Confederate Legacy

Another AH on this is Bring the Jubilee, by Ward Moore. One of the earliest AH novels written.

I think we would have ended up with a British client state in the South and a strong ally of Russia in the North.

The only way the South could have won was to get British aid. This was next to impossible as the British and the French used the suppression of slavery as a major justification of their Imperialism. However, let's say that the South agrees to a gradual abolition and the British accept that. The Brits would beat the North after a hard fight and Russia might agree to help the North as they were still smarting from their defeat in the Crimean War and quite friendly with the USA at the time.

It wouldn't be much help, however, as the reason the Russians lost in the Crimea was because they couldn't even project power over their entire European mass, let alone the whole world.

Hard to say what the subsequent developments might be. France might see a Southron client state of John Bull as upsetting the European balance of power and try to help the Union, but considering that Lincoln blocked Napoleon III's ambitions in Mexico it's hard to see how that would fly. Or maybe Lincoln would be too preoccupied to help Mexico. Interesting.

 

It was more of a gesture to everyone that the war wasn't above Northern oppression of the Southern states but, rather about freeing the slaves. Considering the peace talks involved the continuation of slavery and their wasn't a cease fire after the North ceded on that point it didn't leave much to question about it being more than just slaves. It was for economic freedom and the ability to get out of the stranglehold of the North.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

 

Indeed. I often wonder how history would have gone if the US hadn't stayed together and become a great nation.
The south would have been a rump of weak states holding on to slavery too long and ruining their future.
Colonizing the west would have been harder. Without a strong US, there'd be no Panama Canal and the Nazis might have ruled the world.
I think that the reason that Lincoln is revered as one of our greatest presidents is that he preserved the union and gave us all a much better future.

 

It delegates the other social, economic, educational, health, and various other concerns upon the states. The major duty of the Federal government was the enforcement of the Constitution and the protection of all the members of the USA.

- - - Updated - - -

The Nazis came about directly because of the involvement of the US Government which prevented a white peace from occurring. No one wanted to fight by the time the USA stepped in and the Treaty of Versailles economically maimed the Germans and it was ripe for a political change... for good or for bad.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yeah because gays were really an issue back then huh... HA!!!! You guys...............

 

Peace Talks ?? There were peace talks for the ACW?. There was a surrender, yes, but I never heard of any peace talks

 

This is actually a perspective I didn't consider before. I'll mull this over.

- - - Updated - - -

Please tell me all about how same sex couples wouldn't be instantly lynched in the south before the 80s.

 

You've yet to add any relevance. All you keep saying is that the South got their asses kicked. Let me fill you in.

Union strength - 2,100,000 soldiers
Confederate strength - 1,064,000 soldiers

Union killed by Confederates - 365,000 dead; 282,000 wounded
Confederates killed by Union - 260,000 dead; 137,000 wounded

Had the Confederates "gotten their asses kicked" as you falsely claim, that death toll would have been switched around.

I guess you're also unaware that the Confederates ran out of ammunition. That is the only reason they surrendered.

 

There is always communication between two warring states and Lincoln was on record for allowing slavery to continue. The words "peace talks" were more of the substance of avoiding the calamity all together but, it never came about and the south broke away.

 

That's how I feel too... They hate us so much, yet refuse to let us go and go into a frenzy when people in the South mention a 21st Century secession.

 

Here's mine: there woulda been Soviet air bases in every Confederate state by 1960.

Then surely it will be child's play for you to cite evidence that is both contrary to and more compelling than the documents I cited upthread.

Yeah, ginchy. What the hell does any of this have to do with state sovereignty?

 

Further reading will prove otherwise.

 

Lincoln is far from the hero he's hailed to be. The revisioned history comes from northern historians or southern historians from the north.

 

Umm... the Federal government went around the 10th amendment which gave it control of the topics mentioned. Thus it was an attack on the sovereignty of all the states within the USA.

 

*secede

The states had the right to secede, it wasn't "treason" or traitorous. The bullies up north didn't like that idea.

 

re·vi·sion·ism

rəˈviZHəˌnizəm/

noun derogatory

a policy of revision or modification, especially of Marxism on evolutionary socialist (rather than revolutionary) or pluralist principles.


In layman terms, cultural-Marxism aka political correctness.

 

I don't think it would work nowadays, and I'm certainly not calling for that to happen. I'm just saying it could have worked back then. The South could have broken away and done their own thing. The Civil War didn't need to happen.

 

It's a pity they didn't publicly execute Davis and Lee after the war, with some others.

 

Lincoln was the country's most blood drenched tyrant, responsible for more American deaths than any other figure in history.

 

Not just ammunition, food and manpower as well. Steel, iron, coal, railroads, factories, iron works, what were they THINKING? Then again, this is something that strikes you about LOTS of wars throughout history, the losers should have just realized they were beaten before they even started.

The North took more losses because they could afford to, the South didn't have men to loose, so it couldn't just keep throwing cannon fodder at heavily fortified positions. The South also had, for the most part, the home field advantage, always a big thing in war. They tried to invade the North twice, and DID have the their asses handed to them both times

Now the South did have, to pretty much all experts, the best Generals. Michael Shaara in "The Killer Angels" said that the most competent AND beloved General on EITHER side at Gettysburg was Robert E. Lee

 

The 1980's or 1880's? If anyone was gay back around the mid 1800's and before, they would have never let it be known. In other words, it wasn't an issue because it wasn't something people saw or talked about so the "way of life" wasn't strictly limited to "straight white males."

 

I have books about the Civil War from start to finish that were produced in the 80's by the Encyclopedia Britannica, but more importantly, before political correctness started rearing its head. The war was not about slavery in the South. It was about states rights. Slavery had little to do with the main reasons.

And I don't think there would be soviet bases in the South.

- - - Updated - - -

Abso-frackin-lutely!

 

Really? Then why was that never once mentioned in the Declaration of Causes of the seceding southern states?

And why does slavery and the rights of the slaveholders dominate those documents?

Documents that were ratified and signed by the relevant state legislatures?

 

That's what I'm saying. The South seceded and was minding its own business. I don't believe war was ever their intention. Being bullied definitely wasn't.

 

All that might be interesting if there were some reason to believe they had any to attack.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.