Do you think not letting the south secede was a good thing?

Discussion in 'Education' started by Dr Gregg, May 17, 2010.

  1. Dr Gregg
    Offline

    Dr Gregg BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,901
    Thanks Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +200
    Arguments of whether its constitutional or not for them to secede aside, wasn't it a good thing overall to keep the country united?

    What do you think the ramifications would be had they successfully seceded or won the Civil War? How many future wars would there have been over land in the West if two different countries were fighting for control of the remaining unclaimed regions in the west?

    spin off of the monstrosity that the Lincoln-hitler thread has become.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2010
  2. Mr Clean
    Offline

    Mr Clean Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    10,055
    Thanks Received:
    2,250
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,825
    They are a bit of a drain on the rest of us.

    Nice weather and beaches, though.
     
  3. Dr.Traveler
    Offline

    Dr.Traveler Mathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,950
    Thanks Received:
    652
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    In a Non-Euclidean Manifold
    Ratings:
    +1,052
    IF they had let go of slavery prior to leaving (which is a big IF), I think letting them go would have been the right thing to do. There would be some negotiations necessary, but yeah, letting them go would have been, in the short term, the best situation if they'd agreed to free the slaves.

    In the long run, keeping the nation together was the right decision. Chances are good that if the South had split off that the Continental US would have ended up as 3 or more nations prior to World War I, and that in World War I there would have been a front here. Keeping the nation united kept fronts from erupting in North America during WWI and WWII.

    If the States wanted to split up today, I would be fine with letting them go as long as they agreed to pay a fair share of the national debt, return Federal equipment (like Nukes or Military armaments), and pay for Federal held land. I'd hope though that people would realize that a consequence of leaving would be that their State would have almost zero international influence, and that you'd pretty much guarantee the Chinese would become the dominant world power.
     
  4. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,097
    Thanks Received:
    6,893
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,951
    Eventually the war would have come anyway over morals.

    Northern morals - equality and diversity.

    Southern morals - slavery is good.

    The south would have demanded the slaves be returned.
     
  5. martybegan
    Online

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,364
    Thanks Received:
    4,006
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,976
    I know its alt history but the series from Harry Turtledove about this is an interesting read.

    This wiki link describes the timeline from the books.

    Timeline-191 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In his version the animosity of the split leads to further wars, and vastly different alignments between the americas and european powers.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Againsheila
    Offline

    Againsheila Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    17,126
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Federal Way WA
    Ratings:
    +2,700
    Had the south been allowed to leave the union, slavery would have ended in less than 40 years, all by itself. The end was already in sight before the war. The south would have been a stronger nation with ties to Europe. The North may have died off or been absorbed by Canada. I think the Union itself would have split apart after the south left.

    I do not know if keeping the south in the union was good in the long run for our nation, I know it was good in the short run, but right now I see a government completely out of control that refuses to do their job (ie secure our borders) and as a result I think our country is falling apart.
     
  7. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,097
    Thanks Received:
    6,893
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,951
    For every dollar southern states have to pay the federal government, they get more than a dollar back. For every dollar blue states have to pay the federal government, they get less than a dollar back.
    Corn and cotton are needed, no doubt about it. But you really can't compete against education, industry and technology without the same.
    If they had split, you would have had poor southern states, once slavery ended and rich northern states who would have had to put up fences to keep the illegal southerners out.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. rikules
    Offline

    rikules fighting thugs and cons

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,866
    Thanks Received:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +305

    personally I think any state that no longer wants to be part of the U.S. has a right to secede.

    however
    I think that if the south had been allowed to secede there would have been dire ramifications for the whole planet.

    example: I firmly believe that in both WWI and WWII the south and north wold have have been on different sides. Remembering that the south during WWII would have had a similiar attitude to the nazis regarding blacks, jews and minorities we can assume that they (the south) would obviously have been on the side of the AXIS. Without a unified America to help the ALLIES defeat the AXIS WWII would have turned out differently.
     
  9. Dr Gregg
    Offline

    Dr Gregg BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,901
    Thanks Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +200
    Why would the north die out? We had all the industrial might, the railroad system, the telegraph in place, much better infrastructure than the south. The south just had cotton
     
  10. Againsheila
    Offline

    Againsheila Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    17,126
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Federal Way WA
    Ratings:
    +2,700
    You are assuming the south would have remained agricultural. I think they would have had industry. One of the reasons they don't is reconstruction......many in the north wanted to obliterate the south after the war.
     

Share This Page