The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

http://www.confederatestatesofamerica.org/index.html (http://www.confederatestatesofamerica.org/index.html)

Some people are claiming that the Confederate States of America (from the American Civil War 150 years ago) still exists. It's so ridiculous it almost looks like a joke, except it seems way too elaborate to be a simple joke. Plus I don't see any sign of "April Fools!" anywhere on the site. So my guess is these people are just crazy.

If you look a bit, they also claim that the CSA now owns 7 states as territories, as well as all the states that originally seceded and territories originally claimed by the CSA as states. They claim that the CSA is just being "occupied" by the United States.

Another thing, which almost makes me think it might be an elaborate attempt at identity theft or taking people's money, is that they tell you that you need to apply to become a citizen by paying $50.00 as well as sending a copy of your birth certificate and driver's license.

Almost? If they're doing that, it's definitely a scam.

Couldn't be aimed at better people, frankly.

I doubt it's a scam. All that effort for only $50 and a person's identity, with only a very small target audience? There are much easier ways.
This is their own explanation: here (http://www.confederatestatesofamerica.org/csafaq.htm#q9), and see also link (http://www.confederatestatesofamerica.org/csafaq.htm#q8).
It does make sense that if you're trying to (re)create a state, you want to know who your citizens are. And administrative fees exist when dealing with regular governments.
It's all rather silly though, and it could still be an elaborate joke, but I doubt it; it's just the sort of thing that some people will do, and it is just too detailed.
It does remind me of the Flat Earth Society joke (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/) though.

That's why I said "almost". Like you said, the site is much too elaborate to be just that. Also, the site's apparently been up since 2006, and if it were a scam they would surely be revealed by now. Scams usually only last for a short period of time.

One thing I just don't get is why? Why would someone want to revive the Confederate States of America, the government that explicitly supported African slavery? If the CSA came back with that same name, nobody would support them at all. It's true that they don't support slavery and simply want a change in government (to the old US constitution, under the Articles of Confederation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation)), but people just won't realize this. Why heck, even the Confederate flag is now a racist symbol. Everyone will instantly relate them to racism.

Not everyone, just people who aren't racist.

I say we ought to declare war on them. Again.

That would be a wonderful economic stimulus package for you guys. Bomb some of your own states and then rebuild them. Tons of jobs created in no time.

^ That's the way it went last time, so you're probably right.

*sigh*

And that's why southerners also still call it the War of Northern Agression and make idiotic websites like this one. Because some people just can't let go. ::)

No, they call it the War of Northern Aggression because they're effing clueless. Saying "hey, we're a separate country" doesn't make it so, and when the country you're actually a part of doesn't hand you the keys, that's not being aggressive. And when you kill people trying to get them... that's not them being aggressive.

Who declared war? Oh, right. The CSA.

Anyway, I wasn't proposing invading the south, because the south is composed principally of good people who are also loyal citizens. I was proposing invading the CSA, which is at this point some guy's house and perhaps a post office box run by the US government.

I think these idiots just don't understand that the US wasn't just going to let states split the union freely. The United States is a country, not an alliance, and the south was part of the country, not a colony. It would be like Scotland trying and failing to secede from the UK, and claiming that the English were "aggressors" who "attacked their peaceful culture".

I guess some people just don't know the meaning of revolt. ::)

The English were aggressors who occupied Scotland, although it'd be a stretch to call Scottish culture "peaceful".

Obviously. However there are much bigger idiots than those people who live in the United States, and much more dangerous idiots.

You mean terrorists?

Not really, they are more dangerous, but fanatic is a more proper term than idiot for terrorists.

I'm probably just reading too much into this, but when you say declare war on the CSA again, does that mean they've been involved in some sort of trouble already

Killing random "infidels" to fix the world seems pretty idiotic to me... :P

The US Civil War that ended in 1865 was fought between the northern states, who still identified themselves as the USA, and the southern states, who had declared themselves a separate nation, seceded from the union, and called themselves the CSA. Essentially, the "current" CSA is just a desperate cry for attention from a small number of folks who think that things like "people who aren't the same color as you should be considered property" and "the industrial revolution was overrated and we should have no trouble maintaining a plantation-based economy for our entire country" are glorious notions worth revisiting.

Ah, I see. I didn't know the southern states called themselves CSA back then as well.

I hate to burst your bubble, but modern advocates for the return of the CSA don't want slavery brought back. They want to be under a confederation, in which all the states are independent, instead of a federation (which the USA is), in which all states are ruled by Congress. That was actually the main reason for the CSA (not just to keep slavery, but because of the fact that Congress took away their right to have slaves without their consent). That is why they were called the Confederate States of America, because they wanted to eliminate power in central government and return to confederation.

EDIT: I looked at that website again, and they have the constitution of the CSA as it was 150 years ago copied word for word (as far as I can tell). Even the stuff allowing slavery. Actually, the article still uses the word "negro" to reference African Americans. Since the article is typed, and the CSA constitution wasn't originally typed, they couldn't have copied/pasted it, so now I think you're right. These people are insane!!!

Interesting.

As I understand it the CSA were: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas and Virginia.

Maybe the US of A should let these nutjob states go their separate way any way (apart from northern Virginia maybe).

That way John McCain would still get to be president and everyone would be happy.

The main issue would be that the black population of most of these states is pretty high, and they would be none-too-pleased about being lorded over by a bunch of overall- wearin’, gun-totin’, whiskey-drinkin’ good ol’ boys.

Hmm so maybe that’s a bad idea.

Nutjob states? The CSA doesn't speak for everyone in those states.

No I agree. Gross generalisation on my part. But generalisations are fun though, and founded in some truth.

However given that states pass nutjob laws that apply to all its citizens, and have their own identities, its not too far-fetched to label a state nutjob. Even though the are made up of individuals.

Perhaps better to say that in those states there are a higher proportion of nutjobs than in other states.

And only my definition of nutjob. Far be it from me to impose my definition on everyone else.

I'd bet Mississippi would revolt and revive the CSA. They easily support their current flag (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Flag_of_Mississippi.svg). Look familiar?

If I'm not mistaken, Mississippi is notorious for being racist.

The federal government should improve the education system. That is the only real solution. Throw all superstition and non-democratic ways out of the window while they're still young. Unfortunately, it seems like some people (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett-religion-court-2387684-farnan-selna) would not let that happen. :(

*runs away from Luki*

Er, what now? I'm greatly in favour of both good education and a secular state. (http://starcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com/forum/index.php/topic,1456.msg28146.html#msg28146)¹ From the article I can see that the guy was pretty abrasive, but still right. Creationism is religious, superstitious nonsense.

As an aside, this is pretty hilarious:


I'm going to get me a pair of those. I wonder if they'll help me walk on water.

¹Link only for Resh Alephs benefit, probably wont interest the rest of you.

Oh. Alrighty then! \o/



... though I don't really see how creationism is fundamentally different from any other form of unfounded belief.
But best not to get into that discussion, it'll never end. :P

To me it isn't fundamentally different from any other belief except if it is being presented as science. People can believe what they want on their personal time. I don't see much difference (proof wise) between me believing in the existence of a higher being and someone else believing the world was created 6000 years ago. Neither of them can be proven, is scientific, or should matter outside the personal sphere. But presenting a belief as fact or trying to prove it is stupid.

But I don't think we should continue this, since it's one of those spirals that never actually ends. If you want to send huge amounts of time in front of the computer writing and reading, click the link in my sig instead. ;)

If I recall correctly, Texas and Florida were not member states, but Kentucky and Missouri were. Of course, I haven't brushed up on my Civil War history since about 15+ years ago, so my memory is quite possibly fuzzy on the matter.


It's probably a tossup between Mississippi and Alabama for the most racist state, though many others are vying for that #3 spot. Not to mention that if you look at quite a few of the former CSA member states, many of them either currently have or fairly recently changed from flag designs that feature the Confederate motif prominently.


The problem is this: The states that are most poorly educated are also the poorest monetarily, because their people are the poorest monetarily. Without money, you can't improve schooling, and without improving schooling, you can't improve the education they provide, and if you can't provide better education, then the students are not likely to wind up better off than their parents. And so, the vicious cycle continues.

As an aside, it's probably no coincidence that Mississippi is #50 of 50 in education in the US, especially in reference to the above remarks about racism.

Then again, all the education in the world can't stop parents from spewing hate and spreading those beliefs to their children, which is the real reason why racism persists today.

Man, just how many states are 50th out of 50 in education? It seems like every time I talk to someone it's a different state in last place. And they're always jockeying for position with a different 49th-place state.

I have heard:

1. #50 Mississippi (#49 Alabama?)

2. #50 South Carolina, #49 Georgia

3. #50 Michigan, #49 Florida

all of those have been said to me within the last year or so in rather authoritative voices. And that's not counting the article I just read about how it's impossible for California to fire teachers who can't teach. Where is the state with glorious education program? North Dakota or some other fictitious state?

What makes it even weirder is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon_effect):


So some states have the worst education, but every state is above average? Or was back then anyhow.

No, Florida and Texas were member states. Kentucky and Missouri were officially not member states, though the CSA claimed them to be member states. (In other words, you have it rather backwards.)

 Usually it's inner-city, not rural districts that have the worst education. So it's probably not the racists that make that list, but the people that the racists don't like.