What do you think the US would be like today if the Confederates or South won the Civil War?
hmm, interesting topic.
they would of broken away from the US. Slavery would of been around for another 40-60 years, then another war/rebelin would break out, slaverly would be outlawed and they would of rejoined the US
Promise that forever we will never get better at growing up and learning to lie
honestly i would have hoped what you typed would have happened but i doubt it.
the north would have crumbled upon it's own economy with out enought raw material to trade.
the south with it's agriculture would have grown richer and eventually the north would have joined back with the south with the south being dominate. new capital would have been probably been georgia
Pretjah wrote:honestly i would have hoped what you typed would have happened but i doubt it.
the north would have crumbled upon it's own economy with out enought raw material to trade.
the south with it's agriculture would have grown richer and eventually the north would have joined back with the south with the south being dominate. new capital would have been probably been georgia
Enought raw material to trade? what did the south have? cotten? other random farms type stuff? The North's Economy would of been fine. remember, this was 1860s. still ton of farm land in the north/ west.
And the north would never rejoin the south while it still allowed slavery, they whole point of the war. Evently soical pressures would cause them to outlaw slavely.
Promise that forever we will never get better at growing up and learning to lie
pret thats what doomed the south to begin with. they had no factories in which to manufacture arms or munitions or anything that is needed to sustain a war. well at least not in large enough quanties that it helped them. the north however had factories and the infrastucture to support its people. the south had cotten, thats it and last i checked wars aren't fought by throwing hanes or fruit of the looms at each other. they were doomed at the start. however the civil war was not fought about slavery alone thats just the b.s. story they feed us in schools cause the n.a.a.c.p. wants slavery to be the focail point of the war. well it wasn't it was about states rights not slavery. and if you
read the imansapation proclamation ( spelling i know ) no where does it say slaves should be free. what lincoln said was if you defy the union then after the war you forfit your slaves and that any state that joins the union can keep there slaves. lincoln was no great civil rights leader like hes painted in school he was tring to keep the country together. as a matter of fact lincoln did not like blacks at all he even started shipping them back to africa i believe it was 3 or 4 fully loaded ships of not just slaves but indentured servents as well that he had taken back and that was part of the reason for his asassination.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
sorry but slavery wasjust one small piece of the civil war...it was one of the major benefits of the war but not a major reason.
the major reason was the south wanted state sovreignty and the north wanted national sovreignty.
The point of the war was states rights and interpretation of the bill of rights. And for how the government was founded, as a federalist republic, the south was right. However, given the past events, I’m pretty sure the "two countries" would have come back together. People use slavery as a flash point for the war, when in reality it was just one of the many things that illustrated the differences between the 2 vastly different economies.
From were we stand in 2005, I don’t think much would be different.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
jackalope this thread is about IF the south had won..not how they could have won.
if the south had won and split the norths economy would have collapsed on itself much sooner than the american economy did some years latter from the same thing. the economy of the great depression was the fault of the northern economy failing.
with out the south the northern ecomony would have fallen sooner!
Without the South, the North would have been resource rich, but manufacturing deplete, but that can change. The South would have been very rich in manufacturing potential, but not a lot else.
The war was not just about states rights, but abolishing slavery was the major part of it (Lincoln was shrewd, abolish slavery in the conferate states, but not in the Union states, push the people that are already going, and keep the people with you, in good graces). If you think about it, the South was population heavy, and the balance of voting powers (even with the black voter making 3/5 of a white voter) was firmly south.
If the south separated, I suspect it would have been okay for a while, but you would have probably had a situation like South Africa after a while: black gangs murdering white farmers and their slaves that wouldn't join. I don't think that the south would have stayed strong because it was mainly an agrarian based economy, but if there was a rigid separation, and rail lines severed, I think you'd have seen some very poor people with a lot of land and a lot of food to sell, and not a lot else. I also suspect that the North would have had a much greater manufacturing boom to fill the void, and as such, would have had the economic power regardless. Either the South fell then, or they fell soon after under their own weight.
Also, I think the drive west would have been a secondary thought, or there would have been an expansionary war to conquer the far wester territory...
What if..? is such a fun little game.
<a href="http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html">The Emancipation Proclaimation</a> actually did set the slaves in
rebel states free. Lincoln was in the beginning of his career a separatist, but eventually mellowed. After his presidency, there was an ammendment to alter the 3/5s black vote as contained in the original constitution.
Jackalope: Your history teacher was telling you a myth. <a href="http://www.historicaldocuments.com/emancipationproclamation.htm">Read here</a> and scroll down to the Myth of Non-Emancipation.
There are a lot of people that say that abolishing slavery wasn't the main thrust of the war, but I like this explanation:
Quote:
The Myth of Non-Emancipation
The Emancipation Proclamation has faced criticism as a document of little actual impact, because it offered freedom only to slaves within any state or designated part of a state in rebellion against the United Statesnot to slaves in areas that the Union actually controlled. (The March 1862 Confiscation Act had freed slaves in rebellious states, though it only described such slaves as captives of war who would not be returned to claimants.) Some have therefore challenged the Proclamations importance in ending slavery.
But in formally tying the Unions war aims to a policy of abolishing slavery, Lincoln dramatically expanded the scope of the conflict. From black soldiers to European statesmen, from Lincolns political enemies in the North to outraged rebels in the South, observers understood that the war, and the future course of the nation, had undergone a fundamental change. Whether they approved or not, after January 1, 1863, Americans no longer could deny that freedom for African Americans was now a central part of the Union war effort.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
The south had all the oil pretty much, the north was very heavily industrial at the time, that is pretty much why they won, i think the north had a better army also.
That goes without saying, but at the time, oil wasn't as big as it is now... the primary energy supply was in the form of timber and coal to power trains, and horses and oxen for farming. The north had what it needed to suffice quite nicely... and I believe Pennsylvania's big oil supply hadn't been discovered yet, I may be wrong on that though.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
yea that sounds right, love the sig btw. monty python rocks
dont for get. the north probly woud have gotten alaska.... split it 3 ways and its still biger than texis..... WAY more oil too.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
I suspect that with the depleted war chest, Alaska would have either stayed in the hands of the Russians, or it would have been annexed by the Hudson's Bay Company as part of the British crown.
I might be wrong, but I don't remember when Alaska became part of the union.
thanks ©lever one
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
If the South won they could have eventually became self-sufficient once their war-torn economy stabilized and they received "reparations" from the North. The South was fairly primitive industry-wise but without the blockade and with European help and trade, I'm sure the South could have survived. Slavery would not have lasted much longer after the Civil War... pressure from the world powers and possibly embargoes would force the South to abandon it. Within 10 years of the Civil War the South's economy could have rivalled the North if it built up industry to back its agriculture.
This all assumes the South won the war in mid-1863 or earlier since the main damage to the South (Grant's Sheridans and Shermans campaigns) was done in 1864-65. The South simply could not win after 1863... they only had a chance at a truce. If the South had won battles like Shiloh, Antietam, Gettysburg then they had a chance at British or French assistance, which would have meant victory... certainly an interesting alternate history because the blockade woulda been broken and Canada would have been a front... the Confederate Army and Navy supplied with material and men from Europe and commanded by brilliant commanders like Lee and Jackson would have won the war. Plus, I always liked the Confederate ironclads:
<img src="http://www.thoroughbredmodels.com/images/Tenn_2.jpg">
Turtledove has some interesting alternate history books w/ this scenario, his newer ones get a little far-fetched but his basic scenario is sound, the south w/ the agricultural capibility but lack of rivers (vital for factories in that time) would never become a major world-power player and would be more or less like most south and central american countries, pretty much self-sustaining but not a superpower.
<img src="http://www.geocities.com/fudd_22602/elmer-shoot.gif"> Old school Js rock
pret thanks i didnt realize that..... oh wait yes i did and IF the south had won the war there would never have been any j bodys built we would all be driveing around in orenge dodge chargers with confederate battle flags on the roof and named after different generals. all women would have to were daisy dukes all year round and we would all have an uncle named jesse. and all the police would be like rosoe p. coltrain
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
i could live with that !! B-)
<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y112/damat01/IHOG.jpg">
<img src="http://www.imgplace.net/files/whitecanhouse.jpg">
lol
the south shall rise again!!!!!!!!!!!
-Borsty
the south couldn't rise again with all the viagra in the world.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
actually there would be no difference , southern conservatism still dominates rule in the country and mostly all the political power is held in the south
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
Rodimus Prime wrote:actually there would be no difference , southern conservatism still dominates rule in the country and mostly all the political power is held in the south
the 'solid south' is actually not so solid anymore.
-Borsty
^^^ I agree with them. If the south won it would still be one nation not 2 hence one side winning. Might be some different laws and the capital would be in a different place all in all it would probably for the most part be the same. I dont undedrstand why everyone has such a bad opinion on the south. We're not a bunch of inbred hillbilly rednecks like everyone assumes.
