When you say "the Democrats", are you assuming that the party could have united on a single candidate (remember, Breckenridge was the Dem candidate in the slave states, and Douglas in the Free States; having two candidates is what cost them the election, probably) or that Douglas would have been able to beat Lincoln even with Breckenridge running? (I don't think Breckenridge was on the ballot in states with enough electoral votes to allow him to win)aggiejim70 said:
What if the Democrats won the election of 1860. No Civil War, freedom of the slaves put on hold for who knows how long. Lincoln just an answer to a trivia question. Somewhere in the neighborhood of a half a million lives saved.
Langenator said:
Most of the land acquired from Mexico after the Mexican War was south of the Missouri Compromise line, and thus technically slavery would have been allowed, even if the traditional slave labor cash crops (cotton, tobacco, rice, indigo) wouldn't have fared well there.
Texas was the last slave state admitted, in 1845, at which time, IIRC, the breakdown was 14 slave and 14 free states. After that came Iowa (1846) and Wisconsin (1848), both part of the Louisiana Purchase and north of the MO Compromise line California in 1850 (free state, even though most of the state was south of the line, but they immediately sent two Democrat pro-Southern Senators to Washington), and then Minnesota in 1858 and Oregon in 1859. So that's 5 more free states, and 10 free state Senators, added after Texas. Definitely something to make Southerners anxious.
That was a big part of the motivation for the Kansas-Nebraska Act - to try to get at least one more slave state out of that territory, even though the entire territory was north of the MO Compromise line. The fact that Missouri really didn't want to be surrounded by free states on three sides also played a part.
I will note that Kansas was admitted as a free state Jan. 29, 1861 - after the Congress elected in 1860 had been seated, before Lincoln's innauguration, and after the first 6 deep South states had already seceded.
What I find somewhat ironic is that there were enough slave states that they could have blocked any Constitutional amendment ending slavery, if not in the House and/or Senate, then by keeping it from reaching the approval of the required 3/4 of the states, if they had simply remained in the Union.
aggiejim70 said:
Interesting and valid points. Looks to the south was running out of options for additional slave states. I'm not sure where it would be practical north or west of Texas. Maybe Oklahoma, but that's about it. On top of that, my guess is the vast majority of settlers in California and the western territories in the 1860's were freesoilers.(sp?).
They would still be fighting the insurgency there today, 165 years later.Ciboag96 said:
What is the US Army decided to hang around Mexico city, install a governor, made it a state of the union....
Ciboag96 said:
What is the US Army decided to hang around Mexico city, install a governor, made it a state of the union....
They didn't let that stop the annexation of Texas. Of course, the Texans wanted to be annexed, so there's that difference.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Ciboag96 said:
What is the US Army decided to hang around Mexico city, install a governor, made it a state of the union....
The treaty to acquire Mexico would have probably been rejected by the Senate.
Langenator said:They didn't let that stop the annexation of Texas. Of course, the Texans wanted to be annexed, so there's that difference.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Ciboag96 said:
What is the US Army decided to hang around Mexico city, install a governor, made it a state of the union....
The treaty to acquire Mexico would have probably been rejected by the Senate.
Sorry, Replied to wrong poster. Meant for Coupland boycoupland boy said:
I recall reading about this before - Eisenhower seemed to voice disagreement with its use.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-27/its-time-to-confront-painful-truths-about-using-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan
JABQ04 said:
Great what if. I don't think the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was what did the Japanese in. I believe the atom bombs did. Even after all that there was still an attempted coup to keep the emperor's surrender message from being broadcast. Only way we would have won the war with out the bombs was either go in and root then out like we had to do on Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo, Or Okinawa and cost us hundreds of thousands of lives as well as millions of theirs or starve their nation to death, like we were already doing, and kill millions of their people. Dropping the bombs was what won the war.
Ciboag96 said:
What if the suitcase bomb HAD killed Hitler?
What if the bomb kills Hitler but the coup fails? With Germany recovering from the turmoil of a failed coup, does Rommel leave Normandy? With Hitler dead, does Rommel find himself in command of the 4 reserve SS divisions? Is Rommel able to pre-position the armor closer to the beaches between the assassination and June 5th?mic suede said:Ciboag96 said:
What if the suitcase bomb HAD killed Hitler?
They surrender to UK/US 1 month after dDay, and end the Europe war 1 yr early? How does that speed up the pacific war, and is an invasion of Japan always delayed until we have the nukes? How do the Allies carve up Europe with Stalin/USSR having 1yr less 'momentum'? What does that mean for the next 40 years?
BQ78 said:
I think your timing on the D-Day invasion and the assassination attempt are off. D-Day was before von Stauffenberg's bomb.
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
What if the French don't fail to seize the opportunity to decimate the gridlocked German army as they were about to invade France. I seem to recall that at the time, the British and French had the opportunity to basically bomb and strafe the Germans as they were gridlocked and backed up for miles on the way into France. The French generals were advised of this moment by British intelligence and they simply refused to believe that it was true, passing on the opportunity.
If I have any of that wrong please correct me.
How many Japanese die if we invade or blockade vs. how many Japanese died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Don't the numbers support dropping the A-bombs as a way to actually save some Japanese and American lives?
If Spain had allowed Germany to ride thru, they open themselves up to being attacked by the Allies, right?BQ_90 said:
Instead of wasting troops in Africa, what if Nazies either invade Spain or force Spain to let them drive and take Gibraltar and then also seize Crete. Then basically the Germans control the Med. Those troops where wasted trying to get Italy more territory that they couldn't get on their own.
I guess Spain just was tired of war and sat it out, even though Germany helped Franco. Figured they could have taken Gibraltar or let the German ride thru and take it.
coupland boy said:FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
What if the French don't fail to seize the opportunity to decimate the gridlocked German army as they were about to invade France. I seem to recall that at the time, the British and French had the opportunity to basically bomb and strafe the Germans as they were gridlocked and backed up for miles on the way into France. The French generals were advised of this moment by British intelligence and they simply refused to believe that it was true, passing on the opportunity.
If I have any of that wrong please correct me.
How many Japanese die if we invade or blockade vs. how many Japanese died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Don't the numbers support dropping the A-bombs as a way to actually save some Japanese and American lives?
Some accuse the US of generating those numbers after tjr fact to help justify the dropping of the bombs. I don't see how anyone could see what happened on Iwo Jima and Okinawa and not get a pretty high number. The folks on charge of the Japanese military clearly didn't care about and was in fact trying to make it as costly as possible toward the end.
