Ignoring the issue of slavery, who would you have wanted to win the civil war?

Caligastia · May 30, 2002, 20:40

Okay, so if the confederates hadnt supported slavery, who would you support and why?

OzzyKP · May 30, 2002, 20:48

Good thread. If the South didn't support slavery then I'd be rooting for them. They championed state's rights and besides slavery the Civil War was about growing Federal power. Because I don't like such a strong central government, I would have wanted the Confederates to win.

Though of course I hate the idea of having two different countries here (i'd need a passport to go to Disney

) So I'd hope that the Union would get the message that a strong central government is bad, and the two woud peacefully reconcile and join together again.

Boris Godunov · May 30, 2002, 20:58

Quote:

They championed state's rights

Only when it suited them. When it didn't (Kansas), they cheered Federal intervention.

The notion the South was some sort of hero of state's rights is a myth propogated by southern apologists after the war. Had the Federal government been acting in Southern interests, they no doubt wouldn't have minded at all (and, as I said, didn't in historic incidences).

I will always go for the Union. Had they lost, while no once can predict what would have happened, there is the strong risk things would be much worse today for both our country and the world as a whole. I hate tampering with history...

MrFun · May 30, 2002, 20:58

I would have, without question, supported the Union.

The federal government did not violate the Constitution, and did not give any legitimate reason for the Southern states to secede.

No sane government would provide a legal means for its own destruction by allowing legal secession.

BTW -- this thread title is oxymoronic.
It would be like asking this -- Ignoring the abusive policies of Great Britain, who would you have supported in winning the American Revolutionary War??

OzzyKP · May 30, 2002, 21:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Only when it suited them. When it didn't (Kansas), they cheered Federal intervention.

The notion the South was some sort of hero of state's rights is a myth propogated by southern apologists after the war. Had the Federal government been acting in Southern interests, they no doubt wouldn't have minded at all (and, as I said, didn't in historic incidences).

Hmm, well if thats the case then I'd be in favor of the North of course. No need to split away without any honest greviance.

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I will always go for the Union. Had they lost, while no once can predict what would have happened, there is the strong risk things would be much worse today for both our country and the world as a whole. I hate tampering with history...

Yea, I hate tampering with history too. Too many what ifs. What if the US was split. Would we be strong enough to defeat Hitler in WW2? Would Nazism take over the globe? Would we have even gotten involved in WW1 and would there even have been a WW2? Would the North South split have allowed the US to become the economic powerhouse it has been through the 20th century? Would our culture be affected?

Too much to think about. But for the purposes of this thread, ignore it all, hehe. Just think if you were living back in 1862.

Boris Godunov · May 30, 2002, 21:15

Well, supposing the South won, I think maybe Kaiser Bill might have actually gone through with his plans to invade America, perhaps enlisting one side as an ally against the other? Well, maybe not...

I think had the U.S. not entered WWI, Germany would have pulled out a favorable peace. After Brest-Livotsk (sp?), Germany's hopes of winning were still good. It was ultimately U.S. intervention that tipped the scales.

From then on, things will change a bit, but I see no rise of Hitler (after all, the anger over Versailles and its repercussions was his catapult to power), and that Germany may have assumed the role of superpower against the Soviets that the U.S. held for the century.

orange · May 30, 2002, 21:38

the north. Without opening up the doors for a 10 page battle with David Floyd, I don't feel the South's secession was right.

Boris Godunov · May 30, 2002, 21:41

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
the north. Without opening up the doors for a 10 page battle with David Floyd, I don't feel the South's secession was right.

Haven't seen DF around at all lately, though. You could be safe.

Imran Siddiqui · May 30, 2002, 21:46

No... we are ALL safe

.

Tuberski · May 30, 2002, 21:58

DF went to Dallas for some reason about a week ago, and hasn't been heard from.

Boris Godunov · May 30, 2002, 22:04

Uh-oh. Search and rescue party needed?

Ned · May 30, 2002, 22:10

The Union forever! 'Nuf said.

Imran Siddiqui · May 30, 2002, 22:10

Get the chopper!

Boris Godunov · May 30, 2002, 22:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Get the chopper!

I dunno...if it's a government chopper, DF might consider that some sort of government-sponsored welfare program, and no doubt he would object...

General Ludd · May 30, 2002, 22:17

Just paint it black and chase him back.

SuperSneak · May 30, 2002, 22:19

Union...I wouldn't want my ancestors to lose, like the crackers did, or I wouldn't be here now.
Simple.

MrFun · May 30, 2002, 22:19

All of David Floyd's arguments are pointless anyway, for two reasons, as I have pointed out:

1) The federal government did not abuse the Constitution.

2) No sane government provides a legal means of its own destruction. The Declaration of Independence only provides one reason to destroy a union of a government -- when number one, stated above, occurs.

But since that did not happen, secession had no legitimacy.

Lincoln · May 30, 2002, 22:24

Even though I am from Tennessee I would support the Union regardless of the issue of slavery. Lincoln's primary focus was the preservation of the union and I think it is usually a good thing if people can learn to get along despite our differences. His first inaugural address pretty much spells out the issue as it would have stood even without the issue of slavery. Two nations with a border of over 2,000 miles between them would have to learn to get along eventually regardless.

MrFun · May 30, 2002, 22:28

You mean like with the border between Canada and United States??

Lincoln · May 30, 2002, 22:32

Well Lincoln was talking about how the South and the North would never be able to ignore each other regardless of division. He thought that we may as well stay together and work things out. Of course we did work things out with Canada anyway so maybe it wouldn't have been too bad.

Boris Godunov · May 30, 2002, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
All of David Floyd's arguments are pointless anyway, for two reasons, as I have pointed out:

1) The federal government did not abuse the Constitution.

2) No sane government provides a legal means of its own destruction. The Declaration of Independence only provides one reason to destroy a union of a government -- when number one, stated above, occurs.

But since that did not happen, secession had no legitimacy.

But nobody here has been arguing that.

Frankychan · May 30, 2002, 22:34

The Yanks.

Simply put, the Confederates were secessionists and tried to destroy the country by their actions.

Luckily the North brought them back into the fold.

MrFun · May 30, 2002, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

But nobody here has been arguing that.

Ever heard of the "calm before the storm" or the "eye of the storm?"

stay tuned

But seriously, many Southerners who worship the Confederate flag today DO claim that the federal government violated the Constitution because of their power over the territories.

Well, the Northwest Ordinance gave the Congress jurisdiction over the territories.

Kirnwaffen · May 30, 2002, 22:38

I would have supported the Union for the simple reason of stability. Had the south won, we would have seen an additional competing power on the continent, opening the door for future territorial skirmishes. We also would have likely seen an attempt at control from Europe, which definitely could have been bad.

SlowwHand · May 30, 2002, 22:38

The South, as a general statement, didn't own slaves.
That noted, it's for the best that the Union won; even though I have an ancestor who spent 2 years as a P.O.W. at Rock Island, Illinois.
God Bless America.

MrFun · May 30, 2002, 22:41

Slowwhand --- most of us already know that the minority of white and mulatto Southerners owned about 4 million blacks as slaves.

BTW, I live right across the river from Rock Island.

SlowwHand · May 30, 2002, 22:45

Just want to keep the record straight.

Boris Godunov · May 30, 2002, 22:45

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The South, as a general statement, didn't own slaves.

How are you defining General?

Over a third of the South held slaves, and in the Deep South it was half.

Regardless, over 90% of Southerners owed their livelihoods and economic prosperity to the institution of slavery.

chequita guevara · May 30, 2002, 22:46

Union

MrFun · May 30, 2002, 22:47

We're thread jacking Cal's thread.

We're suppose to ignore the topic of slavery -- my bad.