What if the South won the Civil War?

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Noserose, Aug 12, 2017.

  1. clg311

    clg311 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    838
    Likes Received:
    216
    Trophy Points:
    43
    The North would have prospered without the South dragging us down. Democrats wouldn't have dumbed down their message to get conservative southerners votes as they did in the nineties .The North and West would have universal health care and free college and the US would be much more progressive. The South would have been a third world country and blacks would emigrate North leaving the whites without a labor force to exploit.
     
  2. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    37,268
    Likes Received:
    12,510
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The CSA just fought war for independence, for self-rule.
    Why would they even consider falling back under the crown?
     
  3. stepmac

    stepmac Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    If Lee had won at Gettysburg he would have marched his army using Jackson's (We are working under the assumption that he survived.) "foot cavalry" directly to DC. I think the town would have evacuated and Lincoln too. With Lee in control of DC I think the War would have ended. Victoria would have recognized the South. Slavery would have survived. Maryland would have joined the Confederacy along with Tennessee, Missouri and maybe Kansas. There would have been little question which side the border states would have joined.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2017
  4. stepmac

    stepmac Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    With a victorious Confederacy the South would have boomed. The Mississippi would have been opened up and trade up and down it would have thrived. Southern culture would have become all the rage. Paris fashions would have featured gray. Their restaurants would have served fried chicken and hush puppies. The Virginia Reel would have been a popular dance and everyone would have been humming "Dixie". It would have become popular to hire black servants, but they would not be slaves. The entire slave issue would be a stickler. I suspect the Southerners would have shared their victory with their black "servants" (They never called slaves - slaves, they were "servants" or "field hands".) Maybe more would have been freed. Maybe all of them would have been freed as a kind of reward for working throughout the War.

    It would have been interesting as we study the new ending, which would now be the real ending, of the Civil War today. Maybe the Yankees would be considered the "Villains" since it was they who invaded the South. They sort of "started it". Black Americans would see the Confederates as rewarding their labors with their freedom and maybe the racial divide we experience would not be a deep as it is today. Would the two nations have reunified? Who knows, but it might be under the "Stars and Bars" and not under "Old Glory".
     
  5. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    27,007
    Likes Received:
    8,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Isn't Canada independent? They gained the status they have today in the 1860's. And Australia is independent too. Having a titular monarch isn't meaningless but it's not really that important either.

    There were a lot of Southerners who looked upon help from GB as a given, because the British mills needed King Cotton (didn't work out though, just promoted the Egyptian market) There was a big faction in Old Blighty that wanted to help the Confederates. (Remember that British Observer in The Killer Angels ? he was real.) Many of the Southron Planter class saw themselves as having far more in common with your British Earls than any American and you can make a good case even today for unifying GB and the USA, (though GB would be far the junior partner now).

    As I said, the Brits were looking to help the Confederacy and I can't see the Southrons tuning them down, as it would practically guarantee victory. The sticking point was slavery, and I just outlined a way that might become the unifying factor rather than a point of contention.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2017
  6. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    37,268
    Likes Received:
    12,510
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nowhere here is there a meaningful answer to my question.
    Thanks.
     
  7. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    27,007
    Likes Received:
    8,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We crossposted. Read the rest of my reply before.
     
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    37,268
    Likes Received:
    12,510
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes... all of this is an argument as to why the CSA would want help form the UK in the war against the US
    Nothing supports the idea they would accept the crown as their head of state.
     
  9. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    3,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sounds interesting.

    Brainstorming this notion gives a two-nation configuration for the former USA which would then join Canada and Mexico as the four major occupants of North America.

    As separate sovereign nations, the North and the South would have been completely independent and then the Fugitive Slave Act which was part of the cause of the U.S. Civil War according to General/President U.S. Grant would have been void, and as such there would have been an exodus of slaves fleeing the South for the North.

    This could have caused yet another subsequent war between the North and the South, only this time instigated by the South whereas the first (actual) Civil War had been instigated by the North by invading the South.

    So had the South "won" the actual Civil War, there would likely have been more war to follow.

    It is thus fortunate that the North won, thanks mostly to Grant and to Generals Meade and Buford. They won their respective battles on practically the same day around July 4th in 1863 at both Gettysburg and Vicksburg.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2017
  10. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    3,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You should stop posing loaded rhetorical questions.

    Instead you should research when Canada gain its independence, state it, and then cite your references.
     
  11. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    3,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lee would have had D.C. surrounded. There would have been no escape.

    Lee's instructions from Davis were to present a letter to Lincoln offering terms of surrender for the North from the South.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2017
  12. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    3,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need to get an avatar to go with your moniker.
     
  13. Capt Nice

    Capt Nice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,440
    Likes Received:
    5,947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    LOL. God knows we've become accustomed to alternative facts.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  14. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    27,007
    Likes Received:
    8,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1867 and my gf just told me. She's Quebecois, you want her to sing O Canada or say something in really strange French? I used a rhetorical question because it conveyed my meaning clearly in 3 words. Thank you anyway, though, I will take your advice to heart and hereby award you the status of "pointy-bearded perfessor"
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2017
  15. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    3,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only azzholes and females use rhetorical questions.

    They are a fallacy of sophistry.

    Give it up and debate like a gentleman.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
     
  16. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    27,007
    Likes Received:
    8,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Perfess
    When Adam delved and Eve span who then was the gentleman?
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  17. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    3,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Moses made up this myth to start his fictional narrative called Bereshet (in Greek, Genesis).

    Don't get too wound up about it. It's just a story about a young lady and a lad and his snake and her taste buds.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2017
  18. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    19,812
    Likes Received:
    7,571
    Trophy Points:
    113

    For me personally, it might mean I would be rich today, given both sides of my family tree lost their big plantations and land, plus slaves after the defeat of the South. They lost it to those damned to hell Yankee con men and carpet baggers for property taxes given what gold we had hidden was dug up by the Yankee armies, as they looted us to the bone, spoils of war. So my ancestors had to start over, no longer big land owners and cotton farmers, penniless and poor. And like the freed slaves went to work sharecropping, sharing the same life of poverty as the newly freed slaves who were exploited, just as the poor whites were, by land owners. Yankee land owners. It took a generation or more for my ancestors to claw their way back to owning decent sized cotton farms, but only hundreds of acres instead of thousands. So for my ancestors, the South winning would have saved their property and social position, instead of taking it away. And I would probably be wealthy today, thanks to their money and what big money can buy in DC.
     
  19. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    27,007
    Likes Received:
    8,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And how they were all very happy until God got involved.
     
  20. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    27,007
    Likes Received:
    8,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Or your ancestors could have died screaming in the inevitable slave's revolt, and you wouldn't exist.

    This is another factor that most of the South Winning the War scenarios overlook. The South had seen slave revolts before, though none were really widespread. The North was arming and deploying former slaves as troops from 1863, and I believe it was Lee himself who suggested the South arm some freed blacks in 1864. Would people who had been told a whole war had just been fought for their freedom and seen others of their race free soldiers on their behalf still be a submissive force of millions?
    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2017
  21. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    26,401
    Likes Received:
    7,278
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In my opinion, the South had to be destroyed to destroy the culture, literally destroyed. Burn it down as happened.

    It was tragic President Lincoln was assassinated as the post war carpet bagger era was a disaster and largely responsible for the massive backlash against blacks.
    All that said, this does not change the heroism of Confederate soldiers - most who did not own slaves - answered the call of their new country the same as American revolutionaries answered the call of their new country breaking free of the British.

    The South's military fought very honorably, which the North came not to so.

    I suspect anyone who served in the military understands that the military does not make policy and may not even agree with the war. Rather, a soldier does his duty honorably, with best skill giving all the soldier has, and with courage. Thus, often in warfare the actual soldiers fighting could have respect for each other. After the war, much of the North HIGHLY respected General Lee and the soldiers of the Confederacy.

    THIS is why it is the Confederate BATTLE flag of the military, not the national flag. This was the Confederacy's national flag:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags...Confederate_States_of_America_(1861-1863).svg

    I've never seen anyone fly it.

    The MILITARY statues of the Confederacy should stay. Removing statues of Jefferson Davis should not as he is the Saddam Hussein statue so to speak, plus he was not honorable in the end wanting to employ biological weapons, engage in insurgency terrorism and have Lincoln assassinated. Robert E Lee was notably honorable by every measure. Even in the end he surrendered - when not having to - to end the war and prevent it becoming an insurgency war. He never supported the war to begin with. He just did his duty to his state and the nation his state had joined.
     
  22. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    50,894
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not to mention that they never had any intent to conquer the north. No intent to spread slavery to the North. Even if they had the ability.
     
  23. Concord

    Concord Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,856
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Intentions change very, very quickly. Most Americans had no intent to become independent. The United States (probably) never intended to invade Europe for the purpose of counterbalancing the Soviets, they just wanted to beat the Germans.

    But, there they were.

    But I do agree that it's unlikely the South would have conquered the North, both because they weren't very inclined in that direction and because it's harder to invade the North than to defend the South.
     
  24. Concord

    Concord Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,856
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We have to be careful not to assume that "victory" and "defeat" are binary. A defeat at Gettysburg with casualties weighted 10-20,000 in the other direction would still leave an army perfectly capable of challenging the Confederates in their march North.

    As the North learned, it takes repeated victories on enemy territory for ground to be held. Further, it was politically impossible for the British to aid the Confederates following the Emancipation Proclamation.
     
  25. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    3,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well the dirty little secret of Judaism is that all of the Israelites who Moses brought out of Egypt died in the desert during their 40 year sojourn. If they had known that was going to happen then they would have never left Egypt with Moses to begin with.

    God plays games, yes.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2017

Share This Page