DBWI: Questions on the Confederate States of America

Unfortunetly, I don't know much about the history of th CSA,so I'm hoping you guys could educate me a little.


1)Why did they elect their President to one six year term?

2)What exactly caused them to abolish slavery in 1903?

3)How the heck did they come to own Cuba?

4)What really caused them to fight along side the USA in World War One?

5)Have the rights of African-Americans imporved much since the 70's?
 
well they abolished slavery in 1903 because of political reasons both england and france had long since abolished it, plus president Quagmire was trying to catch the CSA up both industrially and culturally to their allies.
 
The only reason the damned Rebs let their Negros go was because the Brits and French couldn't stomach it anymore and threatened embargo. That's it. The Dixans would have kept it today if they could.

Cuba came about during the war in the 1890's with Spain. They ended up buying it anyway, but they wore down the Spanish to the point where they were willing to sell. Of course, as soon as the Cubans saw the CS was no better than the Spanish, and their segregationist policies even worse than Spain's (second class citizens in their own land), that's when the Cuban rebellion got started full force and got bloody.
 
1)Why did they elect their President to one six year term?

Well, we ain't got y'all's problems with our presidents running for re-election from the second they step in the Mansion, now do we? ;)

2)What exactly caused them to abolish slavery in 1903?

President Quagmire trying to distract the public from his many affairs in office, ya' ask me!

3)How the heck did they come to own Cuba?

Bought it from Cuba after the war. More trouble than it was worth, y'ask me.

4)What really caused them to fight along side the USA in World War One?

That's easy: geopolitics. Someone had to put them Austries and Ruskies in their place. Even the Damyanks know that much.

5)Have the rights of African-Americans imporved much since the 70's?

Better than they got it in the US, you ask me. Damyanks never did know what to do with the Negroes they got but push 'em off into the ass-end of the cities with the Irish and Italians. We treat 'em rather well. Like big brothers. Maybe one day they'll grow up enough as a race to take care of themselves, but until then, we watch out for 'em.
 
Unfortunetly, I don't know much about the history of th CSA,so I'm hoping you guys could educate me a little.


1)Why did they elect their President to one six year term?

2)What exactly caused them to abolish slavery in 1903?

3)How the heck did they come to own Cuba?

4)What really caused them to fight along side the USA in World War One?

5)Have the rights of African-Americans imporved much since the 70's?
1)Generally to establish themselves from the USA, and to limit the power of the Federal gov.
2)Pressure from the USA and allies did it partly. Also, the government was worried of rebellion and such.
3)They aquired it from Spain in the 1880's.
4)They were allied with Britan and France, leading to them joining the same side. They also did not want to fight the USA in another war.
5)Not much. Martin King got some help, like alowing blacks to have some same level as whites middle class jobs. Otherwise, they are still suppresed and unliked. Hate crimes are common still. The USA, luckily, has learned what to do with people. We treat them at least kinda' even.
 
Well, hell.

From the whole damn beginning, our war for independence was a stupid mistake, if you ask me. Maybe the only good part was the six-year term limit for our presidents, at least this kept idiots like Johnson and Clabbins from completely screwing things up too bad.

Our problems all boil down to the fact that we are an artificial country and our so called "independence" ended up being a boon for the Yankees and a bust for us. Yeah, the 1903 emancipation bill was a sop to the Frogs and Limeys, and guess what? Slavery is still legal in the US of A the last time I looked! Oh, sure, only some Yankee Red Indians and Missouri farmers still keep slaves, but it is still legal up there and it ain't here. So what the hell did we fight that war for anyway?

As far as that goes, we are really about as independent from the Yankees now as we were before our so called "Glorious Rebellion".

Sure, we have our own brown money, but New York Jew-boys run the printing presses that print it and the banks it gets deposited in.

Sure we have an army, navy, and air force, but Yankee engineers and capitalists sell us the airplanes, tanks, and submarines we can't make ourselves - and Yankees tell us when we can use them.

Sure we have our own government, but about half of Congress and 2 of our last 3 Presidents got their Law Degrees at Harvard god-damn University in god-damn Boston fer Chrissakes!

Last time I checked, our GDP was about 1/30th of the USofA's and less than even Mexico and Irkutskia, and we couldn't stop the Orange Free State from conquering us if they wanted to!

Ever since oil-rich Sequoyah and Texas left in 1910 for greener pastures back in the USofA, the whole world has been just waiting for us to implode. Hell, if it weren't for the fact the the USofA doesn't want most of our bankrupt states back - and has been willing for the last 100 years to fight wars to keep France, England, Spain, and Mexico from gobbling us up piecemeal - I doubt we'd even still be a country.

And guess what we get out of these wars the Yankees fight for us? God-forsaken miscegenist Dago hell-holes like Cuba and Santo Domingo - places the Yankees rightly don't want and are happy to let us poor indebted neighbors administer for them. Oh, and don't forget how they made us repay that debt during in the Great War: 150,000 dead Johnny Rebs buried in France and Belgium!

I guess the one good thing about being the USofA's slap bitch is that they were willing to ship all our freed Blackies off to that huge colony they maintain for their manumitted slaves in west Africa somewhere. God only knows what we would have done with ours since they outnumbered us 2 to 1!

Johnnie Bob Mayberry, Editor
Montgomery Capitol-Rebel Yell
June 12, 1990
 
Last edited:
>> 5)Have the rights of African-Americans improved much since the 70's?<<

> Better than they got it in the US, you ask me. Damyanks never did know what to do with the Negroes they got but push 'em off into the ass-end of the cities with the Irish and Italians. We treat 'em rather well. Like big brothers. Maybe one day they'll grow up enough as a race to take care of themselves, but until then, we watch out for 'em. <

Yeah Right.
From 1903 until the mid 1960s, although "free", they couldn't vote, hold office or go to school beyond a 4th grade level (enough to give very basic reading and writing skills plus a little basic math); indeed, they couldn't even travel without permits from the local municipality (and how do you get them if you can't travel to the County Seat?). They had to pay taxes that were almost twice as high as their white counterparts and how many Negro families died trying to flee to the North? And how many Negroes suffered "accidents" like a barn fire or worse after enjoying a very successful crop? Very few, if any, were very successful. After Dr. King brought attention to their plight, they were allowed to attend segerated schools through the high school level, they got the vote (along with a stiff poll tax), were allowed to run for office (not that any won those elections).
About all that changed was the aboloishment of the travel permit law. At that time, almost 40% of the Negroes moved to the United States, usually with only the clothes on their backs.
Maybe some damn Rebs looked forward and saw what might happen. All those un- and under-educated people coming north put a serious strain on the communities that they were moving to. Because of them, our taxes have skyrocketed to the point where a number of the states are almost bankrupt, and one (New York State) IS so. And that has led to the backlash of racist riots in the bigger cities like New York City, Buffalo and Rochester.
 
Yeah Right.
From 1903 until the mid 1960s, although "free", they couldn't vote, hold office or go to school beyond a 4th grade level (enough to give very basic reading and writing skills plus a little basic math); indeed, they couldn't even travel without permits from the local municipality (and how do you get them if you can't travel to the County Seat?). They had to pay taxes that were almost twice as high as their white counterparts and how many Negro families died trying to flee to the North? And how many Negroes suffered "accidents" like a barn fire or worse after enjoying a very successful crop? Very few, if any, were very successful. After Dr. King brought attention to their plight, they were allowed to attend segerated schools through the high school level, they got the vote (along with a stiff poll tax), were allowed to run for office (not that any won those elections).
About all that changed was the aboloishment of the travel permit law. At that time, almost 40% of the Negroes moved to the United States, usually with only the clothes on their backs.
Maybe some damn Rebs looked forward and saw what might happen. All those un- and under-educated people coming north put a serious strain on the communities that they were moving to. Because of them, our taxes have skyrocketed to the point where a number of the states are almost bankrupt, and one (New York State) IS so. And that has led to the backlash of racist riots in the bigger cities like New York City, Buffalo and Rochester.

What Stats are you looking at? African-Confederates never got travel permits till the 1990s. Even then, its not the blacks that are fleeing the country, it's the poor white trash. Afterall, Blacks make up the Majority in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and the Carolinas, Hell, Blacks already make up 60% of the Country's pop, and that's not even including the Confederate States' Latinos, Indian, or Asian Citizens. Even as we speak, it's clear that the C.S. will elect a non-white President, before the U.S. even has the chance to elect a Catholic.
 
That's why I love AH.com, y'all come up with some of the dandiest scenarios. Really though,

1) Our founding fathers decided that putting a single six year term limit on the president would prevent corruption and allows for better parity, just to name a few.

2) Why 1903? While there has been some speculation about pressure from the British and French or to divert attention from a number of President Quagmire's own transgressions, I believe the accepted theory is that it was a combination of factors largely due to the effects of Dixie coming to Jesus on industrialization and free market/free labor capitalism.

3) They bought it.

4) Why wouldn't we side with y'all. We never had any hard feelings, it's unfortunate that we fought a war, but quickly both sides realized that it would be more beneficial to remain allies than enemies.

5) This is an odd question. I don't see how some race riot in South Carolina more than 30 years ago is indicitive of the whole Confederacy. Dixie has produced more black senators and governors than you yankee boys. My question is has race relations in the U.S. improved. I mean really, there are far more racial hate crimes in California and Illinois than Texas or Georgia.
 
Our problems all boil down to the fact that we are an artificial country and our so called "independence" ended up being a boon for the Yankees and a bust for us. Yeah, the 1903 emancipation bill was a sop to the Frogs and Limeys, and guess what? Slavery is still legal in the US of A the last time I looked! Oh, sure, only some Yankee Red Indians and Missouri farmers still keep slaves, but it is still legal up there and it ain't here. So what the hell did we fight that war for anyway?
Pfft, what are you smoking? Slavery was ended under President Tilden and that was at the latter half of the 19th century. Those "Missouri farmers" don't have black slaves. Its just that the blacks in the border states generally keep to agriculture whereas the northern Negroes have generally flocked to the cities and more civilized areas. And even the blacks in those border states that take part in agriculture have been in limited numbers since the mechanization of agriculture.

2) Why 1903? While there has been some speculation about pressure from the British and French or to divert attention from a number of President Quagmire's own transgressions, I believe the accepted theory is that it was a combination of factors largely due to the effects of Dixie coming to Jesus on industrialization and free market/free labor capitalism.

That's baseless Conservative revisionism and I'm sick of hearing it. The free market capitalism is one of the factors that fostered slavery, both when the south was in the Union and without. Post-war and during the industrialization, masters would lease their slaves to corporations for a fee, or corporations and businesses would keep their own stock of chattels. It was only because of the middle class whites and poor whites protesting for regulation to clamp down on that and give whites a large share of the workforce that the Negro began to be withdrawn from all but agriculture (which they were mostly booted out of that around the 1940's by the mechanical reaper).

5) This is an odd question. I don't see how some race riot in South Carolina more than 30 years ago is indicitive of the whole Confederacy. Dixie has produced more black senators and governors than you yankee boys. My question is has race relations in the U.S. improved. I mean really, there are far more racial hate crimes in California and Illinois than Texas or Georgia.
There've been more race riots than that. And those black senators and governors were only elected because of black voter turn out to counter the white. And there are not more hate crimes in the north than south. The North is just mostly different kinds of whites and Mexicans and hate crimes there haven't been great since the 1960's.
 
There've been more race riots than that. And those black senators and governors were only elected because of black voter turn out to counter the white. And there are not more hate crimes in the north than south. The North is just mostly different kinds of whites and Mexicans and hate crimes there haven't been great since the 1960's.

No, I'm afraid that's an out and out lie. California alone had as many racially based hate crimes as all of Dixie last year.
 
Pfft, what are you smoking? Slavery was ended under President Tilden and that was at the latter half of the 19th century. Those "Missouri farmers" don't have black slaves. Its just that the blacks in the border states generally keep to agriculture whereas the northern Negroes have generally flocked to the cities and more civilized areas. And even the blacks in those border states that take part in agriculture have been in limited numbers since the mechanization of agriculture.

You, my friend are putting way too much into Yankee propaganda. Yup, the vast majority of slaves in the USofA were purchased and freed by the government in the 1880's as part of the so-called "Tilden Emancipations", but look at their Constitution. Nowhere did they change it to make slavery illegal -they just stopped doing it. And what about those Red Indians in Sequoyah? Tilden didn't buy their slaves, and I'm pretty dang sure it ain't Cherokees and Choctaws pickin all that cotton.
 
What Stats are you looking at? African-Confederates never got travel permits till the 1990s. Even then, its not the blacks that are fleeing the country, it's the poor white trash. Afterall, Blacks make up the Majority in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and the Carolinas, Hell, Blacks already make up 60% of the Country's pop, and that's not even including the Confederate States' Latinos, Indian, or Asian Citizens. Even as we speak, it's clear that the C.S. will elect a non-white President, before the U.S. even has the chance to elect a Catholic.

The relaxation of the travel bans only came about after the pressure applied by Dr. King in the mid1960s. It took his very public assassination in 1970 to eventually loosen up the travel restrictions some twenty years later.
As to those folks coming up from the South; I am 62 years old and when I was a kid during the 1950s, I never saw more than a handful of Negroes. Since the easing of the travel bans, there are more and more Negroes up here every year. The "White Trash" that comes up usually gets jobs in the manufacturing industry (and takes them away from us native-borns). Most of the Negroes get jobs in the service industry, getting jobs as domestics and gardeners and as mechanics. Basically, the jobs that the white immigrants don't want.
 
Last edited:
The relaxation of the travel bans only came about after the pressure applied by Dr. King in the mid1960s. It took his very public assassination in 1970 to eventually loosen up the travel restrictions some twenty years later.
As to those folks coming up from the South; I am 62 years old and when I was a kid during the 1950s, I never saw more than a handful of Negroes. Since the easing of the travel bans, there are more and more Negroes up here every year. The "White Trash" that comes up usually gets jobs in the manufacturing industry (and takes them away from us native-borns). Most of the Negroes get jobs in the service industry, getting jobs as domestics and gardeners and as mechanics. Basically, the jobs that the white immigrants don't want.

You yankee boys'll never change. Always complaining about all the blacks and immigrants coming up north when everybody knows that y'all have done just about everything you can do to prevent immigration since ol' president whats-his-face was in office. As for as King goes. Let us not forget that it was not travel laws that he was fighting (preventing peple from working in the U.S. and living in the C.S. because of the tax advantages was illegal for all Dixians) that was just the reason that crazy yankee boy shot him. What King was really fighting were South Carolina's unfortunate segregation laws (that were a yankee import), laws I might add that had been outlawed or never adopted in all the other Confederate States. Hell, freedmen in Louisiana could vote long before any black in the U.S. could.
 
Quagmire gets a lot of bad press about 1903 but i think people are forgetting about the (not totally unfounded) fears of the upper classes of some far left inspired negro rebellion. After all they did outnumber the whites quite considerably. Hell if something wasn't done then it may have blown up the way it did in south africa 80 years later, or even like it did in cuba.

Though i don't think Quagmire was smart enough to come up with something like that on his own, at least for his sake his stopped philandering long enough to listen to his advisers.
 
No, I'm afraid that's an out and out lie. California alone had as many racially based hate crimes as all of Dixie last year.
Rebel propaganda. California has only had tension between the Mexicans and Anglos and the last major hate crime wave was in 1987. And the increases in hate crimes has been due mostly to Confederate whites from Texas emigrating in larger numbers to the west coast for a better job market, and not being used to the Mexican population and bringing their segregationist ideas and white superiority with them.

You, my friend are putting way too much into Yankee propaganda. Yup, the vast majority of slaves in the USofA were purchased and freed by the government in the 1880's as part of the so-called "Tilden Emancipations", but look at their Constitution. Nowhere did they change it to make slavery illegal -they just stopped doing it. And what about those Red Indians in Sequoyah? Tilden didn't buy their slaves, and I'm pretty dang sure it ain't Cherokees and Choctaws pickin all that cotton.

It never said "And now slavery is illegal" word for word, but it did give manumission and did say that no person could ever force another human to work or do something against their will in servitude within the US proper. Semantics does not negate abolition.

And Sequoyah, like Lakota, is basically an independent nation within the nation. We have near no governance over them on specific actions.
 
Rebel propaganda. California has only had tension between the Mexicans and Anglos and the last major hate crime wave was in 1987. And the increases in hate crimes has been due mostly to Confederate whites from Texas emigrating in larger numbers to the west coast for a better job market, and not being used to the Mexican population and bringing their segregationist ideas and white superiority with them.

Texas is hardly a good excuse for 3 reasons

1) Texas had 1/3 the number of hate crimes, so if it was Texans commiting all those crimes that just means we got rid of our bad element.

2) Texas outlawed segregation in '56, why are you still bringing Texas segregationists up?

3) Texas has the highest employment rate in the country, so it's not as if they're travelling to California in droves.




It never said "And now slavery is illegal" word for word, but it did give manumission and did say that no person could ever force another human to work or do something against their will in servitude within the US proper. Semantics does not negate abolition.

And Sequoyah, like Lakota, is basically an independent nation within the nation. We have near no governance over them on specific actions.

Agreed.
 
You yankee boys'll never change. Always complaining about all the blacks and immigrants coming up north when everybody knows that y'all have done just about everything you can do to prevent immigration since ol' president whats-his-face was in office. As for as King goes. Let us not forget that it was not travel laws that he was fighting (preventing peple from working in the U.S. and living in the C.S. because of the tax advantages was illegal for all Dixians) that was just the reason that crazy yankee boy shot him. What King was really fighting were South Carolina's unfortunate segregation laws (that were a yankee import), laws I might add that had been outlawed or never adopted in all the other Confederate States. Hell, freedmen in Louisiana could vote long before any black in the U.S. could.

I have three points of clarification to your post.
First, just because we are reluctant to let just anybody into our country doesn't mean that we prevent immigration; just look at the numbers of Southrons that moved north since 1985. Each year the numbers have gotten larger. President Joe Kennedy saw that unregulated immigration could wind up being a problem and he took steps to prevent that.
Second, can we really be sure that James Earl Ray was a Yankee? He definately had a strong Southron accent for being from Chicago. But I guess that we'll never know for sure, considering how quickly your Blackshirt Confederate Bureau of Investigation made sure that he was shot while trying to escape.
And finally, when our Negroes vote up here, at least their votes are counted. Stories that I've heard from down in Louisiana tell of how Negro votes go directly into the wastebasket. At least Texas was smart, bailing out on the Confederacy, even if they did re-establish the Lone Star Republic instead of rejoining us. Who'd know that they would discover all that oil in the northern part of their country?
 
Quagmire gets a lot of bad press about 1903 but i think people are forgetting about the (not totally unfounded) fears of the upper classes of some far left inspired negro rebellion. After all they did outnumber the whites quite considerably. Hell if something wasn't done then it may have blown up the way it did in south africa 80 years later, or even like it did in cuba.

Though i don't think Quagmire was smart enough to come up with something like that on his own, at least for his sake his stopped philandering long enough to listen to his advisers.

Tis my understanding that South Carolina Senator J. Beauregard Horsepasture was the real author of that bill. All Quagmire did (after coming up for air) was to sign it. But to see what a joke it was, just check out the homeland security provisions under Section 13, Sub-section 69.
 
Texas is hardly a good excuse for 3 reasons

1) Texas had 1/3 the number of hate crimes, so if it was Texans commiting all those crimes that just means we got rid of our bad element.

2) Texas outlawed segregation in '56, why are you still bringing Texas segregationists up?

3) Texas has the highest employment rate in the country, so it's not as if they're travelling to California in droves.

Not every Texan moved there yesterday. You have the migrants who settled in South Cal. around the 1940's and 1950's, and during the 1980's when the computer industry took off and the economy started to boom. Likewise, even if segregation is outlawed, racism is still up and about and its not as if many whites in the CS wouldn't be ok with it coming back. And California is one of the most liberal states if you look at the native Californians and that includes race relations.
 
Top