Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Oil Baron

My scenario

Recommended Posts

Eric 3446, yes ART. 2, SECT. 1 states that the Pres. "shall not be re-eligible" but a simple Constitutional Convention called for by 3 states (ART. 5, SECT. 1) could have allowed for a new amendment that stuck out the words "not" from the above phrase and presto! You have a CS President being capable of reelection. But yes the wording of the scenario did not specify such an amendment. :)

Edwards 2008, Well, Kentucky and Missouri seceded but were quickly supressed under US occupation by 1862. The circumstances of State organizations were hasty but this was obviosuly due to the cirises at hand. But true these two States have been in both camps in the debates for a while now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edwards 2008, The State of West Virginia is Illegal and Unconstitutional. By all rights it was (and Constitutionally still is) part of Virginia. I refer you to US  Constitiution ART. 4, SECT. 3. (The admission of West Virginia as a State without the Consent of the Government of the State of Virginia was Unconstitutional. Also see this in the CS Constitution ART. 4, SECT. 3. So you see that if you break the Law once, and then again, and again, and so on and so on without any reprimanding then you have tyranny and anarchy. So vanquished our Republic and OLD de-centralized government.

Let's see... I know there were some good arguments that West Virginia's creation was not unconstitutional... let me think...

PS In case you're wondering, I am a proud public school student, so you'll find I've been 'brainwashed' (:rolleyes:) very well by the public school system ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[

Let's see... I know there were some good arguments that West Virginia's creation was not unconstitutional... let me think...

PS In case you're wondering, I am a proud public school student, so you'll find I've been 'brainwashed' (:rolleyes:) very well by the public school system ;)

French Fisher,

The reasons "W.Va." is unconstitutional are boundless. Read some reports of the US Congress during the debate as well as the Conventions that convened in Wheeling to discuss 'dismemberment.

One of the most interesting statements comes from the Anti-South US Representative: Thaddeus Stevens "We know that it is unconstitutional, but it is necessary." (December, 1862) [Remember Thaddeus Stevens was the one who wanted to kill ALL white Southerners (if that isn't a holocaust or genocide, what is?) and repopulate the South with Northerners and Freedmen]

Another statement is from the Hon. S. S. Cox: "Forty western counties of Virginia agree to secede and form a new state without the consent of the old one! It is anomalous and unconstitutional." (1899, Confederate Military History, Vol. II)

In the Virginia Constitution of which was in operation in 1861 we see this statement in the State Constitution's Bill of Rights: (ART. 1, SECT. 14) "That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof." (Note: The VA Constitution of 1776 was amended in 1830 then in 1851 there were amendments during those times a new State Constitution was drawn up in 1861 to strike "United" and add "Confederate" States.)

The question of the validity of the "state of west virginia" has arisen as recently in the California Law Review (90 Calif. L. Rev. 291) in 2002 in an article by: Kesavan & Paulsen. Not to mention an article in North & South in Jan. 2000 in an article by: Edward Steers, Jr.

The creation of West Virginia operates under the old guise: "When the results do not suit you....change the rules!" So it was that when the disgruntled citizens of the western counties (who had voted against secession were outnumbered 6:1 for secession) gathered in Wheeling declared that they were the "Newly Reorganized Government of the State of Virginia" well by george what did that make Virginia? The lost State of Franklin?? ha! No, it was all revolution.

The US Government and US Pres. Lincoln, while not approving of the 13 State Ordinances of Secession of 13 Independent States, DID approve an unconstitutional secession of 40 counties of the State of Virginia.

So, after "becoming" the new "state of Virginia" The "new" state approved the 40 counties forming a new "state" and the "legislature" sent an "application" for statehood to the US government which all became a formality June 20, 1863. So when the Government of West Virginia came into existence, what happened to the "Reorganized Government of Virginia?" Since the had no use for it, it ceased to exist under their auspices. I didn't see a transfer back to the People of Virginia in 1865! Or 1868, Or 1870 for that matter.

It was simply put: Unconstitutional, Uprecendented and Uncalled for!

Though not a burning question in the 21st century, it still has implications. Now there has been a precendent set in this nation. If Western North Carolina or Rutherford County (where I live) wanted to form a new 'State' without the approval of the State of North Carolina, then technically we CAN try it, because "west virginia" did it.

So go ahead and be a proud "brain washed" student of the Public School system. I, however at 22 yrs. see the appalling ignorance of our students (Students at Harvard could not name the 1st President of the United States! Nor recite the Preamble to the Constitution!) I however am a SURVIVOR of the Public School system.

The saying is: Ignorance Is Bliss. When you don't know the truth, then you don't have to concern yourself about many things but "eat, sleep and be merry for tomorrow we die." Or we can arm ourselves with knowledge and try to help better our fellow man and preserve our rights.

In conclusion I'll leave you with the statement of President James Madison: “A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

French Fisher,

I say those facts and opinions out of kindness not out of anger or malice. God Bless y'all. I am,

Your Bro In Christ,

Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

creigl i understand your "war of northern agression" stance but i was wondering how long do u think the north and south could have lasted as 2 independent nations? and do u think the north was just in attempting to both end slavery in the south and preserve the union? last question how long do u think it would have taken for the south to end slavery on there own since u know how hard it was for them to even give blacks equal rights (which they really never did they were forced into it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"...i was wondering how long do u think the north and south could have lasted as 2 independent nations?..."

SSVegeta123243, Thanks for your questions. In re to your 1st question. I believe that the USA and CSA could've coexisted until the Anti-Christ dissolves the nations into the one world government spoken of in the Books of Daniel and Revelation. :) Of course when you go into Alternate History anything can happen. I happen to be compiling an Alternate History about a victorious CSA and I'm attempting to take that history from 1861 to 2017 (and trust me its not easy :wacko:) but take for example the British and French. They probably would've allied with the CSA at the end of the War or mediated between the 2 nations to conclude the War. If such an alliance lasted into the 20th century then the CSA would've been allied with the British & French in WWI and WWII. Thus with Canada (allied with Britian & the CSA) and a possible French-ified Mexico due to Maximillian and Napoleon III in 1863-4 the USA would also have sought allies. The only emerging European power would've been Prussia (or Germany in the 20th century). So as Harry Turtledove, myself, and many other Alt. Hist. speculators theorize the USA could've allied with Germany and WWI could've come to America. Or perhaps both nations would have opted to stay out of European affairs. With a divided North America history could have been drastically altered in one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"...and do u think the north was just in attempting to both end slavery in the south and preserve the union?..."

SSVegeta123243, now to your 2nd question. We must always remember that every coin has 2 sides, even those 'trick coins' that are 2 sided have 2 sides. Its just that the front side has been copied to the other to cover it up.

That's the way the history of defeated peoples have been. The winning side attempts to 'cover up' the other and trick the rest of the people/nation/world into believing the matters about their story.

If you go back into the history of our Republic say from 1830 to 1900 and focus on the writings and saying of that period we can hopefully gain insight into what was really going on. This is what I try to keep in mind while I read and study. Most folks today interject empty platitudes into what they are saying due the the 'dumbing down' of American society.

So with all that said allow me to proceed with what I believe and have come to conclude based upon research.

First the 2 questions need to be reversed to their chronological order: Preserving the Union and then Ending Slavery.

America seperated from England due to the fact that England no longer was listening to the grievances of the Colonies, the fact that since the Colonies no longer had a voice in Parliment or the British Government, and that the British Govt. had committed unpardonable offenses in the eyes of the Colonists. Then it was believed by 1/3 of the colonists that they ought to be Free. Notice that was 1/3. With the help of propagandists like Thomas Paine who sought to sway public opinion not to mention the hearalding of actual combat another 1/3 of the colonists began to warm to the idea of Freedom as well. This 1/3 at 1st did not care what happened. Then the final 1/3 were Tories or Loyalists to the Crown.

After their freedom was secured and the Articles of Confederation implemented and then were revised in to the Constitution the Northern States main sources of income was the Merchant Marine. In 1807 with the Embargo Act & the War of 1812 the New England States threatened to Secede due to the swift decline of financial gain. Another area of financial gain was the Slave Trade. In 1808 the US Congress banned the slave trade and by that time the North had experienced a 95.5% decrease in slaves. The # of slaves in the South only rose 30.1% by 1810 which was a .09% decrease from 1800. After comparing the # of freedmen in the North with the decrease of slaves & # of slaves in the South there was only one conclusion left: Northern Merchant men sold their slaves elsewhere outside the US.

Flush with cash from the slave trade and the eroding marine mercantile a movement of technological advancement began in the Northern States. Remember Eli Whitney & his cotton gin and the mass production of interchangable parts.

The slow increase in manufacturing, in primarily in the Northern States could not compete with the dirt cheap imports from the South. It is then we observe the agitation of Northern Merchantmen who clamor for a higher Tarriff. (The tarriff is a tx placed on imported goods. In order to make money you have to include the tax with your expenditure thus causing an increase in your prices) We see the rise and small falls of the Tarriffs: 1789-8%, 1816-20%, 1824-30%, 1828-45%, 1832-30%, 1833-20%, 1842-30%, 1846-25%, 1857-20%, 1861-47%.

So now we begin to understand why 'the Balance of Power in Northern & Southern States' was so important.

Both in the North and South there were people who abhorred Slavery and both sections of the country were very slowly growing towards the end of figuring out how to end Slavery. Now enter the fanatical abolitionists. They wanted to end Slavery NOW! They were a small crowd so both sections overlooked them. But they produced their propaganda of Terror stories of slave beatings and then Uncle Toms Cabin which began turing the tide of indifferent Northerners to their side.

Most Northern States were not suited for Agriculture and had pitched in with the Manufacturing business thus we see the need for railroads, riverways, tarriffs, etc. But to effectively do all this you had to kill out the opposition of the States Righters because they did not want more government control which was needed to make the whole Industrial machine work smoothly. With the use of High Tarriffs the government collected the Tarriffs and import duties (that was taxation) to fund Northern backed internal improvements.

Just as Thomas Paine turned the 1/3 of 'who cares' colonists to the Independence minded colonists in 1775-1787 so too the Abolitionists began turning the minds of Northerners to their side. But the North didn't want an influx of freed slaves, they practiced de jure segregation and racisim.

Well, we must observe the effect the abolitionists were making upon the nation. Leaflets urging slave rebellions were flooding the South producing a few results in South Carolina and in Virginia with Nat Turner. This caused a swell in local militia units and any abolitionists were quietened in the South.

The Agricultural SOuth realized that to free all slaves en masse all at once who devestate the Southern economic system and throw the entire populace South of the Mason-Dixon line into financial ruin. So a long term method would have to be breached somehow, but that could not be considered under threat of slave rebellion.

The SOuthern clergy (sadly and erroneously) that the slaves were slaves as God intended them to be and that they could not exist side by side with whites unless they were controlled, due to the savage nature within them. This was made all the more evident to many plantation owners as the constant threat of rebellion was made worse by what the clergy fed them and what the Northern abolitionists were flooding into the South.

But don't think that all Southerners owned slaves, just like the abolitionists were a minority in the North so the Plantation owners were a minority in the South. Its just that they held the power and money of the Southern States. When they spoke the people listened.

Through the 1820s - 1860s there had been the fragile balance of power in the number of Northern and Southern States. They mainly had to be equal so the South could control the Senate and the more populous North could control the House.

The Northern Propagandists had sucessfully termed the Northern States "Free" and the SOuthern States "Slave" to further demonize the SOuth. But notice the Underground Railroad ended in Canada. So much for being 'Free.' The Dred Scott Decision destroyed that notion with the ruling that property (even slave property) could be moved to any State in the Union.

It seems appalling to us in the 21st Century but in the 19th century slaves were a part of the Constitution and common language North or South in that time period.

The Northern Abolitionists realized they had gained much through the years and started various political parties to control the government for the merchant interests as well as further the cause of abolitionism.

So you had the Federalist Party (1787-1816 after the unsucessful Hartford Convention where the New England States voewed to secede), the Republican Party (1824-1833), Anti-Mason Party (1828-1836), the Whig party (1834-1860) to a small degree for their were many Southerners involved with this party, the Free Soil Party (1848-1854), the American Party (1854-1864) it merged with the Republican Party, and then the Republican Party (1854-1864). So as the attempts of the North increased to gain power politically in order to control the size and stature of the government the South began to feel threatened but remained steadfast in its belief of the Constitution.

But as the Repbulican Party was swept to Electoral College Victory in 1860 with the US House having 144 Northern Representatives vs. 90 Southern Representatives and the US Senate having 18 Northern Senators vs. 15 Southern Senators anything the South tried to do would be steamrollered by the North. So, Southerners threats of secession would have to be realized in order to preserve the Constitution of limited government, economic viability and to ward off chaos.

So on 20 Dec. 1860 SC seceded and encouraged the rest of the SOuth to go also. By Feb. 2, 1861 FL, AL, GA, LA, MS, & TX had left the USA PEACEFULLY and LEGALLY.

But to the North's chagrin with a Southern Exodus there went the Tarriff and Import/Export Duties. That meant no funding for the Northern backed Internal Improvements: Dams, Rivers, Canals, Railroads, etc. So the North had to find a way to get the South back into the Union.

Lincoln, was not the bumbling idiot everyone thought he was, instead he was a political genius! So this is why you have the Crittenden Compromise. That would also have ensured the North's Perpetual dominance over the SOuth forever.

So if the whole matter was going to be over slavery the Crittenden Compromise would have ended the whole matter.

Instead we have the Ft. Sumter incident where on April 4, 1861 Lincoln wrote Sec. of War SImon Cameron that the "expedition fleet" to relief fleet was embarking to Ft. Sumter. Thus with delays to CSA Peace Commissioners and political intrigue the North was setting the SOuth up to defend itself. So at 4:30AM 12 April 1861 SC/CS forces forced the Ft. into submission on 14 April.

While before this incident there had been those 'who cares' people in the North including Horace Greeley who said: "let them go in peace" and the US Supreme Ct. Justice whom Lincoln threatened to jail. But after Sumter, the North cried: REBELLION, REVOLUTION, they've fired on the Flag! (Take the aftermath of 9/11/01 or Pearl Harbor and see how the US united to defeat the enemy) So Lincoln, UNconstitutionally called for 75,000 militia volunteers to 'put down the rebellion.' The wavering Upper Southern States (VA, ARK, TN, NC) promptly seceded when Lincoln maneuvered to INVADE the SOuthern States under the pretext of putting down the rebellion. Remember Lincoln vowed in his Ignagural to: hold & occupy the forts in southern possession (ie-invade your country and take land) and to collect IMPORT (Tarriffs) duties (ie-steal your money). So to the South Lincoln had already declared his war-like intentions on March 4. A month from Ft. Sumter. So the SOuth in its eyes defended itself.

So finally: No I do not believe the North was just in its effort to 'preserve the union.'

In re to "end[ing] slavery in the outh" again this was not Lincoln's motivation the Emancipation Proclamation (which deifies him to many) did nothing. He did not Free the Slaves in areas under US control or in the United States. This is tatamount to England telling the USA what to do with our business. Slavery in the USA did not end on January 1, 1863. But rather on December 6, 1865 with the passage of the 13th Amendment. Why wait until after the War to do so? Also notice the New York riots in July 1863. This was over the draft and (remember the lynching of all the blacks?) they were saying they would not spill their blood to free slaves. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a WAR measure to 'convert' emhpasis to slavery and emancipation so that England and France would stay out.

In conclusion the US efforts to preserve the Union is a coy cover to hide the fact the war was an invasion of an independent nation in which the USA wanted to control for financial profiteering.

And the US efforts to end slavery were a shallow excuse to halt any intervention of an Anglo-French alliance with the Confederate States of America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
last question how long do u think it would have taken for the south to end slavery on there own since u know how hard it was for them to even give blacks equal rights (which they really never did they were forced into it)

SSVegeta123243, now to your final question. What would the South have done about its slaves? Again we enter into alternate history and theorizing. But based on the last post and pertinent information about Southern efforts to emancipate and end slavery going back to the 1780s I believe that the South would have ended slavery possibly around the 1890s-1920s.

The South was entertaining ides of a slow-release emancipation but with Northern Agitation (sticking their noses where they didn't belong - in someone else's business) the South abandoned those ideas and began defending their rights under the COnstitution (ie - other peoples).

So after a Victorious War for Indpendence the Confederacy would have noticed something. During the War they HAD to INDUSTRIALIZE. So with forced industrialization and the need to protect Southern Borders with the North, Guarding the Mexican border and a possible expansion Westward the South would have needed to continue industrialization for a time.

After a renewed trade with the US, Britian, France and other nations on the rise afterwards due to no high tarriffs the South would have experienced a boom financially. So with increasing trade and manufacturing slavery would have become outdated and out moded. There may have been other rebellions causing backlash but with stalwart leaders as Robert E. Lee and other anti-slavery Southrons a plan would have been implemented over a period of time to allow slaves to gain freedom either based on the Brazillian system of the 1880s or the English Payment Emancipation program of the 1840s.

The reason the SOuth has experienced so much racial tension is ultimately rooted in the Northern interests (or Federal Government) telling Southerners what to do. We are an independent minded folk for a large part and when opposed that inherent defense mechanism is thrown up to defend our own and rights.

But there were many freedmen and slaves who volunteered for service in the COnfederacy as soldiers, teamsters, cooks, guards, etc. Notice also, that if the slaves ALL wanted freedom and the great majority of men were off fighting the Federals, and all that were left on the home front were old men, women, and children why didn't they rise up and rebel?? Because they were Southerners too.

The North cannot take the moral high ground in racial attitudes, we've all sinned and come short of the glory of God. We must strive to assist one another in this nation of which we live.

Thanks for your questions SSVegeta123243. I hoped all of yall have gained some insights. I look forward to more scenarios from all of you. Keep up the good job!

-Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude creigl your pretty good at spinning all of the problems in the south back on the north but I have a couple of point

1) The South was neither forced nor had any economic reason for segregation. If it was the north's fault what kind of people enslave and then segregate an entire race just to "piss off" their northern brothers.

2) I wasn't really looking for the history lesson I pretty much knew most of that stuff I was looking more for your personal opinion but thanks anyway u were very informative.

3) i don't equate this with Britain and France since Britain and France were never 1 united nation and majority of there battles were over greedy kings looking for more land and more glory

4) I believe that since the South was not an industrialized "nation" and most European powers didn't recognize the South as an independent nation either 2 things would have happened:

a) south and north put differences aside and came together

B) south is attacked and occupied by another foreign nation (maybe Mexico or a European super power)

c) the southern states argue with themselves and the confederacy slowly brakes down with states coming back to the union

no matter what i doubt the south could have lasted for more than a decade as an independent nation but i could be wrong they said the same thing about the US after the war for independence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSVegeta123243,

ha. :) Didn't mean to come across in spinning history - the North has done that for far too long. ;) Both sides did wrong throughout our histories. But the South has been the whipping boy of the rest of the nation and demonized far too long. The facts need to speak for themselves

I don't think that the Southern people wished to 'piss off' the Northerners. But after the war we need to be mindful of Reconstruction. While I won't delve too long into that nightmare, the case in point is that the ex-Confederacy was, of course, occupied as conqured territory due to the control of the Radical Republicans. Thus with uneducated freedmen running amuck and carpetbaggers and Southern scalawags all rummaging, looting, putting down the South everything was mayhem due to the break down of the political system and ecomonic force of the SOuth.

Thus this was the reason for the formation of the 1st Klan, to protect ex-Confederates against the atrocities of carpetbaggers and etc. But when Gen. Forrest saw much of the anger start to be turned towards freedmen he disbanded the Klan. The later Klans were all concerned with hatred towards blacks or catholics, or Jews. The Klan is a pestilence upon our society and they have caused the Battleflag and most of our Southern Iconography to become marred.

Thus the reason for the Sons of Confederate Veterans or United Daughters of the Confederacy, etc.

Again the whole time period coupled with the loss of the war, families and the horror of Reconstruction led to a new war that was racial in nature. For the deposed ex-Confederates saw the ruination and continued runination of their States under freedmen, Carpetbagger, and Federal Occupation and they acted and by 1877 the South was freed from Occupation and the ex-Confederates and their Sons began to re-build the South and get it back on its feet.

Meanwhile the blacks were put off to the side to await more education and training. So since everybody (except Carpetbaggers and scalawags) was dirt poor the plight of the freed slaves wasn't the first on Southerners minds.

Thus the difference between the 2 sections of the country. After "freeing" the slaves what did the slaves get not even stolen property (the 40 acres & a mule) they got the right to vote, to keep the Republican Overlords in control to keep the South down. The North could have moved the freed slaves into the manufacturing centers of the Northern States, but no. The Reconstruction did not Reconstruct it destructed and caused almost irreparable racial tension between the 2 races in the South.

So, Federal power, economic power, nosiness and hypocrisy from the North and vengence, animosity, unforgiveness from the South all played a part in the "civil rights struggles" of the mid and latter 20th century.

Moving on:

You're welcome for the history lesson. Whether its preaching or teaching God's Word or musing about history and politics I thoroughly enjoy it -- and can ramble (in case you didn't know ^_^ )!

Britian and France don't have much to do with us now but we had only had a major war with Britian (going from 1861) only 49 years previously and the French assisted greatly in the American Revolution (going from 1861 again) 74 years previous. So both nations were of some importance to both the US and CS during the war.

Your point #4 is entirely plausible as I've said anything can happen in an alternate history. McKnley Kantor wrote in one of the 1st Alternate Histories: "What If The South Had Won the Civil War?" About a reunification in 1961. But to say such a thing (I think) would be saying the same thing about America Reuniting with Great Britian some years later. We simply spilt too much blood to come back as one.

But Mexico?? Mexico was always weak! But again anything could happen (if France got ticked and move forces that would have been an interesting fight! To say the least; only in such a move with Foreign assistance could Mexico overcome a victorious CSA. Again that's just my thoughts.)

God Bless. I've enjoyed myself today! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all right unlike all the other posts I'll keep this 1 short

1) your saying the north should have taken care of the slaves because the south was too poor to take care of them and had there own problems? during reconstruction instead of putting ex slaves to the side to "deal with there own problems" maybe they should have helped the people they enslaved, educated former slaves and made them a part of reconstruction

2) Mexico may have always been "weak" but what shape do u think the South would have been in after victory in the civil war. I doubt that the South or the North could have survived long since they depended on each other economically and expansion would have been tougher. And lets not forget the Spanish-American war. Spain was falling behind Britain and France as a super power so y not attack the south since nether Britain or France recognized it as a sovern nation

Sorry guys I tried to keep it short but compared to creigl's posts this is short

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I meant u cant compare Britain and France to the South and the North and I agree the victor controls history. History paints the righteous north Vs the ignorant racist south and I know that is not completely true. I know there was opposition to the war in the north (I. E New York riots) and the southerners weren't fighting just to keep there slaves but that doesn't change the fact that slavery was a horrible institute that needed to be finished a.s.a.p. and i know the emancipation didn't free anybody but it was a long over do first step

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"1) your saying the north should have taken care of the slaves because the south was too poor to take care of them and had there own problems? during reconstruction instead of putting ex slaves to the side to "deal with there own problems" maybe they should have helped the people they enslaved, educated former slaves and made them a part of reconstruction"

Here goes the 'long-winded' preacher again. :P nah. I'll try to keep it short folks.

SSVegeta123243,

In re: to your 1st point: Well, yes, the North should've taken care of the freedmen (which they were attempting to do through small handouts in the Freedmen's Bureau, the schools that were set up, and Sherman's attempted 40 acres & a mule policy) I mean based on the "Northern goals" of "freeing the slaves" they had just spent over 600,000 lives on both sides to accomplish that. So why would they North not overwhelmingly support & hold-up the former slaves?

Sherman's 40 acres & a mule policy was shot down by President Johnson in August 1865 when he ordered that the original land owners sieze their property of about 400,000 acres in GA & SC.

In 1866 with Congress passing the Southern Homestead Act, it set aside some 44 million acres in the South but all of it was swampy & unsiuitable for farming. Not only that but there was no provision of the necessary resources like seed, plows, horses, etc. to grow a garden with - not for all families.

So sharecropping came into being, the textile industry would emerge as well as the tabacco industry. Even which now the textile industry is hurting vast portions of the SOuth due to NAFTA.

Textile industries that have kept up families for decades are pulling out, not attempting to assist in assisting soon to be ex-employees other jobs that would be equal or near to there old jobs. For many this reuires more schooling which many, being on a soon-fixed income would be impossible without employer assistance.

In my own county of Rutherford which is predominantly Republican the backbone of our county - Textiles - have uprooted leaving a 12.1% unemployment rate the 2nd highest in the State of NC. All of this is traced back to the aftermath of the War so the saying "that's history, it doesn't matter" (I'm not imply that you did, its just a statment some people make) history does matter.

(Sorry I wandered off the topic a little) :)

Anyway, the South with 1/5 of the white population dead and another great portion maimed, with no rights (we were conqured peoples without any rights - Totally Unconstitutional - but we got a new Constitution rammed down our throats by bayonet point) and no money (all the Confederacy's financial was pinned on cotton, bonds, and promisary Confederate & State notes). The North would not waive the National (not Confederate) war debt and instead placed the debt on the South! Idiocy!

A good look at Reconstruction can be seen in Mr. Tilley's "The Coming of the Glory"

God Bless. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2) Mexico may have always been "weak" but what shape do u think the South would have been in after victory in the civil war. I doubt that the South or the North could have survived long since they depended on each other economically and expansion would have been tougher. And lets not forget the Spanish-American war. Spain was falling behind Britain and France as a super power so y not attack the south since nether Britain or France recognized it as a sovern nation

SSVegeta123243,

In re to your last point and other post:

The South would've needed probably a decade or two to get back on their feet in trade and commerce.

True expansion would've been tougher. I think the Mormons in Utah Territory would've tried to secede if we had won. (That would be interesting to say the least :blink: )

The Span - Am war would have probably been between Spain & the CSA and Theodore Roosevelt may have tried to invade Canada?? :lol: You know Teddy (his Mama was a Confederate sympathizer in NY during the War and Teddy remembered making 'shoeboxes' for blockade runners. So Samaritan's Purse is older than we think Franklin Graham :) )

But I think both nations much later on down the road would have established a better peace with each other and encouraged more trade and commerce and may have even fought together in some of the world wars, but I think it would've decided on how nasty or easy the peace of the War for Confederate Independence would have been achieved.

Yes I agree with your post (of 2:34AM, the last one) and yes slavery needed to be dealt with ASAP. But to the South whose whole economy was dependent upon it needed breathing room to change to prevent chaos. Remember the North only did so out of economic expediency. Plus try this out. Look up the number of slaves in the Northern States in the 1850 & 1860 US census totals. You find many listed as Unavailable if there were zero then a '0' would be listed. I think "Information Blackout" (No pun intended).

There is so much we all can learn from our rich national (and regional) heritage and that fact should empower us all to stand on our Country's foundational principles and march together into the future ready to face our common enemies together as a band of brothers that have been baptized with the blood of many patriots and leadership from Geo. Washington, Patrick Henry, Robert E. Lee, US Grant :wacko:, (lol), Alvin C. York, Audie Murphy, Patton, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Scharzkopf (I know I can't spell his name right but you know who), and the many men and women who have withstood those who would seek to undermine our principles of life & liberty.

God Bless Yall!

-Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought u said this war wasn't about slavery now u say the North sacrificed 300,000 (I may be wrong on the number) to free slaves. The point is the North fought to preserve the union. After the war during reconstruction everybody (not just the North or just the South) should have worked together to help everybody not just themselves. And I know there were slaves up north and in border states that weren't freed by the emancipation and I'm not saying either side is innocent because everybody benefited from slavery but the slaves. But I am saying the fact of the matter is that the north made a first step to abolishing slavery and the south chose to leave the union and make there own country over giving up there slaves (and yes i know the south's economy was driven by slavery and i know most southerners didn't own slaves)

this is a very lively, spirted, and informative debate. so creigl i'm guessing your a bush voter and i'll guess your from .................... ummm georgia tell me how close i am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol i was just wondering how did we get so far off topic on scenario creation and i have an idea for the next new scenario Iraq Saddam vs the person (whom i don't know) who controls major topics could be oil, us interest and terrorism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSVegeta123243,

I'm not saying the war was over slavery notice I had that in "quotation" marks to emhpasize a supposed meaning.

To me the war (also we must recall there are 2 viewpoint/sides to the issue & it helps to know them both and you've done a fine job in your understanding of our side) for the North was over Financial interests using the guise of "preserving the Union" 1861-1862 and then "freeing the slaves" 1863-1865. For the South the acutal war was over the invasion of our country and the preservation of our Southern Independence.

Plus in re to the slavery issue, I have to know the arguments about the slavery issue because it is so ingrained into the minds of most of the populace due to propaganda...oh thats' public school system. :D

Yes everybody should've pitched in & helped in Reconstruction and helped but sadly not everyone did & we cannot undo the past.

True the North is credited with taking the 1st step in solving the Slavery question even though to me it was only a ruse for other means and motivations.

:D I am not a Republican and I do not support President Bush! He is wrong on the Muslim issue (Its not a peaceful religion) he is ripping up the Constitution (Patriot Act, War Measures for Afghanistan and Iraq, No Child Left Behind) by continuing to proceed with Unconstitutional measures (all made possible by the over-engorged Federal government that began after 1865 :) ) of all of his predesors did in the Oval Office. But yes, I am a proud card carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy :P:D Still he is our leader & I am instructed by God's Word to pray for our leaders.

No I am a member of the Constitution Party (I serve as State Chairman of the Party in my state).

You're a little off on my State, its not the Peach State of Georgia (or is that Jawja...Jawa??) :D Ok, I know comedy isn't my calling. But I hail from the Great State of North Carolina. :)

Well we all like to chase rabbits from time to time eh? It has been a much welcomed and spirited discussion. I remain,

Loyal to Christ, Constitution & Confederacy,

Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh judging by your stance i thought u were more in the deep deep south and i agree with u about bush and hopefully kerry can get that idiot out of the white house i exspect u and everybody else reading this message to vote kerry in november

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but i disagree with u about islam. islam is just as peaceful as christianity the koran (maybe spelled wrong) teaches peace and those terrorist out there are working against the religion not for it. most terrorist don't become terrorist because thats what the koran tells them they become terrorist because they live in war torn poverish countries and they feel they can sacrifice their lives, make a difference, and go to heaven and live happy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

::looks at beginning of topic::

::looks at current conversation::

::scratches head:: How the hell did this happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good another challenge alright conservative lets start with same sex marrige why should we care about who people choose to marry yes it's in the bible but the bible also says that u should sell your daughter into slavery and it says u should be stoned to death for working on sunday i don't like gay people and i have no homosexual friends but that doesn't give me the right to go in there bed room and tell them what is right

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
Sign in to follow this  

×