What would have happened if the Union allowed the Confederacy to secede?

[Circe]

What would have happened if the Union allowed the confederacy to secede in 1860?
150 years later, the old confederate states are dominated by racism and are not in sync with the majority of the Union.
In 1860 they were Democrats, in 2022 they are Republicans but the morals and government desires of the South have not changed.
Should we jettison the old confederacy, plus a few other states, from the Union in 2024?

Turtledove nailed it in his novel series: the Union and the Confederacy would have been locked in episodic war forever, like France and Germany and France and Britain --- plus maybe one or more new countries from the territories.

I will never know why Britain and France didn't support the Confederacy so that the United States would be broken up and Britain maintained in its superpower state.

 

[blackhawk]

 

[Circe]

Slavery would have become obsolete within a decade or two as it would be cost-prohibitive vs industrial automation.

Well said. Besides, the blacks made AWFUL slaves ---- paid work from Irish, etc. was far better, even with the drinking problem. So I agree --- chattel slavery was just not useful. Sending them back was the obvious solution, and some were sent back, but it was just too expensive and difficult.

 

[toobfreak]

You dumbasses, the confederacy tried to secede but the north beat your sorry asses and wouldn't let you.

That must be why before rejoining the union of the United States, the Confederate States had to review and reaffirm to the Congress their allegiance to the same treaties and regulations as the rest of the United States all over again as a legal part of the U.S.A.?

Oh and BTW genius, I live north of any confederate state. But good to know you're way off yet one more time. It kinda reaffirms the stars.

The definition of a loser; they lose but they did not know they lost

Sounds a great deal like the 2022 Joe Biden Democrat Party.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Turtledove nailed it in his novel series: the Union and the Confederacy would have been locked in episodic war forever, like France and Germany and France and Britain --- plus maybe one or more new countries from the territories.

I will never know why Britain and France didn't support the Confederacy so that the United States would be broken up and Britain maintained in its superpower state.

The simple answer is slavery. By 1860 both England and France were anti-slavery.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What would have happened if the Union allowed the confederacy to secede in 1860?
150 years later, the old confederate states are dominated by racism and are not in sync with the majority of the Union.
In 1860 they were Democrats, in 2022 they are Republicans but the morals and government desires of the South have not changed.
Should we jettison the old confederacy, plus a few other states, from the Union in 2024?

Imagine 4th July in Confederate land. "US.... uh oh"

 

[bripat9643]

What would have happened if the Union allowed the confederacy to secede in 1860?
150 years later, the old confederate states are dominated by racism and are not in sync with the majority of the Union.
In 1860 they were Democrats, in 2022 they are Republicans but the morals and government desires of the South have not changed.
Should we jettison the old confederacy, plus a few other states, from the Union in 2024?

Idiots like you believe that the North wasn't racist.

 

[bripat9643]

More than likely slavery would have ended in the confederate states within a decade or two. But that is just speculation which cannot be proven one way or another. I wonder how WWI and perhaps WWII would have played out without a unified USA, assuming that those wars occur at all. Change one thing in history, then every event following is subject to change.....butterfly effect.

WW I would have never happened, and that means WW II would have never happened.

 

[22lcidw]

Turtledove nailed it in his novel series: the Union and the Confederacy would have been locked in episodic war forever, like France and Germany and France and Britain --- plus maybe one or more new countries from the territories.

I will never know why Britain and France didn't support the Confederacy so that the United States would be broken up and Britain maintained in its superpower state.

Outside globalist interference from the financiers wanted fiat currencies in the Western World. Just like they did with much of Europe.

 

[bripat9643]

You dumbasses, the confederacy tried to secede but the north beat your sorry asses and wouldn't let you.
The definition of a loser; they lose but they did not know they lost

You obviously don't understand what he posted. That's because you're a dumbass.

 

[CowboyTed]

The Confederacy would have invaded and absorbed Mexico and Central America and possibly the various Caribbean Islands belonging to France and the Netherlands spreading slavery south past Panama. It would have allied with Brazil, the last slave owning nation in South America and between the two would probably dominate South American politics. Come WWI, the Union would probably ally with Germany since there were very many German immigrants in the Union states, while the Confederacy would probably remain neutral rather than starting a war with the Union which would still be an industrial giant since the industrial states were all in the Union. Who knows what would happen in 1939.

Unlikely the Union would have joined Germany... Might have stayed neutral,,

 

[ElmerMudd]

Idiots like you believe that the North wasn't racist.

There were racists in the north, but at the end of the day, hundred's of thousands northerners gave their life for a Union without slavery.
There were non-racists in the south, but at the end of the day, hundred's of thousands southerners fought for a Union with slavery.

 

[ElmerMudd]

You obviously don't understand what he posted. That's because you're a dumbass.

Please explain what he posted.
At the end of the day the confederacy were big losers.
At the end of the day Trumpism is a big loser.
Good over evil.

 

[bripat9643]

There were racists in the north, but at the end of the day, hundred's of thousands northerners gave their life for a Union without slavery.
There were non-racists in the south, but at the end of the day, hundred's of thousands southerners fought for a Union with slavery.

Nope. Lincoln said numerous times that he didn't start the war to free the slaves. Most northerners resented the slaves.

The claim that they "fought for a union with slaves" is meaningless. Most of them had never owned a slave or ever would own a slave. Southerners fought to keep the Yankees out of their homes. They didn't give a damn about slavery one way or the other. The claim that the Union fought to end slavery is a prog myth.

https://www.al.com/opinion/2015/06/war-over-slavery_rhetoric_is_i.html​

Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.​

​

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.​

​

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.​

 

[bripat9643]

Please explain what he posted.
At the end of the day the confederacy were big losers.
At the end of the day Trumpism is a big loser.
Good over evil.

The Civil War is one thing, secession is another. They are not synonymous.

Is it possible for you to keep two ideas separate in your mind?

 

[bripat9643]

There were racists in the north, but at the end of the day, hundred's of thousands northerners gave their life for a Union without slavery.

No they didn't.

 

[Rigby5]

This is silly because the south did not "invent" slavery.
It was common back around 1500, and slowly disappeared over time, in all countries.
Once countries rebelled from corrupt monarchies and theocracies, and started thinking about individual rights, then slavery is always going to eventually disappear.
The South just was a little slow on the process because cotton was such a money maker.
But it was inevitable that the South would also have ended slavery on their own.
The Civil War was not necessary and likely destructive.
The South is still resentful because the North won illegally, by doing war crimes, like Sherman's March to the Sea, attacking civilian infrastructure.

The reason slavery would have disappeared is that motivated workers actually are more profitable than slavery.
Slavery is just irrational.

 

[Rigby5]

There were racists in the north, but at the end of the day, hundred's of thousands northerners gave their life for a Union without slavery.
There were non-racists in the south, but at the end of the day, hundred's of thousands southerners fought for a Union with slavery.

The northerners were MORE racist than southerner, since they had little or no contact with Blacks, and did not understand Blacks and white are actually the same mentally.
This was true until after WWII, when lots of southern Blacks went north to fill jobs, and people in the north got familiar with Blacks.

Neither northerner nor southerners were fighting over slavery.
They were fighting over economics about whether or not the south could be economically and politically independent of the north.
The main argument was over tariffs, not slavery.
The north never proposed anything to free the slaves until after the Civil War was over.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not free northern slaves.

{...
Yet at the time of this first Juneteenth, slavery had not yet been abolished throughout the United States, even by law. That momentous occasion wouldn’t occur until ratification of the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865, more than half a year after the surrender of Confederate forces as Appomattox.

Where in the U.S. did slavery manage to persist after Juneteenth had come and gone? The answer, and even the sheer number of places, may surprise you.

The Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment

The Emancipation Proclamation, issued on January 1, 1863, was Lincoln’s order, as commander-in-chief of the Union’s military forces, that slavery was abolished in those parts of the U.S. which had been in rebellion and which had been re-captured by Union troops.

This meant that slavery remained legal in those slave states which had remained in the Union. This included the border states, such as Delaware, Kentucky, and Maryland, but also those northern “free states” which permitted slavery under certain circumstances, such as when the slave owner claimed to be a permanent resident of a southern state. Those states legally permitting slavery under such circumstances stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

The Emancipation Proclamation also did nothing to discourage the practice of informally permitting slavery in many northern states where it was no longer permitted by law. Many African-Americans remained in slavery under this practice, which also existed from coast to coast in the “free states,” often quietly but in many cases quite openly.
...}

Tracing Center | Where in the U.S. did slavery still exist after Juneteenth?

Today, June 19, is widely celebrated as Juneteenth, which marks the day in 1865 when Union troops arrived in Galveston, Texas, bringing word that the Civil War had ended and the enslaved population

www.tracingcenter.org

 

[ElmerMudd]

Nope. Lincoln said numerous times that he didn't start the war to free the slaves. Most northerners resented the slaves.

The claim that they "fought for a union with slaves" is meaningless. Most of them had never owned a slave or ever would own a slave. Southerners fought to keep the Yankees out of their homes. They didn't give a damn about slavery one way or the other. The claim that the Union fought to end slavery is a prog myth.

https://www.al.com/opinion/2015/06/war-over-slavery_rhetoric_is_i.html​

Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.​

​

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.​

​

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.​

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves. Northerners fought to keep the south as part of the Union. The north won. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in the north and the south.
No matter what intentions were Lincoln and the north freed the slaves. If the south would have successfully seceded the slaves of the south would not be free.
That is all that matters at the end of the day.
The Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 freed African Americans in rebel states, and after the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment emancipated all U.S. slaves wherever they were

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves.

No it didn't. It didn't free a single slave. It didn't apply in Union controlled territory, and it couldn't be enforced in Confederate territory. Furthermore, it was unconstitutional.

Northerners fought to keep the south as part of the Union. The north won. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in the north and the south.

Wrong.

No matter what intentions were Lincoln and the north freed the slaves. If the south would have successfully seceded the slaves of the south would not be free.

Not immediately. They would have been freed in a few years.

That is all that matters at the end of the day.
The Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 freed African Americans in rebel states, and after the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment emancipated all U.S. slaves wherever they were

No, you claimed Northerners fought to free the slaves. You claimed that was their purpose when the fact is that it was purely an unintentional by-product.

Again, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. We aren't discussing the 13th Amendment. Moving the goal posts is a common tactic with progs when the can't back up their obviously wrong claims.