If the South had won the War Against Northern Aggression...?

I guess Phanty thinks racists stick together regardless of who they hate??

http://www.rense.com/general26/morethan10000.htm

Who was the CSA's first Attorney General? The same man that later served as Secretary of War and then as Secretary of State.

Re: If the South had won the War of Northern Agression..?

"If the South had won the War of Northern Agression...?"





Then those Damn Yankees would still win the Pennant!

Exactly. Some of the oldest houses of worship in Southern cities are synagogues.

Add to that the probable close relationships the CSA would've had with England and France, and you have CSA involvement in WW I and II at much earlier stages of either war had they occurred.

"If the South had won the War of Northern Agression...?"





The Dept. of Homeland Security would look like this? (Though, to be fair, they'd probably shoot more bad guys)

My, people are quick to jerk those knees..."Nuh uh! No WAY Southerners would ally with Hitler! Whatchootalkingabout, Phantom! Booo!"

Again, we're talking alternate historyhere. Literally infinite possibilities. It would seem to me that it's concievable that a Confederacy, with, say, a sizeable portion of their population held in second-class citizenship for almost a century, for no better reason that "they ain't as good as white people" might find a lot of what Hitler was saying sympatico.

Regardless of what they thought of Jews.

Exhibit A: In spite of Judah P. Benjamin (who, from some of the stuff I've read, did run into no small amount of anti-Semitism), I don't recall the Jewish Anti-Defamation League hanging out much with the Ku Klux Klan. And neo-Nazi groups are noticeably absent from NAACP rallies.

I don't think it's that all far-fetched - given that we're talking about an even unlikelier scenario in which the Third Reich AND the Confederacy co-exist in the same universe. In the "South wins" scenario, it's very likely that Germany and the US become allies and very possibly beat the snot out of Britain, France and the Confederacy...and even if the latter win, they don't have the muscle to enforce a Treaty of Versailles and thus there's no receptive audience for a budding Hitler in Germany.

As those who have read Turtledove know, it's possible that the US and Germany win WWI and a Versailles-type treaty wrecks Britain, France and the Confederacy and a Hitler springs up in one of those three countries. Especially in the Confederacy, where there's a readily recognizable underclass to blame for the failings of the rest of the society so Der Leader can rally supporters to his cause. A time honored tactic in use to this day (as evidenced by the RepubliFundies who shout about teh evil gays). This hypothetical Confederate Hitler might use Mexicans as concentration camp guards and have a Jewish propaganda minister and be fighting a Socialist North which has its very own Rommel doing a replay of Sherman's March (with tanks) and is developing nukes to use on Richmond.

Ya just never know.

Hell, with a Southern win it's concievable that North and South would have joined up with Britain to become One Big Happy English Speaking Family (as Churchill once postulated) or that North and South might have said "fuck it" and joined forces to invade England (Harrison's "The Stars and Stripes Forever") . We might even see Sherman marching on Windsor Castle and demanding Queen Victoria's surrender, with Lee standing next to him holding the paperwork.

You. Just. Never. Know.

But to get back to the vanishingly unlikely possiblity of a world where Confederacy and Nazi Germany co-exist, saying they would find much in common is not a stretch - arguing otherwise in this context is like saying definitively that invading aliens who come to Earth during WWII would NOT be addicted to ginger or that the space invaders attacking Earth would definitely NEVER be teddy bears packing muskets.

Yub, yub?

What area are you from? Of the state I mean.

Also, being "Southern" isn't about grits and a funny accent. Maryland is a southern state still.

Not anytime soon. While the common man in the South didn't own slaves, the people who financed and created the Confederacy were doing it to defend slavery. After spending all the money to keep it, they sure wouldn't be in any rush to give up their slaves for both deeply ingrained cultural and the obvious economic reasons.

The truly hilarious (and scary) thing is that many of the people who think they can bring stability and peaceful co-existance to the middle east through military action, are the same people still bitching at each other over a war that (compared to others throughout history) was relatively small scale and ended a few generations ago.

First off, in terms of American history it was a brutal war.

Secondly a large part has to do with how the war was fought, and then the peace settlement afterwords. The 'Total War Doctrine' used by the North in the later stages of the war (anything goes, not just the army, but the people, the infastructure, the nations food supply, etc) was considered at the time to be very harsh. It was the first modern war in that sense, which has had a large effect on Southern views of the War. Just ask any Southerner about Sherman's March to the Sea.

Then you have to throw in the 'Reconstruction' of the South that followed. Basically turning the South into a third world country, from which the South is still recovering from.

Indeed. Rather than the reinventions and reenactments, why not secede anew? Without the slavery issue tainting things this time, I'd be quite indifferent about it this time. If you don't want to be a part of the United States, you probably shouldn't be.

Try telling that to someone from Virginia.

Then run for your life.

It would take some convincing to suggest that the South would be more advanced than it is now if it were an independent nation from 1861.

Even if the CSA had continued on, I can see some of its constituent states subsequently opting for reunion with the US.

Hey, Southerners!

Better still.

Indeed.

An independent CSA would have developed as an agricultural nation, and would have ended up utterly dominated economically by the influence of the highly industrialized USA. The main differences today would be that the south wouldn't get the inflow of federal tax dollars from the north and west which acts as a constant subsidy for the south and that southerners would have no vote for the political body---the USA federal government--which would have the greatest influence over the south's economy. That, and southerners would likely all be speaking Spanish, but that's another story.

Well, I think Britain would have helped industrialize the South, if only to counterbalance the North.

Probably more likely that the South would become a British client state... kind of like how Britain is to the US now...

Outside nations probably would have tried to invest in the South, but who knows how much reception there would be to that. It wasn't just economics keeping the South from Industrializing, it was cultural as well. Certainly not in the generation that fought the Civil War would any outside industrialization have been welcome.

We understand. The Confederacy lost, and 6 or 7 generations of their descendants haven't stopped whining yet.

Yes, fucking christ, try and secede again already or stop the whining. "War of Nothern Aggression", bunch of garbage. Stop trying to revise history.

Hogwash. If ethnic background had played a significant role, we would have sided with Germany anyway. It's irrelevant. German immigrants, Irish immigrants, and today Mexican immigrants quickly switch allegiance to their adoptive country.

Pointless speculation. A CSA victory was never possible, so the dominoes stand under any realistic scenario. We might just as well speculate on life with an orange sky. It's no less fanciful an exercise.

How so? The only way the North had to win was to actually beat the South into submission.

All the South had to do was hold off defeat until the Northern people lost the will to fight...which they were damn close to doing at some points.

If Lee had avoided The Army of the Potomac at Ghettysburg and were able to threaten D.C., you don't think he'd have stood a fair chance of ending the war?

Gotta disagree with this bit. Spirited arguments in the Red Room aside, the fact is that the U.S. got over what was an extremely painful and tragic moment of self-destructive chaos pretty quickly. Our experience might in fact be instructive to other countries faced with recovery from civil war. We also, despite the headlines you might read, do a damn fine job of managing ethnic differences. If Iraq were half the country the U.S. is in both regards, we wouldn't be reading anything about the place.

It's important to remember that nobody bothered to invest much in the South before the war. Why would that have changed with a CSA victory? Fundamentally, it would still have been an economic basket case not worthy of investment funds. Losing the war was likely the best option for re-directing investment to the South, just as an insurance policy.

I've seen this argument often, but if it were true, the North would have dropped out long before Gettysburg.