No they didn't, as they proved when they were the CSA. The CSA government paid virtually no attention to "state's rights". They had no hope whatsoever of recognition from GB, which they wanted, if the official line was they were fighting for slavery. They needed a fig leaf and "state's rights" provided it.
What is Before 1900's "Sealion"?
- Thread starter Aaaaasima
- Start date
When they were in the Union they sure did. Of course they stopped caring about State's rights the second they no longer needed them.
Considering there were more government workers in Richmond than in DC, that the CSA government had price controls on salt , railroads and alcohol, instituted internal passports, and was perfectly willing to shoot peaceful Germans trying to run to Mexico I would say centralization would no be a problem."State's Rights" were just an excuse for slavery as it was an excuse for segregation 100 years later.
They'd certainly abandon them eventually. I still think that attempts to centralize the government would face more difficulty than in the US.
True. Let me rephrase that then: the South wanted State's rights on their term while in they still were in the Union.Their reaction to the North's Personal Liberty Laws seems to contradict that!
I think this is the case too, but we will never know since the Confederacy was ground down into nothing. So who knows what would have happened.
The entire point of alternate history is to determine the most plausible things that would occur if an event occurred differently.
It was already more centralized than the US government. Only one side had price controls on salt, alcohol, railroads and shipping and it wasn't the US . The CSA had more government workers with a smaller population so it was more centralized.
If I ever write an alternate history, I think I will just use a DnD mechanic to decide things like this. Most plausibly I see the confederacy falling apart if they get a win, but I do see other, more unlikely possibilities for them.
It would take a near miracle for them to win in the first place , it would take an even bigger near miracle for them to thrive if they do win. We are talking lottery odds here.
Although horrific, the South's view of states rights was internally consistent. They viewed the US Constitution as a revocable compact between sovereign states, and that a state had the power to withdraw from the Union (secede). They thought that while all states were in the Union, they should follow the terms which the states had agreed in the US Constitution should be followed. Viz, the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution (Article IV, Sec 2, Clause 3) stated that slaves should be returned to their home state rather than set free, regardless of the laws of the other state.
In other words, from the South's POV, there was no inconsistency in fugitive slave laws and states rights because the free-soil states had ceded that particular right when they accepted the Constitution. The South also held that the right to secede had not been yielded (being one of the powers reserved to the states), and so states could exercise that right if they saw fit.
Of course, regardless of their view of states rights, slavery was the only state right which the South cared about enough to secede over. They thought that they were exercising a legal right to secede, but as their declarations and speeches made clear, they were only doing so because of slavery.
This is kinda late, but, I'm back to you on that. Doing some research, that coal field would be exploited, but it certainly wouldn't be enough for an industrialized India. India would need to use water power for that purpose.
And if India can hold off Europeans until the mid-to-late nineteenth century, the new technology can unlock the vast coal fields of Jharkand, which would mean that India would be industrialized - just at the time of Italy, rather than in Britain.
Does the coming of the Anglo-Saxons to post-Roman Britain count as anything like an OTL Sealion?, although it took a long time to complete.
The arrival of Anglo-Saxons to Britain in the middle of a power vacuum is hardly an OTL Sealion, considering such migrations happened many, many, times in similar power vacuums.
Which the USSC said was a Federal not State responsibility. Requiring a jury trial to determine if the person is a slave and whose slave it is if he is one is hardly going against Article IV, Sec 2, Clause 3. All you would need is enough proof to convince a jury.
samcster94
Banned
Exactly, and some of these "invader" groups, like the Norse and the Norman lords, continued into Ireland.
B-29_Bomber
Banned
I disagree. Any state that rules over Anatolia has the potential to pull off what the Ottomans did. And any state that rule over Western Anatolia will either gain control over the rest or lose it before the rise of Balance of Power geopolitics and nationalism. The borders simply aren't defensible in the medium or long term and said state will be pressured into conquering the rest or an outside force will conquer it from them.
My issue isn't with the geopolitical reality of an Anatolian state--I agree that either Byzantium controls all of Anatolia or it controls none of it. My problem is with people that wank the Byzantines in an unrealistic way.
IMO the Byzantines were prevented from Ottoman-like expansion for two reasons: the fragility of their government and their compatibility with the geopolitical realities of the Middle East. The Byzantines were permanently cursed with instability--civil wars were always possible and they were always surrounded by nations that wanted to take territory or conquer them outright, so any sign of weakness allowed foreign incursions a chance to succeed. In addition, by my understanding by the 11th century the nation had begun to decentralize under magnates, which further destabilized the country--correct me if I'm wrong.
As for the compatibility idea, to put it simply no one in, say, Egypt wanted to be ruled by the Byzantines, and the Byzantines would not have (IMO) tolerated or been able to maintain the type of autonomy that would have pacified the rebellious groups. All of the non-Orthodox Christians in the Middle East (Miaphysites, Nestorians, etc.) disliked the Byzantines and in some cases preferred the Muslims as rulers. In addition, while the Byzantines sometimes tolerated Muslims in the empire they didn't tolerate heretics if they could help it, so there would probably be purges and/or forced conversions if the Byzantines took lands with heretics. The Byzantines would not win the hearts and minds of areas that were not Orthodox, and couldn't even draw on the legitimacy of the Caliphate as the Ottomans could. If the Byzantines set up, say, a more autonomous Exarchate of Egypt to pacify Egyptians, it would almost certainly break free as soon as the next civil war broke out.
In other words, a post-Fourth Crusade PoD would at best allow Byzantium to reconquer Anatolia and possibly parts of Syria and Lebanon. Beyond that I have my doubts.
Deleted member 97083
The Ottomans had a very unstable government as well, though.
samcster94
Banned
OTL was sort of one in itself, as they survived a long time against Islamic empires, Mongols, and the Crusaders.