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

[Dr Gregg]

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.

 

[Mr Natural]

They are a bit of a drain on the rest of us.

Nice weather and beaches, though.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

 

[rdean]

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.

 

[martybegan]

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.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

 

[rdean]

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.

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.

 

[rikules]

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.

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.

 

[Dr Gregg]

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.

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

 

[Againsheila]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

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

The south had ties to Europe, who wanted their cotton. The north put tariffs on manufactured goods from Europe. If the south had succeeded, they would have had more ties to the rest of the world than the north...which would have become very protectionist. JMO, but a valid opinion none the less.

I wonder if anyone can design a computer program and put all the facts into it and see what would really have happened if the south had succeeded.

 

[del]

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.

is it physically painful to be this vapid?

 

[Modbert]

is it physically painful to be this vapid?

Diseases like that usually are.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The south had dominated politics and its policies had run rampant over the interests of the north for years. If the Southern politicians hadn't been so stupid, they could have been in charge for another generation. They handed Lincoln that election because of collosul stupid.


As for the folks at the time, the issue was whether, if yo loose an election, you get to take all the marbles and run home.

The second issue was security. broken to pieces, the union was weaker than a kitten.

Slavery was pretty much toast anyway. It couldn't expand any further. It was due for collapse soon or late. The only remaining issue was that of liberium veto. Which was the same kind of stupid that eliminated Poland in the late 18th Century, and something Madison worked to prevent.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Forcing people to live under a government they do not want is not keeping us "united," any more than forcing a wife to stay with her husband against her will would be keeping them "united."

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

The North was a far stronger nation than the South at the time of the War. The South would have had no reason to innovate and probably would have stayed with the Plantation culture as long as possible. You still see that here in the South to this day. The major cities that are innovating, like Dallas, have a heavy population of folks that grew up in the North.

However, if the South had been allowed to "just go" I think both the North and the South would have split into many many pieces. The New England states had considered secession during the War of 1812. Texas was its own sovereign nation at one point. It is likely the American Indian tribes could have found a political balance between North and South can kept much of the Great Plains. California and the Pacific Northwest would have likely split due to sheer logistics. Utah tried to secede, and likely would succeed at that in this scenario.

By the time that WWI opened in Europe it is likely we'd have been at least 3 nations, if not more like 8. There almost certainly would have been a front here.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The North was a far stronger nation than the South at the time of the War. The South would have had no reason to innovate and probably would have stayed with the Plantation culture as long as possible. You still see that here in the South to this day. The major cities that are innovating, like Dallas, have a heavy population of folks that grew up in the North.

However, if the South had been allowed to "just go" I think both the North and the South would have split into many many pieces. The New England states had considered secession during the War of 1812. Texas was its own sovereign nation at one point. It is likely the American Indian tribes could have found a political balance between North and South can kept much of the Great Plains. California and the Pacific Northwest would have likely split due to sheer logistics. Utah tried to secede, and likely would succeed at that in this scenario.

By the time that WWI opened in Europe it is likely we'd have been at least 3 nations, if not more like 8. There almost certainly would have been a front here.

The south was industrializing, however. That's why many believe slavery was on its way out on its own.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

The North was a far stronger nation than the South at the time of the War. The South would have had no reason to innovate and probably would have stayed with the Plantation culture as long as possible. You still see that here in the South to this day. The major cities that are innovating, like Dallas, have a heavy population of folks that grew up in the North.

However, if the South had been allowed to "just go" I think both the North and the South would have split into many many pieces. The New England states had considered secession during the War of 1812. Texas was its own sovereign nation at one point. It is likely the American Indian tribes could have found a political balance between North and South can kept much of the Great Plains. California and the Pacific Northwest would have likely split due to sheer logistics. Utah tried to secede, and likely would succeed at that in this scenario.

By the time that WWI opened in Europe it is likely we'd have been at least 3 nations, if not more like 8. There almost certainly would have been a front here.

The south was industrializing, however. That's why many believe slavery was on its way out on its own.

But there wasn't a real change in culture or mentality following it. You still see the plantation mentality here in the South and we're coming up on 150 years past the war.

That doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been some industrialization, but that its likely it would have just been integrated into the culture. That's part of why I think the "Slavery would have died out" theory is bunk. Slavery was a part of Southern culture. On sheer cultural inertia it would have persisted.

But that's getting off the topic.

On topic: I'm bettting we'd both agree that once the Union fractured, it wouldn't have stopped at just 2 nations.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The North was a far stronger nation than the South at the time of the War. The South would have had no reason to innovate and probably would have stayed with the Plantation culture as long as possible. You still see that here in the South to this day. The major cities that are innovating, like Dallas, have a heavy population of folks that grew up in the North.

However, if the South had been allowed to "just go" I think both the North and the South would have split into many many pieces. The New England states had considered secession during the War of 1812. Texas was its own sovereign nation at one point. It is likely the American Indian tribes could have found a political balance between North and South can kept much of the Great Plains. California and the Pacific Northwest would have likely split due to sheer logistics. Utah tried to secede, and likely would succeed at that in this scenario.

By the time that WWI opened in Europe it is likely we'd have been at least 3 nations, if not more like 8. There almost certainly would have been a front here.

The south was industrializing, however. That's why many believe slavery was on its way out on its own.

But there wasn't a real change in culture or mentality following it. You still see the plantation mentality here in the South and we're coming up on 150 years past the war.

That doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been some industrialization, but that its likely it would have just been integrated into the culture. That's part of why I think the "Slavery would have died out" theory is bunk. Slavery was a part of Southern culture. On sheer cultural inertia it would have persisted.

But that's getting off the topic.

On topic: I'm bettting we'd both agree that once the Union fractured, it wouldn't have stopped at just 2 nations.

You're forgetting the economic aspect, however. If the industrialization occurs you'd essentially be wasting money on trying to keep slavery around, that's why the north got rid of slavery. Certainly not because they were more moral than the south.

I don't necessarily agree with that assessment. Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't. I don't see a problem with it either way, personally. I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said:

"The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

 

[Dr Gregg]

The south was industrializing, however. That's why many believe slavery was on its way out on its own.

But there wasn't a real change in culture or mentality following it. You still see the plantation mentality here in the South and we're coming up on 150 years past the war.

That doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been some industrialization, but that its likely it would have just been integrated into the culture. That's part of why I think the "Slavery would have died out" theory is bunk. Slavery was a part of Southern culture. On sheer cultural inertia it would have persisted.

But that's getting off the topic.

On topic: I'm bettting we'd both agree that once the Union fractured, it wouldn't have stopped at just 2 nations.

You're forgetting the economic aspect, however. If the industrialization occurs you'd essentially be wasting money on trying to keep slavery around, that's why the north got rid of slavery. Certainly not because they were more moral than the south.

I don't necessarily agree with that assessment. Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't. I don't see a problem with it either way, personally. I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said:

"The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

Although one product of industrialization, the cotton gin, lead to increased in slavery and prices of slaves