[green party]

If you were the president during the midway point of the US Civil War, knowing what you know now, do you allow the south to secede and spare the lives, or take the lives and have the south be part of the US?

[Boondock Saint]

At the midway point of the war?

No.

You've lost a ton of soldiers, the Confederates are still strong and now rallied.

Plus you have all that investment in new soldiers and updated arms, for what? Nothing?

[green party]

during the halfway point in the war, allowing the south to secede was a very popular view

[Boondock Saint]

I'd imagine it was, the common perception was that the North was going to lose.

However, if I were president then I would be 'in the know.'

I would know about all those new troops, all those new generals from West Point, all that money invested in new arms ...

I'd also know the political fallout of losing, what's to stop a Confederate-Canadian Alliance?

What's to ensure that California doesnt decide it doesnt need to obey Washington? What if California decides it wants to join the Confederacy?

What the common man on the street believes is irrelevant, the common mans place is in the factory or in a uniform ... not making decisions for the good of the nation.

[The Immortal Goon]

It was a widely held belief that if the Union lost the rest of the union would eventually seperate in to different countries and you'd end up like Europe (up to that point) - almost constantly engaged in wars with one another. There is reason to believe this.

Then there's the whole foreign thing. The vast majority of the US disliked and distrusted the UK, and the feeling was more than mutual - hence the UK supplying arms and advisors to the CSA and Pres. Johnson allowing the supply lines to reamin intact when the Fenians invaded Canada.

Had the CSA been there, it would have been a very possible staging ground for the UK to come in and take more.

Then there's the very fact that the slave question that had been plauging the continent since before its founding would still be up in the air. That's not to mention the fact there's not much of a reason to have slaves anymore as there's a gotten gin among other advances that can produce cotton without their use as long as you don't have some aparteid style landed class that needs to buy white suits and sit on their asses all day.

Then, as Boon said, there's the fact your in full war time mode. I had a professor who earned some small amount of fame as she developed this theory that when you have a militerized society, you must kill enough soldiers to be able to unmiliterize them, as you don't want them coming back and taking everything from you.

That aside, there's the money and everything else as well.

Finish the reactionary scum off.

-TIG

[Boondock Saint]

It was a widely held belief that if the Union lost the rest of the union would eventually seperate in to different countries and you'd end up like Europe (up to that point) - almost constantly engaged in wars with one another.

A fine point.

If Washington could not stop the south from leaving the Union then why should anyone obey Washington?

I might also suggest that the Union surviving and winning the Civil War back in the day might have prevented huge issues during later wars such as WWI and WWII.

Who knows what a Californian Republican would have done during WWI?

Who knows what the Confederacy would have done during WWII?

We have no clue.

[Zagadka]

Ditto. You've got to fight it out... otherwise instead of North and South Korea, you'd have North and South America (the latter of which would make geography really confusing. South America? Which one, dick?)

The people of the North were pretty intent on keeping status quo - to keep further states from breaking off (you would almost CERTAINLY lose the entire Mid-West and West, creating an interesting alternative political map... you would lose a lot of trade power, states' rights would be up for grabs... Lincol- er, anyone, couldn't back down in the middle of the war.

Also, by July 1863 (specifically, July 3), the war was pretty much over. The South, aside from a few limited jabs and incredibly bloody stands, was going down.

In fact, you can apply the same question to WWII powers... should America have stopped attacking Japan after we got the Philipines back? Why did we liberate China from Japan, as well? etc etc.

Who knows what a Californian Republican would have done during WWI?

Hm... I seriously, seriously doubt that the Republic of California would have ever become involved in WWI, in any reasonable scenario. Japan was Allied. California itself, even throwing in the rest of the South West (which would have surely been the subject of a war between Texas and California somewhere along the way) and Pacific North West. It probably would do the exact same thing Mexico did - sit on the sidelines until Zimmermann got on his knees, then kicked him in the nuts.

Who knows what the Confederacy would have done during WWII?

Killed Jews?

[Theodore]

Killed Jews?

If I remeber correctly, the Union/Republican side was much more anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant.

[Boondock Saint]

the latter of which would make geography really confusing

I gotta tell ya Zag, you made me laugh with that one.

Killed Jews?

If I remeber correctly, the Union/Republican side was much more anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant.

I can't speak for the Jews, though I imagine the US was not a bastion for Jews back then.

However, Catholic and immigrant?

It might be pointed out that the Irish were a huge asset to the Union, both immigrant and Catholic.

Off the boat into the Army!

[Vasili Schmidt]

Why was it that it was unacceptable for the southern states secede while America 130 years later acted as a cheerleader for illegal secession by Slovenia, Bosnia, and Croatia? Hypocritically, America's policy at the same time tried to deny self-determination to the Serbs trapped behind the people who tried to exterminate them. Abraham Lincoln is hailed a saint in America even though he illegally imprisoned his political opponents and wound up murdering 620 thousand young boys conscripted into the army. Milosevic and the Serbs, by contrast, are tarred "war criminal" when their aims were not any different than Lincoln's but were at a far less bloody cost.

[Zagadka]

Why was it that it was unacceptable for the southern states secede while America 130 years later acted as a cheerleader for illegal secession by Slovenia, Bosnia, and Croatia?

Where the fuck did that come from?

Southern secession was an issue because it was illegal, under domestic law, for a state to leave the union (by definition as a federal republic, not confederate whatever), and would likely have led, as we have discussed in this thread, to the further breakup of the country.

The breakup of Yugoslavia was not a matter of US law - we have no duty to intervene in every other federal civil war, and according to some people, should not under any conditions. America certainly didn't invite any foreign powers to intervene in its civil war - in fact, it went to a lot of trouble (and several close calls) to keep them OUT.

Abraham Lincoln is hailed a saint in America even though he illegally imprisoned his political opponents and wound up murdering 620 thousand young boys conscripted into the army.

Yea, Lincoln was an ass. Most people justify it as it was the necessary action at the time to preserve the Union. I don't defend his imprisonment of political opponents (which isn't really very surprising, I can't recall one government leader that HASN'T imprisoned opposition politicians during a civil war)... the military casualties... well, that is defendable. While it was the original idea of the Founding Fathers not to have a standing Federal army or to practice conscription, that idealistic outlook broke apart extremely rapidly. Having a conscription was standard practice for any country - NOT conscripting would have been extremely liberal and pretty fucking stupid.

Milosevic and the Serbs, by contrast, are tarred "war criminal" when their aims were not any different than Lincoln's but were at a far less bloody cost.

Well, first of all, this is 130 years later. Second of all, I don't think anyone has found any mass graves containing 200,000 Southern civilians.

"War criminal" is very debatable for Milosevic, but the situations you are comparing are apples and oranges.

[Vasili Schmidt]

Second of all, I don't think anyone has found any mass graves containing 200,000 Southern civilians.

Neither were any such mass graves found in Yugoslavia. The purported 225,000 dead Albanian males turned out to be 2000 dead on both sides.

[Thunderhawk]

I wonder..

What would have happened if the South industry wasnt so heavily based on agriculture ?
-> Had more factories and production methods available to them.. not as big as the North, but say ~ 1/2 the North's per-capita production pwoer?)

And thus had an army that had industrial might supporting and maintaining it.


Would the Union have consented to their demands?
Would the North have lost, or been beaten into submission and negotiation ?
If so, would the policies of the USA be made by the South?
(if so, how long?)

Would the CSA have permanently gained independence?
(and the aftermath in the USA?)

Would the USA remain a union - but even less centralized?

[Zagadka]

What would have happened if the South industry wasnt so heavily based on agriculture ?
-> Had more factories and production methods available to them.. not as big as the North, but say ~ 1/2 the North's per-capita production pwoer?)

Then the war probably wouldn't have happened. Most of the causes of the war were based on states' rights, in that the more densely populous North held more sway over the government and the taxes, tariffs, and trade agreements (such as competition with Egypt for cotton) that both sides relied on. Another major cause for the war was expansion to the new lands gained in the Mexican-American War and Louisiana Purchase. Abolition wasn't nearly enough cause for war. The other main cause would be the change in the party politics... but if the South had that much higher industrial output, that would be a completely different picture. Even just removing Lincoln from power could have stemmed the war.

Would the Union have consented to their demands?

Hell no. Not in any scenario short of Robert E. Lee walking into the Oval Office, looking up, and bitch slapping Lincoln.

Would the North have lost

One of two things would happen:

1) Inept Union generals are unable to stop Lee's advance(s)

2) Um, nevermind. I forgot what I was going to write. Just stick with the first one.

Oh, yea

3) The war wouldn't be entered into as quickly or as fiercely, the Union could get better generals in place

4) The Union could have taken the South more seriously at the First Battle of Bull Run, came ready to fight, and beat the crap out of Lee before the South could mobilize. Boy, are their faces red!

or been beaten into submission and negotiation?

There was very little room for negotiation...

If so, would the policies of the USA be made by the South? (if so, how long?)

Well... their main causes would be pretty much served by larger industrial output... the Electoral College and Congressional districts would be changed to be more fair to the South...

Would the CSA have permanently gained independence?
(and the aftermath in the USA?)

Until Lincoln rose from his grave and lead an army of undead.

Would the USA remain a union - but even less centralized?

Well, the more accurate term is "federation", but assuming it didn't outright break up, yes. I could see a possibility of New York leading its own secession movement with the rest of New England.

[Alfsigr]

As I understand it, the american con stitution wasnt amended to forbid secession until _after_ the ACW. Is this true? If so, would not the secession of the south have been quite legal?

[Theodore]

I can't speak for the Jews, though I imagine the US was not a bastion for Jews back then.

However, Catholic and immigrant?

It might be pointed out that the Irish were a huge asset to the Union, both immigrant and Catholic.

Off the boat into the Army!

The Know-Nothings (whose membership mostly ended up joining the Republicans) and the Wide-Awakes were virulently anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant.

The Republican party itself also had anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic elements.

[Boondock Saint]

What would have happened if the South industry wasnt so heavily based on agriculture ?

That would have changed quite a bit in terms of commerce.

-> Had more factories and production methods available to them.. not as big as the North, but say ~ 1/2 the North's per-capita production pwoer?)

That's a pretty big change, they would require a much more urban population. If the South was closer in terms to commerce to the north then it is likely that the huge rift that existed between North and South would never have formed.

And thus had an army that had industrial might supporting and maintaining it.

Again, we would have to add population to the mix, not just industrial might. Again, this would change the culture of the south and make it closer to the culture of the north ...

Would the Union have consented to their demands?

Doubtful, keeping the Union in tact was essential for the survival of Washington.

Would the North have lost, or been beaten into submission and negotiation ?

Certainly the South would have done even better then they did but the truth is, the population and industrial might of the north was just too great to overcome.

If so, would the policies of the USA be made by the South?
(if so, how long?)

No. There was no chance for the CSA to overcome to the Union, their only real potential was to insure the existance of the CSA.

Would the CSA have permanently gained independence?
(and the aftermath in the USA?)

If the CSA had gained its independence then there would simply be no USA. Odds are there would be a New England Alliance, some midwestern alliance, the CSA, the Californian Republic, Cascadia and Mexico would be much larger. Or, the Canadians could have explanded into the Dakotas, Oregon, and possibly further south ... who knows?

Would the USA remain a union - but even less centralized?

There would probably have been some North American Federation coming about in the late 20th century, not unlike the EU. Till then though, the different states (not US states mind you, just the different theoretical states that might exist) would have fought over this resource and that resource, not unlike what happened in Europe.

The Republican party itself also had anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic elements.

None of which stopped the use of such people in the Army. I might also point out that the Irish/Catholic wound up being incredibly influential in the North East of the USA.

[The Immortal Goon]

Had the south been industrial, there would have been no reason to keep slaves, and thus no reason to attack Fort Sumpter, and thus no war.

I don't think many people were against the South simply for trying to leave - that's what the US did. It had to do a lot with the fact that the South invaded the Union as the spark; the fuel being that in the north people didn't really like slavery. I mean, who does?

-TIG

[Potemkin]

in the north people didn't really like slavery. I mean, who does?

Slave owners?

[Thunderhawk]

Had the south been industrial, there would have been no reason to keep slaves, and thus no reason to attack Fort Sumpter, and thus no war.

Why no slaves?

My hypothetical situation was not the South as a mini-version of the North, just a more industrial one. Crops still had to be picked, plantations would still exist (maybe less?), the menial labour that slaves provided would still be needed.

in the north people didn't really like slavery. I mean, who does?

Wasnt there a non-slave state that sided with the Confederates, as they opposed Lincoln's centralization of power ?