Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
"How long do you think that disjointed, dysfunctional, divided government would have lasted?"
That disjointed, dysfunctional, divided government couldn't even win the war.
Great Britain, the supreme naval power, saw the futility of the Confederacy attempting to defend the states near large inland bodies of water. A "nation" with so much water to defend and no navy to defend it. Secession and war was a Confederate folly. Much of its territory was lost by 1862 and 1863, because the Confederacy had no navy to speak of for naval warfare.
So pretty much the South would have avoided wars like the first one and Nam because they weren't a federal centric power, and would have collapsed.
Seems to me Canada didn't collapse. Which is also made up mostly of people who avoided our excursions.
Mexico hasn't collapsed.
Why would the South? And if they had avoided the VietNam war, why would that have been bad? Or if they had no incursions into the MiddleEast, would this have been so bad?
The North lost a city after the King riots- Detroit. All these years and billions of dollars, the Federal Government has been unable to rebuilt it. New Orleans sits paralyzed, waiting for the Federal government. Just as it did when waters rose to the cities rooftops.
In Mississippi the local government went to the ******s. The ******s paid for new housing and rebuilt the ******s. In New Orleans during Katrina trucks of free bottled water were turned away on camera by Democrats who didn't want "Wal-Mart getting publicity off this". Even so, a recent report shows companies like WalMart did more to help Katrina than the government in the weeks after the disaster.
Lincoln's federal government has led us to believe government can do anything. Attacked by terrorists? Start a new tax and new bureaucracy called Homeland Security. People don't need to know first aid or how to exit a building. The government will do it.
How did that work in New Orleans?
As we will learn as we spread war from Iraq to Iran, the federal government can't do everything.
Here in Chicago, our Mayor has already announced if the Supreme Court rules people have a right to protect themselves he is going to fight them and ignore the law "all the way". States like Vermont want to seceed from the union (!).
No, there is a collapse coming, but it won't be from the South.
It will happen when people realize they are in charge of their own self defense, and those who say government can do anything are left holding the bags.
We have a generation of Americans who have surrendered basic concepts of self defense and being prepared for false security from federal powers. This is Lincoln's legacy, and right now I'm watching it fall apart, not the South.
Right now cities can't even decide who should pay for the infrastructure of roads and cities!
The computer censor is rigid and bleeps things we wouldn't normally give a second thought to. It is what it is. We've mostly learned that if we want to type socialist, we add a few spaces, as in s o c i a l i s t.
Apparently, there's a bit of snake oil out there to take if you have a problem. So the word is bleeped. We've gotten used to it.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Now. For something completely different, I see that this thread is labelled "If the CSA had succeeded?" May I suggest that it might remain as advertised? (Given that I've also cheerfully contributed to its hijacking.)
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Even if the South had wanted to keep slavery- there would still be a major problem coming.
THE DROUGHT. When half of American farms collapsed!
If the south had seceded from the union and tried to keep slavery it would not have lasted past 1900. It would bet within twenty years of secession slavery would have ended in the south.
I believe international pressure would have been used to force the south to end slavery along with slavery losing its economic benefit.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
If the South wanted recognition from France and the UK it would have had to end slavery.
The costs of slavery would have also grown. The farming methods would have also invited a drought. All these factors are left out of the discussion, yet they would have played a large role.
Of course the what if based on a reality that no one speaks of is-
what would have happened if the South had won the right to leave, and continued to free slaves, allow Blacks in as a cheap labor force, allow Blacks to own their own companies, real estate, bank accounts, work along side whites while in the North Black codes and segregation flourished?
While as Alex deToucqueville had said whites and blacks worked alongside each other in the trades in the South, Indiana had race riots and hanged blacks, Boston beat up Blacks who were in the wrong neighborhood, In Chicago Blacks caught on Oak Street Beach were beaten to death.
It is a what if based on the reality of the two nations, not based on silly theoriues that the South was just waiting to bring back slavery!
The farming methods would have also invited a drought.
You haven't lived in flyover country long enough DJ. Drought comes and goes without regard to farming methods. Guess you probably meant that the farming methods during the dust bowl did not accommodate the drought.
Quote:
what would have happened if the South had won the right to leave, and continued to free slaves, allow Blacks in as a cheap labor force, allow Blacks to own their own companies, real estate, bank accounts, work along side whites while in the North Black codes and segregation flourished?
Rather a large leap of charitable faith here. Continued to free slaves? Granted, some slaveowners were having pangs and freeing their slaves. Some were allowing slaves to keep some of their earnings and buy their freedom. There were some sparkles of conscience in there. I do not, however, consider that these were typical actions or that eventual freedom would necessarily follow. There were still plenty of owners who would never free theirs. (How about the guy who killed all his slaves rather than to see them free?) But this is talking specific when general is called for.
Generally, voluntary emancipation was a long ways away. Some were ready. Some had already acted on it. But most, and it's a significant most, would rather kill their first born than free their slaves.
We now know that the weevils and the droughts would have killed King Cotton, eventually. They didn't then. "They" had a mind set that admitted no progress. "They" were quite happy to be better than everybody else. Well. "They" did that in England and France and Russia, but it didn't work for them either. Aristocracy had its time in history. When the Confederacy tried to make it work for them, it was too late.
Question: How instrumental was the 1776 resolution in influencing the worldwide rebellion against royalty? When did a person get the idea that he was as good as anyone born?
The CSA was a creation of people whose time had passed.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The Brits promised to free the slaves and thousands of slaves fled plantations to fight for freedom. The slave owners, also known as our founding fathers, would torture and kill everyone of the ex-slaves they could get their hands on.
Did it influence the world's reaction to getting rid of royalty?
Judging from the millions of Americans who wake up at 3am to watch royalty marry, all the fans of Lady Di, and the incomprehension we had when the IRA said it wanted a Republic and no royalty, no effect at all.
Our revolution was intwined with slavery. Interesting to note that as women, children and the elderly held down the plantations and Shermans rape, pillage and burn campaign approached- slaves did not join the North.
Hmmmmmmm
Last edited by DJ Psychomike : 04-21-2008 at 11:46 AM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Confederate Folly -An Absent Naval Force 
Linear Mode
