- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 11/27/16 at 10:38 am to Tigeralum2008
Posted on 11/27/16 at 10:38 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Forgive me but I thought WWI was the result of convoluted treaties and the rise of regional nationalism in Europe. America was isolated at the time. Why would the independent confederacy have an impact on whether WWI happens?
Without a renewed push from the Yankees, Germany likely wins.
Germany wins, the horrible reparations placed upon Germany don't send them into a malaise and depression.
Those conditions don't exist, Hitler doesn't rise to power, No WW2.
Although we might have a Red Alert scenario with the soviets.
0
Posted on 11/27/16 at 10:38 am to PolyPusher86
quote:If you like the model of Mexico's economy then you'd have liked an independent South.
If the South woulda won, we'd a had it made
When the manual agrarian society collapsed where would the millions of poor landless whites & blacks gone from the1890s to the 1920s that left the South and migrated to the North if they couldn't have crossed into the North?
The South would have been (economically & socially) closer to Latin America than what is is today.
You think today's social & economic problems are bad? It could be worse.
And it would have been worse.
Regardless, legal human slavery would have been outlawed before 1900 in the victorious American South. It was a dinosaur of a social concept.
This post was edited on 11/27/16 at 10:41 am
Posted on 11/27/16 at 10:53 am to SEC. 593
quote:
Didn't the Confederacy and the Nazi's have the same position on some very key elements? Specifically, the view on who and who didn't count as human.
Not exactly, the Nazi's were much more specific.
To the Nazi, all but the Aryans were lesser humans, blacks were marginally human, rooted mostly in the French occupation of Germany after WW1 which produced many Mullato children born to French women. The jews and gypsies were the spawn of Satan.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 11:27 am to mdomingue
So... The Confederacy's views were worse than Nazi views, on some people, and slightly better on others?
Posted on 11/27/16 at 11:27 am to Lacour
I'm actually reading a book series that deals with this exact hypothetical.
Southern Victory Series by Harry turtledove. Silly name but damn good alt history writer.
Southern Victory Series by Harry turtledove. Silly name but damn good alt history writer.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 11:32 am to GaryMyMan
quoting Joe Horn?
Posted on 11/27/16 at 11:35 am to SEC. 593
The Confederacy just looked down on Blacks as being uncivilized, unable to make decisions for themselves , and needing to be provided for with food, healthcare, and shelter (sound familiar?). Everyone else was fine. Heck, a Jew was hailed as the "Brains of the Confederacy" and served in President Davis's cabinet.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 11:37 am to Lacour
Many different scenarios could have occurred. Infinite scenarios actually. We will never know.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 11:48 am to SEC. 593
I find the southern rational of a "war of northern aggression" baffling. Slavery cannot be tolerated by freedom loving christians. Saying the north was the aggressor doesn't Change anything. You can't rationalize enslaving people with freedom.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 11:51 am to soccerfüt
Hey, Rhodes Scholar, I was just quoting a song but thanks for the insight. 
Posted on 11/27/16 at 11:52 am to Lacour
quote:
The south gets to Gettysburg first, gets the high ground, wins.
Vicksburg fell the same week as the battle of Gettysburg. Game over.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 11:53 am to armytiger16
quote:
I find the southern rational of a "war of northern aggression" baffling. Slavery cannot be tolerated by freedom loving christians. Saying the north was the aggressor doesn't Change anything. You can't rationalize enslaving people with freedom.
Is that why some states in the union still had slaves and that many of the slave traders were Yankees?
Posted on 11/27/16 at 11:57 am to PolyPusher86
quote:I'm not blessed to have known that song.
If the South woulda won, we'd a had it made
If you'd have given me a clue by italicizing it or using quotation marks, I'd not have responded.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 11:57 am to armytiger16
quote:
Saying the north was the aggressor doesn't Change anything.
Particularly when the proximate cause was southerners seizing federal property in the southern states. The first actual shots fired were by a Confederate battery on a ship attempting to resupply Fort Sumter, followed by a bombardment of the fort itself.
This post was edited on 11/27/16 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 11/27/16 at 12:11 pm to Lacour
I don't see how they are mutually exclusive. I think the us would've eventually reunited. Lincoln wanted to preserve the union and would've acquiesced to the Souths demands.
Slavery was on the way out as machines were about to replace manual labor making them economically infeasible. Sherman never marches through the south and reconstruction as a "punishment" never happens, likely lessening the animosity between north and south. Also very likely the poor economics of the south are much better or at least evenly distributed.
The one question is rights of slaves. From an economical standpoint once machines replaced manual labor there's no incentive to keep slaves. They would have eventually had to have been freed. I wonder how much better race relations would be had the south been able to come to grips with the realities of slavery amicably instead of having it forced upon them. It's not like the north received them with open arms despite what many would have you believe.
Slavery was on the way out as machines were about to replace manual labor making them economically infeasible. Sherman never marches through the south and reconstruction as a "punishment" never happens, likely lessening the animosity between north and south. Also very likely the poor economics of the south are much better or at least evenly distributed.
The one question is rights of slaves. From an economical standpoint once machines replaced manual labor there's no incentive to keep slaves. They would have eventually had to have been freed. I wonder how much better race relations would be had the south been able to come to grips with the realities of slavery amicably instead of having it forced upon them. It's not like the north received them with open arms despite what many would have you believe.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 12:13 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:you take your facts and shove 'em up your Yankee arse
Particularly when the proximate cause was southerners seizing federal property in the southern states. The first actual shots fired were by a Confederate battery on a ship attempting to resupply Fort Sumter, followed by a bombardment of the fort itself.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 12:16 pm to elprez00
quote:
The one question is rights of slaves. From an economical standpoint once machines replaced manual labor there's no incentive to keep slaves. They would have eventually had to have been freed. I wonder how much better race relations would be had the south been able to come to grips with the realities of slavery amicably instead of having it forced upon them. It's not like the north received them with open arms despite what many would have you believe.
Pretty much. The outcome for everyone except carpetbaggers would've been better if the civil War hadn't been fought.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 12:28 pm to fr33manator
quote:
Is that why some states in the union still had slaves and that many of the slave traders were Yankees?
Preface this with you are one of my favorite posters.
This statement is a red herring. Doesn't matter if northern states had slaves, still wrong.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 12:34 pm to kingbob
quote:
The Confederacy just looked down on Blacks as being uncivilized, unable to make decisions for themselves , and needing to be provided for with food, healthcare, and shelter (sound familiar?).
It's more than that. When a person owns another person like a lamp or a horse the possibility that they consider them also human just isn't there.
Posted on 11/27/16 at 12:36 pm to fr33manator
quote:
Pretty much. The outcome for everyone except carpetbaggers would've been better if the civil War hadn't been fought.
Except, ya know, the people freaking enslaved
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News