Suppose that the Southern States had won the Civil War?

Page 1 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

20 Oct 2009, 8:08 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cCu8H6RbbI&feature=related[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cCu8H6R ... re=related



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Oct 2009, 9:03 pm

What is now the U.S. would have been divided into at least three sovereign nations; USA, CSA and California (or Pacifica -- add on State of Washington and Oregon). Perhaps even more separate nations would have formed, once the Union broke down. All the parts would be English speaking nations. Trade and commerce would have flourished.

Europe has existed as many nations, so there is no reason why North America could not have done so also. As things are now there are three major nations: Canada, U.S.A. and Mexico plus smaller republics in central America.

ruveyn



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 Oct 2009, 9:16 pm

An independent South would have been a backwater s**thole.

Oh wait...


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


X_Parasite
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 716
Location: Right here.

20 Oct 2009, 9:32 pm

The southern economy and infrastructure were decimated by the war. It would have been a weak, independent nation... But with slavery.

The North would also have been weakened, both politically and economically, the general attitude of the people would have been cynical, and there would have been states threatening to secede whenever things weren't going their ways.

Additionally, the British may have seen this as an opportunity to play the various anglophone American nations against each other and seize any power that they could.


The result would be a very different world from the one that we're living in now.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

20 Oct 2009, 10:22 pm

Slavery would have still been destined to die out.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Oct 2009, 1:29 am

Orwell wrote:
An independent South would have been a backwater s**thole.

Oh wait...


As it was until after WW2. Things changed in Dixie.

ruveyn



SirTwittThornwaite
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 19

21 Oct 2009, 3:17 am

The USA would now be CSA. The nation would probably be more caucasian, gun possession not an issue.
The CSA would not have intervened in WW I, so for Europe: three major nations: Germany, Austria-Hungary and Soviet Union (or Russia). The English would now sing 'God save the Kaiser'.
There would have been no Hitler, no WW II, no state of Israel.



MussoliniBismarck
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 57
Location: Jefferson State

21 Oct 2009, 6:32 am

If the south won the civil war....my ass :roll:

I'm confused as to how you can understand geo-politics of an alternative history SirTwittThornwaite. You must not understand the concept of a 'butterfly' in alt history, Twitt, it means that if an event such as the CSA winning the civil war, or Napoleon beating the Russians causes massive amounts of changes in the timeline making any predictions based off of what really happened nigh impossible. In other words, you vastly simplified history to a comical level.

I'd recommend reading some discussions or timelines on the civil war here to help your understanding. :)



SirTwittThornwaite
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 19

21 Oct 2009, 7:16 am

MussoliniBismarck wrote:
If the south won the civil war....my ass :roll:

I'm confused as to how you can understand geo-politics of an alternative history SirTwittThornwaite. You must not understand the concept of a 'butterfly' in alt history, Twitt, it means that if an event such as the CSA winning the civil war, or Napoleon beating the Russians causes massive amounts of changes in the timeline making any predictions based off of what really happened nigh impossible. In other words, you vastly simplified history to a comical level.

I'd recommend reading some discussions or timelines on the civil war here to help your understanding. :)


I see Benito has no answer to the question.



MussoliniBismarck
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 57
Location: Jefferson State

21 Oct 2009, 7:33 am

I see someone is ignoring my point. :roll:

When the South wins is important, earlier the better for it's economy.

If some form of magic was created to involve the French and British on the Confederate side with them ignoring the fact that the whole war was about slavery the Confederates could survive as a country with Brit/French help.

I can a revanchist 'second civil war' caused by the US wanting it's former states back with likely British support of the confederates and invading new england.

You cannot predict the future, and you especially cannot predict where butterflies may land.



SirTwittThornwaite
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 19

21 Oct 2009, 8:00 am

MussoliniBismarck wrote:
I see someone is ignoring my point. :roll:

When the South wins is important, earlier the better for it's economy.

If some form of magic was created to involve the French and British on the Confederate side with them ignoring the fact that the whole war was about slavery the Confederates could survive as a country with Brit/French help.

I can a revanchist 'second civil war' caused by the US wanting it's former states back with likely British support of the confederates and invading new england.

You cannot predict the future, and you especially cannot predict where butterflies may land.


So you're saying Pandabears topic is bo***cks.



MussoliniBismarck
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 57
Location: Jefferson State

21 Oct 2009, 8:11 am

No, I'm saying you abruptly declaring the CSA being neutral in ww1 saves the planet is wrong.



MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,052
Location: MO

21 Oct 2009, 8:25 am

If the south had won:

- We'd have more lynch'ns and cross bonfires.

- We'd be rich with free slaves at work...oh wait China and Mexico's almost already doing that for us. But at least we wouldn't have to pay them.

- We'd be predominantly christian and preferrable baptists.

- We'd fly our rebel flags around without controversy.

- Had the south won, we'd be payn' too much for what cotton and tobacco's worth.

- We'd have more crazies running around in white sheets.


That's all I could think up for now.... :roll:


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

21 Oct 2009, 8:37 am

The war of secession had nothing to do with slavery. It was about economics.

The north had pledged assets for the national debt. They failed to pay off the national bankruptcy. They were rolling over into another bankruptcy period but the creditors wanted a pledge of greater assets. All the assets were already pledged, so they wanted to pledge the assets of the individual states (not legal) for the national bankruptcy. The north (original 13) was willing to do this, the south was not. The southern states were new creations independent and after the indebtedness of the national government. They had no obligation to pledge their wealth or substance for the debts of another.

Slavery was just the excuse used because it was a major difference in the working economies of the north and the south (which was heavily agricultural).



MussoliniBismarck
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 57
Location: Jefferson State

21 Oct 2009, 8:40 am

What I meant was slavery stopped at least Napoleon III from helping them. That's rather major to me.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

21 Oct 2009, 9:58 am

I wonder if the Southern states would have developed their own standard form of English? Or perhaps an entirely new language would have evolved, distinct from English? Something like the way that Afrikaans descended from Flemish?

Do any Southern grammar school teachers cringe at the diction?

"If the South wooda won the war weeda had it made..."

It really isn't any different from Ebonics.