Welp, wklink yankee boy....let's examine a few facts shall we.
With four times the manpower and ten times the industry and financing it only took the Union FOUR YEARS to conquer the Confederacy.
In doing so, the Union suffered 360,000 casualties. That's approximately .017 percent of the 21 million population of the northern states.
By contrast, the current war in Iraq, which was such a hot-button issue in northern "blue states" during the last election has produced 3,000 casualties. That's approximately .000010 percent of the current population.
Now, let's say that the United States today faced a similar revolutionary struggle to that of the Civil War. If a similar casualty rate is sustained, the Union would suffer about 3,000,000 casualties.
Given the fact that much of the opposition to the "quagmire" in Iraq is to be found in the "blue states" I doubt seriously the civilian populations of those states would be willing to support a war effort that was that bloody.
In effect, you couldn't do it again.
As to the matter of the South producing the KKK, even a cursory examination of the historical record will show that the northern states had a larger Klan membership than did the South. While the northern states did not have the de jure segregation of Jim Crow, they substituted de facto segregation instead, in the form of zoning ordinances designed to keep the "riff raff" from building homes in the more upscale neighborhoods.
Evidence of northern hypocracy in matters racial surface during the inner city racial riots of the 1960s.
So how about exhibiting a little humility when you start blathering about the South's defeat during the Civil War. Your hands are not clean by any means.
Oh...and by the way...the Great Emancipator was born a Southerner.
