Why did they fight to keep us in the USA I bet the Confederate

Well they'd have to abolish slavery at some point, not out of sympathies to the negro, but out of basic economics and the gradual effects of industrialization.

Moreover, the CSA constitution provided the individual states with a right to fuck off whenever they want, so there would be a further atomization of that country down the line over minor differences, probably with a great deal of states re-joining the union.

stop shitposting, take it to one of the 10 civil war threads already here

It'd be too frail to handle the wars of the 20th century, however it would be hella fun to see Europe 2.0. Maybe nasa would be the pope and declare which state isn't giving enough taxpayer money to the space projects, and they'd get invaded. I'd love to kill some police from Ohio, personally.

>>516017
kys

>>515978
Northern fellow here.

Best reason is abundance of resources as well as keeping respect on an international scale. Nobody respects a government that lets half of its nation with half of its resources and people fuck off. Keeping the Union was really the only way that America would be able to stand up as the industrial, militaristic, and economic power that it became years following the war.

Looking back on it all we've kicked some ass together since then, even after the war. Sat on top of the world in place of all of those old world powers. They'll be writing about us in the books long after this great big thing finally falls. I'm pretty proud.

>>515978
>why did a nation not like losing half their territory?

Fucking hicks, every other civilized nation abolished slavery without major incident. You fucks needed to kill more than half a million of your brothers before you outlawed slavery.

>>516030
I think the african slave kingdoms also tried to keep their exports alive with tooth and nail.

>>515978

>I bet the Confederate States of America would kick ass today if they fucked off
Given that they EAT the taxes the rest of us put out, no. No they would not.

>>516037
I guess that makes Southerners as bad as the niggers they claimed to be superior too, congrats.

>>515978
A Modern CSA would basically be Texas+Underdeveloped leach of a hinterland

>>516005
>Moreover, the CSA constitution provided the individual states with a right to fuck off whenever they want,

Cite? I've read the Confederate constitution and never seen anything about this. The preamble refers to states as "sovereign and independent," but that's not a specifically articulated right to secession, and the same preamble says that the constitution is intended to create a "permanent federal government."

Actually, an amendment was proposed to the CSA constitution in 1863 that would have codified a means of peaceful secession from the CSA, on the condition that the seceding state "be entitled to its pro rata share of property and be liable for its pro rata share of public debt to be determined by negotiation," but the amendment never made it out of committee.

I mean, maybe a surviving CSA would have been more susceptible to secession because of the precedent set, but they didn't make any legal basis for secession as far as I'm aware.

>>516057
kek, that shut that hick up fast.

>>517721
hahahaha, YEAAAK!

A modern Confederacy would, broadly, fall into four possible timescales:

A: Gains independence, keeps slavery. Slaves revolt. Congratulations, you get to be Haiti writ large.

B: Gains independence, tries to maintain slavery. Becomes like apartheid South Africa or Rhodesia - an unstable and increasingly authoritarian state beset with white flight and eventually majority rule.

C: Gains independence, manages to keep slavery around indefinitely: International pariah, tiny economy compared to industrial might of the North, permanently fighting slave revolt. eventually will collapse.

D: Gains a few decades before the North's explosive population and economic growth lead to a massive disparity between the two, and the North fabricates a casus belli and annexes it, probably with the consent of the slave population.

File: hf-john-brown.jpg (55KB, 800x503px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x503px

>>515978

git wrecked palenigger

>>515978
>Us
Some good bait...Fuck you I'm a southerner who supports the United States, its constitution, and ain't no back stabbing traitor. Once an American of the US always an American of the US.

Also the CSA economy sucked and centralized governments are pretty cool.

>>517758

>D.

They'd be lucky to last a single decade before that happens.

>>515978
The Civil War wasn't where the Union fucked up, it was during Reconstruction. The punitive measures Lincoln specifically didn't want ingrained "southern pride" so deep that it's still there 150 years later.

>>517778

Depends if the North let them go or just lost the Civil War. If the North had lost a Civil War, then there would be public opinion against a second. For a while.

>>517803

Incorrect, the punitive measures were not nearly punitive enough. Had expropriation of the landed classes and the settlement of former plantations by their free slaves been done, then the position of African-Americans would have been considerably better.

It's closer to the truth to say that Reconstruction was petty where it should have been lenient and lenient where it should have been punitive.

>>517758
It would probably be forced to dismantle slavery before too long under threat of Northern and British economic sanctions.

A South that managed to secede would probably be Latin America tier: a wealthy ruling elite pretty much totally walled off from the teeming mixed-race masses who live in backwards squalor.

>>517811
Was the sharecropper program not resettlement of the plantations by freed slaves?

>>517806

I'm not so sure. Even on McClellan's "peace platform" in the 1864 elections, he ran into a fair bit of resistance from democrats, who, as a party, were pretty devoted to a peace treaty.

And that's after a war.

>>517827

I'm not so sure. Brazil only put in a ban on slave trading under British pressure in 1831, and even then it was merely 'para Ingles ver'. Brazil abolished in the 1880s, but Brazilian slavery was qualitatively different from Southern slavery and the abolition there was more in response to an educated mulatto population. Also, only 15% of Brazilians were slaves, compared to a near-majority for the South.

Slavery was so vital to the Southern social system that they'd probably have tried to keep at it even if it had become unprofitable.

>>517859

That was during the war, when the Union had just broken the back of the Confederacy by taking Atlanta and crushing the CSN at Mobile Bay.

>>517870
I'm sure they wouldn't want to do it, both for economic reasons, and out of stubbornness, but the (rump) US and Britain (+Canada) would quickly work themselves into paroxysms of righteous concern for the slaves. Unlike Brazil or the Middle East slavery in the Confederacy would be much more in their face, due to geographic and cultural proximity.

Once alternative sources of cotton come on line the Confederacy would have zero leverage. If they don't want to become a total pariah state (probably as early as the 1870s, assuming a peaceful secession) they'd have no choice but to give up slavery, and eventually apartheid.

>>517811
why would he have done that? Former slaves were still just former slaves in Lincoln's eyes.

>>515978
I was born and raised in Alabama and I can honestly say the south sucks. But maybe if it got it's independence it wouldn't be able to hold the rest of the US back.

>>516030
>their territory
Why do Yankees always have such a dimwitted view of how the relationship between the federal government and the states work? If you want to live in the United Provinces of Greater Washington DC than in the United States of America be my guest but please leave everybody else out of it, you micromanaging headcases.

>>517803
>Southern cultural pride existing in the 2010s is the result of a 19th century war
Stop being such a fucking retard.