the US Civil War 17 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Tavor

the time of lollipops

50 XP

8th August 2008

0 Uploads

236 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago

This has been something Ive been thinking about for a while now. so i want to get people opinions on the subject.

Would the US have been better off today, had the South won the war?

gonna make this a poll. please state whay you think yes or no.




Badha1rday

Nature's best screw up.

132,255 XP

27th July 2005

0 Uploads

12,663 Posts

0 Threads

#2 10 years ago

No. It does not need an explanation.




Ipse

The Great Charm

50 XP

14th April 2007

0 Uploads

5,446 Posts

0 Threads

#3 10 years ago

If you want to see slavery or maybe Nazi Germany exist today, maybe.

I don't think so.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#4 10 years ago

No.

Fact of the matter is if the Confederacy successfully split, America's interests would have been split in two, and I wouldn't be surprised if the British and French continued with their leaning towards the South to counteract the Union's industrialization and keep the West weak. The Union would now have to worry about their lost land rather than enforcing their sphere of influence in the rest of the Americas.

And most obviously, there would still be the ridiculous social hierarchy and slavery operations. Maybe after awhile they might have gone away from it, but I doubt the Confederacy would have changed their ass-backwards social stances, ever. I doubt a true democracy would have lasted down there either, it would have eventually gone towards a more traditionalist structure, with the same social elite running again and again, anyways.

There is actually an interesting book series that takes this question by Harry Turtledove. There's one stand-alone one, Guns of the South, and then a series of novels in the "Timeline-191" series, demonstrating a possible power-shake up as the US moves closer to Germany, both of them being surrounded by enemies on their respective continents and pariahs as such. If you are curious, wiki it, and see the situation that the author imagined.

Past the slavery and race solidarity shit, the notion of states' rights is a respectable view, though the Americans tinkered with total states' rights in the first few years of her existence (the Articles of Confederation for those of you who paid attention in history class), and that didn't work very well- the US government nearly got overthrown by a farmer's revolt.

Some people from the South and state's rights buffs might try to argue in favor of it, especially in light of our current government's faults, but I think in the long run it would have messed up the Union (obviously), and Americans as a whole. I mean, even Sam Houston of Texas argued against it in the months leading up to conflict, before they kicked him out of his governor spot.




Homer Gonerson

...

50 XP

22nd December 2003

0 Uploads

6,234 Posts

0 Threads

#5 10 years ago

Yeah, I think MercZ summed it up for all those who are gonna vote "no"

Plus, we wouldn't have all the lolz videos about Lincoln floating around the internet.




Mitch Connor

Spamulous Spamitopian

50 XP

7th August 2008

0 Uploads

6,095 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago

No. The Confederacy was flawed at a governmental stand point and a moral stand point. They're money was worthless and an economy based on slaves wouldn't hold up with today's economic system. No other Western power would agree to trade with us if we had slaves.




Tavor

the time of lollipops

50 XP

8th August 2008

0 Uploads

236 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago
Ronald_Jesch;4669793No. The Confederacy was flawed at a governmental stand point and a moral stand point. They're money was worthless and an economy based on slaves wouldn't hold up with today's economic system. No other Western power would agree to trade with us if we had slaves.

thats one of the issues thats has had me thinking. i doubt slavery would have lasted long in the south if they did win. if they wanted international allys. Britain had already got rid of slavery but the time the war started. and the south wanted Britain as allys. the south would have had to axe slavery in order for the to happen.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#8 10 years ago

Even if they axed slavery, I doubt the South would have altered its social stances much. Hell, even in this day and age they haven't. Getting rid of slavery is one thing, but actually treating the former slaves as equals is a completely different story.




Mr.Funsocks VIP Member

50 XP

21st December 2004

0 Uploads

4,201 Posts

0 Threads

#9 10 years ago

Nope.

After the civil war, the plans proposed by Jefferson and Madison during the Kentucky and Virgina resolutions to nullify certain acts of congress is now illegal. The South does not have an extremely one-sided economy as it did in 1860 and slavery is also now not an issue, so I'm having a hard time trying to understand why they would want to. It would hurt them in every way to pull away.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#10 10 years ago

Virginia secedes from the Union, followed within five weeks by Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina, thus forming an eleven state Confederacy with a population of 9 million, including nearly 4 million slaves. The Union will soon have 21 states and a population of over 20 million. =============================== Thomson MLS Online




  • 1
  • 2