Why did they want us back so bad? What would it be like today if there was no civil war?
Because you're part of the union you gigantic faggot, there's no leaving. Get over the fact that you don't get to own black people, Andrew Johnson already bailed your asses out as it is.
>>962406
Secession is a threat to the legitimacy of the federal government. If they let the South secede, any state could secede over any other issue and eventually the government collapses
>>962407
Remember England you god damn hypocrite?
>>962406
>Why did they want us back so bad
Hmm. I don't know. Why wasn't the Federal Government totally OK with a large chunk of the country's territory, population and wealth summarily dissolving their ties to the Union.
Very curious indeed.
>>962415
Eh not him but I'd say that's not a good comparison.
>no representation, run like a colony, far away from center of power
Versus
>you have representation, but you lost the vote. Deal with it.
>>962415
You lost your war so you don't get to leave.
>>962415
That was also illegitimate
>>962430
Australian so I might be wrong but wasn't the Souths problem with the fact that the North could pass whatever laws they wanted without a Southern vote?
Sure its democratic but when you've got 100 votes to work with and they have 50 its not exactly fair
>>962406
I would imagine it was because the South was a big part of the Northern economy and the two splitting apart would make North America a lot like Latin America in that foreign powers would have a lot more leverage when dealing with one small nation or another instead of one large United States. The US would basically be Lain America developmentally.
>>962449
Ha it's still that way today. Look at the electoral maps from 2008. All southern states are red but don't have the population to have enough delegates to win a presidential election on their own.
At the end of the day it's people who count not states. And that's how it should be
>>962449
That was a fear the south had but in reality it was the almost always south trying to force laws onto the north most notably the 'fugitive slave act' which legally compelled northern law enforcement to return runaway slaves to their southern owners.
It goes without saying this was an incredibly unpopular law in the north and was often resisted.
There was also the Missouri Compromise which made Missouri a slave state despite being above the Mason-Dixon line which was the boundary from the last compromise between north & south about the extent of slavery. And after that southern legislatures connived to make Kansas ANOTHER slave state despite being inhabited mostly by citizens who opposed slavery.
>>962449
no, the senate was set up to be 50 slave state and 50 free state senators. anything. all bills have to go through the senate so the north couldn't have passed anything that went against the south's interests. the reason they left was because they didn't think that there was a bright future for slavery: out of the remaining territory more of it could eventually be made free states than slave states and abolitionists were gaining more political clout especially with Lincoln winning the election
>>962474
the Missouri compromise set up the Mason-Dixon line. the deal was Missouri would be a slave state and Maine would be chopped off Massachussetts as a free state to balance it out
>>962494
The Mason-Dixon line is in MARYLAND. You are thinking of the 36 30 compromise line.
>>962532
my bad, kinda ashamed of myself for messing that up since I grew up in Missouri
>>962430
>no representation
American's didn't want actual representation in Parliament. If they did every vote they had would be pushed out by the European majority. Most Americans believed that the ONLY laws which they could be justified to obey were those passed by their own legislatures.
>>962474
>it was the almost always south trying to force laws onto the north
Incorrect. Beyond the question of slavery, one the biggest issues debated in the Congress, was the tariff. Which was not exactly low. On some products the tarriff reached upwards of 50% and Northern industrialist and Congressmen were constantly trying pass laws to either raise or create new tariffs on new goods. While it helped boost the manufacturing base of the North, it crippled the agrarian South. It forced them to either pay through the nose on European manufactured goods or pay a slightly less exorbitant fee for inferior American made goods. Furthermore, the South was the major exporting force in the nation, and since other nations didn't take kindly to their goods being taxed, guess which products from America ended up being taxed in the counter tariff.
>>962415
unlike the revolution, where we had zero representation with a country hundreds of miles away, you dumb faggots had full representation but you got pissy that you lost democratically and split.
>>962628
The tariff was revised up and down a half dozen times by the time of the civil war. It is not simple a case of northerners impressing laws on the unwilling south. The tariff issue was not an issue of slave vs free like the fugitive slave act or the Missouri compromise. Both sides acknowledged the prudence of a government funded by tariffs, where they disagreed were the rates, which both low and high tariff parties had their respective victories.
It is most certainly not the same thing as passing laws compelling northern states who have outlawed slavery to apprehend nominally free men to return to them a life of chattel bondage.
>>962630
It was a voluntary union; it had no intrinsic right to exist and Southerners or any other state(s) had every right to leave at any time for any or no reason. Frankly I don't understand the bizarre obsession Northerners have with forcing people they despise to stay shackled to them forever, but whatever. You guys won and forced us to be part of your system, so enjoy watching it get taken over from the inside by Trump and his crew
>>962901
>DUDE LE TRUMP IS GONNA MAKE THE SOUTH CONTROL XD
Trump is far more like the north was then than the south
And you had no right to leave slave
>>962406
because we cant be land of the free with the mass ownership of people regardless of whether they are considered inferior also the south could have turned out like brazil or Rhodesia.
>>962946
>Rhodesia
>something bad
Yeah nah whatever. Imperial powers control peoples though dynasties and ideas, democratic powers in theory are themselves controlled with their rulers and ideas bu the peoples.
People decided to leave the Union, the Union used military force to conquer said people, ergo USA were not a democracy but a hypocrite empire after 1861.
I believe there was one variant of South surviving - Britain attacking and steamrolling the North from Canada. They already had a legit casus belli as Union forces violated British laws by extracting Confederate envoys from British ship. But prince Albert defuses the situation.
There was no possibility of evading the civil war, even if Mexico wasn't conquered - it would just occur later.
>>962434
>Its okay when I commit a crime and get away with it but not when you do it
>>962532
The mason-dixie line is PENNSYLVANIA that divides the South from the North
>>963138
Rhodesia only existed for 15 years before being taken over by a dictator.
>>962406
>What would it be like today if there was no civil war?
The South started the war. So what is the scenario, here?
>>962901
>it had no intrinsic right to exist and Southerners or any other state(s) had every right to leave at any time for any or no reason
I know the civil war wasn't entirely about slavery but this line of logic is hilarious from someone defending a society that practiced slavery
>>963420
It was a voluntary union. States joined under the assumption that they could leave later if they wished. The fact that some states practiced slavery doesn't change that, especially since the free states joined willingly with the slave states under this arrangement.
The South and the North never had any business being in the same country. They are distinct peoples with distinct cultures, and they've never respected or liked the other. Forcing them to be fused together for all time in an unhappy marriage is not the best way to end the evil of slavery
>>962407
>blacks
>people
>>964142
memes haha
>>964116
The South could not have functioned as an economically successful country without the industry of the North. There was no "unhappy marriage", just an illusion of state power over federal which was ultimately shattered. butthurt yokels who couldn't stand losing an election.
>>962406
The North mistakenly thought they could civilize Southerners.
We regret that decision nowadays, take your diaspora back and build a wall around your borders so you can become the Haiti you were always meant to be.
>>964161
Wouldnt texas alone be able to form a rich independent state?
>>962406
The South would be like Brazil in North America for one
>>962407
Calm down Foner
>>962474
>always south trying to force laws onto the north most notably the 'fugitive slave act' which legally compelled northern law enforcement to return runaway slaves to their southern owners.
>forcing the north to follow Article IV Section 2 Clause 3 of the constitution is unfair
Jeez, no wonder the south said fuck it and tried leave
>>963138
I meant that it would be taken over by afro revolutionaries who would take over from outbreeding and kill as many southerners as they could
>>964161
>North
>civilized
Remember all the Americans who think places like Scotland are subjugated by England and should have voted for independence in 2014, but get mad if you suggest that states should be able to vote on leaving.
>>964416
A more apt comparison would be if Scotland up and decided to chimp out, attacking British military bases.
>>962406
Honestly both the north and south would be immeasurably worse off. The south especially since they lacked real industrialization. Now I believe the south had the right to succeed, but the reason for why they succeeded is kinda shitty.
>>962406
South would've been extremely poor and the cotton trade would've shifted to India making them even poorer. Slavery may or may not have been abolished but no doubt blacks would still suffer horrendous racism and abuse.
>alternative history thread
fucking nobody knows op, anybody who is saying that the south would be worse/better off today because of an event 150 years ago has their head up their own ass. You could probably make the argument that the south would be better off during the 1860-1890s if they seceded, but anything past that is akin to reading tea leaves.
>>964585
>yuo cannot know!
Ever hear of a thought experiment faglord?
>>964592
It's a bad thought experiment, way too many variables to even create a reasonable answer.
>>964606
Typically the point of these thread isn't (or at least shouldn't) be to create an accurate answer or prediction. But to put your historical knowledge to the test and actually apply it to a situation where experts haven't already come up with defined answers. They may be a waste for professional historians but there nothing wrong with amateurs engaging in them.
>>964293
You can equivocate, but the fact remains that in the decades preceding the Civil War it was almost always the South pushing slavery onto the North, not the North forcing emancipation onto the South.
>>964223
For a while it could prosper. I do wonder if pissing off both the Federal government and Mexico would limit it's ability to sustain itself.
>>964820
They weren't forcing anything on the northern states, they were demanding that the north follow its own constitution. Did the south force the North to ratify the constitution? How could the North argue that the south couldn't leave a compact agreement that they themselves weren't even willing to honor?
>>964912
>They weren't forcing anything on the northern states
Dred Scott vs Sanford was exactly that. The supreme court declared blacks couldn't be citizens giving the green light for bounty hunters and other scurrilous characters to snatch otherwise free men from their homes to be sold to slaveholders. The south was constantly expanding the definition & the boundaries of slavery onto otherwise free areas.
Bleeding Kansas was another instance that typified this relationship. Despite being populated mostly by freesoilers, southern states tried to legitimize a minority government that supported slavery. Outright ignoring democratic self-representation to advance the boundaries of slavery at the expense of free men.
What if the white and black populations of the South had been genocided after the Civil War? Would the US be colonizing Mars by now?
>>963167
The Mason-Dixon line was created to define the Maryland border. It touches Pennsylvania and Delaware.
>>964985
It was created to define the borders of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland together jointly.
>>964944
>Dred Scott
Last time I checked, the Supreme Court was a federal institution, so to attribute their decisions to the South is dishonest. In fact all the judges who ruled with the majority remained with the Union during the Civil War and passed rulings favorable to Lincoln during his expansion of wartime powers. Also Dred dealt mostly with the territories, not the northern states.
>Bleeding Kansas
Like above, it dealt with the territories, not the existing free states
Slavery was the status quo of the early republic, to pretend that there was a emerging slave power threatening the republic is absurd.
>>965047
>Supreme Court was a federal institution
But it was divided by the same sectarian divisions that eventually divided the states themselves. The issue is of slave vs. free, no matter whether it is debated on the Supreme Court or the states themselves. The slave side actively pushed at every instance to expand the boundaries of slavery, even when it conflicted with the laws of the north, like in the Fugitive Slave Act. There is not one example of the free side attempting to force emancipation on a slave state until after the Civil War had begun.
>Also Dred dealt mostly with the territories, not the northern states.
It had enormous repercussions on the status of free black men in northern states.
>>965080
>The slave side actively pushed at every instance to expand the boundaries of slavery
Slavery had consistently diminished since the revolution with the abolitionist movement growing. How could you likewise argue that slavery was the one pushing itself on the north? You keep bringing up the fugitive slave act, but it was no different than forcing SC to collect tariffs during the nullification crisis. If SC couldn't use local laws to circumnavigate federal statues, than the north obviously couldn't circumnavigate a clause in the constitution. Furthermore, act like it wasn't a part of a compromise. A compromise that heavily favored the free states' position. The free soilers got California and took land away from Texas in exchange for a statute that would make free states follow a constitutional clause they were already responsible for? Doesn't sound like the slave faction was controlling anyone desu. If the Free Soilers were facing any problems, it was that their constitution was written by a bunch of slave owners who did not allow for a very easy option towards emancipation.
Be honest, there was no real threat of slavery expanding into free states.
>>963166
Your sentence can be modified to "winners win." without losing any essential meaning, thus a tautology, consequently not saying anything non-obvious, or of interest.
>United
America as a common law country were the south to secede it would establish a precedent and thus it would be entirely possible for any state to leave and for the union to collapse.
>>962474
Why did they want so many slave states?
>>965868
1. Power in Congress. Each state got two senators and the south wanted to keep their majority to combat the north's majority in the house.
2. The Deep south had a huge concentration of slaves and they wanted to spread them out over a larger area of land. At least this was the excuse Thomas Jefferson had for the pushing for the spread of slavery into the south west.
Also >>962474 is full of shit about the Missouri compromise. The Mason-Dixon line had nothing to do with it and was merely a sign you were entering the south. The Missouri compromise itself was the compromise that made the extension of slavery into the territories relegated based on latitude.
The confederacy did nothing wrong.
>>962415
But you had representation and weren't paying high taxes.
>>965868
So they wouldn't face a Congress that would restrict slavery.
But then that happened, so they consoled themselves with having Pro-Slavery Presidents (or at least compromising presidents) up until Lincoln got elected.
>>962406
Because who else are they going to have to constantly bitch about and leech culture from?
>>964440
A more apt comparison would be if Scotland actually voted to leave the UK and then England just said NO and didn't withdraw their military.
>Forts owned and paid for by the whole of the union as a legitimate nation while the nation was still whole
>belonging to an upstart, breakoff nation with no nationally recognized legitimacy by any of the world powers
>>966340
you realize that sumter wasn't even built yet when it was occupied unauthorized by Anderson two days after SC seceded? He went against northern orders doing it, meanwhile the white house sandbagged confederate officials saying they'd resolve the issue. Not to mention after the confederates reclaimed the fort with zero causalities, they didn't take the occupiers prisoner and let them travel back north. Sumter was forced by Lincoln as a way into a civil war, which is why the border states like VA, NC, and TN saw through it and seceded afterwards.
>>962628
Southern Fags need to get the fuck over the tariff thing. It was such a small issue, it was just emblematic f the kind of struggle Lost Causers want the Civil War to be
>>964416
Americans still think the English Monarachy still has any kind of power
>>964506
This.
They would have ended up as another Mexico.
>>962406
Rebelling from rebels is A okay.
>>962406
Pay taxes already
>>962411
>Secession is a threat to the legitimacy of the federal government. If they let the South secede, any state could secede over any other issue and eventually the government collapses
LIKE THOSE FUCKING SCUMBAG AMERICANS
THEY'RE FUCKING ENGLISH SUBJECTS
FUCKING TRAITOROUS SCUM
HOW DARE THEY LEAVE THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND THEN ACT ALL FUSSY ABOUT SOMEONE TRYING TO LEAVE THEM?
