What if #2. What if the Confederates win the Civil War?

[Bo Jackson's Hip]

Namely starting with Pickett's Charge being successful at Gettysburg.

[NoMyths]

The Confederacy would suffer a catastrophic economic collapse and the North would swoop in to finish the job.

[vtbub]

They needed the support of a major Euro power to survive long term.

[Crapshoot]

My knowledge of the US Civil War is limited, but in the long run, the South simply could not survive - like WW II with the US, the dominant power was likely to win, sooner or later.

[Franklinnoble]

Assuming the Confederacy makes it all the way North... burns and slaughers everything and nearly everyone from Philadelphia to New York City... then, maybe, the we're the CSA today instead of the USA.

But it's not likely. At all.

[sovereignstar]

Would I know what grits were?

[Buccaneer]

There have been so much written about this that it's amazing (and I think I have read most of these types of books). Much like the What If on American Revolution, the Civil War would be more of a 2nd-Order Counterfactual.

In fact, the book I am reading right now is Dixie Victorious - a series of essays about the South winning at any one of the many turning points (starting with the Trent Affair with Britain/France joining and the Union having to fight on two fronts). It is edited by Peter Tsouras who wrote perhaps the best alternate history Civil War book ever - An Alternative Gettysburg. In that book, he focuses on Longstreet successfully turning the Union's left flank and "Pickett's" Charge being better coordinated. However, interestingly, the success of the Charge proved devastating to Lee's army in that they immediately got enveloped (or swallowed up) from both flanks. Anyway, I would recommend Dixie Victorious if you want a good breadth of the ways the South would have won and their ramifications. But to answer the initial question, the 2nd-Order Counterfactual would have shown that the Union fighting again about 10 years later and winning both militarily and politically (not to mention that destruction of the Old South).

[gottimd]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

There have been so much written about this that it's amazing (and I think I have read most of these types of books). Much like the What If on American Revolution, the Civil War would be more of a 2nd-Order Counterfactual.

In fact, the book I am reading right now is Dixie Victorious - a series of essays about the South winning at any one of the many turning points (starting with the Trent Affair with Britain/France joining and the Union having to fight on two fronts). It is edited by Peter Tsouras who wrote perhaps the best alternate history Civil War book ever - An Alternative Gettysburg. In that book, he focuses on Longstreet successfully turning the Union's left flank and "Pickett's" Charge being better coordinated. However, interestingly, the success of the Charge proved devastating to Lee's army in that they immediately got enveloped (or swallowed up) from both flanks. Anyway, I would recommend Dixie Victorious if you want a good breadth of the ways the South would have won and their ramifications. But to answer the initial question, the 2nd-Order Counterfactual would have shown that the Union fighting again about 10 years later and winning both militarily and politically (not to mention that destruction of the Old South).

Yes, but would sovereignstar know what grits are then?

[sterlingice]

NASCAR is the national sport?

SI

[st.cronin]

Skydog would not be a dictator.

[JPhillips]

I think there are two possible outcomes. Either the previously mentioned war a decade or two later or the South would see the light and ask for readmittance with a few bones thrown their way and slavery still left undecided.

If their was another war it would be even more brutal than the Civil War. The aftermath would also be far more bitter with a likelyhood of a bloodbath after the North finally defeated the rebels.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think there are two possible outcomes. Either the previously mentioned war a decade or two later or the South would see the light and ask for readmittance with a few bones thrown their way and slavery still left undecided.

If their was another war it would be even more brutal than the Civil War. The aftermath would also be far more bitter with a likelyhood of a bloodbath after the North finally defeated the rebels.

Back in the 70's there was a wargame I glanced at once that was about the Civil War taking place in the 1930s. Had some backstory to it but I never got a chance to look at that. Always thought that would make for a good game, though, a look at the Civil War using 1930s technology before WW2.

[kingfc22]

We would have a different flag.

[Dutch]

Wasnt' slavery on it's last legs in the 1860's? Was any industrialized nation still using slavery in 1860 besides the USA?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Wasnt' slavery on it's last legs in the 1860's? Was any industrialized nation still using slavery in 1860 besides the USA?

Nope - I think it was limited to the US - though I'm wondering if you want to include the Caribbean colonies in this.

On the larger note, does anyone believe that an independent southern state would have lasted for more than 5-10 years - especially one based on preserving an institution that the rest of the world was trying to abolish (especially the major European powers) ?

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

Would I know what grits were?

grits is good eatin'

[mhass]

Slaveryl wasn't going to stand for the same reasons Communism isn't. It's morally corrupt as an institution and freedom, given any chance at all, triumphs.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Nope - I think it was limited to the US - though I'm wondering if you want to include the Caribbean colonies in this.

On the larger note, does anyone believe that an independent southern state would have lasted for more than 5-10 years - especially one based on preserving an institution that the rest of the world was trying to abolish (especially the major European powers) ?

For example, until the Confederacy happened, I don't believe that Virginia and Texas had a lot of things in common. Virginians probably felt a closer kinship to people from Maryland than someone from the Deep South. So the lack of true cultural ties (besides slavery) and the fact that the whole issue they were fighting over was states' rights, indicates to me that the whole thing would have split into a bunch of factions within a year or two of a peace settlement.

[Hurst2112]

Skynard's "Free Bird" would be played before each sporting event.

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by VPI97

grits is good eatin'

Is that taken right out of Webster's?

[Ryche]

Did Hank Williams Jr. answer this in a song already?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Back in the 70's there was a wargame I glanced at once that was about the Civil War taking place in the 1930s. Had some backstory to it but I never got a chance to look at that. Always thought that would make for a good game, though, a look at the Civil War using 1930s technology before WW2.

Not sure that would matter much. A ton of the technology from WWI arose as a direct result of the American Civil War. If the ACW doesn't get fought until the 1930s, technology would certainly have progressed during the interceding 70 years, but I'm not sure the killing technologies would have been as efficient, necessity being the mother of invention, and there not being a necessity in the interim...

[Bo Jackson's Hip]

Originally Posted by mhass

Slaveryl wasn't going to stand for the same reasons Communism isn't. It's morally corrupt as an institution and freedom, given any chance at all, triumphs.

Any chance you've been writing any speeches for George W.?

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

Skynard's "Free Bird" would be played before each sporting event

HaHa..Good one Hurst.

For those interested here is a link to a pretty good documentary about what would have happened ...

http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=13...reviews&CID=13

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by Bea-Arthurs Hip

HaHa..Good one Hurst.

For those interested here is a link to a pretty good documentary about what would have happened ...

http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=13...reviews&CID=13

Not that good if you think about it...imagine having to sit through 7 plus minutes of that song? Or Molly Hatchet, whom I like a bit.

yikes

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by mhass

Slaveryl wasn't going to stand for the same reasons Communism isn't. It's morally corrupt as an institution and freedom, given any chance at all, triumphs.

I'm not a communist, but how exactly is communism morally corrupt? Communism doesn't succeed because people are greedy and lazy.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Did Hank Williams Jr. answer this in a song already?

Yes, he did, and the answer is "we'd of had it made." He would have also run for President of the Southern States

[KevinNU7]

Why don't you just start watching Sliders on the Sci-Fi channel

[Bo Jackson's Hip]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Yes, he did, and the answer is "we'd of had it made." He would have also run for President of the Southern States

IIRC, the national treasury would be in Tupelo, Mississippi, and Hank Williams Sr.'s picture would be on the 100 dollar bill.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by KevinNU7

Why don't you just start watching Sliders on the Sci-Fi channel

Hey! I suggested that in the first thread

SI

[Sharpieman]

More important question, does the South know they lost yet?

[mhass]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

I'm not a communist, but how exactly is communism morally corrupt? Communism doesn't succeed because people are greedy and lazy.

It's exactly the opposite. Communisim failed because people, by nature, have aspirations, dreams, goals, desires to improve their station in life. Communism requires all to work not for themselves, but for one single "other" - namely government.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

More important question, does the South know they lost yet?

There is just a lull in the fighting.
And it's "The War of Northern Aggression".

[Sharpieman]

I was refering to the confederate flag still being used.

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by mhass

It's exactly the opposite. Communisim failed because people, by nature, have aspirations, dreams, goals, desires to improve their station in life. Communism requires all to work not for themselves, but for one single "other" - namely government.

That doesn't really answer my question, but I'll respond anyways.

Originally Posted by mhass

Communisim failed because people, by nature, have aspirations, dreams, goals, desires to improve their station in life.

You're correct. Communism has failed because of greed - the desire for more at the expense of someone else.

Originally Posted by mhass

Communism requires all to work not for themselves, but for one single "other" - namely government.

It sounds like you don't really know what fundamental communism is. There is no true representation of communism in the world today. Think of tribes, something you may be more familiar with. Each person in your community is your brother and sister and you strive for the equal benefit of everyone as a whole.

[mhass]

If that's your definition of communism then fine. There definitely isn't any of that in the world, nor has there ever been that I can recall.

The answer to your question is that communism (as it exists and existed) fails/failed because it is amoral and immoral to deprive people living under any governing system of the freedom to acheive and prosper (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) at any level they choose. Communism mandates that all be "equal" regardless of ability or achievement - and "equal" at a the level of the lowest achiever at that.

The success you or I achieve here isn't "at the expense of someone else" unless you're saying that having my job is "greedy" because someone else could be doing it. And greed, defined as the desire for more, is a fundamental tenant of any economic system involving free choice including your version of communism ("equal benefit of the whole").

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by mhass

And greed, defined as the desire for more, is a fundamental tenant of any economic system involving free choice including your version of communism ("equal benefit of the whole").

I don't see why you decided to bold the word benefit - the words around it are what's key in that quotation. It's not my version of communism. It's what communism is.

Originally Posted by mhass

The answer to your question is that communism (as it exists and existed) fails/failed because it is amoral and immoral to deprive people living under any governing system of the freedom to acheive and prosper (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) at any level they choose. Communism mandates that all be "equal" regardless of ability or achievement - and "equal" at a the level of the lowest achiever at that.

That's fine. That's your opinion.

[Klinglerware]

The Coates family would have had enough Confederate money to live on... and Old Yeller wouldn't have had to die.

[Dutch]

Well, if anybody wants a pretty solid taste of Communism, join the military. But don't give up a good paying civilian job to do it.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

That doesn't really answer my question, but I'll respond anyways.



You're correct. Communism has failed because of greed - the desire for more at the expense of someone else.



It sounds like you don't really know what fundamental communism is. There is no true representation of communism in the world today. Think of tribes, something you may be more familiar with. Each person in your community is your brother and sister and you strive for the equal benefit of everyone as a whole.

I actually believe the last point is a liberal talking point in itself. By that I mean I first heard that argument about 'no true example' from my high school civics teacher and many times since. But in my opinion because of human nature true communism can never exist...its a pipe dream, fairly tale. Communism believes that man is good, oppressed by bad folks (capitalists.) Christianity teaches the exact opposite, man is fallen in nature and needs redemption to be good. That is why the two conflict and can never co-exist peacefully. A Christian would further argue that the roots of communism go back to paganism in the Old Testement and therefore has always been at war with Judeo-Christianity.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

WWI Would be fought in places like Sequoyah and Roanoke County and such, So according to Harry TurtleDove.