Nr1Humanoid
Hank Scorpio
Is the #3 humanoid at best.
Posts: 5,605
|
Post by Nr1Humanoid on Feb 3, 2011 17:57:55 GMT -5
OK, technically there was a Confederate States, but any chance they could have succeeded in becoming a separate nation?
And, if they had, what kind of nation would it have been (hey I read Turtledove), especially were slavery is concerned?
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Galt on Feb 3, 2011 18:06:20 GMT -5
A good thing to do is to look up the reason why the Civil War happened to begin with. Remember to consider all sides of the story. What motivated the Confederates from their point of view? What motivated the Union Army from their point of view? Think critically about the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Feb 3, 2011 18:27:05 GMT -5
If they would have had support from a European nation the chances may have been better.
|
|
mrrotten
Don Corleone
The #1 Kaneinite
Posts: 2,066
|
Post by mrrotten on Feb 3, 2011 18:29:14 GMT -5
Well, there is the movie to show us one possible what if.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 3, 2011 18:30:08 GMT -5
I don't think an independent Confederacy would've survived very long. Slavery was pretty much the driving force behind their economy, since they lacked the manpower without slaves to maintain their agriculture. And they didn't have ANY of the industrial infrastructure. And if the more civilized nations didn't want to deal with a nation supported on slavery later on, that would've landed the CSA in a lot of trouble. My guess is that a number of states would've eventually limped back to the Union.
As much as Confederate sympathizers and apologists would like to argue that states' rights and whatever other revisionist excuses (mainly to make the South at the time look better than they really were) were the driving force for secession and the US Civil War, maintaining the institution of slavery was THE primary reason. On the flip side, Lincoln wasn't primarily driven by freeing the slaves. It was more about preserving the Union than freeing the slaves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Galt on Feb 3, 2011 18:38:15 GMT -5
I don't think an independent Confederacy would've survived very long. Slavery was pretty much the driving force behind their economy, since they lacked the manpower without slaves to maintain their agriculture. And they didn't have ANY of the industrial infrastructure. And if the more civilized nations didn't want to deal with a nation supported on slavery later on, that would've landed the CSA in a lot of trouble. My guess is that a number of states would've eventually limped back to the Union. As much as Confederate sympathizers and apologists would like to argue that states' rights and whatever other revisionist excuses (mainly to make the South at the time look better than they really were) were the driving force for secession and the US Civil War, maintaining the institution of slavery was THE primary reason. On the flip side, Lincoln wasn't primarily driven by freeing the slaves. It was more about preserving the Union than freeing the slaves. You are absolutely right about Lincoln here, but after reading both sides to the Civil War I have come to some different conclusions. Here is a General of the CSA explaining why the Civil War happened. I admire how he wrote in a very unbiased and fair manner. Long read but good. www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm |
|
|
|
Post by deafangelboy23 on Feb 3, 2011 19:05:20 GMT -5
Gettysburg (1993) movie tagline was "Same Land. Same God. Different Dreams."
I recommend good short story written during the American Civil War called "The Man Without a Country" by Edward Everett Hale. This story is about American army lieutenant Philip Nolan, who renounces his country during a trial for treason and is consequently sentenced to spend the rest of his days at sea without so much as a word of news about the United States. It was a allegory to the American Civil War and the author wanted to convince people to support the Union. It was damn good short story and you can find it on the internet.
|
|
default
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Blames Everything On Snitsky. Yes, Even THAT.
Posts: 17,056
|
Post by default on Feb 3, 2011 19:32:42 GMT -5
If they would have had support from a European nation the chances may have been better. Backing up the CSA would've been a huge risk for any country to do, even if no other countries got involved on the Union's behalf. However, had the war drawn out longer it could've gotten interesting as Europe would've eventually needed their standard cotton imports. But the Union played things very smart in their diplomacy and knew they had serious advantages and some brilliant military leaders and plans. |
|
|
|
Post by SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts on Feb 3, 2011 21:00:02 GMT -5
If they would have had support from a European nation the chances may have been better. Backing up the CSA would've been a huge risk for any country to do, even if no other countries got involved on the Union's behalf. However, had the war drawn out longer it could've gotten interesting as Europe would've eventually needed their standard cotton imports. But the Union played things very smart in their diplomacy and knew they had serious advantages and some brilliant military leaders and plans. Davis thought he had a card up his sleave but really had nothing with cotton. War between North and South was inevitable so Britain and France stockpiled cotton and turned to Egypt and India. |
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,585
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Feb 3, 2011 21:50:02 GMT -5
I don't know that European support would have even been enough. The US just had way too many resources to throw into it all. The Europeans probably considered it, but when the CSA showed that they could not break any naval blockade of the North's that ended it. No European nation was going to fight their way to the CSA, so the choice was made for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Feb 3, 2011 22:14:25 GMT -5
If they would have had support from a European nation the chances may have been better. Backing up the CSA would've been a huge risk for any country to do, even if no other countries got involved on the Union's behalf. However, had the war drawn out longer it could've gotten interesting as Europe would've eventually needed their standard cotton imports. But the Union played things very smart in their diplomacy and knew they had serious advantages and some brilliant military leaders and plans. I dunno how much of a risk it would have been. Remember that while the USA had more industry than the CSA the UK was still the global economic and major military power. Had the Trent Affair ended differently the war could have taken a much different course. |
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Feb 3, 2011 23:06:33 GMT -5
Oh yes there was a very real chance. The entire Union army in Tennessee, under the command of US Grant, was almost utterly defeated and captured at the battle of Shiloh, for example. That could have changed the course of the war or ended it early at the very least. Many historians, including novelist Harry Turtledove, have speculated that the Confederacy could have won the war if Lee's Special Order 191 had not been discovered by Union forces.
The Confederacy was doomed to lose a protracted war, because it could not match the manpower and industry of the Union, but losing the war was not inevitable. A few key victories, especially 1862-1863, could have ended the war. A decisive victory at any point in time could have changed everything.
So really, it's not a stretch to think that the war could have ended in the Confederate victory. History is often decided by very small things.
|
|
