# ...would I be eating hog jowls and hominy grits?



## blhowes (Jun 23, 2005)

There have been several threads lately about president Lincoln and the Civil War. Have you ever thought what things would be like now if things had been different back then? How do you think things would be different now (for better or for worse) if the Civil War never happened? Or, if it did happen, how would it be different now if the south would have won the war (...OK, I mean if they had won more decisively than they did)? 

[Edited on 6-23-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## jfschultz (Jun 23, 2005)

Two things (at least in the South), based on the CSA constitution:

1) Slavery would have died out because of the prohibition on slave trade.

2) Less pork because bills can only deal with the "title" issue and the requirement for a super-majority to approve expenditures initiated by the legislature (as opposed to budget items from the executive).


----------



## Plimoth Thom (Jun 23, 2005)

Unfortuneatly the Silly War was bound to happen. I just thank God my ancestors fought to create the Union and to preserve it.

[Edited on 6-23-2005 by Plimoth Thom]


----------



## blhowes (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jfschultz_
> 1) Slavery would have died out because of the prohibition on slave trade.


Do you think the constitution would have been changed to give African Americans the right to vote, etc., if there was no war? What about if the south had won the war?

I'm wondering as I think about the civil rights struggles of the 60's. 



> _Originally posted by jfschultz_
> 2) Less pork because bills can only deal with the "title" issue and the requirement for a super-majority to approve expenditures initiated by the legislature (as opposed to budget items from the executive).


Good, so I probably wouldn't be eating hog jowls, but how about the hominy grits?

I can see how that would certainly make things different now. Think of all those silly studies that are being done now at tax-payers expense because they were tied in with the larger bills.

[Edited on 6-23-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 23, 2005)

What if the South Had Won the Civil War? by William Lind

Poodles Would Not Survive If South Won by Jason Reynolds

If the South Woulda Won by Hank Williams, Jr.

We wonder what would have happen if Jackson had lived. If he had lived, he probably would have taken Cemetery Hill on the first day of the battle of Gettysburg, and there probably won't be any Pickett's charge on the third day. When Jackson died, the dream of the Confederacy died with him. From then on, the military fortune of the South started to go downhill. -- Gordon Kwok

[Robert Dabney] foresaw the life and death struggle that would take place between secular totalitarianism and Christian liberty in America in the latter part of the twentieth century... -- _The US Civil War as a Theological War: Confederate Christian Nationalism and the League of the South_ by Edward H. Sebesta and Euan Hague 

The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it be at another time and in another form. -- Jefferson Davis

The South lost the war on May 10, 1863. Had the South won the war, our national anthem might be Dixie.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 23, 2005)

If the South would have won more decisevely?
(Let's keep in mind that the Union was destroyed at the end of the war)

1)No abortion
2)No Gay marriage
3)No income tax
4)No Property tax (You think you own your property, try not paying your property tax and you will see who owns it).
The list goes on....

We ceased to be a Union and became a Nation.
The War Between the States was the final struggle between Empire (The North) and Republic (the South).


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Plimoth Thom_
> Unfortuneatly the Silly War was bound to happen. I just thank God my ancestors fought to create the Union and to preserve it.
> 
> [Edited on 6-23-2005 by Plimoth Thom]



Thom,
Was the South wrong to secede?
If so, please explain away the following statement:



> "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, *and only to be bound by its own voluntary act*. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution." ~ James Madison, Federalist 39



Evidently the Founders and I are in agreement on this point.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 23, 2005)

There are some who say that after 1865 the phrase "United States of America" transitioned from a plural to a singular noun.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> If the South would have won more decisevely?
> (Let's keep in mind that the Union was destroyed at the end of the war)
> 
> ...









> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Plimoth Thom_
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 23, 2005)

Secession has a long and noble history in practice and theory (it is a principle embedded in the right to government by consent of the people), from the 1581 Dutch Declaration of Independence to the 1775 Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence to the 1776 American Declaration of Independence. New England was the first region of the United States to seek secession, but Maine seceded from Massachusetts, Kentucky from Virginia, West Virginia from Virginia, and even Key West once attempted to secede by forming the short-lived Conch Republic. Secession has given liberty to former Soviet Republics and inspired self-government for many ethnic and political constituencies around the world. The failure of the Confederacy to win in 1865 has not damped the spirit of liberty which motivates men to seek limited local government. Let freedom reign!


----------



## jfschultz (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by jfschultz_
> ...



Bob, I'm old enough to remember the Evening News broadcasts of the riots in the North over court ordered school integration. As I recall, that included Boston!


----------



## Ivan (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> If the South would have won more decisevely?
> (Let's keep in mind that the Union was destroyed at the end of the war)
> 
> ...



 and isn't it hog jowls?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 23, 2005)

Speaking of hog-jowls and ham-hocks,
Where are the chitlins at?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 23, 2005)

I personally eat grits for breakfast, almost every Wednesday morning.




Yeeeehawww!


----------



## Reformingstudent (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Speaking of hog-jowls and ham-hocks,
> Where are the chitlins at?



Throw in a mess of turnip greens and you have a good meal


----------



## Reformingstudent (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Speaking of hog-jowls and ham-hocks,
> Where are the chitlins at?



If you have to ask...


CHITTERLINGS (CHITLINS) pork, pigs
Chitterlings or chit'lins are the intestines of young pigs, cleaned and stewed and then frequently battered and fried.

Chitlin's are considered a delicacy (a special and desirable food) in South Carolina and other parts of the South. But chitterlings must be prepared carefully. They must be soaked and rinsed thoroughly in several changes of cool water, and repeatedly picked clean, by hand, of extra fat and specks. They are then boiled and simmered until tender. They can be prepared different ways. Standard recipes call for simmering the chitlin's for three to five hours in water seasoned with salt, black pepper, and perhaps hot peppers, along with vinegar and an onion. But everyone has a different recipe. Sometimes they are cooked with hog maws (hog stomach), or fried in a batter.
Library of Congress Local Legacies Project


[Edited on 6-23-2005 by Reformingstudent]


----------



## blhowes (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> and isn't it hog jowls?


I just did a search for 'hog jaws' and 'hog jowls' and you'll never guess which search came up with the more relevant search results.

I stand corrected. Thanks


----------



## crhoades (Jun 23, 2005)

This wouldn't be happening...
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11665


----------



## default (Jun 23, 2005)

OK, I've thought on this recently, (not this thread, but the subject of slavery). I have always thought slavery to be wrong, but then I see in scriptures God made provisions to his people if they owned slaves or found themselves to be slaves... so what do you guys think about slavery given God's provisions?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Loriann_
> OK, I've thought on this recently, (not this thread, but the subject of slavery). I have always thought slavery to be wrong, but then I see in scriptures God made provisions to his people if they owned slaves or found themselves to be slaves... so what do you guys think about slavery given God's provisions?


----------



## blhowes (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> What if the South Had Won the Civil War? by William Lind



" No American entry into the war would have meant no Communism in Russia and no Hitler in Germany."

Interesting thoughts.


----------



## Plimoth Thom (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



So no U.S. entry in WWI would have stopped Trotsky and Lenin? That's a bit of a stretch. It's also doubtful the U.S. entry into the war prevented a German victory (I know we like to give ourselves all the credit for "winning" WWI). It's more likely the U.S. just sped up the inevitable. Its also likely the Treaty of Versailles still would have happened. Beware people making absolute claims in regards to the unkown, a territory necessarily reserved only for speculation.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Plimoth Thom_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by blhowes_
> ...



The introduction to the article makes it clear that the author is "indulging" in scholarly historical _speculation_. 

I personally think his position vis-a-vis WWI is arguable, but I wouldn't go the mattresses on it. 

This is after all a _what if?_ thread.


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 23, 2005)

Bob,

Forget the hog jowls. You need to try Granny's recipe for possum belly and fat back!!


----------



## Augusta (Jun 23, 2005)

Possum??



Like the ones you see squished in the road possum?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jun 23, 2005)

Yep! That kind possum, honey! (blech!)

BTW, there were restrictions that were slowly moving the south away from slavery...and for those who think the north was immune...they had slavery in several states throughout the war as well. I believe it was New Hampshire that did not legally end it's slavery till AFTER the war...


----------



## Plimoth Thom (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> The introduction to the article makes it clear that the author is "indulging" in scholarly historical _speculation_.
> 
> ...



I realize he's indulging in speculation with his article in general, but:



> "No American entry into the war would have meant no Communism in Russia and no Hitler in Germany."



....doesn't sound like speculation to me, more like stating a fact. Sure its arguable, I even considered the arguments myself. I've studied military history most of my life, I even have a worthless history degree specializing in military history. Anything is arguable, but not every argument is based on a strong evidence. I'd be happy to go into more detail on this issue in another thread perhaps. 

But, getting back to the OP, most historians are uneasy getting into "what-if" scenarios. Sure they can be fun, but they're pretty much pointless since you can never really know "what-if." It's hard enough trying to figure out what really happened. And from a Christian perspective there's something at the heart of historical what-if speculations that seem to imply in my opinion (I'm not speculating about anyone's motivations here) a disapointment with how God's providence played out. Me, I'm satisfied with how things turned out, knowing that His invisible hand is behind it all.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Bob,
> 
> Forget the hog jowls. You need to try Granny's recipe for possum belly and fat back!!


I had heard that the economy was bad down south, but never realized just how bad! Possum belly and fat back??


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



The culinary economy affects those of the high class as well. My greek professor used to wax eloquently about the joys of chitlins.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jun 23, 2005)

I thought it was the USSR that turned the balance in WWII


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Plimoth Thom_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



The whole article is pure speculation, a combination of Biblical insight into the underlying causes of the war and wishful thinking. I'm sure the author is saddened by how the war turned out and its devastating consequences upon America and the world, as am I. Though Northern tyranny won the day -- much like the defeat of Scottish Covenanters during the Killing Times -- yet the cause of justice and liberty will prevail all in God's good time. Gen. 50.20; Rom. 8.28


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jun 23, 2005)

Success or defeat are but one part victory. You can loose the war but in the end it was the struggle which counted. If Godly men won everything - surely it would show the power of God - but it would make people think we are only powerful because of wordly force and destruction. Instead they see us stand tall in defeat and still hold to what we consider the truth though we were beaten for it.

[Edited on 23-6-2005 by Abd_Yesua_alMasih]


----------



## default (Jun 23, 2005)

WEll I guess it was a can of worms everyone decided to stay away from


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 23, 2005)

Lori, If you search on the word "slavery" you will find that this issue has been much debated in times past.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 23, 2005)

He wasn't for slavery. I wonder if he like Chitlins or Grits?


[Edited on 6-24-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 23, 2005)

He did like lemons, though


----------



## Texas Aggie (Jun 24, 2005)

Lori,

The mere fact that slavery occurred shows it was a divine decree of God. For what reason?.... who knows. Much speculation. Possibly to bring some of His elect out of the dark continent. Possibly to subdue cultures which needed to be conquered. All things are of God.


----------

