Poll of the Day > Not going to lie, kinda wish the Confederacy had won the civil war.

(+) Yeah! (+)

For two reasons.

1. Then as a Northerner I wouldn't have to be in the same country as them, and 2. Both of the resulting countries would have been far weaker than the current US, meaning world history would have been very different. It is so boring having one player so much stronger the everyone else on the world stage.

Imagine all the crazy stuff that would have gone down if other countries knew there wasn't an over powered, egocentric, """world police officer""" waiting to slap them down. Hell, before that, imagine how the world wars would have gone? Man, what a missed opportunity.
---

So you're reason is basically "boredom"? You didn't think this through, did you?
---

We'd all be speaking German today.
---

*Grabs popcorn*
---

jsb0714 posted...

So you're reason is basically "boredom"? You didn't think this through, did you?

I just got through reading a book on world history and it was awesome how many people conquered or started to conquer the world, and all the epic wars that went on. We will never again have another Napoleon or Hitler, and the world will be boring because of that, yeah. Especially now when the power of the US is solidified, which it wasn't quite in those days.
---

Dreaming_King posted...

We will never again have another Napoleon or Hitler

That's not really a bad thing though. Peace isn't necessarily boring.

Dreaming_King posted...

jsb0714 posted...

So you're reason is basically "boredom"? You didn't think this through, did you?

I just got through reading a book on world history and it was awesome how many people conquered or started to conquer the world, and all the epic wars that went on. We will never again have another Napoleon or Hitler, and the world will be boring because of that, yeah. Especially now when the power of the US is solidified, which it wasn't quite in those days.

Where did you copy/paste that laughable response from?
---

Dreaming_King posted...

We will never again have another Napoleon or Hitler, and the world will be boring because of that, yeah.

If by "boring" you mean "massive numbers of people aren't going to end up dying to fuel some conqueror's ambition," then sure. Most sane people would consider that to be a good thing, though. Go play a video game if you want fighting; real violence sucks and should be avoided whenever possible.
---

DrBoneCrusher posted...

Dreaming_King posted...

We will never again have another Napoleon or Hitler

That's not really a bad thing though. Peace isn't necessarily boring.

People desire conflict whether they are willing to admit it or not. If we don't have an actual enemy to fight we will invent one or start tearing ourselves apart. Like how the Athenians and Spartans teamed up to defend themselves from the Persians, but within a century of being at peace with them, basically crippled themselves.
---

Go out with your swords and become that conquerer.
---

Dreaming_King posted...

People desire conflict whether they are willing to admit it or not.

That's what fiction is for.
---

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

Go out with your swords and become that conquerer.

I would, had I been born 500 years ago, but, alas, the world is too small now for that sort of thing.
---

Ah, the stupid shit you say when you've lived a sheltered life.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I had it in my mind that the original Sleeping King was a black nerd from somewhere like Texas.
---

Whatever sword guy
---

Go join the army then, they will be happy to have you.

Dreaming_King posted...

jsb0714 posted...

So you're reason is basically "boredom"? You didn't think this through, did you?

I just got through reading a book on world history and it was awesome how many people conquered or started to conquer the world, and all the epic wars that went on. We will never again have another Napoleon or Hitler, and the world will be boring because of that, yeah. Especially now when the power of the US is solidified, which it wasn't quite in those days.

Yea, people dying horribly is so much fun! You have no fucking respect whatsoever for history if you think war is "epic."
---

DrBoneCrusher posted...

Dreaming_King posted...

We will never again have another Napoleon or Hitler

That's not really a bad thing though. Peace isn't necessarily boring.

Umm drumpff = Hitler
---

KJ StErOiDs posted...

We'd all be speaking German today.

Russian is the more likely hypothetical, though even that is unrealistic.

The US did not win the war on behalf of the Allies, much as American media likes to portray it that way. They were late joining into the War and the other Allies had already largely blunted the momentum of Germany's attacks on the Western and African fronts.

America's participation moved up the Allied victory by several years, but they were not the ones on whom victory hung; for that award, look further East. Hitler was doomed the instant he decided to double cross the Soviets. Once again, the media doesn't portray it this way (The Cold War kind of made acknowledging Russian efforts a bit gauche in the aftermath), but the Eastern campaign was by far the biggest and most important part of the war. It was larger than the Western, Pacific, and African campaigns COMBINED and the USSR was fighting it with virtually no support from the other major allied powers. And not only did the Soviets win this campaign, despite suffering more casualties than America had soldiers, they had enough left in the tank to take over a huge swathe of Eastern Europe and become a world superpower in the aftermath.

The 40s-era USSR was an incredible power, one that Hitler had no hope of matching. I dislike the idea of saying that *one* country made the difference between victory and defeat (it was called a "World War" for a reason, after all), but the USSR is the closest thing there is to fitting that definition.
---

TES_Nut posted...

Whatever sword guy

Well, if they had won this the whole country would've been 'CSA'...

And there is a TV show coming on HBO that plays out this hypothesis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_(TV_series)

Too many "what ifs" to consider.

Realtalk: If the civil war never happened and the Confederacy was simply allowed to secede from the union, which one would be the ones to claim California?
---

Tc you're a massive fucking jackass. I had other words in mind but that would get me modded

Honestly, there's no guarantee that the CSA would have remained its own country anyway in the long-term. There was always the possibility that they'd re-unite under new terms. Keep in mind that it's not quite the same thing as winning freedom from a nation far across the ocean where the existing ties had always been relatively weak because immigrants weren't solely coming from there. The North and South were neighbors with closely shared lineage, some shared economic concerns, etc.

Lokarin posted...

Realtalk: If the civil war never happened and the Confederacy was simply allowed to secede from the union, which one would be the ones to claim California?

The West US. Keep in mind that Canada, which had covertly provided funding to the CSA, had hoped to break the US into three parts.

darkknight109 posted...

KJ StErOiDs posted...

We'd all be speaking German today.

Russian is the more likely hypothetical, though even that is unrealistic.

The US did not win the war on behalf of the Allies, much as American media likes to portray it that way. They were late joining into the War and the other Allies had already largely blunted the momentum of Germany's attacks on the Western and African fronts.

America's participation moved up the Allied victory by several years, but they were not the ones on whom victory hung; for that award, look further East. Hitler was doomed the instant he decided to double cross the Soviets. Once again, the media doesn't portray it this way (The Cold War kind of made acknowledging Russian efforts a bit gauche in the aftermath), but the Eastern campaign was by far the biggest and most important part of the war. It was larger than the Western, Pacific, and African campaigns COMBINED and the USSR was fighting it with virtually no support from the other major allied powers. And not only did the Soviets win this campaign, despite suffering more casualties than America had soldiers, they had enough left in the tank to take over a huge swathe of Eastern Europe and become a world superpower in the aftermath.

The 40s-era USSR was an incredible power, one that Hitler had no hope of matching. I dislike the idea of saying that *one* country made the difference between victory and defeat (it was called a "World War" for a reason, after all), but the USSR is the closest thing there is to fitting that definition.

Actually, you're not looking at it the right way. Had the US not provided so much support to the Allies in WWI, there may not have been a WWII where a genocidal madman ruled Germany because the harsh terms imposed on Germany may have been greatly curtailed had the war ended in something closer to a truce than a defeat. Plus the existence of the CSA -- which may have instead favored the other side -- could have served to deter the initial conflict. Given that it's impossible to know what the CSA might have done differently, predicting a new course of history -- given changes at every step along the way -- is tenuous at best.
---

jsb0714 posted...

So you're reason is basically "boredom"? You didn't think this through, did you?

From what I can tell, that's a big part of the reason Trump won. People (usually ones who had nothing to lose anyway) were bored and thought it'd be funny to watch things get shaken up.
---

Japanese media, as we know it today, would not be. It'd likely still be in the traditional format that spans back several hundred years. There would be no "weeaboos" in the Divided States of America.
---

KJ StErOiDs posted...

Japanese media, as we know it today, would not be. It'd likely still be in the traditional format that spans back several hundred years. There would be no "weeaboos" in the Divided States of America.

True tragedy :'(
---

Those two reasons are ones I've thought of myself. In all honesty, slavery was on its way out anyway. Lee was an abolitionist himself from what I understand, he was just loyal to where he came from.

WWI would have almost ended with more of a white peace if America had stayed out. This would've resulted in Germany either staying under the Kaiser's rule or the Weimar Republic surviving. It would have essentially ended up as Europe united in fear against the Soviet Union (which would've happened regardless of America's status).

Had there been a war between them, it would've been embarrassingly one-sided, especially as Japan would've been on Europe's side. China would've been defeated handily by Japan, so no communist rule there. A loss of territory and a puppet regime that was completely incapable of fighting their oppressor.

Like China and Russia, the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary were still boned, and at best the inevitable would've been prolonged. The territory would've just broken apart into weaker states that were likely to end up as clients to the great powers, but with more independence than they got in reality.

In a general sense, the world would've probably been more stable and peaceful without America being involved in anything. One last thing worth noting is both the British and the French preferred the CSA over the USA, while Germany backed the USA at the time. If tensions in America ran hot during WWI, it's conceivable to think that Canada and the CSA may have been duking it out with the USA and Mexico (who was also closer to Germany).
---

KJ StErOiDs posted...

We'd all be speaking German today.

Japanese.

Or Queen's English.
---

Kanakiri posted...

jsb0714 posted...

So you're reason is basically "boredom"? You didn't think this through, did you?

From what I can tell, that's a big part of the reason Trump won. People (usually ones who had nothing to lose anyway) were bored and thought it'd be funny to watch things get shaken up.

Then your thinking skills need serious work.
---

People voted Trump 'cuz they didn't want war with Russia.... think about it
---

jsb0714 posted...

So you're reason is basically "boredom"? You didn't think this through, did you?

Welcome to privilege, where idiotic dude-bros dream of disastrous wars to kill their boredom.
---

Dreaming_King posted...

jsb0714 posted...

So you're reason is basically "boredom"? You didn't think this through, did you?

I just got through reading a book on world history and it was awesome how many people conquered or started to conquer the world, and all the epic wars that went on. We will never again have another Napoleon or Hitler, and the world will be boring because of that, yeah. Especially now when the power of the US is solidified, which it wasn't quite in those days.

More mass murder and death! So exciting!
---

I apologize for putting "you're" in my first post instead of "your".
---

Zeus posted...

Honestly, there's no guarantee that the CSA would have remained its own country anyway in the long-term. There was always the possibility that they'd re-unite under new terms. Keep in mind that it's not quite the same thing as winning freedom from a nation far across the ocean where the existing ties had always been relatively weak because immigrants weren't solely coming from there. The North and South were neighbors with closely shared lineage, some shared economic concerns, etc.

Lokarin posted...

Realtalk: If the civil war never happened and the Confederacy was simply allowed to secede from the union, which one would be the ones to claim California?

The West US. Keep in mind that Canada, which had covertly provided funding to the CSA, had hoped to break the US into three parts.

darkknight109 posted...

KJ StErOiDs posted...

We'd all be speaking German today.

Russian is the more likely hypothetical, though even that is unrealistic.

The US did not win the war on behalf of the Allies, much as American media likes to portray it that way. They were late joining into the War and the other Allies had already largely blunted the momentum of Germany's attacks on the Western and African fronts.

America's participation moved up the Allied victory by several years, but they were not the ones on whom victory hung; for that award, look further East. Hitler was doomed the instant he decided to double cross the Soviets. Once again, the media doesn't portray it this way (The Cold War kind of made acknowledging Russian efforts a bit gauche in the aftermath), but the Eastern campaign was by far the biggest and most important part of the war. It was larger than the Western, Pacific, and African campaigns COMBINED and the USSR was fighting it with virtually no support from the other major allied powers. And not only did the Soviets win this campaign, despite suffering more casualties than America had soldiers, they had enough left in the tank to take over a huge swathe of Eastern Europe and become a world superpower in the aftermath.

The 40s-era USSR was an incredible power, one that Hitler had no hope of matching. I dislike the idea of saying that *one* country made the difference between victory and defeat (it was called a "World War" for a reason, after all), but the USSR is the closest thing there is to fitting that definition.

Actually, you're not looking at it the right way. Had the US not provided so much support to the Allies in WWI, there may not have been a WWII where a genocidal madman ruled Germany because the harsh terms imposed on Germany may have been greatly curtailed had the war ended in something closer to a truce than a defeat. Plus the existence of the CSA -- which may have instead favored the other side -- could have served to deter the initial conflict. Given that it's impossible to know what the CSA might have done differently, predicting a new course of history -- given changes at every step along the way -- is tenuous at best.

At the end of the Revolutionary War, despite having lost, the British kept ships just off the US coastline in case the new country collapsed (historically verified by our historians and British historians, btw) so that they could take the colonies back. Those ships were still there when the War of 1812 happened (also historical fact). In all likelihood, if the CSA and Union had become separate countries, Britain would have taken the CSA since the southern states had friendlier relations with Britain than the northern states before the Revolution. The North would've either remained independent or possibly be taken over by either France or Spain.

Zeus posted...

Actually, you're not looking at it the right way. Had the US not provided so much support to the Allies in WWI, there may not have been a WWII where a genocidal madman ruled Germany because the harsh terms imposed on Germany may have been greatly curtailed had the war ended in something closer to a truce than a defeat. Plus the existence of the CSA -- which may have instead favored the other side -- could have served to deter the initial conflict. Given that it's impossible to know what the CSA might have done differently, predicting a new course of history -- given changes at every step along the way -- is tenuous at best.

Agreed, it's pretty difficult to speculate 100 years of alternate history. I just think the "if America hadn't participated in WW2, the Allies would have lost!" line of thinking is simply wrong. If America hadn't participated and everything else proceeded as it did, an Allied victory was still all but inevitable, just on a delayed timeline (and with a different look at its conclusion - the Soviets likely would have captured most or all of Germany and likely large swathes of Japan and East Asia as well).

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Lee was an abolitionist himself from what I understand

You understand incorrectly, then. There are people who claim that he was an abolitionist based on a letter he wrote in 1856, where he described slavery as "a moral and political evil" - which is nice, but if you read the full text of the letter, he goes on to explain that it's mostly an evil to white people, not blacks, since the white people are ones who have to actually take care of these helpless slaves and he also considered it a lesser evil than the alternative (that being allowing blacks to be free and, thus, deprive them of the "discipline" and "education" they were receiving at the hands of whites).

Lee was an ardent supporter of slavery and was well-known to be especially cruel to his slaves. When he caught escaped slaves, he had them whipped mercilessly and, since that apparently wasn't good enough, then proceeded to have brine washed into the tattered flesh of their backs. Most slave owners generally did not break up slave families, as that was seen as unnecessarily cruel; Lee did it deliberately, selling off family members to other plantations. When units under his command invaded Pennsylvania, they took every free black they could find and brought them back to the South as property.

Even in the aftermath of the Civil War, Lee did all he could to subjugate blacks. He advised southerners to hire white labourers instead of freed black slaves, claimed that blacks were bent on overthrowing white rule, and resisted all efforts towards black enfranchisement (claiming that blacks were too stupid to vote) and the enforcement of racial equality. He generally overlooked or downplayed racist attacks and abductions while he was president of Washington College, including two attempts at lynchings.

About the best you can say about Lee is that he was a firm believer in The White Man's Burden, seeing slavery as a way to "civilize the black savages" and save their souls by spreading Christianity amongst them, but in light of how he treated freed black men even that seems to be a convenient excuse he used to justify his flagrant hatred of blacks.
---

nice my moderation was reposted lmfao tc

Lokarin posted...

People voted Trump 'cuz they didn't want war with Russia.... think about it

Nah they voted for him because taxes
---

Hitler would ally with the CSA. Imagine having Nazis just to the south of us

Zikten posted...

Hitler would ally with the CSA. Imagine having Nazis just to the south of us

Except France and Britain were friends with the CSA, which means Prussia would've aligned itself with the USA if it had escalated into becoming an earlier WWI. Ethnicity also strengthens this further, as the South was much closer to Britain and France, while many German-Americans were in the North.

Also, if the CSA became officially independent, there'd probably be no Hitler anyway, at least in terms of him gaining any influence or power. WWI would've gone very differently... The Prussian aristocracy, elections or not, would still likely hold much influence over Germany.
---