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

[Keronians]

Do not ever call it that. This place is not and (hopefully) will never be like America.

To clarify, I don't object to European federalism. I object to the name "United States of Europe".

European Federation?

Federal Republic of Europe. *nods*

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

European Federation?

Federal Republic of Europe. *nods*

No.
You know there are countries the in the EU that are Monarchies

[Anglo-California]

The repeal of the 1924 immigration quotas in 1965.

[Divitaen]

I'd probably wanna change Dred Scott. And the Plessy decision. Oh, and probably stop the assassination of MLK. If I could, I would prevent Gulf of Tonkin from ever happening.

[Keronians]

Federal Republic of Europe. *nods*

No.
You know there are countries the in the EU that are Monarchies

Yeah, there are.

So?

[Fortschritte]

The repeal of the 1924 immigration quotas in 1965.

Why do you hate the economy?

[Lord Tothe]

@OP: prevent the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand: Prevent WW1 AND WW2 AND the Cold War.

[Trygg]

I'd convince Napoleon to wait until the sixth coalition disbanded before returning to Europe.

[MERIZoC]

The repeal of the 1924 immigration quotas in 1965.

Why do you hate the economy?

Not the economy. Just non-whites.

[Fortschritte]

Why do you hate the economy?

Not the economy. Just non-whites.

That latter point is well known. But, if we were to curtail immigration to 1924 levels, the effect on the economy would be disastrous. With few immigrants, millions of workers would be lost, and the economy would take a huge hit.

Of course, there's also the fact that the act was incredibly discriminatory and unfair to immigrants, but I'd find it easier to talk to a block of marble than to try to change Anglo-California's mind on the fairness of the act.

[Unified Gibbons]

I would stop the terrorists form getting onto the planes on 9/11.

[Keronians]

I would stop the terrorists form getting onto the planes on 9/11.

Aye, it would have probably prevented the tragedies of the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War.

[Fortschritte]

I would stop the terrorists form getting onto the planes on 9/11.

Aye, it would have probably prevented the tragedies of the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War.

That, and rampant Islamaphobia wouldn't be as prevalent, thousands wouldn't lose their lives in the initial attack, and Bush wouldn't have been re-elected.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Is there any time in history that would have made it possible for solar energy to supersede fossil fuels?
I remember on Cosmos's episode about global warming, Neil deGrasse Tyson mentioned a Brit who was working on a solar project in Egypt, but then they found oil and he was forgotten. Now, if the Empire never found oil, and had to rely on his solar project...well, I can foresee a threat to Britain arising if the powerlines were cut by Italy or the Central Powers...and maybe some other problems...but all the same, maybe global warming might not have a chance to pose the same threat it does today.

Aye, it would have probably prevented the tragedies of the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War.

That, and rampant Islamaphobia wouldn't be as prevalent, thousands wouldn't lose their lives in the initial attack, and Bush wouldn't have been re-elected.

But then Bush would have formed the Neo-Confederacy and started a civil war, like on Family Guy.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

The repeal of the 1924 immigration quotas in 1965.

But then America would have the same problems Russia has now with declining birthrates. We might not even reach 300 million people.

[The Cobalt Sky]

This would hurt the Confederate Economy due to their reliance on trade, which would, alongside internal pressures force the government to either do the "compromise" or completely end slavery.

You assume that they'll switch from southern cotton to Indian and Egyptian cotton to pressure them, and not just for economic reasons. You also assume that these internal pressures exist to a magnitude great enough to change the government. Which they don't.
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/s ... b1861.html

They would be the most easily swayed, as they don't own slaves and don't directly see the benefits it has, and when you have most of the Southern White population opposed to slavery, and at least a few plantationers disagreeing with slavery or viewing it as evil, and then you have foreign pressures, how can't the CSA end slavery?

Easy. More people are set on slavery than you think. More people think it's an African American's place in the world to be in chains.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Not necessarily 50 years, perhaps 10-15 years.

That's not going to be the case, though. And that would still be too long. You don't care because you wouldn't be enslaved.

Yet, in those 10-15 years, we saw a surge in violence.

Still not worse than slavery.

Once uncommon practices against blacks happened nightly, and that led blacks to be in constant fear.

"Uncommon practices" and "constant fear" were always prevalent. This didn't change anything for the worse.

Back in slavery, a master wouldn't randomly whip a slave unless they did something that in the eyes of the slaveholder was wrong,

It's just lie after lie with you, isn't it?
"Besides slaves' being vastly overworked, they suffered brandings, shootings, and "floggings." Flogging was a term often used to describe the average lashing or whipping a slave would receive for misbehaving. Many times a slave would also simply be put through "wanton cruelties" or unprovoked violent beatings or punishments.[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States
I suggest you read this again, because you clearly don't understand it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

Not to mention that blacks actually were paid very little or cheated from their wages and lived in substandard conditions, which caused many to starve to death or succumb to diseases.

Things were worse under slavery.
"Besides slaves' being vastly overworked, they suffered brandings, shootings, and "floggings." Flogging was a term often used to describe the average lashing or whipping a slave would receive for misbehaving. Many times a slave would also simply be put through "wanton cruelties" or unprovoked violent beatings or punishments.[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

Likewise, during slavery, blacks wouldn't have that same level of fear as they did during Reconstruction.

You aren't black, yet you know how we felt?

and they wouldn't be randomly shot, lynched, maimed or tortured.

"Besides slaves' being vastly overworked, they suffered brandings, shootings, and "floggings." Flogging was a term often used to describe the average lashing or whipping a slave would receive for misbehaving. Many times a slave would also simply be put through "wanton cruelties" or unprovoked violent beatings or punishments.[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

That resulted in more fear,

You have no proof of that.

Sure, the Europeans did want to instill their culture and their values in Africa and Asia and subsequently wiping out their culture, but that doesn't mean they abhorred slavery.

... What? I think you're using 'abhorred' wrong. This only adds to my argument.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abhorred

Freedmen's Village, in my knowledge was in Virginia, which is still southern. For Freedmen's town, they seem to all be in the south, and were organized by the Freedmen's Bureau, which seized lands from white southerners and gave them to blacks, although very few was allocated due to the lack of manpower. From their location, it would mean that those towns and settlements would be under attack by white people,

Your source only added to my point.
"The Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment brought 4 million people out of slavery in the defunct Confederate States of America. Many freedmen migrated from white areas to build their own towns away from white supervision. They also created their own churches and civic organizations. They started schools, which both adults and children attended to learn to read and write."

which further intensified the fear from freedmen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedmen%27s_town

You have no proof to support that.

Watch the Documentary. Freedmen were attacked because they're black, whilst back in slavery, they were only attacked for what their master viewed as misconduct and usually never killed.

I don’t need to. I know that that’s not the case.
"Besides slaves' being vastly overworked, they suffered brandings, shootings, and "floggings." Flogging was a term often used to describe the average lashing or whipping a slave would receive for misbehaving. Many times a slave would also simply be put through "wanton cruelties" or unprovoked violent beatings or punishments.[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

There seems to be conflicting reports, with some people stating that they surrendered and were shot, with others stating that the people didn't surrender and were shot.

There are more that say it was a massacre.

Regardless, General Forrest later cleaned up his racist past, and argued for racial equality in a time that saying such things could get you shot.

But he wasn't shot. Which I find suspicious.

Alongside more people domestically opposing slavery as society moves on,

This would only really be a thing after many decades.

the government would be under extremely heavy pressure to end slavery.

Again, This would only really be a thing after many decades.

This would only take a decade,

No. It would take a lot longer. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."

as they would have a sense of urgency once a nation that was painted as a nation of slavers win.

Or they could lose faith and fall apart.

Well, I am not black, so I don't know.

Exactly. Realize that you're arguing with someone over an experience that isn't your own.

From what I can see, racism is really uncommon today, but correct me if there is still prejudice against your people,

There's a lot. It is still quite prevalent. It varies from place to place, and sometimes repackages itself as micro aggressions, like offhanded comments and, if one has curly hair, trying to touch or feel it.

not to mention the constant fear of persecution.

This was always the case. Fear was everywhere during slavery.

That became more common during reconstruction,

You haven't proven this.

Sure, it wasn't slavery by name, but its still slavery.

Greenwood, Freedman's Village, Allensworth, Freedmen's Town, Davis Bend, Rosewood, Muchakinock, and Blackdom say it wasn't slavery for everyone.

Instead, their chances of employment are lower with so many slaves occupying the jobs,

That's more like an argument for slavery. If African Americans were freed, that would mean more competition because they would be being paid and potentially seen as equal by the rest of the world. Although they didn't necessarily own slaves, they felt superior.

but in Reconstruction, some people did it because of the fact that they were black, not because they viewed that they were something wrong.

...What? Being black and free was seen as something wrong. That's why they did it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States#Punishment_and_abuse
Slaves were punished by whipping, shackling, hanging, beating, burning, mutilation, branding and imprisonment. Punishment was often meted out in response to disobedience or perceived infractions

And those of us that escaped and started our own communities didn't have to deal with that.

Punishments were sometimes taken to assert the superiority of the master, but during Reconstruction, whipping, maiming and shootings happened out of the blue, rather than happening to punish for infractions or to assert the superiority of the master.

You don't have proof of that.

No, free blacks, blacks that were free.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaves_and ... onfederacy
Yes, some may have been forced, but there might've been a free black who decided to fight for the Confederacy. We never know as we can only see from accounts from the people in the Battlefield and from the people of the time.

If that's the case, and they did join and they weren't forced, then guess what book they belong in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom
They're siding with the people who would see then enslaved. That's disgusting.

no medical care,

No proof that it was good. Also, unlikely, considering the tortures we went through.
http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/02/24/ ... -africans/

and constant fear of death from nature and from white people,

That existed before emancipation. You don't understand that, do you? You don't really know what slavery was like.

unlike slavery, in which slaves were at least fed and taken care of so they won't die,

Many slaves did die from torture. They could be used as lessons against other slaves who would dare to act against their oppressors.
http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/02/24/ ... fricans/8/
https://americanslavehorrors.wordpress. ... -examples/

As I said before, the first 15 years of freedom wasn't freedom, blacks were constantly intimidated,

You really can't grasp that we were afraid before then, too, can you? That's a shame.
https://americanslavehorrors.wordpress. ... -examples/

and were constantly barred from voting and even killed.

Slaves couldn't vote and were killed so that's not much of a point.

They lived in substandard conditions and had starving stomachs lingering for some food and terrible health conditions.

This was the case before emancipation as well.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experie ... story.html
"enslaved people were clothed, fed and housed only minimally to ensure their survival and capacity for labor. "
"The diets, high in fat and starch, were not nutritionally sound and could lead to ailments, including scurvy and rickets. Enslaved people in all regions and time periods often did not have enough to eat; some resorted to stealing food from the master. "
"Clothing, distributed by the master, usually once a year and often at Christmastime, was apportioned according sex and age as well as to the labor performed by its wearer. Children, for instance, often went unclothed entirely until they reached adolescence."
"Elderly slaves who could not do physical labor were not given the shoes or extra layers of clothing during the winter that younger fieldworkers were. Whereas many field workers were not given sufficient clothing to cover their bodies..."

It wasn't until the mid 1870s to the 1880s that the blacks had better conditions than slavery, and in that time, if the CSA won, slavery would've ended, and all that hate against blacks wouldn't have happened.

No, it wouldn't have. It would have continued for far longer.
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/s ... b1861.html

[Fortschritte]

Is there any time in history that would have made it possible for solar energy to supersede fossil fuels?
I remember on Cosmos's episode about global warming, Neil deGrasse Tyson mentioned a Brit who was working on a solar project in Egypt, but then they found oil and he was forgotten. Now, if the Empire never found oil, and had to rely on his solar project...well, I can foresee a threat to Britain arising if the powerlines were cut by Italy or the Central Powers...and maybe some other problems...but all the same, maybe global warming might not have a chance to pose the same threat it does today.

That, and rampant Islamaphobia wouldn't be as prevalent, thousands wouldn't lose their lives in the initial attack, and Bush wouldn't have been re-elected.

But then Bush would have formed the Neo-Confederacy and started a civil war, like on Family Guy.

Not if President Kerry can help it.

[Lalaki]

Bush wouldn't have been re-elected.

Or, perhaps he would have been able to focus on domestic policy. Perhaps the 2001-2003 tax cuts would not have instigated a large deficit. Various controversial laws relating to security would not have been passed, and certain defense measures not taken. This would have given him a much more positive record on civil liberties.

Overall, he might have had a better legacy.

George W. Bush is a good man. Sure, he wasn't the sort of leader we needed at the time, but his heart is in the right place and he cares for the nation.

I freely say that as a dedicated social liberal and civil libertarian.

[Lalaki]

The repeal of the 1924 immigration quotas in 1965.

But then America would have the same problems Russia has now with declining birthrates. We might not even reach 300 million people.

Exactly. The fertility rate in the United States is actually below replacement level. Our continued growth is thanks to people who move here and work hard.

[Fortschritte]

Bush wouldn't have been re-elected.

Or, perhaps he would have been able to focus on domestic policy. Perhaps the 2001-2003 tax cuts would not have instigated a large deficit. Various controversial laws relating to security would not have been passed, and certain defense measures not taken. This would have given him a much more positive record on civil liberties.

Overall, he might have had a better legacy.

George W. Bush is a good man. Sure, he wasn't the sort of leader we needed at the time, but his heart is in the right place and he cares for the nation.

I freely say that as a dedicated social liberal and civil libertarian.

Don't be naive. While your optimism and general trust of others is commendable, I have reason to doubt that Bush's heart was in the right place. He was fine with killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, torture, and failed economic policies. To say that he was a good man who cared for the nation is very, very naive.

[Gyrenaica]

Soviet Union never falls

[Lalaki]

...

I will agree to disagree here. While I have major disagreements with our foreign engagements and economic directives during his administration, I still want to hold a benefit of the doubt for Bush himself. He thought was he was doing was right, with the intention of serving his nation.

Also, here are some views that the American public currently holds:
http://www.isidewith.com/poll/46492877
http://www.isidewith.com/poll/3507341

While us two support a strict following of civil liberties and human rights protocols, a lot of people would disagree. What needs to happen is a change of mentality within the public to end these practices.

[Conscentia]

Soviet Union never falls

That's a bit vague.
What would you change specifically to make that happen?

[Islamic State of UKIP]

Darren Wilson gets executed in cold blood instead of Mike Brown.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Bush wouldn't have been re-elected.

Or, perhaps he would have been able to focus on domestic policy. Perhaps the 2001-2003 tax cuts would not have instigated a large deficit. Various controversial laws relating to security would not have been passed, and certain defense measures not taken. This would have given him a much more positive record on civil liberties.

Overall, he might have had a better legacy.

George W. Bush is a good man. Sure, he wasn't the sort of leader we needed at the time, but his heart is in the right place and he cares for the nation.

I freely say that as a dedicated social liberal and civil libertarian.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/sessio ... -tax-cuts/
Actually revenues increased in 2004, and reached 2001 levels in 2005. If we hadn't increased spending and did spending cuts, while launching a more efficient attack on Afghanistan instead of shipping in a Conventional Army and instigate nation building, we would've only had two years of deficits, and then we would still have a balanced budget. Maybe if Bush also let the market decide the interest rates or have a gold standard, we wouldn't see inflated prices which may have also increased the deficit.