Jump to content
270soft Forum
TheMiddlePolitical

Confederate States of America play through

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Of course, "wiping them out and clearing and securing their land for settlement," would be a lot harder in this case because Stand Watie and the other Cherokee and Chocktaw commanders would be armed to the teeth, entrenched, and battle-hardened, and there'd be no Union Army to disarm them.

Notice within 8 years from 1864,the actual conflicts will be what the next president (Lee) will have to deal with,we shall see what happens. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert E. Lee term 1867-1873

-In his inaugural speech Lee opened some ears. The first thing he mentioned was the homestead act,which would include slaughter of Indians,with no movement by the CSA yet and still in its planning phase Lee said he would "Call off the homesteading act order" Saying "Negotiations should go before death and destruction" saying how he believes the Indians tribes are definitely well suited for war. He also mentioned the state of the war reparations for the Union saying he would "Immediately cut the rest that they owe in half,so there nation can remain stable and not lead to more wars" He did mention Cuba calling it "Our best interest for expanding our country to the sea". He also said how he would like to focus on building a nation wide railroad system. (1867)

-A White supremacist group called the "Klu Klux Klan" is founded,President Lee immediately denounces the group. (1867)

-Ground is broken in Texas for the national railroad system,which will expand all across the CSA into new founded territory. (1867)

-Negotiations with the Native American nations from Oklahoma and New Mexico begin. President Lee would like to make both territory states,but will give parts of the states as reserved land for the Natives. (1867)

-Lee introduces the non-slave expansion act to congress,debate begins. This will allow new territory's and states to not allow slavery,Every new state will be voted on by the people if slavery should be allowed or not. (1867)

-Lee signs the "Nationwide communications act" Which will establish upgraded,and new telegraph systems throughout the whole CSA. (1867)

-Sam Houston dies in his home in Houston Texas at the age of 74,he would not even of finished a full year of the presidency. (1867)

-Lee signs a "Nationwide Health act" which will invest in hospital upgrade,and upgrades to labor procedures. (1868)

-The non-slave expansion act is voted on in the house,getting dominated with a vote of 32-109,with only border state reps. voting for it. Lee promises to introduce it again at a later date. All Whigs voted against it. (1868) 

-The Khedive cotton explosion in Egypt occurs. Sending the CSA's economy spiraling downward. Robert E. Lee addresses the nation saying "This is a grave day for working citizens in the CSA,we cannot continue to have slavery as we will have no allies(This is after all the CSA's European allies informed them that they would be withdrawing there alliance,showing the only reason they were allies was cause of CSA being king cotton) I was informed by our trading allies that if we continue to have slavery,they will not trade with us any longer,which will end our economy". The Confederacy's great depression has begun. (1868) 

-Lee signs banks to immediately privatize,and to end the national banking system,saying the complexity of the system will drive the economy downward even further (1868)

-Lee invokes a massing investment bill into the steel,and coal industries saying "It's our only hope to dig ourselves out of this mess,to find new ways of trading and investing" (1868)

-The non-slave expansion act is brought to the floor again,it passes the floor by a vote of 82-63,European countries applaud this. Lee announces that "We may not need to outlaw slavery as currently the act of slavery is up to the states,therefore not a nation as a whole" (1869)

-The negotiates with natives in Oklahoma and New Mexico end,establishing reserved land for them,and beginning the statehood process for the 2 new states,Lee announces his next moves will be for the areas of "Arizona territory,and Cuba" (1869)

-After investments in new industries,and the finishing of the national railroad system,the Confederate depression ends,Lee is applaud for his effort for digging the country out of the depression. (1870)

-Trading agreements and alliances are forged again with  European countries. (1870)

-With 90% of the requested war reparations paid (the 50% cut is included) Pres. Lee announces that no more reparations will be needed,and thanks the Union for there peaceful negotiations and also the cap for the Unions army is taken off (something that made citizens worry) (1871)

-A trading agreement is signed between the Union and the CSA,President Grant and Lee shake hands at a photo event,both agreeing that the countries are "brothers once again" (1871)

-Taxes are reduced nationwide,as the CSA is experiencing a growing economy,the people are happy. (1871)

-For one of his last acts Lee attempts to go out with a bang,the "Outlaw slavery,Black citizen proclamation" This act would make slavery illegal and allow blacks to become full citizens. The debate begins. (1871)
-Europeon countries side with the proclamation saying they will "Do more to help the CSA if the act is passed" The Union also sides with it. (1871)

-The bill comes to the floor. It fails. By a vote of  Lee says "it's a sad day for freedom" but he promises slavery will one day be outlawed. The vote was 57-93 (1872)

-Lee acquires Cuba,and Arizona after negotiations which he says will "lead to statehood for both" (1873)

Overall average approval rating:50%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TheMiddlePolitical 82-63 is not nearly enough to pass a bill for that as slavery was protected by the territories in the Confederate Constitution, it must be a Constitutional amendment to make such a change, which would require 97 votes. This bill would be stricken down as unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

@TheMiddlePolitical 82-63 is not nearly enough to pass a bill for that as slavery was protected by the territories in the Confederate Constitution, it must be a Constitutional amendment to make such a change, which would require 97 votes. This bill would be stricken down as unconstitutional.

There has been many clauses changed,Davis changed alot to do with votes,The "Fair elections act"(whatever one I named that changed to popular vote) Included only over-bearing laws would need a super majority vote (Example-COMPLETELY outlawing slavery) This bill simply holds a refrerendum for new territoes to vote on if slavery should be legal or illegal-That apeased the states rights crowd,as it is the people in the state that are deciding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

@TheMiddlePolitical 82-63 is not nearly enough to pass a bill for that as slavery was protected by the territories in the Confederate Constitution, it must be a Constitutional amendment to make such a change, which would require 97 votes. This bill would be stricken down as unconstitutional.

Of course, if the Confederate economy was about to collapse within the next several years because no one would buy their cotton with the "slave labour stain" on the brand, especially when the Khedive of Egypt was exporting vast amounts of inexpensive cotton abroad without that stigma on it, a more pragmatic view of the future of the practice of slavery might have to be made, even if it would be a hard and bitter pill to swallow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Of course, if the Confederate economy was about to collapse within the next several years because no one would buy their cotton with the "slave labour stain" on the brand, especially when the Khedive of Egypt was exporting vast amounts of inexpensive cotton abroad without that stigma on it, a more pragmatic view of the future of the practice of slavery might have to be made, even if it would be a hard and bitter pill to swallow.

The support was great by the CSA (In this timeline) to make slavery illegal completely-but that failed greatly (SO FAR) but a more suttle implementation is having a referendum for each new territory which passed,which is a start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheMiddlePolitical said:

The support was great by the CSA (In this timeline) to make slavery illegal completely-but that failed greatly (SO FAR) but a more suttle implementation is having a referendum for each new territory which passed,which is a start. 

And what'll happen when the economy imminently crashes (which it logically would)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

And what'll happen when the economy imminently crashes (which it logically would)?

It already has. Re:The Confederacy great depression,which only lasted 3 years,the cotton boom already happened (This is a different world,different thing happen at different times lol) If that's what you are referring to,But slavery economy? if that's what your referring to? you will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

It already has. Re:The Confederacy great depression,which only lasted 3 years,the cotton boom already happened (This is a different world,different thing happen at different times lol) If that's what you are referring to,But slavery economy? if that's what your referring to? you will see.

I'm not quite sure what you just said there, the grammar was so garbled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

I'm not quite sure what you just said there, the grammar was so garbled.

The economy has already crashed,if you read the timeline of Lee's presidency,Because of the Middle-east cotton boom. If you are referring to what will happen to the economy when and if slavery is made illegal,you will see. I didn't know what you were referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

There has been many clauses changed,Davis changed alot to do with votes,The "Fair elections act"(whatever one I named that changed to popular vote) Included only over-bearing laws would need a super majority vote (Example-COMPLETELY outlawing slavery) This bill simply holds a refrerendum for new territoes to vote on if slavery should be legal or illegal-That apeased the states rights crowd,as it is the people in the state that are deciding. 

You don't understand, even that is unconstitutional as the Confederate Constitution REQUIRED slavery in all states and territories

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

You don't understand, even that is unconstitutional as the Confederate Constitution REQUIRED slavery in all states and territories

If they stubbornly clung to slavery regardless of it providing no income and only becoming a massive economic sink in their economy, and having not yet diversified their economy, they would end up giving it up anyways - when they were forced, as a destitute, bankrupt, and pariah nation, to crawl back to the Union (or perhaps crawl to the British Empire) and beg for readmittance under any terms dictated, so these once proud and wealthy plantation owners could actually EAT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Patine said:

If they stubbornly clung to slavery regardless of it providing no income and only becoming a massive economic sink in their economy, and having not yet diversified their economy, they would end up giving it up anyways - when they were forced, as a destitute, bankrupt, and pariah nation, to crawl back to the Union (or perhaps crawl to the British Empire) and beg for readmittance under any terms dictated, so these once proud and wealthy plantation owners could actually EAT!

Yeah no I get it, I'm arguing for realism's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Yeah no I get it, I'm arguing for realism's sake.

What realism? Romanticized historical revisionist lenses are not, by definition, "realism."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

What realism? Romanticized historical revisionist lenses are not, by definition, "realism."

Patine, I am going to let Faye Dunaway take it away on this one: 

I mean, really, Constitution is part of the playthrough he's doing, all I am doing is increasing the quality and helping correct factual errors, do you oppose me simply to never have to support the Demon Conservative @Reagan04 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

Patine, I am going to let Faye Dunaway take it away on this one: 

I mean, really, Constitution is part of the playthrough he's doing, all I am doing is increasing the quality and helping correct factual errors, do you oppose me simply to never have to support the Demon Conservative @Reagan04 ?

What I'm saying is, you (and @TheMiddlePolitical, and, admittedly, @jnewt when he made this scenario series, and @JohnnyK when he made his) don't seem to understand how utterly unviable the Confederate position would have been in this alternate history scenario, ESPECIALLY if the concept of slavery an entrenched and EXTREMELY difficult foundation of the national Constitution to address in a way that would have allowed the Confederacy to have a real income AT ALL, and not just a compounding budget deficit. The Confederate Constitution is not nearly sufficient alone as a reference and extrapolation source to increase quality and realism and help correct factual errors. So please dismiss your song you've posted, which is not at all appropriate and is nothing more than and empty and hollow jab with no substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

What I'm saying is, you (and @TheMiddlePolitical, and, admittedly, @jnewt when he made this scenario series, and @JohnnyK when he made his) don't seem to understand how utterly unviable the Confederate position would have been in this alternate history scenario, ESPECIALLY if the concept of slavery an entrenched and EXTREMELY difficult foundation of the national Constitution to address in a way that would have allowed the Confederacy to have a real income AT ALL, and not just a compounding budget deficit. The Confederate Constitution is not nearly sufficient alone as a reference and extrapolation source to increase quality and realism and help correct factual errors. So please dismiss your song you've posted, which is not at all appropriate and is nothing more than and empty and hollow jab with no substance.

YES 
I
DO

THAT

DOESNT

CHANGE
THEIR 
CONSTITUTION

And the joke that I posted was when Faye Dunaway remarks to Warren Beatty "You're impossible" and you really are an impossible person Patine. You lack the ability to see beyond your own point and have thus far failed to grasp what I am saying because of it, it's a short-sighted view and it's incredibly frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a reason I never finish timelines,cause the comments get ransacked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

YES 
I
DO

THAT

DOESNT

CHANGE
THEIR 
CONSTITUTION

And the joke that I posted was when Faye Dunaway remarks to Warren Beatty "You're impossible" and you really are an impossible person Patine. You lack the ability to see beyond your own point and have thus far failed to grasp what I am saying because of it, it's a short-sighted view and it's incredibly frustrating.

Lincoln and FDR, the two Presidents hard-Constitutionalists and Libertarians often blame for getting the ball really rolling on moving away from "purist" American Constitutional governance, if you look at the situations they were in, and what was going on at the time, if they had stuck to strict Constitutional governance (something I tried to tell @servo75, but he just brushed this aside and blindly and sheepishly said strictly following the Constitution is ALWAYS the magic answer to ALL problems and crises, bar none), the United States (or at least the United States in ANY form recognizable today) would not exist! Constitutional purity is not always, and would not always be, rewarded with success, victory, prosperity, or even survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

YES 
I
DO

THAT

DOESNT

CHANGE
THEIR 
CONSTITUTION

And the joke that I posted was when Faye Dunaway remarks to Warren Beatty "You're impossible" and you really are an impossible person Patine. You lack the ability to see beyond your own point and have thus far failed to grasp what I am saying because of it, it's a short-sighted view and it's incredibly frustrating.

Also, Davis had already ruthlessly and dictatorially trampled the Confederate Constitution during the course of the Civil War as it was. Why would they stop there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please just enjoy the timeline and relate to talks SPECIFICALLY to the timeline. Not this would be this or this should happen. It's alternate history,alternate history is never perfect,,please make your own timelines if it isn't up to your par. I''m trying! @Patine  @Reagan04

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Patine said:

Lincoln and FDR, the two Presidents hard-Constitutionalists and Libertarians often blame for getting the ball really rolling on moving away from "purist" American Constitutional governance, if you look at the situations they were in, and what was going on at the time, if they had stuck to strict Constitutional governance (something I tried to tell @servo75, but he just brushed this aside and blindly and sheepishly said strictly following the Constitution is ALWAYS the magic answer to ALL problems and crises, bar none), the United States (or at least the United States in ANY form recognizable today) would not exist! Constitutional purity is not always, and would not always be, rewarded with success, victory, prosperity, or even survival.

I'm not asking that he follows the Constitution religiously, I'm asking that he simply follow the correct procedures to amend it, that's all, simply following the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I'm not asking that he follows the Constitution religiously, I'm asking that he simply follow the correct procedures to amend it, that's all, simply following the law.

But you also seem to (by your indignant response to my initial post on this issue) believe that the logical consequences for strictly adhering to the Confederate Constitution should be ignored, handwaved, or, at least, highly mitigated, or at least that's part of the message I'm reading from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress elections 1873

ELECTIONS

HOR: 79 Democrats (-6), 71 Whigs (+6)

Senate: 20 Democrats, 18 Whigs, 1 Independent (TN Senator Andrew Johnson)

Governors: 8 Democrats, 5 Whigs

Senate Majority Leader:John B. Gordon (GA)

Senate Minority Leader:Alfred M. Waddell (NC)

House Majority Leader:Roger Q. Mills (TX)

House Minority Leader:John T. Harris (VA)

Governor Majority Leader:Francis P. Blair Jr. (MO)

Governor Minority Leader:James W. Throckmorton (TX)

MAP:Dem-Blue,Whig-Yellow,Pink-Split,Grey-CSA Owned,Black-NOT CSA

H.O.R

Capture.PNG.a2219a45015a25e4ca8cdf353a1d62c7.PNG

SENATE

Capture.PNG.9b11add5b1c8ab924c62175026ec4c29.PNG

GOVERNORS

Capture.PNG.084f8a8b2f102e7cd876363bb3857e3b.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Patine said:

But you also seem to (by your indignant response to my initial post on this issue) believe that the logical consequences for strictly adhering to the Confederate Constitution should be ignored, handwaved, or, at least, highly mitigated, or at least that's part of the message I'm reading from you.

No and that is exactly why I was indignant, because you assume, I'm simply trying to tell him that he did it incorrectly and should amend it since that would be a Constitutional battle. I think amending the Constitution is best in that scenario! But that doesn't change that it is in the Constitution and must be taken out through the proper channels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×