Oh, wait, I forgot..the civil war wasn't REALLY about slavery. It was about "states rights". The right to own slaves.

[Radio_Guy]

70. I wish I could see it

Any chance it will be shown in Alabama? :eyes:

I'll have to try to smuggle a DVD of it below the Mason-Dixon line.