Home› Spurious Generalities

What if the south won?

DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
edited October 2010 in Spurious Generalities
What are your opinions on what america would be like if the south had won the civil war? i think the main difference would be the federal goverment would know its place and the states would have more rights.
Share on Twitter

Comments

  • HippieTrippieHippieTrippie Regular
    edited July 2010
    The states would only have more rights in the Confederacy, remember it was an independence revolution for the South, it wasn't once the war was over that one side would take the whole country.

    I personally think the confederacy's economy would have failed by the start of the 1920's because of its lack of industrial power.
    Share on Twitter
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    HippieTrippie wrote: »
    The states would only have more rights in the Confederacy, remember it was an independence revolution for the South, it wasn't once the war was over that one side would take the whole country.

    I personally think the confederacy's economy would have failed by the start of the 1920's because of its lack of industrial power.

    Yes thats very true I didn't really think of that when I made the post. That brings the question of how long it would be that theyd last without the union trying to take them again. I think they might have been able to catch up industrial wise but I don't know how they would have done with future wars due to a lack of a strong central government.
    Share on Twitter
  • HippieTrippieHippieTrippie Regular
    edited July 2010
    Well, if you put out some numbers. In 1864, the South had the industrial strength of 1/4th of that of the Union. Every year, that number was getting 4 times smaller, so by the end of 1865, the South would have been 1/16th the size of the Union in industrial production. The Confederates also had a better trade relation with France and Spain than did they Union, so that might have help the Confederacy stand for a bit, especially if those trade agreements led to alliances, and then the Union wouldn't attempt to retake the south before it collapsed under its own freedom. Until then, it would have been a race to settle and control everthing between Texas and California.
    Share on Twitter
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    I see what your saying about the industrialization. yes the south was far behind the union that way but I think they would have caught up after the war because they'd have to know how necessary industrialization would be if they wanted to survive.
    Share on Twitter
  • jatorjator Regular
    edited July 2010
    There would be the Northern U.S.A and the Southern U.S.A or some variation of that...

    Also we'd still have slaves. Too bad they lost, right?

    Either way; Mexicans are cheaper than slaves.
    Share on Twitter
  • MasturbatronMasturbatron Regular
    edited July 2010
    Even with the lack of industry, the south would have somewhat of a hold over the north with textile and crop trades, wouldn't it?
    Share on Twitter
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    Were they still planning on seceding after the civil war started, or did they set their sights on conquering the whole landmass? I don't know that the South even would have stopped at the Canadian border, we had enough escaped slaves taking refugee here that they may have determined their presence in Canada as an act of war. Although I know the Civil War wasn't just fought over slavery, I could definitely see that happening.
    Share on Twitter
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    Big baby jesus wrote: »
    Were they still planning on seceding after the civil war started, or did they set their sights on conquering the whole landmass? I don't know that the South even would have stopped at the Canadian border, we had enough escaped slaves taking refugee here that they may have determined their presence in Canada as an act of war. Although I know the Civil War wasn't just fought over slavery, I could definitely see that happening.

    They didnt want war to begin with. Also they didnt want to conquer. All the south wanted was to secede. They wanted a country that respected states rights but the union was threatened by this and declared war. Slavery had little to do with it but it was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.
    Share on Twitter
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    Yea but if they drove the buggers back surely they wouldn't just stop there and await another attack?
    Share on Twitter
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    Big baby jesus wrote: »
    Yea but if they drove the buggers back surely they wouldn't just stop there and await another attack?

    They would have stopped had the North surrendered. The odds were not in there favor from the beginning of the war and they focused on just getting an independent nation rather than conquest.
    Share on Twitter
  • MasturbatronMasturbatron Regular
    edited July 2010
    DirtySanchez wrote: »
    They would have stopped had the North surrendered. The odds were not in there favor from the beginning of the war and they focused on just getting an independent nation rather than conquest.

    The odds were greatly against them, but they did damn well. I believe it was General Jackson that was the souths greatest asset in the war. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    Share on Twitter
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    Professor Oak wrote: »
    The odds were greatly against them, but they did damn well. I believe it was General Jackson that was the souths greatest asset in the war. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    They absoutley did I mean the North was far ahead in technology especially. They had 7x the manfacturing power of the south. They also had the numbers but the south had the more brilliant Generals particularly Stonewall as you mentioned and lee. The south also had the home field advantage with most of the fighting happening in southern states.It was a valiant effort and they did well but they wouldn't have moved on to trying to conquer the North had they won.
    Share on Twitter
  • MasturbatronMasturbatron Regular
    edited July 2010
    DirtySanchez wrote: »
    They absoutley did I mean the North was far ahead in technology especially. They had 7x the manfacturing power of the south. They also had the numbers but the south had the more brilliant Generals particularly Stonewall as you mentioned and lee. The south also had the home field advantage with most of the fighting happening in southern states.It was a valiant effort and they did well but they wouldn't have moved on to trying to conquer the North had they won.

    I used to live like a mile away from where Sherman(?) stayed the night before he attacked Columbia. Pretty cool little tid-bit.
    Share on Twitter
  • JFLC BGJFLC BG Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    Well, let's try and put it this way, imagine if this guy ran the country:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCtS534JRHY

    That's what it would be like. Basically it would all collapse and everyone would go back to eating bugs and feces. It would be like modern day Africa.
    Share on Twitter
  • seanicusseanicus New Arrival
    edited September 2010
    They wrote a book about this. The Confederated States of America. It's kinda annoying, because recent history was basically the same as real history (WW1, WW2), except it was three allied countries (North, South, and West, I believe), instead of one big one.
    Share on Twitter
  • ScuDScuD Regular
    edited September 2010
    i think Americas monetary system wouldn't be a privatized form of slavery for all citizens. i think the fact that they had slaves would've helped them allot in regards to holding out against the north. and when any group of people stand on the precipice , they are capable of ANYTHING. look at the soviet union in world war 2. its not exactly the best example in regards to the south, but a group of people deciding to industrialize can achieve quite a bit in a short period of time.
    Share on Twitter
  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited September 2010
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/

    http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/2298798/34174376/
    Share on Twitter
  • SLIMSLIM Regular
    edited October 2010
    My opinion of the whole North vs South thing is that the south commited great race treason by importing tons of the coons. You've had the negro problem ever since. It's now happening with the Mestizo problem and you people are doing nothing to stop it.

    The South laid the groundwork for every problem the USA has with niggers by letting them all in, and having the rich boys fucking sheboons in New Orleans whore houses.

    Tom Metzger had it right on this issue:
    I see nothing on my website praising the North. What I do see is certain evidence that some Northerners, perhaps millions, wanted to get rid of the negroes, while the South committed the ultimate race sin of importing tens of thousands of black inferiors. This became the monkey on our back ever since.

    The South laid the groundwork for every problem we have with the negro!

    In the North we had an occasional back streets negro getting together with a white whore. In the South you accepted thousands upon thousands of blacks who mingled with you and yours, no matter what laws you had on the books. Even rich sons of plantation owners spent plenty of time fucking negresses in New Orleans whore houses.

    I don't pay much attention to other websites, especially those of the right wingers who play the same losing tune over and over. Many right wing leaders feel they must wave the Confederate flag to maintain their membership. In fact, people like Duke have disparaged some Southerners as 'people with green teeth' instead of telling the hard truth about wage slavery in the North and physical slavery of both blacks and poor whites in the South.

    Tens of thousands of young white farmers and factory workers were drafted, on pain of prison or death, to fight for Northern industrialists [capitalists?] against the South.

    There is a small Union Cemetery within walking distance of my home. Most of the tombstones there have been carted away, and many of the rest are broken, but on a few I can still make out the inscriptions noting the 18 year old sons murdered by that war.

    Do Southerners lament these men?

    When Southerners agree that the white working class was screwed by both Northern capitalists and Southern landowners, we will then have a basis for common action!
    Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.