• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where would North America and Planet Earth be if President Lincoln had failed?

well nothing about you is different, you seemed to be of a one track mind.

why dont you try reading something, like the 1828 traffic act, which the federal government and the northern states colluded together to hurt the southern economy.

Because I don't give a rip about the southern economy in 1828. I do care about Waffen SS worshippers and those who think the feudal slave owners were somehow admirable.
 
I grew up in the midwest, and now live in the southeast. It is interesting the different "education" regarding the Civil War is. Even my wife (born and raised in the south) who is left of center won't agree that the Civil War was fought to end slavery, but back north that's what we were taught in the public schools. Just perspective, and I get it. It's no different than any other war, everyone always feels justified in what they experienced, and collectively that attitude gets passed on down the generations. Southerners of the Civil War era probably did feel as though states rights were dismantled with the Civil War, and the North probably did feel justified in ending slavery whether for moral and/or economic reasons.

But having lived in both areas, there really is no reason to have a continued divide or derision for those other areas. Great people and beautiful places everywhere. Just sit back and enjoy what we do have instead of pining for something we don't have. That's my take.
 
Because I don't give a rip about the southern economy in 1828. I do care about Waffen SS worshippers and those who think the feudal slave owners were somehow admirable.

i seems i am not discussing something with an adult, instead someone who has not matured yet.
 
I grew up in the midwest, and now live in the southeast. It is interesting the different "education" regarding the Civil War is. Even my wife (born and raised in the south) who is left of center won't agree that the Civil War was fought to end slavery, but back north that's what we were taught in the public schools. Just perspective, and I get it. It's no different than any other war, everyone always feels justified in what they experienced, and collectively that attitude gets passed on down the generations. Southerners of the Civil War era probably did feel as though states rights were dismantled with the Civil War, and the North probably did feel justified in ending slavery whether for moral and/or economic reasons.

But having lived in both areas, there really is no reason to have a continued divide or derision for those other areas. Great people and beautiful places everywhere. Just sit back and enjoy what we do have instead of pining for something we don't have. That's my take.


what i even find is people of the north, who have a dislike for southern states and its people, there on some on this board think southern are backwards compared to themselves, and when the war is mentioned its never about anything else but slavery.
 
I feel sorry for those in the South that feel they have to find some sort of understanding of an aggressive war fought under the banner of slavery that allows them to salvage some idea of nobility.
 
My mother was from the south and my father from the north, but I grew up in the deep south, later moving to New England as an adult. I always said to myself that I am a human first, a person first, not a southerner or a northerner, but merely a man. I lived in the north for as long as I lived in the south. I can go either/or without any accent.

People in the south think that up north yankees are "on the make", sort of always looking out for number one, for ways to make money, always up to something, and secular. Not really secular though, in my opinion. Even the street preachers here are on the make, looking out for their own interests, trying to win converts, make money off them. The street preachers are like hookers or whores out trying to find a john, standing on the side of the street, on the make. I am surprised prostitution is illegal. It should be a civil right like street preaching in our total "everyman for himself" constitutional reality.

Thats all they are doing in Syria as well, Obama is merely another animal on the make, like a wild dog looking out for scraps of food in Yankeeland, how to make it work in Syria to seem like we are out to do good, to protect innocents from chemical weapons, while actually the innocent people are mafiosos rather than rebels. Of course we support the rebels, they are on the make like the Yankee.
 
Only your Hitler question is time-appropriate to my OP. I opine that Japan would have helped Hitler more with Russia since a Pearl Harbor and a USA would not have been on the table. World War Two may not have been needed for Germany with a non-existent USA during WW I.

Is it not possible that a Union North would have had a Congress that backed FDR's desire to get involved in WW2 as early as possible?

It's not like a Union North would have been any smaller than any other of the Great Powers at the time so they may have remained integral components of the Allies.
 
I believe the South and North would have eventually reformed after a brief split had their been no Lincoln or Civil War. We'd most likely be more of a constitutional nation and a true union of states as the founders envisioned rather than the federal nation we are now. WWII would probably not have happened or we would have remained neutral. Many of the conditions that lead up to it wouldn't have been in play.
 
If we had not entered WW I as just the Union North, Germany would have had no need for a WW II.
What a lovely world that would have been.
My British Mother and younger brother came to visit today.
She was 8-YO in 1939 when the bombing started.
Was responsible for herding the younger kids to the shelters in London.
Her Mother was from Ireland.
Is it not possible that a Union North would have had a Congress that backed FDR's desire to get involved in WW2 as early as possible?

It's not like a Union North would have been any smaller than any other of the Great Powers at the time so they may have remained integral components of the Allies.
 
If we had not entered WW I as just the Union North, Germany would have had no need for a WW II.
What a lovely world that would have been.
My British Mother and younger brother came to visit today.
She was 8-YO in 1939 when the bombing started.
Was responsible for herding the younger kids to the shelters in London.
Her Mother was from Ireland.

So what you're saying is that if the United States had not entered WW1 the world would be a better place?
 
Not at all and those words tasted awful.
If you think Germany during WW I would be a great world right now, so be it.
I must accept Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley being assasinated by the possible Indian medicine.
Or we don't get T. Roosevelt and Wilson and win WW I.
So what you're saying is that if the United States had not entered WW1 the world would be a better place?
 
Not at all and those words tasted awful.
If you think Germany during WW I would be a great world right now, so be it.
I must accept Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley being assasinated by the possible Indian medicine.
Or we don't get T. Roosevelt and Wilson and win WW I.

But we don't get WW2 presumably. That at least is not a Nazi world of killing all Jews, the disabled and other 'undesirables'.

I have to say I think a Union North is naturally more inclined to be globalist than a United States due to it's political gravity being pulled to New York even more so than the actual USA was during this period of time, which means more active intervention in global affairs earlier. So I think the Union North may have been in WW1 and would have been a deciding factor.
 
So what you're saying is that if the United States had not entered WW1 the world would be a better place?

i believe the problem ,is becuase of the massive debt placed on Germany after the war by the allies, which could not be paid, and caused the Wiemar republic to fall, and Hitler to step in.
 
But if the Union North had not entered, the Great World War would have ended differently.
In fact, we may not have had a Spanish-American War.
Chances are, knowing this country, we would have had a Civil War II and IIII and so on.
Like now tho different.
i believe the problem ,is becuase of the massive debt placed on Germany after the war by the allies, which could not be paid, and caused the Wiemar republic to fall, and Hitler to step in.
 
I think the board game Risk sums this up pretty well.. .We should force all the Leaders of the world to put up their toys on a big board game and then play.. .Might as well go for a soda, nobody dies.
But we don't get WW2 presumably. That at least is not a Nazi world of killing all Jews, the disabled and other 'undesirables'.

I have to say I think a Union North is naturally more inclined to be globalist than a United States due to it's political gravity being pulled to New York even more so than the actual USA was during this period of time, which means more active intervention in global affairs earlier. So I think the Union North may have been in WW1 and would have been a deciding factor.
 
i believe the problem ,is becuase of the massive debt placed on Germany after the war by the allies, which could not be paid, and caused the Wiemar republic to fall, and Hitler to step in.

I believe that argument is valid and goes back to the argument by Niall Ferguson that the Brits shouldn't have responded as they did and we just get a reasonably liberal German dominated Europe as we have now and no WW2.

I'm not entirely convinced the Germans don't experience a defeat in WW1 sans USA leading to those consequences anyway. US involvement in WW1 is important for a speedier conclusion, US involvement in WW2 is integral to an Allied victory.
 
Not to mention Japan may have never been a factor in WWII leaving the US as largely against intervention. FDR was very much opposed to the express will of the people and intervened after the second Sino-Japanese War and the rape of Nanking to punish Japan.
 
But we don't get WW2 presumably. That at least is not a Nazi world of killing all Jews, the disabled and other 'undesirables'.

I have to say I think a Union North is naturally more inclined to be globalist than a United States due to it's political gravity being pulled to New York even more so than the actual USA was during this period of time, which means more active intervention in global affairs earlier. So I think the Union North may have been in WW1 and would have been a deciding factor.

Blame the confederates who fired on fort Sumter
 
Blame the confederates who fired on fort Sumter

For what?

No fort sumter - The United States would be as is leading to the same international consequences.

Either way I do not subscribe to the notion the US effected the first ww in Europe to the degree that Nazi Germany's appearance in history was contingent upon it.
 
Not since the Civil War have so many "portions" of states wanted to secede.
Now it's western Maryland joining Northern California, Northeast Colorado and all of Texas.
I am not allowed to say why I think this is happening.
Textbook and Board game companies would benefit.
 
For what?

No fort sumter - The United States would be as is leading to the same international consequences.

Either way I do not subscribe to the notion the US effected the first ww in Europe to the degree that Nazi Germany's appearance in history was contingent upon it.

Would we be as "exceptional" as we are if Lincoln had failed?
 
Blame the confederates who fired on fort Sumter


well lets look at things, according to the federalist papers and madison..... states are...... sovereign, and independent.

1) since the south left the union, and no longer under constitutional authority, that would make the fort illegal under the confederacy....the south asked the federal government to evacuate the fort, before shooting ever started

2) if we go by the constitution, then according to article 1 section 8 second to last clause the state has to give its approval for any fort in its state, since approval was given at one time, can that approval be withdrawn......sounds logical.
 
Lately I watched two different movies of a rethinking of confederate history. One was Spike Lee's mockumentary "The CSA", what would have happened if the South won the war. Then, I got around to watching the original "The Birth of a Nation", a silent film made entirely to present the American south as the Victim, which puts the Klu Klux Klan as heroes defending white people from renegade freed slaves that the North had set free as part of a regime change. Interesting is the casting of the villain as a Mulatto!

Well, all that racist crap aside, there are some interesting points about the regime change being not merely philanthropy for blacks from Lincoln. For one, even Spike Lee, the African American film director, presented Lincoln as being sort of phony, not really caring about blacks. Most of the problems with the south have to do more with voting power. They didnt want the north to get the vote, then there is the fact that there was an in-between era where the southerners lived nicely with the freed slaves, before the jim crow laws that instituted segregation, and that too started less about racism and more about fear of black voting power. Today the southerner still fears the power of the black to vote. There are famous leftists from New York who kept going down south helping to register blacks to vote as part of the civil rights era. Texas today continually reroutes its voting districts in snaky patterns to keep Republicans in power.

In the end, I like to see the regime change in the south as being much like any radical regime change instituted by New England and the north east, such as the removal of Mohammad Mosaddegh in the 1950s. For a while it worked, but ultimately it led to radical religious right taking over. Basically, if the south had been treated differently, they might not be as religious today. Whenever the northeast operates a regime change, the nation always becomes radicalised in a negative way. The Democrats in the north often work hand in hand with far right Mujahideen type Muslims.

Either way the USA is pretty corrupt. In one sense you can even see a south north conflict with Edward Snowden. He grew up in North Carolina and leaked about the NSA. Then who complained the loudest that they wanted him back from Russia? Obama and John Kerry up in New England. Who does John Kerry support in Syria? The radical Muslim rebels! Many of whom are as questionable as those fighting in the Bosnian war for Bill Clinton.
 
Last edited:
Either way the USA is pretty corrupt.

Perhaps so, but still a thousand times less corrupt than your country and most others in the world. Liberalism demands lies, dishonesty and corruption because, in a public referendum of ideas, Liberalism always loses. Hence, Liberalism only survives by corruption and dishonesty.
 
Back
Top Bottom