NEWS: Who Really Won the Civil War?

POLITICS: Who Really Won the Civil War?

In a NY Times editorial, Todd Purdum asks the question "Can John Kerry win the presidency without the South?" (requires login) Kerry, now the leading Democratic hopeful in the presidential primaries, has often been painted as a Massachussetts liberal by RNC chair and only living Neanderthal Ed Gillespie, in an attempt to estrange him from voters in key Southern states. Kerry took the controversial position in a New Hampshire speech that he might not need the support below the Mason-Dixon line, citing Al Gore's razor-thin electoral minority in 2000 as proof that a Democrat could win without taking the South.

This is a radical shift from the view politicians have taken over the last 60 years that the South is essential to winning the presidency. With the exception of JFK, every US president since Roosevelt has come from a Southern or Western state, making one question the political importance of the Northeast in modern America. Kerry hopes to defy that trend by sweeping New England, California and the Great Lakes states, and winning key mid-Atlantic and Western states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Oregon) to garner enough electoral votes to win the presidency. With Southern politics seemingly so essential to running the country, the increasing popularity of traditionally Southern sports like NASCAR and the rising influence of Southern evangelical Christian religions, it would seem that while the North won the civil war in name - the South is the de facto victor. Kerry seeks to challenge that notion, and if successful could change the direction of national politics for years to come.

In a NY Times editorial, Todd Purdum asks the question "Can John Kerry win the presidency without the South?" (requires login) Kerry, now the leading Democratic hopeful in the presidential primaries, has often been painted as a Massachussetts liberal by RNC chair and only living Neanderthal Ed Gillespie, in an attempt to estrange him from voters in key Southern states. Kerry took the controversial position in a New Hampshire speech that he might not need the support below the Mason-Dixon line, citing Al Gore's razor-thin electoral minority in 2000 as proof that a Democrat could win without taking the South.

This is a radical shift from the view politicians have taken over the last 60 years that the South is essential to winning the presidency. With the exception of JFK, every US president since Roosevelt has come from a Southern or Western state, making one question the political importance of the Northeast in modern America. Kerry hopes to defy that trend by sweeping New England, California and the Great Lakes states, and winning key mid-Atlantic and Western states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Oregon) to garner enough electoral votes to win the presidency. With Southern politics seemingly so essential to running the country, the increasing popularity of traditionally Southern sports like NASCAR and the rising influence of Southern evangelical Christian religions, it would seem that while the North won the civil war in name - the South is the de facto victor. Kerry seeks to challenge that notion, and if successful could change the direction of national politics for years to come.

Umm south park taught us that the Smores Schnapps Company won the civil war!





Thanks Crispy!

In 1980, there were 20 Democrat senators from the South. Today there are 4.

Pwn3d.

[Edited on Feb 11, 2005 by stockula]

This is sort of funny in a "I can't believe how fucked up my political party is" way.

Sheesh, democrates need some goddamn spring cleanings, or maybe just be halfway in touch with america.

We won the war but lost the peace.

I just said thi s on another thread but...

Worst mistake in American history = allowing rebel states back into the Union after we crushed the rebellion.

haha i am ANGRY

So instead of just cutting them loose from the get go, we should have beaten the tar out of them, killed hundreds of thousands of men, and then said "Oh, we'll grant you sovergnty, the whole war was over nothing."

That's insane.

It feels like a seperate country anyway, we should have just let them do their own thing to begin with.

No. We should have kept them as military districts under martial law. Maybe eventually they could have become protectorates with limited federal rights, like Puerto Rico.

Democrats can't win without South. Not President can't win without carrying at some states in the South. In the last two elections, both Democrats could not carry any state in the South, I believe. Gore even lost in own home state. The South has shifted toward the right , socially and religiously. The North won the war but the South is still fighting the battle against Northern influence .

No. We should have crushed them as we did and then refused to allow them back into the Union while keeping them as our territory.

Support for a police state is interesting coming from a New York wannabe lawyer. I can then extrapolate with confidence that after 9/11, you support the Patriot Act and circumscribing the civil rights of Muslims and Americans of middle eastern heritage?

Up until the 80s most southern democrats were equivalent to today's republicans. Assholes like Walter George, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge, and Sam Nunn (edit: How could I forget Lester Maddox!) fit right in with your ilk.

At least traitors like Bo Callaway and Strom Thurmond had the decency to leave the party, unlike Zell Miller.

[Edited on Feb 12, 2005 by googuse]

If we had let them do their own thing, I wouldn't be surprised if slavery would be still legal today in the South . We should have limited their rights in the Union until they can be proven to be rational people. Yes, I think the South are irrational people that don't the share the beliefs of social freedom that the North has championed.

No. The difference is that the south was filled with rebel scum. They decided to become traitors. Simply being a Muslim is not a good analogy to being a traitorous rebel. Martial law would have been in occupied enemy territory, not NY, so why would I have a problem with that?

Rebel scum. You sound like that guy from The Return of the Jedi

Not that I entirely disagree about the faults of the Rebellion in Star Wars http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp






[Edited on Feb 12, 2005 by stockula]

Yeah. Jedi are geigh. When I was bored last semester (third year of law school is esentially a big waste of time and money) I played knights of the old republic as, like, a superdark sith and delighted in torturing pretty much everyone who crossed my path.

we could combine this absurd twist in this thread with the 2nd amendment thread and then Helter can browbeat me about how everyone should be allowed to carry a lightsaber for personal protection.

This weekly standard thing reminds me of a joke thing I saw years ago about the poor imperials killed when insane terrorists blew up the death star...

Oh please.

How can I be of service?

But it's a pretty good argument! Even regarding Alderaan.

[Edited on Feb 12, 2005 by stockula]

[Edited on Feb 12, 2005 by stockula]

I kind of want to Godwin this thread.

I thought one of the rules of godwin is that if you intentionally godwin then you lose automatically.