The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Vindicated/Vilified by History! Which President was the best?
Posts
The industry of the north was so reliant on the raw commodities of the south and Caribbean that it's impossible to see a viable seccession without the two being horribly intertwined diplomatically, or destroying one another in the process.
The South had a borderline par Navy with the north (another reason their railroads were lacking, with the Mississippi and naval ports being by far the most vital, and robust economically of the South, even with slave labor propping up their agriculture) and if it weren't some horrible mismanagement of the fleet, and the intervention (or failure to do so) of the British, the civil war could've theoretically dragged on in a guerrilla state for much longer.
A perfect example of the difference quality leadership makes is the differences between Davis and Lincoln. It could've been just the righteousness of the underlying cause, but it's very easy to see the Civil War and its fallout in Reconstruction stifling the nation even longer.
The struggles of the later 19th century Presidents to properly establish the power and credibility of the office is another interesting evolution of the Executive, with the assassination, the bitterness and occupation of the post-war south and slow, establishment of an alternative subsistence farming underclass playing a very heavy hand of the politics and expansionism desire of the times. It also sets the stage for the 'expansionist' like wealth grabs of the robber barons that TR has to bust up come the dawning of the 20th. Even though it's a string of unremarkable Presidencies, due to the very trying nature of these times, the men that inhabited the office are often no less great (or heinous) during this time.
The 8 hour work day, exempting Unions from anti-trust laws, the 16th Amendment.
He was a very odd sort of progressive. Total garbage when it comes to race, but not awful when it comes to women, children, and regulation of business and support of workers.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
There was no army stationed nearly while this threat was looming. The south could have taken D.C. if they really wanted to.
Aha. I get it.
Both sides had downright atrocious tactics and really didn't understand the realities of the war until years into it. The fact people would have picnic lunches to watch the battle early on is very indicative of the absurdity and detachment from the realities of a state in civil war the populace generally was.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I am really curious as to what would have happened to the League of Nations had Wilson not suffered from his stroke. He kind of hated congress at the time, but who knows if he would have compromised with them to get the treaty ratified if he wasn't bedridden and paralyzed.
Eh, I'm going to go with "dies at WWII anyways".
I don't think the US joining the league would have done much to prevent the issues that led to WWII, basically. Wilson's proposal for peace may have... but it was basically ignored aside from the league.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
But not you Germany, only winners can join. And definitely not you USSR, despite you having a massive population and area, your Bolshevism makes us uncomfortable.
30 years later....
Oh God, how in the world did this happen!!!??
WoW
Dear Satan.....
United Nations was also originally a winners only club.
Yeah but in a War, you really, really need those railroads and factories.
And as shown by recent example (cough* oil* cough) a raw material economy is definitely subject to a boom and bust cycle. South would have gotten stomped at some point.
Its more a factor of not having a diverse economy I think that leads to trouble for oil states.
If they also exported lots of ore, gas, etc. they'd be more stable.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Check with Brazil on that.
And if the Chief Justice has anything to say about it, that progress will reverse itself, dammit!
Another reason Bush is in the bottom five.
Washington DC was one of the most heavily fortified cities in the world during the civil war. There were numerous layers of defenses.
68 forts, 93 gun emplacements, 20 miles of pits for riflemen and a huge amount of roads connecting everything for ease of transport.
I don't think that that Lee could have actually taken that before reinforcements could have been mustered and arrived.
I think that the idea that Lee could have taken DC is purely just a result of the fact that he was geographically close. Lee was best on defense and where he could use the advantages of his smaller and more nimble army. You can't do either of those things when assaulting such a massively fortified city.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
A lot of that wasn't built until after Bull Run. Both sides initially really thought that going out and kicking ass over a long weekend was going to sort the whole thing out.
Resource extraction industries tend to be not great for countries unless they already have a really strong government with anti-corruption procedures and norms already in place. There's just too much money, and in return the country as a whole gets some dangerous jobs that might pay OK and serious environmental damage.
What if my criteria is, 'The plantations were all falling apart as a result of cotton's value inflating, other exporters entering the market & alternative products (like hemp) being produced,'?
There is a good reason Jefferson switched his personal slave labor force over to industrial production - the agricultural market was saturated and it was increasingly hard to turn a profit, even with the slave labor (you still have to feed & house the slaves, afterall), because of the declining value in raw plantation commodities. Arguments could be made that diversification into tobacco could have worked-out for plantation owners, but realistically no such plans were in place and many plantations couldn't support that kind of switch in any case.