(07-04-2015 06:31 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:10 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  If the South was able to leave peacefully. I honestly think slavery would've continued into the 1900s and we could probably still be in an Apartheid state today because there wouldn't be pressure strong enough from external sources to do anything better. This is if it would've lasted that long.

From within the country: It's very possible that the pro-unionists within those states would've made some noise and could've caused issues. Goodness knows Texas would leave at any inconvenience. They did it twice before.

It wouldn't have been a political issue but an economic one.

Slavery couldn't continue because soil wears out. It's why many of the upper South states had little in the way of slaves compared to their newer more recently developed Deep South states.

The worst thing that ever happened to this nation is the way in which slavery was ended. We have a permanent underclass and that will never change. You can hang that directly on millions of slaves being thrown out into the world with nothing. Their descendants continue to have nothing. Their place in society post emancipation is partly what contributed to the social problems that witnessed the rise of segregation. You can see a counterpoint in pre Civil War Louisiana.

We'd have been far better off with a gradual erosion of slavery than what we got. But, the treasury of virtue forces us to buy untruths in order to ensure we don't ask ourselves the hard questions.

I don't know. A good deal of the states left saying that white men are inherently superior. Even if slavery erodes silently away, it doesn't mean that it goes away without Apartheid.

Again, that could depend on the attitudes that develop in the region. There could very well have been a liberal contingent that would grant them rights and make them citizens.

Those in the North believed in the I inherent superiority of the white man. That's not unique to the South. The institution of segregation has its roots in post war social chaos, not pre war antebellum slavery.

Even among those whites in the North who supported emancipation you would still not find but a bare minority that were not white supremacist. White supremacy is a separate issue from segregation.

Then it might have turned out that North America, would not have been a great place.

Is it a great place regardless?

The idea of the moral and upstanding North fighting an evil and bigoted South is more fantasy and myth than any other untruth surrounding the war.

"The African race" was a commodity in the South and a "nussance" in the North.

The idea that one was the moral good and the other the moral bad is perhaps one of the most pernicious and damaging falacies that is believed and perpetuated in this country.

Robert Penn Warren called it the 'treasury of virtue' the accidental stumbling onto the moral high ground which has absolved the US of every sin past present and future.

(07-04-2015 06:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:31 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It wouldn't have been a political issue but an economic one.

Slavery couldn't continue because soil wears out. It's why many of the upper South states had little in the way of slaves compared to their newer more recently developed Deep South states.

The worst thing that ever happened to this nation is the way in which slavery was ended. We have a permanent underclass and that will never change. You can hang that directly on millions of slaves being thrown out into the world with nothing. Their descendants continue to have nothing. Their place in society post emancipation is partly what contributed to the social problems that witnessed the rise of segregation. You can see a counterpoint in pre Civil War Louisiana.

We'd have been far better off with a gradual erosion of slavery than what we got. But, the treasury of virtue forces us to buy untruths in order to ensure we don't ask ourselves the hard questions.

I don't know. A good deal of the states left saying that white men are inherently superior. Even if slavery erodes silently away, it doesn't mean that it goes away without Apartheid.

Again, that could depend on the attitudes that develop in the region. There could very well have been a liberal contingent that would grant them rights and make them citizens.

Those in the North believed in the I inherent superiority of the white man. That's not unique to the South. The institution of segregation has its roots in post war social chaos, not pre war antebellum slavery.

Even among those whites in the North who supported emancipation you would still not find but a bare minority that were not white supremacist. White supremacy is a separate issue from segregation.

Then it might have turned out that North America, would not have been a great place.

Is it a great place regardless?

The idea of the moral and upstanding North fighting an evil and bigoted South is more fantasy and myth than any other untruth surrounding the war.

"The African race" was a commodity in the South and a "nussance" in the North.

The idea that one was the moral good and the other the moral bad is perhaps one of the most pernicious and damaging falacies that is believed and perpetuated in this country.

Robert Penn Warren called it the 'treasury of virtue' the accidental stumbling onto the moral high ground which has absolved the US of every sin past present and future.

I never said that there was a moral good or bad. I just know how it ended up. We're in a good place now.

(07-04-2015 06:39 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:31 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I don't know. A good deal of the states left saying that white men are inherently superior. Even if slavery erodes silently away, it doesn't mean that it goes away without Apartheid.

Again, that could depend on the attitudes that develop in the region. There could very well have been a liberal contingent that would grant them rights and make them citizens.

Those in the North believed in the I inherent superiority of the white man. That's not unique to the South. The institution of segregation has its roots in post war social chaos, not pre war antebellum slavery.

Even among those whites in the North who supported emancipation you would still not find but a bare minority that were not white supremacist. White supremacy is a separate issue from segregation.

Then it might have turned out that North America, would not have been a great place.

Is it a great place regardless?

The idea of the moral and upstanding North fighting an evil and bigoted South is more fantasy and myth than any other untruth surrounding the war.

"The African race" was a commodity in the South and a "nussance" in the North.

The idea that one was the moral good and the other the moral bad is perhaps one of the most pernicious and damaging falacies that is believed and perpetuated in this country.

Robert Penn Warren called it the 'treasury of virtue' the accidental stumbling onto the moral high ground which has absolved the US of every sin past present and future.

I never said that there was a moral good or bad. I just know how it ended up. We're in a good place now.

Are we?

How so?

Are you pointing to racial harmony as proof? Are you pointing to economic success as evidence?

Over the next few hundred years as the dawn and sunset of American civilization comes into view it will almost certainly be the self inflicted would of the Civil war that proved to be fatal.

We have a permanent split in this country. We also have an underclass that has taken two steps forward and three back. From a racial standpoint the tide has ebbed and flowed but remained. That's no success.

(07-04-2015 06:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:39 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:31 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Those in the North believed in the I inherent superiority of the white man. That's not unique to the South. The institution of segregation has its roots in post war social chaos, not pre war antebellum slavery.

Even among those whites in the North who supported emancipation you would still not find but a bare minority that were not white supremacist. White supremacy is a separate issue from segregation.

Then it might have turned out that North America, would not have been a great place.

Is it a great place regardless?

The idea of the moral and upstanding North fighting an evil and bigoted South is more fantasy and myth than any other untruth surrounding the war.

"The African race" was a commodity in the South and a "nussance" in the North.

The idea that one was the moral good and the other the moral bad is perhaps one of the most pernicious and damaging falacies that is believed and perpetuated in this country.

Robert Penn Warren called it the 'treasury of virtue' the accidental stumbling onto the moral high ground which has absolved the US of every sin past present and future.

I never said that there was a moral good or bad. I just know how it ended up. We're in a good place now.

Are we?

How so?

Are you pointing to racial harmony as proof? Are you pointing to economic success as evidence?

Over the next few hundred years as the dawn and sunset of American civilization comes into view it will almost certainly be the self inflicted would of the Civil war that proved to be fatal.

We have a permanent split in this country. We also have an underclass that has taken two steps forward and three back. From a racial standpoint the tide has ebbed and flowed but remained. That's no success.

Of course I have no proof because this is just speculation.

I think that I'm able to go farther in life than I would've been if the CSA survived. Again that's off of the trajectory of what the country was when it started. There's nothing that I could think of that would've changed the way the population would've come around regarding race.

Like I said before, maybe there would've been a populist movement that would've made slavery and racism shameful on top of the economics. We'll never know.

(07-04-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:10 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  If the South was able to leave peacefully. I honestly think slavery would've continued into the 1900s and we could probably still be in an Apartheid state today because there wouldn't be pressure strong enough from external sources to do anything better. This is if it would've lasted that long.

From within the country: It's very possible that the pro-unionists within those states would've made some noise and could've caused issues. Goodness knows Texas would leave at any inconvenience. They did it twice before.

It wouldn't have been a political issue but an economic one.

Slavery couldn't continue because soil wears out. It's why many of the upper South states had little in the way of slaves compared to their newer more recently developed Deep South states.

The worst thing that ever happened to this nation is the way in which slavery was ended. We have a permanent underclass and that will never change. You can hang that directly on millions of slaves being thrown out into the world with nothing. Their descendants continue to have nothing. Their place in society post emancipation is partly what contributed to the social problems that witnessed the rise of segregation. You can see a counterpoint in pre Civil War Louisiana.

We'd have been far better off with a gradual erosion of slavery than what we got. But, the treasury of virtue forces us to buy untruths in order to ensure we don't ask ourselves the hard questions.

I don't know. A good deal of the states left saying that white men are inherently superior. Even if slavery erodes silently away, it doesn't mean that it goes away without Apartheid.

Again, that could depend on the attitudes that develop in the region. There could very well have been a liberal contingent that would grant them rights and make them citizens.

Those in the North believed in the I inherent superiority of the white man. That idea would have met with overwhelming approval across the U.S., southern or not. That's not unique to the South. The institution of segregation has its roots in post war social chaos, not pre war antebellum slavery.

Even among those whites in the North who supported emancipation you would still not find but a bare minority that were not white supremacist. White supremacy is a separate issue from segregation.

In the US of the 1860s there simply was no group that advocates for the moral and biological equality of blacks. It simply did not exist, anywhere.

Lincoln was pretty typical of most Yankees in 1860. He had doubts that blacks were the intellectual equal of whites, but he believed all people should be treated equally under the law and there should be no legal barriers to a black man in his attempt to achieve success. He believed *everyone* should be able to rise (or fall) based solely on their own talent and hard work.

(07-04-2015 10:15 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 10:03 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  In the 20th century, the U.S. won three world wars and put a man on the moon. I hate to think what Europe and the rest of the world would look like today if the U.S. had split in the 19th century.

Could the Union have done all that without the Confederacy? Maybe, maybe not.

^ this...WWI and WWII could have very easily turned out different...plus, maybe Russia acts bolder during the Cold War...all kinds of long term ramifications if the CSA won

Kinda makes you wonder what kinda diplomatic SH** the Germans would pull with the Zimmerman telegram had the CSA been in place. Plus the Spanish American war might never have happened meaning the US would never have had become an imperial power. But on the plus side we would no longer follow an "Island" military preparedness policy which would have altered our approach and other countries approach towards us. Knowing we had a large standing Army would have made Germany think twice about unrestricted submarine warfare/beating France/UK before the US could send a legitimate fighting force to Europe.

But in all seriousness the best case scenario (a victory at Gettysburg) the South would have had to deal with a ruined and unfixable economy, diplomatically isolated country thanks to slavery, infrastructure that was lagging behind the rest of the "western" countries. Plus they would have had to gone through their "articles of confederation" and "war of 1812" phases.

My guess is that they would have been in such a state of dysfunction they would have collapsed within 20 years and rejoined the US.

(07-04-2015 08:07 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:10 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  If the South was able to leave peacefully. I honestly think slavery would've continued into the 1900s and we could probably still be in an Apartheid state today because there wouldn't be pressure strong enough from external sources to do anything better. This is if it would've lasted that long.

From within the country: It's very possible that the pro-unionists within those states would've made some noise and could've caused issues. Goodness knows Texas would leave at any inconvenience. They did it twice before.

It wouldn't have been a political issue but an economic one.

Slavery couldn't continue because soil wears out. It's why many of the upper South states had little in the way of slaves compared to their newer more recently developed Deep South states.

The worst thing that ever happened to this nation is the way in which slavery was ended. We have a permanent underclass and that will never change. You can hang that directly on millions of slaves being thrown out into the world with nothing. Their descendants continue to have nothing. Their place in society post emancipation is partly what contributed to the social problems that witnessed the rise of segregation. You can see a counterpoint in pre Civil War Louisiana.

We'd have been far better off with a gradual erosion of slavery than what we got. But, the treasury of virtue forces us to buy untruths in order to ensure we don't ask ourselves the hard questions.

I don't know. A good deal of the states left saying that white men are inherently superior. Even if slavery erodes silently away, it doesn't mean that it goes away without Apartheid.

Again, that could depend on the attitudes that develop in the region. There could very well have been a liberal contingent that would grant them rights and make them citizens.

Those in the North believed in the I inherent superiority of the white man. That idea would have met with overwhelming approval across the U.S., southern or not. That's not unique to the South. The institution of segregation has its roots in post war social chaos, not pre war antebellum slavery.

Even among those whites in the North who supported emancipation you would still not find but a bare minority that were not white supremacist. White supremacy is a separate issue from segregation.

In the US of the 1860s there simply was no group that advocates for the moral and biological equality of blacks. It simply did not exist, anywhere.

Lincoln was pretty typical of most Yankees in 1860. He had doubts that blacks were the intellectual equal of whites, but he believed all people should be treated equally under the law and there should be no legal barriers to a black man in his attempt to achieve success. He believed *everyone* should be able to rise (or fall) based solely on their own talent and hard work.

That's what a lot of people think, but it isn't true. He thought they had very little of any place as citizens.

The confederacy would have looked a lot like Mexico and the rest of Latin America. There would have been a landed elite that controlled vast swaths of territory and a black and white underclass indentured to the elites, with a very small bourgeoisie operating a feeble attempt at an industrial base. The government would have either been very weak and prone to corruption from the elites or devolved into a dictatorship or oligarchy, or it could have possibly been both.

Had slavery continued, the country would have become a pariah state, isolated from European powers and the North. If slavery had given way on the south's own accord shortly after the 1860s, there would have still been a black underclass, as the former slaves would be starting with absolutely nothing. There would also have been a deep conflict between the newly freed blacks and the white underclass over increased competition for work. This conflict would have likely lead to two outcomes. The first and more likely outcome is the government instituting segregation and apartheid upon the black populace to keep them in check and protect the white underclass' jobs, preventing the second potential outcome of a populist civil war between the white underclass and the landed elite allied with the black underclass over land ownership and labor competition. Whatever bourgeoisie present would likely evacuate to more stable confines like the North or Europe, leaving the south in an even weaker economic position.

It's rather sad that so many are so ignorant of the massive damage done to the South by the war, and the period after. It's simply silly to think that if that damage had never occurred the South would have been in a worse position than it is today. It's simply mind-boggeling that people think that. It says they have zero understanding of the great harm the war did to the South, a harm it has never recovered from.

But, that seems to be a hallmark of the 'yankee' mindset, an absolute lack of empathy and understanding. The South was left in worse shape than post second world war Germany or Japan, or France after the first world war, and unlike all of those, was never rebuilt.

The US has never treated a conquered foe, other than the natives, worse than it did its own 'countrymen.' The post civil war treatment ensured the nation would never fully heal and also ensured a lasting schism in the national psyche.

(07-04-2015 11:38 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  The confederacy would have looked a lot like Mexico and the rest of Latin America. There would have been a landed elite that controlled vast swaths of territory and a black and white underclass indentured to the elites, with a very small bourgeoisie operating a feeble attempt at an industrial base. The government would have either been very weak and prone to corruption from the elites or devolved into a dictatorship or oligarchy, or it could have possibly been both.

Had slavery continued, the country would have become a pariah state, isolated from European powers and the North. If slavery had given way on the south's own accord shortly after the 1860s, there would have still been a black underclass, as the former slaves would be starting with absolutely nothing. There would also have been a deep conflict between the newly freed blacks and the white underclass over increased competition for work. This conflict would have likely lead to two outcomes. The first and more likely outcome is the government instituting segregation and apartheid upon the black populace to keep them in check and protect the white underclass' jobs, preventing the second potential outcome of a populist civil war between the white underclass and the landed elite allied with the black underclass over land ownership and labor competition. Whatever bourgeoisie present would likely evacuate to more stable confines like the North or Europe, leaving the south in an even weaker economic position.

That is spot on.

(07-04-2015 11:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 08:07 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It wouldn't have been a political issue but an economic one.

Slavery couldn't continue because soil wears out. It's why many of the upper South states had little in the way of slaves compared to their newer more recently developed Deep South states.

The worst thing that ever happened to this nation is the way in which slavery was ended. We have a permanent underclass and that will never change. You can hang that directly on millions of slaves being thrown out into the world with nothing. Their descendants continue to have nothing. Their place in society post emancipation is partly what contributed to the social problems that witnessed the rise of segregation. You can see a counterpoint in pre Civil War Louisiana.

We'd have been far better off with a gradual erosion of slavery than what we got. But, the treasury of virtue forces us to buy untruths in order to ensure we don't ask ourselves the hard questions.

I don't know. A good deal of the states left saying that white men are inherently superior. Even if slavery erodes silently away, it doesn't mean that it goes away without Apartheid.

Again, that could depend on the attitudes that develop in the region. There could very well have been a liberal contingent that would grant them rights and make them citizens.

Those in the North believed in the I inherent superiority of the white man. That idea would have met with overwhelming approval across the U.S., southern or not. That's not unique to the South. The institution of segregation has its roots in post war social chaos, not pre war antebellum slavery.

Even among those whites in the North who supported emancipation you would still not find but a bare minority that were not white supremacist. White supremacy is a separate issue from segregation.

In the US of the 1860s there simply was no group that advocates for the moral and biological equality of blacks. It simply did not exist, anywhere.

Lincoln was pretty typical of most Yankees in 1860. He had doubts that blacks were the intellectual equal of whites, but he believed all people should be treated equally under the law and there should be no legal barriers to a black man in his attempt to achieve success. He believed *everyone* should be able to rise (or fall) based solely on their own talent and hard work.

That's what a lot of people think, but it isn't true. He thought they had very little of any place as citizens.

What I wrote is exactly what Lincoln believed. I think he briefly supported a movement to recolonize blacks back to Africa. He gave up that idea quickly.

(07-04-2015 11:58 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 11:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 08:07 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 06:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I don't know. A good deal of the states left saying that white men are inherently superior. Even if slavery erodes silently away, it doesn't mean that it goes away without Apartheid.

Again, that could depend on the attitudes that develop in the region. There could very well have been a liberal contingent that would grant them rights and make them citizens.

Those in the North believed in the I inherent superiority of the white man. That idea would have met with overwhelming approval across the U.S., southern or not. That's not unique to the South. The institution of segregation has its roots in post war social chaos, not pre war antebellum slavery.

Even among those whites in the North who supported emancipation you would still not find but a bare minority that were not white supremacist. White supremacy is a separate issue from segregation.

In the US of the 1860s there simply was no group that advocates for the moral and biological equality of blacks. It simply did not exist, anywhere.

Lincoln was pretty typical of most Yankees in 1860. He had doubts that blacks were the intellectual equal of whites, but he believed all people should be treated equally under the law and there should be no legal barriers to a black man in his attempt to achieve success. He believed *everyone* should be able to rise (or fall) based solely on their own talent and hard work.

That's what a lot of people think, but it isn't true. He thought they had very little of any place as citizens.

What I wrote is exactly what Lincoln believed. I think he briefly supported a movement to recolonize blacks back to Africa. He gave up that idea quickly.

Sure, whatever you say, but why don't we let the man speak for himself...

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man." Abe Lincoln

"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together." Abe Lincoln

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." Abe Lincoln

He put forth perfectly the national opinion on the 'African race' in the period in which he lived.

The war was not about race. White supremacy was universal. The question of race made a perfect screw in which to twist into the lifeless body that was the South, it has remained as much ever since.

There are a lot more quotes if you would like them. His opinion is quite clear, although it may differ from what you, and most Americans, wish it had been.

not even close to yes for a variety of reasons.....the uncertainty of never achieving the power gained from the economics of solidarity as a united nation and the almost certain multiple subsequent civil wars comes to mind....the latter eerily sounds like the palestinian/jewish strife that still exists to this day......when I was first exposed to the rhetoric of, "the south will rise again", I'd just turn around and walk away before my sadistic personality would be compelled to toss the token verbal 'idiot tax' barb at the individual...that opinion hasn't changed over time regardless that I wouldn't choose another corner of this country to inhabit based on freedom of choice.

easily support displaying the confederate flag or any other as a private individual....more power to those that believe symbolic pride is a requirement to help achieve the function of personal satisfaction....things such as this are not my cup o' tea...however, it is a fundamental right in this country regardless of perception or societal scorn....losing sight of simple freedoms, specifically via implied or agenda based coercion is what concerns me these days.....

Would be a lot cheaper to build things in the South plus you wouldn't have to deal with all these Mexicams.

(07-05-2015 05:26 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Would be a lot cheaper to build things in the South plus you wouldn't have to deal with all these Mexicams.

That's because Southerners would be the Mexicans.

We had an unspoken civic agreement. It was good that slavery was over. It was good that we remained a continental union. Southerners fought well, maintained their honor, and were embraced as worthy of inclusion in the American military pantheon. The Civil War was a shared American event owned by all.

Modern political agendas on all sides have worked very hard to have that national reconciliation broken.

And so it is.

(07-04-2015 11:46 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 11:38 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  The confederacy would have looked a lot like Mexico and the rest of Latin America. There would have been a landed elite that controlled vast swaths of territory and a black and white underclass indentured to the elites, with a very small bourgeoisie operating a feeble attempt at an industrial base. The government would have either been very weak and prone to corruption from the elites or devolved into a dictatorship or oligarchy, or it could have possibly been both.

Had slavery continued, the country would have become a pariah state, isolated from European powers and the North. If slavery had given way on the south's own accord shortly after the 1860s, there would have still been a black underclass, as the former slaves would be starting with absolutely nothing. There would also have been a deep conflict between the newly freed blacks and the white underclass over increased competition for work. This conflict would have likely lead to two outcomes. The first and more likely outcome is the government instituting segregation and apartheid upon the black populace to keep them in check and protect the white underclass' jobs, preventing the second potential outcome of a populist civil war between the white underclass and the landed elite allied with the black underclass over land ownership and labor competition. Whatever bourgeoisie present would likely evacuate to more stable confines like the North or Europe, leaving the south in an even weaker economic position.

That is spot on.

Lmao

(07-05-2015 09:03 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 11:46 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 11:38 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  The confederacy would have looked a lot like Mexico and the rest of Latin America. There would have been a landed elite that controlled vast swaths of territory and a black and white underclass indentured to the elites, with a very small bourgeoisie operating a feeble attempt at an industrial base. The government would have either been very weak and prone to corruption from the elites or devolved into a dictatorship or oligarchy, or it could have possibly been both.

Had slavery continued, the country would have become a pariah state, isolated from European powers and the North. If slavery had given way on the south's own accord shortly after the 1860s, there would have still been a black underclass, as the former slaves would be starting with absolutely nothing. There would also have been a deep conflict between the newly freed blacks and the white underclass over increased competition for work. This conflict would have likely lead to two outcomes. The first and more likely outcome is the government instituting segregation and apartheid upon the black populace to keep them in check and protect the white underclass' jobs, preventing the second potential outcome of a populist civil war between the white underclass and the landed elite allied with the black underclass over land ownership and labor competition. Whatever bourgeoisie present would likely evacuate to more stable confines like the North or Europe, leaving the south in an even weaker economic position.

That is spot on.

Lmao

Spend a little time in Alabama and see if you still think it's funny.

Nobody's making you live in Alamama. And FWIW, I'm laughing because a lot of that happened anyway, especially the first paragraph.

The bigotry on the left when it comes to the South is appalling. Obviously these people don't get out much. To their tiny closed minds people in the South are a bunch of toothless, uneducated cousin marrying rednecks. And this is from a bunch of smog sniffing urbanites who live in filthy cities run by corrupt Democrats. Most of them talk funny. The South is a booming freedom loving region with far more charitable, friendly people and, yes, tolerant people than anywhere in the country. They also aren't people with totally dysfunctional lives and warped ethics who go around telling other people how to live. There are many reasons people are leaving Yankeeland and California in droves to move to the dynamic South. One is to escape from the intolerance of the progressives and their ignorant world view.



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk