alexey Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 What do you think? Are there any historical parallels that could be used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 slavery would have lasted for a lot longer than economic viability of it, because it was a sign of status in an extremely status oriented society (Southern Aristocracy). Really unpredictable other than that, but I think the European powers may have used the South to destabilize the continental US. America wouldn't become a super power until much later because we could never be guaranteed to have peace out home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 So the north wouldn't be successful in any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I was just reading a book on Lincoln recently and the author said that everyone, both in the north and the south, were stunned that Lincoln pulled his shenanegans to start the civil war conflict. Not a one ever suspected that it would come to bloodshed over seccession. I gues that lincoln sent in state militias when the congress was in recess. Even the chief justice of the supreme court sent him a scathing letter chastising him for abusing his powers and the constitution. Lincolns goal was never to abolish slavery (in fact he didnt even when he could, despite popular revisionist history). His goal was to strengthen the federal government and diminish states rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 The US as we know it would not exist. We'd have states threatening to secede if they didn't get enough pork in this year's federal budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I was just reading a book on Lincoln recently and the author said that everyone, both in the north and the south, were stunned that Lincoln pulled his shenanegans to start the civil war conflict. Not a one ever suspected that it would come to bloodshed over seccession.I gues that lincoln sent in state militias when the congress was in recess. Even the chief justice of the supreme court sent him a scathing letter chastising him for abusing his powers and the constitution. Lincolns goal was never to abolish slavery (in fact he didnt even when he could, despite popular revisionist history). His goal was to strengthen the federal government and diminish states rights. Is the book claiming that the southern states thought that Lincoln was gong to allow them to seecede without a fight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Is the book claiming that the southern states thought that Lincoln was gong to allow them to seecede without a fight? I'm going by memory here, but I think that was what was thought. They thought they had 10th ammendment rights to do so (and they did) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think we lose WWII or the Soviets conquer the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 hahahhaaha succeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 The US as we know it would not exist. We'd have states threatening to secede if they didn't get enough pork in this year's federal budget. Would that be so bad?...We will never know. I lean towards slavery dying out within a generation or two and a less powerful central government. Ya win some/lose some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 So the north wouldn't be successful in any way? Oops! Fixed it... (thread title originally had "succeed" instead of "secede") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think we lose WWII or the Soviets conquer the world. But would either have occurred w/o our earlier influence? Lotta forks in the road to get to that era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think we lose WWII or the Soviets conquer the world. I dont know if I could say that, WWII we got into over treaties established pre-WW1, which we also got into over treaties. It's entirely possible that different agreements or no agreemenst would have been in place. Also, who's to say anyone would have wanted to war with us under those circumstances to begin with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 But would either have occurred w/o our earlier influence?Lotta forks in the road to get to that era. Why would WWII and the Russian Revolution not occur if the American Civil War didn't occur? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 I lean towards slavery dying out within a generation or two and a less powerful central government. Not sure what you mean by "dying out", maybe replaced by some form of serfdom? Just over 50 years ago federal troops were needed to protect black kids who were going to a white school... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Not sure what you mean by "dying out", but just over 50 years ago federal troops were needed to protect black kids who were going to a white school... which occurred AFTER Lincolns war and after secession was halted and the 10th ammendment all but banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I'm going by memory here, but I think that was what was thought. They thought they had 10th ammendment rights to do so (and they did) Only if you ignore the rest of the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think this post of mine inspired this thread so just a quick cut and paste: Lincoln's expansion of federal powers and flouting of the Constitution is what exacerbated the situation. While not outright saying it, the 10th Amendment essentially protected a state's right to secede. Pretty sure South Carolina, Virginia (at the behest of Jefferson) and New York (?) never would've signed the Constitution had it not been for the language in the 10th Amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This wasn't implicit or encrypted language. It was well understood by the signers of the Constitution the power the 10th gave the states. The states always had the trump card of secession if federal power became too expansive or intrusive. Yet Lincoln's attempts to preserve the Union by sending Federal troops across sovereign state borders only resulted in unnecessary bloodshed. Forget Iraq. The U.S. Civil War might have been the most unnecessary war in our short history. Without the war, the Confederate States would've most likely rejoined the Union amicably and without a shot fired by the end of the 19th century. Besides the ethical dilemmas surrounding slavery, technological innovation would've drastically reduced southern agriculture's need for slave labor thus allowing it to phase out into history.......again, without a shot fired. Our Union was, after all, a voluntary one. Six hundred thousand deaths for what? Unnecessary force against your fellow countrymen? A misinterpretation of the Constitution? Lincoln brought much of the burdens onto himself all while disregarding our most sacred document. Yet his legacy and heroism endure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 which occurred AFTER Lincolns war and after secession was halted and the 10th ammendment all but banned. I am not sure what you're saying... Are you implying that these actions somehow slowed the progress of southern society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Only if you ignore the rest of the Constitution. No. incorrect. It was always understood that the union was a voluntary membership of sovergn states. There is no way the states would have ratified the constitution if they thought otherwise. The virginia ratification debates pretty much focussed on it all throughout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 But would either have occurred w/o our earlier influence?Lotta forks in the road to get to that era. I think it would have. I'm pretty sure that the Germans were going to lose WWI regardless and the result would have been largely the same. The depression that led to the rise of Hitler would likely happen, but with a fractured U.S we may not have been able to stop them. On top of that, the Southern Country may very well have supported Hitler given their views of other races and religions at the time. While the Northern States as a country wouldn't have had the numbers and firepower to be quite as effective esp. if they did have to fight the Southern States on its own shores. Not to mention, if we cut the Nations into two in the early days, Mexico just might have been able to win and be the dominant force in the continent. As said before, I think the Russian Revolution occurred pretty much independent of American influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I am not sure what you're saying... Are you implying that these actions somehow slowed the progress of southern society? I'm saying that the racial divide would have been present with or without the civil war, thus negating the need to trash the constitution of the time and hundreds of thousands of American lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I lean towards slavery dying out within a generation or two and a less powerful central government. Slavery was believed in strongly enough for it to be one of the primary reasons for fighting a civil war. Doubt strongly that it would have died out quickly after all those men died to protect their right to enslave other humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Not sure what you mean by "dying out", but just over 50 years ago federal troops were needed to protect black kids who were going to a white school... Just yesterday I went by a all black school....so what? Forcing things certainly results in tensions or violence...kind of a natural law. You wish to ignore that existed in your example as well in the Civil War? I said the institution of slavery would die not racial tensions,nor racism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 Slavery was believed in strongly enough for it to be one of the primary reasons for fighting a civil war. Doubt strongly that it would have died out quickly after all those men died to protect their right to enslave other humans. I think it was more about preserving the way of life and economic benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.