Slavery was too much of a status symbol and there was too much wealth tied up in it for it to have ended peacefully in the short term future. Medium and long term it's hard to say.
It was already a economic loser by the time the Civil War came around.
that is just straightforwardly untrue unless you are talking about long term sustainability, which maybe, but even then it's not clearly a loser
Depends on how you define success. It was great for a select few but crap for the South in general. The South was rapidly falling behind in industrialization and urbanization compared to the North by the time of the war.
Industrialization isn't the end-all-be-all of advancement though. The south wouldn't have been better off if they had burned the crops and built factories on their ashes, for instance. The ready supply of cotton, hemp, tobacco, and grains from the south are why the factories in the north were successful, and they were why they had the ear of other countries to propose trade and defense deals. They didn't have a lot of railroads, but outside of wartime that wasn't really a hindrance to them.
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.
You know, there was some real good shit that happened under Wilson.
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.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"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
and the League of Nations, as (and when) originally put forward, strikes me as the kind of progressive idealism that almost immediately crashes on the rocks of realpolitik and people being bastards to each other.
I know in hindsight everyone likes to say the Civil war was all but determined from the outset, but very early on the confederates were winning just about every battle. Very shortly into the war the Confederate armies were in a position to take D.C. (Lincoln was consulted to flee the capital, he refused and had the local army units set up blockades in the event of an assault).
There was no army stationed nearly while this threat was looming. The south could have taken D.C. if they really wanted to.
Granted, but the south had better generals until late in the war.
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.
buchanan was awful but I still think jackson was the worst; buchanan was a feckless, cowardly dumbass elected at the time in history when the U.S. could least afford it, but perpetrating an actual genocide makes you #1 with a bullet.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
and the League of Nations, as (and when) originally put forward, strikes me as the kind of progressive idealism that almost immediately crashes on the rocks of realpolitik and people being bastards to each other.
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.
and the League of Nations, as (and when) originally put forward, strikes me as the kind of progressive idealism that almost immediately crashes on the rocks of realpolitik and people being bastards to each other.
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.
Let's form a League of Nations! We'll promote peace among our members!
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!!!??
Some historical liberties were taken with this tale
Let's form a League of Nations! We'll promote peace among our members!
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!!!??
Some historical liberties were taken with this tale
United Nations was also originally a winners only club.
Slavery was too much of a status symbol and there was too much wealth tied up in it for it to have ended peacefully in the short term future. Medium and long term it's hard to say.
It was already a economic loser by the time the Civil War came around.
that is just straightforwardly untrue unless you are talking about long term sustainability, which maybe, but even then it's not clearly a loser
Depends on how you define success. It was great for a select few but crap for the South in general. The South was rapidly falling behind in industrialization and urbanization compared to the North by the time of the war.
Industrialization isn't the end-all-be-all of advancement though. The south wouldn't have been better off if they had burned the crops and built factories on their ashes, for instance. The ready supply of cotton, hemp, tobacco, and grains from the south are why the factories in the north were successful, and they were why they had the ear of other countries to propose trade and defense deals. They didn't have a lot of railroads, but outside of wartime that wasn't really a hindrance to them.
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.
I think it's also important to remember that even if slavery went away eventually, without Federal influence there are a lot of things that may never have happened. Miscegenation laws, segregation, wage slavery, lynchings, laws against blacks voting, etc. may have still been around today or at least for far longer than they would have otherwise. Things haven't gotten better for black people in the deep south in a vacuum.
Slavery was too much of a status symbol and there was too much wealth tied up in it for it to have ended peacefully in the short term future. Medium and long term it's hard to say.
It was already a economic loser by the time the Civil War came around.
that is just straightforwardly untrue unless you are talking about long term sustainability, which maybe, but even then it's not clearly a loser
Depends on how you define success. It was great for a select few but crap for the South in general. The South was rapidly falling behind in industrialization and urbanization compared to the North by the time of the war.
Industrialization isn't the end-all-be-all of advancement though. The south wouldn't have been better off if they had burned the crops and built factories on their ashes, for instance. The ready supply of cotton, hemp, tobacco, and grains from the south are why the factories in the north were successful, and they were why they had the ear of other countries to propose trade and defense deals. They didn't have a lot of railroads, but outside of wartime that wasn't really a hindrance to them.
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.
Slavery was too much of a status symbol and there was too much wealth tied up in it for it to have ended peacefully in the short term future. Medium and long term it's hard to say.
It was already a economic loser by the time the Civil War came around.
that is just straightforwardly untrue unless you are talking about long term sustainability, which maybe, but even then it's not clearly a loser
Depends on how you define success. It was great for a select few but crap for the South in general. The South was rapidly falling behind in industrialization and urbanization compared to the North by the time of the war.
Industrialization isn't the end-all-be-all of advancement though. The south wouldn't have been better off if they had burned the crops and built factories on their ashes, for instance. The ready supply of cotton, hemp, tobacco, and grains from the south are why the factories in the north were successful, and they were why they had the ear of other countries to propose trade and defense deals. They didn't have a lot of railroads, but outside of wartime that wasn't really a hindrance to them.
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.
I think it's also important to remember that even if slavery went away eventually, without Federal influence there are a lot of things that may never have happened. Miscegenation laws, segregation, wage slavery, lynchings, laws against blacks voting, etc. may have still been around today or at least for far longer than they would have otherwise. Things haven't gotten better for black people in the deep south in a vacuum.
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.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I know in hindsight everyone likes to say the Civil war was all but determined from the outset, but very early on the confederates were winning just about every battle. Very shortly into the war the Confederate armies were in a position to take D.C. (Lincoln was consulted to flee the capital, he refused and had the local army units set up blockades in the event of an assault).
There was no army stationed nearly while this threat was looming. The south could have taken D.C. if they really wanted to.
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.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"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
0
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I know in hindsight everyone likes to say the Civil war was all but determined from the outset, but very early on the confederates were winning just about every battle. Very shortly into the war the Confederate armies were in a position to take D.C. (Lincoln was consulted to flee the capital, he refused and had the local army units set up blockades in the event of an assault).
There was no army stationed nearly while this threat was looming. The south could have taken D.C. if they really wanted to.
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.
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.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Slavery was too much of a status symbol and there was too much wealth tied up in it for it to have ended peacefully in the short term future. Medium and long term it's hard to say.
It was already a economic loser by the time the Civil War came around.
that is just straightforwardly untrue unless you are talking about long term sustainability, which maybe, but even then it's not clearly a loser
Depends on how you define success. It was great for a select few but crap for the South in general. The South was rapidly falling behind in industrialization and urbanization compared to the North by the time of the war.
Yes, if your criteria for economic success are industrialization and urbanization then slavery in the American south was shit.
But the reason that the south didn't industrialize or urbanize was because it didn't need to
the agrarian economy that slavery allowed for was hugely profitable. yeah, that profit didn't trickle down to the lower class, but when did it? even then, it wasn't like the lower class didn't see material benefit from the institution of slavery
yes long term, the massive agrarian economy would have had to slow down (because it was fed by territorial expansion which is limited), but we're talking pretty long term.
it's not clear by the time of the civil war that slavery was becoming at all less profitable than it had been, it was more profitable
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.
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.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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.