User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/18/2018 7:38:38 PM EDT
[#1]
The south would be kangz.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2018 7:42:08 PM EDT
[#2]
You’re misunderstanding Douglas. Prior to the Civil War there was an overwhelming abundance of wealth in the South. Following the war, after 4 years of blockade, near complete destruction of infrastructure and the elimination of the economic and social structure, the South was broken and broke.
Freed slaves in the South knew little more than cotton farming and shifting the agricultural economy to a more profitable crop was all but impossible. Europe had found new and better sources for thier mills and were no longer dependent on American cotton. Had the South won, slavery would have ended by 1890, as mechanical production would have taken over. The Southern states probably would have re-merged with the Union and the massive technological and economic growth would still have occurred. What would probably be different would be segregation, the civil rights movement and the reforms of the 1930s, 40s and 50s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2018 7:54:06 PM EDT
[#3]
Why go to war to save something that will be ended in 30 years anyway?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2018 10:28:15 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why go to war to save something that will be ended in 30 years anyway? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2018 10:39:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Southern revisionists are literally the white versions of “We wuz Kangs” black people |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2018 10:46:37 PM EDT
[#6]
If the Union (North) is so great then why do they always vote Dem and how come most of their states have an AWB?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2018 10:48:25 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the Union (North) is so great then why do they always vote Dem and how come most of their states have an AWB? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2018 10:49:41 PM EDT
[#8]
Refused to read this shitshow.
I’m guessing 5% intellectuals with an actual understanding of 19th century America. 95% derp. Am I close? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2018 10:57:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The South supposedly had designs on the Caribbean and Mexico/Central America. I imagine that if they'd been successful, you'd have seen an empire of sorts, and slavery there would have continued for a long time. Expanded further west and South into the Mexican Territories... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2018 11:00:50 PM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2018 11:07:45 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2018 11:33:34 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The yankees would've fallen to communism |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2018 11:34:07 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be loud, annoying and smell funny. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2018 11:36:45 PM EDT
[#14]
Harry Turtledove did a series on this. The U.S. was forced by England and France to recognize the south.
In the 20th century, the south became what Germany was in our timeline, except more nukes. 11 books if you include the prequel. Really good read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 12:33:04 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you yanks for providing us with socialism and leftism You guys are so enlightened that most of your states banned those icky AR15s Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
These. The South is the shit hole of America. They'd be a 3rd world shit hole if left on their own. You guys are so enlightened that most of your states banned those icky AR15s |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:19:51 AM EDT
[#16]
North would be basically the same. The south would be a combination of modern Mexico (corrupt, lots of drug production) and South Africa (racial issues).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:38:13 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's because the yanks freed the slaves but didn't take them home to the north. Wonder why?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:42:17 AM EDT
[#18]
I’m amazed at the number of Yankees that still feel their region is superior to the south.
You should study how Yankees treated blacks before the war and after. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:47:37 AM EDT
[#19]
Here's my take on it from what I remember from 3 semesters of History of the South in college.
The south probably would expanded "southward" and take over Mexico and parts of Central America. This would have been the expansion of Texas. Probably would have picked up a few more state from Westward expansion. Slavery in the original south would have died out eventually just like it did in the North. Remember Jersey had slavery well into the turn of the century and the Irish were basically white slaves in the North. There would have been friction with between the Central government and the various states and probably a minor war or 2. Texas for the most part would have stated out of it because they would be too big land wise to mess with after the expansion into Mexico. With the eventual ending of slavery in the South 90% of those blacks would have moved North. Now the North.......would be a weak sister in North America because they wouldn't have been able to trade as easy with the old country because of the war. The South got more favorable status. Given the growing season being longer in the South I think the North would have come hat in hand for food. You can't really claim that the North would have the bread basket because it could have easily gone to the South. Now California being part of Mexico would have come into the Texas. Texas most likely would have become the 3rd nation instead of Mexico. Slaves would still flee North and be treated badly because they would be seen as competition for jobs. The major northern cities probably wouldn't have developed because the cattle market wouldn't flow that way. They'd have processed somewhere in the south. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:53:25 AM EDT
[#20]
the south would have joined the axis and won wwII, and be farming cotton in automatic greenhouses on mars by now
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 2:04:00 AM EDT
[#21]
Yankees would have to stay up north after they retired.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 2:04:21 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's my take on it from what I remember from 3 semesters of History of the South in college. The south probably would expanded "southward" and take over Mexico and parts of Central America. This would have been the expansion of Texas. Probably would have picked up a few more state from Westward expansion. Slavery in the original south would have died out eventually just like it did in the North. Remember Jersey had slavery well into the turn of the century and the Irish were basically white slaves in the North. There would have been friction with between the Central government and the various states and probably a minor war or 2. Texas for the most part would have stated out of it because they would be too big land wise to mess with after the expansion into Mexico. With the eventual ending of slavery in the South 90% of those blacks would have moved North. Now the North.......would be a weak sister in North America because they wouldn't have been able to trade as easy with the old country because of the war. The South got more favorable status. Given the growing season being longer in the South I think the North would have come hat in hand for food. You can't really claim that the North would have the bread basket because it could have easily gone to the South. Now California being part of Mexico would have come into the Texas. Texas most likely would have become the 3rd nation instead of Mexico. Slaves would still flee North and be treated badly because they would be seen as competition for jobs. The major northern cities probably wouldn't have developed because the cattle market wouldn't flow that way. They'd have processed somewhere in the south. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:10:03 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's my take on it from what I remember from 3 semesters of History of the South in college. The south probably would expanded "southward" and take over Mexico and parts of Central America. This would have been the expansion of Texas. Probably would have picked up a few more state from Westward expansion. Slavery in the original south would have died out eventually just like it did in the North. Remember Jersey had slavery well into the turn of the century and the Irish were basically white slaves in the North. There would have been friction with between the Central government and the various states and probably a minor war or 2. Texas for the most part would have stated out of it because they would be too big land wise to mess with after the expansion into Mexico. With the eventual ending of slavery in the South 90% of those blacks would have moved North. Now the North.......would be a weak sister in North America because they wouldn't have been able to trade as easy with the old country because of the war. The South got more favorable status. Given the growing season being longer in the South I think the North would have come hat in hand for food. You can't really claim that the North would have the bread basket because it could have easily gone to the South. Now California being part of Mexico would have come into the Texas. Texas most likely would have become the 3rd nation instead of Mexico. Slaves would still flee North and be treated badly because they would be seen as competition for jobs. The major northern cities probably wouldn't have developed because the cattle market wouldn't flow that way. They'd have processed somewhere in the south. The grain belt was already being settled, and it leaned to the north, politically. Only thing the North wouldn't have done so well on is cotton, and would still have been a major market for the south. Tobacco can be grown in the north. ETA: there would not have been any exodus of freed slaves to the north either. There'd probably be immigration laws aimed at southerners, including slaves. Sure, there would still be an underground railroad while slavery was in effect, but those numbers would be relatively small. Plus humans are reluctant in general to give up the familiar. In fact, it may have been a situation exactly like those described in the Harry turtledove books above. 2nd class non voting residents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:14:24 PM EDT
[#24]
There would be one more third world country in this hemisphere.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:19:26 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Southern revisionists are literally the white versions of “We wuz Kangs” black people Are we really that much different? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:22:51 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Southern revisionists are literally the white versions of “We wuz Kangs” black people |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:23:27 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Am I the only one that is amazed at how much many Northerners hate Southerners, and how many Southerners despise Yankees? Even after 150+ years. Are we really that much different? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Southern revisionists are literally the white versions of "We wuz Kangs" black people Are we really that much different? Stay down here from Nov through may.......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:25:00 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's my take on it from what I remember from 3 semesters of History of the South in college. The south probably would expanded "southward" and take over Mexico and parts of Central America. This would have been the expansion of Texas. Probably would have picked up a few more state from Westward expansion. Slavery in the original south would have died out eventually just like it did in the North. Remember Jersey had slavery well into the turn of the century and the Irish were basically white slaves in the North. There would have been friction with between the Central government and the various states and probably a minor war or 2. Texas for the most part would have stated out of it because they would be too big land wise to mess with after the expansion into Mexico. With the eventual ending of slavery in the South 90% of those blacks would have moved North. Now the North.......would be a weak sister in North America because they wouldn't have been able to trade as easy with the old country because of the war. The South got more favorable status. Given the growing season being longer in the South I think the North would have come hat in hand for food. You can't really claim that the North would have the bread basket because it could have easily gone to the South. Now California being part of Mexico would have come into the Texas. Texas most likely would have become the 3rd nation instead of Mexico. Slaves would still flee North and be treated badly because they would be seen as competition for jobs. The major northern cities probably wouldn't have developed because the cattle market wouldn't flow that way. They'd have processed somewhere in the south. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:34:44 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Am I the only one that is amazed at how much many Northerners hate Southerners, and how many Southerners despise Yankees? Even after 150+ years. Are we really that much different? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Southern revisionists are literally the white versions of “We wuz Kangs” black people Are we really that much different? Re Northerners: I think it is competitive spirit manifesting itself as "hahahah, you lost, suck it Losers!!" Which does not bode well for reconciliation. And in the end, what did they win? Sure, blacks in the South had "freedom," citizenship, and the vote, but that did them little good for the next 100 years. Think about that: For the next 100 years, the South still shit all over blacks out of resentment and revenge for losing the Civil War. What kind of victory is that? The North won the war but not the peace. THEN, on top of that, the War's primary outcome was to establish that the Federal government reigns supreme over the states, basically reducing them to touristy administrative districts that issue drivers licenses, register vehicles, record marriages and real estate transactions, handle petty local crimes, and other non-glorious shit the Feds don't want to bother with. From that perspective, the North didn't win anything for the former slaves for the next 100 years, and politically in the long-term lost just as hard as the South. The US Civil War is probably the most complex and misunderstood event in our national history. Reducing it to "End Slavery vs. Muh Slavery!" is utterly retarded. (this is a general comment, and is not directed at O_P). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:36:11 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Am I the only one that is amazed at how much many Northerners hate Southerners, and how many Southerners despise Yankees? Even after 150+ years. Are we really that much different? Also, has anyone ever retired and moved to the north? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:41:01 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Come Stay down here from Nov through may.......... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Southern revisionists are literally the white versions of "We wuz Kangs" black people Are we really that much different? Stay down here from Nov through may.......... I can tell who is local and who isn't by the number of teeth they're missing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:49:09 PM EDT
[#32]
The agrarian south would be dependent on Great Britain, much like she had been on the northern States. Great Britain would have a moderating influence on the South’s continuing utilization of slavery. Maybe the south would rejoin the English monarchy? Overall the strengths and abilities of
a post civil war America, would be greatly diminished. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:51:48 PM EDT
[#33]
While the nation was torn asunder, the South did not lose the sight of antebellum manifest destiny. One of the purpose of Henry Hopkins Sibley's expedition to capture Fort Union (New Mexico) was to secure the SW for the Confederacy. The Confederacy envisioned stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific with Southern CA, Southern AZ and Southern NM under Richmond's control. While largely unfeasible, Sibley hoped to take all of NM as well as Colorado and Utah (he fancifully thought the Mormons would throw in with the Confederacy). Controlling Southern California would give the Confederacy access to the Pacific Ocean and to California's gold (which was in Northern California).
Sibley was perhaps the worse officer to put in charge of that expedition. He never addressed the logistics and his army relied on capturing its fodder and other needs from the Union. Canby didn't agree and tended to hole up (like at the fort near Val Verde) or burning his depot (Albuquerque) and would have gone so far as blowing up Fort Union. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:53:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The south would be kangz. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:53:51 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Peonage, a form of slavery, existed for about 70 years after the Civil War and only stopped because the North invested a lot of energy in stopping it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
south would have remained agrarian. slavery would have persisted for perhaps another 30 to 40 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:54:04 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:55:21 PM EDT
[#37]
The north would be better off without all the hillbillies that moved up to the rust belt for factory work. Jobs are gone but the trailer parks remain.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:55:58 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And northern apologists are the my baby din do nothings. They like to pretend it was all about states rights and liberty and freedom and shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:58:13 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The south would look like a 3rd world nation and be asking for aid from the north. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:58:46 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A whole helluva lot freer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 1:59:00 PM EDT
[#41]
Holy fuck man there's been a million videos done about this.
1.The north would be like Canada 2. When you vacation in Cancun today, you'd still be in the CSA if they had won. Think about that shit for a minute as they already had an embassy in southern mexico you don't think they'd have taken that shit over. They had already beaten them once to get the american southwest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 2:00:40 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, tx would belong to Mexico again Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The yankees would've fallen to communism |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 2:01:39 PM EDT
[#43]
The south would be a shitty 3rd world nation today. The scummier northerners might visit for the weather or brothels instead of having to go all the way to Cuba and Mexico. Economically slavery fucked them long term even before secession (some had wealth but no infrastructure). It was the antithesis of economic and technological progress, and lost them the war for practical and economic reasons not even related to basic morality. Even if they got rid of slavery on their own terms they would still at best be a "developing" country today.
Losing the war was the very best outcome for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 2:02:12 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’m amazed at the number of Yankees that still feel their region is superior to the south. You should study how Yankees treated blacks before the war and after. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 2:02:34 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The south would also still be owning people. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The South would be a bastion of firearms freedoms.....machine guns, etc. The North would look like East Berlin |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 2:04:33 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
don't let little details get in the way of furious Confederacy masturbation. 
Actual arguments defending the practice that I have read from our resident rebs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 2:10:04 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the 1930s communism made inroads in the South amongst the sharecroppers. The South, you see, retained several forms of slavery until the North finally removed them in the 1920s and 1930s. This did not endear the upper class with the poor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The yankees would've fallen to communism The South, you see, retained several forms of slavery until the North finally removed them in the 1920s and 1930s. This did not endear the upper class with the poor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 2:11:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
The US Civil War is probably the most complex and misunderstood event in our national history. Reducing it to "End Slavery vs. Muh Slavery!" is utterly retarded. (this is a general comment, and is not directed at O_P). Quoted: You are not alone. Also, has anyone ever retired and moved to the north? I moved Up North and actually ended up further South. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 2:11:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: True story, Progressivism kicked off in Texas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 2:21:48 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I lived in Florida for thirty years, and then moved up north. As things would have it, though, ending up near Atlanta... I moved Up North and actually ended up further South. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File