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

[Thyrgga]

I would make Germany victorious in World War I.

[Jackonia]

Help Mozart live longer.

[Esselman]

I love this question because my mind always goes back to the same thing. I would stop the Kennedy Assassination and would love to see how JFK would shape America through his term and the no doubt second term. People adored the Kennedy's, "Camelot" and all the things associated with that... With his foreign policy and New Frontier program maybe things would be even better in the history books. Obviously as a president it relies on Congress as well and all that. It would be interesting though.

[Dai Coon Ree]

I dont know but I belive the "Temporal Directive" is something not to be ignored. Said that I would change nothing but would love to observe any grand historical event. Imagine to witness 3 wodden ships crossing a vast ocean to reach an new world? Or I woulkd love to see all steps which lead to the errection of the cologne cathedral? Now thats woonderfull but changeing a thing? Who knows what happens next?

[Republic of Coldwater]

Furthermore, in page 27 of the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Volume I, Davis said this:



Indeed, Davis believed that spreading slaves around would help abolish slavery, and that shows that not all Confederate politicians were big fans of preserving slavery, as in the case of Davis in which he believed that spreading it would ultimately aid emancipation.

He said

if Emancipation is to be desired,

Nowhere did he say he himself wanted thought it should end. This is just how he thinks it would be ended.
Also this:
"As a mere historical fact, we have seen that African servitude among us ―confessedly the mildest and most humane of all institutions to which the name “slavery” has ever been applied―existed in all the original states, and that it was recognized and protected in the fourth article of the Constitution."
Would clearly show he doesn't think it's that bad at all.
(Vol. 1 pp. 66, Davis on slavery)

They like slavery for economical reasons,

All right then, prove that they only liked it for economic reasons and that white supremacy had nothing to do with it.

Clearly not enough to hamper the slave trade and decide against helping the CSA once they were painted as slavers.

The reasons they didn't help out were because even recognizing them would mean war with the US.
"The Confederate strategy for securing independence was largely based on the hope of military intervention by Britain and France, which didn't happen; intervention would have meant war with the United States. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... _Civil_War
Also, they lied about what the war was actually about to gain Britain's trust.
" “nearly all the aristocracy and a large portion of the middle classes were adverse to the North and in favor of the South. … Out of four or five hundred English newspapers, only five were bold enough openly to support the North.”"
And
"Nor was this a simple misunderstanding. Pro-Southern business interests and journalists fed the myth that the war was over trade, not slavery – the better to win over people who might be appalled at siding with slave owners against the forces of abolition. On March 12, 1861, just 10 days after the Morrill Tariff had become law, The London Times gave editorial voice to the tariff lie. The newspaper pronounced that “Protection was quite as much a cause of the disruption of the Union as Slavery,” and remarked upon how the Morrill Tariff had “much changed the tone of public feeling” in favor of “the Secessionists.” "
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... -lie/?_r=0

They wouldn't lose hope, as the expansion of slavery into new territories didn't, and neither did the lack of political support for abolition, so how would the CSA winning somehow change their views and make them lose hope?

You haven't really proven that they wouldn't. The “last bastion of slavery” just managed to survive a war, and plans on continuing slavery. That’s disheartening.

http://www.memory.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml/exhibit/aopart5.html
500 blacks in Kansas. There were 3.5 Million black slaves in the south.

It gives one example for Kansas. That’s still a movement to Kansas.
It also says:
“there appear to be emerging concentrations in the northern urban areas (New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago), southern Ohio, central Missouri, eastern Kansas, and scattered areas in the West (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California), reflecting migration patterns that began during Reconstruction.”

Blacks were still overwhelmingly concentrated in the south, and only emerging populations took place in the north. Some did leave, I have no doubt about it, but given that only some left the south, and the blacks were still disproportionately in the south until the Great Migration, most still suffered persecution in the south.

And you still haven't proven that every single black person in the south faced the exact same conditions as slavery. Although they would be in a hostile area, they would still be free. If the south had won, they would still be enslaved.

Yeah they were still in the south,

“emerging concentrations in the northern urban areas (New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago), southern Ohio, central Missouri, eastern Kansas, and scattered areas in the West (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California), reflecting migration patterns that began during Reconstruction.”

Oh Black Wall Street. That took place in the 20th Century, which disproves your point that freedmen had money.

So you’re telling me every single person that had been a slave was dead by then? I find that unlikely. You also haven't shown me proof that all of us were destitute.

Their white supremacy is what is going to be used to abolish slavery. Slaves take up their jobs and lower the socioeconomic status of whites, which is counterproductive to white supremacy, and that can be used to rally anti-slavery support.

Except they do it in a different way. They think African Americans should remain slaves because it’s their place in the world, to be suppressed, regardless of if they take up jobs or not.

What I can see was that blacks continued to have that constant fear, and more blacks were killed than they were during slavery.

Then get your eyes checked. I’ve already proven there were free communities, and you haven't provided any statistics to show that the death toll was any higher than slavery itself.

Once again, many of these settlements were still poor and in derelict conditions, and many were raided, as seen in the documentary from the History Channel that I posted up in my post.

And that’s still not worse than slavery.

The 75% don't benefit from slavery, they are hurt from slavery as many jobs are permanently occupied by blacks.

But they see African Americans as a lower class. Freedom would potentially mean many African American run counties in places where white people were the minority. This was a terrifying prospect to them because they know they’re bigots and think African Americans would want retribution. They want to keep us in chains, because they think that’s our place in the world.

Ethnocentric means that one judges other ethnic groups with their standards, and in this case,

...What? I'm saying prove that they were all one ethnicity, because you said they wouldn't do that to their own people. If this is the case, then indentured servitude wouldn't arise.

the southern whites would view the blacks as inferior, and as such, southern white owners would feel more compelled to get southern whites as workers as it helps their ethnicity and harms blacks.

Or they'd want a return to slavery, and try to employ them again for little to no wages, and try to keep them there with force. Even if your situation is somehow what happens, you've still got a nation full of unemployed people who are probably starving.

He said it was humane and all, but that doesn't mean he supported it. He himself treated his slaves better than most slaveholders at the time, even establishing a trial system for his slaves before they get punished, which may be the reason why he didn't view slavery as so inhumane. However, he did believe that it would aid emancipation by spreading slavery, and guess what, he, like basically all southern politicians at the time, supported such expansion. This clearly shows that he wasn't that big of a fan of slavery.

http://www.libertyclassroom.com/slavery ... revisited/

Their belief that blacks are inferior due to their own ethnocentrism did have some part in it, but largely it was due to economical reasons. Furthermore I don't know how white supremacist southerners were. They didn't believe that blacks were equal, but they didn't disenfranchise Cubans and was fine with a Native American being a General. They can still establish some sort of domination over blacks, such as making them only have 3/5th of a vote or something like that, which still happened in the south.

Yeah, and they still considered it after the Second Manassas, and Lincoln still had to issue to the Emancipation Proclamation to sway the British from supporting the CSA. Their opposition to slavery was definitely a part in why they would stop and not help the CSA.

Furthermore, the war was partially about tariffs. South Carolina and the south as a whole hated tariffs, especially during the nullification crisis where secession was a possibility. Furthermore, if the newspaper used the tariff reason to get support from the British populace. Yes, it was true, the war was partially over tariffs but they decided to downplay the CSA's slavery for one reason, and that was support. If the British weren't opposed to slavery, the paper has no need to downplay the institution that the south possessed, but didn't fight for. This shows that the British even in 1861 hated slavery, and a CS Victory wouldn't magically change their opinion, as much as the Communists winning the Chinese Civil War changed their opinion on Communism.

So did former slaveholders support the Union and abolition once the Union won the war? Nope, they tried to subjugate blacks in substandard socioeconomic conditions for as long as they could. Likewise, even if the south won, abolitionists won't suddenly stop trying to end slavery, they would still try to end slavery.

Yeah and not every single black person before 1865 in the south suffered the same fate. There were freed black people in the south before the 13th Amendment.

Not all blacks were destitute after reconstruction, of course not. There were many wealthy freedmen in the south even during slavery. However, most freed slaves in 1865 got paid little to no wages, which really is detrimental to the socioeconomic status of blacks at the time. What I'm trying to say is that most blacks, not all blacks had substandard socioeconomic conditions following the war, and had little to eat, starved, suffered crippling diseases and were treated like dirt. It isn't really an improvement over slavery. It took 10-15 years before things became better for blacks.

Yes, they believed that blacks are better off as slaves, but they felt that blacks were inferior, and the abolitionists can exploit the racial sentiments by simply stating that it is counterproductive to the domination of whites in society if slavery persists, that blacks will be able to be fed, clothed, and housed while many whites are homeless and destitute. If they want to assert the lower condition of blacks, ending slavery would allow for whites to take up many formerly slave positions, which helps assert the domination of whites over blacks in southern society.

Can you name me once instance were 150 blacks were killed in a single county by some batshit crazy white people during slavery?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Activities

Living in the worst of houses, having little money, little sustenance and suffering crippling diseases. This would evidently happen in the post-war south, in which the destruction of the south and all of its wealth, plus blacks being paid little to nothing didn't help ameliorate the situation blacks were in. Most blacks were still in the south, suffering the post-war persecution from whites, as evidenced by the documentary.

Yeah, they would probably limit black votes, perhaps using the 3/5th of a person thing to disenfranchise blacks and making blacks have limited political freedoms. I don't agree with such things, but anti-black whites of the time would definitely find some way to limit the political freedom of blacks to ensure that they have rule over most communities. Yes, most whites of the time would want to keep blacks in chains, but the same sentiments can be easily exploited to oppose slavery, by simply stating that slaves take away chances for whites to elevate their socioeconomic status, which is detrimental to the dominance of blacks over whites, and that ending slavery would assert the dominance of whites over blacks. Easily, that can change a lot of opinions and sway many southern whites towards an anti-slavery position as a means to assert white supremacy.

I believe there is a misunderstanding. Indentured servitude wasn't very common following the early 19th century, and wasn't very common during the era of the War of Northern Aggression. Slaveholders didn't want to use indentured servitude on Cubans or Native Americans, and as such, it would be unlikely that they would use indentured servitude on whites. Indentured servitude was a method for people to pay off their travels to the new world, and wasn't really used in the Americas for anything else.

Not when they believe that ending slavery is a way to assert the dominance of whites over blacks by helping unemployed whites and hurting blacks (taking away their food, clothing and shelter). The white supremacy of southerners can easily be used and altered to be opposed to slavery. Really, slavery would die shortly following the war, and blacks would be free.

[Urran]

World War 2 left us with great technology to build off of and a lot of things we have today such as computers, jet engines, rockets, and the like were made trying out compete Germany, or taken from captured German Tech. So, I wouldn't change that.

If I could change one thing, I'd have Mac Arthur not get "fired" and pushed the Communists out of North Korea and have one big happy Korea.

Either that, or have the UN NOT force Israel to give up the Sinai.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

If I could change one thing, I'd have Mac Arthur not get "fired" and pushed the Communists out of North Korea and have one big happy Korea.

One of the main reason why Communism couldn't be driven out of North Korea was because the Chinese army exploited the declaration by Truman when he said that he had no intentions to use nukes in future conventional war. Had he not said that, then the Chinese would've thought twice about trying to aid the North Koreans.

[Serrian]

I would make this glorious man real, and the ruler of an actual 2nd world country.

[Lalaki]

I would have started a campaign encouraging more progressive and center-left voters to participate in the 2010 midterm elections. Only 39 percent of the electorate went to the polls.

If more people voted in the primaries, Tea Party members would not have fared as well against moderate Republicans. Democrats, with increased numbers of young/lower income Americans voting, would have been able to keep many of their seats in the House.

Overall, the 112th Congress may have been very productive on both sides of the aisle. The House, whether with a Democratic majority or a moderate GOP majority, would have cooperated more with the Senate. Perhaps things would be better right now.

[Romakov]

I would have protected Tsar Nikolai II. of Russia and his family from the communists and exiled them to Spain, Germany or the UK. They definitely did not deserve that treatment, they definitely did not deserve to be killed.

[Purpelia]

I would have protected Tsar Nikolai II. of Russia and his family from the communists and exiled them to Spain, Germany or the UK. They definitely did not deserve that treatment, they definitely did not deserve to be killed.

I don't know about the girls but the Tsar most definitively did deserve what he got. I mean the guy willingly went into a massive war at a time where half of his population was on the brink of starvation or already starving. And his reign caused untold suffering to his people.

[New DeCapito]

I would assassinate George W. Bush. Seriously, we wouldn't have had the most pointless war in history if George Bush hadn't looked at Iraq and shouted "Yes! Oil! We must have all of it!".

[Purpelia]

I would assassinate George W. Bush. Seriously, we wouldn't have had the most pointless war in history if George Bush hadn't looked at Iraq and shouted "Yes! Oil! We must have all of it!".

I won't disagree that the Iraq war was pointless. But you had far more pointless wars in your history. Like Vietnam, Korea, WW1 etc. None of which you really needed to take part of for any real reason and all of which cost more money and lives. So why pick that one?

[Mousebumples]

I would assassinate George W. Bush. Seriously, we wouldn't have had the most pointless war in history if George Bush hadn't looked at Iraq and shouted "Yes! Oil! We must have all of it!".

*** New DeCapito - Warned for Trolling/Baiting ***

[Keronians]

I would assassinate George W. Bush. Seriously, we wouldn't have had the most pointless war in history if George Bush hadn't looked at Iraq and shouted "Yes! Oil! We must have all of it!".

I won't disagree that the Iraq war was pointless. But you had far more pointless wars in your history. Like Vietnam, Korea, WW1 etc. None of which you really needed to take part of for any real reason and all of which cost more money and lives. So why pick that one?

Joining WWI, for America, wasn't pointless. They only joined in 1917, and after being aggressed.

[New DeCapito]

Oh, yeah, sorry.

[Vissegaard]

I would make Germany victorious in World War I.

Definitely.

[Benuty]

I would assassinate George W. Bush. Seriously, we wouldn't have had the most pointless war in history if George Bush hadn't looked at Iraq and shouted "Yes! Oil! We must have all of it!".

*** New DeCapito - Warned for Trolling/Baiting ***

Is a hypothetical really trolling?

[Purpelia]

Joining WWI, for America, wasn't pointless. They only joined in 1917, and after being aggressed.

America was newer under any serious threat during WWI. Germany newer had any chance of sponsoring or performing any attack on your continent. In fact, even joining WW2 in Europe was pointless from your perspective. It's just that Japan and Germany were sort of in a package and having one hit you meant you also had the other foolishly wanting to take a shot.

[Meritocrat Turan]

Death of Attila...

[Conscentia]

Joining WWI, for America, wasn't pointless. They only joined in 1917, and after being aggressed.

America was newer under any serious threat during WWI. Germany newer had any chance of sponsoring or performing any attack on your continent. In fact, even joining WW2 in Europe was pointless from your perspective. It's just that Japan and Germany were sort of in a package and having one hit you meant you also had the other foolishly wanting to take a shot.

Why do you insist on consistently misspelling the word 'never'?

[Fartsniffage]

I'd change the decision to charge Alan Turing with gross indecency.

God knows where we'd be if a mind like that could have continued to work as solid state computing became a thing.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

I've done some more thinking on this thread, and I've decided to change my statement.

I'd make Stalin and Hitler become allied with each-other during World War 1-2. They could easily conquer the world together.

I'm sure that Stalin would be happy with all of Asia and Africa, Hitler would be happy with Europe and North America, and they could contemplate how to share the rest of whats left.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

I've done some more thinking on this thread, and I've decided to change my statement.

I'd make Stalin and Hitler become allied with each-other during World War 1-2. They could easily conquer the world together.

I'm sure that Stalin would be happy with all of Asia and Africa, Hitler would be happy with Europe and North America, and they could contemplate how to share the rest of whats left.

so I gather either Stalin isn't a communist or Hitler isn't a Nazi. Because otherwise this will never work, which would be a great thing for the rest of the world.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

I've done some more thinking on this thread, and I've decided to change my statement.

I'd make Stalin and Hitler become allied with each-other during World War 1-2. They could easily conquer the world together.

I'm sure that Stalin would be happy with all of Asia and Africa, Hitler would be happy with Europe and North America, and they could contemplate how to share the rest of whats left.

so I gather either Stalin isn't a communist or Hitler isn't a Nazi. Because otherwise this will never work, which would be a great thing for the rest of the world.

Stalin was a communist, and Hitler was a Nazi.

Just because they had different political ideologies doesn't mean they wouldn't be compatible. I have friends who range from Fascists to Anarcho-Communists and we all get along fine.