What would the world be like without Abe Lincoln?

[JC Callender]

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.

 

[beerftw]

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.

We still would have had a civil war, but it would have occurred later on, slavery would have also ended independant of a civil war, but that too would have occurred much later when machinery replaced manual labor. The big ripple effect would be americas status as a world power, if the civil got delayed a few decades, the combat experience would not have been there, the innovations that came about from the war would not have been there, which may have led to a different outcome in the spanish american war or even that war never happening.

 

[Xelor]

I see what the U.S. has become in Lincoln's wake. Some of that is positive and some of it is not. I suspect the same statement could accurately be made were Lincoln to have never existed and/or never have been POTUS.

Can I speculate what'd be the nature of the U.S. or the rest of the world were Lincoln's imprint not to have been upon it? Hell, no!

 

[JANFU]

We still would have had a civil war, but it would have occurred later on, slavery would have also ended independant of a civil war, but that too would have occurred much later when machinery replaced manual labor. The big ripple effect would be americas status as a world power, if the civil got delayed a few decades, the combat experience would not have been there, the innovations that came about from the war would not have been there, which may have led to a different outcome in the spanish american war or even that war never happening.

The European countries had Officers and others in the US during the Civil War, studying everything from tactics to the use of rail movement. Prussia used those tactics, rail movement in their Austro-Prussian War, 1866, and rail was a critical factor in winning that one.

 

[KevinKohler]

I think that history happens, no matter the person. I.E., the civil wasn't about Lincoln, it was going to happen no matter WHO to the White House that year.

 

[JC Callender]

I think that history happens, no matter the person. I.E., the civil wasn't about Lincoln, it was going to happen no matter WHO to the White House that year.

You think there would've been a civil war if Douglas was elected? I'm assuming the South wouldn't secede in that case.

 

[beerftw]

The European countries had Officers and others in the US during the Civil War, studying everything from tactics to the use of rail movement. Prussia used those tactics, rail movement in their Austro-Prussian War, 1866, and rail was a critical factor in winning that one.

At the start of the civil war, soldiers and commanders still liked to use volley fire, as the war progressed formations started changing to include using more cover and trench warfare and logistics changed, that war happened to happen at just the right time when industrialization was occurring, the minnie ball was replacing the standard musket ball, revolvers were becoming more widespread, and even cartridge guns, also when railways were becoming common for logistics.


Now imagine where the us military would be without the knowledge gained? Would we be trying to fight the spanish with volley fire still? Would trench warfare still have become a common tactic? Would the gatling gun ever have been invented without the necessity of war which led to later the creation of the maxim and many other machineguns worldwide?

 

[AlbqOwl]

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.

It really would have depended on who would be President instead of Lincoln. The candidates who would most likely be contenders were very different in ideology and perspective. So it is hard to say.

 

[KevinKohler]

You think there would've been a civil war if Douglas was elected? I'm assuming the South wouldn't secede in that case.

No, the north would have. Or maybe 4-8 years more would have gone by. But the war was inevitable.

 

[JC Callender]

It really would have depended on who would be President instead of Lincoln. The candidates who would most likely be contenders were very different in ideology and perspective. So it is hard to say.

Do you think things could've turned out any better if someone else was elected?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Do you think things could've turned out any better if someone else was elected?

Sure. If a President was able to lead in such a way that the South felt they were getting a fair deal, there would have been no secession. Another President might have tried diplomacy and cut a deal to get the southern states to rejoin the union. Another President might have chosen not to go to war to force the south to stay in the union.

Without a long and bloody Civil War, slavery in the south would have almost certainly ended naturally just as it did in the north. It almost certainly would have taken longer but would have been accomplished without so much disruption of families, both black and white, and allowed for a more seamless integration and assimilation process.

Was it better how President Lincoln did it? I am sure historians will be debating that in the next century just as they are in the last century and in this one.

 

[Mizzy22]

You think there would've been a civil war if Douglas was elected? I'm assuming the South wouldn't secede in that case.

Sooner or later slavery would have brought on the Civil War

 

[JC Callender]

Sure. If a President was able to lead in such a way that the South felt they were getting a fair deal, there would have been no secession. Another President might have tried diplomacy and cut a deal to get the southern states to rejoin the union. Another President might have chosen not to go to war to force the south to stay in the union.

Without a long and bloody Civil War, slavery in the south would have almost certainly ended naturally just as it did in the north. It almost certainly would have taken longer but would have been accomplished without so much disruption of families, both black and white, and allowed for a more seamless integration and assimilation process.

Was it better how President Lincoln did it? I am sure historians will be debating that in the next century just as they are in the last century and in this one.

I think the major issue with the South wasn't just slavery, but the really horrible brand of chattel slavery that was often practiced. I don't think Lincoln was an extremist, and the South decided to secede and go to war anyway. I just think they were dead set against anyone not only freeing their slaves but putting them in the vulnerable position of having to live with these people they often treated so horribly once they were freed.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I think the major issue with the South wasn't just slavery, but the really horrible brand of chattel slavery that was often practiced. I don't think Lincoln was an extremist, and the South decided to secede and go to war anyway. I just think they were dead set against anyone not only freeing their slaves but putting them in the vulnerable position of having to live with these people they often treated so horribly once they were freed.

Lincoln was not an extremist. He strongly opposed slavery as an institution, but also had absolutely no intention of interfering with the slave states on that issue and would not have had the south not seceded. His VP at the time was strongly opposed to the Emancipation Proclamation that was to punish the south for seceding. That proclamation affected only the slaves in the states that seceded and did not apply to the few remaining slave states who did not secede.

Abraham Lincoln was a very good man, but he was imperfect as all of us are, and he was a product of his culture, as we all are. He was anti-slavery yes, but he held strong convictions pro segregation. He did not think black people should intermingle with white people. At one point he toyed seriously with a proposal that would round up all the black people willing to go and deport them to Liberia in Central America or help those who wanted to return to Africa to get there. Free black people were not at all open to either proposal however. And we will never know whether Lincoln would have actively worked to put either into effect after the war as he was assassinated as the war was ending.

 

[TheGoverness]

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.

Y'know there is a show in the works called "Confederate". It's a what-if scenario about what America might have looked like if the South secured their independence. Maybe you could find some interest in that if it ever comes out.

 

[spud_meister]

Y'know there is a show in the works called "Confederate". It's a what-if scenario about what America might have looked like if the South secured their independence. Maybe you could find some interest in that if it ever comes out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.S.A.:_The_Confederate_States_of_America

 

[beerftw]

I think the major issue with the South wasn't just slavery, but the really horrible brand of chattel slavery that was often practiced. I don't think Lincoln was an extremist, and the South decided to secede and go to war anyway. I just think they were dead set against anyone not only freeing their slaves but putting them in the vulnerable position of having to live with these people they often treated so horribly once they were freed.

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.

 

[Tigerace117]

Sure. If a President was able to lead in such a way that the South felt they were getting a fair deal, there would have been no secession. Another President might have tried diplomacy and cut a deal to get the southern states to rejoin the union. Another President might have chosen not to go to war to force the south to stay in the union.

Without a long and bloody Civil War, slavery in the south would have almost certainly ended naturally just as it did in the north. It almost certainly would have taken longer but would have been accomplished without so much disruption of families, both black and white, and allowed for a more seamless integration and assimilation process.

Was it better how President Lincoln did it? I am sure historians will be debating that in the next century just as they are in the last century and in this one.

Oh really? The South was never going to feel it was “getting a fair deal”. They had basically run the country for forty years prior to the Civil War, doing everything in their power during that time to ensure slavery continued to expand while stifling Northern interests like the Intercontinental Railroad. The South’s institutions were increasingly isolating it from the rest of the country, and moronic decisions like the Fugitive Slave Law and Dread Scott decision only increased the alienation of the rest of the country.

By 1860 there was no deal, short of an amendment to preserve slavery, that would keep the South in the country; they were spoiling for a fight, due to cultural delusions of martial grandeur, and the North has just about hit its limit as well.

Actually, as the years rolled on slavery was only getting more entrenched in the south—-as criticism of it grew in the north southerners embraced the “peculiar institution”. Slavery ended so quickly in the north because northerners were never really wedded to the concept the way the South was.

Your argument fails to take into account the realities of American culture during the era as well as American history in itself.

 

[Tigerace117]

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.

Lincoln, however, failed to see how letting the South off incredibly easy would just lead to Southerners oppressing loyal Americans for decades. Reconstruction was the only period for a century after the war where African Americans were largely out from under the bootheel of the Confederacy and it’s successors in the Klan.

 

[beerftw]

Lincoln, however, failed to see how letting the South off incredibly easy would just lead to Southerners oppressing loyal Americans for decades. Reconstruction was the only period for a century after the war where African Americans were largely out from under the bootheel of the Confederacy and it’s successors in the Klan.

Reconstruction ended with grant, hardly a century more like decades, around 2ish. Reconstruction led to the south being hostile to everyone not the lack of, they stripped the south of their rights, send people from the north to vote in their place stripping them of representation, and kept up a police state.

Lincoln knew full well what would and did happen, while people like grant thought southern oppression would make things better. Lincoln wanted the north and south to re unite as a single union, while the republicans then wanted the south to be nothing more than region of second class citizens there to serve northern elites. It seems to me lincoln was very pragmatic and understanding, while the rest of the northern republicans at the time were highly authoritarion and tribal, putting the south as being subhuman rather than being part of the same union. Grant even admitted reconstruction did no good and a bunch of harm, so how would doubling down on a failed policy somehow make it not fail?

 

[itsforthekids]

There was a growing abolishonist movement in the north for decades, going back as far as the Declaration of Independence. Slavery was a major consideration while forming the constitution, thus the 3/5 clause. From everything that I’ve ever read about the civil war and Lincoln, I doubt that the union would have survived. The south would have seceded for sure. America would never have become a super power. All in all, the 650,000 lives lost were worth it.

 

[Tigerace117]

Reconstruction ended with grant, hardly a century more like decades, around 2ish. Reconstruction led to the south being hostile to everyone not the lack of, they stripped the south of their rights, send people from the north to vote in their place stripping them of representation, and kept up a police state.

Lincoln knew full well what would and did happen, while people like grant thought southern oppression would make things better. Lincoln wanted the north and south to re unite as a single union, while the republicans then wanted the south to be nothing more than region of second class citizens there to serve northern elites. It seems to me lincoln was very pragmatic and understanding, while the rest of the northern republicans at the time were highly authoritarion and tribal, putting the south as being subhuman rather than being part of the same union. Grant even admitted reconstruction did no good and a bunch of harm, so how would doubling down on a failed policy somehow make it not fail?

African Americans didn’t gain their civil rights in practice until the 1960s. That’s a century after the war. The South was already hostile to everyone; they’d just spent years fighting to keep slavery a going concern. As it turned out all letting them off so easily did was allow their hatreds to become cemented in their society, to the point where enemy POWs were treated better than members of the United States Armed Forces on the basis of skin color.

Yes, reconstruction stripped the south of the “right” to own slaves and refused to allow them to become states until they agreed not to brutally oppress their own people anymore. Hmm.... all that and it still was far better than the way the South treated African Americans. I guess they really didn’t like the shoe being on the other foot huh.

And look what that got Lincoln; a bullet from a southern fanatic, and a south which spent a century totally ignoring the constitution. Any other region throughout history which had just launched—- and lost—- a rebellion which killed so many loyal Americans would have been decimated. The South got off incredibly lucky, and repaid that by continuing to oppress American citizens.

 

[beerftw]

African Americans didn’t gain their civil rights in practice until the 1960s. That’s a century after the war. The South was already hostile to everyone; they’d just spent years fighting to keep slavery a going concern. As it turned out all letting them off so easily did was allow their hatreds to become cemented in their society, to the point where enemy POWs were treated better than members of the United States Armed Forces on the basis of skin color.

Yes, reconstruction stripped the south of the “right” to own slaves and refused to allow them to become states until they agreed not to brutally oppress their own people anymore. Hmm.... all that and it still was far better than the way the South treated African Americans. I guess they really didn’t like the shoe being on the other foot huh.

And look what that got Lincoln; a bullet from a southern fanatic, and a south which spent a century totally ignoring the constitution. Any other region throughout history which had just launched—- and lost—- a rebellion which killed so many loyal Americans would have been decimated. The South got off incredibly lucky, and repaid that by continuing to oppress American citizens.

That is not close to accurate, as black people and rights came down to jim crow laws, which were enacted in response to oppressive reconstruction. You are arguing that the thing that caused racism to be rampant in the south needed to be doubled down on, in reality reconstruction fueled racism, and hatred of the north.

Before and during the civil war, black and white people attended the same churches, the same schools for slaves fortunate enough to be sent to school instead of working on a farm, and lived in the same towns, post recostruction many blacks went to seperate churches, seperate schools, and often had to live in seperate areas, And worst of all with most blacks being in the south lincoln knew economic failure would hit freed slaves harder than anyone, At that time lincoln wanted to unite america while the republican party wanted to divide it, and people like you think the reason the union is not united was because it was not devided enough, the war ended up because of economic differences between the north and south, reconstruction worsened the differences rather than mending them.

 

[beerftw]

There was a growing abolishonist movement in the north for decades, going back as far as the Declaration of Independence. Slavery was a major consideration while forming the constitution, thus the 3/5 clause. From everything that I’ve ever read about the civil war and Lincoln, I doubt that the union would have survived. The south would have seceded for sure. America would never have become a super power. All in all, the 650,000 lives lost were worth it.

In the days of the founding fathers slavery was a convenience few wanted to hand up, the founders even then preferred slavery be abolished given that a free state with slavery is an oxymoron, but they conceded for the sake of unity and the founding of a nation. By the civil war things had changed, it was no longer a luxury but rather the base for economics, The cotton gin allowed mass production of cotton by even lowly trained slave labor, which would be traded to england. The north went away from slavery and towards machinery, and at the time it was common for them to refuse black workers because they did not want black people operating expensive equipment, and instead opted for child labor, and it took a long time before child labor was banned.


What it boiled down to was economics, the north did not need slaves while the south did, cheap cotton in the south sold to england meant england could produce textiles cheaper than northern us. It was nothing more than a trade war turned into real war over economics.

 

[Tigerace117]

That is not close to accurate, as black people and rights came down to jim crow laws, which were enacted in response to oppressive reconstruction. You are arguing that the thing that caused racism to be rampant in the south needed to be doubled down on, in reality reconstruction fueled racism, and hatred of the north.

Before and during the civil war, black and white people attended the same churches, the same schools for slaves fortunate enough to be sent to school instead of working on a farm, and lived in the same towns, post recostruction many blacks went to seperate churches, seperate schools, and often had to live in seperate areas, And worst of all with most blacks being in the south lincoln knew economic failure would hit freed slaves harder than anyone, At that time lincoln wanted to unite america while the republican party wanted to divide it, and people like you think the reason the union is not united was because it was not devided enough, the war ended up because of economic differences between the north and south, reconstruction worsened the differences rather than mending them.

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.