How different would things be had the South won the Civil War?

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Auryg

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
If there was a 2nd European World War, the South would have supported the Axis powers and kept the North out of that war.

Now there's a good freaking idea for a videogame. War between the Confederacy and the USA during WW2 times...A WW2 shooter that takes place in America, I like 🙂

BRILLIANT!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: her209
Slaves? Federal government? Taxes? etc.

Slavery would be gone. It was on the way out before the civil war started.
Federal goverment would be much weaker than it is today. The civil war cemented the fedearl goverments power. Of course a weaker federal goverment would require fewer taxes.

 

[Cattlegod]

I would be having sex with my sisser

 

[krcat1]

Check out Harry Turtledove's "Great War" series of book.
This series takes place in an alternate reality in which the South won the Civil War.

The US and the CSA are engaged in WWII in the current book.
The CSA is rules by a Nazi style "Freedom Party", and has split the US in half by taking most of Ohio.
(The US occupies Canada, so the bad but not fatal)

Imperial Germany still exists, and in fighting the UK, France, and Czarist Russia, all having neo-Nazi governments.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Specop 007
It would have been better in the long run IMO.

pesky negros

The war wasnt fought over slavery. It was fought over states rights.
The South lost the war, which means States lost there rights to the Federal government.

THATS what I mean.

Nothing like jumping to conclusions and ASSUMING you know what I meant. :disgust:

States' rights to do what??
😕

Everyone parrots this "states right" crap, and I've never understood.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Specop 007
It would have been better in the long run IMO.

pesky negros

The war wasnt fought over slavery. It was fought over states rights.
The South lost the war, which means States lost there rights to the Federal government.

THATS what I mean.

Nothing like jumping to conclusions and ASSUMING you know what I meant. :disgust:

Yep. States' rights. The states' right to allow slavery.

Edit: Damn, Oro0orocewhatever typed his response out pretty quickly.

brainwashed much?

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Specop 007
It would have been better in the long run IMO.

pesky negros

The war wasnt fought over slavery. It was fought over states rights.
The South lost the war, which means States lost there rights to the Federal government.

THATS what I mean.

Nothing like jumping to conclusions and ASSUMIN
Yep. States' rights. The states' right to allow slavery.

Edit: Damn, Oro0orocewhatever typed his response out pretty quickly.

brainwashed much?

I could ask you the same.

To answer your question: we'd all be white or black with a small portion of Chinamen and there would be no Anandtech.

Any questions?

Edit: WTF 😕 messed up quote boxes :|

 

[yllus]

Yeesh, a lot of you need to study more history.

Fact: Lincoln manipulated the small demographic of abolitionists as a strategic weapon to keep Britain, France, etc. from supporting the South.

Fact: Lincoln's emancipation of slaves was in effect only in the South, which at the time he had no control over. It was basically encouragement for blacks to riot in enemy territory.

Fact: Lincoln's dream solution to the problem of blacks was to ship them all off to some island and keep North America pure to whites.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: yllus
Yeesh, a lot of you need to study more history.

Fact: Lincoln manipulated the small demographic of abolitionists as a strategic weapon to keep Britain, France, etc. from supporting the South.

Fact: Lincoln's emancipation of slaves was in effect only in the South, which at the time he had no control over. It was basically encouragement for blacks to riot in enemy territory.

Fact: Lincoln's dream solution to the problem of blacks was to ship them all off to some island and keep North America pure to whites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

His parents belonged to a Baptist church that had pulled away from a larger church because they refused to support slavery. Accordingly, from a very young age, Lincoln was exposed to anti-slavery sentiment.

While in New Orleans, he may have witnessed a slave auction that left an indelible impression on him for the rest of his life. Whether he actually witnessed a slave auction at that time or not, living in a country with a considerable slave presence, he probably saw similar atrocities from time to time.

In 1837 he made his first protest against slavery in the Illinois House, stating that the institution was "founded on both injustice and bad policy."

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which expressly repealed the limits on slavery's spread that had been part of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, helped draw Lincoln back into electoral politics. It was a speech against Kansas-Nebraska, on October 16, 1854 in Peoria, that caused Lincoln to stand out among the other free-soil orators of the day.

Just because this isn't P and N doesn't mean you can lie.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: yllus
Yeesh, a lot of you need to study more history.

Fact: Lincoln manipulated the small demographic of abolitionists as a strategic weapon to keep Britain, France, etc. from supporting the South.

Fact: Lincoln's emancipation of slaves was in effect only in the South, which at the time he had no control over. It was basically encouragement for blacks to riot in enemy territory.

Fact: Lincoln's dream solution to the problem of blacks was to ship them all off to some island and keep North America pure to whites.

Where do you get these 'facts' from... just because you called them 'facts', doesn't make them so.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: yllus
Yeesh, a lot of you need to study more history.

Fact: Lincoln manipulated the small demographic of abolitionists as a strategic weapon to keep Britain, France, etc. from supporting the South.

Fact: Lincoln's emancipation of slaves was in effect only in the South, which at the time he had no control over. It was basically encouragement for blacks to riot in enemy territory.

Fact: Lincoln's dream solution to the problem of blacks was to ship them all off to some island and keep North America pure to whites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

His parents belonged to a Baptist church that had pulled away from a larger church because they refused to support slavery. Accordingly, from a very young age, Lincoln was exposed to anti-slavery sentiment.

While in New Orleans, he may have witnessed a slave auction that left an indelible impression on him for the rest of his life. Whether he actually witnessed a slave auction at that time or not, living in a country with a considerable slave presence, he probably saw similar atrocities from time to time.

In 1837 he made his first protest against slavery in the Illinois House, stating that the institution was "founded on both injustice and bad policy."

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which expressly repealed the limits on slavery's spread that had been part of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, helped draw Lincoln back into electoral politics. It was a speech against Kansas-Nebraska, on October 16, 1854 in Peoria, that caused Lincoln to stand out among the other free-soil orators of the day.

Just because this isn't P and N doesn't mean you can lie.

Nothing you posted disputes his claims. Not a single quote.

The fact is, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation a full year after the start of the war. It was a political ploy to keep Europe from supporting the Confederacy to ensure cotton and tobacco imports.

And it is true that Lincoln's reconstruction plans included colonizing freed slaves back to Africa. It is also true that while opposed to slavery, Lincoln was every bit as much a racist as his contemporaries. He opposed interracial marriage and in a debate with Douglas said blacks were not intellectually or morally equal to whites.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: yllus
Yeesh, a lot of you need to study more history.

Fact: Lincoln manipulated the small demographic of abolitionists as a strategic weapon to keep Britain, France, etc. from supporting the South.

Fact: Lincoln's emancipation of slaves was in effect only in the South, which at the time he had no control over. It was basically encouragement for blacks to riot in enemy territory.

Fact: Lincoln's dream solution to the problem of blacks was to ship them all off to some island and keep North America pure to whites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

His parents belonged to a Baptist church that had pulled away from a larger church because they refused to support slavery. Accordingly, from a very young age, Lincoln was exposed to anti-slavery sentiment.

While in New Orleans, he may have witnessed a slave auction that left an indelible impression on him for the rest of his life. Whether he actually witnessed a slave auction at that time or not, living in a country with a considerable slave presence, he probably saw similar atrocities from time to time.

In 1837 he made his first protest against slavery in the Illinois House, stating that the institution was "founded on both injustice and bad policy."

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which expressly repealed the limits on slavery's spread that had been part of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, helped draw Lincoln back into electoral politics. It was a speech against Kansas-Nebraska, on October 16, 1854 in Peoria, that caused Lincoln to stand out among the other free-soil orators of the day.

Just because this isn't P and N doesn't mean you can lie.

Nothing you posted disputes his claims. Not a single quote.

The fact is, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation a full year after the start of the war. It was a political ploy to keep Europe from supporting the Confederacy to ensure cotton and tobacco imports.

And it is true that Lincoln's reconstruction plans included colonizing freed slaves back to Africa. It is also true that while opposed to slavery, Lincoln was every bit as much a racist as his contemporaries. He opposed interracial marriage and in a debate with Douglas said blacks were not intellectually or morally equal to whites.

I'm willing to listen to you. Any links?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: yllus
Yeesh, a lot of you need to study more history.

Fact: Lincoln manipulated the small demographic of abolitionists as a strategic weapon to keep Britain, France, etc. from supporting the South.

Fact: Lincoln's emancipation of slaves was in effect only in the South, which at the time he had no control over. It was basically encouragement for blacks to riot in enemy territory.

Fact: Lincoln's dream solution to the problem of blacks was to ship them all off to some island and keep North America pure to whites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

His parents belonged to a Baptist church that had pulled away from a larger church because they refused to support slavery. Accordingly, from a very young age, Lincoln was exposed to anti-slavery sentiment.

While in New Orleans, he may have witnessed a slave auction that left an indelible impression on him for the rest of his life. Whether he actually witnessed a slave auction at that time or not, living in a country with a considerable slave presence, he probably saw similar atrocities from time to time.

In 1837 he made his first protest against slavery in the Illinois House, stating that the institution was "founded on both injustice and bad policy."

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which expressly repealed the limits on slavery's spread that had been part of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, helped draw Lincoln back into electoral politics. It was a speech against Kansas-Nebraska, on October 16, 1854 in Peoria, that caused Lincoln to stand out among the other free-soil orators of the day.

Just because this isn't P and N doesn't mean you can lie.

Nothing you posted disputes his claims. Not a single quote.

The fact is, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation a full year after the start of the war. It was a political ploy to keep Europe from supporting the Confederacy to ensure cotton and tobacco imports.

And it is true that Lincoln's reconstruction plans included colonizing freed slaves back to Africa. It is also true that while opposed to slavery, Lincoln was every bit as much a racist as his contemporaries. He opposed interracial marriage and in a debate with Douglas said blacks were not intellectually or morally equal to whites.

I'm willing to listen to you. Any links?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800a.htm

In this review, they take an apologist position, claiming that Lincoln merely mirrored the mindset of the day. The fact is, Lincoln by ANY standard would be considered a segregationist/racist today.

What they do not include is much more of his Douglas debate statements, many of which, said today, would be in line with the KKK or Aryan Nations.

Also, the review's claim that Lincoln dropped support for recolonization is rather unfounded. He dropped support for forced recolonization, but still supported encouraging blacks to recolonize in Africa because, as is pointed out, he never believed blacks could be social, moral, or intellectual equals to whites.

As for recolonization, just read the history of Liberia...

 

[Proletariat]

I agree there may be some controversy but Lincolns ideas were relatively revolutionary for an elected leader.

But, from your link...

As President, Lincoln's struggle to end the Civil War and preserve the nation left him deeply sympathetic to the plight of the slaves and increased his belief in the need for racial equality in America.

After seeing over 200,000 African-Americans volunteer and fight alongside Union forces, Lincoln dropped his support for plans to colonize freed slaves to Africa after the Civil War. In an 1863 speech, Lincoln stated, "there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation, while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it."

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
I agree there may be some controversy but Lincolns ideas were relatively revolutionary for an elected leader.

As President, Lincoln's struggle to end the Civil War and preserve the nation left him deeply sympathetic to the plight of the slaves and increased his belief in the need for racial equality in America.

After seeing over 200,000 African-Americans volunteer and fight alongside Union forces, Lincoln dropped his support for plans to colonize freed slaves to Africa after the Civil War. In an 1863 speech, Lincoln stated, "there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation, while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it."

Again, this review is VERY apologetic, and leaves out a lot to paint Lincoln in as positive light as they can. He dropped support for FORCED recolonization. There is a difference.

And abolitionists were far from "revolutionary" at the time. The North had a huge abolitionist movement. But just because someone wanted to abolish slavery does NOT mean they were not still racist. Most abolitionists were still strict segregationists just as Lincoln was until his death.

Finally, Lincoln was never a political abolitionist until it served him in the war. He made no move to free slaves until a full year after the start of the war... and doing so was not a moral decision, but an internationally political one.

 

[Proletariat]

I think its in baby steps. Those abolitionists became segregationists which became civil rights protestors. You couldn't have the next incarnation without the previous one. Regardless, Lincoln, racist as he may have been, did the right thing at every step of the way. Thats what matters to me.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Specop 007
It would have been better in the long run IMO.

pesky negros

The war wasnt fought over slavery. It was fought over states rights.
The South lost the war, which means States lost there rights to the Federal government.

THATS what I mean.

Nothing like jumping to conclusions and ASSUMIN
Yep. States' rights. The states' right to allow slavery.

Edit: Damn, Oro0orocewhatever typed his response out pretty quickly.

brainwashed much?

I could ask you the same.

To answer your question: we'd all be white or black with a small portion of Chinamen and there would be no Anandtech.

Any questions?

Edit: WTF 😕 messed up quote boxes :|

The war was fought over States Rights and the Right to Secession that our forefathers guaranteed us, the Lincoln and Co. violated. Lincoln made it a racial thing when the war was going against him.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Specop 007
It would have been better in the long run IMO.

pesky negros

The war wasnt fought over slavery. It was fought over states rights.
The South lost the war, which means States lost there rights to the Federal government.

THATS what I mean.

Nothing like jumping to conclusions and ASSUMIN
Yep. States' rights. The states' right to allow slavery.

Edit: Damn, Oro0orocewhatever typed his response out pretty quickly.

brainwashed much?

I could ask you the same.

To answer your question: we'd all be white or black with a small portion of Chinamen and there would be no Anandtech.

Any questions?

Edit: WTF 😕 messed up quote boxes :|

The war was fought over States Rights and the Right to Secession that our forefathers guaranteed us, the Lincoln and Co. violated. Lincoln made it a racial thing when the war was going against him.

The war was about many things and slavery was one of them.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
I think its in baby steps. Those abolitionists became segregationists which became civil rights protestors. You couldn't have the next incarnation without the previous one. Regardless, Lincoln, racist as he may have been, did the right thing at every step of the way. Thats what matters to me.

You're missing the point. Lincoln did the "right things" for non-altruistic reasons. None were morally motivated, but politically expedient.

And, yes, you can have one incarnation without the other. Being an apologist for racism, no matter time, is intellectually dishonest.

Lincoln quotes from the Lincoln/Dounglas debates:

I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

 

[Amused]

Snopes sums it up quite well in this article:

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm

Although Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, his primary concern with the issue was how its divisiveness affected the United States, not the liberation of the Black man. Had the Union been able to survive half slave and half free without erupting into war, Lincoln's stated position was that he would have allowed the institution of slavery to remain intact and die a slow death. And whatever Lincoln's personal feelings about the equality of Blacks, he didn't espouse support for their "civil rights" because he believed that white society would never accept them as equals. Lincoln's only real expression of "civil rights" was his support for the idea of relocating free Blacks to Liberia so they could live apart from whites in a separate society. Even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was issued as an exigency of war, not as measure intended to permanently end slavery in the USA, and constitutional amendments ending slavery and guaranteeing citizens of all races the right to vote were not enacted until after Lincoln's death.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Proletariat
I think its in baby steps. Those abolitionists became segregationists which became civil rights protestors. You couldn't have the next incarnation without the previous one. Regardless, Lincoln, racist as he may have been, did the right thing at every step of the way. Thats what matters to me.

You're missing the point. Lincoln did the "right things" for non-altruistic reasons. None were morally motivated, but politically expedient.

And, yes, you can have one incarnation without the other. Being an apologist for racism, no matter time, is intellectually dishonest.

Lincoln quotes from the Lincoln/Dounglas debates:

I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

So you are saying a politician was dishonest....you must be joking....😛

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Kaervak
There would proabably be a North United States and a South United States. Naturally the governments of both would be equally inept like it is now.

nice sense of history there huh?

Confederate States of America ring a bell? Not South United States.

if the South had won the war, it would have been USA up north and CSA down south.

the thing is, the names were important because they are what the war was REALLY about.

a CONFEDERACY, a loose association of states and not the United States . . .

the civil war was NOT about slavery but about whether a state had the right to secede or not.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Kaervak
There would proabably be a North United States and a South United States. Naturally the governments of both would be equally inept like it is now.

nice sense of history there huh?

Confederate States of America ring a bell? Not South United States.

if the South had won the war, it would have been USA up north and CSA down south.

the thing is, the names were important because they are what the war was REALLY about.

a CONFEDERACY, a loose association of states and not the United States . . .

the civil war was NOT about slavery but about whether a state had the right to secede or not.

And why do you suppose the Confederate states wanted to secede???? Right... a Civil War was started solely over the principle of secession.

 

[Spamela]

we'd all be a listenin' to country while watchin' NASCAR
in our overalls & bare feet with our my excellent compatriot dogs
while ma fried up a heap o' squirrel we shot
in the mornin'.