The US would have been a much better and more prosperous nation if it had let the south secede. likewise, the confederacy would have tapered out their slavery policies and been just as prosperous as the north. the two separate nations would have been able to properly cater to their very different constituencies and eventually work together on trade and defense. one of the biggest reasons hicks, and southerners in general, continue to move farther right is because they're still butthurt about the civil war. if we would have let them secede, which it was their right to do so, not only would the Union and Confederacy each been better off than the US is today, but hundreds of thousands of American lives wouldn't have been wasted during the war.
Unpopular Opinion
shut the fuck up you lost get over it already you fat inbred nigger white trash faggot
Confederates would've got all bitchy and joined deeper with the UK and shit would've been a lot more interesting.
i live in the north
Perfect outcomes are for retards. You think all your great visions would have turned out for the better of things would have just gone that way?
Do does Marx. And retards still tillin
>Nigger white trash faggot
Aww, bless your heart, you almost tried, there!
No, the South was built upon an oligarchic class in which the oligarchs relied on slave labor to rule over everyone indiscriminately. Race was just a vehicle used to strengthen the hold the Southern elites had over the slave market. They had intention to expand their empire and subjugate more people, and would have been an evil nation on par with the likes of the Nazis.
Spotted the goyim
yeah but the blacks arent like jews. they would have gotten violent and risen up. the south would eventually have gotten economic pressure to end slavery as well. whats all that cotton good for if no one will buy it?
You have to understand that if it wasn't for the Union winning the Civil War, Oligarchic and Autocratic regimes would have survived for much longer than World War 1 where most of them began to crumble and die in the western world. European monarchs were watching our war closely to see if we the regime our founders created could survive such a bloody war, and in fact, there were many foreign military excursions for both the Union and the Confederacy, however, the Confederacy got more international support. If anything, the CSA surviving would have been a loss for free gov't everywhere. There would had to be an equivalent struggle to the Civil War in order to undo the institutions utilized by John C. Calhoun and the elites of the Confederacy, which would have been more bloody, and more unlikely to come from anywhere but North America anyway. The Europeans tend to be more accepting of a ruling class presiding over them (as they still are), so I'd argue that if anything the CSA would have thrived if the Union left them alone.
Yes, part of my argument was that the CSA would also thrive. As far as oligarchic regimes, you don't think they survived? Look at who owns our politicians. Our country is an oligarchy.
You're on to something. Here's the secret that retards who suspect "le evil jooz" and theorize about a grandiose Deep State don't realize. The oligarchic practice of the CSA never died off, and the Democrats never stopped acting like fucking aristocratic pieces of shit. They changed racial patrons, but still don't give two fucks about anyone but their own. What we're going through now is a comparable culmination of political struggle with that oligarchy, which has been emboldened from previous successes in the 20th century. In both major struggles, from the Civil War to the political war of today, the Democrats have been chipping away at our freedom under the guise of Constitutional law (back then it was state's rights... now it's human rights), with the sole purpose of restructuring our regime to fit their ruling class. While there is a shadow goverment in our nation, we have a personal moral responsibility to help undo the damage done from 20th century victories the left has won. To tie this into my points about the so-called "deep state", the sources of power the left have actually tend to be acting in plain sight (somewhat like John C. Calhoun from the time of Andrew Jackson onward), so it's not like everyone with real power is hidden behind a veil that we can't see. To further explain, Hillary Clinton was a great source of power to shadow government by using the weight of her influence to create underground political practices that ran independently of our normal government. When Trump not only beat her, but ruined her credibility (and destroyed any hopes the Clinton family may have had for future political candidacy), this was a blow against corruption within our government.
Agreed. After this election maybe people will be smart enough to elect politicians who actually respond to their concerns. And the corruption stems to each branch of government, including the supreme court. They have free reign to interpret each word of the constitution in any way they so please, usually to fit their own political ideology. And there are no restrictions to how ridiculous they can stretch their interpretations. The country was doomed to fail from the start. The founders either had too much confidence in their successors, or they planned it out to be like this (i.e. Madison's "opulent minority" writings).
Trump is a start, and between the news of the administration and congress taking steps towards leaving the UN, it looks like we're going down the right path at the moment. Trump simply winning, as I said, was a considerable blow against the shadow government because they lost a lot of leverage. It doesn't strike at whatever organization families like the Clintons may have, but it certainly makes it harder for them to control the country right now.
As for certain institutions, perhaps you COULD say that the founders had too much confidence in their successors when it comes to matters like the Supreme Court, simply because the leftists are free to stack whatever non-elected political position they can with their yes men to try and rig the system (a tactic used by the South in the past), but the founders also allowed for amendments to be made. Unfortunately this too is a process that has been intentionally abused by bad people in the past, but when it comes to amendments and other such law, at least Republicans are on an even playing field with Oligarchs.
Additionally, the founders never put in any designations, constitutional or otherwise, for most executive / bureaucratic elements of government, so there are a lot of unprotected non-elected positions that Trump may be free to destroy or minimize as he sees fit. I think he's a big government type of guy, but all he has to do is lay the groundwork for a philosopher king type of president.
I guess what I'm getting at is that there may not be a simple plan to dismantle the bureaucratic / patron state we have been living under, there certainly are places we can start. Only weak people lament and say that some powerful entity hides in the shadows and guarantees that our efforts are futile.
>no Trump presidency
>no internet
>no high ways
>no (((moon landining))) although I'm not sure if that one is a hoax, or not
Irregardless, I love my southern brothers, but you guys had to be reigned in for the betterment of Western civilization. We can still be saved, this is our timeline if we stand united, but for now we must show love for our fellow man in the face of the Leftists (Marxists) cruel and hypocritical attacks on us.
Agreed. And we would have likely reunited at some point anyway.
OR, we should have left states to do as they please, so there never would have been reason for them to seceed in the first place.
The feds caused the civil war.
We would not have reunited, and odds are more than likely that ignoring the CSA would have allowed them to establish dominance on the continent as the writings of many CSA politicians detail that they had grand plans of conquest and expansion, primarily southward, but the power they would gain from this conquest would have been enough to threaten the very existence of our free USA if such a scenario did occur.
Not really.
The north would have kept its ties with Britain and the South would have allied with France.
Would have made an interesting turn of history, but a divided America would have been disastrous.
Dixie allies with France during ww1 killing slaves, upsetting USA.
USA boycotts the south and does a deal with Germany.
Dixie agrees to outlaw slavery to ally with Canada taking down USA.
USA becomes under British rule again (only this time without California.)
So you would have had two canadas?
I mean the states
It would be terrible.
The South was a Aristocracy, rich slave owners throwing away white lives to protect their pet niggers.
It is repeated again, only this time votes instead of cotton. If slavery was kept, the US now CS industry would collapse, leading to Americans becoming dependent on slave labor more and more. This would lead the CSA to make more wars to procure more slaves, and the rest of the world to unite against us. All the while rich Democrats would just rake in money, while white boys died to protect their interests while chanting "Your southern heritage!" "We're the Master Race!" The Europeans, would ally to stop CS expansion and curbstomp us, this and the inevitable Slave Uprising would turn us into ZIMBABWE 9000.
This is one outcome but I think we concern ourselves too much with the what-if aspects here that don't matter too much. The point I have been trying to establish is that misunderstanding the lessons we should have learned from Southern Democrats are part of the reason why we are embattled with such a fanatical political opponent today, and our nation's struggles with the South can actually teach us lessons about how to defeat our current opponent