Anachronism
Rookie
- Banned
- #41
possibly. or no country at all....
Either of which would be preferable to what we have now.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
possibly. or no country at all....
on the list of Presidents?
possibly. or no country at all....
Either of which would be preferable to what we have now.
possibly. or no country at all....
Either of which would be preferable to what we have now.
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.
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
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.
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.
on the list of Presidents?
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.
Nonsense.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.....
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 don't believe so, if it's a union kept together at the point of a gun.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.Yea...I guess some are still pissed at not being able to own slaves anymore
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?
No question....Number 1 with FDR as 2
and JFK no.3 right?
No, not enamored with JFK...its all what might have been
Washington 3
Jefferson 4
Teddy Roosevelt 5
I don't believe so, if it's a union kept together at the point of a gun.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?
What of the American concept of freedom of association?
I've hung out with all sorts of "classes". What "class" of people are you talking about?.
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.
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.
None of that changes the fact that the Confederate States were brought back into the Union at the point of a gun.I don't believe so, if it's a union kept together at the point of a gun.were those dead worth preserving the union?
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.