What Would Have Happened if The South Would Have Won??? - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What Would Have Happened if The South Would Have Won??? (Page 2 of 5)

Posted: 4/10/2006 6:46:15 AM EDT

[#1]

Though it was impossible for the south to truly win hypothetically speaking IF they had won they would have been a bankrupt 3rd world country, chained to failure because of Slavery. Eventually in order to survive they would have to sue to rejoin the union. However with that said, it could have been a positive issue as most likely in reaching an agreement on rejoining the union they most likely would have agreed to do away with slavery in exchange for stronger state rights.

Patty

Posted: 4/10/2006 6:51:14 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
The first show of "Ten Days that Unexpectedly Changed America" is on now, and the first show is about The Battle of Anteitem. 23,000+ Americans lost their lives on September 17, 1862. What would have happened if Robert E Lee would have won, advanced to Washington, DC and maybe eventually won the war?

And before you all get crazy with the slavery slander, be assured that Slavery would most certainly have been abolished eventually......so in the long run, What would have happened if the South would have won? What would be different? Would we ever have reunified the States? What say you?

We would still be a backward, 3rd-world nation, and most of mainland Europe would be speaking German - they would have won WWI without our interferance.

WWII would have been between Stalin and the Kaiser, Japan would have had little to no opposition for her conquest of the pac-rim, as we wouldn't have had a Perl Harbor to bomb, or a presence in the Phillipines, etc...

If we were involved, the CSA portion would have struggled to get all of the independant 'states' to fight, etc - we'd probably have lost...

Posted: 4/10/2006 6:53:14 AM EDT

[#3]

people would be still be dying of malaria in the south

Posted: 4/10/2006 6:53:27 AM EDT

[#4]

He who wins rights the history books.

The war was not about slavery. The industrial revolution was already making it obsolete. Slavery was as much the real reason for the War of northern Agression as weapons of mass distruction were the reason we attacked Iraq.

The north had no agricultural base to speak of (you can incert oil in here, if you want a parrellel) , but they had the military/industrial complex. They used there strength against the south's (iraqs) weeknesses. The outcome was never in doubt, but they did a great job of propaganda to get popular support and rewrite history afterwards (hopefully we will pull off that trick again).
---
as for ending slavery. Economic slavery is alive and well today anyway. Especially when it comes to illegal aliens.

Posted: 4/10/2006 6:59:12 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
The north had no agricultural base to speak of (you can incert oil in here, if you want a parrellel) , but they had the military/industrial complex.

What are you talking about? You think the North magically imported all of its food? No agricultural base? Nope. There was and still is plenty of agriculre in the North. Its the South that didn't have the manufacturing capability the North had, and that hurt them.

Posted: 4/10/2006 7:04:15 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
One thing about the War of Northern Aggression. It was not about slavery. The Yankee written history books do not mention that over 100,000 blacks voluntarily joined the Southern Armies to fight the Yankees. Doubt they were fighting to preserve slavery.

Posted: 4/10/2006 7:06:47 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
He who wins rights the history books.

The war was not about slavery. The industrial revolution was already making obsolete. Slavory was as much the real reason for the War of northern Agression as weapons of mass distruction were the reason we attacked Iraq.

The north had no agricultural base to speak of, but they had the military/industrial complex. They used there strength against the south's weaknesses. The outcome was never in doubt, but they did a great job of propaganda to get popular support and rewrite history afterwards.

Having lived in both the "nawth" and the south, being a serious student of history, and considering myself somewhat intelligent; I concur with most of this.

It's interesting to note where the most disingenuous and denigrating responses to this thread are comming from.

Y'all are welcome to vacation & retire up north. I imagine we'll be able to get by without you.

Hessian-1

Posted: 4/10/2006 7:09:50 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
[M]ost of mainland Europe would be speaking German - they would have won WWI without our interferance.

Gee, you sure about that? You are right that without our economic and industrial aid, the odds would have been in the Central Power's favor but to say that the American military won the war would be twisting the truth.

Posted: 4/10/2006 7:17:58 AM EDT

[#9]

The Civil War was not about slavery. Less than 2% of actual Confederate combatants were slave owners.

Posted: 4/10/2006 7:18:42 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
He who wins rights the history books.

The war was not about slavery. The industrial revolution was already making it obsolete. Slavery was as much the real reason for the War of northern Agression as weapons of mass distruction were the reason we attacked Iraq.

The north had no agricultural base to speak of (you can incert oil in here, if you want a parrellel) , but they had the military/industrial complex. They used there strength against the south's (iraqs) weeknesses. The outcome was never in doubt, but they did a great job of propaganda to get popular support and rewrite history afterwards (hopefully we will pull off that trick again).
---
as for ending slavery. Economic slavery is alive and well today anyway. Especially when it comes to illegal aliens.

More like Pres Linclon hit the nail on the head with 'A house divided cannot stand'...

No nation can allow open rebellion/revolution and hope to survive & emerge a great power...

The civil war was a test of our nation's strength - a sort of 'growing pain' neccicary to hash out the one remaining fault (eg to forever destroy any notion that the 'states' were independant sovreign nations) and allow us to procede forward to our present position of world supremacy...

Posted: 4/10/2006 7:19:38 AM EDT

[#11]

causes of civil war

I have only skimmed this - but it seems to be a far more comprehensive look at the causes of the war rather than just the simple soluion of to "free the slaves".

---
Please forgive me about the title of the page. I think slavory was immoral, and have no problem with it's abolishment. I just like to laugh at a narrow minded view of history or current events.

Posted: 4/10/2006 7:26:54 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
[M]ost of mainland Europe would be speaking German - they would have won WWI without our interferance.

Gee, you sure about that? You are right that without our economic and industrial aid, the odds would have been in the Central Power's favor but to say that the American military won the war would be twisting the truth.

I would contend that while our military did not 'win the war', our intervention and pre-war aid 'tipped the scales' toward the Allies.

At the time we jumped in, Russia was done for & that left France & England (principally) vs Germany & Austria in a war of attrition. I maintain that it would be very unlikely for the Allies to have driven the Germans back without the additional manpower we provided.

Posted: 4/10/2006 7:33:30 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Slavery would have ended as the rest of the world embargoed Southern cotton.

The North, England, et al, had all banned slavery. The South would have followed eventually, especially after they had developed a manufacturing base (they would have had to).

Umm....no. Sorry bro, but guess who was a major purchaser or southern cotton and a supporter of the south? Great Britain.

But you are right that the south would have to develop a manufacturing base.

The Brits were in an 'odd way' WRT the cotton/CSA issue...

They were unable to support the CSA militarily due to political issues with slavery (this is why they never jumped in on the CSA side, despite the fact that it would have allowed them to eliminate a potential competitor & weaken (perhaps regain parts of) a former colony)....

But their economy was unable to survive without CSA cotton...

So they walked the line, purchasing cotton, but witholding direct military aid...

The reason that Pres Linclon gave the Emancipation Proclimation was, in fact, political -> he was trying to pre-empt British involvement in the war by setting a contrast between the 'free' USA and the 'slave' CSA....

Posted: 4/10/2006 8:23:16 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
One thing about the War of Northern Aggression. It was not about slavery. The Yankee written history books do not mention that over 100,000 blacks voluntarily joined the Southern Armies to fight the Yankees. Doubt they were fighting to preserve slavery.

Who shot first?

Posted: 4/10/2006 8:27:50 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[M]ost of mainland Europe would be speaking German - they would have won WWI without our interferance.

Gee, you sure about that? You are right that without our economic and industrial aid, the odds would have been in the Central Power's favor but to say that the American military won the war would be twisting the truth.

I would contend that while our military did not 'win the war', our intervention and pre-war aid 'tipped the scales' toward the Allies.

At the time we jumped in, Russia was done for & that left France & England (principally) vs Germany & Austria in a war of attrition. I maintain that it would be very unlikely for the Allies to have driven the Germans back without the additional manpower we provided.

That's cause you buy into the myth.
Without us, WWI would most likely have ended with everyone withdrawing to prewar boundaries, and minimal territorial gains.
EVERYONE was beat by 1917.

Posted: 4/10/2006 8:30:01 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
He who wins rights the history books.

The war was not about slavery. The industrial revolution was already making it obsolete. Slavery was as much the real reason for the War of northern Agression as weapons of mass distruction were the reason we attacked Iraq.

Haha, well good thing your side didn't win because reading your history books would suck!

Edumacation! Git-R-Done!

Posted: 4/10/2006 8:30:26 AM EDT

[#17]

NASCAR drivers training as a part of phys ed class.

Posted: 4/10/2006 9:46:42 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

That's cause you buy into the myth.
Without us, WWI would most likely have ended with everyone withdrawing to prewar boundaries, and minimal territorial gains.
EVERYONE was beat by 1917.

Interesting. Had that occurred, the environment that led to the rise of the third reich might not have occurred at all. World War II might have been avoided...or maybe just delayed.

Jim

Posted: 4/10/2006 9:47:29 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
One thing about the War of Northern Aggression. It was not about slavery. The Yankee written history books do not mention that over 100,000 blacks voluntarily joined the Southern Armies to fight the Yankees. Doubt they were fighting to preserve slavery.

Who shot first?

Ok the south shot first at Ft. Sumter, but it was only after the North was told to be out of CSA territory by such a date, and the North basically thumbed their nose and said throw us out.

ETA: Also who's territroy was most of the battles fought up until Gettysburg?

Posted: 4/10/2006 9:55:22 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:

That's cause you buy into the myth.
Without us, WWI would most likely have ended with everyone withdrawing to prewar boundaries, and minimal territorial gains.
EVERYONE was beat by 1917.

Interesting. Had that occurred, the environment that led to the rise of the third reich might not have occurred at all. World War II might have been avoided...or maybe just delayed.

Jim

WW2 could have been avoided if France hadn't been such pri**s about squeezing every last mark out of the Germans (wartime reparations), bankrupting a whole nation, which created an enviroment where a dynamic leader such as Adolf Hitler, previously looked down upon and imprisoned, could, through his guarantees of work (which he actually came through on) and security for all Germans, and thus the restoration of German pride (which was at an all-time low after the war), rise to power. Think of it, if you were barely able to feed your family and some guy comes along who can give you jobs and who can rebuild the German economy and the pride of the German people, wouldn't even such a formerly iffy candidate as Hitler sound good to you? Sure, we cannot imagine what the German people thought at the time, in the 30's, but the fact is, Hitler did rebuild Germany and France was directly responsible for the severity of the economic depression in Germany. If they could only have forgiven the reparations like the British did... WW2 might never have been.

Posted: 4/10/2006 10:06:36 AM EDT

[#21]

The US wouldn't have had a strong centralized government, and thus wouldn't have felt the need to demonstrate its power by getting involved in things like WWI. And without the US in WWI, the war would have ended in a negotiated peace without the onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Without the Treaty of Versailles, and the hardships that it entailed in Germany, Hitler would would have ended up a thirt-rate painter hawking his wares at the Starving Artist show at the Ramada Inn. And without Hitler and a strong centralized government, neither the USA nor the CSA would have felt any need to ally themselves with the greatest mass murder in the history of the world in order to defeat the second greatest mass murdered in the history of the world.

Posted: 4/10/2006 10:14:25 AM EDT

[#22]

"United we Stand" would be a tougher sell if the South had won....

Posted: 4/10/2006 10:29:23 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Damn Yankees would not have taken over FL.

You mean like the Canadians arn't now?

Posted: 4/10/2006 10:37:56 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We'd be speaking German now.
The continent, if we had avoided being overrun in WW2, would be even further divided, and most of us would be living in conditions no better than what you see in Mexico today.

My God, where do you people come up with this nonsense?

Becaue I don't think its nonsense at all. Dividing the country would have created a Third World mishmash of smaller nations that would not have us be anywhere near what we are today as a unified nation.

Absolutely! Without a strong centralized national government making sure everyone stays in line at home and projecting American power all over the globe, we'd be no better off than the Swiss.

Posted: 4/10/2006 10:38:08 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Cynthia McKinney would be scrubbing laundry instead of talking shit about how bad life is for blacks.

img101.imageshack.us/img101/8433/blackmanrape0pv4vf.jpg

tag

Posted: 4/10/2006 10:57:21 AM EDT

[#26]

Slavery would have ended gradually. The south didnt disagree with freeing the slaves, but waking up one day and letting them go with nowhere to go was stupid, and they knew it.

The north would be a seperate country that would now be at the mercy of the south.

Posted: 4/10/2006 10:58:19 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
One thing about the War of Northern Aggression. It was not about slavery. The Yankee written history books do not mention that over 100,000 blacks voluntarily joined the Southern Armies to fight the Yankees. Doubt they were fighting to preserve slavery.

Is that how you folks down South spin that?
ETA: from one source

But what many historians find outrageous and offensive are the claims being made by men like Mr. Condon Though he later revised his estimate to 50,000 blacks who "served in the Confederate Army," Mr, Smith at American University puts the number of black rebels "actually shooting people" at 30,000. Most historians regard this figure as inflated-by almost 30,000.

"It's pure fantasy," contends James McPherson, a Princeton historian and one of the nation's leading Civil War scholars. Adds Edwin Bearss, historian emeritus at the National Park Service: "It's b.s., wishful thinking." Robert Krick, author of 10 books on the Confederacy, has studied the records of 150,000 Southern soldiers and found fewer than a dozen were black. "Of course, if I documented 12. someone would start adding zeros," he says.

Tainted History?
These and other scholars say claims about black rebels derive from unreliable anecdotes, a blurring of soldiers and laborers, and the rapid spread on the Internet of what Mr. McPherson calls ''pseudohistory.'' Thousands of blacks did accompany rebel troops - as servants, cooks, teamsters and musicians. Most were slaves who served involuntarily; until the final days of the war, the Confederacy staunchly refused to enlist black soldiers.

Some blacks carried guns for their masters and wore spare or castoff uniforms, which may help explain eyewitness accounts of blacks units. But any blacks who actually fought did so unofficially, either out of personal loyalty or self-defense. many historians say.

They also bristle at what they see as the disingenuous twist on political correctness fueling the black Confederate fad. "it's a search for a multicultural Confederacy, a desperate desire to feel better about your ancestors," says Leslie Rowland, a University of Maryland historian. "if you suggest that some blacks supported the South, then you can deny that the Confederacy was about slavery and white supremacy."

David Blight, an Amherst College historian, likens the trend to bygone notions about happy "plantation darkies." Confederate groups invited devoted ex-slaves to reunions and even won Senate approval in 1923 for a "mammy" monument in Washington (it was never built). Black Confederates, Mr. Blight says, are a new and more palatable way to "legitimize the Confederacy."

http://members.aol.com/neoconfeds/thorwitz.htm

or how about this one:

http://www2.netdoor.com/~jgh/mobile.html

Amherst = yankee college. Hmmm. We can sure trust that fact. As I said, the victors write the history to justify their invasions and killing of innocent people by criminals like Lincoln and Sherman. Similar to what the communists didin Russia.

Posted: 4/10/2006 11:09:29 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
The first show of "Ten Days that Unexpectedly Changed America" is on now, and the first show is about The Battle of Anteitem. 23,000+ Americans lost their lives on September 17, 1862. What would have happened if Robert E Lee would have won, advanced to Washington, DC and maybe eventually won the war?

And before you all get crazy with the slavery slander, be assured that Slavery would most certainly have been abolished eventually......so in the long run, What would have happened if the South would have won? What would be different? Would we ever have reunified the States? What say you?

Oh, so we're not allowed to mention slavery, because it's "slander"?
Please.
Learn YOUR history.

The Confederate Constitution GUARANTEED the right to own slaves.
Think about that. It was one of the key principles upon they founded their supposed Nation.
For God's sake it was in their "Bill of Rights".
The Confederate Bill of Rights FORBADE laws that outlawed slavery.
It did NOT respect individual States' rights to make such laws as THEY saw fit.

...be assured that Slavery would most certainly have been abolished eventually......

"Assured"?
When do you think they would have amended their Constitution, allowing such a thing?
Two thirds of the Confederate Congress, and ratification by ALL the Confederate States.
When would this occur?

No.
They made a point, they MANDATED legalized slavery.

4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

THAT is the character of such a Nation, had it came to be.
A nation that did NOT respect freedom.
What a mockery of freedom...
...to include the right to enslave Man in the Bill of Rights.

Posted: 4/10/2006 11:21:54 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cynthia McKinney would be scrubbing laundry instead of talking shit about how bad life is for blacks.

img101.imageshack.us/img101/8433/blackmanrape0pv4vf.jpg

tag

Is that the kinda tag that ends in threads titled, "why did so and so get banned?"

Posted: 4/10/2006 11:39:20 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Oh, so we're not allowed to mention slavery, because it's "slander"?
Please.
Learn YOUR history.

The Confederate Constitution GUARANTEED the right to own slaves.
For God's sake it was in their "Bill of Rights".
It FORBID laws that outlawed slavery.
It did NOT respect individual States' rights to make such laws as THEY saw fit.
No.
It MANDATED legalized slavery.

4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

THAT is the character of such a Nation, had it came to be.
A nation that did NOT respect freedom.
What a mockery of freedom...
...to include the right to enslave Man in the Bill of Rights.

Yeah, that's a tough one to argue with. Excellent post, might I say.

Posted: 4/10/2006 11:52:35 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
California would be a republican state.....

There would have been 2 seperate countries that eventually would have signed a mutual non-agression and defense treaty. Korea and Viet Nam would not have involved America and we would not be facing the terrorist threat of today. The Usa would have no gun rights what-so-ever or would be as restrictive as those laws of Kalifornia. CSA, on the other hand would be the nation that lives in constitutional freedom and supporting the rights of not only RKBA but an equality of the races. Racial tension would be rampant in the north, which would be going totally bankrupt due to entitlement practices. The south would have a growing agrarian economy and all the primary oil production for the continent. International relations for the south would be strong and NYC would not be the "financial capital of the world" The Mexican border would be secure and there would be no problem with illegals. However, the asian societies would still be invading the north.

Kinda reminds me of.....

"The Confederate States would have been a happy place. It would have been filled with flowering meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the negroes danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles."

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:01:05 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
I would suddenly develop the urge to marry my first cousin and throw away all my toothbrushes..

Um Hmmmmmm.........."NOO YAWK".........

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:02:27 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I would suddenly develop the urge to marry my first cousin and throw away all my toothbrushes..

Um Hmmmmmm.........."NOO YAWK".........

Where's LIE? Interstate 495?

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:07:12 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
The US wouldn't have had a strong centralized government, and thus wouldn't have felt the need to demonstrate its power by getting involved in things like WWI. And without the US in WWI, the war would have ended in a negotiated peace without the onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Without the Treaty of Versailles, and the hardships that it entailed in Germany, Hitler would would have ended up a thirt-rate painter hawking his wares at the Starving Artist show at the Ramada Inn. And without Hitler and a strong centralized government, neither the USA nor the CSA would have felt any need to ally themselves with the greatest mass murder in the history of the world in order to defeat the second greatest mass murdered in the history of the world.

interesting, i could see things working out this way as well. but would would become of the Soviet Union? would the heirs of Stalin still be in power today?

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:09:41 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
interesting, i could see things working out this way as well. but would would become of the Soviet Union? would the heirs of Stalin still be in power today?

Well, I don't think that WW2 had much of an influence on the lifespan of the USSR. I dare say that that branch of history would've played out similarly.

On that note: Where are the great leaders of yesterday lke Adenauer? Oh wait, never mind that, I just remembered why...

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:15:01 PM EDT

[#36]

If the south won you'd have an Uncle Dad, the President would look and sound a lot like Larry The Cable Guy, you'd be praying that your sister grows up to be pretty, because nobody wants to bang the ugly chick.

Can't forget, this is what your family reunion would look like.

http://www.students.bucknell.edu/clanger/%5Carfcom%5CTEXowned.jpg

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:19:12 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
ETA: Also who's territroy was most of the battles fought up until Gettysburg?

So what you're saying is the CSA border guards were worse than the ones we have today?

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:20:43 PM EDT

[#38]

And this guy would have the chart-topping album of the year:

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:31:32 PM EDT

[#39]

To all you blue staters who have contributed nothing to this discussion except goofy j-pegs and spelling-nazi criticism of others posts, please remember you are contributing to the south ANOTHER FOUR TO SIX ELECTORAL VOTES when the 2010 census is released.

The South did win, not through force of arms but through 150 years of post-civil war leadership. WE determine the course of the nation and will continue to do so as long as you blue-staters lament the deterioration of your freedoms and move south by the millions to vote R in election after election.

P.S.

pwned, even though you're to blind to see it.

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:31:56 PM EDT

[#40]

Thank God that Evil Confedarcy of Slave Owners was soundly defeated.

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:32:31 PM EDT

[#41]

All ur presidents are belong to us

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:32:37 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

The Confederate Constitution

Thanks for the link. The law you are so alarmed by is entirely inline with the concept of state rights. Even the US constitution was originally constrewed to prevent the goverment from passing laws that should be state decisions.

Individual states would have been fully allowed to make the decision on their own. As individual states decided abolition, the increased presure (not to mention the existing preasures from the North and the South and East (US, Mexico, England), coupled with the economic pressure of the industrial revolution on agriculture most likely forced the few remaining to fall inline in a scant number of years.

But if you want to feel good about winning a war of aquisition and the subsequent oppression of reconstruction - continue to pat yourself on the back.

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:41:10 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:

The Confederate Constitution

Thanks for the link. The law you are so alarmed by is entirely inline with the concept of state rights.

No.
It is not a Law, it is the Bill of Rights enumerated in the CSA Constitution.

Even the US constitution was originally constrewed to prevent the goverment from passing laws that should be state decisions.

Individual states would have been fully allowed to make the decision on their own. As individual states decided abolition...

WRONG!

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Do you not understand English?

the increased presure (not to mention the existing preasures from the North and the South and East (US, Mexico, England), coupled with the economic pressure of the industrial revolution on agriculture most likely forced the few remaining to fall inline in a scant number of years.

But if you want to feel good about winning a war of aquisition and the subsequent oppression of reconstruction - continue to pat yourself on the back.

Clearly you lack comprehension skills.
The Confederate Constitution DID NOT ALLOW INDIVIDUAL STATES TO PASS LAWS BANNING SLAVERY.
Read it.

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:41:50 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
To all you blue staters who have contributed nothing to this discussion except goofy j-pegs and spelling-nazi criticism of others posts, please remember you are contributing to the south ANOTHER FOUR TO SIX ELECTORAL VOTES when the 2010 census is released.

The South did win, not through force of arms but through 150 years of post-civil war leadership. WE determine the course of the nation and will continue to do so as long as you blue-staters lament the deterioration of your freedoms and move south by the millions to vote R in election after election.

P.S.

pwned, even though you're to blind to see it.

Oh I don't know.
If I were to determine a winner and use the label of "pwned", I might go for something along the lines of this "Burning of Atlanta" image:

That's sort of what I picture when I picture a really terrible defeat.
Having your city burned to the ground by victorious invaders.

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:44:48 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
To all you blue staters who have contributed nothing to this discussion except goofy j-pegs and spelling-nazi criticism of others posts, please remember you are contributing to the south ANOTHER FOUR TO SIX ELECTORAL VOTES when the 2010 census is released.

The South did win, not through force of arms but through 150 years of post-civil war leadership. WE determine the course of the nation and will continue to do so as long as you blue-staters lament the deterioration of your freedoms and move south by the millions to vote R in election after election.

P.S.

pwned, even though you're to blind to see it.

Awesome leadership on the civil rights issue....

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:55:20 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
To all you blue staters who have contributed nothing to this discussion except goofy j-pegs and spelling-nazi criticism of others posts, please remember you are contributing to the south ANOTHER FOUR TO SIX ELECTORAL VOTES when the 2010 census is released.

The South did win, not through force of arms but through 150 years of post-civil war leadership. WE determine the course of the nation and will continue to do so as long as you blue-staters lament the deterioration of your freedoms and move south by the millions to vote R in election after election.

P.S.

pwned, even though you're to blind to see it.

Awesome leadership on the civil rights issue....

That's right Billybob2002...PRESIDENT LBJ from Texas pressed for civil rights. After Lincoln, all those self-righteous blue state presidents weren't willing to do crap for African Americans but ignore them.

Might trying thinking before you post.

Posted: 4/10/2006 1:01:09 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
To all you blue staters who have contributed nothing to this discussion except goofy j-pegs and spelling-nazi criticism of others posts, please remember you are contributing to the south ANOTHER FOUR TO SIX ELECTORAL VOTES when the 2010 census is released.

The South did win, not through force of arms but through 150 years of post-civil war leadership. WE determine the course of the nation and will continue to do so as long as you blue-staters lament the deterioration of your freedoms and move south by the millions to vote R in election after election.

P.S.

pwned, even though you're to blind to see it.

Oh I don't know.
If I were to determine a winner and use the label of "pwned", I might go for something along the lines of this "Burning of Atlanta" image:

www.vintageworks.net/VintageWorks_Images/Full/6301GWTW.jpg

That's sort of what I picture when I picture a really terrible defeat.
Having your city burned to the ground by victorious invaders.

You burned a city full of innocents 150 years ago...We've provided 5 of the last 7 Presidents (Even though they were blue staters, Nixon and Reagan were southern at heart, so one could argue 7 for 7).

I still contend that in the long run, we won.

Posted: 4/10/2006 1:02:43 PM EDT

[#48]

Oops, I forgot President Ford. Edited for 5 of 8 Presidents.

Posted: 4/10/2006 1:03:51 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To all you blue staters who have contributed nothing to this discussion except goofy j-pegs and spelling-nazi criticism of others posts, please remember you are contributing to the south ANOTHER FOUR TO SIX ELECTORAL VOTES when the 2010 census is released.

The South did win, not through force of arms but through 150 years of post-civil war leadership. WE determine the course of the nation and will continue to do so as long as you blue-staters lament the deterioration of your freedoms and move south by the millions to vote R in election after election.

P.S.

pwned, even though you're to blind to see it.

Awesome leadership on the civil rights issue....

That's right Billybob2002...PRESIDENT LBJ from Texas pressed for civil rights. After Lincoln, all those self-righteous blue state presidents weren't willing to do crap for African Americans but ignore them.

Might trying thinking before you post.

I guess the strong opposition in Congress towards the CRA of 1964 by Southerners is just my imagination. As well, it must be my imagination that only 8 southerners in Congress voted for the act. I guess it was too my imagination that Southern Senators used a filibuster on it for weeks. I guess introducing an amendment to it about gender trying to kill the act by a Southern was just my imagination.

You get the point

Posted: 4/10/2006 1:04:09 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
That's right Billybob2002...PRESIDENT LBJ from Texas pressed for civil rights. After Lincoln, all those self-righteous blue state presidents weren't willing to do crap for African Americans but ignore them.

Might trying thinking before you post.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - What Would Have Happened if The South Would Have Won??? (Page 2 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us