Kerry would have been elected president. :p All the southern states would be in the Confederacy and so Bush would have lost the electoral vote for the USA. ;)

What else do you think would be different if the Confederacy survived? I'm sure slavery would have died out eventually, although it would have taken a bit longer. Civil rights might still be an major issue in the CSA even now, though.

Civil rights ARE still a major issue in the southern states. However there are several other threads here on this topic. Definately the history would have been altere much. Germany and Russia supported the North, Britain and France the South so if the CSA remained independent ww1 would have been much different.

Adler

ww1 and ww2 would have been different because Confederetes would *maybe* support Central Powers/Axis, while Union supported Allies, so the Civil War would start up again.

Civil rights ARE still a major issue in the southern states. However there are several other threads here on this topic. Definately the history would have been altere much. Germany and Russia supported the North, Britain and France the South so if the CSA remained independent ww1 would have been much different.

Adler
Thats interesting. Do you think that the Europeans cared so much about the state of America that they would actually have different alliances that the ones we know of today? (I really don't know much about the European view/attitude towards the ACW).

i dont see how civil rights are still a major issue in the south.

john kerry would have been born in the CSA if the south won. which would exclude him from the running for the president.

John Kerry wouldn't be born if the CSA maintained independance

why wouldnt of john kerry been born?

ww1 and ww2 would have been different because Confederetes would *maybe* support Central Powers/Axis, while Union supported Allies, so the Civil War would start up again.


Actually, it would probably be more likely that the Union supported the Central powers/Axis and the Confederacy supported the allies.

Well, I think in that situation Germany would have fought another ww1. There would be no Hitler then. But I think the Union would have still be supported by Germany and perhaps also Russia. This would have made France and also Britian making allies with the South. An interesting situation.

Adler

If you're really interested in what would have happened, I recommend the books of Harry Turtledove, who wrote a series of alternate history novels on just this theme. ('The Great War', 'How few remain' and others).
Oh, and they're great reading, too... :D

If you're really interested in what would have happened, I recommend the books of Harry Turtledove, who wrote a series of alternate history novels on just this theme. ('The Great War', 'How few remain' and others).
Oh, and they're great reading, too... :D

Yep I just ead the victorious Opposition when WW2 has just started again (CSA + France and England vs Union and Germany).

why wouldnt of john kerry been born?Let's see history radically altered from time of like his great great grandparents, what's the probobility that they'll meet again and have sex and the sperm and egg with the same genome will meet each other? Really close to zero, now take that and raise it to the 15th power and you've got a really teeny weeny probobility.

The USA will wait 5 years for the peace treaty to run out before invading the CSA, occuping all the land and getting the contrymen again event.

Atleast that happens in Victoria

ww1 and ww2 would have been different because Confederetes would *maybe* support Central Powers/Axis, while Union supported Allies, so the Civil War would start up again.
I agree. The Confederates had in their "constitution" something like this:
"This state is based on the fact that the White Man is superior to all other races."

I strongly believe thay would have supported the Axis (at least the Germans).

Also, the "quote" above is why I get pissed every time I sees someone/something with a Confederation flag on them/it.

The Axis and Hitler were products of ww1. Indeed Germany supported in that time the US. Nevertheless a restarting of the civil war would have lead to ww1. And that end would be open...

Adler

I agree. The Confederates had in their "constitution" something like this:
"This state is based on the fact that the White Man is superior to all other races."

Here is the Confederate Constitution (http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/csa.constitution.html)

Please point out to me where it says this. Don't bother. It doesn't say anything like it. Some one has told you a big lie.

Also, the "quote" above is why I get pissed every time I sees someone/something with a Confederation flag on them/it.

How many Confederate flags do you see in Norway?

The whole Confederate flag demonizing is simply because the South has adopted it as symbol and unfortunately groups such as the KKK have used it (Not adopted it. The Reble flag is not the official symbol of the KKK.)

The American flag and many other nation's flags are much more stained than the confederate flag in more ways than one. Maybe you should consider that next time you see one.

Thanks for posting the Confederate Constitution, Bugfatty! Very interesting reading in parts...
You're quite right of course - there is no 'white supremacy' clause in it, which doesn't mean the authors didn't believe in it, though.

Interesting to note that the importation of slaves into the Confederacy was actually forbidden in their Constitution, though on the other hand, the right to hold slaves was protected.

To Terje and others it should be noted that displaying the Confederate flag does not necessarily mean that the displayer is a white supremacist or racist. It should be remembered that, in the Southern view, the Civil War was not primarily about slavery, but about States Rights vs. a central government. For many, the Confederate flag is therefore a symbol of defiance against authority itself, which is why even teenagers in Europe sometimes display them on their walls or non-Southern bikers wear them on their jackets.

BTW, I believe, as Harry Turtledove supposes in 'The Guns of the South', that a victorious Confederacy would sooner or later have been forced, by pressure from within and without, to abolish slavery, just as Brazil did at about the same time.

Indeed slavery was dying out so or another way. Within 20 years after a victorious CSA slavery would have been abolished. Nevertheless I think the partition of the US would have lead to another war a few years later. The US would have produced more guns to prepare for war. The South would have done the same but because of the lack of factories they would have looked for allies. Britain and France were such suitable allies. But with France on the side of the South and with a Prussia which made in 1852 a law that all slaves entering Prussian territory being free without any reparation to their former owners, Germany would have supported the US. Russia would have done the same.
Dragonlord, consider also that in Brazil emperor Pedro II. had to abdicate when his daughter abolished slavery. It was in 1889 IIRC BTW. Nevertheless the shisma between the CSA and USA would not have been solved by this.

Adler

Turtledove's theory was that Lee would stand for Presidency on a platform of removing slavery, but with much better compensation etc than actually happened after the real civil war.

As for the allies, I'm much less sure that Britain was as "pro-south" as it's usually suggested. I remember a quote somewhere which ran "Britain will enter the war and help us the moment we don't need them anymore". In fact if you read Turtledove's book on a war in the 1880s that is a prequel to the events in the WWI era books, you'll note that even in that the British only side with the south during the war when the south are marching on Washington. That's not to say that the British didn't associate more with the south, but as far as national policy went, it was not deemed wise for an anti-slavery Britain to side with a pro-slavery south against an anti-slavery North. Policy within the UK was also not entirely warm to the south in places either, a shipyard near me was banned from making ships for her and fined when she did so in secret for example. Because of this, even had the south won the war, I would find it unlikely that Britain would ally herself to her until slavery was abolished. Similar interests does not necessarily overcome political expediency after all. When the date of 1852 was mentioned, it's also to be noted that much earlier, the UK had abolished slavery. That was one of the reasons for the emancipation proclomation and making the war seem to be about Slavery. It gave Lincoln and the north the moral reason it needed to show the world that preventing the South leaving the union was legitimate. At the same time it prevented the British and French from siding with the south unless under extreme circumstances.

The book set in the 1880s offers the theory of war breaking out when Mexico sells land to the CSA that enables the latter to reach the pacific, something that the North were against. This in itself is not too far fetched to be fair. I'm lukewarm on Turtledove, I liked some of his works, but in the WWI series especially I feel he has tried too hard to tie events to history, ie when he brings the alternate history forward to the 1920s or 1930s he has a Hitler-like figure arise in the south and so on. I much preferred his World War in the balance series, at least there when his timeline and events changed, the "future" in the 1960s was considerably different also.

Here is the Confederate Constitution (http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/csa.constitution.html)

Please point out to me where it says this. Don't bother. It doesn't say anything like it. Some one has told you a big lie.



How many Confederate flags do you see in Norway?

The whole Confederate flag demonizing is simply because the South has adopted it as symbol and unfortunately groups such as the KKK have used it (Not adopted it. The Reble flag is not the official symbol of the KKK.)

The American flag and many other nation's flags are much more stained than the confederate flag in more ways than one. Maybe you should consider that next time you see one.
Thanks for correcting me, I must have remembered wrongly...
I'll try to see if I can find the book I read it in, and check where it really came from; I just remembered that it was a World History book, in the chapter about the American Civil War, and that it was somehow connected to the Confederates...

Turtledove's theory was that Lee would stand for Presidency on a platform of removing slavery, but with much better compensation etc than actually happened after the real civil war.

..... I'm lukewarm on Turtledove, I liked some of his works, but in the WWI series especially I feel he has tried too hard to tie events to history, ie when he brings the alternate history forward to the 1920s or 1930s he has a Hitler-like figure arise in the south and so on. I much preferred his World War in the balance series, at least there when his timeline and events changed, the "future" in the 1960s was considerably different also.

[offtopic] I totally agree on all counts: Guns of the South was absolutely great, and so are the 'Worldwar: In the Balance' series + the sequel 'Colonization' series (in fact, I'm rereading the whole series just now for the umpteenth time :D ). The Great War series, however, is of much lesser quality - I read them once and they were OK, but once was definitely enough.

I feel Turtledove does best when blending SF and alternate history: In Guns of the South he has South African white supremacists going back through time and supplying the south with AK47s, in the Worldwar series he has alien invaders landing in the middle of WWII. (sounds hackneyed, but it isn't - the aliens are 'people' too, not stereotypes).
After you've once bought the premises (SF, as I said), the rest of the story is well thought out and absolutely believable.
When he tries 'pure' alternate history, he obviously tries too hard to stick to the real history line and the stories suffer for it. [offtopic]

Back on topic: Yes Adler, Brazil repealed slavery later than the Civil War, but I meant that the Confederacy would probably have had to repeal slavery at about the same time - it's impossible for me to imagine they could have kept their 'peculiar institution' beyond the turn of the century at the latest.

For many, the Confederate flag is therefore a symbol of defiance against authority itself, which is why even teenagers in Europe sometimes display them on their walls or non-Southern bikers wear them on their jackets.


You mostly see the Confederate flag in Europe since here we somehow connect it with Rockabilly/Rock'n'Roll, 'Teddies' and US Cars. Was a lot more frequent during the late Eighties/early Ninetees, when Psychobilly or Rockabilly bands like the 'Stray Cats' were quite successful and even more influential...even 'Die Ärzte' adapted much from them.
But like most Youth Cultures, there is zero political meaning put in the flag (Mods aren't GB fans, Rastafaris don't won't to live in Jamaica, and Punks are no Pirates ;) )