Posted on 08/26/2003 4:15:08 PM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
He was probably pretty accurate the way things would have turned out. Why wouldn't a President Longstreet ignore the Confederate Constitution by freeing the slaves even though he lacked the power, thus showing the same contempt for the constitution that President Davis did? Why wouldn't blacks have continued to be third or fourth class citizens in the south, continuing the laws that were on the books prior to the war and enacted immediately after it? Why wouldn't an independent Confederacy and the remaining United States be at odds, fighting multiple wars after the Civil War, continuing the animosity you believe was inevitable? Now I don't agree with the current thread of a cracker Hitler rising out of the ashes of a defeated south. I believe that the south would have embraced tyranny again, but only so far and would have found the idea of exterminating an entire race as repulsive.
Or Russian!
Because contrary to your opinion and in agreement with even some of the Southern papers of the time, slavery was becoming too costly. More than likely an amendment would have been added to free the slaves much as some of the leading officials of the South wanted.
Why wouldn't blacks have continued to be third or fourth class citizens in the south, continuing the laws that were on the books prior to the war and enacted immediately after it
Contrary to those 'freedom-loving' northerners, eh? Would they have been treated much as Grant and his lackeys treated Jews?
Why wouldn't an independent Confederacy and the remaining United States be at odds, fighting multiple wars after the Civil War, continuing the animosity you believe was inevitable?
I truly believe an independent Confederacy would have seen the need to establish strong economic ties to the north. But then again, the north needed the Confederacy much more than the other way around. The Confederacy would have had strong economic partners. What would the north have had? Empty factories and a national bank with no money coming into it. However the Confederacy would always be wary of entering into any sort of contract with their brethren from the north. They had been burned before and did not want to become the north's pocketbook again.
Now I don't agree with the current thread of a cracker Hitler rising out of the ashes of a defeated south. I believe that the south would have embraced tyranny again, but only so far and would have found the idea of exterminating an entire race as repulsive.
Well at least we agree there. However I think the north would have been forced to embrace tyranny, through the form of socialism, much quicker. They would have almost had to. If the war had gone much longer, I think any self respecting person from either side would have embraced the idea of a settled peace. Of course that's all my ancestors wanted all along, to be left alone.
More prosperous areas have their yuppies undistinguishable from those in other states. Perhaps less prosperous Southern states may be tempted to go Democratic for the same reason Northeastern backwaters have. States where the Democrats have deep roots in local politics won't always remain in the Republican column. One can't expect that every election will be like 2000 forever.
It's sensible to distrust predictions based on the absence of change. If you looked at what New England or Florida or some of the Western states were like in 1950 and came back a half century later, you would have been startled by the change. Judging by some parts of the South, changes brought by migration and increasing affluence are already underway.
That sums it up nicely and yes - you are right. It is the culture here that makes the difference. The south is socially and culturally conservative and has consistently been so for quite some time.
Some call it the "bible belt," though religion is only a part of the equation. It is a big one though and church membership trends show it. I recently read a sociology report on church membership stats that broke down protestant denominations as they relate to moral ideology then followed the statistical growth/decline of their membership over the last few decades.
"conservative" denominations included Baptists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, certain branches of Lutherans, and various other evangelical, fundamentalist, and conservative non-denominational protestants. They are strongly represented in the south and the west.
"mainstream" denominations included Methodists, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians. They are represented nationally, though somewhat stronger in the east.
"liberal" denominations included Unitarians and whatnot. They are represented in the northeast.
Trends indicated that the "conservative" churches had rapidly gained membership in recent decades. The "mainstream" churches were all stagnant in membership, or had slight gains or declines. The "liberal" denominations were at best stagnant and at worst lost members. The stats suggest that religion is currently strongest in the south and west and has been growing stronger in these regions for several decades. So a reversal in which the south becomes socially liberal does not seem likely at any time in the near future.
Your cities are smaller though. The success of the North's no-slavery position allowed our cities to grow more than the South's because of a stronger economy. Blacks who fled the South's oppression congregated in the cities adding further to their sizes and putting a demographic in that votes 95% liberal.
No, city vs. rural. Cities are liberal, rural areas are conservative. The South's cities are smaller and therefore don't drag their whole states down. Simple. There's not much difference between a rural southerner and a rural northerner nor between an urban southerner nor an urban northerner statistically.
Yeah, they are the scribes and Pharasees. They are part of the city of Mystery Babylon that has plagued us from our beginning. :^)
But we were talking about Turtledove, weren't we? And in his book, "How Few Remain", the Confederacy wins the second war by gaining European support for their war. And they gain that by having a law passed to end slavery in complete defiance of the Constitution which prohibited such action. And given that the very first tyrant president of the confederacy had a similar contempt for the constitution then why would it be surprising that his successors would believe any different?
Contrary to those 'freedom-loving' northerners, eh? Would they have been treated much as Grant and his lackeys treated Jews?
Turtledove isn't any more kind to the North on the subject of race relations in any of his books. Blacks are rare up North, tolerated but not loved. They have the vote but the average white norterner makes it clear that he prefers that blacks remain down south, where they are forbidden any rights at all and can't even have a sirname. And again, given the laws passed by every southern state prior to the Civil War and in light of the Black Codes passed by every southern state after the war, why couldn't Turtledove's portrayal of blacks as oppressed non-citizens of a white confederacy be accurate?
I truly believe an independent Confederacy would have seen the need to establish strong economic ties to the north. But then again, the north needed the Confederacy much more than the other way around.
Given Turtledove's scenario of a confederacy created out of war I find it impossible to believe that the U.S. and the confederacy would have had anything close to peaceful relations. After all, the last U.S. president who was also a Civil War veteran was McKinley and if it hadn't been for his assasination and Roosevelt's administration Civil War veterans could have held office until WWI. Memories of the war woould have continued, and of subsequent wars as well. Hell, the war ended 149 years ago and you guys are still pissed over losing it, why would the North have been any more adult about it?
Say what you want about Northern dependence on the south but it's all wishful thinking on your part. The U.S. would have found other trading parners, as would the south. The U.S. economy would have continued to grow. The south would have had to develop some industry, and economic and trade wars between the two would have competed with all out shooting wars. Anyone thinking that the U.S. and the Confederacy would have existed like the U.S. and Canada is being hoplessly optimistic. More like Egypt and Israel at worst, or East and West Germany at best.
However I think the north would have been forced to embrace tyranny, through the form of socialism, much quicker.
Again, wishful thinking on your part. The U.S. would have come out of the war in much better shape than the confederacy. It's economic engine would have been intact, it wouldn't have needed to build a manufacturing industry from scratch, and it wouldn't have been faced with a countryside devestated by war. The U.S. would have continued as before, no reason for socialism. The south wouldn't have embraced socialism either, the oppressed black population might of but y'all would have kept them in line.
Let's see, the climate was unsuitable to slaves, the people were inhospitable, northern laws prevented immigration of blacks, the legalized slave trade had ended in 1808 terminating the lucrative profit motive for participating - and that equates to conservatism?
Perhaps we could have been as 'enlightened' as the north and just outlawed blacks altogether then as several of the separate and sovereign states in the north did.
You're kidding right? Aren't you? You mean the kind, compassionate Yankees would do such a thing? I thought they just loved blacks </sarcasm>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.