• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"If The South Woulda Won..."

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric....-Williams-Jr/D6DD5A9C6239BECC48256DD8000A8860

Here's some lyrics that I totally agree with. I wish truly that the South did win in 1860-something. We really woulda had it made. Or at least us southerners would have.

In Alaska, a few years ago, there was a movement to try and have Alaska secede from the Union. Well, that all died down cuz the movement's leader was murdered by a midget (no lie!). But when I move up there I may try to bring it back to life. Even if that means I gotta lead it.

Any questions, concerns or insults (not too many of those please) are appreciated. AND NO, I'M NOT A FRIGGIN' RACIST! SO DON'T PULL OUT THE RACE CARD!
 
^ you racist!

No, I'm kidding. I don't think it would be much different if the South did win, but I think it would have been a lot different if America lost its Revolution, now that's something to think about.
 
Arch Enemy said:
^ you racist!

No, I'm kidding. I don't think it would be much different if the South did win, but I think it would have been a lot different if America lost its Revolution, now that's something to think about.

We'd be speaking like brits, drinking lots of tea, and exchange high quality socialist ideas. Just like Britain today.

I say it would it be different. More stuff would get done. and No one would mess with us!
 
It doesn't matter because the South never had the resources to win. The North had all the factories and resources to win the war.

But, seriously who really thinks the civil war was not driven by the slavery debate. To say you support the South can mean three things:

1. You're really ignorant
2. "It is just a cultural thing"
3. You supported slavery

All three of which have a lot to do with slavery and wanting to keep their culture revolving around it even if you don't realize it. Race card my ***. It is history! Say it with me... HISTORY.
 
Donkey1499 said:
We'd be speaking like brits, drinking lots of tea, and exchange high quality socialist ideas. Just like Britain today.

I say it would it be different. More stuff would get done. and No one would mess with us!
:rofl Oh man, you guys really do think the UK flies a red flag don't you? Ha ha ha!

As for the other points, no you wouldn't all be speaking like Brits because we don't speak at all alike ourselves. Contrary to what Holywood would lead you to believe, we don't all sound like Hugh-bloody-Grant or Dick van Dyke's chimneysweep. There are many regional dialects across our little island, some of which I find unintelligable, so Americans would still be speaking in a variety of localised accents depending on where they lived.

As for tea, there's nothing wrong with it, the British empire was built on tea. It's milder than coffee and is good at just about any time of the day. On that subject, anyone know where I can buy a teapot in the mid-west?
 
Sir_Alec said:
It doesn't matter because the South never had the resources to win. The North had all the factories and resources to win the war.

But, seriously who really thinks the civil war was not driven by the slavery debate. To say you support the South can mean three things:

1. You're really ignorant
2. "It is just a cultural thing"
3. You supported slavery

All three of which have a lot to do with slavery and wanting to keep their culture revolving around it even if you don't realize it. Race card my ***. It is history! Say it with me... HISTORY.

Actually, I DO support slavery, but not the kind that's racist. I mean, lets enslave all the criminals and POWs we have here. Our economy would rise by about 25% (my own estimate). AND THE LEFT SUPPORTS A FORM OF SLAVERY TOO. It's called allowing illegal immigrants to work here in the US for $2 an hour.

And it is a "cultural thing". What is wrong with Southern Pride? If a white man says he's proud to be white, he's automatically called a racist. But if a black man says that he's proud to be black, he's given a pat on the back. And I ask, WHAT THE HELL? What's the difference? The skin color? Now granting a privilege to a black man and not a white man is deffinately racist.

Also, it was DEMOCRATS who supported slavery first. Southern Dems vs. a Republican president. How odd... :roll:

Besides, the war involved MANY different factors. The leftists just choose to throw slavery on top for whatever their agendized reasons are.
 
Jay R said:
:rofl Oh man, you guys really do think the UK flies a red flag don't you? Ha ha ha!

As for the other points, no you wouldn't all be speaking like Brits because we don't speak at all alike ourselves. Contrary to what Holywood would lead you to believe, we don't all sound like Hugh-bloody-Grant or Dick van Dyke's chimneysweep. There are many regional dialects across our little island, some of which I find unintelligable, so Americans would still be speaking in a variety of localised accents depending on where they lived.

As for tea, there's nothing wrong with it, the British empire was built on tea. It's milder than coffee and is good at just about any time of the day. On that subject, anyone know where I can buy a teapot in the mid-west?

I apologize if I offended our ally, the UK. I was just making a funny.
 
Donkey1499 said:
I apologize if I offended our ally, the UK. I was just making a funny.
No need for apologies, there was no offense.:2wave:
 
Sir_Alec said:
It doesn't matter because the South never had the resources to win. The North had all the factories and resources to win the war.

But, seriously who really thinks the civil war was not driven by the slavery debate. To say you support the South can mean three things:

1. You're really ignorant
2. "It is just a cultural thing"
3. You supported slavery

All three of which have a lot to do with slavery and wanting to keep their culture revolving around it even if you don't realize it. Race card my ***. It is history! Say it with me... HISTORY.

I think the Civil War was more about clashing economic interests rather than slavery. I am glad the North won. I am directly related to a veteran of the American Civil War on my dad's side of the family. He is my great great great great grandfather (maybe too many greats in thier). He was captured in the battle of Nashville by the Union Army and fought for the Confederacy. I think our nation's greatest president was Abraham Lincoln. Speaking of Lincoln, I watched a special on TV which talked about haunted places in America. Congressmen, Former American presidents and the I believe a queen from the Netherlands have seen the ghost of Lincoln. Anyway, the South certainly had the better generals than the Union, but as was mentioned before, it was the side who had the most resources in the end that won. Wars of attrition are usually won by the side who has the better economy.
 
Last edited:
Here is an excerpt from an article concerning Lincoln:

The Civil War caused him great sorrow and the heavy losses on both sides filled him with sadness. Lincoln paid obsessive detail to everything about the war and by 1864, portraits of him show a face etched with lines. He slept very little in those years and during the five years he lived in the White House, he spent less than one month away from work. His only escape was afforded him by the theater, a late night buggy ride or from his books.

http://www.prairieghosts.com/lincoln2.html

They even have a wikipedia entry concerning Abraham Lincoln's Ghost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln's_Ghost
 
Last edited:
Sir_Alec said:
It doesn't matter because the South never had the resources to win. The North had all the factories and resources to win the war.

But, seriously who really thinks the civil war was not driven by the slavery debate. To say you support the South can mean three things:

1. You're really ignorant
2. "It is just a cultural thing"
3. You supported slavery

All three of which have a lot to do with slavery and wanting to keep their culture revolving around it even if you don't realize it. Race card my ***. It is history! Say it with me... HISTORY.

Whoa. Let's calm down now.

1st off, like Marine said, if YOU think the civil war was driven mainly by slavery not only are you completely brain-dead, but you've probably never read a civil war book in your entire life. My ancestors were pissed off because the North was absolutely raping the South in the economy. The South would provide the raw materials and the North would manufacteur them and trade them, thing is, North was able to regulate how much of the profit would go to the South.. it was not alot.

I am a bit irratated that people have automatically linked people who support the South with people who loved slavery. That's absolutely rediculous, the majority of the Southern population didn't have the means to have Slaves, it was the rich and the noble who owned the slaves.
To say that you are 100% against Slavery and wish that it didn't happen would have been, well you know, denying the fact of this nation. Without slavery, America wouldn't be ****. It's the nature of the beast.

Again... lets not forget that slavery was one of the very first attempts at humanism. Back in the old days it was two choices A) destroy the entire poplulation and sow the land with salt, or B) enslave the populace
 
Donkey1499 said:
Actually, I DO support slavery, but not the kind that's racist. I mean, lets enslave all the criminals and POWs we have here. Our economy would rise by about 25% (my own estimate). AND THE LEFT SUPPORTS A FORM OF SLAVERY TOO. It's called allowing illegal immigrants to work here in the US for $2 an hour.

And it is a "cultural thing". What is wrong with Southern Pride? If a white man says he's proud to be white, he's automatically called a racist. But if a black man says that he's proud to be black, he's given a pat on the back. And I ask, WHAT THE HELL? What's the difference? The skin color? Now granting a privilege to a black man and not a white man is deffinately racist.

Also, it was DEMOCRATS who supported slavery first. Southern Dems vs. a Republican president. How odd... :roll:

Besides, the war involved MANY different factors. The leftists just choose to throw slavery on top for whatever their agendized reasons are.

Damn, now my only ally in this thread has lost his mind! :-(

Saying the Democrats of those times are the same Democrats today, is like considering a fertilized embryo and a full grown human the same. Political partys are useless, I don't understand why we still need them I thought the evolution into Homo Homo Sapeins would help, but obviously not.

I'm a "Leftist" and I don't throw slavery on top. Yes, slavery was the boiling point, but it wasn't the central conflict.

I have pride in my heritage, but I sure as hell won't be walking around with a Confederate flag shirt that says "Southern Pride". That, my dear friend, is completely stupid. The South wouldn't have been what it is without the slaves so throw a pride maker for our black population.

You don't seem too happy with the idea of legal slavery. That's very amoral of you.
 
I'm not sure I see what would have been better if the South had won. There would be two nations? Would the South have continued to allow styate's rights, or would they have created an analogue to our current Federal government? It seems to me that to maintain a united country the size of this one that you need a strong federal government; if the individual states were able to follow their own paths unchecked, you would soon develop a large group of squabbling city-states that would eventually fragment, as the Soviet Union has. If the South had won, thus proving that secession from the country as a whole was possible, then more states would have followed, seceding over different issues -- or perhaps living out new repetitions of the same issues. And this country would be 50 nations, or 100 nations, instead of one.

Would that be better?
 
Arch Enemy said:
Whoa. Let's calm down now.

1st off, like Marine said, if YOU think the civil war was driven mainly by slavery not only are you completely brain-dead, but you've probably never read a civil war book in your entire life. My ancestors were pissed off because the North was absolutely raping the South in the economy. The South would provide the raw materials and the North would manufacteur them and trade them, thing is, North was able to regulate how much of the profit would go to the South.. it was not alot.

I am a bit irratated that people have automatically linked people who support the South with people who loved slavery. That's absolutely rediculous, the majority of the Southern population didn't have the means to have Slaves, it was the rich and the noble who owned the slaves.
To say that you are 100% against Slavery and wish that it didn't happen would have been, well you know, denying the fact of this nation. Without slavery, America wouldn't be ****. It's the nature of the beast.

Again... lets not forget that slavery was one of the very first attempts at humanism. Back in the old days it was two choices A) destroy the entire poplulation and sow the land with salt, or B) enslave the populace

Wow that is so depressing, I just lost all faith in all humans. I think I should go shoot myself right now. I'm sure a few of you might like that.
 
Sir_Alec said:
Wow that is so depressing, I just lost all faith in all humans. I think I should go shoot myself right now. I'm sure a few of you might like that.
But it's fact.

No one ever said Humanity was pretty.
 
It may have taken over a century, but it looks to me like the South has actually won the war. They certainly do have a stranglehold on American politics these days.
 
Gardener said:
It may have taken over a century, but it looks to me like the South has actually won the war. They certainly do have a stranglehold on American politics these days.



Please note that our current President is not southern born.

But sure, I guess the South, in a way, has a stranglehold on politics.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Damn, now my only ally in this thread has lost his mind! :-(

Saying the Democrats of those times are the same Democrats today, is like considering a fertilized embryo and a full grown human the same. Political partys are useless, I don't understand why we still need them I thought the evolution into Homo Homo Sapeins would help, but obviously not.

I'm a "Leftist" and I don't throw slavery on top. Yes, slavery was the boiling point, but it wasn't the central conflict.

I have pride in my heritage, but I sure as hell won't be walking around with a Confederate flag shirt that says "Southern Pride". That, my dear friend, is completely stupid. The South wouldn't have been what it is without the slaves so throw a pride maker for our black population.

You don't seem too happy with the idea of legal slavery. That's very amoral of you.

What??? I knew there was a difference, a slight difference (Sen Robert "Sheets" Byrd ring a bell?).

And your last two paragraphs don't apply to me. So why are they there? I do have southern pride.
 
Donkey1499 said:
Actually, I DO support slavery, but not the kind that's racist. I mean, lets enslave all the criminals and POWs we have here. Our economy would rise by about 25% (my own estimate). AND THE LEFT SUPPORTS A FORM OF SLAVERY TOO. It's called allowing illegal immigrants to work here in the US for $2 an hour.

I think we should treat lower level criminals and give them the ability to go back into the world. If some kid gets arrested for drugs or stealing when he is young and he goes to jail for 5 years, when he gets out his record prevents him from living a good life anymore (even if hes still a younger man). I say we put these guys through a **** load of programs and treatment and redeem them as citizens so they have the ability to go back into the world and not lapse into old habits of drugs and crime.

POWs can't be treated as slaves so that is out of the question anyways.

Donkey1499 said:
And it is a "cultural thing". What is wrong with Southern Pride? If a white man says he's proud to be white, he's automatically called a racist. But if a black man says that he's proud to be black, he's given a pat on the back. And I ask, WHAT THE HELL? What's the difference? The skin color? Now granting a privilege to a black man and not a white man is deffinately racist.

Just because it is looked down upon for whites to have racial pride, and blacks don't, doesn't make it ok for whites do it. Racial pride is bad for anyone who does it. Cultural pride is a different story.

Donkey1499 said:
Also, it was DEMOCRATS who supported slavery first. Southern Dems vs. a Republican president. How odd... :roll:

Actually, I know this and it doesn't say much for the sanity of 1800s democrats.

Donkey1499 said:
Besides, the war involved MANY different factors. The leftists just choose to throw slavery on top for whatever their agendized reasons are.

I heard most of the slavery factor from a centerist christian friend of mine.
 
CoffeeSaint said:
I'm not sure I see what would have been better if the South had won. There would be two nations? Would the South have continued to allow styate's rights, or would they have created an analogue to our current Federal government? It seems to me that to maintain a united country the size of this one that you need a strong federal government; if the individual states were able to follow their own paths unchecked, you would soon develop a large group of squabbling city-states that would eventually fragment, as the Soviet Union has. If the South had won, thus proving that secession from the country as a whole was possible, then more states would have followed, seceding over different issues -- or perhaps living out new repetitions of the same issues. And this country would be 50 nations, or 100 nations, instead of one.

Would that be better?

Sure, I enjoy a decent struggle...:roll:
 
Sir_Alec said:
Wow that is so depressing, I just lost all faith in all humans. I think I should go shoot myself right now. I'm sure a few of you might like that.

Nah, maybe if you jumped into a ring full of hungry grizzly bears, now THAT would be entertainment! :rofl
 
Gardener said:
It may have taken over a century, but it looks to me like the South has actually won the war. They certainly do have a stranglehold on American politics these days.

AND GOD BLESS THE SOUTH FOR BEING IN POWER!
 
Sir_Alec said:
I think we should treat lower level criminals and give them the ability to go back into the world. If some kid gets arrested for drugs or stealing when he is young and he goes to jail for 5 years, when he gets out his record prevents him from living a good life anymore (even if hes still a younger man). I say we put these guys through a **** load of programs and treatment and redeem them as citizens so they have the ability to go back into the world and not lapse into old habits of drugs and crime.

POWs can't be treated as slaves so that is out of the question anyways.



Just because it is looked down upon for whites to have racial pride, and blacks don't, doesn't make it ok for whites do it. Racial pride is bad for anyone who does it. Cultural pride is a different story.



Actually, I know this and it doesn't say much for the sanity of 1800s democrats.



I heard most of the slavery factor from a centerist christian friend of mine.

Well, felony criminals then, OK? Make them the slaves, like murderers, rapists, those guys from Enron, etc.
But who's gonna pay for all these "treatments"? I sure as Hell won't! What most of these kids need is a swift kick to the *** and a good ol' lecture; like what my dad did to me when I was a boy. I tried stealing a candy bar from CVS when I was 7, my dad found out while we was in the store and he kicked me in my *** right in the cash register isle. I didn't steal anything else after that.

I'm PROUD to be white; just like if I was Asian I'd be PROUD to be Asian. There is nothing wrong with a little bit o' pride. Now, the KKK brand of "white pride" is definately wrong and I do not support it. In fact, I hate the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and I even hate the Black Panthers. They're all racist and deserve a beating with heavey clubs, of which then we leave em' bleeding in the moonlight.

Democrats are insane anyways. Hell, they got that "Dr." Howler Dean as their chairman. That guy is psycho! In the democrat party I've got one comparison: The inmates are running the nuthouse. :mrgreen:

Damn bloody centrists. They ain't nothing but fence huggers. I tried being an indepedent, but I failed (if you wanna call it a failure). It's hard to be fair to those who don't want to be fair (i.e. the far left).
 
Here's an e-mail that a friend sent me, and I agree with most of it.

EMAIL said:
Proud to be White

Someone else besides me finally said it.
How many are actually paying attention to this?

There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, Native Americans, etc. and then there are just Americans.

You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me "White boy," "Cracker," "Honkey," "Whitey," "Caveman" and that's OK.

But when I call you, ******, Kike, Towelhead, Sand-******, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink you call me a racist.

You say that Whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You have the United Negro College Fund.
You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Yom Hashoah
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi
You have the NAACP.
You have BET.

If we had WET (White Entertainment Television) we'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day you would call us racists.
If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only Whites to "advance" our lives, we'd be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that?

If we had a college fund that only gave White students scholarships, you know we'd be racists.

There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US, yet if there were "White colleges" that would be a racist college.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights.

If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.

You are proud to be Black, Brown, Yellow and Orange, and you're not afraid to announce it.

But when we announce our White pride, you call us racists.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a White police officer shoots a Black gang member or beats up a Black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.

I am proud. But, you call me a racist.

Why is it that only Whites can be racists?

There is nothing improper about this email.

Let's see which of you are proud enough to forward it.

Don't know the author, but the point is made.
 
Back
Top Bottom