*ping*
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.
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.
"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!
ping
This whole thing is garbage. More south-bashing... this time using ridiculous scenarios and completely ignorant speculation.
"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 SouthAl 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.
by Ryan Lizza
December 14, 2003
(originally www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/magazine/14FORGET.html)John Kerry's Forget-the-South Strategy?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."
by Jake Tapper
January 26, 2004
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.