What kind of country do you think we would be today if?

[DalesCarpentry]

What kind of country do you think we would be today if the south would have won the war? Would we be more like Mexico? Just wondering. Dale

[Old Fart]

I doubt it would be more like Mexico, but certainly different. 

[Sourdough]

Knowing what the old Southern White folks were like.  I predict the Southern Farmers and business men would have gotten richer.  Their trade with England and the rest of the world would have flourished.  Slavery would have ended with mechanization.  Most  of the no longer needed slaves would have been forced to move North, or out of the country.  Hardline segragationist would have ruled.  The South would be much like the country of Guatemala.  Guatemala is not a nice place to be for non whites.  Death squades roaming the country side, young non white men shot simply for attending school.

[Poopers]

I personally liked their idea of how the government should be structured more than our current system. With that being said I also think we wouldnt be as strong of a nation if they had won because of this same system.

No matter, we're screwed either way 

[Dixie Dude]

The border states were already experimenting with "share cropping" which happened anyway after the war.  I think it would have spread even before mechanization and slavery done away with by the 1880's.  I think the south might have rejoined the Union by the Spanish American War or WWI.  In order to do so, they would have probably requested another amendment enhancing states rights.   

[lakota]

I think that race relations might actually be better than they are now if slavery had been allowed to die the natural death it had coming anyway with mechanization. I wonder how much bitterness and hatred was created as a direct result by all of the government mandated this and that in the name of equality after the war ended?
 
If the south had won I think they would have eventually rejoined the Union probably under more favorable conditions.

[Cuts Crooked]

If the south had won?

Gahspaza Komerade!

[Hooker]

If the south had won?

Gahspaza Komerade!

Damn funny the north won and here we are on the same door step.

Pat

[yellowtail3]

I wonder how much bitterness and hatred was created as a direct result by all of the government mandated this and that in the name of equality after the war ended?

LOTS of bitterness and hatred, as you say - klukkers and segregationists were very unhappy with the voting rights act, with the idea of blacks as equal citizens, and with federal meddlin' in their affairs to those ends... .

[Lost Farmboy]

  If we survived WWII without speaking German. The South would have a fence built to stop illegal Northerners crossing their borders looking for freedom.

[lakota]

I wonder how much bitterness and hatred was created as a direct result by all of the government mandated this and that in the name of equality after the war ended?

LOTS of bitterness and hatred, as you say - klukkers and segregationists were very unhappy with the voting rights act, with the idea of blacks as equal citizens, and with federal meddlin' in their affairs to those ends... .

Do you ever get sick of being so self righteous?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk

[Conan The Librarian]

That is a fascinating question. Definitely fit for a long extended bull session.
 
A couple of thoughts:
1) It could have been beneficial in the short term because the US may have split into multiple logical countries, like Europe. One country agricultural, another industrial, and then the west, which would have taken longer to resolve. For example, where would California have landed? It's part industrial, part agricultural, and not connected to the eastern states.
 
2) How would there have been unity in challenges like the world wars? Would it have been possible to unify north America into a focused nation? I doubt it.
 
3) What incentives would have occurred to change the face of business in these countries? For example, the migration to the sun belt has left the rust belt behind. Would incentives to attract industry to the south have attracted enough industry to the south so that the north would have withered to the point of being a lot like Canada? Could be.
 
4) Would the concept of limited government even be discussed today because there might not be a federal government to get over grown and unsustainable?

5) Would the Indians have been robbed of their land and left to rot in reservations, or would they have been able to form more logical alliances that benefitted them?
 

[SHOOTALL]

which country ? the United Stated or the Confederate States of America ?
The South would have industrialized out of necessity and became a great nation. The North may have had limited success with agriculture but limited growing seasons wold have been hard to over come. In the end they would have traded with each other . One has to wonder if either would have been the force America became after WW1 or 2 ?

[DalesCarpentry]

One has to wonder if either would have been the force America became after WW1 or 2 ?

Yea for some reason I don't think the country would have been near as strong. Dale

[yellowtail3]

I wonder how much bitterness and hatred was created as a direct result by all of the government mandated this and that in the name of equality after the war ended?

LOTS of bitterness and hatred, as you say - klukkers and segregationists were very unhappy with the voting rights act, with the idea of blacks as equal citizens, and with federal meddlin' in their affairs to those ends... .

Do you ever get sick of being so self righteous?

You're a confused man, Lakota - I've not written anything about my righteousness (or lack). I commented on another's post, re: whether reconstruction (and later federal action re: civil rights) caused unhappiness. I'll guess that you disagree with my statement, that Klukkers and Segragationists were indeed unhappy with federal action re: black civil rights?

[lakota]

I wonder how much bitterness and hatred was created as a direct result by all of the government mandated this and that in the name of equality after the war ended?

LOTS of bitterness and hatred, as you say - klukkers and segregationists were very unhappy with the voting rights act, with the idea of blacks as equal citizens, and with federal meddlin' in their affairs to those ends... .

Do you ever get sick of being so self righteous?

You're a confused man, Lakota - I've not written anything about my righteousness (or lack). I commented on another's post, re: whether reconstruction (and later federal action re: civil rights) caused unhappiness. I'll guess that you disagree with my statement, that Klukkers and Segragationists were indeed unhappy with federal action re: black civil rights?

The crown must weigh heavy upon your brow. The responsibility you bear by standing in judgement of others and deciding if they will be branded with the scarlett "R" or not-it must be unbearable.
 
If you could stand down from your Ivory Tower for just a moment perhaps even you could surely realize that federal mandated "equality" could have been the very thing that created racism and "klukkers" and segregationists.

[yellowtail3]

The crown must weigh heavy upon your brow.

Crown? No crown here.

The responsibility you bear by standing in judgement of others and deciding if they will be branded with the scarlett "R" or not-it must be unbearable.

I've not branded anybody with any scarlett "R" - I simply observed that, as someone else proposed, reconstruction/federal action did cause some bitterness. I named klukkers and segregationists as those likely most embittered. Do you disagree with that speculation? Do you know some klukkers and segregationists who welcomed having black people vote in the south?
 

If you could stand down from your Ivory Tower for just a moment perhaps even you could surely realize that federal mandated "equality" could have been the very thing that created racism and "klukkers" and segregationists.

You definitely confused; no ivory tower here. I'm a white guy and a southerner, but no academic. I can read, if that's what you mean.

But to the federally mandated "equality" that you mention - what is your point, here? Are you thinking that Jim Crow and lynchings and general all-around rotten treatment of black people in the south would not have happened, except for imposition of reconstruction, and later 1950/60s federal action to enforce enfranchisement of black citizens?

Explain yerself...

[Dixie Dude]

Some people didn't grow up in the south in the 50's and 60's.  Lots of things were exploited by the news media and liberal blacks.  Easy for northerners to condem the south, but a few isolated cases of bad things happening weren't the norm for MOST of the south.  I was there when the two high schools were integrated into one.  We had no problems, no fights, and blacks were elected to the student council even being a minority.  Just because some people started stuff in Selma, or Mississippi, doesn't mean it was widespread.  Like I said, blacks would have suffered less with a transition to the sharecropping system, and then when mechanization took over, the same things would have happened.  Also, the south would not have been destroyed.  Georgia before the Civil War had the highest GDP of any state in the nation.  It wasn't until the '60's that it finally went back to what it was before the Civil War.  The north burned, destroyed, and looted many southerners homes and treasures, thus destroying the ability to rebuild quickly.  We had no Marshall plan to rebuild us.  Had to start over from scratch.  Northerners are hypocritical snubbing their noses at southerners.  My wife is from Wisconsin, she has quickly learned there are two classes of blacks today.  The ones who try to succeed, get and education and move up in society, and those who have their hands out for freebees, and are dependent on government, and blame the whites for their condition.  The second ones say the first ones are "white" inside.  No ammount of education will help, if they don't want to learn and drop out of school.  Government is the problem here, not society or the people in general. 

[ironglow]

Some people didn't grow up in the south in the 50's and 60's.  Lots of things were exploited by the news media and liberal blacks.  Easy for northerners to condem the south, but a few isolated cases of bad things happening weren't the norm for MOST of the south.  I was there when the two high schools were integrated into one.  We had no problems, no fights, and blacks were elected to the student council even being a minority.  Just because some people started stuff in Selma, or Mississippi, doesn't mean it was widespread.  Like I said, blacks would have suffered less with a transition to the sharecropping system, and then when mechanization took over, the same things would have happened.  Also, the south would not have been destroyed.  Georgia before the Civil War had the highest GDP of any state in the nation.  It wasn't until the '60's that it finally went back to what it was before the Civil War.  The north burned, destroyed, and looted many southerners homes and treasures, thus destroying the ability to rebuild quickly.  We had no Marshall plan to rebuild us.  Had to start over from scratch.  Northerners are hypocritical snubbing their noses at southerners.  My wife is from Wisconsin, she has quickly learned there are two classes of blacks today.  The ones who try to succeed, get and education and move up in society, and those who have their hands out for freebees, and are dependent on government, and blame the whites for their condition.  The second ones say the first ones are "white" inside.  No ammount of education will help, if they don't want to learn and drop out of school.  Government is the problem here, not society or the people in general.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
    Even though I was born & raised in the north, I spent some years in the south, starting in the 1950s. It did have some problems but not nearly to the degree many propaganda movies have depicted.  Yes, there were some genuine atrocities committed by some idiots and Jim Crow was far from justified.  All in all,  Dixie Dude has some valid points in what he says above. I saw segregated places then...but believe it or not they were often segregated from both sides.
   I can see where it would have gone smoother, had slavery died a natural death..the cotton gin was already in operation with more marvels to come..of course, nothing justifies slavery..just food for thought..

[crustylicious]

There'd be no NASCAR at Pocono.

[SHOOTALL]

There'd be no NASCAR at Pocono.

 
What they have now is Sprint racing not NASCAR anyway 

[Singleshotsam]

The south would have became as corrupt as our present country is now.  If not worse.  It's not like the politicians of the south were some kind of miracle sent by god.  Power would have corrupted.  Greed would have taken over.  In time their great leaders would have bred entitled kids who then would breed entitled kids who would then revolt and occupy Atlanta and breed in public while destroying a police car.

[BUGEYE]

I wonder how much bitterness and hatred was created as a direct result by all of the government mandated this and that in the name of equality after the war ended?

LOTS of bitterness and hatred, as you say - klukkers and segregationists were very unhappy with the voting rights act, with the idea of blacks as equal citizens, and with federal meddlin' in their affairs to those ends... .

Do you ever get sick of being so self righteous?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk

[SHOOTALL]

The North would have been more like Germany and the South more like England. Think about it !