While we're playing "what if"...What if there had been no Civil War

[deliciously_naughty]

How different would the US of today look if the North hadn't stopped the South from seceeding? No Civil War, just good riddance to them.

Keep in mind several things...The north was the area of industry, capitalism and factories. The south still largely depended on agrian crops like cotton to keep its economy alive.

Would slavery have persisted, or with a new country would there have been mass rebellions and escape to the new northern coutries? (I would argue this is true...evidenced by mass desertions by the slaves whenever the Yankee army was near..remember the idea that slaves were happy is a lie.)

What about the western territories? would they have joined the industrial north, the agrarian south or would they have created their own nation-states? (for example, Utah gave up polygamy largely b/c they had to do so to join the us as a state...would they have become their own religiously led state?)

Would the south have eventually had economic collapse? Would they have rejoined the Union eventually?

Just interesting questions that of course could never be answered b/c of course the civil war was fought and such.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

Ok, since I posted the thread, I'll start with my theories

I think the US of today would look very different. Texas and the southwest might have gone back to Mexico and remained part of that country. Utah would prolly be a Mormon religious state. Some of the northernmost states might have joined up with Canada or created their own states, or asked to join the union.

I think the south would have had major problems with desertion by slaves and there would have been major insurrections. Slavery would have collapsed, and the souths economic system would again be in ruin, causing it to rejoin the north by 1920 at the very latest. (ww1's influence) Economic collapse would've happened with ww1 at the latest...the countries that bought the cotton would've been wrapped up in the war and their economies shattered in no place to buy cotton.

As for the north, there would've been continuing industrializaiton. However, the political structure would be most likely very different, and the economic system..perhaps a more pure form of capitalism would've existed?

Post ww1 I would say that the north and south rejoined forces if for no other reason than ecnomics..there still would've been a depression. that was a world wide phenomenon and not a us one.


It's hard to say what would've happened with ww2, because several key points of how it turned out were dependent on the us military and I doubt it would've been at the strength we had.

I think today the entire world would look different and the us would still be much smaller. I wonder if I'd have this computer to type on?

 

[Linedrive]

Had the Civil War not been fought, and the Nation was split into two seperate countries, the world would be very different, not just America.

The French and English would have both likely been factors as well. Diplomatic relations were already being established between the south and the European powers in the 1860's.

Would any of these European countries tried to reclaim territory in North America...? Would Mexico have staked a larger claim in the West...? Would Texas regained Independance after reluctantly giving it up...?

Many different scenerios that could have transpired. With the industry and growth, I'm sure the North would have been able to maintain.

And the American Indian might have also played a factor. While most of the Indian Wars were over by the 1860's, there were still many powerful tribes in different regions.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

And the American Indian might have also played a factor. While most of the Indian Wars were over by the 1860's, there were still many powerful tribes in different regions.

Very good point...in fact we had pretty much consolidated tribes in several states like oklahoma..would they have overcome intertribal differences and staked a claim of their own? I'd like to think so.

 

[SINthysist]

No way. Kansas would have kept sending people like John Brown down into the South to represent the viewpoints of a peaceful Gawd-fearing people. Eventually, someone would have been goaded into at least coming and kicking OUR ASSES!

 

[n-erasmus]

Federalism

WOuld we have more sex or less?? Why are we discussing this? Anyone getting turned on? Read a story!!

 

[70/30]

I'd be a professional athlete, in 5 sports. Fuck that blood thirsty hippocrite Abe Lincoln, I should be rich from playing child's games.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

I'd have more relatives. A fair number of 'em got zotzed out on both sides. By current recollection 5 confederates and 2 yankees.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

There's a good chance the south might have thrived. It would have kept the size of government smaller leaving more money for investment (the size of the Federal Government has been increasing rapidly since the Civil War..from less than 5% of GNP to about 25% now).

The south would have been more "democratic" (though not including slaves) (instead of ruled from NYC) with stronger states rights. Who can tell if they'd stayed together with a less demanding central government, but chances are good they've had weathered the storm.

The south was starting to develop industrial production prior to the Civil War. (Steel in Alabama for example. and production capabilities for wagons, cannon, etc.) Charleston was a major port (much larger in % of total shipping/Charleston shipping than it is now). New Orleans was always a busy port. France and England were eager to invest in the south and were already paying higher rates for cotton than the north was (the Civil War, was in part, started because the North insisted - at swordpoint/gunpoint - that the south sell the cotton to them at lower prices than they could sell it in England and France). Do keep in mind, the industrialization of the north was fairly young in 1860 also, and there's no reason to think that it wouldn't have quickly spread to the south also which has it's share of raw materials. The growth might have accelerated especially since, being a separate country, it would have been out of the reach of the monopolistic robber barons of the north. The south was destroyed during the Civil War, then raped. With an in-place infrastructure, little government interference/taxes and investment and ideas coming in from England and France, chances are good that the south would have thrived.

Slavery would have died out (as it has throughout most of the rest of the world) as technology evolved. Slaves were very inefficient and costly.

I'm not sure about Texas, but it wouldn't have returned to Mexico. I think it would have joined the south where it would have greater "states" rights. For the rest of the west, I dunno.

Where would Kansas be AJ?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Maybe the south would have turned into that Libertarian state these guys keep talking about!

Then what would it look like?

 

[Linedrive]

Good post LTGR

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Thanks Gunner. How are you? Angel?

 

[Nathon_88]

According to most theories on the subject, slavery would have been eradicated by 1880.

Just so you know.

 

[Linedrive]

Thanks Gunner. How are you? Angel?

We're doing good thanks. Her southern roots peak out whenever I spout about the Union tho

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

The south and the north wouldn't have rejoined. If the south took a smaller government/more libertarian approach as trends indicated, it would be very strong economically with a more diversified economy than it now has.

There might have been more inventions and innovations because of the competition between north and south (and the south would be winning because it wouldn't be paying 25% of it's gravy to a fat Federal Beurocracy).

With industrialization and the souths tradition of fine officers, the south might have been in WW1 and WW2 earlier than the US as a whole did. The post-war situation would have been a lot different.

 

[Weird Harold]

The south and the north wouldn't have rejoined. If the south took a smaller government/more libertarian approach as trends indicated, it would be very strong economically with a more diversified economy than it now has.

I think the CSA would be a major player in OPEC, and the North would not be as dependent on oil as we are now. Most of the oil reserves in the continental US are in the South.

One interesting question for me is, "Which side of WWII would the CSA have been on?"

There was a lot of sympathy for Fascism and the Nazis in the US before WWII, with prominent people like Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg praising Hitler's economic reforms and German Efficiency. Would a historical connection with England and France bring them in against Germany, or would the South have fallen under the racist spell of Hitler?

 

[SINthysist]

LTGR - A tiny landlocked independent nation whose main export would be messianic missionaries...

 

[Siren]

 

[RastaPope]

While we're playing "what if"...What if there had been no Civil War ......



Well, besides all that above ^

Halle Berry would never have won the Academy Award.

She won for political reasons, and her speech was utter garbage with no dignity whatsoever. She could take a cue from Denzel.