What if the South won?
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
Joined
·
26,136 Posts
Personally I think we'd be better off.
Slavery would have ended soon anyway, it was ending around that time in Europe. States would still have rights as would we the people. I think the south would have eventually merged back into the union but perhaps not. Other than during the world wars I think we'd be better off separate personally.
Slavery would have ended soon anyway, it was ending around that time in Europe. States would still have rights as would we the people. I think the south would have eventually merged back into the union but perhaps not. Other than during the world wars I think we'd be better off separate personally.
Joined
·
23,845 Posts
Agreed.
Joined
·
23,845 Posts
Huh???
Joined
·
4,887 Posts
I think if the Civil War had never happened, or if the South won, slavery would have been done away with within 20-30 years. Share cropping would have taken it's place, as it did after the war and after "reconstruction". States rights would have not allowed the rise of a powerful central government as in the US. Only the rich southerners had slaves anyway. Once mechanized farming was introduced, slaves would have been too expensive to keep. Owners had to feed, cloth, and house them. This is a continuous basis. One tractor could do more work than a team of mules or horses. One cotton picking machine could do more than 200 or more slaves in a day.
Joined
·
616 Posts
Most european countries are small, but have major cities, which we see here where the left controls the vote. Every country makes their own rules, so bleeding heart leftists have to do "something" about all these downtrodden refugees which consist of mostly fighting age men, with values very contrary to the countries they invade. If the south had won and became a separate nation we would just be that much weaker, and much more susceptible to the blue wave that is already threatening more and more states. Instead of having a strong united country, we would have two weaker countries, that would be overtaken that much easier. Anyone remember, United We Stand??
Joined
·
413 Posts
I've thought this many times. And the farming mechanization that was just emerging would have made slaves uneconomical.
We would be better off. I think the country would have continued on a much more conservative, pro gun, pro family path. The bleeding hearts and false flag do-gooders would have been encouraged to sit down, and shut up. Farming and American based production would have succeeded more naturally.
Great question, great thread.
Of course the country would have been better off. The South only wanted its own independence and had no plan or any capability to invade, conquer and occupy the Northern states and rule Northern people without their consent.
Slavery was on the way out. Many abolitionists and important statesmen of the day, including Wendell Phillips, Garrison, Wm. Seward, believed that secession would accelerate the end of slavery because slavery was heavily subsidized and supported by the central government. In January 1861, Wendell Phillips
predicted civil war and it's outcome in transforming free states into conquered provinces.
A Southern victory and successful nation would have really put the brakes on Northern Imperialism. Actually the conquest of the South and governing southern people by conquest without their consent was a war of imperialism. If America had divided the US would have likely not gone to war in 1898, and would have stayed out of WW1 and WW2. That weasel Harry Jaffa, a great Lincoln admirer, whined that if the South had succeeded the US would have stayed out of WW2 and wouldn't have stopped the Holocaust.
Southern secession would have solved the problem of westward slave expansion and confined slavery to the Southern states where they'd have to deal with racial issues themselves.
Not a perfect outcome, but certainly better than the current situation where a handful of SUpreme Court Justices rule the modern USA in defiance of most of the people.
The Civil War was not waged against the southern people to free slaves...but to enslave free men.
Of course the country would have been better off. The South only wanted its own independence and had no plan or any capability to invade, conquer and occupy the Northern states and rule Northern people without their consent.
Slavery was on the way out. Many abolitionists and important statesmen of the day, including Wendell Phillips, Garrison, Wm. Seward, believed that secession would accelerate the end of slavery because slavery was heavily subsidized and supported by the central government. In January 1861, Wendell Phillips
predicted civil war and it's outcome in transforming free states into conquered provinces.
A Southern victory and successful nation would have really put the brakes on Northern Imperialism. Actually the conquest of the South and governing southern people by conquest without their consent was a war of imperialism. If America had divided the US would have likely not gone to war in 1898, and would have stayed out of WW1 and WW2. That weasel Harry Jaffa, a great Lincoln admirer, whined that if the South had succeeded the US would have stayed out of WW2 and wouldn't have stopped the Holocaust.
Southern secession would have solved the problem of westward slave expansion and confined slavery to the Southern states where they'd have to deal with racial issues themselves.
Not a perfect outcome, but certainly better than the current situation where a handful of SUpreme Court Justices rule the modern USA in defiance of most of the people.
The Civil War was not waged against the southern people to free slaves...but to enslave free men.
Joined
·
934 Posts
Well, my people on both my Mothers' and Fathers' side didn't arrive here untill about 1910, even my wifes' people didn't come here until about 1908. So our people were right in line with being persecuted for where they come from, including the Cherokee heritage I have from my great grandmother. The point? We got over it and blended into American culture. Yes, there are a few things we carry over, but we don't force it on others, and we worked for what we have, without rioting and looting.
If the south had successfully made a permanent break from the north I think we would be in the same situations that have come about, only without the strength that having all our country remaning combined has made. If not for the way we are told the world is reacting, (and I'm not certain the MSM reporting isn't fudged....alot), my guess would have been that the south would have had to deal with the slave rebellions, and not the entire nation dealing with the unrest we have today.
I believe the north would be a bit better off, but the south would have trouble keeping order.
Europe likes us to believe they have no signifigant issues of race origin, yet the MSM media here reports that the minority races over there are now crying they are descriminated against.
So long as the Democrat Party continues to use the minorites for poitical gain we have no hope of any true peace. The only up side, if you can consider it that, is should the Democrats become totally sucessful in the endeavor, the very pawns they are exploiting now will turn on them once the Dems claim victory and try to control the same races they turned loose on America without restriction or reservation. Arogance also has a price.
If the south had successfully made a permanent break from the north I think we would be in the same situations that have come about, only without the strength that having all our country remaning combined has made. If not for the way we are told the world is reacting, (and I'm not certain the MSM reporting isn't fudged....alot), my guess would have been that the south would have had to deal with the slave rebellions, and not the entire nation dealing with the unrest we have today.
I believe the north would be a bit better off, but the south would have trouble keeping order.
Europe likes us to believe they have no signifigant issues of race origin, yet the MSM media here reports that the minority races over there are now crying they are descriminated against.
So long as the Democrat Party continues to use the minorites for poitical gain we have no hope of any true peace. The only up side, if you can consider it that, is should the Democrats become totally sucessful in the endeavor, the very pawns they are exploiting now will turn on them once the Dems claim victory and try to control the same races they turned loose on America without restriction or reservation. Arogance also has a price.
Joined
·
22,961 Posts
it depends. IF a peaceful resolution was arrived at who knows if we would be better or not. But if this country was split into two nations we would probably be speaking german today. Without the north you wouldn't have the industrial might to build the war machine that was necessary to fight ww1 and ww2. matter of fact without the city of Detroit (that I don't like) and the people of the north working in the auto factories we not only probably wouldn't have been a country but the middle class that Henry Ford was responsible for starting that exists today would not exist. It was also where industry was brought into the 20th century with things like mass production. Not to many steel mills or iron ore mines in the south either. Henry ford started the middle class in this country. The Midwest food belt feeds this country. Tobacco and cotton wouldn't have supported an entire countries economy. Would that stuff have still happened? TO MANY WHAT IFS! This country is great today because every region of it contributes something to the whole. WHAT IF the people of the North East didn't stand up to the English?? Sure some of the southern states were involved in that too but without the NE there would never have been a war and we wouldn't be a country.
Joined
·
24,501 Posts
The Guns of the South was written at hight of Apartheid in S. Africa. The South Africans had perfected time travel, and they intended to change the course of our Civil War in favor of the Confederacy. Which they did,
by giving the South AK47s and RPGs, body armour. It was over within six months but the South had no intentions of invading or controlling the North.
WW1 barely happened and WW2 never happened, the South had become just to advanced and by that
time was a close Allie with the North. The slaves were freed back in 1870, mechanisation had taken
over. and most of them were taken back to Africa, they were of no use to the two countries.
The USA and the CSA.
by giving the South AK47s and RPGs, body armour. It was over within six months but the South had no intentions of invading or controlling the North.
WW1 barely happened and WW2 never happened, the South had become just to advanced and by that
time was a close Allie with the North. The slaves were freed back in 1870, mechanisation had taken
over. and most of them were taken back to Africa, they were of no use to the two countries.
The USA and the CSA.
Joined
·
26,136 Posts
Alabama had iron ore and coal production and produced steel. Like Pittsburgh tho steel production left Birmingham and moved overseas long ago. Gadsden also had steel plants and that's just the local stuff I'm well aware of that was going on in my life time.
We make more cars/trucks here in Bama today than they do in Detroit I'm pretty sure. A new plant is being built at this time in Huntsville that will produce vehicles for two different manufacturers not just one.
Had the Confederacy won I don't think us and the US would have remained enemies but would have gotten along fine and would have cooperated in the world wars and might even have been reunited as one country before that.
In spite of the story told by the north who won it wasn't about slavery it was about states rights. A southern victory would have been vastly better for the entire nation longer term as states would still have rights and so would we citizens. We'd not have the ridiculously powerful federal government we now have.
We make more cars/trucks here in Bama today than they do in Detroit I'm pretty sure. A new plant is being built at this time in Huntsville that will produce vehicles for two different manufacturers not just one.
Had the Confederacy won I don't think us and the US would have remained enemies but would have gotten along fine and would have cooperated in the world wars and might even have been reunited as one country before that.
In spite of the story told by the north who won it wasn't about slavery it was about states rights. A southern victory would have been vastly better for the entire nation longer term as states would still have rights and so would we citizens. We'd not have the ridiculously powerful federal government we now have.
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!