Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

I realize this is supposed to be satirical, but the sad thing is that this really is how some people view the South.
1 posted on 07/29/2005 3:37:40 PM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: stainlessbanner; dljordan; Da Bilge Troll; nolu chan; sionnsar; Free Trapper; dcwusmc; Wampus SC; ..

*ping*


2 posted on 07/29/2005 3:37:56 PM PDT by sheltonmac ("Duty is ours; consequences are God's." -Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sheltonmac

At best the South was only going to achieve it's independance. Conquering the North was never really on the table.

As for any alternative history, read any number of Newt Gingrich's books or I would recommend the series by Harry Turtledove. There are several twists in both.


3 posted on 07/29/2005 3:40:00 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (Proud member of Planet ManRam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sheltonmac

I doubt Kennedy would have gotten that far under that scenario. Kind of reminds me of the book "Fatherland" where the scenario was that the Nazis were not defeated.


4 posted on 07/29/2005 3:41:17 PM PDT by muslims=borg (Take the violence out of Islam and whats left ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sheltonmac

"Liberals move to Canada."

Now why would Liberals move to Canada?

Especially since it is they who (in this depiction) won the war?

The same old garbage and untruths are being told about who (whom) the 'party of the south' was back then.

It sure wasn't republican!


5 posted on 07/29/2005 3:43:18 PM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking

ping


7 posted on 07/29/2005 3:57:19 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sheltonmac

This whole thing is garbage. More south-bashing... this time using ridiculous scenarios and completely ignorant speculation.


8 posted on 07/29/2005 3:57:43 PM PDT by CurlyBill (Liberals --- Aggressively spreading the "Culture of Weakness")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sheltonmac
Nice post.

Even if the south did secede and maintain their independence through force slavery would still have been long gone by today.

Richard Dreyfuss and Harry Turtledove wrote a book "The two Georges" about an alternate history of the Republic. I guess it was interesting because I finished it.

I read it years ago, interesting for those who enjoy such genre.
9 posted on 07/29/2005 4:22:32 PM PDT by mmercier (all God's creatures)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sheltonmac; Berosus; blam; dervish; Do not dub me shapka broham; Ernest_at_the_Beach; ...
"Current politicians refer to us as two countries..."
S/B "Certain current politicians of a certain political party." ;') Slate has/had a piece by Tim Noah, same topic. This one though came off (I think) Howard Dean's pre-scream campaign website.
Forget the South
by Ryan Lizza
December 14, 2003

(originally www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/magazine/14FORGET.html)
Al Gore's failing in 2000, they say, was not that he couldn't win in the South, but that he couldn't nail down New England. If Gore had been able to muster a few thousand more votes in New Hampshire, he would have won the presidency without a single Southern state. For some Democrats, this insight has led to a heretical theory about next year's presidential election: Forget the South. The Forget-the-South argument has little to do with anti-Dixie bias. Instead, it is based on simple mathematics. Consider the numbers. Democrats and Republicans agree that Bush and his eventual rival will each start the race with an ironclad base of states that are virtually unwinnable for the other party. Bush's base is rooted in the South, plains and interior West of the country, while the Democratic nominee can take for granted most of New England, the West Coast and a smattering of the Midwest.
John Kerry's Forget-the-South Strategy?
by Jake Tapper
January 26, 2004
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is discounting notions that any Democratic candidate would have to appeal to Southern voters in order to win the presidency, calling such thinking a "mistake" during a speech at Dartmouth College. Kerry's remarks Saturday were so starkly antithetical to how many southern Democrats feel their party should campaign for the presidency, that a former South Carolina state Democratic chairman told ABCNEWS that Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., who endorsed Kerry last week, perhaps "ought to reconsider his endorsement."

In his 2003 book, A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat, Miller wrote, "Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, looked South and said, 'I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.' Today, our national Democratic leaders look South and say, 'I see one-third of a nation and it can go to hell.'" Merle Black, a professor at politics at Emory University in Atlanta and co-author of the 2002 book, The Rise of Southern Republicans, said the "Forget the South" strategy is feasible as long as the Democratic nominee also wins 70 percent of the electoral college votes from the remaining states. But Black questioned the wisdom of making such remarks publicly.

13 posted on 07/30/2005 8:14:30 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Down with Dhimmicrats! I last updated by FR profile on Tuesday, May 10, 2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson