What is the one thing you'd change in history?

[The Cobalt Sky]

1. They're regular people like you or me. There's no need to hate or to be afraid.

2. Wow. Asserting something as fact without a source. That's wonderful, isn't it?

3. So it's the citizen's fault that their government is so oppressive. It's their fault that it threatens them with violence. Gotta love that logic.

1. No, they are not regular people.

Yes they are.

The majority of them support terrorism and/or oppose action to get rid of terrorism:
"A few months after the Sept. 11 attack, 80 percent of British Muslims said they opposed the war in Afghanistan. The Muslim Council of Britain called for an immediate end to the war. A poll by the Daily Telegraph found that 98 percent of Muslims between the ages of 20 and 45 said they would not fight for Britain -- and 48 percent said they would fight for Osama bin Laden." (Source: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter061302.asp)

Unreliable media source. Freaking Ann Coulter writes for them. She's nuts.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funn ... oulter.htm
http://terryturtletuthpaste.tripod.com/Quotes.htm/

2. Afghanistan War, Iraq War, ISIS situation, Israeli-Palestinian wars, most terrorist attacks including 9/11, USS Cole, Boston Marathon bombing, Benghazi, various school attacks, and countless other examples. Do you need any more?

And ALL Muslims are responsible for that? Get real. Those are extremists.
Educate yourself:
http://misconceptions-about-islam.com/
http://www.iisna.com/articles/pamphlets ... out-islam/
https://encounteringislam.org/misconceptions#6

3. These governments oppress people in the name of islam. And a government needs support to exist in the first place.

From a military. They stay in power because they threaten their civilians with military.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Yeah, the southern states actually passed laws before the northern states banning the slave trade, and the CS still enacted laws which preserved the ban of such trade, which would've maintained, or even increased the high cost of slavery.

I looked through your sources and didn't see one that supports that.

And why were they neutral when they relied on CS Cotton? Because of the fact that the CSA had slavery. If they were neutral, they wouldn't care if their private companies worked with the CSA for cash.

So they're morally bankrupt enough to almost go along with it. They're in it for the money enough to almost agree. If the CSA had won and developed into a world power, they'd probably re-legalize it. The pressure you claim exists isn't really there.

Not necessarily. Some slave owners treated their slaves better than others, and there wasn't a standardized style of treatment for slaves. From what I can read, slaveholders, when they could would feed their slaves meals that were sufficient, but when there isn't sufficient food to feed their slaves.

Although it did change from master to master, it was mainly awful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

Yes, they were beaten, but once again, not every slaveholder did it, including Jeff Davis, who actually setup courts for his slaves, but that's beside the point. Yes, I will agree that you can increase productivity via beating, but that is to a point. If you weren't fed enough, you couldn't work as hard as you usually can, if you are old or young, you can't work as hard as you will be/once were.

Again, generally terrible treatment. Yes, they did have a breaking point, but it took a very long time to reach it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

Fair enough, industrialization won't necessarily end slavery, although usually when nations finish industrializing, slavery is ended and phased out. However, history tells us that the legalized subjugation of the African race won't last forever. Virtually every single nation outlawed slavery by the end of the 19th Century, and numerous western nations which once relied on slavery outlawed the practice, which shows that it isn't something that is so eternal. And once again, if you want maximum productivity with a slave, you would need to feed that slave a lot of food and make sure that it gets enough rest,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

which comes to most as common sense, and many slaveholders actually fed their slaves a lot of fried chicken and cornbread,

Source for that?

which costs money, and many actually decide to not keep their slaves at bare minimum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States
Nah. Treatment was generally awful.

As a result, for many owners, the cost is quite high, and may be around the same as the wage of a worker. Slavery, in any society would die of natural causes, as it did in the north, as it did in England, as it did in France, and as it would've ended in the south if the CSA won.

Although immediately expensive, they were still making money. That never changed. They wouldn't have participated in it if they weren't benefiting in some way, unless they kept their slaves simply for rape. Slavery disappears because of moral issues, and the south's moral code was so eroded then that it probably wouldn't have changed if they'd won. Again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

Oops,
CS Constitution:

Article I Section 9(1)
The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

http://listverse.com/2010/12/06/10-surp ... nfederacy/

I can't seem to find an online source showing the southern states ending the slave trade individually, but I recall reading that in the beginning pages of the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Volume I by Jefferson Davis.

Yeah, if the CS didn't have slavery, England would be quickly coming to the aid of the South. It was because of southern slavery that made the European Countries feel uneasy supporting the CS, but they also needed Confederate Cotton, so they felt that it was best if they remained neutral in the war. Furthermore, the companies worked with the CS to earn cash, not to preserve slavery, as in the beginning of the war, Lincoln said that slavery was going to be preserved in the south, and very few people actually felt that their rights to slavery would be threatened by the north, but they wanted to secede. This can also be seen later in the war, where the government devised a plan to end slavery to get British and French support, showing that they valued their independence over slavery. Read: Above source and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_F._Kenner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_chic ... stereotype
That was where the stereotype that blacks loved fried chicken came from, they ate a lot of it during their slavery.

The treatment wasn't nice, but in the article, a study shows that slaves got better treatment than industrial workers, which shows that the upkeep was generally expensive. They also had to give the slaves adequate medical care if they wanted to maintain the value of their slaves, and that costed money.

And it would've disappeared in the south through higher costs (since they largely banned slave trade) and more and more southerners who actually advocated for abolition, like Robert E. Lee and to some extent, Jefferson Davis, alongside international pressure. The CS wouldn't have grown into a superpower by any means, as their victory would be secession, meaning that they wouldn't be as powerful as the US is today, and would've relied on Europe for cotton exports and importation of manufactured goods and factory machinery, which requires high diplomatic relations that can only be done by ending slavery, or else the anti-slavery European nations wouldn't be so happy to establish strong relations with the CS.

[The Cobalt Sky]

I looked through your sources and didn't see one that supports that.

So they're morally bankrupt enough to almost go along with it. They're in it for the money enough to almost agree. If the CSA had won and developed into a world power, they'd probably re-legalize it. The pressure you claim exists isn't really there.

Although it did change from master to master, it was mainly awful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

Again, generally terrible treatment. Yes, they did have a breaking point, but it took a very long time to reach it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

Source for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States
Nah. Treatment was generally awful.

Although immediately expensive, they were still making money. That never changed. They wouldn't have participated in it if they weren't benefiting in some way, unless they kept their slaves simply for rape. Slavery disappears because of moral issues, and the south's moral code was so eroded then that it probably wouldn't have changed if they'd won. Again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

Oops,
CS Constitution:

Article I Section 9(1)
The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

http://listverse.com/2010/12/06/10-surp ... nfederacy/

And does Listverse cite itself? I didn't see it anywhere, but if you get hold of it, please show me.

I can't seem to find an online source showing the southern states ending the slave trade individually, but I recall reading that in the beginning pages of the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Volume I by Jefferson Davis.

So... no source.

Yeah, if the CS didn't have slavery, England would be quickly coming to the aid of the South. It was because of southern slavery that made the European Countries feel uneasy supporting the CS, but they also needed Confederate Cotton, so they felt that it was best if they remained neutral in the war.

And probably would have let the south be if they had won.

Furthermore, the companies worked with the CS to earn cash, not to preserve slavery,

Though in doing so they were.

as in the beginning of the war, Lincoln said that slavery was going to be preserved in the south, and very few people actually felt that their rights to slavery would be threatened by the north, but they wanted to secede. This can also be seen later in the war, where the government devised a plan to end slavery to get British and French support, showing that they valued their independence over slavery. Read: Above source and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_F._Kenner

Probably just lying to get their help. Also, it doesn't say that anyone other than him was in support of it.
Also,
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
It's pretty entrenched.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_chicken#Racial_stereotype
That was where the stereotype that blacks loved fried chicken came from, they ate a lot of it during their slavery.

"The reasons for this are various. Chicken dishes were popular among slaves before the Civil War, as chickens were generally the only animals slaves were allowed to raise on their own.[18]"
They had chickens, but nowhere does it say that their masters gave them fried chicken.

The treatment wasn't nice, but in the article, a study shows that slaves got better treatment than industrial workers, which shows that the upkeep was generally expensive.

58% of historians think the guy who said that is wrong. There's a good chance he's not necessarily right.

They also had to give the slaves adequate medical care if they wanted to maintain the value of their slaves, and that costed money.

"According to Michael W. Byrd, a dual system of medical care provided poorer care for slaves throughout the South, and slaves were excluded from formal medical training.[17] This meant that slaves were mainly responsible for their own care, a "health subsystem" that persisted long after slavery was abolished.[18]"
Folk remedies are known as folk remedies and not actual medical treatment for a reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... _treatment

And it would've disappeared in the south through higher costs (since they largely banned slave trade)

Where does it say that prices were rising? Also, you keep conveniently leaving out the fact that it was entrenched in society, and that the slaves could have also been kept for the purpose of being raped.

alongside international pressure.

Which is nonexistent... Britain is neutral. NEUTRAL.

The CS wouldn't have grown into a superpower by any means, as their victory would be secession, meaning that they wouldn't be as powerful as the US is today, and would've relied on Europe for cotton exports and importation of manufactured goods and factory machinery, which requires high diplomatic relations that can only be done by ending slavery,

No. If Britain is neutral, then they clearly don't care enough to force it to stop afterwards.

[Meryuma]

The world is better off without islam.

Muslims basically invented modern science, y'know.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I would have prefered that Vasco De Gama never set foot on our soil, it would have saved the lives of millions

It is spelled Vasco da Gama.

[Ykrovjnge Krjvwic]

I'd prevent (lol, right) the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I think things would have honestly been different. Maybe, I dunno.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Oops,
CS Constitution:
http://listverse.com/2010/12/06/10-surp ... nfederacy/

And does Listverse cite itself? I didn't see it anywhere, but if you get hold of it, please show me.

I can't seem to find an online source showing the southern states ending the slave trade individually, but I recall reading that in the beginning pages of the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Volume I by Jefferson Davis.

So... no source.

Yeah, if the CS didn't have slavery, England would be quickly coming to the aid of the South. It was because of southern slavery that made the European Countries feel uneasy supporting the CS, but they also needed Confederate Cotton, so they felt that it was best if they remained neutral in the war.

And probably would have let the south be if they had won.

Furthermore, the companies worked with the CS to earn cash, not to preserve slavery,

Though in doing so they were.

as in the beginning of the war, Lincoln said that slavery was going to be preserved in the south, and very few people actually felt that their rights to slavery would be threatened by the north, but they wanted to secede. This can also be seen later in the war, where the government devised a plan to end slavery to get British and French support, showing that they valued their independence over slavery. Read: Above source and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_F._Kenner

Probably just lying to get their help. Also, it doesn't say that anyone other than him was in support of it.
Also,
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
It's pretty entrenched.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_chicken#Racial_stereotype
That was where the stereotype that blacks loved fried chicken came from, they ate a lot of it during their slavery.

"The reasons for this are various. Chicken dishes were popular among slaves before the Civil War, as chickens were generally the only animals slaves were allowed to raise on their own.[18]"
They had chickens, but nowhere does it say that their masters gave them fried chicken.

The treatment wasn't nice, but in the article, a study shows that slaves got better treatment than industrial workers, which shows that the upkeep was generally expensive.

58% of historians think the guy who said that is wrong. There's a good chance he's not necessarily right.

They also had to give the slaves adequate medical care if they wanted to maintain the value of their slaves, and that costed money.

"According to Michael W. Byrd, a dual system of medical care provided poorer care for slaves throughout the South, and slaves were excluded from formal medical training.[17] This meant that slaves were mainly responsible for their own care, a "health subsystem" that persisted long after slavery was abolished.[18]"
Folk remedies are known as folk remedies and not actual medical treatment for a reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... _treatment

And it would've disappeared in the south through higher costs (since they largely banned slave trade)

Where does it say that prices were rising? Also, you keep conveniently leaving out the fact that it was entrenched in society, and that the slaves could have also been kept for the purpose of being raped.

alongside international pressure.

Which is nonexistent... Britain is neutral. NEUTRAL.

The CS wouldn't have grown into a superpower by any means, as their victory would be secession, meaning that they wouldn't be as powerful as the US is today, and would've relied on Europe for cotton exports and importation of manufactured goods and factory machinery, which requires high diplomatic relations that can only be done by ending slavery,

No. If Britain is neutral, then they clearly don't care enough to force it to stop afterwards.

Listverse doesn't cite their sources, but it was published by their staff, and not another user, but that can be irrelevant.

The only source I can find is the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Volume I.

And the south would want to quickly industrialize, meaning they need strong relations, and that would've meant ending slavery for the CSA. Yes, the British was neutral in the war, but when the CS knocks on the European's door, the Europeans would want the CS to end slavery if they wanted to develop strong relations to rival their industrially superior northern nation, and the CS would be forced to end slavery. Furthermore, with the north giving itself an image of being the vanguard of emancipation, slaves would escape there, and if they didn't like it there, Canada, and Brazil freed slaves mainly due to their rebellions and escape from their plantations, and it would eventually become uncontrollable to the point where they would basically give up slavery and outlaw it to prevent around 30% of their population from screwing shit up and escaping.

And like anything else, that could've been repealed, just like how things have been repealed from the US Constitution. Technically the CS Congress violated it by granting slaves freedom if they would fight in the military, and that once again shows what they really want-independence.

They would like to England and France? Goodbye to your two primary customers! The CS Government would probably follow suit on their promises, or else there would be significant political ramifications, and by no means was there records of Kenner, Davis, or the CS Government planning on lying.

And 42% of economists disagree, and economists might be better at analyzing the conditions of workers, but its about a 50/50 chance of slaves receiving better treatment than industrial workers. In the case that slaves got worse treatment

[spoiler=TL;SR Version]
The quality of medical care to slaves is uncertain; some historians conclude that because slaveholders wished to preserve the value of their slaves, they received the same care. Others conclude that medical care was poor. A majority of plantation owners and doctors balanced the plantation system's need to coerce as much labor as possible from a slave without causing his or her death or infertility; the effort by planters and doctors to provide sufficient living resources that enabled their slaves to remain productive and bear many children; the impact of diseases and injury on the social stability of slave communities; the extent to which illness and mortality of sub-populations in slave society reflected their different environmental exposures and living circumstances rather than their alleged racial characteristics.[14] Slaves may have also provided adequate medical care to each other.[15] Previous studies show that a slave-owner would care for his slaves through only "prudence and humanity." Although conditions were so harsh for slaves, many slave-owners saw that it was in their best interest financially to see that each slaves stay healthy enough to maintain an active presence on the plantation. An ill slave meant less work force for the plantation which coerced some plantation owners to regularly have medical doctors monitor their slaves in an attempt to keep them healthy. Other slave-owners wishing to save money would often rely on their own self-taught remedies combine with any helpful knowledge of their wives to help treat the sickly. Older slaves and oftentimes grandparents of slave communities would pass down useful medical skills and remedies as well. Also, large enough plantations with owners willing to spend the money would often have specific infirmaries built to deal with the problems of slaves health.[16]
[/spoiler]
TL;DR: Basically we don't know about the adequateness of medical treatment back in the day, and it is still debated amongst historians today and it probably varied from plantation to plantation to plantation, owner to owner and time to time (sometimes, the plantation may fall on hard times and they can't afford treatment).

Check the Reddit Link. The 1860 price was almost double the 1850 price.

Yes, the UK was neutral during the war, but once again, the CS would want to surmount good relations with its primary customer of its cotton, and probably other European nations to industrialize and compensate for the lack of industrial strength from the loss of the north, and to ensure that the CS is competitive with its northern neighbor, and many European nations wouldn't really be happy to work with a nation that is considered ultra reactionary and backwards by most of the world. The CS would also want to clean its image to have greater leverage in international politics, and these factors, alongside rapidly growing costs would get the CS to end slavery.

[The Cobalt Sky]

And does Listverse cite itself? I didn't see it anywhere, but if you get hold of it, please show me.

So... no source.

And probably would have let the south be if they had won.

Though in doing so they were.

Probably just lying to get their help. Also, it doesn't say that anyone other than him was in support of it.
Also,
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
It's pretty entrenched.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

"The reasons for this are various. Chicken dishes were popular among slaves before the Civil War, as chickens were generally the only animals slaves were allowed to raise on their own.[18]"
They had chickens, but nowhere does it say that their masters gave them fried chicken.

58% of historians think the guy who said that is wrong. There's a good chance he's not necessarily right.

"According to Michael W. Byrd, a dual system of medical care provided poorer care for slaves throughout the South, and slaves were excluded from formal medical training.[17] This meant that slaves were mainly responsible for their own care, a "health subsystem" that persisted long after slavery was abolished.[18]"
Folk remedies are known as folk remedies and not actual medical treatment for a reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... _treatment

Where does it say that prices were rising? Also, you keep conveniently leaving out the fact that it was entrenched in society, and that the slaves could have also been kept for the purpose of being raped.

Which is nonexistent... Britain is neutral. NEUTRAL.

No. If Britain is neutral, then they clearly don't care enough to force it to stop afterwards.

Listverse doesn't cite their sources, but it was published by their staff, and not another user, but that can be irrelevant.

So... No source.

The only source I can find is the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Volume I.

And that's it? Seems unfounded.

And the south would want to quickly industrialize, meaning they need strong relations, and that would've meant ending slavery for the CSA. Yes, the British was neutral in the war, but when the CS knocks on the European's door, the Europeans would want the CS to end slavery if they wanted to develop strong relations to rival their industrially superior northern nation, and the CS would be forced to end slavery.

Not really. It's basically cemented in their economy. You overestimate European influence and preference towards abolition.
http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery

Furthermore, with the north giving itself an image of being the vanguard of emancipation, slaves would escape there, and if they didn't like it there, Canada, and Brazil freed slaves mainly due to their rebellions and escape from their plantations, and it would eventually become uncontrollable to the point where they would basically give up slavery and outlaw it to prevent around 30% of their population from screwing shit up and escaping.

No. More rebellion means more push back. Nat Turner's rebellion is a perfect example of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_ ... ohibitions

And like anything else, that could've been repealed, just like how things have been repealed from the US Constitution.

No. It makes it quite clear that it's permanent.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Technically the CS Congress violated it by granting slaves freedom if they would fight in the military, and that once again shows what they really want-independence.

Source for that claim?
I decided to look into it myself, and
http://www.historynet.com/african-ameri ... -civil-war
says your claim is essentially false.
"On March 13, 1865, legislation was finally passed that would free black slaves if they enlisted in the Confederate Army, although they had to have consent from their masters. Only a handful of black soldiers, probably less than 50, enlisted because of this legislation and were still in training when the war ended."
In addition:
http://www.las.illinois.edu/news/2013/confederates/

They would like to England and France? Goodbye to your two primary customers! The CS Government would probably follow suit on their promises, or else there would be significant political ramifications, and by no means was there records of Kenner, Davis, or the CS Government planning on lying.

It's part of international relations. Also, they were pretty set on that cotton, enough to make them neutral. Abolition, also, isn't universally accepted by everyone in England, and support for the south still exists.

And 42% of economists disagree, and economists might be better at analyzing the conditions of workers, but its about a 50/50 chance of slaves receiving better treatment than industrial workers. In the case that slaves got worse treatment

58% is more like 60/40. Also, economists are called economists for a reason. Economists know about economy, not about actual history, or at least not more than actual historians.

[spoiler=TL;SR Version]
The quality of medical care to slaves is uncertain; some historians conclude that because slaveholders wished to preserve the value of their slaves, they received the same care. Others conclude that medical care was poor. A majority of plantation owners and doctors balanced the plantation system's need to coerce as much labor as possible from a slave without causing his or her death or infertility; the effort by planters and doctors to provide sufficient living resources that enabled their slaves to remain productive and bear many children; the impact of diseases and injury on the social stability of slave communities; the extent to which illness and mortality of sub-populations in slave society reflected their different environmental exposures and living circumstances rather than their alleged racial characteristics.[14] Slaves may have also provided adequate medical care to each other.[15] Previous studies show that a slave-owner would care for his slaves through only "prudence and humanity." Although conditions were so harsh for slaves, many slave-owners saw that it was in their best interest financially to see that each slaves stay healthy enough to maintain an active presence on the plantation. An ill slave meant less work force for the plantation which coerced some plantation owners to regularly have medical doctors monitor their slaves in an attempt to keep them healthy. Other slave-owners wishing to save money would often rely on their own self-taught remedies combine with any helpful knowledge of their wives to help treat the sickly. Older slaves and oftentimes grandparents of slave communities would pass down useful medical skills and remedies as well. Also, large enough plantations with owners willing to spend the money would often have specific infirmaries built to deal with the problems of slaves health.[16]
[/spoiler]
TL;DR: Basically we don't know about the adequateness of medical treatment back in the day, and it is still debated amongst historians today and it probably varied from plantation to plantation to plantation, owner to owner and time to time (sometimes, the plantation may fall on hard times and they can't afford treatment).

It probably wasn't as great as you're hoping it was. Like their general treatment, and their treatment going through middle passage, it was generally awful.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr4.html

Yes, the UK was neutral during the war, but once again, the CS would want to surmount good relations with its primary customer of its cotton, and probably other European nations to industrialize and compensate for the lack of industrial strength from the loss of the north, and to ensure that the CS is competitive with its northern neighbor,

You're really not understanding that slavery wasn't universally accepted. There were still pro south politicians that understood the south's winning would mean the continuation of slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... ar#Slavery

and many European nations wouldn't really be happy to work with a nation that is considered ultra reactionary and backwards by most of the world.

The south would run into that slavery or no.

The CS would also want to clean its image to have greater leverage in international politics, and these factors, alongside rapidly growing costs would get the CS to end slavery.

No. They clearly didn't care what the rest of the world thought because one of the main reasons they seceded was slavery and the right to own slaves, which is made permanent in their constitution, along with the banning of any amendments to it.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

[The Serbian Empire]

Make Carthage win.

Rome wasn't built in a day, but Hannibal was able to sack it in a day!

[Republic of Coldwater]

Listverse doesn't cite their sources, but it was published by their staff, and not another user, but that can be irrelevant.

So... No source.

The only source I can find is the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Volume I.

And that's it? Seems unfounded.

And the south would want to quickly industrialize, meaning they need strong relations, and that would've meant ending slavery for the CSA. Yes, the British was neutral in the war, but when the CS knocks on the European's door, the Europeans would want the CS to end slavery if they wanted to develop strong relations to rival their industrially superior northern nation, and the CS would be forced to end slavery.

Not really. It's basically cemented in their economy. You overestimate European influence and preference towards abolition.
http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery

Furthermore, with the north giving itself an image of being the vanguard of emancipation, slaves would escape there, and if they didn't like it there, Canada, and Brazil freed slaves mainly due to their rebellions and escape from their plantations, and it would eventually become uncontrollable to the point where they would basically give up slavery and outlaw it to prevent around 30% of their population from screwing shit up and escaping.

No. More rebellion means more push back. Nat Turner's rebellion is a perfect example of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_ ... ohibitions

And like anything else, that could've been repealed, just like how things have been repealed from the US Constitution.

No. It makes it quite clear that it's permanent.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Technically the CS Congress violated it by granting slaves freedom if they would fight in the military, and that once again shows what they really want-independence.

Source for that claim?
I decided to look into it myself, and
http://www.historynet.com/african-ameri ... -civil-war
says your claim is essentially false.
"On March 13, 1865, legislation was finally passed that would free black slaves if they enlisted in the Confederate Army, although they had to have consent from their masters. Only a handful of black soldiers, probably less than 50, enlisted because of this legislation and were still in training when the war ended."
In addition:
http://www.las.illinois.edu/news/2013/confederates/

They would like to England and France? Goodbye to your two primary customers! The CS Government would probably follow suit on their promises, or else there would be significant political ramifications, and by no means was there records of Kenner, Davis, or the CS Government planning on lying.

It's part of international relations. Also, they were pretty set on that cotton, enough to make them neutral. Abolition, also, isn't universally accepted by everyone in England, and support for the south still exists.

And 42% of economists disagree, and economists might be better at analyzing the conditions of workers, but its about a 50/50 chance of slaves receiving better treatment than industrial workers. In the case that slaves got worse treatment

58% is more like 60/40. Also, economists are called economists for a reason. Economists know about economy, not about actual history, or at least not more than actual historians.

[spoiler=TL;SR Version]
The quality of medical care to slaves is uncertain; some historians conclude that because slaveholders wished to preserve the value of their slaves, they received the same care. Others conclude that medical care was poor. A majority of plantation owners and doctors balanced the plantation system's need to coerce as much labor as possible from a slave without causing his or her death or infertility; the effort by planters and doctors to provide sufficient living resources that enabled their slaves to remain productive and bear many children; the impact of diseases and injury on the social stability of slave communities; the extent to which illness and mortality of sub-populations in slave society reflected their different environmental exposures and living circumstances rather than their alleged racial characteristics.[14] Slaves may have also provided adequate medical care to each other.[15] Previous studies show that a slave-owner would care for his slaves through only "prudence and humanity." Although conditions were so harsh for slaves, many slave-owners saw that it was in their best interest financially to see that each slaves stay healthy enough to maintain an active presence on the plantation. An ill slave meant less work force for the plantation which coerced some plantation owners to regularly have medical doctors monitor their slaves in an attempt to keep them healthy. Other slave-owners wishing to save money would often rely on their own self-taught remedies combine with any helpful knowledge of their wives to help treat the sickly. Older slaves and oftentimes grandparents of slave communities would pass down useful medical skills and remedies as well. Also, large enough plantations with owners willing to spend the money would often have specific infirmaries built to deal with the problems of slaves health.[16]
[/spoiler]
TL;DR: Basically we don't know about the adequateness of medical treatment back in the day, and it is still debated amongst historians today and it probably varied from plantation to plantation to plantation, owner to owner and time to time (sometimes, the plantation may fall on hard times and they can't afford treatment).

It probably wasn't as great as you're hoping it was. Like their general treatment, and their treatment going through middle passage, it was generally awful.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr4.html

Yes, the UK was neutral during the war, but once again, the CS would want to surmount good relations with its primary customer of its cotton, and probably other European nations to industrialize and compensate for the lack of industrial strength from the loss of the north, and to ensure that the CS is competitive with its northern neighbor,

You're really not understanding that slavery wasn't universally accepted. There were still pro south politicians that understood the south's winning would mean the continuation of slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... ar#Slavery

and many European nations wouldn't really be happy to work with a nation that is considered ultra reactionary and backwards by most of the world.

The south would run into that slavery or no.

The CS would also want to clean its image to have greater leverage in international politics, and these factors, alongside rapidly growing costs would get the CS to end slavery.

No. They clearly didn't care what the rest of the world thought because one of the main reasons they seceded was slavery and the right to own slaves, which is made permanent in their constitution, along with the banning of any amendments to it.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Then explain how basically every single nation, including ones whose economy is based entirely off agriculture, like Brazil ended slavery by the late 19th Century. Slavery was becoming less and less and less popular as the century passes, and there would be internal opposition to slavery, with people like Robert E. Lee opposing slavery and calling it a moral and political evil, and more citizens holding views against slavery. Furthermore, external opposition would grow as the century unfolds, and that would pressure the CSA Government, from inside out to abolish slavery. It would be politically unfeasible for the CSA by the late 19th century to keep their institution legal. Even southern politicians in the 1860s, such as Alexander Stephens was willing to compromise on the slavery issue by abolishing a slavery, but replacing it with a system that effectively marginalizes blacks, as seen by what Alexander Hamilton offered in the Hampton Roads Peace Conference in January of 1865.

Yeah, and that didn't stop more rebellions, after all, what happened in Harper's Ferry in 1859. You had slaves from the deep south escaping during the war, and even before the war, and following Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which was mainly meant to not only get political support from abolitionists, but to also get slaves to escape from their masters to inflict economical damage towards the south, more slaves would escape up north, especially slaves in Virginia, Tennessee, and other upper southern/border states. The sheer amount of slaves escaping and rebelling would ultimately result in, yes abolition, as what happened in Brazil.

You seem the miss the point,

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

This amendment, the 18th Amendment explicitly states that the sale of alcohol is prohibited, and by your logic this is permanent, but that got repealed, just like how Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, will be repealed if the south won, for reasons that I have stated above.

Fair enough, but probably more slaveholders would give their slaves to the south if this was passed earlier on, as it was passed a few months before Appomattox Court House.

Of course abolition won't be universally accepted in England, and I doubt it still is today, as you still have some idiot believing that slavery was good. However, England has other sources of cotton, and the Crown would ideally want to see the CS abolish slavery, especially when they want to establish strong diplomatic relations, and they can simply buy less southern cotton and get more Indian cotton, and the rest of the international community would probably urge the south through covert or overt methods to get the CS to end slavery. Furthermore, as the century unfolds, more and more would disapprove of slavery, and as a final result, it would be politically unfeasible for the CS to preserve slavery, and they would be forced to abolish it.

"The quality of medical care to slaves is uncertain; some historians conclude that because slaveholders wished to preserve the value of their slaves, they received the same care. Others conclude that medical care was poor"

The final conclusion is: It is debateable, and we don't have strong evidence showing that either side is right.

In the short term, yeah, slavery would've been in place for a few more years, and the article does state that Lincoln highlighting the south's slavery reduced the appeal to support the CS, and it would grow as slavery would become more and more taboo inside their nation, and within the international community, and when the CS knocks on Europe's door, Europe would want to get the CS to abolish slavery, and once again, it would intensify as the British become more and more and more opposed to slavery, and even back in the 1860s, slavery was already opposed to the morals of the British.

"Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, by making ending slavery an objective of the war, had caused European intervention on the side of the South to be politically unappetizing."

It didn't ban amendments from being made, the Constitution banned a bill stating "Slavery is now illegal", and it never banned something that simply repealed this, but didn't impair the rights of citizens to own blacks. And with that out of the picture, they can pass laws or even a new amendment to get rid of slavery, which was going to happen regardless of the outcome of the war.

There is a difference between passing an amendment that doesn't directly oppose what it states, and passing an amendment that explicitly bans slavery.

[The Cobalt Sky]

So... No source.

And that's it? Seems unfounded.

Not really. It's basically cemented in their economy. You overestimate European influence and preference towards abolition.
http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery

No. More rebellion means more push back. Nat Turner's rebellion is a perfect example of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_ ... ohibitions

No. It makes it quite clear that it's permanent.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Source for that claim?
I decided to look into it myself, and
http://www.historynet.com/african-ameri ... -civil-war
says your claim is essentially false.
"On March 13, 1865, legislation was finally passed that would free black slaves if they enlisted in the Confederate Army, although they had to have consent from their masters. Only a handful of black soldiers, probably less than 50, enlisted because of this legislation and were still in training when the war ended."
In addition:
http://www.las.illinois.edu/news/2013/confederates/

It's part of international relations. Also, they were pretty set on that cotton, enough to make them neutral. Abolition, also, isn't universally accepted by everyone in England, and support for the south still exists.

58% is more like 60/40. Also, economists are called economists for a reason. Economists know about economy, not about actual history, or at least not more than actual historians.

It probably wasn't as great as you're hoping it was. Like their general treatment, and their treatment going through middle passage, it was generally awful.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr4.html

You're really not understanding that slavery wasn't universally accepted. There were still pro south politicians that understood the south's winning would mean the continuation of slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... ar#Slavery

The south would run into that slavery or no.

No. They clearly didn't care what the rest of the world thought because one of the main reasons they seceded was slavery and the right to own slaves, which is made permanent in their constitution, along with the banning of any amendments to it.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Then explain how basically every single nation, including ones whose economy is based entirely off agriculture, like Brazil ended slavery by the late 19th Century.

You're throwing Brazil out there? It was the last one in the western world to end slavery. Also, it was because of a monarch, and there was a freaking revolution right after because of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil#Fall

Slavery was becoming less and less and less popular as the century passes,

But if the south had won that could easily have changed.

and there would be internal opposition to slavery, with people like Robert E. Lee opposing slavery and calling it a moral and political evil, and more citizens holding views against slavery.

Yes, he called it evil, but he owned slaves and thought it was a necessary evil because he thought blacks were better off here than in Africa.
"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
http://fair-use.org/robert-e-lee/letter ... on-slavery

Furthermore, external opposition would grow as the century unfolds, and that would pressure the CSA Government, from inside out to abolish slavery. It would be politically unfeasible for the CSA by the late 19th century to keep their institution legal.

Not likely when the south's own vice president admits the whole war is about slavery.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/today- ... nfederacy/

Even southern politicians in the 1860s, such as Alexander Stephens was willing to compromise on the slavery issue by abolishing a slavery, but replacing it with a system that effectively marginalizes blacks, as seen by what Alexander Hamilton offered in the Hampton Roads Peace Conference in January of 1865.

Source?

Yeah, and that didn't stop more rebellions, after all, what happened in Harper's Ferry in 1859. You had slaves from the deep south escaping during the war, and even before the war, and following Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which was mainly meant to not only get political support from abolitionists, but to also get slaves to escape from their masters to inflict economical damage towards the south, more slaves would escape up north, especially slaves in Virginia, Tennessee, and other upper southern/border states. The sheer amount of slaves escaping and rebelling would ultimately result in, yes abolition, as what happened in Brazil.

That's funny, because slavery in Brazil didn't actually end because of the rebellions, but rather because there was a monarch that strongly backed it. In fact, there was such an uproar from the slaveholder community that there was a revolution and the monarchy itself was toppled. So no, general opinion was not for the end of slavery in Brazil like you would suggest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil#Fall

You seem the miss the point,

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

This amendment, the 18th Amendment explicitly states that the sale of alcohol is prohibited, and by your logic this is permanent, but that got repealed, just like how Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, will be repealed if the south won, for reasons that I have stated above.

That's funny, because nowhere in that ban of alcohol does it effectively make itself permanent.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
And this is all assuming that's what the south will even go towards. In reality, blacks were viewed as property and the right own them was held sacrosanct. A denial of this being a factor in the war would be lying.

Fair enough, but probably more slaveholders would give their slaves to the south if this was passed earlier on, as it was passed a few months before Appomattox Court House.

I doubt that. They wouldn't want to see black people with guns. That would be arming people they actively oppress and don't see as human.

Of course abolition won't be universally accepted in England, and I doubt it still is today, as you still have some idiot believing that slavery was good. However, England has other sources of cotton, and the Crown would ideally want to see the CS abolish slavery, especially when they want to establish strong diplomatic relations, and they can simply buy less southern cotton and get more Indian cotton, and the rest of the international community would probably urge the south through covert or overt methods to get the CS to end slavery.

Again, there were still politicians that were pro south. And people were still crazy about slavery, just look at Brazil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil#Fall
The whole world isn't completely against slavery yet. The upper class of Britain still favors the south.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... _Civil_War

Furthermore, as the century unfolds, more and more would disapprove of slavery, and as a final result, it would be politically unfeasible for the CS to preserve slavery, and they would be forced to abolish it.

Unless the south winning actually convinces people that maybe slavery isn't that bad.

"The quality of medical care to slaves is uncertain; some historians conclude that because slaveholders wished to preserve the value of their slaves, they received the same care. Others conclude that medical care was poor"

The final conclusion is: It is debateable, and we don't have strong evidence showing that either side is right.

Either way, they still want to keep slavery going.

In the short term, yeah, slavery would've been in place for a few more years, and the article does state that Lincoln highlighting the south's slavery reduced the appeal to support the CS,

But no one actually really stepped in and did anything.

and it would grow as slavery would become more and more taboo inside their nation, and within the international community, and when the CS knocks on Europe's door, Europe would want to get the CS to abolish slavery, and once again, it would intensify as the British become more and more and more opposed to slavery,

Why are they suddenly magically becoming more and more opposed to it? If the south wins, that could easily convince quite a few people that they were in the right. And there were still politicians that advocated for it.

and even back in the 1860s, slavery was already opposed to the morals of the British.

"Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, by making ending slavery an objective of the war, had caused European intervention on the side of the South to be politically unappetizing."

Not all the british. The upper class was still ok with it.

It didn't ban amendments from being made, the Constitution banned a bill stating "Slavery is now illegal", and it never banned something that simply repealed this, but didn't impair the rights of citizens to own blacks.

Still being legal to own someone? That's slavery.

And with that out of the picture, they can pass laws or even a new amendment to get rid of slavery, which was going to happen regardless of the outcome of the war.

As the people of Brazil have proved, slavery is still quite accepted throughout the world. As leaders of the south have admitted, the south is founded on slavery.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/today- ... nfederacy/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... _Civil_War

There is a difference between passing an amendment that doesn't directly oppose what it states, and passing an amendment that explicitly bans slavery.

Slavery either does legally exist or it doesn't; there could be some quasi-legal bonded servitude sort of thing put in place but in reality that's still slavery. And it's pretty clear what someone's intent is if they're going to take the time to do that. Which, again, no one probably would.

[Alaizia]

Honestly?
Many things.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Then explain how basically every single nation, including ones whose economy is based entirely off agriculture, like Brazil ended slavery by the late 19th Century.

You're throwing Brazil out there? It was the last one in the western world to end slavery. Also, it was because of a monarch, and there was a freaking revolution right after because of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil#Fall

Slavery was becoming less and less and less popular as the century passes,

But if the south had won that could easily have changed.

and there would be internal opposition to slavery, with people like Robert E. Lee opposing slavery and calling it a moral and political evil, and more citizens holding views against slavery.

Yes, he called it evil, but he owned slaves and thought it was a necessary evil because he thought blacks were better off here than in Africa.
"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
http://fair-use.org/robert-e-lee/letter ... on-slavery

Furthermore, external opposition would grow as the century unfolds, and that would pressure the CSA Government, from inside out to abolish slavery. It would be politically unfeasible for the CSA by the late 19th century to keep their institution legal.

Not likely when the south's own vice president admits the whole war is about slavery.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/today- ... nfederacy/

Even southern politicians in the 1860s, such as Alexander Stephens was willing to compromise on the slavery issue by abolishing a slavery, but replacing it with a system that effectively marginalizes blacks, as seen by what Alexander Hamilton offered in the Hampton Roads Peace Conference in January of 1865.

Source?

Yeah, and that didn't stop more rebellions, after all, what happened in Harper's Ferry in 1859. You had slaves from the deep south escaping during the war, and even before the war, and following Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which was mainly meant to not only get political support from abolitionists, but to also get slaves to escape from their masters to inflict economical damage towards the south, more slaves would escape up north, especially slaves in Virginia, Tennessee, and other upper southern/border states. The sheer amount of slaves escaping and rebelling would ultimately result in, yes abolition, as what happened in Brazil.

That's funny, because slavery in Brazil didn't actually end because of the rebellions, but rather because there was a monarch that strongly backed it. In fact, there was such an uproar from the slaveholder community that there was a revolution and the monarchy itself was toppled. So no, general opinion was not for the end of slavery in Brazil like you would suggest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil#Fall

You seem the miss the point,

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

This amendment, the 18th Amendment explicitly states that the sale of alcohol is prohibited, and by your logic this is permanent, but that got repealed, just like how Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, will be repealed if the south won, for reasons that I have stated above.

That's funny, because nowhere in that ban of alcohol does it effectively make itself permanent.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
And this is all assuming that's what the south will even go towards. In reality, blacks were viewed as property and the right own them was held sacrosanct. A denial of this being a factor in the war would be lying.

Fair enough, but probably more slaveholders would give their slaves to the south if this was passed earlier on, as it was passed a few months before Appomattox Court House.

I doubt that. They wouldn't want to see black people with guns. That would be arming people they actively oppress and don't see as human.

Of course abolition won't be universally accepted in England, and I doubt it still is today, as you still have some idiot believing that slavery was good. However, England has other sources of cotton, and the Crown would ideally want to see the CS abolish slavery, especially when they want to establish strong diplomatic relations, and they can simply buy less southern cotton and get more Indian cotton, and the rest of the international community would probably urge the south through covert or overt methods to get the CS to end slavery.

Again, there were still politicians that were pro south. And people were still crazy about slavery, just look at Brazil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil#Fall
The whole world isn't completely against slavery yet. The upper class of Britain still favors the south.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... _Civil_War

Furthermore, as the century unfolds, more and more would disapprove of slavery, and as a final result, it would be politically unfeasible for the CS to preserve slavery, and they would be forced to abolish it.

Unless the south winning actually convinces people that maybe slavery isn't that bad.

"The quality of medical care to slaves is uncertain; some historians conclude that because slaveholders wished to preserve the value of their slaves, they received the same care. Others conclude that medical care was poor"

The final conclusion is: It is debateable, and we don't have strong evidence showing that either side is right.

Either way, they still want to keep slavery going.

In the short term, yeah, slavery would've been in place for a few more years, and the article does state that Lincoln highlighting the south's slavery reduced the appeal to support the CS,

But no one actually really stepped in and did anything.

and it would grow as slavery would become more and more taboo inside their nation, and within the international community, and when the CS knocks on Europe's door, Europe would want to get the CS to abolish slavery, and once again, it would intensify as the British become more and more and more opposed to slavery,

Why are they suddenly magically becoming more and more opposed to it? If the south wins, that could easily convince quite a few people that they were in the right. And there were still politicians that advocated for it.

and even back in the 1860s, slavery was already opposed to the morals of the British.

"Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, by making ending slavery an objective of the war, had caused European intervention on the side of the South to be politically unappetizing."

Not all the british. The upper class was still ok with it.

It didn't ban amendments from being made, the Constitution banned a bill stating "Slavery is now illegal", and it never banned something that simply repealed this, but didn't impair the rights of citizens to own blacks.

Still being legal to own someone? That's slavery.

And with that out of the picture, they can pass laws or even a new amendment to get rid of slavery, which was going to happen regardless of the outcome of the war.

As the people of Brazil have proved, slavery is still quite accepted throughout the world. As leaders of the south have admitted, the south is founded on slavery.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/today- ... nfederacy/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... _Civil_War

There is a difference between passing an amendment that doesn't directly oppose what it states, and passing an amendment that explicitly bans slavery.

Slavery either does legally exist or it doesn't; there could be some quasi-legal bonded servitude sort of thing put in place but in reality that's still slavery. And it's pretty clear what someone's intent is if they're going to take the time to do that. Which, again, no one probably would.

And was slavery re-legalized? Nope.

Yeah, at the time there were a few nations, Brazil included who liked slavery and supported them. The French and British governments abhorred the idea of slavery, and as a result they had to remain neutral, for they don't want to take away their supply of cotton. The moral sensibilities of much of the international community at the time was entrenched in opposition against slavery, and I doubt a nation that is painted as a nation of slavers by the emancipation proclamation would change the opinion of the world. After all, the proclamation did heavily damage the appearance of the CSA.

And Lee's endgame was not to send the blacks back to Africa, or go enslave them, but eventually let them go free, as he felt that the blacks needed education. This was far more progressive than many of his contemporaries, and even Lincoln supported the ACS to deport the blacks to Africa, or a Caribbean island.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_C ... nd_the_ACS

Some scholars have concluded that Lincoln had supported the idea weeks before his assassination, which shows that Lincoln really is just as hateful towards blacks as anybody else during his time.

He admits that the CSA is a nation of slaveholders, but never stated that the war, which was originally over the secession of the southern states, or the reasons for secession were about slavery. Its just like how the founders strongly supported Republicanism, but they fought against what they viewed as unfair taxation, which meant independence.

Seems like it got edited out of the Hampton Roads Peace Conference page on Wikipedia from the last time I read it, however, it does state that Davis instructed Stephens and others to explore all options short of going back into the Union. If the war was over slavery, why the hell did Davis not instruct Stephens and others to explore all options short of ending slavery?

And slavery was kept illegal. Furthermore, the creation of the once paper only National Guard, low interest loans to favored individuals and entities, and other aspects. Lastly, the CSA may not be so drastic and perhaps pass a law that frees the children of slaves, but keeps the current generation enslaved, as what happened with Brazil, and that didn't indirectly trigger a "revolution" (No action, no battles, most didn't realize it had taken place)

Yeah, repeal that by simply axing it via amendment, that isn't passing a law that ends the ownership of blacks, and then pass a new amendment, following the axing of the clause that ends slavery or does something less drastic, like what Brazil did in 1871. It is legally possible.

Then why did some slaveholders take their slaves with them into battle, some of which actually fired upon the Federals.

Not the whole world, and even today, some messed up people still support the archaic institution. However, slavery was morally repugnant to the British government, the French government, and most other European governments, which were the most likely to help the CSA as they relied on the natural resources that the CSA produced. You had a upper class which favored the CSA, but gradually, that upper class becomes more and more and more opposed to slavery, to the point where very few still do by the 20th Century.

Once again, a nation that contradicts a lot of the world's moral views, and is painted as a nation of immoral slaveholders can magically alter the views of the world? I don't know about this, but Hitler's early victories against Poland and Eastern Europe certainly didn't change much of the world's opinions on Hitler or his psychotic plans on Eastern Europe, in fact, it instigated World War II.

The war was over the secession of the southern states, but Lincoln used the slavery of the south against them by enlisting freed slaves in inferior and segregated units as "contrabands", and painted them as slaveholders to stop European political support. Emancipation was by no means an abolitionist strategy, but a military strategy. Furthermore, the south, from their actions seems to value their independence more, as Davis told his commissioners to do anything to ensure their independence, not ensure the preservation of slavery, and even explicitly offered to end slavery in exchange for aid to the French and British through Duncan F. Kenner.

Yeah, because both nations had their own thing going on in Europe, and opposed slavery, but relied on CS Cotton, meaning that they can't screw themselves politically by supporting a nation highlighted as a slave nation, or lose their primary supplier of cotton.

More and more people became opposed to it over time, as they begin to realize how barbaric and archaic the institution really is. And once again, Hitler's victories in Eastern Europe didn't make the British or French, or much of the world like them and neither did the Japanese victories make the international community cheer on their plans to unite Asia under a single banner.

Yeah, the upper class was fine with it, but if the CS still has slavery today, firstly, they would be embargoed the heck out, secondly, their only potential ally is North Korea, and thirdly, they would be hated by the rest of the world, and that would be the same by the late 19th century, where virtually every nation has ended slavery, and it has become very politically unfeasible to support the continuation of slavery.

And then they ban slavery once that restriction is gone.

The root cause of the microrevolution was ending slavery, but further actions by the government pissed the populace off and resulted in a microrevolution that didn't end up re-legalizing slavery or anything. It may be popular amongst the plantationers there, but the rest of the populace evidently weren't huge fans of slavery, or else by popular demand, it would've been re-legalized.

So some inhumane treatment of people would still be accepted today? A nation like the CSA wouldn't be simply able to keep their slavery, or some watered down version of slavery to this day, as history tells us.

[FutureAmerica]

The British should not have given Rolls-Royce Nene jet engines to the USSR in 1946. The Soviets copied the engine and created the Mig 15 soon after. What a disaster.

[The Cobalt Sky]

You're throwing Brazil out there? It was the last one in the western world to end slavery. Also, it was because of a monarch, and there was a freaking revolution right after because of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil#Fall

But if the south had won that could easily have changed.

Yes, he called it evil, but he owned slaves and thought it was a necessary evil because he thought blacks were better off here than in Africa.
"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
http://fair-use.org/robert-e-lee/letter ... on-slavery

Not likely when the south's own vice president admits the whole war is about slavery.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/today- ... nfederacy/

Source?

That's funny, because slavery in Brazil didn't actually end because of the rebellions, but rather because there was a monarch that strongly backed it. In fact, there was such an uproar from the slaveholder community that there was a revolution and the monarchy itself was toppled. So no, general opinion was not for the end of slavery in Brazil like you would suggest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil#Fall

That's funny, because nowhere in that ban of alcohol does it effectively make itself permanent.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
And this is all assuming that's what the south will even go towards. In reality, blacks were viewed as property and the right own them was held sacrosanct. A denial of this being a factor in the war would be lying.

I doubt that. They wouldn't want to see black people with guns. That would be arming people they actively oppress and don't see as human.

Again, there were still politicians that were pro south. And people were still crazy about slavery, just look at Brazil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil#Fall
The whole world isn't completely against slavery yet. The upper class of Britain still favors the south.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... _Civil_War

Unless the south winning actually convinces people that maybe slavery isn't that bad.

Either way, they still want to keep slavery going.

But no one actually really stepped in and did anything.

Why are they suddenly magically becoming more and more opposed to it? If the south wins, that could easily convince quite a few people that they were in the right. And there were still politicians that advocated for it.

Not all the british. The upper class was still ok with it.

Still being legal to own someone? That's slavery.

As the people of Brazil have proved, slavery is still quite accepted throughout the world. As leaders of the south have admitted, the south is founded on slavery.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/today- ... nfederacy/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... _Civil_War

Slavery either does legally exist or it doesn't; there could be some quasi-legal bonded servitude sort of thing put in place but in reality that's still slavery. And it's pretty clear what someone's intent is if they're going to take the time to do that. Which, again, no one probably would.

And was slavery re-legalized? Nope.

Yeah, at the time there were a few nations, Brazil included who liked slavery and supported them. The French and British governments abhorred the idea of slavery, and as a result they had to remain neutral, for they don't want to take away their supply of cotton.

So they clearly don't care enough to stop it. You have also repeatedly ignored the fact that there were politicians and the upper class that still supported it.

The moral sensibilities of much of the international community at the time was entrenched in opposition against slavery,

Source? None of them cared enough to do anything.

and I doubt a nation that is painted as a nation of slavers by the emancipation proclamation would change the opinion of the world. After all, the proclamation did heavily damage the appearance of the CSA.

It said "politically unappetizing" not "no one supported them ever again". It made it harder, but not impossible. You also don't consider that the south winning could reverse these opinions.

And Lee's endgame was not to send the blacks back to Africa, or go enslave them, but eventually let them go free, as he felt that the blacks needed education.

Didn't see that in the source. And even so, he still supported slavery at one point, which is messed up any way you try and slice it.

This was far more progressive than many of his contemporaries, and even Lincoln supported the ACS to deport the blacks to Africa, or a Caribbean island.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_C ... nd_the_ACS

Some scholars have concluded that Lincoln had supported the idea weeks before his assassination, which shows that Lincoln really is just as hateful towards blacks as anybody else during his time.

And you point out that people still aren't progressive... That would add fuel to my case.

He admits that the CSA is a nation of slaveholders, but never stated that the war, which was originally over the secession of the southern states, or the reasons for secession were about slavery. Its just like how the founders strongly supported Republicanism, but they fought against what they viewed as unfair taxation, which meant independence.

Don't kid yourself. It's about slavery.
"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution [...] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away [...] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
http://www.livescience.com/13673-civil- ... myths.html
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/03 ... r-slavery/

Seems like it got edited out of the Hampton Roads Peace Conference page on Wikipedia from the last time I read it,

Can you find another source, then?

however, it does state that Davis instructed Stephens and others to explore all options short of going back into the Union. If the war was over slavery, why the hell did Davis not instruct Stephens and others to explore all options short of ending slavery?

You don't provide a source that says that actually happened.

Lastly, the CSA may not be so drastic and perhaps pass a law that frees the children of slaves, but keeps the current generation enslaved, as what happened with Brazil, and that didn't indirectly trigger a "revolution" (No action, no battles, most didn't realize it had taken place)

Slavery is the reason why they left. They're gonna be pretty intent on keeping it.

Yeah, repeal that by simply axing it via amendment, that isn't passing a law that ends the ownership of blacks, and then pass a new amendment, following the axing of the clause that ends slavery or does something less drastic, like what Brazil did in 1871. It is legally possible.

But if you're amending that, it's never not going to be clear why you're doing it. Also, the south is founded on slavery. The reason they left was because of slavery. They're not going to get rid of it unless they're forced into submission.

Then why did some slaveholders take their slaves with them into battle, some of which actually fired upon the Federals.

Asserting things without sources! Always fun.

Not the whole world, and even today, some messed up people still support the archaic institution. However, slavery was morally repugnant to the British government, the French government, and most other European governments,

The south didn't care. They left to keep slavery.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
http://www.livescience.com/13673-civil- ... myths.html

which were the most likely to help the CSA as they relied on the natural resources that the CSA produced. You had a upper class which favored the CSA, but gradually, that upper class becomes more and more and more opposed to slavery, to the point where very few still do by the 20th Century.

Still too long. There's no way slavery lasting longer would've helped anything.

Once again, a nation that contradicts a lot of the world's moral views,

Not as much as you like to pretend.

and is painted as a nation of immoral slaveholders can magically alter the views of the world?

They don't care what the world thinks.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

I don't know about this, but Hitler's early victories against Poland and Eastern Europe certainly didn't change much of the world's opinions on Hitler or his psychotic plans on Eastern Europe, in fact, it instigated World War II.

False equivalent. They don't see the south as Hitler.

The war was over the secession of the southern states,

And their secession was over slavery. Don't forget slavery.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

but Lincoln used the slavery of the south against them by enlisting freed slaves in inferior and segregated units as "contrabands", and painted them as slaveholders to stop European political support.

Source?

Emancipation was by no means an abolitionist strategy, but a military strategy.

That may have been why Lincoln agreed to it, but abolitionists wanted slaves to be freed.

Furthermore, the south, from their actions seems to value their independence more,

True or untrue, the right to own slaves is still central in the war.

as Davis told his commissioners to do anything to ensure their independence, not ensure the preservation of slavery, and even explicitly offered to end slavery in exchange for aid to the French and British through Duncan F. Kenner.

That was Davis and Kenner, and them alone. If there's proof that more than just them agreed to it, please show me.

Yeah, because both nations had their own thing going on in Europe, and opposed slavery, but relied on CS Cotton, meaning that they can't screw themselves politically by supporting a nation highlighted as a slave nation, or lose their primary supplier of cotton.

So... They'd be okay with slavery, and it would continue.

More and more people became opposed to it over time, as they begin to realize how barbaric and archaic the institution really is.

This may have been because the south lost.

And once again, Hitler's victories in Eastern Europe didn't make the British or French, or much of the world like them and neither did the Japanese victories make the international community cheer on their plans to unite Asia under a single banner.

You liken their actions to Hitler's, and then are in support of them winning the war... interesting. Either way, that's not the way the south was viewed by the rest of the world then.

Yeah, the upper class was fine with it, but if the CS still has slavery today, firstly, they would be embargoed the heck out, secondly, their only potential ally is North Korea,

Sounds very unrealistic. North Korea is communist, and I don't see how the CS would somehow become communist over time. You also seem to ignore the fact that the CS's influence could spread and cause more nations to fall under their control, and their warped views become more popularized.

and thirdly, they would be hated by the rest of the world,

And feared. They could be quite deadly.

and that would be the same by the late 19th century, where virtually every nation has ended slavery, and it has become very politically unfeasible to support the continuation of slavery.

And then they collapse. They're going to do anything they can to keep slavery, since that's what their nation is founded on, and it's most likely going to be a nightmare situation. They were founded on amorality and that's likely how they'll stay.

The root cause of the microrevolution was ending slavery, but further actions by the government pissed the populace off and resulted in a microrevolution that didn't end up re-legalizing slavery or anything. It may be popular amongst the plantationers there, but the rest of the populace evidently weren't huge fans of slavery, or else by popular demand, it would've been re-legalized.

Other people took control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil#Fall

So some inhumane treatment of people would still be accepted today?

Inhumane treatment is still accepted. Black people are still not seen as citizens. The south winning would only exacerbate this.

A nation like the CSA wouldn't be simply able to keep their slavery, or some watered down version of slavery to this day, as history tells us.

Even if slavery goes away, social issues between races will be set back quite far. Saying "the south will get rid of it eventually" doesn't help anything. Even if they don't have it, the world would be an even more horrible place than it already is. Prolonging an institution like slavery doesn't do any good. Happy Holidays.

[Nordengrund]

I would convince the Allied Powers to revise the Treaty of Versaille so Germany is not as harshly punished. The treaty led Germany to economic turmoil and terrible standards of living. That combined with the collapse of the stock market led to the popularity of Hitler and National Socialism.

That in turn led to WW2, which led to another defeat of Germany and strengthened the Soviet Union. The Cold War would have been avoided, etc.

[Republic of Coldwater]

And was slavery re-legalized? Nope.

Yeah, at the time there were a few nations, Brazil included who liked slavery and supported them. The French and British governments abhorred the idea of slavery, and as a result they had to remain neutral, for they don't want to take away their supply of cotton.

So they clearly don't care enough to stop it. You have also repeatedly ignored the fact that there were politicians and the upper class that still supported it.

The moral sensibilities of much of the international community at the time was entrenched in opposition against slavery,

Source? None of them cared enough to do anything.

and I doubt a nation that is painted as a nation of slavers by the emancipation proclamation would change the opinion of the world. After all, the proclamation did heavily damage the appearance of the CSA.

It said "politically unappetizing" not "no one supported them ever again". It made it harder, but not impossible. You also don't consider that the south winning could reverse these opinions.

And Lee's endgame was not to send the blacks back to Africa, or go enslave them, but eventually let them go free, as he felt that the blacks needed education.

Didn't see that in the source. And even so, he still supported slavery at one point, which is messed up any way you try and slice it.

This was far more progressive than many of his contemporaries, and even Lincoln supported the ACS to deport the blacks to Africa, or a Caribbean island.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_C ... nd_the_ACS

Some scholars have concluded that Lincoln had supported the idea weeks before his assassination, which shows that Lincoln really is just as hateful towards blacks as anybody else during his time.

And you point out that people still aren't progressive... That would add fuel to my case.

He admits that the CSA is a nation of slaveholders, but never stated that the war, which was originally over the secession of the southern states, or the reasons for secession were about slavery. Its just like how the founders strongly supported Republicanism, but they fought against what they viewed as unfair taxation, which meant independence.

Don't kid yourself. It's about slavery.
"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution [...] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away [...] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
http://www.livescience.com/13673-civil- ... myths.html
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/03 ... r-slavery/

Seems like it got edited out of the Hampton Roads Peace Conference page on Wikipedia from the last time I read it,

Can you find another source, then?

however, it does state that Davis instructed Stephens and others to explore all options short of going back into the Union. If the war was over slavery, why the hell did Davis not instruct Stephens and others to explore all options short of ending slavery?

You don't provide a source that says that actually happened.

Lastly, the CSA may not be so drastic and perhaps pass a law that frees the children of slaves, but keeps the current generation enslaved, as what happened with Brazil, and that didn't indirectly trigger a "revolution" (No action, no battles, most didn't realize it had taken place)

Slavery is the reason why they left. They're gonna be pretty intent on keeping it.

Yeah, repeal that by simply axing it via amendment, that isn't passing a law that ends the ownership of blacks, and then pass a new amendment, following the axing of the clause that ends slavery or does something less drastic, like what Brazil did in 1871. It is legally possible.

But if you're amending that, it's never not going to be clear why you're doing it. Also, the south is founded on slavery. The reason they left was because of slavery. They're not going to get rid of it unless they're forced into submission.

Then why did some slaveholders take their slaves with them into battle, some of which actually fired upon the Federals.

Asserting things without sources! Always fun.

Not the whole world, and even today, some messed up people still support the archaic institution. However, slavery was morally repugnant to the British government, the French government, and most other European governments,

The south didn't care. They left to keep slavery.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
http://www.livescience.com/13673-civil- ... myths.html

which were the most likely to help the CSA as they relied on the natural resources that the CSA produced. You had a upper class which favored the CSA, but gradually, that upper class becomes more and more and more opposed to slavery, to the point where very few still do by the 20th Century.

Still too long. There's no way slavery lasting longer would've helped anything.

Once again, a nation that contradicts a lot of the world's moral views,

Not as much as you like to pretend.

and is painted as a nation of immoral slaveholders can magically alter the views of the world?

They don't care what the world thinks.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

I don't know about this, but Hitler's early victories against Poland and Eastern Europe certainly didn't change much of the world's opinions on Hitler or his psychotic plans on Eastern Europe, in fact, it instigated World War II.

False equivalent. They don't see the south as Hitler.

The war was over the secession of the southern states,

And their secession was over slavery. Don't forget slavery.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

but Lincoln used the slavery of the south against them by enlisting freed slaves in inferior and segregated units as "contrabands", and painted them as slaveholders to stop European political support.

Source?

Emancipation was by no means an abolitionist strategy, but a military strategy.

That may have been why Lincoln agreed to it, but abolitionists wanted slaves to be freed.

Furthermore, the south, from their actions seems to value their independence more,

True or untrue, the right to own slaves is still central in the war.

as Davis told his commissioners to do anything to ensure their independence, not ensure the preservation of slavery, and even explicitly offered to end slavery in exchange for aid to the French and British through Duncan F. Kenner.

That was Davis and Kenner, and them alone. If there's proof that more than just them agreed to it, please show me.

Yeah, because both nations had their own thing going on in Europe, and opposed slavery, but relied on CS Cotton, meaning that they can't screw themselves politically by supporting a nation highlighted as a slave nation, or lose their primary supplier of cotton.

So... They'd be okay with slavery, and it would continue.

More and more people became opposed to it over time, as they begin to realize how barbaric and archaic the institution really is.

This may have been because the south lost.

And once again, Hitler's victories in Eastern Europe didn't make the British or French, or much of the world like them and neither did the Japanese victories make the international community cheer on their plans to unite Asia under a single banner.

You liken their actions to Hitler's, and then are in support of them winning the war... interesting. Either way, that's not the way the south was viewed by the rest of the world then.

Yeah, the upper class was fine with it, but if the CS still has slavery today, firstly, they would be embargoed the heck out, secondly, their only potential ally is North Korea,

Sounds very unrealistic. North Korea is communist, and I don't see how the CS would somehow become communist over time. You also seem to ignore the fact that the CS's influence could spread and cause more nations to fall under their control, and their warped views become more popularized.

and thirdly, they would be hated by the rest of the world,

And feared. They could be quite deadly.

and that would be the same by the late 19th century, where virtually every nation has ended slavery, and it has become very politically unfeasible to support the continuation of slavery.

And then they collapse. They're going to do anything they can to keep slavery, since that's what their nation is founded on, and it's most likely going to be a nightmare situation. They were founded on amorality and that's likely how they'll stay.

The root cause of the microrevolution was ending slavery, but further actions by the government pissed the populace off and resulted in a microrevolution that didn't end up re-legalizing slavery or anything. It may be popular amongst the plantationers there, but the rest of the populace evidently weren't huge fans of slavery, or else by popular demand, it would've been re-legalized.

Other people took control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil#Fall

So some inhumane treatment of people would still be accepted today?

Inhumane treatment is still accepted. Black people are still not seen as citizens. The south winning would only exacerbate this.

A nation like the CSA wouldn't be simply able to keep their slavery, or some watered down version of slavery to this day, as history tells us.

Even if slavery goes away, social issues between races will be set back quite far. Saying "the south will get rid of it eventually" doesn't help anything. Even if they don't have it, the world would be an even more horrible place than it already is. Prolonging an institution like slavery doesn't do any good. Happy Holidays.

Yes, there are of course politicians who supported the institution, but the British and French were generally unsupportive of the idea, because if they did, their need for cotton from the south plus their general support for slavery would've resulted in aid to the CSA. One of Lincoln's goals in his Emancipation Proclamation was to stop the international community from aiding the CS, and if there was a large and influential enough segment of the community that was fine with slavery, no person with half a brain would issue such a proclamation. It was most of the international community's hatred towards slavery, something they got rid of decades ago that fueled their hesitation to support the CSA, but their demand for CS cotton and textiles countered their hate, which effectively created neutrality, as they don't want to support a nation that was highlighted by the Yankees as a slaveholder nation, but realize that they have immense amounts of natural resources that they need.

Well following Second Manasass, the British and French did consider recognizing and aiding the CS, as the CS was considered the people who seceded from the north. Slavery was virtually unmentioned, and people really were talking about secession, but after Sharpsburg (Antietam), Lincoln issued the proclamation, which stopped recognition and aid by messing up the CS's image to the world. And no, military victories cannot change a factor that could've meant recognition of the CS if it didn't exist. If the world cared little of the institution, France and England would've quickly come to their aid, as they almost did in 1862, but it was the Emancipation Proclamation that really made the international community think twice about helping the south.

Furthermore, the Japanese and Nazi victories in WWII didn't really change the world's opinion on imperialism. Most still disdained their imperialism and rapid expansionism, to the point where the British and French declared war on the Nazis.

He mentioned that their subjugation is necessary until they are taught to behave correctly, and then boom, freedom and no deportation. That is arguably more progressive than a lot of Yankee politicians who wanted to send the blacks back to Africa. Even Nathan Bedford Forrest, who is wrongly accused of massacring Fort Pillow, rather than fighting a lopsided battle in Fort Pillow later came out in support of full blown equal rights for blacks and integration of blacks into white society.

Some weren't, but they were progressive enough to think twice about helping the CS once they were painted as a slave nation. It showed that slavery meant something to them, and that something was very negative, or else they wouldn't be so hesitant on aiding the CSA.

Yeah, Stephens stated that the CSA's cornerstone was slavery, but that speech was largely for political purposes, to appeal to the southern plantation class, to get them to aid the Confederate cause. They had to rally their population. However, slavery was under no threat by Lincoln or anybody back in the day. Lincoln stated that the south can keep their slaves, and never endorsed abolition in his campaign for president, as he even went as far to state that he believed that blacks were unequal, like anybody back in the day.

Davis appointed his three commissioners on January 28 and instructed them to explore all options short of renouncing independence.[28]

Firstly, slavery was by no means threatened in 1860 or 1861. Lincoln stated that he believed blacks are unequal and that he was perfectly fine with the south keeping their slaves, and yet the states seceded regardless. They also had the political power to keep slavery, as they had northern politicians on their side, and 30 other Senators who will do whatever it takes to preserve slavery.

Well they don't have to be forced into submission to end slavery, but they may have to be pressured to end slavery. The world would become more and more opposed to slavery, and a CS victory wouldn't help, as they have been painted as a slave nation, which goes against the morals of most of the international community (with the notable exception of a few politicians). The CS would need to trade with the British and French to industrialize, but their image as a slave nation would make it politically unappetizing and damaging, which would result in the Europeans pressuring the CS ending slavery. Then you would have more people oppose it due to slaves escaping and rebelling, alongside people growing more progressive due to outside influences, and those factors would force the CS into ending slavery.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/SlaveryAn ... vants.html
Masters took their slaves into battle.

They would care once their trade is damaged, and their people are pissed, and the international community is pissed. If most of the world, and a good segment of their citizens are opposed to slavery, they would be forced, from inside out, to oppose slavery. Abolitionist thought would inevitably transfer south, and abolitionists would probably try their best to get as many to oppose slavery in the CS to get the Confederates to ban it.

They don't, and I don't want to compare the south to Hitler. I hate Hitler, but I wish the CSA won the war. What I was trying to say was that a nation which goes against much of the world's military victories is unlikely to change the world's opinions, it may deepen their hatred towards them, which isn't good, and the CSA would get the message sooner or later.

Yeah, they stated that slavery was good, that they wanted to keep it, but never stated that they left because of slavery. They bashed laws that they felt were anti-slavery, but never stated that it was their primary reason. Of course, some southerners might take it as a nation for slavery, which is reinforced by the Declaration of Independences and speeches stressing the need for slavery, but once again, it wasn't very threatened in 1860, and the new president continued on the tradition of supporting slavery in the south, and any person with half a brain wouldn't secede, just like how Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, West Virginia (well, they counter seceded, and they wouldn't do such a thing if the cause was to preserve slavery) and Maryland stayed in the Union, and were thus called the "border states"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... red_Troops
They were segregated, when there was some degree of racial integration with the CS Military

They did, but the proclamation didn't free the slaves that could've been freed, as it explicitly stated that slaves would be freed in areas of states that are still in rebellion, and I doubt abolitionists were very happy with that.

Evidently not as much as independence, not to the point where they were willing to give up slavery, or get their commissioners to do whatever it takes to get independence.

It was the CS Cabinet, if I recall correctly which supported the end of slavery within 5 years if the Europeans would reconigze them, and sent Kenner
SOURCE: http://mises.org/library/lincolns-inver ... union#ref4

They didn't like slavery, but needed cotton, they couldn't really do anything but remain neutral, which was used by Lincoln, and later the Confederates for their purposes.

Many in 1860 realize how bad it was, and even if they won, much of the world, as evidenced as one of the goals of the Emancipation Proclamation and European neutrality despite their need for Confederate cotton, would still be opposed to slavery. I don't think victories like Hitler's in Europe, or Japan's victories in East Asia changed the world's opinion on expansionism (I don't view the CS as Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, but they had things that were generally disliked by much of the world). It only fuels more hatred and disdain, and a sense of urgency, which would result in very strong actions by southern abolitionists and the international community to get rid of slavery.

I am not likening their actions to Hitler, but they all had things which were disliked by the international community, and as evidenced by Hitler, their victories in Eastern Europe didn't change the world's opinion. I'm sure there were British and French politicians who liked expansionism, but in the case of the CS, they weren't powerful enough to instill any meaningful change with their policies.

I was basically stating that only a few, or no nations would be allied with the CSA if they kept slavery, and they would be forced to get rid of it one way or the other by the late 19th Century.

The south would be feared? They would have to rely on autarky, which is quite hard, as if they kept slavery, no nation would trade with them. They would be embargoed, and isolated. They will turn into some backwater nation in a matter of years, and they would have to get rid of slavery, their people will suffer, and the CS is by no means a dictatorship. The people elect their representatives, they vote, and they have power, they have free speech, and through that, it would pressure the CS to get rid of slavery, if for some crazy reason, inside and outside pressures don't get the CS to end slavery by the late 19th Century.

And slavery was kept illegal. So you point is? The Brazilian Government's unfair loans and expansion of military were the direct causes of the microrevolution.

Definitely not slavery or some watered down version of slavery. 99% of the world population probably hates slavery, and that 1% still supports it. Unfortunately, blacks are hated, but that was because the Union won. You forced your ideals on a population that was already shocked and angered from the razing of the south, and already had ideals that are the direct opposite of your reconstructionism. Of course they would try to instill segregation or something, as they felt blacks were unequal, and you had people who constantly persecuted blacks and basically kept them in the same terrible conditions as they had in 1860. If the CS won, the people would realize how bad slavery really was, and when the government is coerced by outside and inside pressures to end slavery, there wouldn't be that much of an uproar to replace slavery with some other form of terrible treatment.

Slaves had it terrible for the first 20 years following the war. They were hunted by terrible people, lived in shit conditions (shittier than what other southerners already had to deal with (a burned south, thanks Sherman)) and were constantly cheated from their wages as the blacks basically were freedmen in name only. Meanwhile, if the CS won, the people wouldn't need to blow off their anger for everything that has been destroyed and ruined, and their anger for their loss, and progressively, more and more become opposed through international and inside pressures. Abolitionists would go full on in the south and urge the people to support getting rid of slavery, and over 20 years (probably less because of how much leverage Europe holds over the CS as they are the CS's primary customer), the CS government will have to end slavery to clear up their image, engage in high levels of trade with Europe and meet the demands of its citizens.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Yes, there are of course politicians who supported the institution, but the British and French were generally unsupportive of the idea,

There are still politicians, and an influential upper class.

It was most of the international community's hatred towards slavery,

Again, playing up their feeling towards slavery. They didn't care as much as you're pretending they did. If that were the case, the scramble for Africa wouldn't have happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa

Well following Second Manasass, the British and French did consider recognizing and aiding the CS, as the CS was considered the people who seceded from the north. Slavery was virtually unmentioned,

They still knew what it meant.

And no, military victories cannot change a factor that could've meant recognition of the CS if it didn't exist.

No. They could easily consider that what was truly right had taken its course.

If the world cared little of the institution, France and England would've quickly come to their aid, as they almost did in 1862, but it was the Emancipation Proclamation that really made the international community think twice about helping the south.

But they never jumped in to stop them.
Also, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa happened.

Furthermore, the Japanese and Nazi victories in WWII didn't really change the world's opinion on imperialism. Most still disdained their imperialism and rapid expansionism, to the point where the British and French declared war on the Nazis.

And the rampant killing of their own citizens. Don't forget that.

He mentioned that their subjugation is necessary until they are taught to behave correctly, and then boom, freedom and no deportation.

Doesn't change how awful that is.

Even Nathan Bedford Forrest, who is wrongly accused of massacring Fort Pillow, rather than fighting a lopsided battle in Fort Pillow later came out in support of full blown equal rights for blacks and integration of blacks into white society.

The same Nathan Bedford Forrest that became leader of the KKK? I'm skeptical. Find a legitimate source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#First_KKK

Some weren't, but they were progressive enough to think twice about helping the CS once they were painted as a slave nation. It showed that slavery meant something to them, and that something was very negative, or else they wouldn't be so hesitant on aiding the CSA.

But the south winning could easily re-convince them.

Yeah, Stephens stated that the CSA's cornerstone was slavery,

Which it was.

but that speech was largely for political purposes, to appeal to the southern plantation class, to get them to aid the Confederate cause.

Which was to preserve slavery. Meaning that was what the war was about.

They had to rally their population

In support of the right to own another person.

However, slavery was under no threat by Lincoln or anybody back in the day. Lincoln stated that the south can keep their slaves, and never endorsed abolition in his campaign for president, as he even went as far to state that he believed that blacks were unequal, like anybody back in the day.

If that's actually the case, then it erases your other point about international pressure.

Davis appointed his three commissioners on January 28 and instructed them to explore all options short of renouncing independence.[28]

And where'd you pull that from?

Firstly, slavery was by no means threatened in 1860 or 1861.

That's laughable.
“an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Well they don't have to be forced into submission to end slavery,

Yes they did. If they weren't, slavery would've continued.

The world would become more and more opposed to slavery,

By magic, clearly.

and a CS victory wouldn't help, as they have been painted as a slave nation,

Again, more falsehoods. They aren't seen as badly as you fantasize.

which goes against the morals of most of the international community (with the notable exception of a few politicians).

And an upper class. Both quite influential.

The CS would need to trade with the British and French to industrialize,

Who need their cotton.

but their image as a slave nation would make it politically unappetizing and damaging, which would result in the Europeans pressuring the CS ending slavery.

Again, they don't care. If they cared, they wouldn't have left in the first place.

Then you would have more people oppose it due to slaves escaping and rebelling,

Rebellion After their hopes for freedom were crushed? Laughable.

alongside people growing more progressive due to outside influences, and those factors would force the CS into ending slavery.

Again, they don't care. They went to war over the right to have it.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/SlaveryAndEmancipation/bodyservants.html
Masters took their slaves into battle.

Site doesn't source itself. Also, the notion that blacks would identify with their oppressors is disgusting. And the whole bit about referring to them as "servants" is revisionist. They were slaves. Don't conceal that.

They would care once their trade is damaged, and their people are pissed,

So they did have to be forced into submission.

If most of the world, and a good segment of their citizens are opposed to slavery, they would be forced, from inside out, to oppose slavery.

But they wouldn't, since the right to own people is the cornerstone of why their nation was founded.

They don't, and I don't want to compare the south to Hitler.

But you did.

I hate Hitler, but I wish the CSA won the war. What I was trying to say was that a nation which goes against much of the world's military victories is unlikely to change the world's opinions,

False equivalent. Hitler didn't win WWII.

it may deepen their hatred towards them, which isn't good, and the CSA would get the message sooner or later.

Or instill soul crushing hopelessness.

Yeah, they stated that slavery was good, that they wanted to keep it, but never stated that they left because of slavery. They bashed laws that they felt were anti-slavery, but never stated that it was their primary reason.

But it was.

Of course, some southerners might take it as a nation for slavery, which is reinforced by the Declaration of Independences and speeches stressing the need for slavery, but once again, it wasn't very threatened in 1860,

Lie after lie.
“an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
They were angry over it being their right to own slaves or not, and they clearly didn't care about states rights since they supported slave transit between states.

They didn't like slavery, but needed cotton,

And somehow they'd magically find the strength to suddenly embargo it all. Your argument is based on an idealized south.

Many in 1860 realize how bad it was, and even if they won, much of the world, as evidenced as one of the goals of the Emancipation Proclamation and European neutrality despite their need for Confederate cotton, would still be opposed to slavery.

I doubt it, considering how fond the world was of killing black people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II ... atrocities

I don't think victories like Hitler's in Europe, or Japan's victories in East Asia changed the world's opinion on expansionism (I don't view the CS as Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, but they had things that were generally disliked by much of the world). It only fuels more hatred and disdain, and a sense of urgency, which would result in very strong actions by southern abolitionists and the international community to get rid of slavery.

Nazi Germany and Japan aren't all there is to expansionism. You do know that imperialism and the scramble for Africa happened, don't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II ... atrocities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa

I am not likening their actions to Hitler, but they all had things which were disliked by the international community, and as evidenced by Hitler, their victories in Eastern Europe didn't change the world's opinion.

The show was already on the road with that one. Slavery and subjugation of blacks, on the other hand, is a different matter, and you've just used a false equivalent.

I'm sure there were British and French politicians who liked expansionism,

A ton of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa

They will turn into some backwater nation in a matter of years, and they would have to get rid of slavery, their people will suffer,[

And if this is the outcome, why are you in support of it?

and the CS is by no means a dictatorship.

It is if you're not white.

The people elect their representatives,

Unless they're not white.

they vote,

Unless they're not white.

and they have power,

Unless they're not white.

they have free speech,

Unless they're not white.

And slavery was kept illegal.

Because other people took control.

Unfortunately, blacks are hated, but that was because the Union won.

Wow. That's probably the biggest lie I've heard you say yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II ... atrocities

You forced your ideals on a population that was already shocked and angered from the razing of the south,

Ideals that all men are created equal. They really need to get their feeling under control. It's not like they were the ones in chains. It's not like they were the ones stolen from their motherland, forced into slavery, and raped.

Of course they would try to instill segregation or something, as they felt blacks were unequal,

And this wouldn't change with history. They'd be opposed to equal rights no matter what happened.

If the CS won, the people would realize how bad slavery really was,

No they wouldn't. Slavery would continue, and the ideology that blacks were inferior would worsen.

Slaves had it terrible for the first 20 years following the war. They were hunted by terrible people,

Who founded a nation over the right to keep them.

Meanwhile, if the CS won, the people wouldn't need to blow off their anger for everything that has been destroyed and ruined,

They don't need to vent to begin with. They should have control over their emotions. They weren't slaves.

Abolitionists would go full on in the south and urge the people to support getting rid of slavery, and over 20 years

All the while, slaves are still getting treated like crap.

the CS government will have to end slavery to clear up their image, engage in high levels of trade with Europe and meet the demands of its citizens.

But they wouldn't, since they were founded on the principle that one man could own another, body and soul. You're sacrificing black people's lives for white people's feelings, and even if the south didn't get its teeth kicked in, tons of people would still resent the fact that someone they could own not that long ago was now their equal.

[Washington Resistance Army]

1. No, they are not regular people. The majority of them support terrorism and/or oppose action to get rid of terrorism:
"A few months after the Sept. 11 attack, 80 percent of British Muslims said they opposed the war in Afghanistan. The Muslim Council of Britain called for an immediate end to the war. A poll by the Daily Telegraph found that 98 percent of Muslims between the ages of 20 and 45 said they would not fight for Britain -- and 48 percent said they would fight for Osama bin Laden." (Source: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter061302.asp)

2. Afghanistan War, Iraq War, ISIS situation, Israeli-Palestinian wars, most terrorist attacks including 9/11, USS Cole, Boston Marathon bombing, Benghazi, various school attacks, and countless other examples. Do you need any more?

3. These governments oppress people in the name of islam. And a government needs support to exist in the first place.

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you? I mean, you are actually blaming the Iraq war on Islam. That's pants on head retarded, we attacked them and it wasn't because Saddam had been helping al-Qaeda. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period." This also might shock you, Islamic extremists have only carried out 6% of terror attacks on US soil.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Yes, there are of course politicians who supported the institution, but the British and French were generally unsupportive of the idea,

There are still politicians, and an influential upper class.

It was most of the international community's hatred towards slavery,

Again, playing up their feeling towards slavery. They didn't care as much as you're pretending they did. If that were the case, the scramble for Africa wouldn't have happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa

Well following Second Manasass, the British and French did consider recognizing and aiding the CS, as the CS was considered the people who seceded from the north. Slavery was virtually unmentioned,

They still knew what it meant.

And no, military victories cannot change a factor that could've meant recognition of the CS if it didn't exist.

No. They could easily consider that what was truly right had taken its course.

If the world cared little of the institution, France and England would've quickly come to their aid, as they almost did in 1862, but it was the Emancipation Proclamation that really made the international community think twice about helping the south.

But they never jumped in to stop them.
Also, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa happened.

Furthermore, the Japanese and Nazi victories in WWII didn't really change the world's opinion on imperialism. Most still disdained their imperialism and rapid expansionism, to the point where the British and French declared war on the Nazis.

And the rampant killing of their own citizens. Don't forget that.

He mentioned that their subjugation is necessary until they are taught to behave correctly, and then boom, freedom and no deportation.

Doesn't change how awful that is.

Even Nathan Bedford Forrest, who is wrongly accused of massacring Fort Pillow, rather than fighting a lopsided battle in Fort Pillow later came out in support of full blown equal rights for blacks and integration of blacks into white society.

The same Nathan Bedford Forrest that became leader of the KKK? I'm skeptical. Find a legitimate source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#First_KKK

Some weren't, but they were progressive enough to think twice about helping the CS once they were painted as a slave nation. It showed that slavery meant something to them, and that something was very negative, or else they wouldn't be so hesitant on aiding the CSA.

But the south winning could easily re-convince them.

Yeah, Stephens stated that the CSA's cornerstone was slavery,

Which it was.

but that speech was largely for political purposes, to appeal to the southern plantation class, to get them to aid the Confederate cause.

Which was to preserve slavery. Meaning that was what the war was about.

They had to rally their population

In support of the right to own another person.

However, slavery was under no threat by Lincoln or anybody back in the day. Lincoln stated that the south can keep their slaves, and never endorsed abolition in his campaign for president, as he even went as far to state that he believed that blacks were unequal, like anybody back in the day.

If that's actually the case, then it erases your other point about international pressure.

Davis appointed his three commissioners on January 28 and instructed them to explore all options short of renouncing independence.[28]

And where'd you pull that from?

Firstly, slavery was by no means threatened in 1860 or 1861.

That's laughable.
“an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Well they don't have to be forced into submission to end slavery,

Yes they did. If they weren't, slavery would've continued.

The world would become more and more opposed to slavery,

By magic, clearly.

and a CS victory wouldn't help, as they have been painted as a slave nation,

Again, more falsehoods. They aren't seen as badly as you fantasize.

which goes against the morals of most of the international community (with the notable exception of a few politicians).

And an upper class. Both quite influential.

The CS would need to trade with the British and French to industrialize,

Who need their cotton.

but their image as a slave nation would make it politically unappetizing and damaging, which would result in the Europeans pressuring the CS ending slavery.

Again, they don't care. If they cared, they wouldn't have left in the first place.

Then you would have more people oppose it due to slaves escaping and rebelling,

Rebellion After their hopes for freedom were crushed? Laughable.

alongside people growing more progressive due to outside influences, and those factors would force the CS into ending slavery.

Again, they don't care. They went to war over the right to have it.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/SlaveryAndEmancipation/bodyservants.html
Masters took their slaves into battle.

Site doesn't source itself. Also, the notion that blacks would identify with their oppressors is disgusting. And the whole bit about referring to them as "servants" is revisionist. They were slaves. Don't conceal that.

They would care once their trade is damaged, and their people are pissed,

So they did have to be forced into submission.

If most of the world, and a good segment of their citizens are opposed to slavery, they would be forced, from inside out, to oppose slavery.

But they wouldn't, since the right to own people is the cornerstone of why their nation was founded.

They don't, and I don't want to compare the south to Hitler.

But you did.

I hate Hitler, but I wish the CSA won the war. What I was trying to say was that a nation which goes against much of the world's military victories is unlikely to change the world's opinions,

False equivalent. Hitler didn't win WWII.

it may deepen their hatred towards them, which isn't good, and the CSA would get the message sooner or later.

Or instill soul crushing hopelessness.

Yeah, they stated that slavery was good, that they wanted to keep it, but never stated that they left because of slavery. They bashed laws that they felt were anti-slavery, but never stated that it was their primary reason.

But it was.

Of course, some southerners might take it as a nation for slavery, which is reinforced by the Declaration of Independences and speeches stressing the need for slavery, but once again, it wasn't very threatened in 1860,

Lie after lie.
“an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
They were angry over it being their right to own slaves or not, and they clearly didn't care about states rights since they supported slave transit between states.

They didn't like slavery, but needed cotton,

And somehow they'd magically find the strength to suddenly embargo it all. Your argument is based on an idealized south.

Many in 1860 realize how bad it was, and even if they won, much of the world, as evidenced as one of the goals of the Emancipation Proclamation and European neutrality despite their need for Confederate cotton, would still be opposed to slavery.

I doubt it, considering how fond the world was of killing black people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II ... atrocities

I don't think victories like Hitler's in Europe, or Japan's victories in East Asia changed the world's opinion on expansionism (I don't view the CS as Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, but they had things that were generally disliked by much of the world). It only fuels more hatred and disdain, and a sense of urgency, which would result in very strong actions by southern abolitionists and the international community to get rid of slavery.

Nazi Germany and Japan aren't all there is to expansionism. You do know that imperialism and the scramble for Africa happened, don't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II ... atrocities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa

I am not likening their actions to Hitler, but they all had things which were disliked by the international community, and as evidenced by Hitler, their victories in Eastern Europe didn't change the world's opinion.

The show was already on the road with that one. Slavery and subjugation of blacks, on the other hand, is a different matter, and you've just used a false equivalent.

I'm sure there were British and French politicians who liked expansionism,

A ton of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa

They will turn into some backwater nation in a matter of years, and they would have to get rid of slavery, their people will suffer,[

And if this is the outcome, why are you in support of it?

and the CS is by no means a dictatorship.

It is if you're not white.

The people elect their representatives,

Unless they're not white.

they vote,

Unless they're not white.

and they have power,

Unless they're not white.

they have free speech,

Unless they're not white.

And slavery was kept illegal.

Because other people took control.

Unfortunately, blacks are hated, but that was because the Union won.

Wow. That's probably the biggest lie I've heard you say yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II ... atrocities

You forced your ideals on a population that was already shocked and angered from the razing of the south,

Ideals that all men are created equal. They really need to get their feeling under control. It's not like they were the ones in chains. It's not like they were the ones stolen from their motherland, forced into slavery, and raped.

Of course they would try to instill segregation or something, as they felt blacks were unequal,

And this wouldn't change with history. They'd be opposed to equal rights no matter what happened.

If the CS won, the people would realize how bad slavery really was,

No they wouldn't. Slavery would continue, and the ideology that blacks were inferior would worsen.

Slaves had it terrible for the first 20 years following the war. They were hunted by terrible people,

Who founded a nation over the right to keep them.

Meanwhile, if the CS won, the people wouldn't need to blow off their anger for everything that has been destroyed and ruined,

They don't need to vent to begin with. They should have control over their emotions. They weren't slaves.

Abolitionists would go full on in the south and urge the people to support getting rid of slavery, and over 20 years

All the while, slaves are still getting treated like crap.

the CS government will have to end slavery to clear up their image, engage in high levels of trade with Europe and meet the demands of its citizens.

But they wouldn't, since they were founded on the principle that one man could own another, body and soul. You're sacrificing black people's lives for white people's feelings, and even if the south didn't get its teeth kicked in, tons of people would still resent the fact that someone they could own not that long ago was now their equal.

The Scramble for Africa wasn't for slavery, the Europeans realized that there is a lot of unclaimed land in Africa, so they decided to go for it. Of course, there were indigenous people and that didn't go so well.

So when the Japanese seized Manchuria, people started to think that expansionism was good, and the right thing has taken its course? Back then, people characterized that as an equivalent to a military victory, and sure, the Germans lost in 1945, but before that, their taking of all of these nations was seen as victories that a comparable to a victory in a war. We didn't see nations flocking to the Germans and Japanese.

Once again, they were basically forced to remain neutral. It is politically costly to support a nation seen as a nation for slaveholders, but it is also costly to wage war against your primary supply of cotton and textiles. The least costly, and safest choice was to keep neutral. If the CSA got rid of slavery under Kenner's diplomatic mission, which, if given more time, may have happened, their tarnished image would be cleared, and they would be able to get European support, which may have changed the war.

And the Scramble for Africa was for a complex array of reasons, just like the War of Northern Aggression. It was for military, economical and strategical reasons, and it wasn't ever to support racism or slavery. Indeed, there hasn't been a nation which has re-legalized slavery.

Yes, the terrible killings of citizens. I doubt the efficient and successful killings of Jews changed the world's views on Jews or ethnic cleansing, as it really was against the moral sensibilities of the world, and I don't think the victory of slaveholding nation would change the world's opinion on slavery, when it was against the moral sensibilities of much of the world.

It is quite awful, but I think something that is equally awful is to get these slaves sent to Africa, and to get them to enslave more blacks. Lee was arguably more progressive than many of his contemporaries.

And this happened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bed ... outherners

We don't exactly know if he became Grand Wizard, but he eventually dissolved the KKK. He cleaned up his terrible past and decided that blacks aren't inherently unequal to others, unlike a lot of people from both the north and the south during that time.

A victory of a nation that possesses an institution disliked by the world won't change shit. I doubt the Taliban taking over Afghanistan changed the world's opinion on Sharia Law, and if ISIS was to seize the Middle East, I still don't think many would say "Well, ISIS is correct", they would intensify their hate against ISIS.

Yes, slavery is terrible, and yes, Stephens was a politician, and he had to appeal to the masses, and abolition wasn't very popular amongst southerners at the time. Of course he had to rally the populace and ensure the plantationers that they won't get rid of slavery. You must be pro-slavery to get aid from the plantationers, and that was Stephens did so the plantationers wouldn't be suspicious of the CSA.

The Hampton Roads Peace Conference article on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Roads_Conference

Yeah, it said that, but does that mean it is true? Such declarations are also for political purposes, just like how the Declaration of Independence wrote All Men were Created Equal, and that didn't happen until 100 years later. The states seceded because of Lincoln, and the only policies Lincoln espoused that is directly at odds with the south are tariffs and centralized government. Those were the two things that South Carolina and John C. Calhoun fought against, and those two things almost started a war during the nullification crisis. Furthermore, if slavery was really threatened, then all 15 of the slave states would've seceded, but only 11 did, as the other four knew as well as others did that their institution wasn't threatened. There were also parts of the south which had slaves yet wanted to stay in the Union, which really shows that secession wasn't over slavery, or else the south, in its entirety would've left the Union.

Nope, international pressures and domestic pressures in conjunction will force the CS to end it. You don't have to burn their cities, rape their women and pillage their farms to end slavery, by using the governmental system that is set in place, you already have the power to end slavery.

The world, as seen in our timeline, has become more and more opposed to slavery, and I doubt a nation that is painted as the nation of slaveholders winning will do that any good, it might just instill a sense of urgency to end slavery.

Then why didn't they attack the Union if they were so influential?

Yes, they do, but at the same time, they were opening up their Egyptian and Indian colonies, and that would bring in more cotton. They can take less CS Cotton to get the CS to gradually abolish slavery, and their diplomats would probably urge the CS to also get rid of slavery. They wouldn't be very happy to trade with a nation that goes against the morals of their own governments and many of their people.

They left to oppose centralized government and tariffs, the two things central to Lincoln's campaign, not to preserve slavery. Even if they didn't originally care, they would be coerced to do so, or else they can suffer economical damage and lack of necessary relations to combat the north. They would be focused on industrializing to ensure that they can compete with the industrially superior north and to deter a second invasion.

Because the north will magically reinstate slavery. No, the north's end of slavery would incentivize more slaves to escape as before they had to go all the way up north to Canada because of the Fugitive Slave Act, but with that gone, the slaves can freely escape up north.

They didn't, after all, it was over the secession of states, and the government prioritized independence, even if that meant ending slavery, and furthermore, vehement abolitionists would do whatever it takes to end slavery, and they would try to get the southern populace to turn against slavery, and that would eventually work, as it did in northern states and thus result in the end of slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_h ... in_the_CSA
There were traces and mention of blacks in the Confederate Army, even as early as 1861, where a Union Colonel recorded blacks manning Confederate Cannons and fighting against the north. And yes, they were slaves, but they fought, and it dispels the myth that they don't like blacks with guns.

I don't know if this is forcing the CSA into submission, but this is pressuring their government to the point where they basically have to end slavery. They didn't in their four short years of history, before they lost. If they won, more abolitionist southerners, higher slave costs because of their ban of slave trade and foreign pressure would make the CS do it. They did not fight, or were founded on, slavery, as we know that slavery wasn't a threatened issue back in the day, since many southern counties voted against secession despite their reliance on slavery.

He didn't, but his successful military campaigns were seen as wars, and not segments of WWII, and his successful methods of Anti-Semitism didn't get many other nations to also be anti-semitic.

So half of the US becoming their own nation would crush the souls of the people. If ISIS takes over the Middle East, I don't think the international community would be like "Yeah, lets create a Christian Caliphate in Europe", no, they would try to stop ISIS.

If it was the case, we wouldn't be seeing numerous counties in the south voting against secession, as they too, relied on slavery, and neither would we see four states decide against secession, or Southern Illinois play with and consider secession.

So that makes you think it was. No, it wasn't, and their secession was not for slavery, or else, the border states would've seceded, Southern Illinois wouldn't even think of secession, and not so many counties would've said no to secession.

They would open up India and Egypt, and ideally of course, they want CS Cotton and textiles, but they would, by the late 1860s, have the power to embargo. They can of course, trade cotton for machinery, but the Europeans would want the CS to get rid of slavery first, and they can use this opportunity to do such a thing.

Yes, there was that, but in the 1930s, not many were as fond of expansionism as the Japanese and Germans were, and the world didn't change their opinion despite their successful expansions into lands that aren't theirs.

Not in the 1930s.

Because the CS would be smart enough to end slavery once their own generals, their own citizens, and their top customers tell them that slavery has to go. They would realize their their economy will flop if they don't trade enough cotton, which would prompt them to end slavery. This was if they didn't end slavery, and that wouldn't have happened, as the government would basically be forced to do such a thing.

Yeah, white abolitionists would've ended slavery, alongside other factors.

I'll reword it, blacks were hated to the extent that they were in the south as the Union just screwed over their lands. Yeah, if you just lost 40 Acres of your land to some other people, and your home is burned down, and you can't find any food, wouldn't you want to vent. You lost everything, and your home is unrecognizable, and all that land is in the hands of those who you view are non-human, of course you would hate the blacks even more than you once did, and as a result, violence, cheating the blacks from their wages and other atrocities were committed against the blacks. If the south won, and slavery was ended with a good portion of the population opposing it, then you wouldn't have all that violence against blacks, you wouldn't have so many blacks being cheated from their wages, being wounded, killed, lynched, persecuted and humiliated.

If you see your home burned to your ground, your wealth confiscated and your society shattered, I don't know how you can control your emotions. I would be pretty pissed to see my house burned or in a wreck, and realize that it is now the property of somebody else, to see that I have lost everything, of course I'd be mad, and most other people would be mad at such a thing. The only people they can vent on are blacks, as in the face of all of the craziness that ensued from the war, they benefitted so much, they now have your land, and they now are under special protection. If I was raised in an environment that told me about how blacks were meant to be slaves, of course I'd be shocked to see them free, and of course I'd try to cheat them from their wages and do terrible crap. If you can change the feelings and societal fabric in a gradualistic manner, you avert all that bloodshed, all that persecution, all that hate against blacks and still end slavery.

They may resent and not be as happy as they were as before, but they wouldn't as as violent and terrible towards blacks as they were for quite a few decades following the war. You have had people rape their women, burn their houses and cause havoc in their communities, you had people who committed all sorts of terrible shit against blacks, but that was because you culturally shattered the south and instilled your values that are contradictory against their values. You change their values to something more compatible, and then put your values there, and then we wouldn't see all the carnage, subjugation and murder that ensued from the war.

[Katyuscha]

Make mermaids real

[Organized States]

Make the USAF buy the F-108 and build the Rapier III concept so that my beloved North American Aviation could live and then make North American buy out Rockwell instead of the other way around. Then, of course, buy out Lockheed.

Or alternatively,

I'd have the USAAC approve the development of the Lockheed L-113, which would have given the US what might have been the most advanced jet fighter in the world in 1943. Thus, out-pacing the Russians, British, and Germans.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Can someone give me a summary version of those gigantic posts above on this page? Any other day i would try and read them but today.. i.. i just cant.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Can someone give me a summary version of those gigantic posts above on this page? Any other day i would try and read them but today.. i.. i just cant.

A clamoring of arguments over what would happen if a Confederate Victory were to take place, with the Cobalt Sky generally being less optimistic than I am with what would happen if the CS won. The arguments encompass historical examples and numerous sources, requests for sources (mainly on Cobalt's part, since I get too lazy to check my work), examples and counter-examples throughout history to support our arguments.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Can someone give me a summary version of those gigantic posts above on this page? Any other day i would try and read them but today.. i.. i just cant.

A clamoring of arguments over what would happen if a Confederate Victory were to take place, with the Cobalt Sky generally being less optimistic than I am with what would happen if the CS won. The arguments encompass historical examples and numerous sources, requests for sources (mainly on Cobalt's part, since I get too lazy to check my work), examples and counter-examples throughout history to support our arguments.

Ah.. good stuff, its an interesting topic for debate certainly. Thank you.