 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
Okay, so if the confederates hadnt supported slavery, who would you support and why?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999 time: 00:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Only when it suited them. When it didn't (Kansas), they cheered Federal intervention.
The notion the South was some sort of hero of state's rights is a myth propogated by southern apologists after the war. Had the Federal government been acting in Southern interests, they no doubt wouldn't have minded at all (and, as I said, didn't in historic incidences). |
Hmm, well if thats the case then I'd be in favor of the North of course. No need to split away without any honest greviance.
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I will always go for the Union. Had they lost, while no once can predict what would have happened, there is the strong risk things would be much worse today for both our country and the world as a whole. I hate tampering with history... |
Yea, I hate tampering with history too. Too many what ifs. What if the US was split. Would we be strong enough to defeat Hitler in WW2? Would Nazism take over the globe? Would we have even gotten involved in WW1 and would there even have been a WW2? Would the North South split have allowed the US to become the economic powerhouse it has been through the 20th century? Would our culture be affected?
Too much to think about. But for the purposes of this thread, ignore it all, hehe. Just think if you were living back in 1862.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:19
|
|
Well, supposing the South won, I think maybe Kaiser Bill might have actually gone through with his plans to invade America, perhaps enlisting one side as an ally against the other? Well, maybe not...
I think had the U.S. not entered WWI, Germany would have pulled out a favorable peace. After Brest-Livotsk (sp?), Germany's hopes of winning were still good. It was ultimately U.S. intervention that tipped the scales.
From then on, things will change a bit, but I see no rise of Hitler (after all, the anger over Versailles and its repercussions was his catapult to power), and that Germany may have assumed the role of superpower against the Soviets that the U.S. held for the century.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
Even though I am from Tennessee I would support the Union regardless of the issue of slavery. Lincoln's primary focus was the preservation of the union and I think it is usually a good thing if people can learn to get along despite our differences. His first inaugural address pretty much spells out the issue as it would have stood even without the issue of slavery. Two nations with a border of over 2,000 miles between them would have to learn to get along eventually regardless.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
Well Lincoln was talking about how the South and the North would never be able to ignore each other regardless of division. He thought that we may as well stay together and work things out. Of course we did work things out with Canada anyway so maybe it wouldn't have been too bad.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19. Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|