|
Replies: 49
| visibility 851
|
Legend [16748]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16774
Joined: 8/19/04
|
Who besides me wish the south won the war?
2
Oct 14, 2023, 10:20 PM
|
|
This has nothing to do about slavery. It was about to come to an end anyhow. The western world changed and the south would have banned it by 1890’s. World pressure combined with Technology and inventions would have replaced inefficient slave labor in the fields. My position is more about states rights and southern rights and not being influenced and governed by liberal northern states. I’m fine with us being more than one country. I envision us being more like Europe with friendly borders but different countries.
People often quote our founding fathers and what they wanted our country to be. Our founding fathers were good men but certainly not perfect and I have no problem deviating from what they started.
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [16748]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16774
Joined: 8/19/04
|
Re: Who besides me wish the south won the war?
1
Oct 14, 2023, 10:22 PM
|
|
I meant to add that I see many parallels between the patriot cause to break away from England and the southern cause to beak away from the north.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38528
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Not comparable at all.***
Oct 15, 2023, 10:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27508]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15868
Joined: 1/26/22
|
Based on how states rights have been used to impose the
7
7
Oct 14, 2023, 10:55 PM
|
|
same of tyranny on the individual as any strong federal government, hard pass on the South winning and what would have followed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97991]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65051
Joined: 7/13/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58676]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46431
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Well, the South was very much fighting to preserve the
7
7
Oct 15, 2023, 12:02 AM
|
|
institution of slavery, so it's kinda hard to overlook that detail, but I'll try. While I'm very much for a more limited federal government, where states have the right and ability to cater to the unique makeup, customs, and histories of their citizens, I think we are all stronger and better off with all of the states joined together as one country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16748]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16774
Joined: 8/19/04
|
Re: Well, the South was very much fighting to preserve the
Oct 16, 2023, 2:13 PM
|
|
It’s hard to put a number of how many southern had slaves. I have seen anywhere from 8% to over half. I’m not sure why they are no percentages that I can find that seem reliable. But definitely Charleston had more slaves than whites. Over half charlestonians had slaves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12710]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6360
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: Who besides me wish the south won the war?
7
7
Oct 15, 2023, 9:19 AM
|
|
As a born and bred Southerner with ancestors who fought and some who died in the Civil War, I can't begin to justify why it would have been a good thing had the South prevailed and gone its own way.
I suspect the slaves that were freed by 1865 were more than a little happy than to have waited until the 1890's for their freedom. That alone is reason enough to be glad the South lost.
Furthermore as a united country we were able to assist our Allies in defeating Germany, et al in both WWI and WWII. Would there have been the same effort had we been separate nations?
The South benefitted from having money and industry make its way into what was then a largely agrarian society.I would dare say the South has gotten more out of the deal than the North and West has gotten from us.
I certainly don't groove to all the things that go on in CA, NY, etc, but for the most part what goes on there does not affect me nor do I care that in OR you can do hard drugs, etc.
I do agree that limited government and decisions made on a local level is better than an expanding overreaching central Federal government, but in no way do I ever wish the South had won.
You can't reasonably exclude slavery from the equation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58676]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46431
Joined: 4/23/00
|
You said it better than I did.***
1
Oct 15, 2023, 10:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9091]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9840
Joined: 4/27/13
|
Re: Who besides me wish the south won the war?
3
Oct 15, 2023, 9:44 AM
|
|
charleston was threatening to overtake boston economically
slavery was not the main issue, otherwise emansipation would have included northern slaves
if the south had won, probably no middle class, which is bad for a dirty white boy,......white boy
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38528
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Slavery was the main issue.
6
6
Oct 15, 2023, 9:51 AM
|
|
Read the letters of secession from the states themselves. They make it very clear what the issue is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4245]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 779
Joined: 9/18/20
|
Re: Slavery was the main issue.
1
1
Oct 15, 2023, 2:12 PM
|
|
no, read the statement lincoln made when he called up 75,000 troops to 'put down the rebellion'. such a war was illegal, the other states said "hey bud, you are not marching troops across our border to conduct an illegal war" so they seceded too. In his statement of purpose, not one mention of slavery in the purpose of his war of aggression:
"Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law.
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured."
He had a succession crisis, he created a war.
I laugh every time I read about the secession documents mentioning slavery, only 3 states mentioned it. The Confederate Constitution banned the import of slaves. The very first veto Jefferson Davis made was a proposal to allow people to keep slaves that had been illegally imported.
Had the war been fought over slavery, you would not have been able to muster an army of 50K soldiers on either side, I mean after all, it was protected under the US Constitution! The issue was MONEY, 5 of the 10 richest states were in the South, southerners were also sick of sending their money north to be spent in public works projects loaded with graft for northerners. This is why the Confederate Constitution banned public works projects on a national level, everything was to be done by the several states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4245]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 779
Joined: 9/18/20
|
Re: Slavery was the main issue.
Oct 15, 2023, 2:26 PM
|
|
*secession crisis
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58676]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46431
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Slavery was the singular, most prominent reason given
2
Oct 15, 2023, 3:42 PM
[ in reply to Re: Slavery was the main issue. ] |
|
in the documents of the seceding states. I mean, slavery, more than any other reason, by far, was why all southern states seceded - from their own words. That much is not debatable.
Lincoln was a complex figure for sure, and worthy of it's own thread, but nothing Lincoln said or did changes the reality that Southern states seceded primarily in an attempt to preserve slavery, regardless of wht Lincoln's motives were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4245]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 779
Joined: 9/18/20
|
Re: Slavery was the singular, most prominent reason given
Oct 15, 2023, 3:55 PM
|
|
3 states listed it
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58676]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46431
Joined: 4/23/00
|
South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia,
3
Oct 15, 2023, 5:38 PM
|
|
Louisiana, Virginia, and Texas, all produced documents making it clear that the threat the Union posed to slavery played a role in their secession. A lot of people claim it was "states' rights", and while that's true, the main right they were concerned about was the right to own slaves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81455]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56413
Joined: 9/13/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4245]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 779
Joined: 9/18/20
|
Re: Ahe yes.." The Lost Cause" Of teh confederate states
Oct 18, 2023, 10:21 PM
|
|
propaganda and lies from northern simps
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38528
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Your life today would be miserable if the South won.***
Oct 19, 2023, 7:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81455]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56413
Joined: 9/13/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38528
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Slavery was the main issue.
1
Oct 16, 2023, 7:51 AM
[ in reply to Re: Slavery was the main issue. ] |
|
Had the war been fought over slavery, you would not have been able to muster an army of 50K soldiers on either side, I mean after all, it was protected under the US Constitution!
This blatantly ignores the cultural animosity already stoked between both sides and how easy it is to drum common people up to war with their emotions.
Secession was to preserve slavery. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16748]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16774
Joined: 8/19/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38528
Joined: 11/30/98
|
The South wouldn't have had a reason to join WW 2
Oct 15, 2023, 10:07 AM
|
|
And would have been easy fodder for conquest.
Even worse, likely would have sided with Germany against the remaining United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [156336]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65987
Joined: 5/6/13
|
You have my attention
1
Oct 15, 2023, 4:39 PM
|
|
How you figure all that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38528
Joined: 11/30/98
|
A few reasons
Oct 16, 2023, 7:42 AM
|
|
-Ideologically, I'm afraid, the South's treatment of minorities at the time mirrored that of the early stages of the Nazis. In fact, the Nazis looked to the South's Jim Crow laws for inspiration on treatment of minorities (hit the Google machine if you don't believe it... History Channel has some good stuff on it). We can only assume--but probably correctly--that the South's treatment of minorities would have been worse if we won the war.
-It's likely a victorious South and a defeated North would still have severe animosity towards each other; moreso than what we saw in the real world and that hatred lasted quite some time.
-It's unlikely the Nazis would have wanted to conquer the remaining U.S., at least at first. It didn't serve much of a logistical purpose. But assuming the U.S. had all the capabilities it had minus the South in this alternate universe, the Nazis would want to keep them on the sidelines during the war. Thus, it would make sense for them to enlist the assistance of the South to keep the U.S. occupied. Germany never had this luxury in the real version.
-Fascism would have been quite appealing to the South during this time, particularly if coming out of a worse Great Depression. It's also unlikely the South was still a real democracy by this time. Strong man dictators who could whip a economy back into shape and deal with a minority problem would be quite appealing; hell, it already was appealing when the Nazis rose to power in the real scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7302]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9837
Joined: 10/6/21
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112288]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74022
Joined: 9/10/03
|
I guess if the south could have figured out a way
Oct 15, 2023, 9:52 AM
|
|
for the slaves to manually dig oil out of the ground in Texas, it stood a good chance of not becoming a 3rd world country. Rayon would have ruined your economy regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38528
Joined: 11/30/98
|
LOL no
2
Oct 15, 2023, 10:01 AM
|
|
Slavery would have continued long after despite the technology because part of it was just sick people having control over others; they would have continued to enslave them for household duties.
And once slavery was gone, probably genocide them out or oppress them further beyond the Civil Rights era. Black people would probably still be 2nd class citizens today.
But that probably wouldn't matter because a split America would see Germany and Japan winning WWII, or even a complete dominating rise of the Soviet Union. The industrial weak South could have been easy prey for any of those nations for conquest.
Where were most of the war machines built in the U.S. during WWII? Not in the South. Germany could have conquered the South easily assuming the South didn't jump on board their minority-hating train. And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch over that comment, I can show you historical evidence of a lot more Nazi support in this country leading up to WWII than people realized.
The Great Depression would have hit the South even worse than it did; forget all those federal initiatives that helped bring us out of it.
Today, most Southern states rank below the national average of GDP, and that's with Florida, who probably wouldn't have remained part of "The South". We would be a third world country assuming we didn't become a conquered one.
Given many of the Southern people's love for strong man authoritarians over history and recently, if the South did remain independent, you probably see a complete shredding of constitutional rights and rule by dictator.
Yeah, y'all aren't going to like these answers, but no way the South comes out of war a winner and follows a blessed path of history. The North would fair much better, but would also suffer.
And finally, you're not getting football in the beautiful state we know it today so all y'all sit the F down about this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7302]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9837
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: LOL no
Oct 15, 2023, 7:21 PM
|
|
The ‘Germany would have conquered the South easily’ theory is unbelievably weak.
Let’s pretend that Germany had not invaded the Soviet Union. (Without that assumption, then Germany would still have lost WW II.)
Is OK to assume that the ‘South-less North’ was still the naval power (with naval technology in 1940 that was on par with that which was actually in place in 1940) that it had been during the Civil War? This is an easy assumption; without it the Northern Union would have been also susceptible to invasion (but not really susceptible to conquest).
First, the ‘Succession South’ would have remained as a major exporter of raw materials, including oil, and food to G.Britain. G.Britain would still have gotten food supplies from the ‘Succession South.’
Great Britain had the world’s most powerful navy in 1940. By far. The US Navy (let’s call it for only the Northern Union) was in ascendancy, with presence on both Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.
Great Britain would have vigorously protected imports from the Succession South just as they protected the shipments from the Northern Union. Germany never had a chance in establishing a surface fleet to combat G.Britain.
(*). Germany simply could not have launched an invasion force on the Succession South via submarines. Even if they did not go to war with the Soviet Union. The end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38528
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: LOL no
Oct 16, 2023, 7:47 AM
|
|
Look here, we're in danger of having an intelligent conversation. Gold star for you.
I say Germany could have easily done it if they wanted to. Which I don't think they would. But with their capabilities, they could have pulled it off given a number of hypotheticals.
I don't know it's safe to assume that about the North in regards to naval power. The American navy wasn't in great shape before WW 2. Even though we started a build up in 1940, it still took time after Pearl Harbor to get it to the capable strength. So it is likely in worse shape in this fictional scenario without the South.
Where the South would fall easily to a Nazi Germany is the severe lack of industrial capability to produce weaponry and in enough time; that's something our Northern states took the lead on post-Pearl Harbor.
But again, I go back to this: an independent South was probably far more likely to be an ally of Germany than be conquered by it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47916]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44587
Joined: 9/5/02
|
it would not have ended well for us generally
Oct 15, 2023, 10:16 AM
|
|
especially for all you poor dirt farmers from the Upstate.
now the low country planters could have maintained a stable full of high yellow Sally Hemings (or Kunta Kintes just for you Crass) which would have been entertaining for the elite
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12323]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5422
Joined: 9/12/04
|
No way no how...
7
7
Oct 15, 2023, 10:49 AM
|
|
I'm a Southerner to the bone... All of my relatives that participated in the Civil War fought on the Southern side. But as much as I hate that the Civil War was necessary in the USA (my family lost most of their wealth due to that conflict), I am most grateful to God that the USA ultimately prevailed.
If the US Civil War had resulted in two separate countries no telling how many more armed conflicts between North and South would have occurred on the North American continent. To think two separate countries (CSA and USA) occupying what is now the USA would have just peacefully coexisted is a bit unrealistic in my view. Further divisions of States and land are entirely possible as well. Had the South won there might have been a WSA (Western States of America), Texas and others deciding to withdraw from the CSA and form their own country etc.. Furthermore - the European intrusion/subversive acts on the North American Continent that would have followed a Southern victory would most certainly have invited more destabilization and bloodshed between States.
Nope - the South and the North have prospered because we are stronger as a whole where we are all one nation. We are strong because we are one nation that settles our differences without killing people. While I hate the power, size and scope of what we have allowed the Federal Government to become, I can think of no instance in which we would be better off had the South won the Civil War.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17434]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14349
Joined: 12/14/98
|
Good reply ..
Oct 15, 2023, 11:40 AM
|
|
Not sure I hate the Federal government. I think it’s a bloated bureaucracy that needs to be contracted through more efficient utilization of resources, eliminating waste etc. Smaller better managed government is needed not blowing it up.
Much of the time when things are blown up, the results are not necessarily better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [156336]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65987
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Zero Ohioans on the SC coast.
3
Oct 15, 2023, 2:34 PM
[ in reply to No way no how... ] |
|
I’m just playing devils advocate to your last line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27508]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15868
Joined: 1/26/22
|
We have this no because the south lost the war.
2
Oct 15, 2023, 6:10 PM
|
|
But because the South lost its pride. All that stands between us and an ohio-free South Carolina is the will and stomach for a little bloodshed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13314]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14329
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Lots of dumb in this thread
2
Oct 15, 2023, 10:56 AM
|
|
There shouldn't have been a war at all. Secession was a lawful act and a legal proceeding that was interfered with (there was something recently that TNet dolts were all up in arms about). The reasons for secession: why, when, how, slavery, etc. are all moot points.
The expansion of the federal gov't, overreach, and the destruction of state's rights; all started with Lincoln. If secession would have been successful to stop that from occurring for a set number of states, then the founders reality would have continued.
The idiot masses are still fighting over the slavery issue in regards to the war; which was a political ploy to drum up support for the illegal war perpetrated by the union. Why didn't Lincoln free the slaves in states under union control???? Because it was a political move and not a "human rights" move.
It's not much different than now; using race to illegally alter state constitutional voting laws, using gender to silence parents, using covid to pick winners and losers in a "free" market, etc. But continue on, thinking that you aren't "owned".
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11027]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15175
Joined: 8/6/10
|
Honestly look at the plight of blacks in northern cities
Oct 15, 2023, 11:33 AM
|
|
and tell me who the "good guys" are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38528
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Are you insinuating that...
1
Oct 16, 2023, 7:58 AM
|
|
The South was the "good guys" for enslaving black people on plantations?
Wait. Of course you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11027]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15175
Joined: 8/6/10
|
Yet again, false***
Oct 16, 2023, 2:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11027]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15175
Joined: 8/6/10
|
Honestly I wish the Hamiltonians wouldn't have forced the
1
Oct 15, 2023, 11:31 AM
|
|
Constitution upon us and the states remained free and independent as they ought to be.
Also, the government and the power structure of the South wasn't much better than the North. It was run by ex-English aristocrats who were granted large amounts of land by the king for the most part. Some cities were starting to create economies where you could be upwardly mobile but it was by and large agrarian with lots of poor Scotch-Irish farmers who could barely get by and a tiny amount of slave-owning plantation owners. So was the South great compared to the North, well not really. But the South was well within their rights to peacefully leave, and the North was wrong to try to forcefully collect taxes in regions that had peacefully left. (which started the war)
In the end, the North's imperialist aggression was solidified and bolstered by their conquest of the South, leading to further wars and the exponential growth of government that occurred in the early 1900s. The US Empire conquered and acquired land around the world, and stuck its nose into foreign conflicts, aggressing against other empires and dragging the US population into two world wars, all the while centralizing power through the income tax, the central bank, and an endless stream of new government programs.
So yeah, I wish the South would have won. It's impossible to say what would have happened, but the Southerners were far less imperialist and believed in the traditional founding values of the Jeffersonians, so I doubt the South would have gone around starting more wars and the North would have had a hard time starting all the conflicts that the US ended up starting/butting into without all the loot from ###### and pillaging the South.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7302]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9837
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Honestly I wish the Hamiltonians wouldn't have forced the
1
Oct 15, 2023, 8:16 PM
|
|
IMO, your points are all valid.
Despite that, my opinion about ‘wishes’ about the outcome of the Civil War differ from yours.
A separated USA would have lacked the overall strength and thus would have failed to acquire the technological knowledge & expertise to have defeated the Soviet Union in a military conflict.
Two key assumptions are the basis for this assumption, both of which pertain to the Soviet Union / German war in WW II. (1). The Northern Union (USA North) would have developed the ‘Christie chassis’ that was the basis of the most important battle tank of WWII … the Soviet T-34. (Soviet Union was given -or- stole this technology from the USA; without it the T-34 would have lacked the off-road mobility in ice and mud to have beaten the Germans as ‘fast’ as they did. (2). The USA was the world’s largest exporter of refined petroleum based fuel in the 1940s. Soviet Union, also rich in crude petroleum at that time, did not have the combination of the right type of crude feedstock + refining expertise to make enough aviation fuel to sustain an air force capable of contending with and eventually overwhelming the German Luftwaffe.
If both (1) and (2) turned out as they did even if the CSA had won independence from the Northern Union, then S.Union would have still beaten Germany, and also acquired much more of Germany’s ballistic rocketry and nuclear technology. Great Britain would have survived WW II, but continental Europe would have been vassal states to the Soviet Union without the USA’s direct military intervention in WW II. A case with separate Northern States + CSA simply would have made us too weak. The CSA’s Texas oil was arguably the most critical raw material that the Northern States would have needed to win WWII. The Northern States’ motorized vehicles and airplanes, and minerals & smelters & fabrication capabilities were critical. Without an integrated coordination of these assets, the USA is too weak to wage war as needed to win WW II.
It would only have been a short period of time before Stalin would have, using captured German scientists and engineers, learned how to arm ballistic rockets with atomic warheads.
Shortly thereafter, Stalin would have been able fulfill the ideological objective of spreading communism across the world (which, ‘coincidentally,’ would have also made him the dictator of the world).
A separated CSA, being formed as a ‘Constitutionally pure’ entity, would have led us to being a vassal state of the Soviet Union.
(*). Since the Cinstitution also articulates that all men are created equal, and since the CSA was formed as an off-shoot of the USA, the CSA was in violation of the ‘all men are created equal’ aspect. Even though the Northern Union did not articulate this as a reason for going to war to prevent Southern Succession, an argument can be made that a state / states could not si ply choose to succeed from the USA because it didn’t want to comply with that part of the Constitution.
(*). Had the CSA first abolished slavery and THEN decided to secede, then the CSA’s secession would have been ‘Constitutionally pure.’
IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11027]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15175
Joined: 8/6/10
|
I appreciate the thoughtful response but I disagree
1
Oct 17, 2023, 12:57 PM
|
|
that things would have proceeded similarly to actual history. But alas, it is impossible to tell.
I personally think the USSR would have collapsed on its own without the support of Western countries and sometimes directly from the US. For example, had WWII happened still (I don't think it would have), the Nazis and the Commies would have had a prolonged fight that would have probably ended in a stalemate, not an absolute conquest (and plunder) of eastern Europe by the USSR.
But, who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58676]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46431
Joined: 4/23/00
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7302]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9837
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Never knew - fun what-if history, though.
1
Oct 15, 2023, 7:36 PM
|
|
Thanks for sharing. Obviously a lot of thought, imagination, and work went into the revised history of the world from a ‘CSA won the Civil War’ scenarios.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58676]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46431
Joined: 4/23/00
|
They are well researched and well thought out.
1
Oct 15, 2023, 8:31 PM
|
|
Enjoyable if you enjoy that alternate history stuff, like I do when it's done well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7302]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9837
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: They are well researched and well thought out.
1
Oct 15, 2023, 9:25 PM
|
|
I just scanned your Wiki link. Will delve into it with some more effort later.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10148
Joined: 11/2/03
|
Re: Who besides me wish the south won the war?
Oct 15, 2023, 6:30 PM
|
|
I definitely wish CSA had won.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48015]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30557
Joined: 11/15/99
|
Who said we lost?
1
Oct 16, 2023, 8:15 AM
|
|
Member, the whar ain't over, deys juss a lull in the fightin'
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44144]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 33035
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Re: Who besides me wish the south won the war?
Oct 17, 2023, 11:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3227]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4096
Joined: 6/24/23
|
Re: Who besides me wish the south won the war?
Oct 19, 2023, 1:53 PM
|
|
Definitely not. Glad the Japs lost in WW2 as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 49
| visibility 851
|
|
|
50
