News HBO draws ire after 'Confederate' announcement

[Jayson1]

I think it wasn't just the mere idea of the Confederate show on HBO that provoked a backlash (although it isn't a good idea for a show, I agree). It was also because it was D&D from Game of Thrones who were supposed to be the ones behind it...the guys famous for a show that was just as much about blood and sex and rape as anything else.

A show run by guys like that wherein black folks would be seen as lessers in a society rules by Overclass White folks...

...You get the picture.

The show was also know for it's drama and political intrigue as well. Plus if you have a show many consider to be great it means they deserve credit to be treated as artist who will take a serious approach to the issue. Talent is more important than any of all those other concerns because talent rises above such issues.


Jason

 

[Anwar]

The show was also know for it's drama and political intrigue as well.

Yes, but that's from the source material and not from them. Left to their own devices, they didn't handle that aspect very well.

Plus if you have a show many consider to be great it means they deserve credit to be treated as artist who will take a serious approach to the issue. Talent is more important than any of all those other concerns because talent rises above such issues.

Sadly, by the time the announcement for this show came out GoT was waning and their reps weren't the best.

Not as bad as it is NOW but not as good as the first 3 or 4 seasons.

 

[JD]

Yeah, I haven't seen past anything past Season 3, but from what I've heard GOT started to fall about once they got away from the books things started to fall apart, before ending up a complete clusterfuck by the finale.

I always get a chuckle out of this type of naïveté. American slavery was race based, which made it easier to push the white supremacist notion that black people were little more than animals who needed slavery in order to not starve to death. They used bible scripture to convince the easily convinced, that slavery was ordained by god. I have to look up the law that was passed by southerners that ensured slavery in perpetuity. Sound like these fine folks would ever have been shamed into voluntarily giving up one of the most important economic advantages they had? I don’t think so.

All you really need to do is look at what happened when southerners were ordered to end slavery; southerners seceded from the union and went to war against the US. They would rather have died than give up their slaves.

Look at what southerners did after they “lost” the civil war. They used the Compromise of 1877 to strong arm the government into removing troops from southern states and allowing them to do whatever they wanted with black people. That led to establishment of the KKK and Jim Crow laws, disenfranchisement, intimidation, imprisonment, and outright murder of possibly millions of black people.

Much of this continued throughout the end of the 1800’s and well into the 20th century. Forms of it continue in many states even today.

All this and they LOST the civil war.

You think THESE people would have voluntarily given up slavery because foreigners pressured them. Ludicrous.

If you have other reasons to believe southerners would have somehow developed a conscience or that, having won the civil war and taken over the entire US (yes, I also disagree with your contention that the south would not have taken over the entire country), please point them out. This would have ensured that they could not be pressured economically by Europeans or others.

It's not about shaming them into doing it. Britain was strong-arming slave nations financially. The southern economy was HEAVILY dependent on trade with Britain. If that trade stopped, the CSA would wither and die.

And you really answered your own question here. The South would give into international pressure and outlaw slavery because they didn't need open slavery to treat african-americans like animals. Jim Crow and all that other shit would still exist in some form (most likely various forms), but they'd be able to tell the more civilized nations of the world that they didn't 'practice slavery' anymore and thereby able to protect their economy.

Also, your notion of the South conquering the North remains entirely absurd and unlike those refuting it you haven't offered even the slightest bit of logical argument or evidence to support it.

From what it says on Wikipedia, that is pretty much happens in the Harry Turtledove novel. They got rid of slavery in order to get help from England and France.

 

[gblews]

It's not about shaming them into doing it. Britain was strong-arming slave nations financially. The southern economy was HEAVILY dependent on trade with Britain. If that trade stopped, the CSA would wither and die.

Britain wasn’t about to “strong arm” a victorious south and the economic value of virtually free labor. Britain had outlawed slavery years before the civil war, and had not put any pressure on the US to end the practice. No reason to think that the gains from winning the civil war would have done anything but make the CSA stronger.

And you really answered your own question here. The South would give into international pressure and outlaw slavery because they didn't need open slavery to treat african-americans like animals. Jim Crow and all that other shit would still exist in some form (most likely various forms), but they'd be able to tell the more civilized nations of the world that they didn't 'practice slavery' anymore and thereby able to protect their economy.

No, you missed my point. By showing what the south did after losing the war, I was pointing out how much worse it would have been if they’d won. Making slavery a permanent part of their rights as southerners was pretty much a guarantee. No, they didn’t need slavery to make black lives intolerable, but that was FAR from their main goal. Their main goal to maintain ownership of black lives and the progeny of those lives.

I’m not sure you get how firmly entrenched and insular the “southern lifestyle” was and is. Right now, many of them have some of the same loyalties, prejudices, etc, that have existed since before the founding of America. Slavery was outlawed over 150 years ago and some southerners still think black people should never have been free. Slavery in the US was not the same as slavery in other countries. Other countries had some slaves who were ordered freed. As I have pointed out, slavery in America was based on white supremacy, meaning black people had no other purpose but to be slaves. It is unlikely that mindset existed in Brazil or even England, especially since slavery was ended in those countries without a civil war. It is unlikely that mindset would have changed at any point if southerners had won the war. I think the naïveté is in thinking that American slavery was like anywhere else in the world.

You are assigning virtues, common sense, and human decency, to people who are undeserving.

Also, your notion of the South conquering the North remains entirely absurd and unlike those refuting it you haven't offered even the slightest bit of logical argument or evidence to support it.

I’m sorry but this is a laughable notion. The South utterly lacked the necessary resources to invade and conquer the North—insufficient manpower, industry, natural resources, financial resources...the list goes on and on.

Somewhere along the line you two seem to have lost the gist of the discussion, which was what might have happened IF the south had won the civil war, not whether or not the south COULD have won the war.

If you’d like to pick that discussion up, I’m here for it.

 

[Ovation]

what might have happened IF the south had won the civil war,

There are no scenarios, none, that could have resulted in what you described upthread (a conquest of the North) “IF the south had won the civil war”.

 

[Gaith]

There are no scenarios, none, that could have resulted in what you described upthread (a conquest of the North) “IF the south had won the civil war”.

Yup.

One good victory on northern soil would have probably given Lincoln the political support to cashier a lot of political generals that hobbled the North's efforts far sooner. Lincoln knew the north had more than enough resources to crush the south. Once aggressive generals were in place that is what happened in short order.

This. Several prominent Union generals early in the war had presidential aspirations, maybe even to unseat Lincoln in '64, and didn't want to risk their popularity with troops and their families by engaging in particularly bloody battles, so they spent a long time dithering. Defeating the Confederacy was as much a political effort as a tactical one.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Britain wasn’t about to “strong arm” a victorious south and the economic value of virtually free labor. Britain had outlawed slavery years before the civil war, and had not put any pressure on the US to end the practice. No reason to think that the gains from winning the civil war would have done anything but make the CSA stronger.

Britain was working in various ways the whole time. They didn't get really serious about taking on the global issue until after the civil war had already happened.

No, you missed my point. By showing what the south did after losing the war, I was pointing out how much worse it would have been if they’d won. Making slavery a permanent part of their rights as southerners was pretty much a guarantee. No, they didn’t need slavery to make black lives intolerable, but that was FAR from their main goal. Their main goal to maintain ownership of black lives and the progeny of those lives.

I’m not sure you get how firmly entrenched and insular the “southern lifestyle” was and is. Right now, many of them have some of the same loyalties, prejudices, etc, that have existed since before the founding of America. Slavery was outlawed over 150 years ago and some southerners still think black people should never have been free. Slavery in the US was not the same as slavery in other countries. Other countries had some slaves who were ordered freed. As I have pointed out, slavery in America was based on white supremacy, meaning black people had no other purpose but to be slaves. It is unlikely that mindset existed in Brazil or even England, especially since slavery was ended in those countries without a civil war. It is unlikely that mindset would have changed at any point if southerners had won the war. I think the naïveté is in thinking that American slavery was like anywhere else in the world.
You are assigning virtues, common sense, and human decency, to people who are undeserving.

It's got nothing to do with virtue, it's self-interest. And America did not have a monopoly on evil (and it did also have slaves ordered freed - many of whom were recaptured and re-enslaved, which also happened in other countries, too).

Somewhere along the line you two seem to have lost the gist of the discussion, which was what might have happened IF the south had won the civil war, not whether or not the south COULD have won the war.

No, you just have a ridiculous definition of what the South winning the war would look like. Don't call it winning if that makes you feel better, but it is a plausible alternate history that the south could have survived the war and continued as a separate country and that's what this show would've been about (just like is the case for pretty much every other alternate history of the civil war). It is not in any way a plausible alternate history to imagine that the south could have conquered the north in any way, so that hypothetical is completely irrelevant to everything.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Well we are dealing with fiction so what if a deadly plague swept through the North killing so many people they no longer could provide necessary support in winning.

Well, yeah, once you introduce additional outside factors like that, it opens up way more possibilities. I remember hearing about an alternative history novel, The Years of Rice & Salt, which speculates on a world where the Black Plague wiped out 99% of Europe instead of just 1/3rd. It depicts several centuries of great power conflict between the Muslim world & China.

having won the civil war and taken over the entire US (yes, I also disagree with your contention that the south would not have taken over the entire country)

Barring something like Jayson1's plague scenario, there's no possible permutation of American history where the South conquered the North. As others have said, the South lacked the resources of the North. Also, the South was fighting total war. The North never went all-in on the war effort and never needed to. Also, I've never heard anyone suggest that the South had any designs on conquering the North.

The only kind of "victory" that the South could ever expect was to demoralize the North enough that they decided that the fight wasn't worth it and they left the South alone. That's not to say that there wouldn't have been additional flare-ups in the following decades with territorial disputes between the USA & CSA as the west got more settled.

 

[Skipper]

I read one a bone-chilling short story about a scenario where south "pacifically" seceded from north (Lincoln lost the elections or whatever). After a while, slavery was no more profitable and a problem when they had to have commercial relationships with other nations. So they came up with a solution. A "final" one.

 

[JD]

No, you missed my point. By showing what the south did after losing the war, I was pointing out how much worse it would have been if they’d won. Making slavery a permanent part of their rights as southerners was pretty much a guarantee. No, they didn’t need slavery to make black lives intolerable, but that was FAR from their main goal. Their main goal to maintain ownership of black lives and the progeny of those lives.

I’m not sure you get how firmly entrenched and insular the “southern lifestyle” was and is. Right now, many of them have some of the same loyalties, prejudices, etc, that have existed since before the founding of America. Slavery was outlawed over 150 years ago and some southerners still think black people should never have been free. Slavery in the US was not the same as slavery in other countries. Other countries had some slaves who were ordered freed. As I have pointed out, slavery in America was based on white supremacy, meaning black people had no other purpose but to be slaves. It is unlikely that mindset existed in Brazil or even England, especially since slavery was ended in those countries without a civil war. It is unlikely that mindset would have changed at any point if southerners had won the war. I think the naïveté is in thinking that American slavery was like anywhere else in the world.

You are assigning virtues, common sense, and human decency, to people who are undeserving.


Somewhere along the line you two seem to have lost the gist of the discussion, which was what might have happened IF the south had won the civil war, not whether or not the south COULD have won the war.

If you’d like to pick that discussion up, I’m here for it.

I don't really see slavery surviving very long past the endof the Civil War, even if the CSA was able to continue as a soverign country. As we got farther and farther away from when slavery was considered OK, other countries would start turning on them. At some point they'd have to give up slavery if they wanted to have anything to do with the rest of the world, because I just can't see them being self sufficient enough to be able to survive completely isolated from the rest of the world's major powers.

 

[Hound of UIster]

I don't really see slavery surviving very long past the endof the Civil War, even if the CSA was able to continue as a soverign country.

Except you still run in the problem of the fact that the wealth of the elite was tied up in slaves. As long as that economic reality existed as well as the fact that the South continued to be an agrarian economy that subsisted on plantation agriculture, there was no way for the South to get rid of slavery. Even IRL post-Civil War they continued to use other forms of unfree labor such as sharecropping and convict labor.

 

[gblews]

There are no scenarios, none, that could have resulted in what you described upthread (a conquest of the North) “IF the south had won the civil war”.

I didn’t describe any “scenario that could have resulted in” the south winning the civil war no matter how hard you try to make it that way.
I only described what might have happened IF the south had won the civil war. It helps to read the thread thoroughly.

It's got nothing to do with virtue, it's self-interest. And America did not have a monopoly on evil (and it did also have slaves ordered freed - many of whom were recaptured and re-enslaved, which also happened in other countries, too).

I didn’t just mention virtue as one of the things southerners were lacking following the civil war, I also mentioned they lacked common sense and human decency, all of which are part of what makes me believe the south would never have voluntarily given up slavery.

What slaves were ordered freed by the south? Any feed men re-enslaved either escaped bondage or were somehow able to purchase their freedom. The latter, of course, were an extreme minority.

And, BTW, America may not have had a monopoly on evil in the world, but the south sure had a monopoly on it in America.

No, you just have a ridiculous definition of what the South winning the war would look like. Don't call it winning if that makes you feel better, but it is a plausible alternate history that the south could have survived the war and continued as a separate country and that's what this show would've been about (just like is the case for pretty much every other alternate history of the civil war).

No, I disagree. I think my idea of what the south would have done IF they had won the civil war is quite realistic.

Huh? If the south had won the civil war would have no problem calling it “winning.” Of course it is plausible that the south could have survived the war and continued as a separate nation. It has NEVER been my position in this thread that they could not have survived as a separate nation. Where did you get this? My position has been, and continues to be, that if the south had won the war they would never have given up their slaves. You may need to go back and review the conversation.

It is not in any way a plausible alternate history to imagine that the south could have conquered the north in any way, so that hypothetical is completely irrelevant to everything.

Of course an alternate history story that imagines the south winning the war is plausible, it’s fiction, bruh. Now, the WAY the south is depicted somehow winning the civil war, as told in an alternate history story, may be implausible, but presentation of an alternate history where the south wins the war, is not implausible. Again, I’m not arguing that the south could have won the war. You’ll have to wrestle that straw man all by yourself.

 

[Ovation]

described what might have happened IF the south had won the civil war.

Below is how YOU describe “what might have happened”

Why would the USA be split if the CSA won the civil war? I assume that if the south had won, the old USA would become the CSA and would then at least have the same ability to defeat the axis powers as the USA did.

You suggest an absurdity here.

having won the civil war and taken over the entire US (yes, I also disagree with your contention that the south would not have taken over the entire country)

And here.

Your own words describe the scenario you deny describing. Rather than accepting that you made the point and either admitting you were wrong OR clarifying your argument with supplemental evidence or reasons, you engage in a bizarre reply that relies on a use of the word “if” that bears little relation to its meaning. It is a tiresome circularity of argument. But whatever floats your boat, I guess?

 

[Kirk Prime]

Interesting I just came across this thread. I just watched a fake documentary called CSA on Hulu, which was all about an alternate history if the South won. But I doubt history plays out that way if the CSA won independence.

There is just no way slavery would still exist in 2020. No chance. Where in the world does it truly still exist?

Let's play it out in the unlikely event the South actually annexed the North. Slavery would have lasted longer, but it would have been a human rights thing. No chance it survives to modern times.

 

[Skipper]

There is just no way slavery would still exist in 2020. No chance. Where in the world does it truly still exist?

Slavery in the 21st century

 

[JD]

OK, that is a fair point, but it is all illegal underground stuff, at least in major countries.

Interesting I just came across this thread. I just watched a fake documentary called CSA on Hulu, which was all about an alternate history if the South won. But I doubt history plays out that way if the CSA won independence.

There is just no way slavery would still exist in 2020. No chance. Where in the world does it truly still exist?

Let's play it out in the unlikely event the South actually annexed the North. Slavery would have lasted longer, but it would have been a human rights thing. No chance it survives to modern times.

That's the one I was talking about earlier, I definitely recommend anyone with a Hulu account check it out.

 

[theenglish]

There is just no way slavery would still exist in 2020. No chance. Where in the world does it truly still exist?

You just need to Google it. Chances are if slavery became economically unviable there would have existed some kind of Apartheid in the confederacy which could last as long as it did in South Africa.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Let's play it out in the unlikely event the South actually annexed the North. Slavery would have lasted longer, but it would have been a human rights thing. No chance it survives to modern times.

Slavery existed practically everywhere in 1800 and was reduced to practically nowhere by 1900. Even if the Confederacy was able to hold onto their slaves beyond the 1860s, it's unlikely that it would have lasted that much longer. It's no coincidence that slavery was eradicated in most of the world around the exact same time as the rise of industrialization. That's not to say that black people would have been treated well in a post-slavery Confederacy. We'd still probably be looking at something like apartheid South Africa or something like that.

As for the South annexing the North, even if we assume that the South had the necessary resources and military might to do that, I still have a hard time imagining how that would look long term. While blacks were denied the right to vote in the southern states, the Confederacy was still a democracy. If they annexed the northern states, they would be annexing millions of voters who were inherently opposed to the Confederate government. That's not a tenable situation. Look at the Mexican-American War. American troops seized Mexico City and could have annexed the entirety of Mexico if they wanted. In the end, they didn't because it would have meant turning millions of Mexicans into hostile voters. The northern parts of Mexico that were annexed by the U.S. had relatively sparse populations of Mexicans, who were quickly outnumbered by American settlers. (There were also large populations of Native Americans there. But they had just as many clashes with the Mexican government as they later would with the Americans.)

 

[gblews]

Below is how YOU describe “what might have happened”

You suggest an absurdity here.

Your own words describe the scenario you deny describing. Rather than accepting that you made the point and either admitting you were wrong OR clarifying your argument with supplemental evidence or reasons, you engage in a bizarre reply that relies on a use of the word “if” that bears little relation to its meaning. It is a tiresome circularity of argument. But whatever floats your boat, I guess?

Okay, let me see if I can clarify my point. To me, it has sounded like you’re trying to say that I posited that the south could have won the civil war. I’m not saying they could have won, I”m simply pointing out what might have happened IF they’d won.

I’m drawing a distinction between the south “winning” like the allies’ victory over Germany where the allies got to split up and occupy German territory, and “winning” the way Viet Nam and American revolutionaries won, meaning they just get to hold on to their territory and be an independent nation.

If the south somehow managed to have won their right to secede and their independence, it Is possible the south might then have expanded their influence and power over the north based on their ability to have won a war no one thought they could win. The north and south would still be inexorably intertwined economically and also somewhat politically despite the south’s brand new sovereignty.

The south almost pulled off a political take over of the country anyway in 1876 when they may have interfered with the election, causing enough doubt in the results that the north, fearing a southern sympathizing POTUS, basically gave up all authority in the south in return for not contesting Rutherford Hayes’ election.

 

[Shawnster]

The Confederacy is real history and has inspired terrorism that occurs to this day and has killed countless innocent lives. It's best to not stir that up because there are a lot of people who still believe in it and would do anything to bring it back.

I actually disagree and I think that for this reason such a series would be more necessary and timely. I also think you're probably more right than I am in this case and that such a series would be like tossing gasoline on a fire. Sadly.

I don’t see too many Nazi flags in my life, I do see a ton of Confederate ones though. It’s far more entrenched in the US and has had a much larger impact on our history, racial issues and the current political climate than the lingering effects of WWII.

This goes to something I've been wanting to see for a long time now, and that is either a Civil War movie with all the Confederate flags replaced with Nazi flags, or a WWII movie with all the Nazi flags replaced with Confederate flags.

I do wonder if it would have been better had the Stars and Bars and the other Confederate flags and symbols had been outlawed the way the Nazi imagery was in post-WWII Germany. Simple legislation, however, wouldn't have changed the heart condition of the haters, though. Plus the honoring and preserving of the CSA imagery and heroes with their statues and monuments was probably necessary in preserving the Union after the Civil War. I can see the politicians doing what they could to appease and sooth the defeated South.