If the confederacy would have WON!!

OK I started a thread about "Abe lincoln not such a great President. Now in that discussion we talked about what the Civil War was really all about, Alot of people think thats it was about freeing the slaves, but is was concluded that the biggest reason for a call to arms was "States Rights"!
The Confederacy wanted states rights and Lincoln wanted a union. Correct?
Well I'm here In Arizona And am appalled that the federal Governmentis suing my state, It is completly a political ploy.
I live here in AZ and I have not heard one (non-politcal) person say they dissagree with bill.
So I guess what I'm getting at is how different the USA LoL would be if we had states rights.
Well some states get to run there states Mass and various other you can be gay and get married
but nnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooAz cant pick on the "ILLegals!!!

but nnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooAz cant pick on the "ILLegals!!!

I know mate, what a bummer eh

IF ONLY WE COULD ENSLAVE OUR FELLOW MAN

wouldnt that be so much better, wtf.

They didn't want to be ran by a tyrannical government.



Watch the clip from 2:45 - that really explains how these mean felt.

That is back when men were men, that was the 2nd war of independence that was lost.





[edit on 7/7/10 by xstealth]

I was watching CNN today and they showed a poll that some 56 percent of Americans agree w/ the Arizona law.

Personally, I say if the gov't isn't getting the job done, kudos to the states that step it up, and take care of it themselves.

Everybody please mind that President Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation came up later in the war. Lincoln made it an issue to weaken the Souths morale. The North also flooded the South with bogus Confederate money to cripple commerce, business and the government. If the South had won the war they would have eventually abolished slavery as well. I am thinking 1890ish. It would have been a different America that's for sure.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by kenny71]

All you people who think it was about slavery make me sick...

read my signature, that was spewed as a product of government education.


Lincoln was the biggest traitor this country has seen since Benedict Arnold, and he was only anti-slavery when it fit his cause, and kept England out of the war. If he somehow turned the south evil, it sure would help to defeat it.


Most northern generals were slave owners, and men on both sides didn't willingly give up their lives by the million for slaves.

Being from the south, I embrace my confederate heritage, although so many people would believe me to be racist by that statement, but that is not true. I do not support slavery or being racist. I just like everything else it stood for.
If each state could make its own laws without much government oversee, I *think* that would be a good thing.

I know for a fact it was NEVER about slavery
It was the process of creating the Fascist totalitarian government you have in the US today...

The bankers controlled both sides of the war, just as they have every war since and many before

Double-edged sword.

People on each side of this issue possess a grain of truth, and as usual, the truth involves elements of both.

Yes, the war was about States' rights, and yes, the North completely reneged on the U.S. founding principle of Popular Sovereignty (the anti-imperialist notion that if people in a region want to split off and govern themselves, they have every right to... sound familiar? ahemRevolutionaryWarAhem).

It was also true that much of the strife that caused the South to back off and assert State Rights was because of slavery.

It was a usual case of two evils duking it out with one another. Neither side really deserved to win.

Now personally, if I could go back and change it, I'd make the South win. I say this because it would have added an extra element to the balance of power in North America. We might not have our current issues caused by our policing of the whole world if we were split into two nations today. As for slavery, the fact of being the only slave nation in the industrialized world would have made the Confederacy an international pariah, and I suspect they would have eventually ended it (probably by just making slaveowners hire their slaves for crap wages, but then that issue would be dealt with in time). Also, successful secession would have eliminated the Fugitive Slave Law, making slavery increasingly difficult to maintain in a nation surrounded by free nations.


[edit on 7-7-2010 by NewlyAwakened]

Lincoln manged to kill more Americans than any other president in US history, which is why he is worshiped by the left as a god.

Lincoln could have bought out the slave owners and freed the slaves that way.

But the whole thing was never about slavery anyways.

reply to post by madhadder545


If we had won the War of Northern agression, yes it would look different now. States rights should be more important than they are now, however between the left leaning MSM, liberals, lobbyists, and professional extortion groups, not to mention our current administration, we are all doomed.

Making the Civil War about slavery is genius.

Made all the "free" people happy as hell to rise up to this grand state of share-cropper status we all now live with.

Slavery was all but dead by the time the war began. Despised on an international scale. Traders and slavers stopped and arrested. Popular opinion in the states wildly opposing the act. Technological advances making slave owning not economically viable. They were a rich-man's toy by that time.

The Civil War and the debacle of Reconstruction are responsible for any bigotry that exists today. Rather than being allowed to fade away naturally it was used as a divisive tool to murder and destroy and an excuse to hate.

Believing slavery caused the war or that somehow without the murder of hundreds of thousands and the burning of cities and the solidification of federal tyranny we'd still be slaving today is like believing in the tooth fairy.

Fighting back federal tyranny was ironically the last chance we had to eliminate slavery. The slavers one and now we're all share-croppers with hopes of someday working in the kitchen of one of our politician masters.

We would be forced to live in a redneck utopia!

So… Hell no!!!!!!

Oh I do so hate this game; let's play make heroes out of criminals! Read the letters that the states wrote when they left the Union, it's about slavery, right there, black and white, written by the Confederates.

You can say whatever you like about slavery ending if the South had won, the racism didn't, and a lot of it still is there today.

I'm not going to play "what-if" with a lost civilization that I never saw much worth in. I'll just simply remind all of you wannabe-rebels that the Confederacy never could have won. The South lacked the production capacity, people and the money to stand against the North. The OP mentioned Arizona, well that territory was held easily by the California troops. There are pipe dreams and then there is this.

it is impossible to know why the civil war took place regardless of what you are told or taught self or otherwise.

the gist i get is that people who felt they had power had none in sight of the value the confederation had over their own assets.these assets were attemptedly stolen or destroyed or assimilated by the union.

if you are asking if a force alien to the confederacy did not "win" what you call the civil war; you are asking an oxymoron(according to my opinion).but i will entertain you; if the north had lost the civil war: much of what you value would not exist and all that you hold as having no value would be commodities.you would not be able to be wealthy as in todays times by a basis of liquid assets; and if you did have liquid assets there would be stringent regulation based on hard asset expenditure and liquid asset worth, possibly even going so far as to vote on worth.the view at present, that a statement exists beyond being stated, would be in contention.there would be greater ties to the old world and i could see the confederacy fractioning because of the differing factions involved; but this would be the norm, as the UN is the norm for you now: is it not?


in your case if you are not mexican you would not have equal rights if the confederacy did not "loose". as all the of the "parent" nations had a vested interest in its colonies success and continual growth.

i could see monarchy moving to the west in this event as well.

reply to post by mnemeth1


So...Lincoln is worshiped like a god by the left? Huh, imagine my surprise when I see a local REPUBLICAN party float in the 4th parade with "Honest Abe" riding high and waving at the locals. Party of Lincoln. Oh, and I live in the South. Must be some lefties running the GOP down here.

ProjectJimmy, I am surprised they teach you American History over there. Want another lesson?

Openly partisan to the South, Adams believes that the Civil War truly was one of Northern aggression. He believes that the Southern states had the right to secede and he believes that the war's true legacy is the centralization of power in Washington and the deification of the "tyrant" Abraham Lincoln. To this end, he collects all the damaging evidence he can find against Lincoln and the North. And he omits things that might tarnish his image of the South as a small-government wonderland. Well, Adams says in effect, Stephens was lying. Southern leaders knew that people couldn't be roused to fight over something so unappealing as tariffs. So they whipped up a fear that slavery was at stake. "Men will not willingly, and with zeal, die for an economic purpose, but they will die for some 'cause' that has a noble purpose," writes Adams, neglecting to lay out precisely why slavery was so noble. Indeed, Adams' thesis is a completely unsatisfying one. Even if true, he can't answer an important question: Given that most Southerners didn't own slaves, why was this a more attractive issue for raising fighting passions than tariffs? Why would so many die with "zeal" for a "noble" purpose from which they were excluded? After all, less than one third of Southerners owned slaves.

The war between the states were not all about slavery. The North won and they wrote the history books.


[edit on 7-7-2010 by kenny71]

[edit on 7-7-2010 by kenny71]

Anyone who says, it wasnt about slavery, it was about states right!!!, well a big part of the states rights issue, was. infact slavery. Slavery actualy played a massive role in the causation for the Civil War. Please refer to the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment.

Also why do the Southern States hate Lincoln?, its not his fault you had a dwindling population, unable to field any real sort of political power. But then thats slavery for you, it basicaly leads to industrial stagnation.

The southern states were a back yard # hole compared to the North Eastern states and basicaly couldnt compete with them. So they decided to leave, which is fair enough, but the North said NO, i think youll find your southern resources belong to us and proceeded to pwn the South.

Slavery was all but dead by the time the war began. Despised on an international scale. Traders and slavers stopped and arrested. Popular opinion in the states wildly opposing the act. Technological advances making slave owning not economically viable. They were a rich-man's toy by that time.

No that is not true at all, that is absolutely ridiculous.

reply to post by the owlbear


Whoever said the republican party or even that particular candidate wasnt "left"? Hell, even he and the party came out and shouted "we're 'right'" I'd have a hard as hell time believing them given the way they've been behaving the last 20 or so years.

If the confederates won we would be living in the bronze age today. For one thing, Women still wouldnt be allowed to vote yet.

Those folks aint right.

And there would only be ONE party called the... Republicans... YIKESS!!! They would expect us all to call them MASTER or else be sentenced to public hanging.

This thread makes for SCARY thought INDEED!!!!!!!



[edit on 7-7-2010 by Baloney]