WI the CSA didn't really lose the Civil War?
- Thread starter KJM
- Start date
Look at the number of Southern Presidents who have had such an effect on the nation's history in the last century. From (arguably) Teddy to Wilson to Reagan and Clinton (Arkansas counts) and both Bush's, Southern-cultured leaders have had quite an impact.
Mmm. And the US would probably be less stupid.
Given that the Bush clan are a bunch of transplanted Yankee carpetbaggers, if they still exist in the ATL and end up as Presidents, it would be as Presidents of the U.S.A. So no change there, I'm afraid.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
Teddy? Born in New York City, became state Assemblyman of New York, governor of New York, belonged to the Republican Party, which, IIRC, was still primarily Northern at the time... And he lived in North Dakota for two years. North Dakota isn't in the south.
Where do you get that he'd be southern? I'm no historian, and I don't know that much about Roosevelt, but a quick look at Wikipedia doesn't show any southern influence.
We're not stupid enough to elect them. =)
hmm.... WI the Confederates manage to not quite win, but to inflict enough damage that they get a negotiated settlement, returning to the Union, but able to keep slavery intact and import it into western lands... does that meet the criteria?
If California seceded from the Union, would that count? It would be pretty difficult for the North to claim that the South could not secede if the West already had.
And there wasn't a railroad to the West in 1861, so the North couldn't do anything about it, except acknowledge that the West owned everything past the continental divide that we bought from Mexico after the Mexican American War.
Problem for the South is that the West was absolutely adamant about not importing slaves, period. So the slave population would increase, but cotton land wouldn't if the Arizona river basin stayed in Western hands. Which meant that the price of slaves would fall to the point where the slaves would have to be freed, as had happened in Brazil after sugar prices collapsed.
And there wasn't a railroad to the West in 1861, so the North couldn't do anything about it, except acknowledge that the West owned everything past the continental divide that we bought from Mexico after the Mexican American War.
Problem for the South is that the West was absolutely adamant about not importing slaves, period. So the slave population would increase, but cotton land wouldn't if the Arizona river basin stayed in Western hands. Which meant that the price of slaves would fall to the point where the slaves would have to be freed, as had happened in Brazil after sugar prices collapsed.
Mid-western culture has been very southern influenced in its development, which was what I was getting at. Teddy's exposure and influence in his times out west do give him a more "southern" tint than other New England politicians, though I will freely admit that I could and should have used better examples.
I think he is refering to the fact the Confederate government never surrendered. It was the Confederate ARMY that did. After Lee surrendered, Johnston followed suit and then Taylor surrendered with Kirby-Smith being the last one doing so. With no Confederate armies to fight the war with the legalities didn't matter.
Probably after 1900, maybe 1920. There is even a chance it would survive to this day. Legal slavery existed in parts of the world unitl the mid 20th century.
Mauritania made slavery illegal in 1980, I believe they where the last ones who outlawed it.
I also believe that Stand Waitie, the cherokee general was the last of the southern commanders that laid down their arms, but I might be wrong...
Point of Information: the Bush family is from Connecticut, not Massachusetts (or Texas or Florida, for that matter).
______________________________________________________
I would imagine the WI is looking for a scenario in which the CSA might be seen as the victor of the Civil War in some kind of ideological way. Here are some ideas:
1) The Union wins before 1862 and the USA retains slavery. Perhaps TTL's Civil War Amemendments enshrine greater protection for states' rights and/or the right to secede (implied by the necessity of supramajorities to allow it).
2) Alternatively, the Civil War plays out as per OTL, but subsequent events (probably a different Great Depression) somehow lead to a new successful secession movement (perhaps of California and the West).
______________________________________________________
I would imagine the WI is looking for a scenario in which the CSA might be seen as the victor of the Civil War in some kind of ideological way. Here are some ideas:
1) The Union wins before 1862 and the USA retains slavery. Perhaps TTL's Civil War Amemendments enshrine greater protection for states' rights and/or the right to secede (implied by the necessity of supramajorities to allow it).
2) Alternatively, the Civil War plays out as per OTL, but subsequent events (probably a different Great Depression) somehow lead to a new successful secession movement (perhaps of California and the West).
Cornelius Vanderbilt doesn't retake control of the Accessory Transit Company, thus William Walker manages to hang on to power in Nicaragua for a few years longer. When the ACW breaks out, Walker petitions for annexation to the CSA, which the Confederate Congress accepts.
The Union doesn't particularly bother with Nicaragua, having more important things to do with the federal army than send it to die of malaria. The USN does blockade Bluefields, however, after CS privateers are found using it as a port of call. This cripples the already weak Nicaraguan economy, and that coupled with Walker's increasingly authoritarian rule leads to a coup in 1862, followed by a hasty peace with Washington....So hasty, in fact, that they didn't have time to change the stationery, and thus historians later realize that the treaty was signed by "Tomas Martinez, Governor of the Confederate State of Nicaragua".
Thus, strictly speaking, the Confederacy won the U.S. Civil War, as the U.S. recognized the independence of a Confederate state.
The Union doesn't particularly bother with Nicaragua, having more important things to do with the federal army than send it to die of malaria. The USN does blockade Bluefields, however, after CS privateers are found using it as a port of call. This cripples the already weak Nicaraguan economy, and that coupled with Walker's increasingly authoritarian rule leads to a coup in 1862, followed by a hasty peace with Washington....So hasty, in fact, that they didn't have time to change the stationery, and thus historians later realize that the treaty was signed by "Tomas Martinez, Governor of the Confederate State of Nicaragua".
Thus, strictly speaking, the Confederacy won the U.S. Civil War, as the U.S. recognized the independence of a Confederate state.
Yes, the parts bordering the South such as Missouri would be somewhat Southern-influenced in its development. That doesn't speak for all of the Midwest, especially the Great Lakes area, and the part Roosevelt was in, the Dakotas (which some might say isn't even part of the Midwest), is not an example of what I'd use for Southern-influenced culture.
I'd say it gave him a more Western "tint" than other New England politicians.
Those who remind that there would have been just as many people to be butterflied into existence as there are people who would have got butterflied away. And who says there wouldn't be any Kennedy-esque and Bush-esque political families ITTL?