Was this really necessary?

[craig123]

Cant wait to see in the american civ's "tounge in cheek" entry

"Many Muslims know very little about the American fashion industry (it occupies the blind spot Muslims have for pretty much everything Above the ankles)."

 

[wolfigor]

I don't understand how under the United States of America it says we nearly self destructed in the 19th century. I think they are overplaying the civil war. Even if the North had lost, the United States would still exist today (with less states obviously).

What if no-one of the two sides ever won a complete victory?
De-facto no more USA as we know them today but two separate states... maybe even one of the two disintegrating a-la SSSR.

I think it could be arguably considered a fair statement that USA nearly self-destructed in the 19th century.

 

[Drakarska]

I'd have to agree, as there is a lot of variables in that particular time frame. Too bad I'm not a modder, because I think that would be one hell of a scenario. Let's see, you have the North/South, Mexico, Euro Powers to send aid based off their interests, maybe Canada during the hockey off season, and the Native Americans from the west. Lol, any modders wanna give that one a whirl?

 

[brianshapiro]

What if no-one of the two sides ever won a complete victory?
De-facto no more USA as we know them today but two separate states... maybe even one of the two disintegrating a-la SSSR.

I think it could be arguably considered a fair statement that USA nearly self-destructed in the 19th century.

Most likely what would have happened, imo anyway, is that the South would eventually have abolished slavery, and the southern and northern states would have found some way to reconcile

 

[The Almighty dF]

Most likely what would have happened, imo anyway, is that the South would eventually have abolished slavery, and the southern and northern states would have found some way to reconcile

This. The South was pretty doomed, since cotton was being replaced in foreign markets, leaving their economy (which was almost entirely cotton based, which was their main reason for even having slaves) in shambles.

 

[brianshapiro]

This. The South was pretty doomed, since cotton was being replaced in foreign markets, leaving their economy (which was almost entirely cotton based, which was their main reason for even having slaves) in shambles.

The majority of white southerners didn't own slaves either and didn't have any investment in the institution. At any indication that the slaves were taking jobs away from free white men there would have been a political issue.

The fact that Southerners felt that the North was trying to control them is what led poorer whites to defend it

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Yay above poster gets bonus points!

I hate to imagine the first and second world wars had the South been able to secede successfully.

 

[bhavv]

Well, I live in the UK, and I have never heard of the ottoman empire until Age of Empires and Civ began including them.

 

[Disgustipated]

Most likely what would have happened, imo anyway, is that the South would eventually have abolished slavery, and the southern and northern states would have found some way to reconcile

I really do think they would have grown more apart as the years went on. But in no way was the future of the U.S. in doubt. Worst case there is a cease fire and peace treaty. The CSA would have went on with their 11 states.

The U.S. would have went on as usual. Nevada (my state) was already made a state during the civil war. I'd imagine the other western states would have eventually have gained statehood as well. So you'd end up with 39 U.S. states and 11 CSA ones.

The real interesting question (I won't get into too much here as it's not the thread topic and more for the history forum) is how would future wars have ended up for the U.S. Like the Spanish-American war, WW1, and WW2. I'd imagine the south would have allied with the north for WW2 and possibly WW1. I'm not sure about the spanish-american war (that may not have happened at all)

 

[settlervstank]

I really do think they would have grown more apart as the years went on. But in no way was the future of the U.S. in doubt. Worst case there is a cease fire and peace treaty. The CSA would have went on with their 11 states.

The U.S. would have went on as usual. Nevada (my state) was already made a state during the civil war. I'd imagine the other western states would have eventually have gained statehood as well. So you'd end up with 39 U.S. states and 11 CSA ones.

The real interesting question (I won't get into too much here as it's not the thread topic and more for the history forum) is how would future wars have ended up for the U.S. Like the Spanish-American war, WW1, and WW2. I'd imagine the south would have allied with the north for WW2 and possibly WW1. I'm not sure about the spanish-american war (that may not have happened at all)

There was more to the Civil War than just slavery. It was about an argument that began when the United States of America was starting its modern government: state's rights vs. big government, and tarrifs. The north was on the big government side, and was the federal republic America is today. The south was on the state's rights side, and you already know it was a confederacy.

The other reason for the Civil war was to make an example to future states. If the United States allowed succession, would it exist for very long? No, it would not. Every time a state got angry, it would leave, weakening the existing nation. Eventually America would crumble altogether, and chaos would ensue.

 

[brianshapiro]

There was more to the Civil War than just slavery. It was about an argument that began when the United States of America was starting its modern government: state's rights vs. big government, and tarrifs. The north was on the big government side, and was the federal republic America is today. The south was on the state's rights side, and you already know it was a confederacy.

The other reason for the Civil war was to make an example to future states. If the United States allowed succession, would it exist for very long? No, it would not. Every time a state got angry, it would leave, weakening the existing nation. Eventually America would crumble altogether, and chaos would ensue.

More precisely, slavery was part of a larger issue. The North and the South felt like they were in an economic war with each other (slaves in cotton plantations vs. northern factory workers), and the South believed that the North was using the federal government as a tool against them, with things like tariffs. That's why the South came down on the side of states rights.

The second thing you talk about is why Lincoln didn't want to recognize the legitimacy of the secessions.

Its important to note though that the Civil War really started over the US not being willing to transfer its federal property -- forts -- to the Southern government. Lincoln's administration in private was discussing on a long term plan that would do that, but the South saw the immediate refusal to transfer the property as illegitimate, and that's why Fort Sumter was fired on.

In terms of immediate causes, the reason for the Civil War was not slavery, or states rights, or tariffs, it was conflict over the ownership of these forts.

 

[craig123]

Would anyone be able to recommend a good book on the American civil war? I must admit it's not something I know much about but reading the posts above it sounds like quite an interesting topic.

 

[Xetal]

Would anyone be able to recommend a good book on the American civil war? I must admit it's not something I know much about but reading the posts above it sounds like quite an interesting topic.

Start with a simple source like Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it will do a pretty good job to catch you up on the basics. If you're still interested after than then snag a book on the topic.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Would anyone be able to recommend a good book on the American civil war? I must admit it's not something I know much about but reading the posts above it sounds like quite an interesting topic.

The Ken Burns documentary "Civil War" is a must-watch. Still easily the second best documentary I've ever seen (first being Cosmos, because Carl Sagan.)