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!
There would have eventually been 11 little countries quarrelling over who had the longer one. Just a guess, but they had given up the idea that in unity is strength. Feudalism would be resurrected and, sooner or later, the crackers would get fed up and revolt (rebel?) killing all the lords and ladies.
I will project that border states and perhaps the upper south would sue for readmission to the Union. The deep south would descend into utter chaos with roving bands of loyalists and rebels randomly ambushing and slaughtering each other. Eventually, order would be restored by nuking them all.
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
As far as the victorious Confederacy falling apart, you could have made the same prediction about the 13 states after they won independence from Britain. I bet the CSA could have hammered out a feasible nation, given the looming threat of the United States.
Naah. It was everybody for himself. I don't see any cohesion or selflessness anywhere in the Confederacy. If there hadn't been a Union to focus the fight, they'd have eaten off each others' feet. The colonies had people like George Washington and the somewhat smarmier Thomas Jefferson who kept the focus and the ideal. The Confederacy had the Rhetts and Calhoun disciples who hungered, primarily, for your feet.
Getting a little ditzy out. How is the weather there?
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 Confederate government had inserted a "poison pill" into their system of government, with secession. They created sovereign states by deed. They totally made a "nation" of many states, that was unprepared for modern war.
The U.S. Congress spent billions to facilitate commerce in helping fight the Civil War.
The Confederacy, on the other hand, shackled their government with these Constitutional restrictions. "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in this Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce;"
It took nearly the entire war to link important railroads between two sovereign states -from Danville, Virginia to Raleigh, North Carolina. The slave oligarchy had created a monster of its own sovereign desires.
As far as the victorious Confederacy falling apart, you could have made the same prediction about the 13 states after they won independence from Britain. I bet the CSA could have hammered out a feasible nation, given the looming threat of the United States.
That doesn't make it a good idea, of course.
I couldn't agree more with you Matthew!! I think it is fairly well documented that the colonies were far from unified even after their war for Indep. Thus, the articles of confederation! However, have several years of peacetime and a renewing of trade w/ other countries a more unified approach was favorable to all, and I think that became obvious.
Sure the "theories" that the south lived by during the war might have been what killed them (as President Davis feared). Still, I feel that many of those stresses were brought on by wartime and lack of world commerce. With cotton going out, tariffs controlled in a manner favorable to Southern interests I think the states could have managed to get along just fine. Quite honestly, I think they would have slowly centralized the Govt again. Isn't that the way power works in general?? Seems to me the case.... they only reason they revolted/rebelled is because the centralized power was unfavorable to their interests.
Let the flaming begin! You blue bellies!! Let's get this war going again huh? (I'm really kidding, I dont want the war to start again, but I sure as all hell want to fight about the war!!)
With cotton going out, tariffs controlled in a manner favorable to Southern interests I think the states could have managed to get along just fine. Quite honestly, I think they would have slowly centralized the Govt again.
And herein lies the rub. The cotton royalty have not forgotten their innate superiority to all but George Washington. Is their legislation going to be designed for the good of the country? I have trouble morphing between planter interests and Southern interests. I'll agree that they would have centralized the Government again, just not that it would have been centralized in a manner beneficial to the common good.
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
And herein lies the rub. The cotton royalty have not forgotten their innate superiority to all but George Washington.
Maybe the rub is some people forgot their loyalty to such a great Virginian (American)... I think the American way has always been to not been tyrannized! (Sic Semper Tyranneous) -- the only way to do this is to be loyal to someone who didn't tyrannize you ? Or least that seems logical, haven't thought that one out to much...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
Is their legislation going to be designed for the good of the country? I have trouble morphing between planter interests and Southern interests. I'll agree that they would have centralized the Government again, just not that it would have been centralized in a manner beneficial to the common good.
Why would you assume that the US Cen Govt would be for the common good but that the CS so definetely could not have been?? Wouldn't the fact that the CS Govt being targeted towards such a specific group (southerners) mean that they could be more in tune w/ what that good would be? Apparently Southrons didn't feel that the US Govt was looking out for their common good in 1861 -- why would they leave it/rebel/revolt against it if they did?
Obviously I'm Conveniently ignoring the good of the blacks (free/slave); however, I don't feel that anything the US Govt did was for the common good of the blacks in their geographical field. Even the EP didn't do anything for them; neither did reconstruction.
I find it funny people believe that Southerners of the day were not smart enough to build a functional peacetime Govt. To form a wartime Govt from scratch that functioned well enough to create and implement such things as an effective army and navy,conscription, wartime productions and the like -- seems like it could have enough umph to please the people in a peactime setting. My point is simply this: the people were behind the govt when things were bad, and the Govt was behind it's people when things were bad...Why would it change when things were good?
Why would you assume that the US Cen Govt would be for the common good but that the CS so definetely could not have been??
Not at all saying that the Federal were much better at it, just better. When it did things for the special interest, most of those things turned out to be beneficial for its citizens.
Quote:
Wouldn't the fact that the CS Govt being targeted towards such a specific group (southerners) mean that they could be more in tune w/ what that good would be?
The CS government was not created for the benefit of southerners. If it had been, it wouldn't have kicked off a war. Southern state legislatures were monopolized by slaveholders, as was the CS Legislature. Everything the states had done up to secession was for the benefit of the existing powers and virtually none for the common good. More of these people could have much more comfortable if there had been roads and commerce. By 1860 (so I've read) there was no Ohioan more than 25 miles from a railroad. Admittedly, railroads got some governmental favors, but they wouldn't have lasted very long if they hadn't provided a real benefit to people they served.
Quote:
Apparently Southrons didn't feel that the US Govt was looking out for their common good in 1861 -- why would they leave it/rebel/revolt against it if they did?
Apparently a few Southrons didn't feel ...What was available to the North was available to the South. The real political power in the South was not interested in commerce beyond their own little corner of it. No industries to offer opportunity for the laborer, no way to market farm goods (suppressing any desire to produce more than what might be consumed locally), nothing for anyone but the planter class.
Quote:
I find it funny people believe that Southerners of the day were not smart enough to build a functional peacetime Govt. To form a wartime Govt from scratch that functioned well enough to create and implement such things as an effective army and navy,conscription, wartime productions and the like -- seems like it could have enough umph to please the people in a peactime setting
I don't think anyone believes the Southerners were not smart enough to apply themselves when the need appeared. There were may pre-war statesmen pressing for southern advancements in areas other than cash crops. Smart enough? Certainly. Willing? Not much chance.
Quote:
My point is simply this: the people were behind the govt when things were bad, and the Govt was behind it's people when things were bad...Why would it change when things were good?
Adversity has a way of focussing attention to a solution. Luxury and ease tend to divert attention from problems.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
If the CSA had succeeded? 
Linear Mode
