What if the South won the Civil War? https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/t1747 Runboard| What if the South won the Civil War? en-us Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:25:04 +0000 Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:25:04 +0000 https://www.runboard.com/ rssfeeds_managingeditor@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds managing editor) rssfeeds_webmaster@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds webmaster) akBBS 60 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22564,from=rss#post22564https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22564,from=rss#post22564Of course we could also say the opposite, and remember how the Civil War lead to the 1861 Draft Riots of NY, which lead to new social programs and improved social order.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:45:25 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22523,from=rss#post22523https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22523,from=rss#post22523Weapons development leads to technologic breakthrough which leads to further advances leading to better weapons. Self building ladder, perpetuates the advance until the need falls away and the money slows to a crawl. The Globe has suffered thru those events. Panic of 1857(precursor to Civil War), Panic of 1873, 1893, 1896. The list extends quite a way into 1929. Recessions of note have hit outside of those. Compare to the list of wars incurred: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States Seem to follow on the heels of the biggies.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:44:57 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22492,from=rss#post22492https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22492,from=rss#post22492War accelerates weapons development. Other wars could have had the same effect, but most wars don't last long enough because one side or the other gives up sooner. The Civil war was so terrible because it went on so long and was so bitter, and on such as large scale, providing the most incentive for weapons development ever seen before that. We have had greater wars after that, but most long wars before that were far more abstract, such as over Spanish succession.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:59:32 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22489,from=rss#post22489https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22489,from=rss#post22489It is a recorded history as to those innovations of war developing further after. The HMS Dreadnought was the precursor to modern naval vessels, it's precursors were the Great White Fleet or essentially ever increasing in size Monitor Class vessels, The USS Maine was one of these used in The Spanish American War.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:52:22 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22464,from=rss#post22464https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22464,from=rss#post22464You can't know that, Rigby. Things are invented to meet needs, and there would have been a need for all of these weapons as warfare progressed. Permitting the South to secede surely would not have ended all war.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Bellelettres)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:04:13 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22462,from=rss#post22462https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22462,from=rss#post22462quote:cooter50 wrote: Does not change the effect of loss of the Civil War could have affected that as well, earlier maybe, possibly not at all. There is no denying that not only did the Civil war kill a very larger % of US population, but did start the arms race that resulted in the Spanish American War, the Great White Fleet, WWI, and WWII, etc. Without the Civil war, we would not have developed repeating rifles like the Sharps and Spencer, breech loading cannon like the Whitworth, submarines like the Huntley, all steel warships like the Monitor, etc., which directly lead to things later like the Gattling gun, Maxim machine gun, submarine warfare, etc. It was about the first big arms race the world has ever seen. I am not sure the Civil War could have been avoided, but it really had terrible results.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:00:31 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22450,from=rss#post22450https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22450,from=rss#post22450Does not change the effect of loss of the Civil War could have affected that as well, earlier maybe, possibly not at all.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 16:37:43 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22448,from=rss#post22448https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22448,from=rss#post22448I think it started before then, as the Russian Revolution of 1905 can't be ignored. The war and it's added effects to the population was the straw that broke the camels back.nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 16:35:13 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22440,from=rss#post22440https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22440,from=rss#post22440The primary spur to the Russian Revolutions in 1914 and 1917 were the effects of WWI on the populace as well industries of Russia. What of WWII, had Hitler not been in the war, had it occurred earlier or later in his life would he have even come to power, doubtful. Much the same for Marx and Lenin, both older men of the day where had WWI not occurred they could have beat their tambourines but had few followers to induce the rebellion, leaving no place for Stalin. With no WWII then the Jewish nation of Israel may not have happened nor the mass exodus of Jews to the Holy Lands. Less troublesome for Arab nationals who with a decreased industrialization may not have made the massive moneys they sit on today, same holds true for the industrialization of Japan prior to WWII, with a decreased innovative design they may remained a reclusive state. nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:44:48 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22427,from=rss#post22427https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22427,from=rss#post22427A little reading material: http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/civil-war-innovations/ https://www.thoughtco.com/causes-that-led-to-world-war-i-105515 http://www.historydiscussion.net/history/history-of-russia/top-5-causes-of-the-russian-revolution-explained/1889 Remove one point of contention and the fabric shreds. Had the Industrial Revolution slowed due to lack of capability or innovations derived of war we may have just now entered into a world war or just recovered from a century long depression. nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:58:04 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22425,from=rss#post22425https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22425,from=rss#post22425True but the reliance upon the machines of war did drive those events. It was the buildup of 'Dreadnaughts' of England and the US that drove Germany into developing sea power, much of which were the submarines used to destroy shipped commerce during the wars. Germany was in the mood for territory is the initial cause but with less demand for product from the west, with less threat of sea power menace would it have gone there/ Without the development of ever more powerful rail engines and gasoline powered trucks would the Russian revolution occurred there? A lot of speculation that even without one event would another have occurred anyway but then you have to structure against the marked achievements of those times as to power and control.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:56:48 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22388,from=rss#post22388https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22388,from=rss#post22388That seems very far-fetched to me. For one thing, because ironclad ships were developed at one point in history for a specific purpose does not mean they would not have been likely to be developed for another. There would have been wars and the need for stronger ships even if there had not been the Civil War. In any case, Hitler didn't come to power because of the composition of ships, nor did the Russian revolution come about because of that.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Bellelettres)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:52:31 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22387,from=rss#post22387https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22387,from=rss#post22387What were the reasons for the Civil War? What would have happened had the south won the war? I believe that the Pulitzer Prize winning historian, James McPherson provides a partial answer to both questions. "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries." Yes the struggle for political power was a cause along with slavery. However that political power struggle revolved around the ability of the south to expand slavery into the territories. Another argument of the confederacy apologists is that it was all about economics.. Ok yes it was. About preserving an outdated, doomed agrarian economic system whose foundation was slavery. Slavery that never was economically viable and which was rapidly becoming less so so with the advent of mechanization in all areas of farming. McPherson also touches on one possible outcome of a southern victory - a fragmenting of what has ultimately become the u.s. If the south had left the union, it would have been only a matter of time before Texas left the Confederacy. Other than the easternmost tier or two of counties, Texas has nothing much in common, historically, culturally, economically or geologically with the remainder of the confederacy. And she would likely have taken the Indian Territory, New Mexico, and possibly Arizona with her. California, Washington, Oregon and the inland northwest would have gone their way. It is highly unlikely  That tha US would have ever acquired Alaska. Would Alaska have gone to Canada, the new West Coast country, or stayed a protectorate of Russia? Only Sarah Palin knows. nondisclosed_email@example.com (GoHawk)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:50:23 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22378,from=rss#post22378https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22378,from=rss#post22378The potential exists that without the need for the Ironclad ships that spurred the advent of the later steel battleships and the ensuing weapons race for sea control WWI may not have occurred as did. Probability of a earlier US Great Depression is there along with the later development of the IC engine driven equipment. The lack of issues may have delayed the Russian revolution if not dissolved it, there are many contentions built around the machines developed during or directly related to the Civil War including Submarine Warfare the Breech loading Cannon or hand firearms, better steels, completely iron clad warships and the need for more troop transport systems. All items that played out later as causal action mechanisms for the later wars.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:22:03 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22371,from=rss#post22371https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22371,from=rss#post22371I'm getting kind of lost here. Do you mean, Cooter, that if the Union had allowed the slave states to secede, there would have been no WWI, nor would there have been a "reason for Hitler"? In other words, Hitler came to power because the Union would not permit the slave states to secede? Surely that's not what you're saying.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Bellelettres)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:56:45 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22365,from=rss#post22365https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22365,from=rss#post22365And as noted no WWI, no reason for Hitler or WWII, etc.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:25:58 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22344,from=rss#post22344https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22344,from=rss#post22344quote:cooter50 wrote: Everyone relates to 'Winning the War', but as I posted, what if they had just been allowed to secede? No war, no battles, just the end of the existing USA and gain of CSA. As noted Slavery was already headed out, mechanization was gaining ground, there was a drop in imports of people due to no need and as to a lack of fighting there would have been plenty share croppers in the white populations with no battle line deaths. The north could escalate their industrialization but would lose all the tariffs from southern production even as they would become a chief customer base. Avoiding the death and destruction would have been better. But I don't know if division would have worked, since the North then would not have had any markets for industrial products, and the South would have lost a market for agricultural goods. The way the French invaded Mexico, a divided US may have been easy pickings. Division would have made the Monroe Doctrine meaningless, so no Spanish American War, no Hawaii, the Japanese would have taken the Pacific, etc.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Fri, 18 Aug 2017 06:46:19 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22315,from=rss#post22315https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22315,from=rss#post22315Everyone relates to 'Winning the War', but as I posted, what if they had just been allowed to secede? No war, no battles, just the end of the existing USA and gain of CSA. As noted Slavery was already headed out, mechanization was gaining ground, there was a drop in imports of people due to no need and as to a lack of fighting there would have been plenty share croppers in the white populations with no battle line deaths. The north could escalate their industrialization but would lose all the tariffs from southern production even as they would become a chief customer base.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:47:27 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22313,from=rss#post22313https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22313,from=rss#post22313quote:John1959 wrote: quote:Yobbo wrote: Even had the south been victorious it is doubtful the institution of slavery would have survived for very long. I don't agree. We cannot possibly know, but it most likely would have continued for several decades. When I was born, blacks in the South did not have equality. That took about 100 years after the end of slavery. Not having seen this series, I can't say much about it. It's possible that their goal is to get people to understand what the war was truly about considering so many Americans do not seem to know. Even if the South had won The Civil War I doubt that slavery would have lasted long into the industrial age. It would have been an institution that was anachronistic and out of place in the developing western world. There would have been a lot of pressure from other western countries for America to end it. The Civil War appears to have been another war that we should have avoided altogether and would have avoided if we had not broken away from England. America has a very long history of warfare that wasn't truly necessary starting with the first one, The Revolutionary War. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Philer)Thu, 17 Aug 2017 22:53:51 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22310,from=rss#post22310https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22310,from=rss#post22310{... The Back-to-Africa movement, also known as the Colonization movement or Black Zionism, originated in the United States in the 19th century. It encouraged those of African descent to return to the African homelands of their ancestors. This movement would eventually inspire other movements ranging from the Nation of Islam to the Rastafari movement, and proved to be popular among African-Americans. ... In the early 19th century, the black population in the United States increased dramatically. Many of these African Americans were freed people seeking a better life. Many Southern freed blacks migrated to the industrial North to seek employment while others moved to surrounding Southern states.[1] Their progress was met with hostility as many whites were not used to sharing space with blacks in a context outside of chattel slavery. Many did not believe that free Africans had a place in America and thought the very existence of free blacks undermined the system of slavery and encouraged slaves to revolt.[2] In the North, whites feared that they would lose jobs to free African Americans, while other whites did not like the idea of blacks integrating with whites, but such sentiment was not exclusive to northerners. In Virginia, for example, one proponent of the Colonization movement, Solomon Parker of Hampshire County, was quoted as having said: “I am not willing that the Man or any of my Blacks shall ever be freed to remain in the United States.... Am opposed to slavery and also opposed to freeing blacks to stay in our Country and do sincerely hope that the time is approaching when our Land shall be rid of them."[3] Riots swept the nation in waves, usually in urban areas where there had been recent migration of blacks from the South. During the height of these riots in 1819, there were 25 recorded riots, with many killed and injured.[4] The back-to-Africa movement was seen as the solution to these problems by both groups, but more so with the white population than the blacks. Blacks often viewed the project with suspicion, especially among the middle-class, and worried that the Colonization movement was a ploy to deport freed African-Americans to keep them from making efforts against slavery. For example, shortly after the foundation of the American Colonization Society, 3,000 free blacks gathered in a church in Philadelphia and issued forth a declaration stating that they "will never separate ourselves voluntarily from the slave population of the country." Similarly, black leaders, such as James Forten, who had previously supported the Colonization Movement, changed their minds as a result of widespread black resistance to the idea.[5] ... According to the Encyclopedia of Georgia History and Culture, "as early as 1820, black Americans had begun to return to their ancestral homeland through the auspices of the American Colonization Society" and by 1847, the American Colonization Society founded Liberia and designated it as the land to be colonized by all black people returning from the United States of America.[9] By the decline of the Back to Africa Movement, the American Colonization Society migrated over 13,000 blacks back to Africa. Notable members of the American Colonization Society included Thomas Buchanan, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Abraham Lincoln, James Madison, Daniel Webster, John Marshall, and Francis Scott Key.[10] ...} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-Africa_movement nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Thu, 17 Aug 2017 22:40:22 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22296,from=rss#post22296https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22296,from=rss#post22296According to the link I provided, at no time did Lincoln consider repatriation. He didn't think of sending them back to the place they came from. And any re-colonization would be voluntary on their part. Perhaps you have documentation for what the attorney you once dealt with told you?nondisclosed_email@example.com (Bellelettres)Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:32:46 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22292,from=rss#post22292https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22292,from=rss#post22292He had not given in fully to end the repatriation, that is within his memoir writings at his library in Springfield IL. Well studied by Law students and reflected to me by an attorney I once dealt with in a discussion as to day issues.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:28:43 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22288,from=rss#post22288https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22288,from=rss#post22288That's incorrect. At one time Lincoln thought re-colonization to Central America was a good solution, but after the Emancipation Proclamation became law, he no longer sought that solution. The Proclamation was adopted two years before the end of the war, and two years before Lincoln's death. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/26/blog-posting/did-abraham-lincoln-plan-send-ex-slaves-central-am/nondisclosed_email@example.com (Bellelettres)Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:20:18 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22285,from=rss#post22285https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22285,from=rss#post22285It was intended by A. Lincoln to send them back to Africa or those nations they once came from. Had he survived it may have happened. Liberia was established earlier as to that colony for re-patriating blacks.nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:09:00 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22278,from=rss#post22278https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22278,from=rss#post22278America would not have had so many super athletes if blacks were still slaves.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Yobbo)Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:30:40 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22261,from=rss#post22261https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22261,from=rss#post22261As a matter of fact, the slave states had unequal representation in the House and the Electoral College, since slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for choosing the number of representatives a state was entitled to, but were not allowed to vote in elections. If represented equally, the southern states would have had 33 congressional representatives (and votes in the Electoral College). Under the 3/5 rule, they had 47. There's more detail at this link: http://constitution.laws.com/three-fifths-compromisenondisclosed_email@example.com (Bellelettres)Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:25:56 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22260,from=rss#post22260https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22260,from=rss#post22260When you remove the auspicious bias of US authors the truth of the matter is far beyond that of 'slavery' it was in fact forced economic pressure as well the need to place pressure upon those southern states to bend to the will of the northern states via a maligned imbalanced Congress. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/the-american-civil-war/causes-of-the-american-civil-war/nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:01:30 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22256,from=rss#post22256https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22256,from=rss#post22256If anyone doubts that the Civil War was about slavery, the vice president of the Confederacy's explanation should take away that doubt: As the vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, explained in 1861, Jefferson was all wrong about equality. “Our new government is founded … its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not the equal of the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this physical, philosophical and moral truth,” Stephens declared. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/17/its-actually-easy-to-draw-the-line-between-lee-washington-and-jefferson/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.8d00a85841d5 nondisclosed_email@example.com (Bellelettres)Thu, 17 Aug 2017 17:28:53 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22252,from=rss#post22252https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22252,from=rss#post22252Has been posed prior: https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2011/04/what-if-lincoln-had-allowed-south-secedenondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:56:28 +0000 Re: What if the South won the Civil War?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22251,from=rss#post22251https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p22251,from=rss#post22251What if Lincoln had chosen to allow the secession of the southern states and NO battles fought? No war, no rapid growth away from sailing ships, no development of heavily armored steam powered ships, the development of better steels, the invention of breach loading weapons and so on. Would or could the world have seen a WWI? Would it have then seen a WWII had WWI not occurred? Would Russia still have had the Revolution? All in doubt without the first affect. Could it have been the settings of the battles and the inventiveness of the militarist need for better weapons that has brought us to where we are now?nondisclosed_email@example.com (cooter50)Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:51:51 +0000