Replies

Here again is one vision of what the successful Confederate States Empire might look like:

That would be accurate if you added this to it.

But I'm glad you posted that. It supports my claim that the Confederate states would have become a major powerhouse if they had been left alone, and it was because the New York/WashingtonDC alliance saw this threat as well as others that they decided to invade the South.

You know what's funny about you? You post evidence that supports my point even when you don't realize you are doing so. I cannot wait to see how you now try to backtrack and claim that they would have never gotten so powerful.

It was fear that they would which caused the attack against them.

What possible reason would Idaho or Montana have to join up with the Confederacy? Economically and culturally, they would have greater ties with Washington state and Oregon, or with the Plains and Great Lakes states than with the more humid far away cotton and tobacco growing states. And if they really hated Blacks as much as you say, wasn't that one more reason not to throw in with the slaveowner's empire?

The 2004 electoral map that you keep posting and reposting robotically is a product of a "cultural war" that didn't get started until the 1960s or 1970s and didn't take its present form until the 1990s. What happened was urban coastal states became affluent, secular, "progressive," and post-industrial in way that they weren't before, and this created a divide between them and the inland industrial or agricultural states which were more religious and more conservative.

Anytime up to about 50 years ago that divide didn't exist. When most people in Washington state were wheat farmers, fruit growers or fishermen, and most Oregonians were ranchers, woodcutters or farmers, and most Vermonters worked on dairy farms or granite quarries, there wasn't any great economic or cultural divide separating them from people who live in Idaho or Montana or Wisconsin. So they wouldn't feel any great attraction to South Carolina or Alabama or Mississippi.

What else happened 50 or 60 years ago? The end of segregation. The closing of the economic and cultural gaps that separated the South from other parts of the country. And in the last 20 years or so the Democrats stopped nominating Southerners for national office. That's what made your 2004 map. It's not an expression of some eternal hatred that people in the Mountain and Plains states have for the coasts (or vice versa) or some deep affinity that they have with the Southern states (or vice versa). It's a product of political changes that happened in recent times.

And if the South did become independent and did become the economic power house that you've always claimed it would be, why would Westerners want to submit to Southern rule? I think they'd sooner throw in with Canada or create their own country in the West or Northwest, rather than knuckle under to the Confederacy. Think about it, you live and breathe resentment every day. Why wouldn't people living two or three thousand miles away truly resent Charleston or New Orleans if it became the new economic capital of the continent?

But of course, rational argument won't convince you of anything. If David Hogg and Dylan Roof could somehow have a child, that would be you.

DiogenesLamp referring to a fantasy map of victorious Confederacy: "But I'm glad you posted that.
It supports my claim that the Confederate states would have become a major powerhouse if they had been left alone, and it was because the New York/WashingtonDC alliance saw this threat as well as others that they decided to invade the South."

What that map supports is the idea that Confederates were very expansion-minded and needed ever more territory for "slavery, slavery, slavery".
It suggests that even if Jefferson Davis had not ordered his assault on Fort Sumter, he was likely to order some other military adventure which would lead to war with the United States.

DiogenesLamp "You know what's funny about you?
You post evidence that supports my point even when you don't realize you are doing so.
I cannot wait to see how you now try to backtrack and claim that they would have never gotten so powerful."

Naw, the truth has no "sides", it just is true.
In this case the truth we're discussing is Confederates' natural aggression & expansionism to find more room for their "slavery, slavery, slavery".
Plus I'm satisfied Confederates also wanted to teach "d*mnyankees" a lesson by giving Northerners a bloody nose they'd not forget, thus leaving Confederates free to gobble up US territories shown here like Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona, along with Caribbean and Central American countries.

Did that motivate Northerners in early 1861?
Not that I've ever seen.
Northerners then were more concerned about those seized Federal forts.

But eventually Confederates actually invaded many more Union states including Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, & Kansas thus convincing any Northerners who might have been in doubt that Confederates were some bad hombres who needed to be strongly opposed.