I say yes and probably within 20 years of 1865 just as it did everywhere else.Stasco said:
Going a little further on the what-if-the-Confederates-won theme, when would slavery have finally ended in North America?
Whats your favorite what-if wartime scenario?
76,566 Views |
365 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by Tanker123
So here is a more abstract one.
What if this dude hadnt saved Hitler as a child? A completely different WW2.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/8996576/Adolf-Hitler-nearly-drowned-as-a-child.html
Likley wouldn't have had the third reich. No Russian occupation of eastern Europe, Russia would have been twenty million people stronger, a flourishing Jewish community in europe and a much smaller one here, our space program suffers because Von Braun doesn't come over, maybe we have the same urgency for a bomb. Maybe we dont. And all of our attention could have been focused on Japan, and maybe Italy but they wouldn't have had much to do without Germany. Russia without a war to fight might join in on Japan with a large force, so we never even get to the point of developing a bomb. And sixty million people overall survive the war.
With Europe not devastated and at full manufacturing capacity the US doesn't have the booming fifties like we did, Israel and other middle east countries might not be carved up the way they were, which may have had an effect in terrorism, definitely an effect on the palestinian issue. Maybe NATO still forms, but russia without the bloc would have been far less intimidating,
What if this dude hadnt saved Hitler as a child? A completely different WW2.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/8996576/Adolf-Hitler-nearly-drowned-as-a-child.html
Likley wouldn't have had the third reich. No Russian occupation of eastern Europe, Russia would have been twenty million people stronger, a flourishing Jewish community in europe and a much smaller one here, our space program suffers because Von Braun doesn't come over, maybe we have the same urgency for a bomb. Maybe we dont. And all of our attention could have been focused on Japan, and maybe Italy but they wouldn't have had much to do without Germany. Russia without a war to fight might join in on Japan with a large force, so we never even get to the point of developing a bomb. And sixty million people overall survive the war.
With Europe not devastated and at full manufacturing capacity the US doesn't have the booming fifties like we did, Israel and other middle east countries might not be carved up the way they were, which may have had an effect in terrorism, definitely an effect on the palestinian issue. Maybe NATO still forms, but russia without the bloc would have been far less intimidating,
A classic "If Hitler could not rise to power". It is stunning to me how one man literally shaped the course of world history. I know others have in the past such as Napolean and Alexander, the Khans, but this is recent history and very tangible to me.
Here's another one I have been thinking of.
We all know of the epic showdown between the CSN Virginia and the USN Monitor. Does anyone else think how fickle providence can be that the first two very different designed Ironclads in the world happened to be near each other on that fateful day?
What if the Monitor was a week late? Or even a couple of days? Or simply was never built? Could the Virginia have destroyed enough Union shipping and warships to have made a difference in the war? Remember it was 1862, a very trying time for the Union itself. If word had got back to Washington of an invincible ship destroying all before it, could morale (and military loss of warships) have plummeted enough to sway the outcome at that time?
Here's another one I have been thinking of.
We all know of the epic showdown between the CSN Virginia and the USN Monitor. Does anyone else think how fickle providence can be that the first two very different designed Ironclads in the world happened to be near each other on that fateful day?
What if the Monitor was a week late? Or even a couple of days? Or simply was never built? Could the Virginia have destroyed enough Union shipping and warships to have made a difference in the war? Remember it was 1862, a very trying time for the Union itself. If word had got back to Washington of an invincible ship destroying all before it, could morale (and military loss of warships) have plummeted enough to sway the outcome at that time?
What if the Wall Street Crash doesn't happen in 1929.
No Hitler, no FDR, no Churchill?
No Hitler, no FDR, no Churchill?
Honestly? I think the Virginia would have sunk or been scuttled within a few weeks on its own. It wasn't all that seaworthy. And it would have certainly still resulted in the ironclad building spree. The lack of the Monitor, however, would have impacted naval technology for awhile.
Why? They would've just won a war which basically centered around the right to keep their slaves. And they're just going to give them up voluntarily 20 years later? Black people were barely citizens in the south for 70 years after the war and that was with them being forced to recognize their freedom after being defeated in a civil war. You're dreaming if you think they just quit slavery in the 1880sRabid Cougar said:I say yes and probably within 20 years of 1865 just as it did everywhere else.Stasco said:
Going a little further on the what-if-the-Confederates-won theme, when would slavery have finally ended in North America?
Rabid Cougar said:I say yes and probably within 20 years of 1865 just as it did everywhere else.Stasco said:
Going a little further on the what-if-the-Confederates-won theme, when would slavery have finally ended in North America?
An immediate post War goal of the Confederacy was to establish Central American colonies, especially Cuba, to expand slavery and increase its value even further. What evidence is there that slavery would have ended after 20 years?
Assuming it does end, what would the post-slavery Confederacy look like in your opinion?
The last country in the Americas to abolish slavery was Brazil in 1888. Didn't matter if it was 10,20 or 30 years. Industrialization/mechanization was going to overcome and surpass the financial benefits of slavery.Dr. Watson said:Rabid Cougar said:I say yes and probably within 20 years of 1865 just as it did everywhere else.Stasco said:
Going a little further on the what-if-the-Confederates-won theme, when would slavery have finally ended in North America?
An immediate post War goal of the Confederacy was to establish Central American colonies, especially Cuba, to expand slavery and increase its value even further. What evidence is there that slavery would have ended after 20 years?
Assuming it does end, what would the post-slavery Confederacy look like in your opinion?
In regards to the second question, nothing different but post postponed 20 years. I think they would have most certainly been seen as second class citizens, very similar to how they and their descendants were treated after 1865 up into the mid 20th century. I never said that part was going to be different.
Never said voluntarily. They were considered property. You have to think that the only way that the landed gentry, who owned the majority of slaves, would agree to such a change would be to finagle some sort of compensation from the government. It all begins and ends with money/profit.GeorgePlimpton said:Why? They would've just won a war which basically centered around the right to keep their slaves. And they're just going to give them up voluntarily 20 years later? Black people were barely citizens in the south for 70 years after the war and that was with them being forced to recognize their freedom after being defeated in a civil war. You're dreaming if you think they just quit slavery in the 1880sRabid Cougar said:I say yes and probably within 20 years of 1865 just as it did everywhere else.Stasco said:
Going a little further on the what-if-the-Confederates-won theme, when would slavery have finally ended in North America?
Rabid Cougar said:The last country in the Americas to abolish slavery was Brazil in 1888. Didn't matter if it was 10,20 or 30 years. Industrialization/mechanization was going to overcome and surpass the financial benefits of slavery.Dr. Watson said:Rabid Cougar said:I say yes and probably within 20 years of 1865 just as it did everywhere else.Stasco said:
Going a little further on the what-if-the-Confederates-won theme, when would slavery have finally ended in North America?
An immediate post War goal of the Confederacy was to establish Central American colonies, especially Cuba, to expand slavery and increase its value even further. What evidence is there that slavery would have ended after 20 years?
Assuming it does end, what would the post-slavery Confederacy look like in your opinion?
In regards to the second question, nothing different but post postponed 20 years. I think they would have most certainly been seen as second class citizens, very similar to how they and their descendants were treated after 1865 up into the mid 20th century. I never said that part was going to be different.
I think the assumption that slave labor wouldn't work for industry is misguided. Sweat shops are plentiful and the Tredegar Iron Works showed that slaves could successfully work in industry.
Yes I do, they had conquered North Africa and Spain and were there to stay. It took the Spanish some 700 years to reconquer the peninsula.option short side said:aggiejim70 said:
Let's cut to the chase.......Suppose Charles Martel had been defeated by the invading Muslim army in the eighth
century. There was no other Christian army of any size in Europe. Muslims could have headed toward Rome and the rest they say would be history.
Do you think the Moors would have attempted to settle and colonize Western Europe or behaved like the barbarian raiding parties in the late Roman Enpire?
Great idea for a thread. I love pondering these type of things....
I haven't seen this one posted yet - Turkish attempts against European powers to expand in the Balkans, Europe, & the Mediterranean from 1453 - 1683. The potential "what if" scenarios are almost endless and this is such a fascinating but I feel relatively untold area of history. You just don't see many historians tackling this....it's more US Rev War, US Civil War, WW1, WW2, etc. Granted, those are HUGE events but this ~230 year period with an ascendant, powerful Turkish Muslim Empire vs. a fragmented Christian Europe is so interesting and I feel, pretty important. The Turks had limited tactical successes and made some significant forays but overall, they failed to conquer Europe which was the overarching strategy of several Sultans during this ~230 year period.
What if the Turks had succeeded in taking Vienna in 1529? or 150 years later finally taken it in 1683? What would Europe and the world look like today?
Siege of Malta - 1565
Same line of thought..... What if the Turks won and finally crush the small, yet still dangerous Knights of St. John?
Lepanto - 1571
What happens if the Turks win this naval battle off the coast of Greece and crush the Holy League's armada?
I could go on about "what if" scenarios on this period but curious what others think....
I haven't seen this one posted yet - Turkish attempts against European powers to expand in the Balkans, Europe, & the Mediterranean from 1453 - 1683. The potential "what if" scenarios are almost endless and this is such a fascinating but I feel relatively untold area of history. You just don't see many historians tackling this....it's more US Rev War, US Civil War, WW1, WW2, etc. Granted, those are HUGE events but this ~230 year period with an ascendant, powerful Turkish Muslim Empire vs. a fragmented Christian Europe is so interesting and I feel, pretty important. The Turks had limited tactical successes and made some significant forays but overall, they failed to conquer Europe which was the overarching strategy of several Sultans during this ~230 year period.
What if the Turks had succeeded in taking Vienna in 1529? or 150 years later finally taken it in 1683? What would Europe and the world look like today?
- Would Islam have spread to Central & Eastern Europe or would the principalities of HRE banded together once they fully recognized the Turkish threat and launched a counter attack in alliance with the Poles and other European contingents (Swiss?). What if they failed against the Turks then as well? Would there have been any hope for a Christian Europe?
- Would the French, who were friendly to the Turks at the time due to their rivalry with the Austrian Hapsburgs, change their tune if the Muslim Turks had actually succeeded and were indeed seriously threatening the whole of European Christian civilization?
- What would the ordinary European (peasant, non-noble) of the time have thought upon hearing the news of a Turkish victory at Vienna?
- Would the Church have gotten serious again about the idea of Crusading against the Muslims? At this point, would there have been legitimate support for new Crusades where the Catholic church held sway?
Siege of Malta - 1565
Same line of thought..... What if the Turks won and finally crush the small, yet still dangerous Knights of St. John?
- Do the Spanish refocus the strategy of their empire away from the New World and back towards the old enemy in the Turks in the Mediterranean theater?
- Same question regarding the French from above.
- What does the Church do? With the Turks at harbor in Malta, they can far more easily strike at Rome.....
Lepanto - 1571
What happens if the Turks win this naval battle off the coast of Greece and crush the Holy League's armada?
- Was this really as important in hindsight to saving European Christianity? The Christian's of the time saw their naval victory as a saving grace from God and felt it decisively stopped the Turks in the Mediterranean. The Turks however, acquainted their defeat to merely having their beard shaved and not their arm lopped off like the Euros claimed.
- If the Turks win, can they take Sicily, Rome, all of Italy without first having taken Malta?
I could go on about "what if" scenarios on this period but curious what others think....
well, it took 500 years but they finally out bred us.
Welp, it's time we stop slacking and get to work! I need to tell my wife we're going to have 5 kids....i'm curious how that'll will go!cbr said:
well, it took 500 years but they finally out bred us.
What if Hitler had launched Barbarossa in early April instead of late June?
this one is the biggest deal in modern history, but it is sooo difficult to foresee.
the wermacht was barely able to get ready in time as it is... i do know that they had the detour to yugoslavia and greece, etc., and that may have made the difference... or maybe not. one reason they were so successful was stalin had his entire poorly led army stacked randomly on the border to invade poland and germany, and they may not have been so vulnerable as of april as they became by june.
i know stalin almost cracked in december as it is, but it is still hard to imagine the russians folding, even if moscow was taken. after all, they lost several million people that summer and fall... no problem!
as far as the big picture goes, churchill really had no choice but to choose germany as the worst enemy over russia, but i bet if you could ask his ghost today, he might actually say it was a mistake. as bad as they were, nazi germany was never as bad or as much of a threat as the soviet union was.
the wermacht was barely able to get ready in time as it is... i do know that they had the detour to yugoslavia and greece, etc., and that may have made the difference... or maybe not. one reason they were so successful was stalin had his entire poorly led army stacked randomly on the border to invade poland and germany, and they may not have been so vulnerable as of april as they became by june.
i know stalin almost cracked in december as it is, but it is still hard to imagine the russians folding, even if moscow was taken. after all, they lost several million people that summer and fall... no problem!
as far as the big picture goes, churchill really had no choice but to choose germany as the worst enemy over russia, but i bet if you could ask his ghost today, he might actually say it was a mistake. as bad as they were, nazi germany was never as bad or as much of a threat as the soviet union was.
war
cbr said:
this one is the biggest deal in modern history, but it is sooo difficult to foresee.
the wermacht was barely able to get ready in time as it is... i do know that they had the detour to yugoslavia and greece, etc., and that may have made the difference... or maybe not. one reason they were so successful was stalin had his entire poorly led army stacked randomly on the border to invade poland and germany, and they may not have been so vulnerable as of april as they became by june.
i know stalin almost cracked in december as it is, but it is still hard to imagine the russians folding, even if moscow was taken. after all, they lost several million people that summer and fall... no problem!
as far as the big picture goes, churchill really had no choice but to choose germany as the worst enemy over russia, but i bet if you could ask his ghost today, he might actually say it was a mistake. as bad as they were, nazi germany was never as bad or as much of a threat as the soviet union was.
only because Nazi Germany was ruled by a cult of personality. I doubt Hitler would have lived much longer even if they had defeated the Soviets. I don't see Goering, Himmler, Etc as being equipped to sustain
I've developed a good friendship with a colleague from the southern part of Germany. This is a well traveled guy who has been to 5 Continents and logs 100K airline miles/year working around Europe, Africa, Asia and North America. On the surface, there's not a prejudiced bone in this guy's body. In fact, he and I are working together in India next week (because most of the rest of our colleagues won't go).Eliminatus said:
A classic "If Hitler could not rise to power". It is stunning to me how one man literally shaped the course of world history. I know others have in the past such as Napolean and Alexander, the Khans, but this is recent history and very tangible to me.
But, every once in a while he'll slip and say something extremely derogatory towards Muslims, Jews, Poles, etc. And I don't mean a little slip like a scenario where I drop an F-Bomb when I don't realize there are kids within earshot or something. Let's just say that buried under the facade of getting along with everybody and doing the work that needs to be done, there is still a strong layer of German nationalism.
Now what's more interesting to me is that he's not militant. He was conscripted and had to serve two years in the German military as a young man but he really has no interest in any military situation. But, with all Germans, there is a sense that you will do your duty and you will do what you must do to help Germany.
Combine this with the Southern German air of superiority and I think it's very easy to see how not only did an Adolf Hitler rise to power, I think now more than ever, Germany is becoming ripe for another Adolf Hitler type of person to rise to power.
I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that Hitler could not succeed without the German people lining up behind him to support what he was doing. At least 95% of it anyway. And we could talk about the deal with the devil he made with the Catholic church, what kind of deal he must have made with the Swiss, etc. In conclusion, yeah, Hitler was one guy who became the focal point for a lot of off the chart evil stuff but, I believe that he had a lot of help and frankly, a lot of that help is still available under the right conditions (in my opinion).
If William the Conqueror had landed before Harold Hardrada instead of afterwards.
If Rollo had not become the first Duke of Normandy?hennyj15 said:
If William the Conqueror had landed before Harold Hardrada instead of afterwards.
Rabid Cougar said:If Rollo had not become the first Duke of Normandy?hennyj15 said:
If William the Conqueror had landed before Harold Hardrada instead of afterwards.
We'd be speaking Old English or Norwegian.
OK. I was away for a while and read through all of these. Scattershot responses, but here goes:
Once in, the U.S. would have won World War II no matter who was president. On the one hand, nobody was as committed and ambitious as Roosevelt for building up for the war, but on the other hand, any other president would have given us a better economy rather than the devastating New Deal. Given all the other factors unchanged, we would have won, but if that president doesn't embargo Japan's oil and scrap metal, maybe they are content to attack other folks and leave us alone.
I tend to think their supply lines would be too long, and the population in Europe too numerous (there weren't that many people in North Africa). Most likely, Germanic tribes would have pushed back. But it's within reason and not impossible.
They resigned, if I remember correctly, over killing the handicapped, not over killing the Jews. Of course, by then, it was the police state, as much as anything that kept them in line, but also, the Nazis had learned from their early euthenasia programs and henceforth did as much of their work in secret in the future. This is why most camps were in Poland, not Germany proper.
The decisive moment has nothing at all to do with the Union Navy, because it could not have been defeated in its blockade. The decisive moment is if the Confederacy had 3-4 more commerce raiders as successful as the Alabama and Shenandoah. The Union Navy, dispersed to fight a worldwide threat, could not be defeated, but would struggle to defeat, such a foe.Quote:
On Civil War ones, without trying to narrow one down, would just propose and ask --- why are some of the naval actions not looked at closer for the missing `decisive moment'?
I'll do you one better. What if Texas had not been annexed and the seceding states, rather than creating a new confederacy, were annexed to Texas, which already HAD recognition by England, and would probably have had 20 years of trade deals and maybe even an alliance with Queen Victoria?Quote:
Also what if the Confederacy was recognized and then supported by England during the Civil War?
Not to mention this little place called Gibraltar.Quote:
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
Fair enough. So what if the German Navy manages to take control of the French Navy rather than most of those ships being scuttled or sailed to friendly/neutral ports?
They would be on the bottom too. RN had the largest Navy in the World with more active surface units available than the French and German navies combined: 191 to 125.
Quote:
Surprised nobody has mentioned, "What if Giuseppe Zangara's attempted assassination of Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 15, 1933 had been successful?"
Phillip K. Dick has written one possibility (Man in the High Castle). Not sure how plausible that outcome is, but we would be living in a different world. Vastly different New Deal, Social Security, isolationalism, Lend Lease.
Once in, the U.S. would have won World War II no matter who was president. On the one hand, nobody was as committed and ambitious as Roosevelt for building up for the war, but on the other hand, any other president would have given us a better economy rather than the devastating New Deal. Given all the other factors unchanged, we would have won, but if that president doesn't embargo Japan's oil and scrap metal, maybe they are content to attack other folks and leave us alone.
Quote:
Let's cut to the chase.......Suppose Charles Martel had been defeated by the invading Muslim army in the eighth
century. There was no other Christian army of any size in Europe. Muslims could have headed toward Rome and the rest they say would be history.
I tend to think their supply lines would be too long, and the population in Europe too numerous (there weren't that many people in North Africa). Most likely, Germanic tribes would have pushed back. But it's within reason and not impossible.
Then the North loses another battle with 20,000 casualties and the South wins with 15,000 and the North still goes up on the balance sheet because the South doesn't have enough men. I do think it's possible to force the North into a negotiated settlement, but I'd say the odds would only change from 10-1 to 6-1 after such a campaign. This is like the can Germany beat Russia. It's not impossible, but it's very, very hard.Quote:
I'm rereading Shelby Foote, just got to Special Order 191. What if some clumsy officer hadn't dropped the cigar packet with the plan of battle for the Maryland Campaign?
Economics. Slavery fails for the same reason communism does. As the industrial revolution increases, and as money supply increases (the real reason the South had true slaves rather than wage slaves), I think the southern economy moves to more manumission and sharecropping. I think it probably evolves. 20 years is probably the short end of the spectrum. It could take as much as 80.Quote:
Why? They would've just won a war which basically centered around the right to keep their slaves. And they're just going to give them up voluntarily 20 years later? Black people were barely citizens in the south for 70 years after the war and that was with them being forced to recognize their freedom after being defeated in a civil war. You're dreaming if you think they just quit slavery in the 1880s
No, in fact, it's easy to imagine. If no one in the entire country, including Stalin, thought they would survive 1941, that's your first clue that it wasn't inevitable. I think it was unlikely (not inevitable) for the obvious (in hindsight) strengths of Russia, but ultimately, morale is just as decisive a factor as the T-34, and it came real close to collapsing. It absolutely would have without Stalin. If you think the Soviet Union in 1941 could operate without Stalin, then you have never read anything about Stalin. He killed anyone who had competence in high position. He goes, the country goes. And for that brief moment when he panicked, he was almost gone.Quote:
i know stalin almost cracked in december as it is, but it is still hard to imagine the russians folding, even if moscow was taken. after all, they lost several million people that summer and fall... no problem!
I removed the stuff in the middle to make a point. He's from the South. This is like saying you know someone from Texas and inferring that his opinions on guns are common to all Americans. I attended a university in Southern Germany, and even among the conservative southerners, people like your colleague are probably only 40 percent. They're 10 percent in places like the Rheinland or Berlin.Quote:
I've developed a good friendship with a colleague from the southern part of Germany.......there is still a strong layer of German nationalism.
Quote:
And don't forget that over 1/3 of the German Lutheran ministers resigned over the Nazi policies.
They resigned, if I remember correctly, over killing the handicapped, not over killing the Jews. Of course, by then, it was the police state, as much as anything that kept them in line, but also, the Nazis had learned from their early euthenasia programs and henceforth did as much of their work in secret in the future. This is why most camps were in Poland, not Germany proper.
West Texan said:
What if after the initial grenade failed, Archduke Franz Ferdinand didn't decide to go visit the wounded, leading him right into Gravilo Princip's lap?
Even if the assassination does happen, what if Russia doesn't stick up for Serbia and leaves the Serbs to Austria-Hungary?
This is the big one in my opinion. If the Archduke escapes Sarajevo alive, we probably do not have the chain reaction that leads to WWI (which means no WW2, no Communist infection spreading across Europe and Asia, etc.). Our world would likely look completely different. But one could probably argue that Europe would have erupted into war at some point given tensions between several nations and the web of treaties tying all of them together. It was already a powderkeg. Gavrilo Princip is just the poor ******* who happened to drop the match. I would bet that if he knew now what would happen as a result of his actions that day, he would have kept his gun in his pocket and let the Archduke's car pass right on by. Crazy thought.
jay07ag said:West Texan said:
What if after the initial grenade failed, Archduke Franz Ferdinand didn't decide to go visit the wounded, leading him right into Gravilo Princip's lap?
Even if the assassination does happen, what if Russia doesn't stick up for Serbia and leaves the Serbs to Austria-Hungary?
This is the big one in my opinion. If the Archduke escapes Sarajevo alive, we probably do not have the chain reaction that leads to WWI (which means no WW2, no Communist infection spreading across Europe and Asia, etc.). Our world would likely look completely different. But one could probably argue that Europe would have erupted into war at some point given tensions between several nations and the web of treaties tying all of them together. It was already a powderkeg. Gavrilo Princip is just the poor ******* who happened to drop the match. I would bet that if he knew now what would happen as a result of his actions that day, he would have kept his gun in his pocket and let the Archduke's car pass right on by. Crazy thought.
Sadly, I don't think knowledge of what would happen would have changed his mind. He's still seen as a hero in Serbia.
This has turned into a very nice thread.
Hollywood's 'what if' about how we responded to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is somehting I've often wondered about. I appreciate 41's world order vision but one has to wonder if we'd be better off today if we left that rat's nest alone.
I'm reading Pacific Payback right now and I've often wondered about how much the end of WW II would have been altered as a result of Midway having turned out differently. Our industrial capability would have eventually won out but we'd have been in a very big hole by the time the Essex class carriers were commissioned.
Hollywood's 'what if' about how we responded to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is somehting I've often wondered about. I appreciate 41's world order vision but one has to wonder if we'd be better off today if we left that rat's nest alone.
I'm reading Pacific Payback right now and I've often wondered about how much the end of WW II would have been altered as a result of Midway having turned out differently. Our industrial capability would have eventually won out but we'd have been in a very big hole by the time the Essex class carriers were commissioned.
Back to the slavery argument, Dr. Watson says that it can be used in an industrial capacity. Certainly it can, but the history of the North and early industrialism shows that it DID exist, not as pure slavery, but as an approximation of it. It existed on sailing ships, where crewmen were flogged more regularly than slaves generally were.
One of the reasons slavery developed as it did, however, is specific to agriculture. The need for a large labor supply for an economic activity that generally operated on a non-cash basis. Even if there had been enough workers to use non-slave labor, there was simply nothing to pay them. The planters themselves were chronically short of money, and much of their activity was barter. They would sell their crops on credit in London and the money would buy goods there which would be shipped back, and the cash never came back to the U.S.
The growing economic diversification of the late 1800s means that it becomes possible to pay slaves a minor wage and thus emancipate them, but transform them into wage slaves like the northern workers mentioned above. I don't think slavery survives in a pure form, because it becomes possible economically to create this nod-and-wink emancipation, and as England in particular becomes hostile to slave labor, the quasi-slave labor becomes appealing.
One of the reasons slavery developed as it did, however, is specific to agriculture. The need for a large labor supply for an economic activity that generally operated on a non-cash basis. Even if there had been enough workers to use non-slave labor, there was simply nothing to pay them. The planters themselves were chronically short of money, and much of their activity was barter. They would sell their crops on credit in London and the money would buy goods there which would be shipped back, and the cash never came back to the U.S.
The growing economic diversification of the late 1800s means that it becomes possible to pay slaves a minor wage and thus emancipate them, but transform them into wage slaves like the northern workers mentioned above. I don't think slavery survives in a pure form, because it becomes possible economically to create this nod-and-wink emancipation, and as England in particular becomes hostile to slave labor, the quasi-slave labor becomes appealing.
What if Hannibal had sacked Rome and won the Punic Wars and Carthage became the dominant Mediterranean power for the next 800 years instead of Rome?
No Constantine.
No Vatican.
No widespread Christianity?
No Roman engineering to draw off of.
No Constantine.
No Vatican.
No widespread Christianity?
No Roman engineering to draw off of.
What if Parliament agrees with Edmund Burke and gives the colonies virtual representation in 1769?
No Revolutionary War. Slavery might end without a war. US is probably smaller with more of the current US belonging to Mexico, etc. The US-England relationship probably looks a lot like Canada does now. Or was independence inevitable?
No Revolutionary War. Slavery might end without a war. US is probably smaller with more of the current US belonging to Mexico, etc. The US-England relationship probably looks a lot like Canada does now. Or was independence inevitable?
I think Ferdinand not being assassinated maybe prevents the Austro-Hungarian empire from collapsing before 1920, but large scale conflict was coming to Europe regardless. Schlieffen was already drawing up the plans before the turn of the century. Germany or Russia would have eventually triggered large scale war due Bismarck's alliance webs, IMO.jay07ag said:West Texan said:
What if after the initial grenade failed, Archduke Franz Ferdinand didn't decide to go visit the wounded, leading him right into Gravilo Princip's lap?
Even if the assassination does happen, what if Russia doesn't stick up for Serbia and leaves the Serbs to Austria-Hungary?
This is the big one in my opinion. If the Archduke escapes Sarajevo alive, we probably do not have the chain reaction that leads to WWI (which means no WW2, no Communist infection spreading across Europe and Asia, etc.). Our world would likely look completely different. But one could probably argue that Europe would have erupted into war at some point given tensions between several nations and the web of treaties tying all of them together. It was already a powderkeg. Gavrilo Princip is just the poor ******* who happened to drop the match. I would bet that if he knew now what would happen as a result of his actions that day, he would have kept his gun in his pocket and let the Archduke's car pass right on by. Crazy thought.
How about if Ferdinand isn't assassinated in Sarajevo, but Germany still decides the time for expansion is right and declares war on France anyways. There's no Serbian uprising for Austria-Hungary to over commit themselves to in the first weeks of war. Instead they push their entire army out to the Eastern Front to stall the Russians as long as they can. Maybe then there's no longer a need for von Moltke to divide his troops just before the final breakthrough in France in those opening weeks?
That would go back to my question of whether we're talking about de jure emancipation or de facto. The early Reconstruction "Black Codes" were a perfect example of de facto slavery. Technically "freeing" slaves may have occurred (though remember that the country, especially the South, maintained a huge rural population until pretty recently and would have been able to maintain a traditional social order), but I don't see how that would have resulted in actual freedom for slaves.
Quad Dog said:
What if Parliament agrees with Edmund Burke and gives the colonies virtual representation in 1769?
No Revolutionary War. Slavery might end without a war. US is probably smaller with more of the current US belonging to Mexico, etc. The US-England relationship probably looks a lot like Canada does now. Or was independence inevitable?
Independence inevitable. I really think the Scots Irish migration wasn't going to jive with England.
VanZandt92 said:Quad Dog said:
What if Parliament agrees with Edmund Burke and gives the colonies virtual representation in 1769?
No Revolutionary War. Slavery might end without a war. US is probably smaller with more of the current US belonging to Mexico, etc. The US-England relationship probably looks a lot like Canada does now. Or was independence inevitable?
Independence inevitable. I really think the Scots Irish migration wasn't going to jive with England.
The Scot Irish were not politically powerful enough on their own to drive a Revolution and existed in too small numbers in the northeast to be any kind of driving force. They also lived too far from the centers of power. They could drive Indian wars in places like Pennsylvania, but they weren't setting imperial policy.
Featured Stories
See All
41:34
3h ago
7.1k
28:26
2h ago
500
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 15
by Matthew Dawson
ArmyAg1997
I am retiring from texags until aggie football makes the playoffs.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
213
tremble
2025 Draper (UT) Corner Canyon WR Jerome Myles signs with Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
133
WestAustinAg
I am retiring from texags until aggie football makes the playoffs.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
106