Long-term viability of the CSA

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-02-12 08:46pm

RedImperator wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
RedImperator wrote:The irony of the CSA is that to survive as an independent state, it would have had to abandon the way of life it was trying to protect. I'm not just talking about slavery, though that would have died out by 1900. The CSA would have had to industrialize and abandon the cotton economy, or else it would have been completely dependent on European and American imports and would be reduced to a third-world shithole when England started developing Egyptian cotton plantations and synthetic fibers were invented.
What makes you think the CSA wouldn't have industrialized eventually? Unless the confederate government actually took action to discourage industrialization, which it likely would not have, I don't see why it wouldn't.

Where did I say they wouldn't? I just said it was ironic that in order to survive, they would have had to do exactly what they were trying to avoid by seceding from the union: modernize, abandon slavery, and industrialize.

Ah, I see.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-02-12 10:42pm

Trytostaydead wrote:Nope. No love story. Like Gettysburg, it's a dramatized version of painstakingly researched historical events.

The only fictional characters are the nameless soldiers and probably some of the civilians.

Gettysburg was a great movie.

BTW, heres a little tidbit, my 8th grade history teacher was in that movie as a Confederate soldier.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-12 11:11pm

NF_Utvol wrote:
Trytostaydead wrote:Nope. No love story. Like Gettysburg, it's a dramatized version of painstakingly researched historical events.

The only fictional characters are the nameless soldiers and probably some of the civilians.
Gettysburg was a great movie.

BTW, heres a little tidbit, my 8th grade history teacher was in that movie as a Confederate soldier.

Say what you want about Ted Turner, but without his funding neither Gettysburg or Gods and Generals would have existed - or if they did, they would have been typical Hollywood war movies.

Hopefully he'll finish the trilogy.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-02-13 12:05am

Yeah, Turner did do an excellent job with Gettysburg, I am just hoping that GG is going to be as good.

Pastor Andy · Post by **Pastor Andy** » 2003-02-13 09:15am

Hopefully he'll finish the trilogy.

What would be the third movie of the trilogy?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-02-13 10:29am

Shilo, possibly? Or maybe, since they are going with prequels, Fort Sumter?

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2003-02-13 01:23pm

Guys, these movies are following the books of the authors, Michael and Jeff Shaara. Gettysburg was a direct verbatim of Michael Shaara's book "Killer Angels."

Gods and Generals (opening Feb 21st) by Jeff Shaara
Killer Angels (Gettysburg) by Michael Shaara
The Last Full Measure (already scripted) by Jeff Shaara

there is a pre-prequel book about the Mexican war by Jeff Shaara called Gone for Soldiers and one about the revolutionary war I have yet to pick up.

These are all fantastic reads.

Andras · Post by **Andras** » 2003-02-13 02:04pm

Theres another book out about the battle(s) of Cedar Creek. Might even be its name, It's very good. I didn't like Jeff Shaara writings as much as his fathers, The Killer Angels is an awesome read.