What If: the South had won the Civil War?

[bigred]

ie either by military victory or a "tie" via attrition....

Three schools of thought that I can think of:

- Sooner or later in the near-term after that we would have gone back to war and sooner or later the North would win due to superior resources. So timeframes would change somewhat but Reconstruction, etc etc all would have panned out more or less the same.

- No 2d war but technology would eventually replace slaves and so changes in attitudes and the situation in general (over more time however) ie they would have gone free eventually anyway and "re-unification" happens as the country (and world) continued to shrink.

- We would have "2 Americas" for numerous decades after that and perhaps to this day (even tho the South might not look too much different today).

 

[Crossbow]

Anyone else see the movie The Confederate States of America?

It gives one a rather good idea of what the CSA was planning during the post-war period.

 

[Madalch]

- We would have "2 Americas" for numerous decades after that and perhaps to this day (even tho the South might not look too much different today).

Only 2? I think once the country started to split, it would have continued. Texas, at least, would have struck out on its own, and I'm sure it wouldn't have stopped there.

Also, the Alaska purchase propbably wouldn't have happened, so the two main threats impelling the confederation of Canada wouldn't occur (B.C. was surrounded by USA territory after Alaska was purchased, which made a lot of people wonder if it was being ogled, and after the Civil War, the USA had a large, experienced army with nobody to invade- something that also worried us).

 

[TragicMonkey]

If the South had won, both bits would have been taken back by the British within two generations, and then eventually it'd be like Canada, independent but kinda British in theory.

 

[bigred]

If the South had won, both bits would have been taken back by the British within two generations, and then eventually it'd be like Canada, independent but kinda British in theory.

oh phooey.

 

[Spindrift]

If the South had won, both bits would have been taken back by the British within two generations, and then eventually it'd be like Canada, independent but kinda British in theory.

I disagree.

Even if the North lost or gave up, they would still have the ability to produce massive amounts of arms and they still had lots of people. If the British attacked either one, I think the other would have come to their aid.

 

[Curnir]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345406141/${0}

Now this is a H. Turtledove series.

Havn't read it yet.

 

[Phillybee]

If the South had won, both bits would have been taken back by the British within two generations, and then eventually it'd be like Canada, independent but kinda British in theory.

I believe that situation would have, even if temporarily, reunited the CSA and the Union. I'm not sure if the combined 'States' would have won after the schism in the short term. I think an external conflict would have melted the issues of Federalism temporarily, leading to a unified country, and independence in the long term.

 

[bigred]

I believe that situation would have, even if temporarily, reunited the CSA and the Union. I'm not sure if the combined 'States' would have won after the schism in the short term. I think an external conflict would have melted the issues of Federalism temporarily, leading to a unified country, and independence in the long term.

Not to mention the fact that Britian would have lost anyway, and I don't think they would have been that stupid....it would make much more sense to ally themselves with one side or the other (or remain essentially neutral and form alliances with both sides, if possible).

 

[Kaylee]

- No 2d war but technology would eventually replace slaves and so changes in attitudes and the situation in general (over more time however) ie they would have gone free eventually anyway and "re-unification" happens as the country (and world) continued to shrink.

I don't think that would have happened. The South's pre-Civil War hierarchy consisted of farmers who only had 1 or 2 slaves, many poor whites (including ones without land), and at the bottom slaves, in addition to the few extremely wealthy plantation owners.

I've always considered it a good example of socialization and indoctrination that the Southern plantation owners, who were few in numbers, were able to successfully persuade the other Southerners to go to war. The way their economy was set up (compared to free societies), going to war really wasn't in the non-plantation owners interest, but their egos were probably well fed by seeing how much better off they were compared to the slaves.

To maintain this hierarchy, I think the plantation owners would have needed to maintain slavery even after society had completed the advances in the sciences and had mastered the engineering needed to automate manufacturing. I don't believe that the Industrial Revolution that occurred in the free societies would have occurred to the same extent in the non-free societies*. But even if it had, society can always absorb indigent workers if there is no political pressure (labor unions, etc.) to insure that they have a greater share of society's wealth. For example we've had sharecroppers, and migrant workers are still a fact of life in the States today.

If the South had won the Civil War (or the War For Southern Independence -- the winner gets to choose the name ), I think the only thing that would have ended slavery would have been foreign pressure, similar to what was necesary to end apartheid in South Africa.

Southern Social Hierarchy

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/precivilwar/section7.rhtml
As the North became increasingly democratic, the South continued to adhere to the old, almost feudal social order. At the top were a select few, extremely wealthy, white plantation owners who controlled the southern legislatures and represented the South in Congress. Then came the farmers who owned one or two slaves, followed by the poor and sometimes landless whites. Black slaves were confined to the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Though slaves did the bulk of the manual labor on the largest cotton plantations, not all whites owned slaves. In fact, only about one in four southern males owned slaves in the 1850s, and those men usually owned only one or two slaves. Most southern whites were poor subsistence farmers who grew food only for their own use.

* Note: Did the industrial revolution occur in the Ottoman Empire, colonial India, Empiral China and Japan? IANAHP (I'm not a history professor), but I don't think so.

 

[bigred]

I think the plantation owners would have needed to maintain slavery even after society had completed the advances in the sciences and had mastered the engineering needed to automate manufacturing. I don't believe that the Industrial Revolution that occurred in the free societies would have occurred to the same extent in the non-free societies.

Oh absolutely it would have - when is the debatable part. But it was mostly greed that drove the cotton farmers, and once they saw they could produce more cotton far more cheaply and with far fewer headaches vs keeping slaves, slaves (at least in the field) would have become obsolete. "House slaves" would have held on longer.

 

[Kaylee]

Oh absolutely it would have - when is the debatable part. But it was mostly greed that drove the cotton farmers, and once they saw they could produce more cotton far more cheaply and with far fewer headaches vs keeping slaves, slaves (at least in the field) would have become obsolete. "House slaves" would have held on longer.

It seems to me that the plantation owners were not driven entirely by logic -- otherwise for one thing they could have teamed up and invested in their own factory/ies and made even more money. Instead, if my understanding is correct, they were content to just sell their raw cotton and other farm goods.

So while I suppose its possible that they might have started using tractors and other machinery when they started becoming available (about 55 years after the Civil War), I still think they wouldn't have voluntarily given slavery up. Instead of hiring help (including migrant workers), they would have continued to use slaves. If enough of the slaves were also given adequate medical care perhaps they may have felt the need to start adding birth control to most of their female slaves food most of the time.

FWIW, I also think that more of the whites that were craftsmen or landless would have emigrated out of the Confederacy because it would have been too difficult for them to compete in a slave-based economy. In the South, the free craftsmen competed against slave labor who were not only used in agriculture but also in all the crafts. Their owners would hire them out when they didn't need their services directly.

There's no way to know for sure, because fortunately the North won the war, but I still think the only thing that would have ended slavery if the South had won is international foreign pressure.

 

[TragicMonkey]

There's no way to know for sure, because fortunately the North won the war, but I still think the only thing that would have ended slavery if the South had won is international foreign pressure.

What about a slave rebellion? If the South had won the war, they would still have been stretched very thin for a long time. Heavy losses, lost production, economic woes. The time would have been ripe for rebellion, and the Union could either help out or at least take advantage of the distraction to renew the fight. Or they might have decided to fight to put down the rebellion and turned it into a race war.

My point is that there is a more obvious way to end slavery than gradual emanicipation and foreign disapproval. Worked for Haiti.

 

[Kaylee]

What about a slave rebellion?

Why didn't I think of that? TM, I think you're right. It would have been a good time and they may have suceeded. I seem to recall vaguely one theory as to why the slave rebellions in the South didn't work (unlike in Haiti) was because the USA slaves were spread much further apart and therefore it was more difficult for them to organize themselves. * However, as you suggest in an alternative timeline where the South won the war but was very weakened by their victory, the slaves may have had a better chance.

Anyway in a scenario where the blacks sucessfully rebelled I assume they would have allied themselves with American Indians such as the Seminoles, who had been relocated to the FL Everglades by the USA govt. I think there is one at least one history book that says the federal govt was concerned about an alliance between the Indians and the blacks (mainly escaped slaves) -- don't recall the name though.

I think the North would have assisted the South in that situation, because they would not want to see any situation that helped any Indian tribe become more powerful as we were very interested in expanding the country's borders into the West at that time. What would have happened after that....hmm, I'm going to have to take some time to consider it.


* Also, I wonder if the Haitians were less harsh in their laws concerning literacy (it was illegal to teach blacks to read in most Southern states (possilby all?) ) and curfews/passes.

 

[Solus]

ie either by military victory or a "tie" via attrition....

Three schools of thought that I can think of:

- Sooner or later in the near-term after that we would have gone back to war and sooner or later the North would win due to superior resources. So timeframes would change somewhat but Reconstruction, etc etc all would have panned out more or less the same.

- No 2d war but technology would eventually replace slaves and so changes in attitudes and the situation in general (over more time however) ie they would have gone free eventually anyway and "re-unification" happens as the country (and world) continued to shrink.

- We would have "2 Americas" for numerous decades after that and perhaps to this day (even tho the South might not look too much different today).

A terrible writer named Turtledove would have to write about another subject?

 

[Dave1001]

ie either by military victory or a "tie" via attrition....

Three schools of thought that I can think of:

- Sooner or later in the near-term after that we would have gone back to war and sooner or later the North would win due to superior resources. So timeframes would change somewhat but Reconstruction, etc etc all would have panned out more or less the same.

- No 2d war but technology would eventually replace slaves and so changes in attitudes and the situation in general (over more time however) ie they would have gone free eventually anyway and "re-unification" happens as the country (and world) continued to shrink.

- We would have "2 Americas" for numerous decades after that and perhaps to this day (even tho the South might not look too much different today).

I can't see an outright victory by the South, but I can see a war of attrition. I wonder how close we came to that.

 

[bigred]

What about a slave rebellion?

No freakin way IMO.

If the South had won the war, they would still have been stretched very thin for a long time. Heavy losses, lost production, economic woes.

Although in better shape, the North would have had those problems too. Also you don't take into account how incredibly tired of war both sides had become. The LAST thing either side would want is to mess with another "war" (or whatever you care to call it) of any kind - even including the North trying to help the slaves rebel, which is doomed unless basically the North starts up Civil War Part II as the slaves weren't organized/equipped enough (or to be honest smart enough) to begin to start any serious rebellion with any staying power.

Worked for Haiti.

Which is meaningless, frankly, since those are 2 totally different situations/countries/etc.

 

[Metullus]

Well, one thing's for sure - the valuables that my great-great grandmother hid from the yankees...

 

[Kaylee]

Well, I thought about it a little more, and it seems to me the only scenario where the South could have won the war is if the British royalty had actively supported them and not just merely sympathized. IIRC, the only reason they didn't is because the British people did not want to compete with slave labor and so were in favor of the North even though many people lost their factory jobs because the North blockaded the South and prevented cotton from being exported. Even though the British Royalty had the power to do what they wished, they apparently did not want to risk going against their nation's sensibilities.

However if the British had joined the war as the South's ally, and had done so early in the War, than I think the South and British would have won very decisively. In that scenario I don't think there would have been a successful slave rebellion and I also think the North would have been saddled with a crippling debt as part of the peace terms and that would have had an impoverishing effect for the States for years to come. No Spanish American war, less of a player in the World Wars, less money for R&D, no satellites in space and no trip to the moon.

BTW, no Spanish American War means Puerto Rico never becomes part of the USA. Perhaps some of the Western Territories instead of becoming USA states would have become independent countries or affiliated with Canada -- or the British? I'm not familiar enough with Canadian history to know if the British would have voluntarily let the Canadians stop being a colony around 1870 if the South had won the war and the USA would have ended up being a much weaker country.

Side note re Haiti: Per the Wikipedia article on the Haitian Rebellion, the slave rebellion is the only time in world history that a slave rebellion had succeeded. I thought that was an absolutely amazing fact, but I guess it's an extremely difficult thing to do.

However, apparently the Haitians did not win decisively. As part of the peace terms they were saddled with a crippling debt to the French and the former slave owners. In today's terms it was roughly 21 Billion dollars and is considered by historians to be the main reason why Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world today.

 

[Dave1001]

It would have been interesting if Southern-style slavery persisted into modern cloning/reproductive selection technology in America.

 

[Kaylee]

It would have been interesting if Southern-style slavery persisted into modern cloning/reproductive selection technology in America.

Hmmm. Let's see the South, with the help of the British, won the war. Another side effect is that not only do most free blacks never get the vote (only 4 states in the North allowed free blacks to vote right before the Civil War), and that women never get the vote either. Most govts in the world are communist, fascist, or monarchies albeit some monarchies rule with a parliament. Democracy never really takes off to the same extent as it has in our time line.

In the late 1800s many wealthier people believed that some people were more "human" than others. For example, many believed that the serfs in Eastern Europe were subhuman and it was perfectly appropriate to treat them the way they were treated. In this alternate timeline I believe that this belief would have persisted in many societies.

In this alternative time line, some plantation owners would have decided to enter the human organs supply industry when the medical technology made it possible. This kicks off a deep revulsion among some parties and the South faces embargoes and foreign international pressure to free their slaves. Or perhaps, instead, some govts (communist govts?) use that as a pretext to help the slaves rebel offering them arms and training in guerilla warfare.

ETA: I just reread the thread from the beginning, and again I find myself agreeing with TM. I think that in many scenarios the British would have tried to regain political control over the USA.

I'm going to slightly revise my alternative timeline. I think that the British would have made it a condition of their entering the war formerly as an ally of the South that the South agree to be part of the United Kingdom. However, the South would not have reentered with the status of a colony, but would have had the status of Canada and also had a Governor General appointed by the British Monarch. This position would have possibly evolved to be less ceremonial in nature then it did in Canada in our current timeline.

Depending upon how badly the British and the South defeated the North, they may have forced the North back into colonial status. In this hypothetical timeline, it would have been wiser to give the North a similar status given to the South to increase the chance of future peaceful coexistence. However this would have been a very Lincolnesque thing to do, and the world has not known many Abraham Lincolns.

 

[The Don]

The British had already banned slavery. Support for the South could have been contingent on them doing likewise

 

[Kaylee]

True and that combined with the fact that most of the British citizens (although not the Royalty) supported the North is probably one of the reasons why this alternative timeline where the British allied with the South never played out.

Came close though, the Yankees stopped a British ship, the Trent, and removed two Confederate diplomates on their way to England. Only an apology from President Lincoln and a release of the prisoners prevented the British from entering the war at that point.

Another reason why the British probably stayed out of the war is because only a strong North prevented the French from taking over Mexico as a puppet state.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm

 

[Darth Rotor]

I can't see an outright victory by the South, but I can see a war of attrition. I wonder how close we came to that.

Petersburg.

DR

 

[brodski]

The British had already banned slavery. Support for the South could have been contingent on them doing likewise

The British favoured the South over the North, selling arms to the South.
The UK was forced to pay compensation to the USA after to the war.

On the other hand, during the war there where strikes in Lancashire where textile workers refused to process Confederate cotton in the mills, so it would be unlikely that the British Government would be politically able to sustain an alliance with the south unless slavery was abolished.

 

[Kaylee]

The British favoured the South over the North, selling arms to the South.
The UK was forced to pay compensation to the USA after to the war.

On the other hand, during the war there where strikes in Lancashire where textile workers refused to process Confederate cotton in the mills, so it would be unlikely that the British Government would be politically able to sustain an alliance with the south unless slavery was abolished.

Yes, as I posted earlier the British Royalty favored the South, but most of the British population favored the North.

So I'm curious, was the British Govt selling arms to the South, or were some private English businessmen doing so with the silent blessing of the British Royalty?

Also, considering that the British was such an extremely powerful nation, I'd like to read about how the USA managed to get the UK to pay compensation -- any links?

 

[scottmsg]

Yes, as I posted earlier the British Royalty favored the South, but most of the British population favored the North.

So I'm curious, was the British Govt selling arms to the South, or were some private English businessmen doing so with the silent blessing of the British Royalty?

Also, considering that the British was such an extremely powerful nation, I'd like to read about how the USA managed to get the UK to pay compensation -- any links?

The Alabama Claims. An international tribunal consisting of representatives from the US, UK, Brazil, Italy and Switzerland decided the claim which ended up at around $15,500,000. Some people in the US, however, wanted Canada as compensation.

www state gov/r/pa/ho/time/cw/17610.htm

 

[Kaylee]

The Alabama Claims. An international tribunal consisting of representatives from the US, UK, Brazil, Italy and Switzerland decided the claim which ended up at around $15,500,000. Some people in the US, however, wanted Canada as compensation.

www state gov/r/pa/ho/time/cw/17610.htm

Thanks for the link scottmsg.

Sometimes I wonder why relations between the USA and Canada are so good -- its a good thing Canada doesn't hold grudges!

Anyway I find this interesting for two reasons:
1) The British govt was held responsible for private businessmen's actions.

2) The Alabama Claims Tribunal seems to be an early (and successful) attempt at being a League of Nations or United Nations.

 

[Godmode]

What about a slave rebellion? If the South had won the war, they would still have been stretched very thin for a long time. Heavy losses, lost production, economic woes. The time would have been ripe for rebellion, and the Union could either help out or at least take advantage of the distraction to renew the fight. Or they might have decided to fight to put down the rebellion and turned it into a race war.

My point is that there is a more obvious way to end slavery than gradual emanicipation and foreign disapproval. Worked for Haiti.

Ironically, a successful slave rebellion might perhaps have had a positive influence on black self image, and perhaps as a group they'd be better off today then they are. Perhaps in the end, we'd live more peacefully together, with more respect?? Maybe the entire US would have gotten stronger as a result?

 

[Kaylee]

Hmm, I was hoping someone more knowledgeable than me would jump in here.

Define successful slave rebellion? Complete takeover of government like in Haiti? Only happened once in world history and even then not that successfully. Haiti got saddled with a $21 Billion dollar debt in today's dollars that has left them impoverished to this day.

I tried to get more info about the period than the basic facts, but after a certain point the only sites that came up were sites where you have to pay to read the articles and I didn't feel like forking over my credit card number.

So I couldn't get the exact numbers but some black people "passed", others escaped either to Canada, the North, or to relatively inaccessible areas in the South. Others assimilated into Indian tribes. There were rebellions; enough that it seems to me that the wealthy people in the South had to preserve their place in society by the use of very harsh and quasi-military measures. Slavery was enforced by the use of curfews, passes, harsh punishments up to and including death, turnover/transfers (through periodic selling and buying of slaves) that would serve to breakup alliances including ones of family. Laws that tried to enforce illiteracy. Many slaves were ill-fed, I assume intenstionally, which caused malnutrition and poor health including in children. Yet the era produced people like Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, and Sojourner Truth whose names are still known in our time. Shortly after the civil war the black community was strong enough to create their own schools and colleges.

So all things considered, I don't think that’s a bad record.

What I find interesting about history is that the same problems and stupid justifications show up in every corner of the world. Many people justified enslaving blacks in the 1800s. Many people justified the institution of serfdom (which enslaved white people with the difference of attaching them permanently to the land) in Eastern Europe for similar reasons.

I could go on, but I have to run.

I will just will add that although this is slightly off topic, I think Elizabeth Janeway's book "Improper Behavior: When and How Misconduct Can Be Healthy for Society" is excellent. I stumbled across it accidentally in the library years ago. She gives sociological explanations as to why society is organized the way it is. She touches across slavery (including back to Roman times) and the reasons for poverty. It's out of print and I keep meaning to buy a copy while its still possible to do so.

 

[Dave1001]

So I couldn't get the exact numbers but some black people "passed"

Aren't we talking here about people of mostly European heritage, with some black/african admixture?

 

[Kaylee]

but some black people "passed",

Aren't we talking here about people of mostly European heritage, with some black/african admixture?

Yes, but legally in the South they were considered black -- I think it was called the one drop rule or something like that.

Also if their mother had slave status, they were automatically considered slaves.

You didn't know that? I thought it was still common knowledge.

 

[chris epic]

If the South maintained its independance- maybe it would be similar to South Africa- and they would have had an issue of Aparthied until the early 90s?

 

[Ian Osborne]

If the South maintained its independance- maybe it would be similar to South Africa- and they would have had an issue of Aparthied until the early 90s?

I've seen it argued that the absence of a divisive, destructive war would've seen the former slaves achieve political and social equality sooner rather than later.

 

[CptColumbo]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345406141/${0}

Now this is a H. Turtledove series.

Havn't read it yet.

I've read all the books (10 so far), and for the most part they've been good. Turtledove apparently is more interested in paralleling WWII on the North American continent than examaning what the CSA would be like. I do believe that his idea that while slavery would end, the former slaves would not be citizens is probably correct.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345406141/${0}

Now this is a H. Turtledove series.

Havn't read it yet.

Turtledove did a masterly job in weaving a "what if" about this scenario. I love the entire series that he wrote, up to and including the current one "Settling Accounts".

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

I've read all the books (10 so far), and for the most part they've been good. Turtledove apparently is more interested in paralleling WWII on the North American continent than examaning what the CSA would be like. I do believe that his idea that while slavery would end, the former slaves would not be citizens is probably correct.

Yeah I would agree with that. I do get the impression that "Settling Accounts" was more about shoe horning the war in the US to fit the template of WWII than it was about exploring the CSA.

But it is an interesting read for all that.

 

[bigred]

Yes, but legally in the South they were considered black -- I think it was called the one drop rule or something like that.

Also if their mother had slave status, they were automatically considered slaves.

You didn't know that? I thought it was still common knowledge.

...and still common belief. ie if you're 75% black, you're black - if you're 50% black, you're black - if you're 2% black, you're black (etc)

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Hmmm. Let's see the South, with the help of the British, won the war. Another side effect is that not only do most free blacks never get the vote (only 4 states in the North allowed free blacks to vote right before the Civil War), and that women never get the vote either. Most govts in the world are communist, fascist, or monarchies albeit some monarchies rule with a parliament. Democracy never really takes off to the same extent as it has in our time line.

Not sure I agree with your concept here. At the time of the American Civil War Britain was a parliamentary democracy - you mentioned "albeit" but I think you are overestimating the "monarchy" and underestimating the parliament.

As Britain was the leading colonial and industrial power from the mid 19th century until the beginning of the 20th I think you are overestimating the influence of the USA/CSA in world affairs - even if the result had been different. Would an alliance with the South have changed British politics? I doubt it. I also doubt whether there could have been any alliance with the South, the anti-slavery stance in the UK was more universal than it is being given credit for.

In this alternative time line, some plantation owners would have decided to enter the human organs supply industry when the medical technology made it possible. This kicks off a deep revulsion among some parties and the South faces embargoes and foreign international pressure to free their slaves. Or perhaps, instead, some govts (communist govts?) use that as a pretext to help the slaves rebel offering them arms and training in guerilla warfare.

a grotesque but insightful comment Shera - I have no doubt that your speculation here is definitely feasible - after all it is just one more step on the "chattel" theory.

ETA: I just reread the thread from the beginning, and again I find myself agreeing with TM. I think that in many scenarios the British would have tried to regain political control over the USA.

England was busy establishing an Empire in India at the time, the wisdom of gathering colonies and expanding colonial rule was being called into question. I am not sure that Britain would have been looking to exert political control of one half of a rebellious continent.

I'm going to slightly revise my alternative timeline. I think that the British would have made it a condition of their entering the war formerly as an ally of the South that the South agree to be part of the United Kingdom. However, the South would not have reentered with the status of a colony, but would have had the status of Canada and also had a Governor General appointed by the British Monarch. This position would have possibly evolved to be less ceremonial in nature then it did in Canada in our current timeline.

It's an interesting line of speculation, however I don't see that the CSA - who were busy fighting a war of independence would end up becoming a dominion of the country there forefathers had seized independence from.

Depending upon how badly the British and the South defeated the North, they may have forced the North back into colonial status. In this hypothetical timeline, it would have been wiser to give the North a similar status given to the South to increase the chance of future peaceful coexistence. However this would have been a very Lincolnesque thing to do, and the world has not known many Abraham Lincolns.

Hmm. In the 1860's the only real military help the British could offer would have been Naval. They definitely could have busted the blockade of the CSA. I don't think they could have intervened on the ground to any great extent.

From a "war aims" view the best result for Britain would have been a successful secession resulting in two smaller countries, unlikely to form some sort of bloc and both much less powerful than the UNited States became.


One thing I have often wondered - especially after readin Turtledove's books - what if the war didn't happen? O,r what if Lee had accepted command in the US Army?

 

[Smidge]

I'm intrigued as to the title of this thread. I believed (perhaps wrongly) that there is an 'in-joke' amongst some in the US regarding the belief that the American Civil War was between North and South. Likewise, those who answer 'The North' to the question 'Who won the American Civil War?' are not considered to be the smartest cookies in the biscuit barrel.

So, as I understand it from my over-the-other-side-of-the-Atlantic location, the American Civil War was not a simple North vs South divide and victory/loss; it was more complicated and a war between The Union and The Confederacy. Isn’t it more than a little simplistic (and possibly ignorant) to say that the war was between North and South? Anyhoo,… I thought the thread should have been titled ‘What if The Confederates won the American Civil War?’

When I find my feet in the forum I may be brave enough to invite comments in another thread as to why Ireland did not become Protestant. The English really, really, REALLY tried its best to make the island of Ireland Protestant and therefore loyal to the Crown through various devious/clever schemes. I’ll wait awhile on this one not only cos I’m new but also because I think the vast majority of mems are American and may not be interested in such topics.