The Civil War

[skycat]

You know why this thread works? It's the telling lack of Auburn fans in this thread condemning slavery, the Confederacy, and their treasonous slaveholding Rebel ancestors. I haven't seen one Auburn fan say, "Yep, you Northerners gave us a stomping, and it's a good thing you did. Our degenerate culture and barbaric ideology was tearing the country apart and making a mockery of everything it was supposed to stand for -- not to mention destroying the lives of generations of black people. Thanks to intelligent, brave Northerners with good morals and hygiene, millions of human beings were freed from bondage and America was given a chance to succeed. Cheers!"

But not a peep in that vein. Sad, really.

Actually I am working on something along those lines. The previous posts about two countries have gotten me to thinking about how it really would have worked out. It will be a long one so I am writing it in Word.

Don't forget to include the stuff about our great hygiene and your degenerate culture, TIA

[CNS]

How quick would they have petitioned Mexico to annex the south?  Pretty quick, I bet.

[Pete]

The south would have had to rely on US aid from day one.

Hardly. 19th century US giving aid to anyone is laughable. If anything the South would have been flooded with British and French investment. They would have leapt at the opportunity to try to bring the CSA into their respective spheres of influence.

This is called revisionist history.  The south was broke, had no industry and would have had to give up slavery regardless of who won the war.  That's a worthless economy.

They would have been pressured to give up slavery, but without Northerners around to cast light on their moral depravity they wouldn't even have gotten as far a "Separate but Equal,"....would have been more like "Separate but Razor Wire and Corrugated Aluminum Houses."

[Dugout DickStone]

Cotton was on its way out.  Most fashionable people in the north and Europe were dressing entirely in beaver pelts.  Which the north and limitless supply of.

[Pete]

Beaver Pelts were the tits.

[AU_Tigers]

The south would have had to rely on US aid from day one.

Hardly. 19th century US giving aid to anyone is laughable. If anything the South would have been flooded with British and French investment. They would have leapt at the opportunity to try to bring the CSA into their respective spheres of influence.

This is called revisionist history.  The south was broke, had no industry and would have had to give up slavery regardless of who won the war.  That's a worthless economy.

That is partly correct.

[Dugout DickStone]

"Hey let's sell peanuts and cotton that we can't actually plant or pick!"

[AU_Tigers]

Cotton was on its way out.  Most fashionable people in the north and Europe were dressing entirely in beaver pelts.  Which the north and limitless supply of.

Funny you should bring that up. I am a connoisseur of fine beaver.

[skycat]

You know why this thread works? It's the telling lack of Auburn fans in this thread condemning slavery, the Confederacy, and their treasonous slaveholding Rebel ancestors. I haven't seen one Auburn fan say, "Yep, you Northerners gave us a stomping, and it's a good thing you did. Our degenerate culture and barbaric ideology was tearing the country apart and making a mockery of everything it was supposed to stand for -- not to mention destroying the lives of generations of black people. Thanks to intelligent, brave Northerners with good morals and hygiene, millions of human beings were freed from bondage and America was given a chance to succeed. Cheers!"

But not a peep in that vein. Sad, really.

Actually I am working on something along those lines. The previous posts about two countries have gotten me to thinking about how it really would have worked out. It will be a long one so I am writing it in Word.

I actually would not be opposed to just letting the South leave the Union now, we really wouldnt miss much. All the southern states are net takers from the Federal government, so there would be more  for the rest of us.

This might be arguably OK, since the institutions of slavery and Jim Crow have been abolished now. But I worry the South would backslide a lot. I think the South would become very (even more) backwards and systemically racist without the influence and control of the enlightened North. The victims being, of course, minorities, the poor, women, etc. The big winners would be the SEC, since they wouldn't have to play superior teams from the Big 12 anymore. (Sorry, the North would keep Oklahoma and the parts of Texas with Austin and maybe Waco and College Station. What are you gonna do about it, loser SECers?)

[Dugout DickStone]

Cotton was on its way out.  Most fashionable people in the north and Europe were dressing entirely in beaver pelts.  Which the north and limitless supply of.

Funny you should bring that up. I am a connoisseur of fine beaver.

Hey, a creepy southerner.  What an expected treat

[AU_Tigers]

Cotton was on its way out.  Most fashionable people in the north and Europe were dressing entirely in beaver pelts.  Which the north and limitless supply of.

Funny you should bring that up. I am a connoisseur of fine beaver.

Hey, a creepy southerner.  What an expected treat

What did I say? I like fur. Sheesh!
 

[Dugout DickStone]

Well you sure aren't a connoisseur of accurate history.

[Pete]

You know why this thread works? It's the telling lack of Auburn fans in this thread condemning slavery, the Confederacy, and their treasonous slaveholding Rebel ancestors. I haven't seen one Auburn fan say, "Yep, you Northerners gave us a stomping, and it's a good thing you did. Our degenerate culture and barbaric ideology was tearing the country apart and making a mockery of everything it was supposed to stand for -- not to mention destroying the lives of generations of black people. Thanks to intelligent, brave Northerners with good morals and hygiene, millions of human beings were freed from bondage and America was given a chance to succeed. Cheers!"

But not a peep in that vein. Sad, really.

Actually I am working on something along those lines. The previous posts about two countries have gotten me to thinking about how it really would have worked out. It will be a long one so I am writing it in Word.

I actually would not be opposed to just letting the South leave the Union now, we really wouldnt miss much. All the southern states are net takers from the Federal government, so there would be more  for the rest of us.

This might be arguably OK, since the institutions of slavery and Jim Crow have been abolished now. But I worry the South would backslide a lot. I think the South would become very (even more) backwards and systemically racist without the influence and control of the enlightened North. The victims being, of course, minorities, the poor, women, etc. The big winners would be the SEC, since they wouldn't have to play superior teams from the Big 12 anymore. (Sorry, the North would keep Oklahoma and the parts of Texas with Austin and maybe Waco and College Station. What are you gonna do about it, loser SECers?)

Would the SEC allow young black men to defect to the United States in that scenario?

[Rage Against the McKee]

You know why this thread works? It's the telling lack of Auburn fans in this thread condemning slavery, the Confederacy, and their treasonous slaveholding Rebel ancestors. I haven't seen one Auburn fan say, "Yep, you Northerners gave us a stomping, and it's a good thing you did. Our degenerate culture and barbaric ideology was tearing the country apart and making a mockery of everything it was supposed to stand for -- not to mention destroying the lives of generations of black people. Thanks to intelligent, brave Northerners with good morals and hygiene, millions of human beings were freed from bondage and America was given a chance to succeed. Cheers!"

But not a peep in that vein. Sad, really.

Actually I am working on something along those lines. The previous posts about two countries have gotten me to thinking about how it really would have worked out. It will be a long one so I am writing it in Word.

I actually would not be opposed to just letting the South leave the Union now, we really wouldnt miss much. All the southern states are net takers from the Federal government, so there would be more  for the rest of us.

We would never be able to control our southern border. It really wouldn't be worth the hassle.

[chuckjames]

You know why this thread works? It's the telling lack of Auburn fans in this thread condemning slavery, the Confederacy, and their treasonous slaveholding Rebel ancestors. I haven't seen one Auburn fan say, "Yep, you Northerners gave us a stomping, and it's a good thing you did. Our degenerate culture and barbaric ideology was tearing the country apart and making a mockery of everything it was supposed to stand for -- not to mention destroying the lives of generations of black people. Thanks to intelligent, brave Northerners with good morals and hygiene, millions of human beings were freed from bondage and America was given a chance to succeed. Cheers!"

But not a peep in that vein. Sad, really.

Actually I am working on something along those lines. The previous posts about two countries have gotten me to thinking about how it really would have worked out. It will be a long one so I am writing it in Word.

I actually would not be opposed to just letting the South leave the Union now, we really wouldnt miss much. All the southern states are net takers from the Federal government, so there would be more  for the rest of us.

This might be arguably OK, since the institutions of slavery and Jim Crow have been abolished now. But I worry the South would backslide a lot. I think the South would become very (even more) backwards and systemically racist without the influence and control of the enlightened North. The victims being, of course, minorities, the poor, women, etc. The big winners would be the SEC, since they wouldn't have to play superior teams from the Big 12 anymore. (Sorry, the North would keep Oklahoma and the parts of Texas with Austin and maybe Waco and College Station. What are you gonna do about it, loser SECers?)

Would the SEC allow young black men to defect to the United States in that scenario?

Have to ask our War Tiger friends...I sure hope so, but their disgusting history says probably not.

[chuckjames]

You know why this thread works? It's the telling lack of Auburn fans in this thread condemning slavery, the Confederacy, and their treasonous slaveholding Rebel ancestors. I haven't seen one Auburn fan say, "Yep, you Northerners gave us a stomping, and it's a good thing you did. Our degenerate culture and barbaric ideology was tearing the country apart and making a mockery of everything it was supposed to stand for -- not to mention destroying the lives of generations of black people. Thanks to intelligent, brave Northerners with good morals and hygiene, millions of human beings were freed from bondage and America was given a chance to succeed. Cheers!"

But not a peep in that vein. Sad, really.

Actually I am working on something along those lines. The previous posts about two countries have gotten me to thinking about how it really would have worked out. It will be a long one so I am writing it in Word.

I actually would not be opposed to just letting the South leave the Union now, we really wouldnt miss much. All the southern states are net takers from the Federal government, so there would be more  for the rest of us.

We would never be able to control our southern border. It really wouldn't be worth the hassle.

Thats a good point. Maybe we build like a great wall of united states to keep the heathens out.

[chuckjames]

Cotton was on its way out.  Most fashionable people in the north and Europe were dressing entirely in beaver pelts.  Which the north and limitless supply of.

Funny you should bring that up. I am a connoisseur of fine beaver.

try dub dub dub dot gopowercat dot com for those kind of comments, they love them there.

[AU_Tigers]

You know why this thread works? It's the telling lack of Auburn fans in this thread condemning slavery, the Confederacy, and their treasonous slaveholding Rebel ancestors. I haven't seen one Auburn fan say, "Yep, you Northerners gave us a stomping, and it's a good thing you did. Our degenerate culture and barbaric ideology was tearing the country apart and making a mockery of everything it was supposed to stand for -- not to mention destroying the lives of generations of black people. Thanks to intelligent, brave Northerners with good morals and hygiene, millions of human beings were freed from bondage and America was given a chance to succeed. Cheers!"

But not a peep in that vein. Sad, really.

Actually I am working on something along those lines. The previous posts about two countries have gotten me to thinking about how it really would have worked out. It will be a long one so I am writing it in Word.

I actually would not be opposed to just letting the South leave the Union now, we really wouldnt miss much. All the southern states are net takers from the Federal government, so there would be more  for the rest of us.

This might be arguably OK, since the institutions of slavery and Jim Crow have been abolished now. But I worry the South would backslide a lot. I think the South would become very (even more) backwards and systemically racist without the influence and control of the enlightened North. The victims being, of course, minorities, the poor, women, etc. The big winners would be the SEC, since they wouldn't have to play superior teams from the Big 12 anymore. (Sorry, the North would keep Oklahoma and the parts of Texas with Austin and maybe Waco and College Station. What are you gonna do about it, loser SECers?)

Would the SEC allow young black men to defect to the United States in that scenario?

Have to ask our War Tiger friends...I sure hope so, but their disgusting history says probably not.

Unlikely. But on the other hand it is equally unlikely that those young men would have been welcomed with open arms, and very likely would have been returned south if the authorities got them. The Underground Railroad would have continued operation of course.

[AU_Tigers]

What if....? Part 1

   To explore the effects of the “Civil War” ending with two countries we would need to pick a time that this would occur. In this case I will choose what I feel is the most likely way this could have happened and that is with Lincoln losing his reelection bid in 1864 to McClellan. Until Sherman took Atlanta this was a very real possibility, and in fact Lincoln had resigned himself to losing that election. The fall of Atlanta changed everything for the electorate; finally they had a substantial result they could cling to in the face of the massive personnel losses and huge amounts of treasure spent. Lets say that N.B. Forrest was allowed to move east and interdict the Army of the Tennessee's supply lines thus slowing its advance on Atlanta. The result of this would undoubtedly have been a President McClellan, whose sole platform was to end the war immediately.
   Negotiating a peace at that point would have been tricky. The Midwestern states would have demanded that the US maintain its control of the Mississippi for access to the Gulf of Mexico – a key trade route. The CSA would never have agreed to a peace that separated the new country into two parts. A compromise of some type would have surely been worked out with free navigation guaranteed in some way while that territory, or most of it, would return to the hands of the CSA. Undoubtedly neither side would have been satisfied with the result and in the long term would be a reoccurring bone of contention if not actually a casus belli at some point.

[Brock Landers]

Cotton was on its way out.  Most fashionable people in the north and Europe were dressing entirely in beaver pelts.  Which the north and limitless supply of.

Funny you should bring that up. I am a connoisseur of fine beaver.

This is a family blog and I would appreciate it if you kept the lowbrow humor to a minimum.  Now my twin 4 year olds are running around the house screaming "FINE BEAVER!!" at the top of their lungs.

[AU_Tigers]

Cotton was on its way out.  Most fashionable people in the north and Europe were dressing entirely in beaver pelts.  Which the north and limitless supply of.

Funny you should bring that up. I am a connoisseur of fine beaver.

This is a family blog and I would appreciate it if you kept the lowbrow humor to a minimum.  Now my twin 4 year olds are running around the house screaming "FINE BEAVER!!" at the top of their lungs.

I'll bet that is adorable. Can you post it on Youtube?

[Brock Landers]

Cotton was on its way out.  Most fashionable people in the north and Europe were dressing entirely in beaver pelts.  Which the north and limitless supply of.

Funny you should bring that up. I am a connoisseur of fine beaver.

This is a family blog and I would appreciate it if you kept the lowbrow humor to a minimum.  Now my twin 4 year olds are running around the house screaming "FINE BEAVER!!" at the top of their lungs.

I'll bet that is adorable. Can you post it on Youtube?

Well of course it's adorable      but that's not the point.  Now I will probably have to cancel their playdate with the neighbors kids unless I can get them to stop yelling filth like what you posted.

[AU_Tigers]

Cotton was on its way out.  Most fashionable people in the north and Europe were dressing entirely in beaver pelts.  Which the north and limitless supply of.

Funny you should bring that up. I am a connoisseur of fine beaver.

This is a family blog and I would appreciate it if you kept the lowbrow humor to a minimum.  Now my twin 4 year olds are running around the house screaming "FINE BEAVER!!" at the top of their lungs.

I'll bet that is adorable. Can you post it on Youtube?

Well of course it's adorable      but that's not the point.  Now I will probably have to cancel their playdate with the neighbors kids unless I can get them to stop yelling filth like what you posted.

No filth was posted. Perhaps it was merely your interpretation?

[AU_Tigers]

What if.....? Part 2 The North

   The social implications to a separate peace would have been in a word chaotic. Whereas the Abolitionist movement was a real political power in certain areas, it was in no way universal. In fact, many of the abolitionists were not enamored with the idea of living shoulder to shoulder with blacks. Lincoln himself was actually interested in the idea of returning freed slaves to Africa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Liberia Working class whites, especially immigrants, in the north were certainly opposed to large numbers of freedmen showing up and competing for work. In the aftermath of a “lost” war this feeling would have intensified. The ensuing social unrest in urban areas, and its fallout, would have long lasting negative effects. It is highly unlikely that the northern black population would have taken to this kindly, especially considering many thousands of them had taken up arms to free their families still in bondage. The resentment on both sides would have been considerable and surely would have resulted in multiple acts of brutality. The US government would have had to step into this chaos, and it is very unlikely that they would have favored the black population over the white in their interventions. Victorian age thinking did not see the blacks as any way equal to whites, and more than likely the Back To Africa movement would have picked up traction  and become official policy.
   Another question arises about the disposition of the thousands of runaway slaves the US Army had under its control in occupied territories throughout the south. While some US commanders were confirmed Abolitionists most were basically ambivalent about the black man. During the war runaways were welcomed by the US Army because it deprived the enemy of labor and at the same time gave the Army a thankful and motivated workforce which was happily exploited throughout the conflict. What would have happened to these former slaves as the Army pulled out? Chances are very good that they would have been left to their own devices with tragic results as Confederate troops reestablished control.
   I believe that the northern black population as a whole would have felt great pressure to either go to Africa or perhaps migrate west. The cost in lives would have been high either way they went because the black population at the time would not have generally had the resources they would have needed to ensure success.

[Cartierfor3]

What if.....? Part 2 The North

   The social implications to a separate peace would have been in a word chaotic. Whereas the Abolitionist movement was a real political power in certain areas, it was in no way universal. In fact, many of the abolitionists were not enamored with the idea of living shoulder to shoulder with blacks. Lincoln himself was actually interested in the idea of returning freed slaves to Africa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Liberia Working class whites, especially immigrants, in the north were certainly opposed to large numbers of freedmen showing up and competing for work. In the aftermath of a “lost” war this feeling would have intensified. The ensuing social unrest in urban areas, and its fallout, would have long lasting negative effects. It is highly unlikely that the northern black population would have taken to this kindly, especially considering many thousands of them had taken up arms to free their families still in bondage. The resentment on both sides would have been considerable and surely would have resulted in multiple acts of brutality. The US government would have had to step into this chaos, and it is very unlikely that they would have favored the black population over the white in their interventions. Victorian age thinking did not see the blacks as any way equal to whites, and more than likely the Back To Africa movement would have picked up traction  and become official policy.
   Another question arises about the disposition of the thousands of runaway slaves the US Army had under its control in occupied territories throughout the south. While some US commanders were confirmed Abolitionists most were basically ambivalent about the black man. During the war runaways were welcomed by the US Army because it deprived the enemy of labor and at the same time gave the Army a thankful and motivated workforce which was happily exploited throughout the conflict. What would have happened to these former slaves as the Army pulled out? Chances are very good that they would have been left to their own devices with tragic results as Confederate troops reestablished control.
   I believe that the northern black population as a whole would have felt great pressure to either go to Africa or perhaps migrate west. The cost in lives would have been high either way they went because the black population at the time would not have generally had the resources they would have needed to ensure success.

So because some Northern studs were anti-slavery but still a little racist it makes the South's stance that it was ok to own another human validated? I dunno AU_Tigers I still think the non-slavers win this round.

USA 1
Confeds 0