War Between the States

Discussion in 'Politics' started by midlifebear, Feb 5, 2009.

?

If the American Civil War were fought today, who would win or would you like to win?

Poll closed Feb 8, 2009.
  1. The North would still win.

    72.4%
  2. The South would win.

    20.7%
  3. I'd like the South to win.

    3.4%
  4. I'd hope the North would win again.

    10.3%
  1. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    I heard some Bubbas bubbaling last night at an "American-style" restaurant called Kansas. They were complaining about the fact down here in the Austral World they are summarily considered "Yankees" along with everyone else, including Canadians. Such strong self-identification with all things "southern" always catches me off guard. After all, the United States of America is still the United States of America last I checked. Besides, I was born in what were the Western Territories during the American Civil war between the States of the Confederacy and The Union. Out in the wild and woolly west we rarely think about such differences.

    With such deep feelings still running under still waters what do you think?

    If the war between The Union and the States of the Confederacy were fought today, who would win or who would you like to see win between The Union (The North) and the original Confederate States (The South)

    Feel free to elaborate.
     
    #1 midlifebear, Feb 5, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2009
  2. pym

    pym New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    If war between us broke out overnight......I have absolutely no doubt that the folks south of the Mason/DiXon line would be far better armed. That would give them a very distinct tacticle advantage from the get go. Plus i am sure that because of that......they are far more practiced shots.
    They still got soundly whipped in the field by us Yankees though......but the guns have gotten much better since those days. I can't in good conciense vote in your poll though. I'm an American.....and i feel that way in any of the 50 states.
     
  3. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    There was some very vicious fighting in the west, the people in the territories of New Mexico and Arizona sided with the south, Colorado with the north. When the Mormons first went to Utah, it was part of Mexico, the war with Mexico was mainly supported by southerners to acquire land to extend slavery.
     
  4. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    Where's the choice for, "We'd all lose?"

    What a civil war would now consist of are the red states versus blue states. More particularly, much would depend on the sympathies of the military leadership and which government were seen to be the more legitimate.

    Despite all the muscle the American armed forces can muster, a large scale partisan rebellion using guerrilla tactics would make just about any place impossible to occupy by a hostile force.

    I would sooner predict a velvet divorce than a civil war just for the practical matter of the thing, but I don't think the US is ever so terribly far from civil war as some countries.

    Now, if we were to re-pattern everything along the old lines of the civil war, pretending that the west wasn't enfranchised, and that the federal government remained in control of all the armed forces, then I'd say the North would still win but only because of the bulk of the armed forces would be in its control. It could not, however, cope with any kind of organized intifada on such a massive scale. My guess is that any war would immediately be followed by a restructuring of the constitution to allow the south autonomy with an eventual eye to independence or even outright independence with certain caveats about the need for a united foreign policy and restrictions about foreign troops on Confederate soil, immigration, and that sort of thing. The best that could be accomplished is a stalemate in the end.
     
  5. BiItalianBro

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,246
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago &amp; Louisville KY
    As a good ol' boy who was reared in the US Southeast it does amaze me that it's still an 'issue' in some places. When I engage these chowder heads, who to love to pontificate about the Rise of Dixie, I have noticed: a) many have no idea what the war was over to begin with (hint: slavery was not the central issue) b) several have no idea when the war was fought (I had one guy INSIST that the Civil War was BEFORE the Revolutionary War) and c) most, not all, of their regional pride has racist undertones.

    All that being said, I believe that if Ft. Sumter were attacked this April...and events played out the same way...the 'Union" would find itself in the same weakened position the "Confeds" were in in 1861. The shift of population and military-industrial complex from the rust belt would give the South a definate advantage. And, sadly, IMHO the old South would have an easier time mustering up "true believers" willing to fight than the traditional Union states.

    You know it is kind of an interesting topic, as some Russian intelligence analyists expect a balkanization of the United States along regional lines within our lifetime.
     
  6. jjsjr

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,836
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    334
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wilmington (DE, US)
    The people in the North are closer together and would be able to organize themselves better.

    But I've gotta agree with PYM that the South owns more guns and ammo, etc.

    You could easily make an argument either way, but we've come so far as a country that a civil war would feel immature.
     
  7. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    If had to bet; my money would be on the North.

    Partly for reasons already stated and partly because I suspect it would be more likely to garner support from external allies (if requested) and other external 'intrested parties'. This would be partly for for geo-poltical reasons, because there is more money in the North, it's the existing seat of power, has 'better' geography, more key strategic military facilities etc ...

    Additionally; while this may be of little military significance on its own, I suspect that long held greviences held by Mexico may force the Southern states into a war on two fronts. That may tip the balance in favour of the North. The west, would I imagine go with the flow.

    Mexico would almost certainly be supported by other Central American countries, for reasons of their own. I'm not sure they would necessarily favour North over South but they would want to side with the victors so would be forced to choose along with Mexico in the hope of a share of the 'spoils'. Cuba may stir the pot a little for good measure for what that would be worth, probably with support from North Korea. Put all that together and I wonder if the South could emerge victorious.

    However, if third parties did become [or threaten to become] involved, especually those South of the Border - I suspect that all the states may decide that they were stronger united, and settle there differences. After all there's precedent.

    Of course it could pan out altogether differently. I'm just making this up here ... :wink:
     
  8. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    With the land where New Mexico now is recognized, in part yes. Prior to the Treaty of Hidalgo. But what is now Texas was more concerned with it's own autonomy before the Civil War. However, by the time mormons had arrived starving and tired at "this damn well better be the place" they had changed substantially from their origins as a "persecuted people" from Palmyra (sp? ain't gonna look it up) New York. They had moved as a group from New York State down through Illinois where they lost one charismatic leader (Joesph Smith) and gained another (Brigham Young) and then to Missouri picking up converts all the way. So a large number of them were technically "southerners" by the time they set up shop as Salt Lake City in about 1842 (maybe it was 1840, I forget).

    Brigham Young had his sights on creating his own country by sending out the mormon Batallion not long after, having the bretheren piss on the various corners and borders of the Mexican and California territories. I'm probably mistaken, because it's been a hundred years since I had to sit through a mormon seminary class on their history, but I think one of the corners was not too far from what is now Phoenix almost across to what is now San Diego and up the coast at least as far as what is now Los Angeles. A quick wikipedia search on the name "Deseret" will probably clear things up, because that's what Brigham Young had named his new kingdom -- Deseret. Where and at which point they returned to the land of milk and honey (Salt Lake) I am not certain. But I do know, from listening to my mormon grandparents and great grandparents that "the church" sort of hoped The South would win which meant the Northern Infantry would most likely leave Brigham, et al, alone so they could practice their faith without being bothered by what was then main-stream America. It's unquestionably an interesting history.

    However, I'm very interested in everyone's comments thus far regarding the idea of a civil war. Especially from the pop culture view because the last four presidents (excluding our new one) have consisted of three southerners and one cinematic cowboy.

    By the way, I haven't anything against Bubbas. In fact, I rather like them. And upon reflection, I really don't think anyone should be required to vote. In fact, it's most likely a stupid idea. But some folks like to check boxes.

    Thanks for some very good, thoughtful comments. I hope there are more. Yes, jason_els, I agree no one would win.
     
    #8 midlifebear, Feb 5, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2009
  9. vince

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    14,785
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    538
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Asia
    Nuke the South. Game over. All the Minutemen silos are in the North.
     
  10. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    My vote is for the North.
    States that are "blue" are heavily influenced by cities. People who live day to day in the city naturally have a good sense of survival skills. Even if the South rushed into the war with heavy guns and ammo, it's not as if anyone in the inner cities haven't had to deal with being in an area where people were strapped and causing a ruckus.

    Brains over brawn anyday, folks...
    Although a little extra muscle never hurt anyone. :biggrin:
     
  11. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    we'll over run you with wetbacks .....game over.... oh way down south in the land of cotton old times there are not forgotten
     
  12. SCsoccerMom

    SCsoccerMom New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    SC
    You make the assumption that a "civil war" would be a military conflict.....I am not sure it would play out that way. Some would argue we have been in a form of civil war for decades....if you look at the pure viciousness of the "right vs left" political war...the cultural divide between traditionalists let's call them and the progressives if you will...then i would agree...the war is on. The latest battle went to the progressives...apparently they want to convert this country to a full blown europeon style socialist utopia....regardless of the US Constitution and traditions. So we will see.....I would gladly let the progressives secede from the rest of the country and form that type country. They can have NY, CA, Mich, and the hand full of little ole states that want to join their experiment. We will take everything else....and grow the economy and society just fine without them....agggh but with those types getting what they want is never enough...they aren't happy till they have bullied everyone into believing what they think is true (see global warming). So at some point when they have over stepped the tolerence level of the American people and some who can actually believes and can articulate a traditional view and plan the battle will turn. Plus it would never be divided between the north and south...it would be economic divisions....those who think the constitution means the federal gov't has a duty to pay their mortgage, give them "free" health care, make sure they get paid $100k a year and put gas in their car...and those that think it's the federal gov't job to set the stage for economic growth and then get out of the way.
     
  13. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    I have heard this said a LOT... buts its simply not true.

    All claims to "States Rights" or anything else as the REAL cause are nothing but rationalizations.

    Industrialized processing of cotton made slavery PAY. For decades prior to the war the primary tension between Nroth and South... in fact the ONLY polarizing issue, was the spread of the abolitionist movement in the North.

    The Missouri Compromise and other fights over whether new States being admitted would allow or disallow slavery dominated national politics and political maneuverings in the decade prior to the war.

    It became undeniably clear to the South that the economic and population growth of the North was going to give the North the political power to pass anti-slavery legislation...essentially forcing the South to give up the actual source of any wealth and power they enjoyed.


    Although the argument ended up being FRAMED as an issue of States Rights... that was nothing but SPIN to sell the rural whites who could not afford slaves, on the idea of going to war over outsiders "telling them how to live".

    This is NO Different than Bush and Cheney framing the Iraq war in terms of Terrorism and WMDs... when in fact EVERY historian will correctly identify that Iraq was invaded over Oil Interests.

    What the South CLAIMED was the issue is shown to be a lie by the events the led and spurred the conflict.

    The Republican Party- back then, was the "Liberal " party, and it had been Created Specifically to promote an abolitionist agenda.
    To hell with Lincoln... ANY Republican elected to the presidency at that time would be seen by the South as the death kneel for the basis of their economy.
    For 15 years prior, the South had RELIED on sympathetic executives to veto any House or Senate bills that would promote abolition.

    With a Republican in the white house, the South no longer had the ability to prevent abolitionist friendly legislation.

    Their RATIONALE for secession was that any Federation you could JOIN, you should be able to LEAVE... But their PURPOSE was entirely to maintain the institution of slavery, which was the source of power for the powerful few in the South.

    The NORTH, however, did not go to war to End slavery... but to preserve the Union. Abolition was added later as a means of deriving SOME lasting benefit for the loss of so many lives... something more immediately tangible than the preservation of the union.

    But, for the North... the primary purpose to the war was not Slavery...but the Survival of the United States as a nation. If the South was allowed to establish the Right to Seceed as valid.... then, ultimately, ANY State could pull out for Any reason, at any time... and the United States would devolve into a bunch of perpetually warring little nations.

    In the final analysis... the South went to war primarily over their rights to perpetuate slavery.

    And the North went to war over the survival of the nation, first... and, as long as they were gonna be forcing THAT issue... they took the opportunity to ELIMINATE the primary cause of the secessionist movement in the first place... the ONE ethical rift that differentiated the North form the South politically.


    And, BTW... While the South was right in the respect that any people should have the right to self determination... the fact that the particular POINT of self determination they sought to preserve was their right to DEPRIVE other human beings of self determination made their entire position morally hypocritical.

    They were WRONG. You can not CLAIM the power of self determination to defend your denial of the same rights to others.
     
  14. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    somebody was paying attention in U.S. history from 1850-1870
     
  15. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Lol why would anyone name a restaurant Kansas? This place sucks worse than Iowa
     
  16. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    I don't completely agree with you regarding what you identify as the "progressives" but you make some very interesting points, especially between those with primarily conservative values and those with liberal values. From the outside looking in, I can say that it appears those two polarizing factions seem to take precedence over folks with just common sense and the ability to remain objective. You may be right about it not being necessarily a military conflict. However, so far history has shown we were at a more precarious moment during The Great Depression for a civil war of the classes. Not many people remember the strike busting at Ford Motor Company in the 1930's when the Detroit Police were called in to break up the civil right to demonstrate by killing a number of workers who were unarmed and picketing for the right to form a worker's union. Unions have always been anathema to those who believe completely free, unregulated markets are a capitalist virtue.

    But as this current economic blunder plays out, maybe we'll be headed toward a major division of cultures that might require military intervention. I hope not.
     
    #16 midlifebear, Feb 5, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2009
  17. D_Bob_Crotchitch

    D_Bob_Crotchitch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,498
    Likes Received:
    18
    It isn't about the war. It's more about place, and culture. The culture of the South tends to be more considerate and kind towards one another. Even most of the rednecks tend to show some level of politeness to others. Only the worst tend to be openly vulgar and bigoted. Cultural differences can bring about feelings that one has been insulted.
    No other part of the nation was invaded, looted, the civilian population subjected to major human rights violations, and still retained some of the greater part of it's identity. Family is important. It's important to have close friends, to watch out for each other, to help your neighbor. It's important to help your community and those in need. A teenage girl here was diagnosed with cancer. The whole community got involved. All over town were signs in peoples yards and on their cars pray for so and so. When she died, the whole community mourned. Thousands turned out for her funeral. Many of the people had never even met her.
    When Ike devasted our community, there was a large drive here to provide toys for the children in Galveston for Christmas. We had our own to provide with basic necessities. Yet, we reached out to a community far from us.
    It's something you would have had to have lived to understand. Sadly, most people will never know what it's like to be part of such a large body that functions as one.
     
  18. D_Bob_Crotchitch

    D_Bob_Crotchitch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,498
    Likes Received:
    18
    I had ancestors on both sides of the war. The reasons for it were varied. Some who didn't own slaves fought for the right of secession because the states considered themselves to rank above the federal government. Some fought to preserve slavery. Some fought to preserve the nation. Some fought to end slavery, and some simply wanted to keep slavery from spreading and depriving them of their own job. There were even slaves who fought against the union forces because they were considered invaders. There were free blacks in the south that owned slaves.
    Jeff Davis and Abe Lincoln both committed offenses that would now get them tried as war Criminals. Lincoln imprisoned without trial almost 300 people who publicly criticized his harsh handling of the war.
    It's all a big mess that cannot be separated into this one reason was why the north fought, and this one reason was why the south fought. I am just glad it's overwith, and no human in this nation owns another one.
    Now, if you want to rant about slavery, why don't you start to fight against the slavery that still exists in Africa and Asia?
     
  19. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    and your ancestors told you this personally?
     
  20. D_Bob_Crotchitch

    D_Bob_Crotchitch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,498
    Likes Received:
    18
    First of all, you need to go do an indepth study of the Civil War and it's causes. Also, you should closely investigate slavery. When I was in school, none of it was whitewashed. The evil on both sides was told. It was backed up with the ancient photos and writings. It seems like our history books have been rewritten to make people appear to be better than they really were. For instance, Robert E. Lee did not want the war. Lincoln had asked him first to be the head of the union army. But being a true Virginian, he could not fight against his beloved Virginia. It's the worst war this nation ever endured. Brothers divided and fought on diff sides of the war. Family members never spoke to one another again. The only good that came from it was the end of slavery. Yet, black people weren't truly equal and free. Racism existed big time in the north too.
    My great-grandparents all lived through the civil war. They told their children who in turn told me. My grandpa from Ohio was born in 1888. His southern bride was born in 1991. Their parents were all born before the war.
    People like to deny facts to make their point of view the correct one. The truth is that this country has been riddled with rotteness from the word go.
     
    #20 D_Bob_Crotchitch, Feb 5, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2009
Draft saved Draft deleted