DBWI: The next Confederate President?

With Governor Mike Huckabee adding his name to those seeking the nomination of the States Rights' Party in the upcoming Presidential election, it looks like we might have an old fashioned Confederate pre-game show in the form of earlier Presidential debates this year.

The election isn't even until next year and we've already gotten quite a few candidates to go ahead and announce their candidacies. Vice President Bob Graham is, at age 72, seeking the nomination of the People's Party, and at least one challanger has decided the time is right to challenge him - namely former C.S. Representative and People's Center Leadership (PCL) leader Harold Ford, Jr. There's also a large bid pushing to have former Vice President Al Gore run for President, but after his narrow loss in 2000, I'm not sure he's up for it.

Of course, Mike Huckabee is angling for the States Rights' Party's nomination along with Mark Sanford of South Carolina (the darling of the party's libertarian wing), former Tennessee Senator and actor Fred Thompson, and Cuban Senator Lincoln Diaz-Balart. There's also a strong 'Draft Jindal' movement and a 'Draft Condi' movement that could pick up speed...

President Edwards' response to the economic crisis is definatley going to be one of the key issues, if the People's Party is to get another term in the White House. Since his approval raiting is hovering around 49%, I wonder how that's going to go over for the People's Party.

So I don't know. My bet is that the 2010 race is a cutthroat battle between Harold Ford and Mike Huckabee, with Huckabee prevailing in a close race.
 
Last edited:
OOC:

Wait, what?

Why is a highly racist CSA considering supporting an Indian or African American for high office?

This is the wrong forum for this thread. I'll explain:

The Southern United States, had it seceded, would have maintained slavery for quite some time; perhaps into the 20th century. Perhaps, at this point, some kind of emancipation might be forced on it by other nation's tariffs and embargoes for dealing with a slave state.

A CSA that survives into the modern day is going to be poor, racist, and either primarily agrarian or at best, developing its industrial base. There will be no rust belt and no sun belt switch in this scenario, and you can count on the South to be well behind the Union.

The much known Butterfly effect HAS to have done SOMETHING to make this situation impossible. The CSA is not going to be "The Southern United States of 2009 with a new government", its going to be "KKK/Apartheid coalition facing questions of human rights and continuing, to this very day, brutal executions of uppity "N*****s" and what not.

IC: There must be some mistake; Ms. Rice and Mr. Jindal are UNION politicans. Also, I can't believe that a cuban candidate would be proposed as anything more than a farce--remember how well "Candidate King" did when the National Police Agency (NPA) used the whole campaign to get Bull Connor elected Alabma Govenor.

Based on historical knowledge, I'd say that this Cuban "Candidcy" is likely to be a prelude to a similar attack on the Cuban Community--they can't all flee to Venezula, you know...

Also, can we talk about Illegal Immigration? Why are there five MILLION illegal immigrants from the CSA in my country?
 
OOC:

Wait, what?

Why is a highly racist CSA considering supporting an Indian or African American for high office?

This is the wrong forum for this thread. I'll explain:

The Southern United States, had it seceded, would have maintained slavery for quite some time; perhaps into the 20th century. Perhaps, at this point, some kind of emancipation might be forced on it by other nation's tariffs and embargoes for dealing with a slave state.

A CSA that survives into the modern day is going to be poor, racist, and either primarily agrarian or at best, developing its industrial base. There will be no rust belt and no sun belt switch in this scenario, and you can count on the South to be well behind the Union.

The much known Butterfly effect HAS to have done SOMETHING to make this situation impossible. The CSA is not going to be "The Southern United States of 2009 with a new government", its going to be "KKK/Apartheid coalition facing questions of human rights and continuing, to this very day, brutal executions of uppity "N*****s" and what not.

OOC: Why are you piling onto the new guy like this? All of the above statements are your opinion and nothing more. He is entitled to his opinion. If you don't like the conditions he laid down in the OP, then don't participate. There are plenty of other threads you can inhabit.

Perhaps this is from a TL where the Confederacy won by enlisting blacks into it's armed forces in 1864.:cool:

IC: There must be some mistake; Ms. Rice and Mr. Jindal are UNION politicans.

IC: You obviously don't keep up on current news. There has been a rift within the Union Party. Ms. Rice and Mr. Jindal left and joined the States' Rights Party earlier this month.

Also, I can't believe that a cuban candidate would be proposed as anything more than a farce--remember how well "Candidate King" did when the National Police Agency (NPA) used the whole campaign to get Bull Connor elected Alabma Govenor.

And as we recall, Connor lost and King won. What's your point? Are you trying to say that a Cuban can't do as well as a black man in the Confederacy? I think former President Castro...our nation's first Cuban President, elected in 1969, if you will recall...would disagree.

Based on historical knowledge, I'd say that this Cuban "Candidcy" is likely to be a prelude to a similar attack on the Cuban Community--they can't all flee to Venezula, you know...

Also, can we talk about Illegal Immigration? Why are there five MILLION illegal immigrants from the CSA in my country?

Well, it's too bad you live in Venezuela. I'm really sorry for you. It's obvious you have been brainwashed by the anti-CSA propaganda put out by that batshit crazy dictator y'all have down there...what's his name, Chavez? We all know its the other way around. Venezuelans like you are fleeing by the tens of thousands every month in every rickety boat they can find to Cuba and Florida, trying to find a life of liberty and opportunity in the CSA. Indeed, it's gotten to be such a problem that our Chief of Homeland Security...former South Carolina Senator Jesse Jackson...recently proposed that the CSN send ships to the Caribbean to turn them back. President Edwards refused that suggestion, and the immigration issue will no doubt be a major issue in the election.
 
Last edited:
OOC: Why are you piling onto the new guy like this? All of the above statements are your opinion and nothing more. He is entitled to his opinion. If you don't like the conditions he laid down in the OP, then don't participate. There are plenty of other threads you can inhabit.

My opinion and nothing more, eh?:
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution
"Explicit support of Slavery"

http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/AL/
"Alabama's secession declaration, which secedes because it is "avowedly hostile to domestic institutions" and "it is the desire of the desire and purpose of the people of the State of Alabama to meet the slaveholding states of the South"

http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm
" The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretenses and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States."

So, not only does the Confederate Constitution enshrine the right to own slaves, the individual states themselves secede for that very reason? And then they flip it around and get rid of it? As they conveniently DID NOT DO OTL? That sounds like YOUR opinion and nothing more.

Break out the sources, Robert. I'd love to see how you can explain how the CSA would be as well off today alone as it would be as part of the United States. Because, frankly, Harry Turtledove is not what I'd consider a good source on this topic.

Look, he's a new guy. Fair enough. He needs to understand that the CSA is VERY LIKELY to suck up much worse than the south did OTL. Perhaps its an issue of pride from your PoV, but someone needs to explain the "butterfly effect" to him--that actions taken in the past change the course of events.

I'm sure that you like your confederate states timeline. But a real Confederate States are going to get sucker punched by the falling price of cotton (which they rely on as their main export), they will be forced to spend much of their economy to match the armed forces of their more powerful northern neighbor, which can pay less in proportion, they will miss out on the Industrial Revolution, because the planeter elites aren't going to like it. And they've locked themselves into a slavery system, which they aren't going to magically get themselves out of.

Even with WW2's investment in the Sun Belt, the South is still poorer than the Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal).PNG

With a seperate currency, no Industrialization for at least 50 years, and a weak infrastructure, might be on par with Mexico today.

Finally, these pictures happened OTL, with even a basic US attempt to curb racism through reconstruction. Just imagine that this crap is still happening today--and its not only accepted, its kind of a spectacle.

http://www.honorbrashear.com/images/duluth-lynching.jpg
http://www.apspuhuru.org/tribunal/lynching.jpg

CSA victorious would mean these kinds of abuses would never end.

I make no claim as to racism or a desire for ethnic cleansing on your part, Robert, but the real Confederate States is not going to be nearly as utopian as you claim. Indeed, that's part of the reason why I feel like I HAVE to argue with CSA wankers is because the CSA stood for slavery to the point of enshrining it in the foundation of their country. I'm sure that you just want to have a CSA you can be proud of, but I think that would be nearly ASB. And if nothing else, it would mean pogroms against Africans to this day.

In the United States, we tend to drum up the virtues of the Confederate States because its feel-good stuff for people who want to remember the heroism and dedication of Lee and Jackson. Of course, Lee and Jackson weren't agitators--they reluctantly supported their states after they left; they certainly didn't push them to leave. Therefore, much of the glory falls onto the shoulders of men who wouldn't even want there to be a CSA in the first place.

In short, the happy feel good CSA is a either an ASB dream or its a result of decades of deception to hide what really happened. The OP can mute me, can PM me to knock it off. That's all fine. But I'm tired of people so badly butchering history.
 
<Big Sigh>

BlueMax, the reason I replied to you and took you to task was not to ignite an off-topic debate. The point of a DBWI is that you take whatever POD the OP has laid out, and then run with it. There is way too much tendency on this board for some members to slice noobs into quivering shreds and drive them off the board for no particular reason than to make themselves feel superior.

As for the relative merits of the Confederacy, I normally don't get into these debates anymore, because it really serves no purpose. Neither of us is going to change our opinions. The difference between us is that I recognize that my opinions are just that, whereas you seem to think yours are holy writ.:rolleyes: That is a common failing of Yankees and those who think like them, and it precludes any sort of meaningful debate with such people.

However, I will respond, briefly, to the points you have made here. Enjoy it while you can. It is unlikely you will see anything of the like ever again.

My opinion and nothing more, eh?:
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution
"Explicit support of Slavery"

Actually, all the Confederate Constitution does with slavery is to remove the issue from the realm of national politics and put it in the hands of the States. It does not make slavery perpetual, or place any impediments to it's abolition, except to provide that this cannot be done by the national government. It has to be done by State action. This is hardly "explicit support of slavery."

http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/AL/
"Alabama's secession declaration, which secedes because it is "avowedly hostile to domestic institutions" and "it is the desire of the desire and purpose of the people of the State of Alabama to meet the slaveholding states of the South"

http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm
" The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretenses and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States."

I don't recall anyone disputing that the secession of some of the Southern States was largely the result of a desire to protect slavery...or more properly, to protect their right to deal with slavery in a manner and at a time of their own choosing, without interference by outsiders. To that extent, yes, the Southern States left over slavery.

However, even that can, at best, be said to be true of the original seven seceded States only. It most definitely was not true of all the seceded States...the four (or six, depending on whether you consider the secessions of Missouri and Kentucky valid) which seceded after Fort Sumter left because the Lincoln Administration demanded they turn over their State militias to be used in an invasion of the seceded States.

So, not only does the Confederate Constitution enshrine the right to own slaves, the individual states themselves secede for that very reason? And then they flip it around and get rid of it? As they conveniently DID NOT DO OTL? That sounds like YOUR opinion and nothing more.

In point of fact, the Confederacy did evolve toward the decision to abolish slavery as the war went on. By the end of the war they had passed a black recruitment law which most historians, including people like James McPherson (in BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM) admit would have inevitably lead to the abandonment of slavery in the South within a short time after the war, no matter who won the war. Furthermore, at the same time, the Confederate government was explicitly offering emancipation of the slaves to the governments of Britain and France in exchange for recognition.

Break out the sources, Robert. I'd love to see how you can explain how the CSA would be as well off today alone as it would be as part of the United States. Because, frankly, Harry Turtledove is not what I'd consider a good source on this topic.

Look, he's a new guy. Fair enough. He needs to understand that the CSA is VERY LIKELY to suck up much worse than the south did OTL. Perhaps its an issue of pride from your PoV, but someone needs to explain the "butterfly effect" to him--that actions taken in the past change the course of events.

I'm sure that you like your confederate states timeline. But a real Confederate States are going to get sucker punched by the falling price of cotton (which they rely on as their main export), they will be forced to spend much of their economy to match the armed forces of their more powerful northern neighbor, which can pay less in proportion, they will miss out on the Industrial Revolution, because the planeter elites aren't going to like it. And they've locked themselves into a slavery system, which they aren't going to magically get themselves out of.

Even with WW2's investment in the Sun Belt, the South is still poorer than the Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal).PNG

With a seperate currency, no Industrialization for at least 50 years, and a weak infrastructure, might be on par with Mexico today.

Well, first. the antebellum South was already industrializing. Was it doing so as fast as the North? No. But the fact is that the antebellum South in 1860, taken in isolation, was already the fourth most industrialized country in the world (after Britain, the North, and France), with, IIRC, the third largest mileage of railroads in the world at that time (after the U.S. and Britain). Yes, by comparison with the North, it looks small. But it was not at all insigificant.

Second, industrialization in the South was ramped up significantly by the war itself. As you yourself mention, they would have needed to maintain a significant military after the war. This need would have lead to all sorts of industries being established and maintained which would have not only met military needs, but also provided products for export.

Lastly, a good part of the reason why the South has been so far behind the rest of the nation economically can be traced to the fact that it lost the war. The Southern economy was destroyed by the war. Most of the industrialization that had occurred in the South before the war was destroyed by invading Union armies during the war. After the war, discriminatory railroad rates and federal taxes also retarded Southern industrialization. Some or all of these things won't have occurred in a TL where the South won the war.

Finally, these pictures happened OTL, with even a basic US attempt to curb racism through reconstruction. Just imagine that this crap is still happening today--and its not only accepted, its kind of a spectacle.

http://www.honorbrashear.com/images/duluth-lynching.jpg
http://www.apspuhuru.org/tribunal/lynching.jpg

CSA victorious would mean these kinds of abuses would never end.

Funny you should mention the Duluth Lynchings. You were aware, weren't you, that these occurred in DULUTH, MINNESOTA? Last time I checked, Minnesota wasn't part of the South. :p

I do not deny that lynching and other horrible things happened in the South in the years after the Civil War. However, I would argue that most of those things can be directly traced to the fact that the South lost the war. The war and the Reconstruction that followed left a legacy of hatred which would not exist in an independent Confederacy. Lynching was very rare in the antebellum South. Free blacks lived free of segregation and other "Jim Crow" type laws in the antebellum South (not true of blacks in the antebellum North, by the way). Read Alexis de Tocqueville, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. That all changed after the Civil War and Reconstruction, and the link between those things is too obvious to ignore.

I make no claim as to racism or a desire for ethnic cleansing on your part, Robert, but the real Confederate States is not going to be nearly as utopian as you claim.

I don't think I've ever claimed it would be a utopia. In some ways it would be better than OTL, in other ways worse. The difference between you and I is that I don't think it would be a complete DYSTOPIA.

Indeed, that's part of the reason why I feel like I HAVE to argue with CSA wankers is because the CSA stood for slavery to the point of enshrining it in the foundation of their country. I'm sure that you just want to have a CSA you can be proud of, but I think that would be nearly ASB. And if nothing else, it would mean pogroms against Africans to this day.

The operative part of this is "I think that would be nearly ASB." It's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But you don't need to try to force everyone else to hold the same opinions you do.

In the United States, we tend to drum up the virtues of the Confederate States because its feel-good stuff for people who want to remember the heroism and dedication of Lee and Jackson. Of course, Lee and Jackson weren't agitators--they reluctantly supported their states after they left; they certainly didn't push them to leave. Therefore, much of the glory falls onto the shoulders of men who wouldn't even want there to be a CSA in the first place.

In short, the happy feel good CSA is a either an ASB dream or its a result of decades of deception to hide what really happened. The OP can mute me, can PM me to knock it off. That's all fine. But I'm tired of people so badly butchering history.

This is AH.com. We are in the business of butchering history. Nay, not just butchering it...we mangle it...sodomize it...do unspeakably depraved things to it...and then play in the warm blood afterward. All in the name of fun.

The problem with you is that you take yourself and your beliefs WAY too seriously. Lighten up, and play nice. ;)
 
Last edited:
I don't know why people keep mentioning this Jindal fellow. I don't see how a second-term CSA Congressman from a little town like Kenner can suddenly get elected President.

Wouldn't Gov. Huey Long III and his great-grandfather's political machine be the only suitable candidate from Louisiana? That family has run the state for almost a hundred years now.
 
I don't know why people keep mentioning this Jindal fellow. I don't see how a second-term CSA Congressman from a little town like Kenner can suddenly get elected President.

Wouldn't Gov. Huey Long III and his great-grandfather's political machine be the only suitable candidate from Louisiana? That family has run the state for almost a hundred years now.


Yeah but what about Robert E. Lee V?
 
Yeah but what about Robert E. Lee V?

What about him? He's a perennial third party candidate, and we all know the Union Party hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of carrying any State outside of Virginia. That's why Condi Rice and Bobby Jindal finally ditched the party and joined the States' Rights Party.
 
I don't know why people keep mentioning this Jindal fellow. I don't see how a second-term CSA Congressman from a little town like Kenner can suddenly get elected President.

Wouldn't Gov. Huey Long III and his great-grandfather's political machine be the only suitable candidate from Louisiana? That family has run the state for almost a hundred years now.

That's why he'll never win on the national stage. The "Long Dynasty" is much too much associated in the popular mind with dirty Louisiana machine politics. Huey Long III is just like his Daddy, "Baby Doc" Long, and his Grand-daddy, "Papa Doc," and everybody knows it.
 
OOC: Baby Doc and Papa Doc. Cute reference. I like.

IC: I'm sure that the States Rights delegates thought that by nominating Jindal and Rice, they were presenting that "New South" thing that they were talking about to the rest of the world. Instead, they've managed to marginalize their party beyond belief. Lee actually has a snowball's chance of being a player in this race for the first time in years, and it might come down to who he's willing to support once he inevitably withdraws from active campaigning.
 
With Governor Mike Huckabee adding his name to those seeking the nomination of the States Rights' Party in the upcoming Presidential election, it looks like we might have an old fashioned Confederate pre-game show in the form of earlier Presidential debates this year.

The election isn't even until next year and we've already gotten quite a few candidates to go ahead and announce their candidacies. Vice President Bob Graham is, at age 72, seeking the nomination of the People's Party, and at least one challanger has decided the time is right to challenge him - namely former C.S. Representative and People's Center Leadership (PCL) leader Harold Ford, Jr. There's also a large bid pushing to have former Vice President Al Gore run for President, but after his narrow loss in 2000, I'm not sure he's up for it.

Of course, Mike Huckabee is angling for the States Rights' Party's nomination along with Mark Sanford of South Carolina (the darling of the party's libertarian wing), former Tennessee Senator and actor Fred Thompson, and Cuban Senator Lincoln Diaz-Balart. There's also a strong 'Draft Jindal' movement and a 'Draft Condi' movement that could pick up speed...

President Edwards' response to the economic crisis is definatley going to be one of the key issues, if the People's Party is to get another term in the White House. Since his approval raiting is hovering around 49%, I wonder how that's going to go over for the People's Party.

So I don't know. My bet is that the 2010 race is a cutthroat battle between Harold Ford and Mike Huckabee, with Huckabee prevailing in a close race.

My guess is it'll be a dogfight between Ford and Vice President Webb for the People's Party nomination, I won't speculate on who former President Clinton will endorse, and since I don't think Thompson will run again (after last elections embarassment) I think Huckabee is the clear cut favorite to win the States' Right Party nomination.
 
I still think the connection to Hefner's Playhouse is going to hurt Harry in the general election. Even if it was just a few parties, this is a Christian nation, after all. And even if no one wants to mention it, anyone who isn't a WASP is held to a higher standard when it comes to politics.

No one ever mentions Lee V's 4 illegitimate kids with his maid Taniqua...
 
I don't know why people keep mentioning this Jindal fellow. I don't see how a second-term CSA Congressman from a little town like Kenner can suddenly get elected President.

Wouldn't Gov. Huey Long III and his great-grandfather's political machine be the only suitable candidate from Louisiana? That family has run the state for almost a hundred years now.

Little town like Kenner? Before Hurricane Marcus led to the destratrous flooding of East Bank Jefferson Parish in 2006, Kenner had almost 150,000 residents. That's not so important, though. What matters more is the national exposure the storm brought to the "Gang of Three," Jindal, Rep. Walter Boasso, and Senator Melançon in their efforts to secure Federal reconstruction dollars.

Though I'm not a big fan of Jindal, it's not for that reason that I say he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Havana. Louisiana, like Virginia, is seen as far too left-wing by the rest of the Confederate public. Eventhough Jindal switched his party allegiance to States' Rights after a year in Richmond, positions like the right to unionize and to have closed shops, increased support for the LA state health-care system, and tougher environmental regulations that are de rigueur for any candidate hoping to win office in SE Louisiana smack of Socialism to much of the nation-wide electorate.

I think Mike Huckabee has the inside track for the SRP nomination. His social stances are impeccable to the right, and yet his economic views will allow him to make inroads into areas where the Populists and the old Unionists have normally held a lock. For the People's Party, Harold Ford does have some admirable qualities, but I think he's seen as far too beholden to the big money interests in Atlanta and New Orleans to secure the nomination in the primaries. I'm looking for a dark-horse candidate to appear in the fall, someone like Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas or Gov. Bill Nelson of Florida.
 
I don't know why people keep mentioning this Jindal fellow. I don't see how a second-term CSA Congressman from a little town like Kenner can suddenly get elected President.

Wouldn't Gov. Huey Long III and his great-grandfather's political machine be the only suitable candidate from Louisiana? That family has run the state for almost a hundred years now.

Little town like Kenner? Before Hurricane Marcus led to the destratrous flooding of East Bank Jefferson Parish in 2006, Kenner had almost 150,000 residents. That's not so important, though. What matters more is the national exposure the storm brought to the "Gang of Three," Jindal, Rep. Walter Boasso, and Senator Melançon in their efforts to secure Federal reconstruction dollars.

Though I'm not a big fan of Jindal, it's not for that reason that I say he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Havana. Louisiana, like Virginia, is seen as far too left-wing by the rest of the Confederate public. Eventhough Jindal switched his party allegiance to States' Rights after a year in Richmond, positions like the right to unionize and to have closed shops, increased support for the LA state health-care system, and tougher environmental regulations that are de rigueur for any candidate hoping to win office in SE Louisiana smack of Socialism to much of the nation-wide electorate.

I think Mike Huckabee has the inside track for the SRP nomination. His social stances are impeccable to the right, and yet his economic views will allow him to make inroads into areas where the Populists and the old Unionists have normally held a lock. For the People's Party, Harold Ford does have some admirable qualities, but I think he's seen as far too beholden to the big money interests in Atlanta and New Orleans to secure the nomination in the primaries. I'm looking for a dark-horse candidate to appear in the fall, someone like Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas or Gov. Bill Nelson of Florida.
 
Top