Archived If the South succeeded in seceding, what would life in North America be like today? (AskVoat)
submitted ago by ShamanAtheist
Posted by: ShamanAtheist
Posting time: 5.3 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 2/12/2017 1:51:00 AM
Views: 424
SCP: 13
15 upvotes, 2 downvotes (88% upvoted it)
Archived If the South succeeded in seceding, what would life in North America be like today? (AskVoat)
submitted ago by ShamanAtheist
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 1772448? 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago (edited ago)
I imagine the cultural situation would be like the Koreas. Both of them claiming the other one is an abusive dictatorship with no regards for the rights of its inhabitants, families between the borders split apart, international community taking advantage of the situation for political agendas.
The South likely would have stayed out of WW1, WW2, the cold war, ect.
Confederate ideology (the parts that aren't about white supremacy) would encourage neutrality, so no trading arms with England during WW1, especially when the civil war (confederate revolution?) was just around the corner, so they wouldn't be able to afford arms production. This means, the German Navy doesn't blow up civilian ships heading to England assuming they're all smuggling arms.
They also wouldn't get involved in WW2, because without a coastline on the Pacific, Japan would never provoke them. They probably wouldn't react the way everyone else did when German concentration camps were discovered, assuming white supremacy is still influential in confederate society.
During the cold war, the only time I can see them doing anything is during the Cuban missile crisis, because Cuba is so close, and I doubt the Russians would treat them any different from the United States.
Jim crow in the North probably would have ended faster, or even been completely avoided, because mistreatment of non-whites would be seen as a traitorous confederate thing. You'd bet your ass the government would use slavery and racism as a way to (factually) smear the confederates, and something the North would pride itself on.
There also wouldn't be a lot of Cuban immigrants/exiles in Florida, for obvious reasons. This might replace the bay of pigs invasion with just a traditional all out military invasion, since there are no Cuban exiles to send in, and the U.S. wouldn't bother with plausible deniability.
The confederacy wouldn't give a shit about Korea or Vietnam.
Seeing that George Bush was from Texas, I doubt the Iraq war would ever happen. In fact, if they're still white supremacists, they would laugh at the U.S. on 9/11 for "being stupid enough to let sandniggers on planes heading to the U.S". America would still go after the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, but not Iraq. The confederates might support America in the war on terror, considering they would probably also be a target of radical Islam.
WW3 would be the same, because China will still sign a deal with the confederates to buy confederate land on the Northern border and build military bases, in return for the South outsourcing a large portion of its slavery to Chinese sweatshops. Just like in our time line.
Also, I really hope this thread didn't die, I spent way too long typing this out.
[–] creflo 1 point 6 points 7 points (+7|-1) ago
Like many, you have much to learn about attitude towards the negro in the Northern states. Lincoln did not have any intention of freeing slaves to travel into Union states. He stated many times that if he could have stopped secession without freeing the slaves, it would have been his preference.
His native state, like many in the North had laws preventing any immigration of freed negros. In the North, there were laws preventing the negro from owning property, signing contracts or accessing the courts. One had a law that no establishment could have more than 3 negros where music and alcohol were present. The owner would be fined and the negros whipped. We're talking about free men AFTER the war.
[–] 1775865? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I realize that the North wasn't a super happy fun land that rejected racism. People who think it was having considered the fact that Jim Crow probably wouldn't exist in a racially tolerant society.
We like to personify North and South as if they're two individual entities, but there were a lot of different people with different political power, state and federal. The states could say X, congress could say Y, and Lincoln could say Z. Anyone without a degree in U.S. history probably isn't 100% right; the actual narrative is a lot more complicated than the emotionally driven ones we know as "The evil/heroic North defeating the freedom loving/racially oppressive South".
[–] JohnQCitizen ago (edited ago)
Personally, I would think that slavery in the south would end once the mill towns in the north got popular, and were shown to be profitable. You wouldn't have to bother with rations and shit like that, and the workers would believe workers were free even when they weren't. What do you think?
[–] 1778398? ago
I'm not familiar with mill towns, but based on what you told me, it sounds somewhat like sharecropping. I doubt it would be a reason to totally end slavery though, seeing as the key function of it is deception.