- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: How much better off we would all be if the South had been permitted to secede
Posted on 8/8/25 at 8:26 am to prplhze2000
Posted on 8/8/25 at 8:26 am to prplhze2000
quote:
And don't think abolitionists in the North would have been training and funding guerrilla warfare by slaves at some point.
The USA funding guerilla warfare in a neighboring country in order to cause chaos and destruction in that neighboring country?
You're right. The USA would certainly have done that to the independent CSA, because the USA has done that constantly in history.
But what do you think that the wild-eyed Southern boys would have done in response to that kind of thing?
Posted on 8/8/25 at 4:15 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
My southern brothers always leave this out of any discussion of the Civil War.
We bought em and bred them by the millions for one reason. fantastic profit by the elites and aristocracy of the South..
We bought em and bred them by the millions for one reason. fantastic profit by the elites and aristocracy of the South..
Posted on 8/8/25 at 4:27 pm to Champagne
The North wouldn't have millions of people in chains waiting to revolt.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 4:33 pm to DyeHardDylan
Without the industrial might and population of the north, the south would have been taken over by Mexico or some European power who would be aided by slaves who rose in revolt.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 4:50 pm to DyeHardDylan
Even if the south were allowed to secede, the two nations most likely would have kissed, made up and rejoined each other within a couple decades.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 5:26 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Doubt it. The north and the west would not have been shackled by a dirt poor, unindustrialized South.
There were only 34 states at the start of the civil war, the west was for the most part a vast nothingness.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:16 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
The North wouldn't have millions of people in chains waiting to revolt.
Fomenting, funding and promoting a terrorist guerilla war against Southern women and children does sound just like something that the United States of America would do to an independent Confederate States of America.
IMHO the CSA would have no choice but to respond in kind.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:17 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
Even if the south were allowed to secede, the two nations most likely would have kissed, made up and rejoined each other within a couple decades.
Maybe.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:24 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
I wonder if we'd be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations given our past status as a colony and the heavy Anglophilia in places like Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia. 90 years separate SC's secession and the London Declaration, which allowed republics to join the Commonwealth.
Unless slavery was abolished, IMHO Great Britain wanted no part of allowing the CSA to become a part of the Commonwealth of Great Britain.
However, I do believe that World War One might have ended more early with an ALLIED victory because the CSA would have sent some Divisions over to the Western Front to help Britain and France. When we examine the unique Culture of the American South, we can see that it comes directly from pastoral English Culture of the 18th Century. The Confederate whites felt very close to this English Culture and IMHO they would have been willing to fight alongside British Divisions in WW 1.
The CSA would have helped Britain, not stayed neutral.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:26 pm to DyeHardDylan
We likely would not have morphed into a 20th century superpower and had a robust middle class.
Not really a fan of Spike Lee, but he did a pretty funny mockumentary about 20 years ago centered around if the South had won the war.
Worth watching if you haven’t seen it.
Not really a fan of Spike Lee, but he did a pretty funny mockumentary about 20 years ago centered around if the South had won the war.
Worth watching if you haven’t seen it.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 10:24 am to BuckI
quote:
the south would have been taken over by Mexico
You are one seriously stupid MF.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 10:51 am to Torquemada
quote:The South had no industry, and agriculture was stagnant. There was no other way the war could have ended, but if the South had won, another power would have come in and swept up the pieces.
You are one seriously stupid MF.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 10:57 am to BuckI
quote:
The South had no industry, and agriculture was stagnant. There was no other way the war could have ended,
A certain famine on a certain European island had more to do with northern victory than industrialization did. The CSA was handing the Union its arse fairly early on. It was an influx of able bodied men willing to fight for citizenship that helped the union, whose native population really had no desire to fight.
This post was edited on 8/9/25 at 11:01 am
Posted on 8/9/25 at 11:00 am to Champagne
quote:
Maybe
Eh, the idustrial revolution was the death nail to slavery. It was on the way out.
Oil discoveries in West Virginia and south into Oklahoma and Texas would have brought talks to the table.
I feel foreign powers trying to play games in North America would have caused both sides to come back together.
But maybe I am wrong. Who knows. I am glad it ended the way it did.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 11:07 am to DyeHardDylan
If by “America”, you mean the actual United states the would have existed after (the north), they would have been much better off judging by the amount of federal dollars the south currently receives.
This post was edited on 8/9/25 at 11:08 am
Posted on 8/9/25 at 11:22 am to UtahCajun
The Irish were a great asset; the North could easily replace soldiers and weapons, while the South could not. With the blockade preventing the South from receiving much-needed supplies, it was only a matter of time. After some initial struggle, Lincoln finally put capable leaders in charge.
I'm not disparaging the South. I enjoy my visits there, and the people I met were awesome.
I'm not disparaging the South. I enjoy my visits there, and the people I met were awesome.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 11:27 am to UtahCajun
Oh please. The blockade took away the South's ability to wage war.
Ask Germany how a blockade worked out in 1918.
Ask Germany how a blockade worked out in 1918.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 12:40 pm to prplhze2000
Only partially agree. The southern planter class gave us the elite public colleges of the south to educate themselves...LSU, Ole Miss, UNC. The also influenced the creation of southern private schools like Duke, Tulane, Emory, etc. They certainly never intended to educate the common man.
Do agree that the class was mostly disinterested in industrialization since most made their money from the production of their inherited land. The planters who had oil land are another story,
Do agree that the class was mostly disinterested in industrialization since most made their money from the production of their inherited land. The planters who had oil land are another story,
Posted on 8/9/25 at 1:11 pm to Tree_Fall
BS.
Huey gave us LSU. Was a hamlet before he built it up.
The planters are the ones who stuck Mississippi universities in rural small towns away from the population centers. They wanted only the rich kids to go to those schools.
That little decision really puts Mississippi at a disadvantage for economic development and recruiting industries since companies like an area to have a good university, airport, labor pool, and sizable managerial pool to recruit from. Golden Triangle is nice but nothing like other states.
Huey gave us LSU. Was a hamlet before he built it up.
The planters are the ones who stuck Mississippi universities in rural small towns away from the population centers. They wanted only the rich kids to go to those schools.
That little decision really puts Mississippi at a disadvantage for economic development and recruiting industries since companies like an area to have a good university, airport, labor pool, and sizable managerial pool to recruit from. Golden Triangle is nice but nothing like other states.
This post was edited on 8/9/25 at 3:00 pm
Popular
Back to top


2




