If the CSA had won would they have fought in the world wars?

I respect your view but ya dont fire first to protect an instituton that most by that time felt to be barbaric and whose time (morally) had run it's course. When you do that you tend to start wars and get people like Sherman. It happens.

Well yes, this can start war indeed - but it happened and happens all the time. In fact, I think that terrorism does more or less fill into this role, hm? Of course, provided that people think that they shot first ...
 
This thread smacks of Harry Turtledove...
Indeed it does.
Well the question originally posted is not easy to answer. So many factors figure in. Also remember that we are talking about almost 80 years of history between the ACW and WWII.
Would slavery have been abolished? Perhaps, but we would surely be looking at a country simular to South Africa at the time. However they also joined the war and we all know on what side. Would a CSA have joined the Axis? And how would the relationship with Japan figure in? Too many what ifs to give a satisfying answer.
An interesting question however.
 
I KNOW there are folks out there who feel that what I am saying would have been a distinct possibilty. Seems a long time ago this same topic came up and several felt re-unification just might possibly have occured eventually. Where are they? By the way the analogy between us and Great Britian dont hold water. Very different situations which I may address later. It was NOT just taxes. In part it was also the whole Enlightenment thingee which our Founding Fathers (and Mothers) were into big time. Yes indeed. Read Thomas Paine and that nut named Jefferson.

But you still have a situation where a sovereign nation, after having been independent and running their own show for a number of decades, voluntarily give up control of their own destiny and subordinate themselves politically to a people they fought a war to get away from. OR you have a situation where a people having lost a bloody and protracted rebellion agree to allow those people who beat them to rejoin and run the entire show. Either way, I don't see what possibly could compel one country or the other to do that.
 
I agree, reunification wouldn't have happened voluntarily. Maybe if the Union had agreed to give New England to Canada the south might have come back but I doubt it.
 
But you still have a situation where a sovereign nation, after having been independent and running their own show for a number of decades, voluntarily give up control of their own destiny and subordinate themselves politically to a people they fought a war to get away from. OR you have a situation where a people having lost a bloody and protracted rebellion agree to allow those people who beat them to rejoin and run the entire show. Either way, I don't see what possibly could compel one country or the other to do that.

Get a life. Dang I rarely talk like that but you seem to think this was just a kinda rebellion kinda like "o gee lets cut ties with England" or some such thing. Man you are clueless...this was all about over 3,000,000 people who were held in bondage and greed reined supreme. Like it or not. Maybe you have not noticed how often I have cited the slavery thing! and u have never mentioned that. What the HELL u think was going on! Pls tell me! Geeze. Again, get rid of that and what IS the problem? What IS the problem? The South likes grits and the North dont??? Dam man....think. You are befuddled by intellectualism...which is not the real world. I deal with "intellectuals" every day. They are smart but not wise....actually kinda dumb. Not you of course....

Sorry but ya just don't make sense regarding what I am saying...re-unification. Very possible. If you would get less vague perhaps we could find common ground. I think you are axe-grinding. I do that also. Fair?
 
It is an uneasy peace with North but yes trade has resumed, yes the institution still exists but technology has reduced its scope. The U.S. gets Hawaii and the rest of the pacific territories it had. The CSA gets some territory in the Caribbean and Central America.

I know this is all a long shot but I had always wondered how events in history would have been different had the ACW turned out differently. WW2 being the most interesting because I could see a natural alliance between the CSA and Nazi Germany because of the racial viewpoints they both shared.
O wow. No comparison. None. "Stab in the back" Jews. Hitler was pathological....o man. The South hooking up with Nazi Germany? Dam. No way. I freaking out for a whole bunch of reasons.:banghead:

You really believe Southerners would have had a "natural alliance" with Adolf Hitler?? WHY???????????????????? Morover, to what advantage? Their racial viewpoints were quite different. Quite. Read up on it.
 
Not sure what the country would look like after a CSA win, only that instead of the country being divided North and South, it would be more in thirds, with 1/3 being the east coast to the Trans-Mississippi line, 1/3 being the Northwest and 1/3 being the Southwest. Guerilla warfare would have taken over the first mentioned 1/3 of the country.

Canada/England would have taken full advantage of the seeming breakup and guerilla warfare, I believe Mexico would have been a "safe" place to hide out until the country would become more orderly and begin to build manufacturing and agricultue again.

France would have demanded the return of the land sold in the Louisiana Purchase.

The American Indian could finally say, "Now the shoe is on the other foot." :nah disagree:

--BBF
 
Not sure what the country would look like after a CSA win, only that instead of the country being divided North and South, it would be more in thirds, with 1/3 being the east coast to the Trans-Mississippi line, 1/3 being the Northwest and 1/3 being the Southwest. Guerilla warfare would have taken over the first mentioned 1/3 of the country.

Canada/England would have taken full advantage of the seeming breakup and guerilla warfare, I believe Mexico would have been a "safe" place to hide out until the country would become more orderly and begin to build manufacturing and agricultue again.

France would have demanded the return of the land sold in the Louisiana Purchase.

The American Indian could finally say, "Now the shoe is on the other foot." :nah disagree:

--BBF

What would cause the further splits?
 
The csa gov't was reactionary and as long as slavery existed, it would remain so. As already noted, that would mean its policy would be isolationist and there would be no incentive to risk its limited resources, in a war to increase Democracy or Freedom.
 
Keyser, the french would take back the middle section of our country that was the Louisiana Purchase, partly to deny any more land grab by the English/Canadians during the break=up of the country's govt.

The English, in cahoots with the Canadians would take the Northwest, because of that area of the country was dominated by the British in fur trading in the early 1800's.

I do wonder if American Indian tribes would rise up and declare parts of the country theirs again.

Today, it would be Russia, China and the Koreas...just to name a few that would have the funds and cahonays to want to take part in dividing up the spoils of their weakened percieved enemy.

Lincoln said, the only way this country would fall is from within.

--BBF
 
The CSA govt was reactionary and as long as slavery existed, it would remain so. As already noted, that would mean its policy would be isolationist and there would be no incentive to risk its limited resources, in a war to increase Democracy or Freedom.
I'm inclined to agree with you. I feel that they would have been isolationist where European wars are concerned. Even more so if they had won their revolution without intervention. I would like to read your views on how WW1 increased democracy or freedom.
 
The csa gov't was reactionary and as long as slavery existed, it would remain so. As already noted, that would mean its policy would be isolationist and there would be no incentive to risk its limited resources, in a war to increase Democracy or Freedom.

Again...over intellectualism. I have no idea what Open Coronet is saying nor quoting.. I think he means the South would have tried to kick anyones azz if they messed with slavery. Morover, due to limited resourses they would have not messed with anyone else if they could help it (cept Cuba, various regions in the the Carrabbbbbbbean etc. O, also Mexico!) Also, what the hell is a war to increase or decrease democracy? Sounds like a calibrated test tube. How, pray tell, to u quantify that? Did the Texas War for Independence increase or decrease democracy? Maybe did fer some....did NOT for many others.

I hate the word "reactionary" I have never know what it means within my knowledge of history....other that it seems to mean we gonna kill yer azz cause ya dont think correctly and "react" ... like a gang banger thing. And I teach history! I just love getting old and now saying what I really think....fun. Well, carry on Coronet. Pls befuddle me more. Hah. Actually this is meant with some sense of humor.
 
Not a chance.
All resources would have been tied up keeping down an armed insurrection at home.

And the next question isn't "Who would be arming the insurrectionists" it's "Who wouldn't be arming the insurrectionists."
 
I'm inclined to agree with you. I feel that they would have been isolationist where European wars are concerned. Even more so if they had won their revolution without intervention. I would like to read your views on how WW1 increased democracy or freedom.
Calling the secession of the slave power a "revolution" is well, just crazy. Are u capable of envisioning yourelf a slave, yer kids sold, yer wife sold down the river? Have you ever even really thought bout that? Ever? It was not a revolution, it was a bad dumb play to keep the money flowing to a select few on the backs of many. Poor whites included. What was revolutionary bout greed in 1860? Pls......tell me.
 
Very good point but once slavery was dead and gone I see re-unification as a real possiblity. America was and is unique. I believe that. The shared culture, economics, and the shared history of the country might, might, have served to have brought about re-unification. Others have postulated this as a very potential scenario....not just I. I mean like wow man, since I see slavery as the only real reason for the split,,, once it is dead and gone what's to stop us from getting back together? Would have been the smart move. Wise heads might have recognized that and realized there is strenght in numbers and it would be to the benefit of all to re-unite. Economics would be a big factor also. Anyone agree? I feel lonely!:cry:

The Texans might not have wanted back in but they a whole nuther breed.:D

I also would have been opposed to allowing San Francisco back in....too loopy. Heh

Doug, what you say makes sense to me. Since maintaining slavery was the reason for the Confederacy establishing its own country, and if indeed they had won their bid for independence, then without slavery, going on the supposition you've put forth that slavery would not have survived long into the 20th century, then there might well have been voices of moderation and reconciliation from both countries at that time who would've advocated a plan for reunification. It's a perfectly plausible scenario to me.

Henry
 
Very good point but once slavery was dead and gone I see re-unification as a real possiblity. America was and is unique. I believe that. The shared culture, economics, and the shared history of the country might, might, have served to have brought about re-unification. Others have postulated this as a very potential scenario....not just I. I mean like wow man, since I see slavery as the only real reason for the split,,, once it is dead and gone what's to stop us from getting back together? Would have been the smart move. Wise heads might have recognized that and realized there is strenght in numbers and it would be to the benefit of all to re-unite. Economics would be a big factor also. Anyone agree? I feel lonely!:cry:

I only see unification resulting from the second or third war between the USA and CSA, and it would either be unification of conquest or incremental unification as boundaries are tweaked during each subsequent peace negotiation.
 
The csa gov't was reactionary and as long as slavery existed, it would remain so. As already noted, that would mean its policy would be isolationist and there would be no incentive to risk its limited resources, in a war to increase Democracy or Freedom.

The original Confederate founding fathers were expansionist, and visualized a Confederacy that expanded into the Caribbean and Central America in order to increase its slave territory.
 
The original Confederate founding fathers were expansionist, and visualized a Confederacy that expanded into the Caribbean and Central America in order to increase its slave territory.

I suspect any postwar Confederate expansion vision would center on how to draw Southern States, still in the old union, into the Confederacy. There may have been a Confederate attempt to obtain a passage to the Pacific from a weakened USA; but the CSA was too large and too thinly populated to go to far a field in the imperialism game.

“If war must come I preferred to be with my own people. If we had to shed blood, I preferred to shed Northern rather than Southern blood. If we had to slay, I had rather slay strangers than my own kindred and neighbors; and that it was better, whether right or wrong, that communities and States should go together and face the horrors of war in a body—sharing a common fate, rather than endure the unspeakable calamities internecine strife… The arguments having ceased and the sword drawn, all classes in the South united as by magic, as only a common danger could unite them.”

Zebulon B. Vance
 
Back
Top