Where does Lincoln rank

Without Lincoln, there would be two countries today, no?

possibly. or no country at all....

I've often wondered about this. Had the South won, they would have been an agarian, relatively poor and fairly small country, and would have stayed that way for 100 years.

The South would have been forced to industrialize more but would have suffered because the North could produce better and less expensive goods. They would also have been hampered by a society built on States Rights. Petty bickering between states would hold them back.
They probably would have been forced by worldwide pressure to abolish slavery by the end of the century but Jim Crow would still be alive and well in the south
 
possibly. or no country at all....

I've often wondered about this. Had the South won, they would have been an agarian, relatively poor and fairly small country, and would have stayed that way for 100 years.

The South would have been forced to industrialize more but would have suffered because the North could produce better and less expensive goods. They would also have been hampered by a society built on States Rights. Petty bickering between states would hold them back.
They probably would have been forced by worldwide pressure to abolish slavery by the end of the century but Jim Crow would still be alive and well in the south

There is no reason to have assumed that the South would have industrialized. The agarian / slave system discouraged industrialization. Industrialization in the South only really began to take off in the 1970s and 1980s. A common Leftist argument is that the US relied heavily on slavery in its economic development but that's wrong. Slavery retarded economic development since it discouraged education and specialization, both of which were critical to the new manufacturing economy. There is no reason to think that the South would have developed a modern economy.

I wonder if the Confederacy would have been a North American version of South Africa, a pariah state. Probably not, I don't know. But maybe.
 
I've often wondered about this. Had the South won, they would have been an agarian, relatively poor and fairly small country, and would have stayed that way for 100 years.

The South would have been forced to industrialize more but would have suffered because the North could produce better and less expensive goods. They would also have been hampered by a society built on States Rights. Petty bickering between states would hold them back.
They probably would have been forced by worldwide pressure to abolish slavery by the end of the century but Jim Crow would still be alive and well in the south

There is no reason to have assumed that the South would have industrialized. The agarian / slave system discouraged industrialization. Industrialization in the South only really began to take off in the 1970s and 1980s. A common Leftist argument is that the US relied heavily on slavery in its economic development but that's wrong. Slavery retarded economic development since it discouraged education and specialization, both of which were critical to the new manufacturing economy. There is no reason to think that the South would have developed a modern economy.

I wonder if the Confederacy would have been a North American version of South Africa, a pariah state. Probably not, I don't know. But maybe.

Any attempt at industrialization would have suffered from competition with the North and Europe. A larger issue is that the South never would have developed a middle class. They were a class conscious society as it was but would have evolved into a society of wealthy land owners, low class whites with poor education and blacks who were free but restricted to menial labor
 
were those dead worth preserving the union?

No they were not. Especially since really all that was accomplished was to place a band-aid on a wound that still festers to this day and which is probably much more infected and puss-filled now than in was 150 years ago. That's a lot of dead bodies, maimed and wounded comrades and destroyed families for a less than decisive outcome, elvis.

I don't know a single person who feels/thinks this. Maybe it's just the few areas of the south I've lived in, but still I haven't met a single one.

Seen rebel flags? Absolutely (ironically a lot of times along with the American flag). I know a lot of people who have it on their cars, or other things-and not a single one is serious, or even wants to separate from the USA.

:cuckoo:
 
Top 10:
t(1) Washington, Lincoln and TJ
(4)Ike
(5) Reagan
(6) Teddy Roosevelt
(7) Truman
(8) Jackson
(9) Polk
(10)????

Five Worst:
(1) Carter
(2) Buchanan
(3) Clinton
(4) Harding
(5) GWB
 
I've often wondered about this. Had the South won, they would have been an agarian, relatively poor and fairly small country, and would have stayed that way for 100 years.

The South would have been forced to industrialize more but would have suffered because the North could produce better and less expensive goods. They would also have been hampered by a society built on States Rights. Petty bickering between states would hold them back.
They probably would have been forced by worldwide pressure to abolish slavery by the end of the century but Jim Crow would still be alive and well in the south

There is no reason to have assumed that the South would have industrialized. The agarian / slave system discouraged industrialization.....
Nonsense.

Machines are much cheaper to maintain than slaves, and they won't run away.
 
I know a lot of people who have it on their cars, or other things-and not a single one is serious, or even wants to separate from the USA.

Then you're hanging around with the wrong class of people.

I've hung out with all sorts of "classes". What "class" of people are you talking about?

edit: I also said met-not hanging around. There's a difference.
 
Yea...I guess some are still pissed at not being able to own slaves anymore
Yet others wonder whether the 500,000+ dead young men, millions injured and maimed, uncounted civilians killed/injured/voilated and cities burned to the ground was worth the trouble to end something that mechanization was making obsolete.

But you feel free to continue your brain dead, knee-jerk demagoguery....It's really all you're good at.

were those dead worth preserving the union?
I don't believe so, if it's a union kept together at the point of a gun.

What of the American concept of freedom of association?
 
Yet others wonder whether the 500,000+ dead young men, millions injured and maimed, uncounted civilians killed/injured/voilated and cities burned to the ground was worth the trouble to end something that mechanization was making obsolete.

But you feel free to continue your brain dead, knee-jerk demagoguery....It's really all you're good at.

were those dead worth preserving the union?
I don't believe so, if it's a union kept together at the point of a gun.

What of the American concept of freedom of association?

You have to use the perceptual lens of that time-not now. Our concept of freedom here in America is different than it was back then. There was slavery, only white men could vote, women couldn't own property (or at least it was very hard for them to), women couldn't serve in the military, we killed the indians and marched them off of their own land, etc.

None of those things (whether you agree with them or not-I'm talking about anarchism here), are a part of the current views of freedom in America-but were perfectly acceptable in many-if not all areas-of America back then.

While I personally am not sure on my thoughts about whether those who died was worth it or not, it's irrelevant, because many of those soldiers thought it was. And it happened in a time frame, and culture very different from our own.
 
None of those things (whether you agree with them or not-I'm talking about anarchism here), are a part of the current views of freedom in America-but were perfectly acceptable in many-if not all areas-of America back then.

That's because the current view of "Freedom" is WRONG and has been for many, many years.
 
Using that system the big three are Washinton, Lincoln and FDR.

They faced the most threatening problems and kept the nation going.

I would suggest that two of the three failed miserably and rank as the two WORST Presidents in American history so far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, but a guy who makes this statement: "He moved people unwilling to assimilate into society off American land (indians)" has an opinion that sucks, and therefore irrelevent...
 
were those dead worth preserving the union?
I don't believe so, if it's a union kept together at the point of a gun.

What of the American concept of freedom of association?

You have to use the perceptual lens of that time-not now. Our concept of freedom here in America is different than it was back then. There was slavery, only white men could vote, women couldn't own property (or at least it was very hard for them to), women couldn't serve in the military, we killed the indians and marched them off of their own land, etc.

None of those things (whether you agree with them or not-I'm talking about anarchism here), are a part of the current views of freedom in America-but were perfectly acceptable in many-if not all areas-of America back then.

While I personally am not sure on my thoughts about whether those who died was worth it or not, it's irrelevant, because many of those soldiers thought it was. And it happened in a time frame, and culture very different from our own.
None of that changes the fact that the Confederate States were brought back into the Union at the point of a gun.
 

Forum List

Back
Top