What if the South Won?

[Big Black Dog]

If the South had of won the War of Northern Aggression, there would be grits on every menu in our country!

I take it you don't like grits.

Quite the opposite. Grits good. Oatmeal bad.

 

[Polk]

The south wouldn't have had to say that. They had their own government, their own Constitution, and their own laws. They wouldn't have to say anything to the U.S.

They would have collapsed within a few decades.

 

[Polk]

We would have a Waffle House on every corner instead of a Starbucks

Starbucks is overpriced because no one should pay more than $5 for ground up seeds stewed in hot water.

And that's without pointing out Starbucks burns the damn beans. Local coffee shops are the way to go.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here is a rhetorical question but what if the south won would the issue of slavery be legally settled in favor of the southern slave owners?

This is the conclusion that many big government federalist seem to believe because we are constantly told that state's rights was destroyed with the civil war. Unfortunately this was true but only because it established the federal government superiority by military force and not by the constitution which should be the correct argument since the constitution is the supreme law of the land and not a military campaign.

Now if the south won would they be able to claim the same "might makes right" attitude in the department of owning slaves or even state rights? The answer is 'NO' because the constitution is supreme over any state or federal government and is even supreme to a military campaign but people who believe that the federal government is superior to the state governments resort to "the civil war settled it" when their constitutional arguments fail but would the south been equally justified to say "the civil war settled that issue" about slavery if they had won?

Excuse me, but you're saying the use of military force to put down an armed rebellion is not constitutional?

Aren't you out of the same crowd that likes to say that the military is one of the few constitutional prerogatives of the federal government?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Eventually the slaves would have revolted and done a big old slice and dice on your pasty white cracker asses.

 

[Polk]

If the South won, none of us would be talking english right now

huh?

Did they not speak English in the CSA?

He's referring to the idea that the nation would have been conquered.

 

[Luissa]

It's questionable whether grits even is food IMO.

Grits are awesome. Esp. cheese grits or shrimp and grits Nawlins style. mmmmm. If they are greasy, you are doing it wrong. And they are eaten in the rest of the United states. Everyone else calls them polenta.

They are not popular here I can tell you that, I have never even tried Grits. And you hardly ever see them on the menu at a restratraunt.

 

[VaYank5150]

Here is a rhetorical question but what if the south won would the issue of slavery be legally settled in favor of the southern slave owners?

This is the conclusion that many big government federalist seem to believe because we are constantly told that state's rights was destroyed with the civil war. Unfortunately this was true but only because it established the federal government superiority by military force and not by the constitution which should be the correct argument since the constitution is the supreme law of the land and not a military campaign.

Now if the south won would they be able to claim the same "might makes right" attitude in the department of owning slaves or even state rights? The answer is 'NO' because the constitution is supreme over any state or federal government and is even supreme to a military campaign but people who believe that the federal government is superior to the state governments resort to "the civil war settled it" when their constitutional arguments fail but would the south been equally justified to say "the civil war settled that issue" about slavery if they had won?

You haven't studied the Civil War much, have you?

 

[Polk]

If you haven't had them, they're worth trying. I personally would rather have rice with eggs.

 

[Luissa]

I like fried rice and sticky rice and that is it, Grits always seemed like they would be a wierd texture. I saw them made on tv once and they looked like Rice cereal for babies which tastes like cardboard.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Eventually the slaves would have revolted and done a big old slice and dice on your pasty white cracker asses.

Now what kind of talk is that for a family based board? Shame on you...

 

[hjmick]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EViGaTSnqRw[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oKU95MHFvE[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fv0tldUMl4[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8fjiJosdH8[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cKYFPwSQd4[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd6CdvMr5vY[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF-pBAh7d8k[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzcP27FnTHg[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUi9T3TcHpE[/ame]

There. Question answered.

 

[Citizen]

Tell us, dear sir

What state rights were the south trying to protect??

The right to self-government, and the right not to have their money stolen from them for the benefit of the northern states. And yes slavery was an issue, though it really shouldn't have been, but it wasn't the only or the central issue.

First of, the states can self govern up to an extent. The question is where does state rights end and the authority of the Union begins. If the concept that is that State rights never end, then why form a Union?(thus the idea of a WEAKLY JOINED Confederacy of states!!)

In fact, besides slavery, there is not much else that the south went to war over. The idea of allowng Slave states to exist is the entire cornerstone of the State rights arguement regarding the civil war. Thus the question really breaks down to one of what is considered human rights and who should be considered human, and thus is really a question on how to determine the rights of man and not the rights of State!!

Now on this concept of stolen money--what money was stolen from the South and given to the North??

To begin with, where states rights end and federal rights begin is clearly spelled our in the 10th Amendment, and for those that do not understand what the Founding Fathers meant, let me inform you by posting their intent.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25, 1788 - considered the 'father of the Constitution'

As to what money was stolen from the South and given to the North, I would present the following facts.

In 1840 the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. The South paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which has a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports.

The Morill tariff of March 1861 imposed the highest tariffs in US history, with over 50% duty on iron products and 25% on clothing; rates averaged 47%, and these were paid mostly by the South to fund Northern projects and interests.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

First of, the states can self govern up to an extent. The question is where does state rights end and the authority of the Union begins. If the concept that is that State rights never end, then why form a Union?(thus the idea of a WEAKLY JOINED Confederacy of states!!)

In fact, besides slavery, there is not much else that the south went to war over. The idea of allowng Slave states to exist is the entire cornerstone of the State rights arguement regarding the civil war. Thus the question really breaks down to one of what is considered human rights and who should be considered human, and thus is really a question on how to determine the rights of man and not the rights of State!!





Now on this concept of stolen money--what money was stolen from the South and given to the North??

Tariffs. Lincoln was a big supporter of tariffs, which is why he had such high support in northern states like Pennsylvania, and none in the south.

Tariffs between states?? Or tariffs between this and other nations??

The first one was eliminated before the civil war, the second tended to change over time and most likely not the basis for War between the states.

Even so, the concept of tariffs were economic based and could be restructured so that both sides could benefit, and therefore was not an excuse for war, unless one side jst want everyone to follow their ideas.

Except Jefferson Davis made it clear in his inaugural address that tariffs were not in the interest of the south.

"Our policy is peace, and the freest trade our necessities will permit."

Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address

No where is slavery mentioned, however.

That's also another reason Lincoln couldn't allow the Confederacy to remain independent. With the high tariffs he planned to enact nobody would go through northern ports, they'd simply go through the south which permitted free trade. The mayor of New York City even wanted the city to secede from the state of New York and the Union so that it could be a free trade port in the north.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The south wouldn't have had to say that. They had their own government, their own Constitution, and their own laws. They wouldn't have to say anything to the U.S.

They would have collapsed within a few decades.

I see no basis for that claim.

 

[Polk]

The south wouldn't have had to say that. They had their own government, their own Constitution, and their own laws. They wouldn't have to say anything to the U.S.

They would have collapsed within a few decades.

I see no basis for that claim.

They were already coming apart at the seams by the end of the war. They based their entire government on the idea that the individual states are supreme. First time the central government does something a state doesn't like, they would have bolted. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They would have collapsed within a few decades.

I see no basis for that claim.

They were already coming apart at the seams by the end of the war. They based their entire government on the idea that the individual states are supreme. First time the central government does something a state doesn't like, they would have bolted. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The United States operated under that premise until the Civil War as well, but I see no reason why there would have been an issue. The problems the U.S. had were mostly sectional, between north and south. Their different economies made it difficult to work together. But when they split into two they could work towards their own goals in their own way. The northern confederacy could do what it felt was right, and since most of their interests were the same there'd be little conflict. Same for the south.

 

[Father Time]

Slavery would have died out in the south of its own accord the same way it did in the north.

Yeah but how long would that have taken.

 

[Polk]

I see no basis for that claim.

They were already coming apart at the seams by the end of the war. They based their entire government on the idea that the individual states are supreme. First time the central government does something a state doesn't like, they would have bolted. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The United States operated under that premise until the Civil War as well, but I see no reason why there would have been an issue. The problems the U.S. had were mostly sectional, between north and south. Their different economies made it difficult to work together. But when they split into two they could work towards their own goals in their own way. The northern confederacy could do what it felt was right, and since most of their interests were the same there'd be little conflict. Same for the south.

Except that the rebels had the exact problem I'm talking about.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Slavery would have died out in the south of its own accord the same way it did in the north.

Yeah but how long would that have taken.

I couldn't tell you. But as they became more industrialized slavery would become less and less economical.