What would the world be like without Abe Lincoln?

[Helix]

I'm interested to see how some of you think America and the world would've turned out if we didn't have Abe Lincoln. Would we still have had a Civil War? Would we have split into north and south for good? Would we be a superpower today?

Also, if you want add someone else, like Hitler, Einstein, Jesus, etc..., feel free.

This is meant as a fun "what if" type game, but also helps to concentrate on just how much of an influence certain people have.

this is a great question. after everyone discusses this, i might start a thread called "what if World War One had never happened?"

 

[beefheart]

I'm interested to see how some of you think America and the world would've turned out if we didn't have Abe Lincoln. Would we still have had a Civil War? Would we have split into north and south for good? Would we be a superpower today?

Also, if you want add someone else, like Hitler, Einstein, Jesus, etc..., feel free.

This is meant as a fun "what if" type game, but also helps to concentrate on just how much of an influence certain people have.

Darwin would be on the 5 dollar bill, both born on the same day, same year.

 

[beerftw]

False, Jim Crow was created as an attempt to recreate and preserve as much as the pre war Southern society, specifically to preserve as much of the system of slavery as possible. Reconstruction was hardly "oppressive" unless you were John Wesley Hardin and infuriated by being arrested by African Americans.

Are you ****ing kidding? The South was deeply racist well before Reconstruction. They clung to slavery longer than anyone except Brazil in the West. They routinely committed atrocities against African American US troops and during the invasions of the north enslaved any African Americans they came across. Arguing that Reconstruction was what caused racism in the south is like arguing the First World War was responsible for anti semitism in Russia.

The south already hated the North. The North had just crushed the Confederacy. The South was treated far better than they had any right to expect.

Yes, and before and during the war African American families were broken up and sold apart if it was "profitable"; African American women were raped with impunity; African Americans were routinely viciously beaten unjustly; African Americans could be tortured, mutilated or murdered without fear of reprisal; it just goes on and on and on.

All that got Lincoln was a bullet. He extended forgiveness to people who didn't believe they had done anything wrong in brutally oppressing African Americans, and it ended up costing him his life.

The war started because the South was desperate to preserve slavery no matter the cost--- and it caught up to them.

If you do not consider reconstruction oppressive, you must live in some alternate universe where oppression is love. The south had it's representation stripped away, nothernors shipped there to vote on their behalf, attempts at destroying their heritage, and complete economic destruction.

So it would not be bad if the south had won and had soldiers holding guns to your head, taking away your representation, and shipping in southernors to represent you fully knowing they do not represent you at all? You seem to still live in some alternate universe where oppression is good and freedom and respect and dignity are bad.

 

[RAMOSS]

I had little to do with them not wanting to live with them and everything to do with economics, slavery was the backbone of the southern economy ever since the cotton gin, the other backbone was trade, which tariffs hurt. In 1848 the south almost secceeded without slavery being an issue but over tariffs, but in that case it got solved diplomatically, and tariffs were agreed to be rolled back. Lincoln wanted to re instate those tariffs plus was from the abolishist party, for the south they were afraid the only two pillars holding up their economy were going to be taken from them.


Problem is though the south over reacted, lincoln was actually very pragmatic, and even during the civil war lincoln and his vp never planned to just free the slaves right away, but rather an over time buyback of slaves that would have allowed the south time to transition their economy. Lincoln was also very easy at re admitting southern states back to the union and opposed reconstruction while northern republicans supported reconstruction. Lincoln had enough sense to know that oppressing the people of the south for losing the war would cause them to rebel even more, and he was right, though it was not with armies, but rather against blacks, against republicans(atleast then) and against northernors.

The penalties against Germany in WWI seemed to be a motivation for WW2

 

[justabubba]

I'm interested to see how some of you think America and the world would've turned out if we didn't have Abe Lincoln. Would we still have had a Civil War? Would we have split into north and south for good? Would we be a superpower today?

Also, if you want add someone else, like Hitler, Einstein, Jesus, etc..., feel free.

This is meant as a fun "what if" type game, but also helps to concentrate on just how much of an influence certain people have.

i would prefer to contemplate whether Jim Crow could have existed had andrew johnson not survived impeachment by that one vote
but it's your thread and your what-if; here is my speculation

douglas would have won had he not been contested by someone of Lincoln's great talents. douglas won his share of the famous debates
Lincoln, a old school whig, was essential to consolidating the economy-focused whigs with the abolitionist republicans. i do not recognize anyone else on the political stage at that time who could have received the support of both wings of the eventually consolidated party

Lincoln's election was the fuse which lit the war. the south would not have shot that cannon in the face of a douglas administration. when Lincoln took office, he proposed to fairly compensate all slave holders from the federal treasury for the loss of their slaves at the government's hand. the republicans insisted that the country could not afford such a cost while Lincoln correctly pointed to the costs of war in its infancy and noted that the consideration paid for slaves would be consumed in the expense of a few week's war
even at this late date, Lincoln still recognized blacks to be an inferior species, not to be expected to co-mingle with whites, and he proposed to settle those former slaves in liberia and/or latin america
the counter proposal, which Lincoln rejected, was to end legal slavery by 1920; which proposal was amended to 1890, and was still rejected
under a president douglas, i believe each new state would have been able to decide for itself whether to be abolitionist or slave holding
and slavery would have continued until world opinion eventually forced its end. suspect the granting of civil rights to all would have been similarly delayed
you may be aware that Lincoln had to sneak into DC prior to his first inauguration because of an intercepted plan to kidnap him
had that plan been successful, i believe the south would not have lost the war. a former slaveholder from tennessee, johnson, was not going to pursue an unconditional victory against his native south like someone of Lincoln's mettle
while Lincoln was not trained in military matters, he immediately immersed himself in the study of war, strategy, and tactics. Lincoln truly was the commander in chief of the military soon after the war was begun. once Lincoln finally realized that mcclellan's amassed army of the potomac was used for nothing more than the general's personal protection, he began making key decisions which eventually turned defeat into victory. something i doubt would have resulted under another president
and today, we would not be one nation under G_d

 

[Xelor]

While the Civil War all but consumed Abraham Lincoln’spresidency, it did not account for all United States military actionin those years. The 1860s also witnessed the beginning of theIndian Wars on the western frontier. Of these militaryengagements, Lincoln had the most direct involvement with theMinnesota Dakota War (sometimes called the Great SiouxUprising or Little Crow’s War). By the summer of 1862, theSantee Sioux of Minnesota (hereinafter “Dakota”) had ceded mostof their land to the United States in exchange for a narrow strip ofland along the Minnesota River and the promise of annuitypayments. But several years of drought and crop failures, corruptIndian agents who cheated them out of their annuities, andmounting frustration over their vanishing way of life, became toomuch for many Dakota. On August 17, 1862, a group of teenagedDakota boys murdered five settlers just outside of Acton,Minnesota. Fearful of white retaliation, the Dakota Council votedfor war, and the next morning several bands of Dakota warriors, led by Little Crow, attacked white settlement towns, killing,raping, and plundering indiscriminately.

Lincoln assigned General John Pope, fresh from a startlingdefeat at the Second Battle of Bull Run, to put down the uprising.Pope saw the assignment as an opportunity to regain his reputationand vowed to “utterly exterminate the Sioux…They are to betreated as maniacs and wild beasts.” Assisted by MinnesotaGovernor Alexander Ramsey and militia Colonel Henry H. Sibley,the campaign against the Dakota was concluded in thirty-sevendays of fighting. But the cost was high: approximately 360 settlerswere killed, along with ~105 soldiers and militia members, andtwenty-nine Dakota warriors. Hundreds of Dakota were takencaptive and placed in prisoner camps.

A military commission of five officers was established tosummarily try the Indians who had participated in the uprising.Working at breakneck speed, in just five weeks the commissionconducted 392 trials, sometimes as many as forty per day. Apresumption of guilt applied at the trials; that is, it was assumedthat each warrior had participated in the uprising and would bepunished. No legal counsel was provided for the accused. Whileeach defendant was allowed to make a statement on his ownbehalf, he was not permitted to call witnesses. Then prosecutionwitnesses were called—usually eyewitnesses who testified thatthey had seen the defendant fire a weapon, kill a settler, or commitan atrocity. One key witness, a mixed-blood man named Godfrey,testified against over fifty individuals, and for his cooperation received a life sentence rather than the death penalty. A total of300+ Dakota men were found guilty and sentenced to hang. Publicsentiment in Minnesota overwhelmingly approved the verdicts, andmost residents demanded that the executions quickly take place.

sidents demanded that the executions quickly take place.Before the death sentences could be carried out, however,President Lincoln had to review the trial records, as mandated byfederal law. Lincoln sought to balance a sense of justice against thepublic insistence for revenge. He said, “Anxious to not act with somuch clemency as to encourage another outbreak on one hand, norwith so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I ordered acareful examination of the records of the trials to be made…” Lincoln further refined the basis for his decision by differentiatingbetween those “who were proven to have participatedin massacres, as distinguished from participation in battles.” Inshort, unlike the military commission, Lincoln distinguishedbetween “individual acts and group warfare.” This was animportant distinction to Lincoln. He “did not propose to…declareto the world that he had agreed to the execution of three hundredprisoners of war.” Using these standards, Lincoln pared the list ofcondemned men to thirty-eight after two months of analysis. TheDakota militants were executed on December 26, 1862 inMankato, Minnesota, the largest single mass execution inAmerican history. (Source)



The above is not among the most often taught events in U.S. high schools' American history curricula. Were it, I wonder what impact it'd have on the conventional viewpoint most Americans develop re: Lincoln.

 

[Tigerace117]

If you do not consider reconstruction oppressive, you must live in some alternate universe where oppression is love. The south had it's representation stripped away, nothernors shipped there to vote on their behalf, attempts at destroying their heritage, and complete economic destruction.

So it would not be bad if the south had won and had soldiers holding guns to your head, taking away your representation, and shipping in southernors to represent you fully knowing they do not represent you at all? You seem to still live in some alternate universe where oppression is good and freedom and respect and dignity are bad.

Reconstruction was a joke. Calling it "oppression" only goes to show how little white Americans actually know about oppression. It was only "oppressive" in that for a few years white southerners couldn't kick African Americans around all they wanted. The second it ended, what do you know, the guns and bombs start coming out and don't stop for a century. A "heritage" of brutally oppressing Americans and not really much else doesn't deserve to exist.

I love how you've desperately handwaved away the atrocities routinely committed by slaveholders in favor of bemoaning the poor southerner, no longer allowed to own slaves and forced to treat other Americans like human beings. Boo ****ing hoo,cry me a river.

Freedom, dignity and respect? Oh, you mean those things southerners went to war to prevent African Americans from having, then spent the next hundred years continuing to deny them. Wow. Even for a Neo-Confederate, your arguments are pathetic.

 

[beerftw]

The penalties against Germany in WWI seemed to be a motivation for WW2

The penalties of ww1 combined with soviet funded proxies in germany led to the nazi party running the country. People love to think what they do to others is for their benefit, but rarely if ever stop to think about how the people are being affected by it.

 

[beerftw]

Reconstruction was a joke. Calling it "oppression" only goes to show how little white Americans actually know about oppression. It was only "oppressive" in that for a few years white southerners couldn't kick African Americans around all they wanted. The second it ended, what do you know, the guns and bombs start coming out and don't stop for a century. A "heritage" of brutally oppressing Americans and not really much else doesn't deserve to exist.

I love how you've desperately handwaved away the atrocities routinely committed by slaveholders in favor of bemoaning the poor southerner, no longer allowed to own slaves and forced to treat other Americans like human beings. Boo ****ing hoo,cry me a river.

Freedom, dignity and respect? Oh, you mean those things southerners went to war to prevent African Americans from having, then spent the next hundred years continuing to deny them. Wow. Even for a Neo-Confederate, your arguments are pathetic.

What do you consider oppression? do you not consider losing voting rights and representation oppression? do you not see living in a police state oppression? do you not see your entire region of the country paying most of the countries taxes through tariffs while it being sent to the opposite side of the country as oppression? Do you not see being economically driven into a regional state worse than the great depression as oppression,?


There was nothing glorious about reconstruction, the people who implemented it admitted it was a mistake, and similar actions as someone else pointed out after ww1 ended up causing ww2. Losing a war is already a punishment, but trying to strip them of rights, their southern identity, and their economy does not make people unite in any known universe under any plain of existence.

 

[Tigerace117]

What do you consider oppression? do you not consider losing voting rights and representation oppression? do you not see living in a police state oppression? do you not see your entire region of the country paying most of the countries taxes through tariffs while it being sent to the opposite side of the country as oppression? Do you not see being economically driven into a regional state worse than the great depression as oppression,?


There was nothing glorious about reconstruction, the people who implemented it admitted it was a mistake, and similar actions as someone else pointed out after ww1 ended up causing ww2. Losing a war is already a punishment, but trying to strip them of rights, their southern identity, and their economy does not make people unite in any known universe under any plain of existence.

Considering that the South had literally just spent the last five years committing treason en masse, it’s called “the nature of the crime”. It’s not “oppression” for people’s crimes to catch up with them. Nor is it “oppression” when the main condition for regaining one’s rights—- a pathetically short amount of time after you had just committed treason en masse—- was to promise to actually abide by the constitution—- something which you immediately violated, with no consequences, via Jim Crow.

Do you not see slavery as oppression? Do you not see terrorism and murder of innocent people as oppression? Do you not see people being forced to endure third class existence at gunpoint as “oppression”? Because all you’ve been doing is crying about how oppressed you think the Klansmen were.

Yes, it was a mistake to cut it off so soon and let the ex- Confederates and their ilk take over the south and impose Jim Crow on loyal Americans. What a titanic load of crap—-Germany’s conditions were so much harsher than what the South got its not even funny. The fact that you would even try to compare the two shows a major historical ignorance

There was no “right to own slaves”. The “southern identity” revolving around slavery did not deserve to exist. The southern traitors murdered the biggest advocate of treating them kindly and spent the next century brutally oppressing loyal Americans. The South wasn’t “oppressed”; as it turned out, they were hardly even inconvenienced given that they spent the next century continuing the same old crimes.

 

[beerftw]

Considering that the South had literally just spent the last five years committing treason en masse, it’s called “the nature of the crime”. It’s not “oppression” for people’s crimes to catch up with them. Nor is it “oppression” when the main condition for regaining one’s rights—- a pathetically short amount of time after you had just committed treason en masse—- was to promise to actually abide by the constitution—- something which you immediately violated, with no consequences, via Jim Crow.

Do you not see slavery as oppression? Do you not see terrorism and murder of innocent people as oppression? Do you not see people being forced to endure third class existence at gunpoint as “oppression”? Because all you’ve been doing is crying about how oppressed you think the Klansmen were.

Yes, it was a mistake to cut it off so soon and let the ex- Confederates and their ilk take over the south and impose Jim Crow on loyal Americans. What a titanic load of crap—-Germany’s conditions were so much harsher than what the South got its not even funny. The fact that you would even try to compare the two shows a major historical ignorance

There was no “right to own slaves”. The “southern identity” revolving around slavery did not deserve to exist. The southern traitors murdered the biggest advocate of treating them kindly and spent the next century brutally oppressing loyal Americans. The South wasn’t “oppressed”; as it turned out, they were hardly even inconvenienced given that they spent the next century continuing the same old crimes.

Your argument is horribly flawed, as them having representation of their own choosing was a constitutional right, and yes it is oppression when you have conditions for attaining ones rights granted under the constitution, there is no these rights exists unless we feel they don't and you must sacrifice everything to get them back but only in a limited sense until grant leaves office.

Two the north was practicing slavery at the time as well, so using that as a justification is lame and weak, the south relied on it for their economy, but the north still had slavery in some states. And yes I do see slavery as oppression, however you use the klansmen as a justification to oppose my argument already puts you in ad hominem territory, meaning your argument as already fallen flat and has no merit, what next going full godwin?

Germany lost territory and had to repay war debts, southern states got re admitted with a defacto loss of constitutional rights. You not only lack understanding of peoples plights, but think doubling down on what caused them to rebel would somehow have an opposite effect, In all truthfulness I would rather take lincolns opinion over yours, lincoln violated the constitution but had some cause, and he was very pragmatic and understood cause and effect. You on the other hand think doing what has never worked and has always failed only failed because it was not done hard enough, albert einstein calls insanity repeating the same thing expecting different results.

 

[Tigerace117]

Your argument is horribly flawed, as them having representation of their own choosing was a constitutional right, and yes it is oppression when you have conditions for attaining ones rights granted under the constitution, there is no these rights exists unless we feel they don't and you must sacrifice everything to get them back but only in a limited sense until grant leaves office.

Two the north was practicing slavery at the time as well, so using that as a justification is lame and weak, the south relied on it for their economy, but the north still had slavery in some states. And yes I do see slavery as oppression, however you use the klansmen as a justification to oppose my argument already puts you in ad hominem territory, meaning your argument as already fallen flat and has no merit, what next going full godwin?

Germany lost territory and had to repay war debts, southern states got re admitted with a defacto loss of constitutional rights. You not only lack understanding of peoples plights, but think doubling down on what caused them to rebel would somehow have an opposite effect, In all truthfulness I would rather take lincolns opinion over yours, lincoln violated the constitution but had some cause, and he was very pragmatic and understood cause and effect. You on the other hand think doing what has never worked and has always failed only failed because it was not done hard enough, albert einstein calls insanity repeating the same thing expecting different results.

I hate to break it to you, but 1) the South was denying millions of people any sort of representation at all on the basis on their skin color; 2) the South had just committed treason rn masse, and there is no obligation to allow traitors to continue to oppress loyal Americans or demand privileges from the country they had just betrayed; and 3) making people “sacrifice” slavery and brutal oppression—- hell, not even doing that, given the existence of Jim Crow—- is not just morally justified, it is entirely within the rights of the United States government.

Lol what a joke. The border states, the only areas which still had slavery outside the South, can hardly be considered “the North”. Maryland was a hotbed of pro Confederate sentiment; Kentucky and Tenneseee were basically split right down the middle. Arguing that “the north” still practiced slavery is, once again, both historically ignorant and factually incorrect. Furthermore, slavery ended in the border states at the same time southerners were forced to give up their precious slavery. There’s nothing “ad hominem” about pointing out the way you’ve been crying about how oppressed you fantasize the Klansmen were when they had done—- and continued to do—- far, far worse to loyal Americans.

 

[Tigerace117]

Your argument is horribly flawed, as them having representation of their own choosing was a constitutional right, and yes it is oppression when you have conditions for attaining ones rights granted under the constitution, there is no these rights exists unless we feel they don't and you must sacrifice everything to get them back but only in a limited sense until grant leaves office.

Two the north was practicing slavery at the time as well, so using that as a justification is lame and weak, the south relied on it for their economy, but the north still had slavery in some states. And yes I do see slavery as oppression, however you use the klansmen as a justification to oppose my argument already puts you in ad hominem territory, meaning your argument as already fallen flat and has no merit, what next going full godwin?

Germany lost territory and had to repay war debts, southern states got re admitted with a defacto loss of constitutional rights. You not only lack understanding of peoples plights, but think doubling down on what caused them to rebel would somehow have an opposite effect, In all truthfulness I would rather take lincolns opinion over yours, lincoln violated the constitution but had some cause, and he was very pragmatic and understood cause and effect. You on the other hand think doing what has never worked and has always failed only failed because it was not done hard enough, albert einstein calls insanity repeating the same thing expecting different results.

Part Two

Germany was stripped of its monarchy and had its military crippled. Within twenty years, and earlier in some places, the same old slavers were once again running the show in the South. The two situations aren’t even remotely comparable.

“People’s plight”? I’m sorry that I don’t feel for the “plight” of the slavers would could no longer(temporarily) brutally oppress African Americans and who responded with terrorism and murder on a grand scale.

Yes, Lincoln thought the “poor, poor southerners” should be embraced rather than punished for their crimes. Guess what that got him? A bullet, and nothing else.

 

[beerftw]

Part Two

Germany was stripped of its monarchy and had its military crippled. Within twenty years, and earlier in some places, the same old slavers were once again running the show in the South. The two situations aren’t even remotely comparable.

“People’s plight”? I’m sorry that I don’t feel for the “plight” of the slavers would could no longer(temporarily) brutally oppress African Americans and who responded with terrorism and murder on a grand scale.

Yes, Lincoln thought the “poor, poor southerners” should be embraced rather than punished for their crimes. Guess what that got him? A bullet, and nothing else.

The savers running the show is not a very strong point, since in germany the wealthy were running the show after ww1, even with a collapsed economy, wealth is measured in more that dollar value, it is measured is assets. Those southern elites got power back because they owned mass land, that could make crops, which made money. After the civil war they had to resort to share cropping, where people would lease the land to crow crops under a deal to either give the land owner x amount of the profit or x amount of the crops rather than straight rent payment, this was because the south was completely broke after the war, so much so the slaves freed went back to their former owners because they had no other means of employment, heck maybe lincoln knew punishing the south also punished black people as well, and saw a no win.

But on germany land owners ended up running the show there, those with wealth not tied to monetary value but rather commodity value threw their weight around, this is nothing new, and has happened since the existence of mankind, those with the means to provide for the common good end up controlling it.

 

[beerftw]

I hate to break it to you, but 1) the South was denying millions of people any sort of representation at all on the basis on their skin color; 2) the South had just committed treason rn masse, and there is no obligation to allow traitors to continue to oppress loyal Americans or demand privileges from the country they had just betrayed; and 3) making people “sacrifice” slavery and brutal oppression—- hell, not even doing that, given the existence of Jim Crow—- is not just morally justified, it is entirely within the rights of the United States government.

Lol what a joke. The border states, the only areas which still had slavery outside the South, can hardly be considered “the North”. Maryland was a hotbed of pro Confederate sentiment; Kentucky and Tenneseee were basically split right down the middle. Arguing that “the north” still practiced slavery is, once again, both historically ignorant and factually incorrect. Furthermore, slavery ended in the border states at the same time southerners were forced to give up their precious slavery. There’s nothing “ad hominem” about pointing out the way you’ve been crying about how oppressed you fantasize the Klansmen were when they had done—- and continued to do—- far, far worse to loyal Americans.

I hate to break it to you, the north was denying mass representation based on their skin color as well, and even had slavery legal until the 14 amendment, so your point is pretty much garbage.

Those border states were literally the inbetween, do border states not count for anything? The reason the north banned slavery was that they had no economic reason to keep it, the states that kept it had an economic reason. However no northern states granted blacks the rights you gripe about the southernors taking, infact slavery mostly ended up north because they did not want uneducated black men operating expensive machinery, and chose instead to use white kids to operate the,. it was literally one evil replaced with another.

It get's even worse when you consider the whole norther oppression of catholics, where protestants considered catholics to be subhuman, and less human that any southernor considered black people to be even during the height of jim crow laws. If you watch old cartons with a sign tat reads irish need not apply, they were not being funny that was actually the norm then because irish were catholic and catholics were considere subhuman.

 

[Tigerace117]

The savers running the show is not a very strong point, since in germany the wealthy were running the show after ww1, even with a collapsed economy, wealth is measured in more that dollar value, it is measured is assets. Those southern elites got power back because they owned mass land, that could make crops, which made money. After the civil war they had to resort to share cropping, where people would lease the land to crow crops under a deal to either give the land owner x amount of the profit or x amount of the crops rather than straight rent payment, this was because the south was completely broke after the war, so much so the slaves freed went back to their former owners because they had no other means of employment, heck maybe lincoln knew punishing the south also punished black people as well, and saw a no win.

But on germany land owners ended up running the show there, those with wealth not tied to monetary value but rather commodity value threw their weight around, this is nothing new, and has happened since the existence of mankind, those with the means to provide for the common good end up controlling it.

False, the fact that southerners enjoyed oppressing Americans so much that they continued an unconstitutional regime for rather next hundred years is quite "strong". The Kaiser, however, was not in charge, and Germany's streets were ruled by(eventually) the Fascists, people far from having been a part of the old regime.

Southern slavers took power because they were willing to rape, bomb, and murder their way to taking hold once more. They being too cheap to pay people a decent wage, and rather relying first on slave labor and then on a system specificially designed to exploit African Americans is no excuse.

Lincoln was murdered by your slaver pals. He got nothing but a bullet from treating them well.

No, the most ruthless and despicable people--- the ones most willing to hurt or kill innocent people--- took over and "threw their weight around". Yes, that has happened since the beginning of time; no, that is not a justification for supporting and defending the Confederacy and their slaver worshipping descendents.

 

[Tigerace117]

I hate to break it to you, the north was denying mass representation based on their skin color as well, and even had slavery legal until the 14 amendment, so your point is pretty much garbage.

Those border states were literally the inbetween, do border states not count for anything? The reason the north banned slavery was that they had no economic reason to keep it, the states that kept it had an economic reason. However no northern states granted blacks the rights you gripe about the southernors taking, infact slavery mostly ended up north because they did not want uneducated black men operating expensive machinery, and chose instead to use white kids to operate the,. it was literally one evil replaced with another.

It get's even worse when you consider the whole norther oppression of catholics, where protestants considered catholics to be subhuman, and less human that any southernor considered black people to be even during the height of jim crow laws. If you watch old cartons with a sign tat reads irish need not apply, they were not being funny that was actually the norm then because irish were catholic and catholics were considere subhuman.

What's "garbage" is your total lack of reading comprehension given that I've already debunked your "the North had slavery too" fantasy. The Border States were not the "North"; Tennessee and Kentucky were basically evenly split, and cities like Baltimore were crawling with Confederate sympathizers.

Again, being a "border state" by definition, means you are not part of the North. The reason why the North banned slavery is because they realized----about the same time 99.9% of the universe did so--- that slavery was morally, economically, and culturally completely unjustifiable. Meanwhile the South dove ever deeper into supporting the "peculiar institution" at all costs.

No northern state created the same sort of state sponsored terrorism network that dominated the South that you so blithely ignore in favor of whining about how the poor slavers couldn't rape and murder at will anymore.

Lol yeah, that's why you had so many Irishmen and Poles enlisting on the side of the Union--- becaus the North hated and oppressed Catholics :roll::roll::roll:

Do you ever get tired of spewing such utter bull****? Your arguments aren't just historically ignorant, they are downright pathetic.

And no, at no point were little Irish kids blown up by thugs--- unlike the case in the South, where the utter scum you love so much couldn't stand the thought of African Americans exercising their constitutional rights.

 

[AGENT J]

I'm interested to see how some of you think America and the world would've turned out if we didn't have Abe Lincoln. Would we still have had a Civil War? Would we have split into north and south for good? Would we be a superpower today?

Also, if you want add someone else, like Hitler, Einstein, Jesus, etc..., feel free.

This is meant as a fun "what if" type game, but also helps to concentrate on just how much of an influence certain people have.

Wow, who really knows . . so many posibslities

I do however feel its safe to say that with no Lincoln we would be a lesser country

 

[beerftw]

What's "garbage" is your total lack of reading comprehension given that I've already debunked your "the North had slavery too" fantasy. The Border States were not the "North"; Tennessee and Kentucky were basically evenly split, and cities like Baltimore were crawling with Confederate sympathizers.

Again, being a "border state" by definition, means you are not part of the North. The reason why the North banned slavery is because they realized----about the same time 99.9% of the universe did so--- that slavery was morally, economically, and culturally completely unjustifiable. Meanwhile the South dove ever deeper into supporting the "peculiar institution" at all costs.

No northern state created the same sort of state sponsored terrorism network that dominated the South that you so blithely ignore in favor of whining about how the poor slavers couldn't rape and murder at will anymore.

Lol yeah, that's why you had so many Irishmen and Poles enlisting on the side of the Union--- becaus the North hated and oppressed Catholics :roll::roll::roll:

Do you ever get tired of spewing such utter bull****? Your arguments aren't just historically ignorant, they are downright pathetic.

And no, at no point were little Irish kids blown up by thugs--- unlike the case in the South, where the utter scum you love so much couldn't stand the thought of African Americans exercising their constitutional rights.

Those states were they not part of the union? was the emancipation proclamation only a ban of southern slavery? Do I need to get a history book and force feed you the information since you seem to not want to read anything that does not support your theories.

No the north banned slavery in many northern states because they had no use for it anymore, machinery toom over manual labor, and can't being having them uneducated negros or subhuman catholics touching our expensive machinery after all.

Many northern states had covered for those same terrorists you claim, even to this day ohio is rmpant with kkk, moreso than the south because here the kkk iz pretty much dead, and the peckerwoods and the aryan brotherhood ran them out, but they still thrive in ohio and a few other states.

 

[beerftw]

False, the fact that southerners enjoyed oppressing Americans so much that they continued an unconstitutional regime for rather next hundred years is quite "strong". The Kaiser, however, was not in charge, and Germany's streets were ruled by(eventually) the Fascists, people far from having been a part of the old regime.

Southern slavers took power because they were willing to rape, bomb, and murder their way to taking hold once more. They being too cheap to pay people a decent wage, and rather relying first on slave labor and then on a system specificially designed to exploit African Americans is no excuse.

Lincoln was murdered by your slaver pals. He got nothing but a bullet from treating them well.

No, the most ruthless and despicable people--- the ones most willing to hurt or kill innocent people--- took over and "threw their weight around". Yes, that has happened since the beginning of time; no, that is not a justification for supporting and defending the Confederacy and their slaver worshipping descendents.

In germqany there was no old regime after ww1, they went from the german empire to the weimar republic, their govt was pretty much dissolved after ww1 and reformed, you could literally have googled that but it wuld have crushed your point so you choose ignorance over logic and fact.

No you are completely ignorant on the subject, they took power because they had land, a commodity that is valuable reguardless of the state of the economy or what money is worth, and land was needed to make crops, they gained control because they had the asset their society needed to rebuild, Oh wait in your mind if it were not for them they could grow crops and print money on unicorn farts, and build factories on hopes and dreams.

 

[Tigerace117]

Those states were they not part of the union? was the emancipation proclamation only a ban of southern slavery? Do I need to get a history book and force feed you the information since you seem to not want to read anything that does not support your theories.

No the north banned slavery in many northern states because they had no use for it anymore, machinery toom over manual labor, and can't being having them uneducated negros or subhuman catholics touching our expensive machinery after all.

Many northern states had covered for those same terrorists you claim, even to this day ohio is rmpant with kkk, moreso than the south because here the kkk iz pretty much dead, and the peckerwoods and the aryan brotherhood ran them out, but they still thrive in ohio and a few other states.

Those states sent just as many troops to the South as they did to the North. In the case of Tennessee the North had to actively invade in order to keep the state in the Union. Claiming they are "part of the North" is simply inaccurate. Perhaps you should get a history book, you might actually learn something instead of spewing ignorant bull****.

The Emancipation Proclamation was the precursor to the amendments banning slavery and ensuring people could not be denied their constitutional rights on the basis of bigotry.

No, the North banned slavery in the North-- no, Kentucky, Maryland, and Tennessee, for example, are not part of "the north"---because they realized, unlike your beloved slavers, that slavery wasn't just an economic and societal ill--- it was simply morally wrong.

Ah yes, the "the North has racists too" Neo Confederate argument. First and foremost, southern Ohio is basically Kentucky, which again is not part of the North; furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but even after the federal government went in and cracked your heads white surpremacists continue to launch terrorist attacks--- like Charlottesville--- to this day

Oh yes, the Neo Confederates and the literal Nazis "ran out" the other Neo Confederates. You do realize that just makes you look worse,...right?

 

[Tigerace117]

In germqany there was no old regime after ww1, they went from the german empire to the weimar republic, their govt was pretty much dissolved after ww1 and reformed, you could literally have googled that but it wuld have crushed your point so you choose ignorance over logic and fact.

No you are completely ignorant on the subject, they took power because they had land, a commodity that is valuable reguardless of the state of the economy or what money is worth, and land was needed to make crops, they gained control because they had the asset their society needed to rebuild, Oh wait in your mind if it were not for them they could grow crops and print money on unicorn farts, and build factories on hopes and dreams.

Lol yes there was. All those "von's" didn't spontaneously combust after the First World War ended. Ludendorff ended up supporting Adolf Hitler in his early years, and many retreads ended up commanding troops in the Heer. Which even the tiniest bit of research would have told you, but I guess in the South they are too busy spewing idiotic nonsense to justify the action of slavers to bother giving you an education

No, they took power because they were willing to murder, rape, and terrorize anyone around. That's literally what they did for a century after the war. The people most willing to cut their neighbor's threat after raping his wife always are the ones who find it easiest to gain power in a society like the Old South. Willingness to brutally oppress African Americans gained them the support of the white trash--- and every two bit Neo Confederate since.

 

[beerftw]

Those states sent just as many troops to the South as they did to the North. In the case of Tennessee the North had to actively invade in order to keep the state in the Union. Claiming they are "part of the North" is simply inaccurate. Perhaps you should get a history book, you might actually learn something instead of spewing ignorant bull****.

The Emancipation Proclamation was the precursor to the amendments banning slavery and ensuring people could not be denied their constitutional rights on the basis of bigotry.

No, the North banned slavery in the North-- no, Kentucky, Maryland, and Tennessee, for example, are not part of "the north"---because they realized, unlike your beloved slavers, that slavery wasn't just an economic and societal ill--- it was simply morally wrong.

Ah yes, the "the North has racists too" Neo Confederate argument. First and foremost, southern Ohio is basically Kentucky, which again is not part of the North; furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but even after the federal government went in and cracked your heads white surpremacists continue to launch terrorist attacks--- like Charlottesville--- to this day

Oh yes, the Neo Confederates and the literal Nazis "ran out" the other Neo Confederates. You do realize that just makes you look worse,...right?

T the time west virginia and deleware were both part of the union and both slave states, west virginia broke away from confederate virginia and became a state in 1863 and took 18 months before they ended slavery, deleware was also a slave state. Also to note wahington dc had not abolished slaves either when the civil war started, and that was the unions capital, so no the north did not abolish slavery before the war.

Wait what is the last thing you are rambling about? Are we now ramnling about charlottesville which has nothing to do with the subject?

 

[beerftw]

Lol yes there was. All those "von's" didn't spontaneously combust after the First World War ended. Ludendorff ended up supporting Adolf Hitler in his early years, and many retreads ended up commanding troops in the Heer. Which even the tiniest bit of research would have told you, but I guess in the South they are too busy spewing idiotic nonsense to justify the action of slavers to bother giving you an education

No, they took power because they were willing to murder, rape, and terrorize anyone around. That's literally what they did for a century after the war. The people most willing to cut their neighbor's threat after raping his wife always are the ones who find it easiest to gain power in a society like the Old South. Willingness to brutally oppress African Americans gained them the support of the white trash--- and every two bit Neo Confederate since.

Well some of the old powerheads still having power does not mean the old powerstructure remained, because it did not, germany had fascists, socialists, anarchists, and capitalists all battling it out in the streets in a rush to fill the vacuum left by the former german empire, the weimar republic was a shell of it's former empire. And old members supporting hitler was not a surprise, many of the combat vets from ww1 ended up siding with fascists as did the people because they were scared of socialists and anarcho sommunists. Hitler used the glory of the old empire to rally support, while using attacks by socialists to justify his brownshirts(which literally did the same to the socialists) and later using attacks by socialist groups as well as the short lived bavarian soviet republic and the reichstag fire to feed into peoples minds a fear of socialism.

People who take power after a collapse do so with commodities, claiming it was raping and stealing and killing is not only being dishonest, but also laughable. Granted such things occurred numerous times in history in much more volatile times, however in the case of the south and for weimar germany, their currency was worthless, southern dollars were barely worth being used as toilet paper and the mark after ww1 was so bad at one point you would need a wheel barrow full of marks to buy a loaf of bread. This puts land owners and other commodity owners as the winners, those who had their money somewhere other than cash, things that can be traded when money is worthless or land that could be leased to workers to produce food to trade to other countries without a destroyed currency.

 

[Tigerace117]

T the time west virginia and deleware were both part of the union and both slave states, west virginia broke away from confederate virginia and became a state in 1863 and took 18 months before they ended slavery, deleware was also a slave state. Also to note wahington dc had not abolished slaves either when the civil war started, and that was the unions capital, so no the north did not abolish slavery before the war.

Wait what is the last thing you are rambling about? Are we now ramnling about charlottesville which has nothing to do with the subject?

Lol yet more historical ignorance. Neither West Virginia nor Delaware were "part of the North"; both states had large domestic pro southern(in other words, pro slavery) sentiment, and in fact Confederate raiders operated throughout the state during the entirety of the war. If yet more historical ignorance is the best you can do you really should read a history book

Oh really? People protesting the removal of Confederate statues has nothing to do with.....people protesting the removal of Confedate statues?

Really bud?

I get that you have to be incredibly blind to reality to not see the Confederacy for what it was, but that's a whole new level of derail you've descended into.