| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pandabear
Fleeting Body
Joined: Aug 17, 2007
Age: 50
Posts: 2912
|
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 73
Posts: 4795
Location: New Jersey
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 20
Posts: 8369
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An independent South would have been a backwater shithole.
Oh wait...
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
X_Parasite
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 29, 2006
Age: 19
Posts: 712
Location: Right here.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
John_Browning
Deinonychus
Joined: Mar 23, 2009
Posts: 386
Location: The shooting range
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Slavery would have still been destined to die out.
_________________
Right-wing gun nut |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 73
Posts: 4795
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | An independent South would have been a backwater shithole.
Oh wait... |
As it was until after WW2. Things changed in Dixie.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
SirTwittThornwaite
Hummingbird
Joined: Oct 18, 2009
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MussoliniBismarck
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Oct 12, 2009
Age: 18
Posts: 57
Location: Jefferson State
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the south won the civil war....my ass 
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.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
SirTwittThornwaite
Hummingbird
Joined: Oct 18, 2009
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MussoliniBismarck wrote: | If the south won the civil war....my ass
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MussoliniBismarck
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Oct 12, 2009
Age: 18
Posts: 57
Location: Jefferson State
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I see someone is ignoring my point.
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SirTwittThornwaite
Hummingbird
Joined: Oct 18, 2009
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MussoliniBismarck wrote: | I see someone is ignoring my point.
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MussoliniBismarck
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Oct 12, 2009
Age: 18
Posts: 57
Location: Jefferson State
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No, I'm saying you abruptly declaring the CSA being neutral in ww1 saves the planet is wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MissConstrue
Has left WP.
![]()
Joined: Feb 05, 2008
Posts: 16635
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
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....
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
zer0netgain
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 03, 2009
Posts: 1350
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
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). |
|
| Back to top |
|
MussoliniBismarck
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Oct 12, 2009
Age: 18
Posts: 57
Location: Jefferson State
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What I meant was slavery stopped at least Napoleon III from helping them. That's rather major to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
