[JW1178]

Well I know Obama wouldn't be running it.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Naelbis

Actually pretty much every honest historian agrees that slavery would have ended within a few decades anyway. Industrialization and evolving religious mores would have seen to that. And since Reconstruction wouldn't have been imposed on the South much of the social upheaval that led to religious strife may not have happened as attitudes and social structure changed over a longer period.

Excellent post naeblis



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[glocking26]

Yes! With out a Doubt.

[JW1178]

Originally Posted by WarCry

This is how I've always understood it. Lincoln had reports that slavery was going to end because it was easier/cheaper to automate the work that slaves were doing anyway. As I understand it, the Emancipation Proclamation was made because the French were seriously considering coming in on the side of the South, supporting the secessionists just like they did in the Revolution. Once the Proclamation was made, the French pulled reign because they didn't want to be seen as being on "the side of slavery."

Lincoln knew it was a political - not social - move, and he played it to perfection.

Shhhh..... you are speaking the truth! Saying it was over slavery turns a rather illegal invasion of the CSA by the USA into a moral cause, and demonizes the South for centuries.

From what I understand the British were also interested in being on the side of the Dixie because they wanted the dibs on the resources the South had. The North needed the South because their industries needed that cotton and other resources to run their factories. The South didn't need the North, so the left.

[Dexters]

Originally Posted by Naelbis

Actually pretty much every honest historian agrees that slavery would have ended within a few decades anyway. Industrialization and evolving religious mores would have seen to that. And since Reconstruction wouldn't have been imposed on the South much of the social upheaval that led to religious strife may not have happened as attitudes and social structure changed over a longer period.

Yes.

And let's not forget that Liberia was being used as a place for freed slaves to return.

As I said, slavery was the moral justification given for the war - after the war.

[frank4570]

But how would have the world wars turned out without a United States to throw in it's full support?

[JW1178]

Much of what is never considered is that the dark chapter containing the racisim and the KKK and such happened AFTER the civil war. I think much of it has to do with resentment after the war. Perhaps if the South won, it may not have happened. Blacks weren't treated that well up north either.

One thing I am almost positive about is that most likely the South would have ended up a third world nation. Slavery would have ended eventually but unless industry started in the South. Most industry and business to this day starts in the North until this day.

Originally Posted by Dexters

Yes.

And let's not forget that Liberia was being used as a place for freed slaves to return.

As I said, slavery was the moral justification given for the war - after the war.

Yup, such as we didn't go into WWII to stop the holocost either... and we tore down the Nazi's and Hitler but sided with The Comunists and Stalin which in many ways was worse. Stalin didn't treat Jews any better than Hitler, the only real difference is that the Germans were better at documenting it. In Soviet Russia, the USSR didn't like you, you just well, didn't exist anymore.

Originally Posted by frank4570

But how would have the world wars turned out without a United States to throw in it's full support?

Not sure about that one. Perhaps about half a million American lives would have been spared not fighting the wars? I'd like to think the North and South after the war would have realized we were all Americans and at least against our enemies stood together. Much like the US and the UK does today. It's kind of like with your parents, after you move out you get along better with them.


All in all, it turned out for the best.

[Dexters]

Originally Posted by frank4570

But how would have the world wars turned out without a United States to throw in it's full support?

WWI - probably would have ended in a stalemate - Germany defeated Russia and the battle lines in the west were not on German soil.

Probably no WWII or Israel or cold war or USA involvement in the middle east.

[Altaris]

Originally Posted by frank4570

But how would have the world wars turned out without a United States to throw in it's full support?

Assuming production places progressed as to what they are today, I would guess that the south would provide all of the oil production and the north would produce a lot of the vehicles. Then the north and south would argue over who contributed more to WW2 and who was the true cause to the allies winning.

The question would be, whose fleet would be stationed at Hawaii for the Japanese to bomb?

[G26S239]

Originally Posted by Naelbis

Actually pretty much every honest historian agrees that slavery would have ended within a few decades anyway. Industrialization and evolving religious mores would have seen to that. And since Reconstruction wouldn't have been imposed on the South much of the social upheaval that led to religious strife may not have happened as attitudes and social structure changed over a longer period.

Had the CSA not been defeated slavery would have remained the law of the land under Article 1 Section 9.4 No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

Also see Article 6 Section 3 Supremacy Of The Constitution.

[Dexters]

Originally Posted by G26S239

Had the CSA not been defeated slavery would have remained the law of the land under Article 1 Section 9.4 No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

Also see Article 6 Section 3 Supremacy Of The Constitution.

Although there was the right to own slaves; that does not mean there would be slaves. Just as the situation is today with guns - some own them, most do not.

Slavery is not a viable system in a mechanized world.

[G26S239]

Originally Posted by Dexters

Although there was the right to own slaves; that does not mean there would be slaves. Just as the situation is today with guns.

Right, just as there are no guns now there would have been no more slave ownership if the CSA had prevailed.

[arclight610]

The South will rise again... in teen pregnancies and obesity

[tantrix]

Originally Posted by Phaze5ive

Well, if the south had won, black people would probably still be slaves or second class citizens at best. Hell, they were pretty much still second class citizens ~40 years ago.

This always makes me laugh...everyone I know down here who has been up North says racism is 10x worse up there than it is down here.

[Naelbis]

Originally Posted by G26S239

Had the CSA not been defeated slavery would have remained the law of the land under Article 1 Section 9.4 No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

Also see Article 6 Section 3 Supremacy Of The Constitution.

This is not certain as there was a very real move in relgious circles to abolish slavery anyway. Many of the great leaders of the South were fundamentally opposed to slavery on religious grounds. It is not unreasonable to assume that a constitutional amendment ending slavery was inevitable as societial attitudes evolved.

[Detectorist]

I've done a lot of research on this subject. As a matter of fact, my minor is in history.

I conclude that if the South had won, we would all be eating fried chicken, mashed potatoes, and black eyed peas every day.

[tantrix]

Originally Posted by Naelbis

This is not certain as there was a very real move in relgious circles to abolish slavery anyway. Many of the great leaders of the South were fundamentally opposed to slavery on religious grounds. It is not unreasonable to assume that a constitutional amendment ending slavery was inevitable as societial attitudes evolved.

Of course slavery would have ended...the Northern Sympathizers just have to find a way to justify Union troops raping Southern women and burning their husbands and kids alive.

[SpoiledBySig]

Originally Posted by Naelbis

Actually pretty much every honest historian agrees that slavery would have ended within a few decades anyway. Industrialization and evolving religious mores would have seen to that. And since Reconstruction wouldn't have been imposed on the South much of the social upheaval that led to religious strife may not have happened as attitudes and social structure changed over a longer period.

This was a very good analysis. Hard to argue with.

Good job Naelbis.

[Detectorist]

Originally Posted by tantrix

Of course slavery would have ended...the Northern Sympathizers just have to find a way to justify Union troops raping Southern women and burning their husbands and kids alive.

You mean as opposed to guys like Bill Anderson doing it?

[G26S239]

Originally Posted by Naelbis

This is not certain as there was a very real move in relgious circles to abolish slavery anyway. Many of the great leaders of the South were fundamentally opposed to slavery on religious grounds. It is not unreasonable to assume that a constitutional amendment ending slavery was inevitable as societial attitudes evolved.

The fact is that the slave holding oligarchy was willing to provoke a war and sacrifice a few hundred thousand lives to found a country that had slave ownership as its cornerstone as defined by CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
"Our new government is founded on exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."
http://www.teachingamericanhistory.o...cumentprint=76
Dance around that all you want. Article 1 Section 9.4 was not an after thought. It was put in the CSA Constitution after careful consideration.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by WarCry

This is how I've always understood it. Lincoln had reports that slavery was going to end because it was easier/cheaper to automate the work that slaves were doing anyway.

What do you think would have happened to the slaves?

Honest question. I doubt that the owners planned to just set them all fre.

Originally Posted by JW1178

Shhhh..... you are speaking the truth! Saying it was over slavery turns a rather illegal invasion of the CSA by the USA into a moral cause

Saying the war was about slavery is certainly oversimplifying it immensely... but saying it didn't have anything to do with slavery is just lying.

I bet the slaves would have loved to be able to walk off the job with no notice.

[NeverMore1701]

Originally Posted by hogfish

So much hate towards this great country.

Have you seen the state of this country recently?

[MulletLoad]

Just wondering how many of you ass clowns would have accepted living under slavery for "a few decades" until it faded away instead of ending it in the Civil War.

Great idea unless you're one of the slaves who would have had 2 generations to live under until it was abolished.

[ray9898]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

I bet the slaves would have loved to be able to walk off the job with no notice.

Some will come along shortly and tell you how great it was to be a slave even though you had no freedom and were owned as property. Then they will go to the next thread and pound their chest proclaiming themself as freedom lovers.

[AK_Stick]

Healthier maybe, but not better.


I wounder if Ted would have been a better person, if he'd gone to war?