Should Lincoln have allowed the South to secede?

[Socialist Ancomistan]

Would America be a more prosperous nation if Abraham Lincoln allowed the eleven states which make up the Confederacy to secede from the Union without a civil war?

I am aware that America would be far from perfect in this alternate timeline. I am aware that this is not a popular opinion, and I am not encouraging you to change your mind. I am merely discussing the merits of a 39-state USA which does not have to deal with the South’s problems. I don’t believe they should be dismissed

We would not send 620,000 Americans it toto die in Virginia and Tennessee during the Civil War

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/arti ... ties%20and

We would also own the majority of food production. We would control 78.4% of the nation’s farm income/wealth in spite of making up less than 70% of the US population (I have left out Oklahoma, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and DC from the census data)

https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=4058

https://www.census.gov/popclock/data_ta ... ent=growth

Poverty would go down…

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped ... u-s-state/

And high school graduation rate would go up!

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped ... -by-state/

Because George W. Bush and Donald Trump would fail to accrue enough electoral votes without the South, we would have eight liberal Supreme Court justices (Clarence Thomas was nominated by HW Bush). There would be no Citizens United. There would be no Dobbs v. Jackson. There would be no Arizona v. Navajo Nation

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact may even become a reality for America and not a pipe dream. We would have a majority of votes in the Electoral College to eliminate the archaic institution. America would essentially be a direct social democracy with a separation of powers

https://www.270towin.com/maps/3rGQN

If any of you believe Abraham Lincoln made the right decision to take back the South, even if that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of American men and increased resistance to the Civil Rights Movement by filibustering Southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond, I would like to know your reasons as to why.

[The Imperial State of Ateria]

There is an alternate history book series on why Southern secession is a bad idea.

[Port Carverton]

Well, disregarding the fact that this is just a covert way to fantasize about being on welfare, that would not only completely discredit the Republican party in its early years, it would create internal friction between more nationalist and regionalist movements and would also give a legal precedent to secession.

I really do not know why some Americans think if they shove Southern White Americans into a death camps suddenly America would be good, or why they prefer an approach of mocking them and disregarding them, despite them voting consistently Democrat because Dixiecrats were part of the New Deal coalition in the past, considering the Democrats just lost the lower classes (except the very poorest) by a lot

And also the CSA started the war, so the USA had every reason to retaliate.

[Federation of Great Lake States]

I do support Lincoln not allowing the South to secede for a couple reasons, which are:

• The South started it when they fired on Fort Sumter.
• I despise slavery in any form.
• The CSA would probably have gone full n*zi by the time the 1930's rolled around.
• The borders would be ugly.

[The Imperial State of Ateria]

I do support Lincoln not allowing the South to secede for a couple reasons, which are:

• The South started it when they fired on Fort Sumter.
• I despise slavery in any form.
• The CSA would probably have gone full n*zi by the time the 1930's rolled around.
• The borders would be ugly.

Freedom!

[Ifreann]

Doesn't seem realistic to assume that if this had happened then the United States would be the same as it is now, just with those states removed from national statistics and politics.

[Federation of Great Lake States]

Doesn't seem realistic to assume that if this had happened then the United States would be the same as it is now, just with those states removed from national statistics and politics.

Yeah that's another thing. Ancomistan only focuses on the "good" that would happen with this. It seems to me they'd rather allow slavery in the Americas to exist to the 20th and maybe even 21st century if George W. Bush doesn't become president. Might be wrong with this tho.

[Fahran]

I really do not know why some Americans think if they shove Southern White Americans into a death camps suddenly America would be good, or why they prefer an approach of mocking them and disregarding them,

It's because hating them isn't socially stigmatized or challenged. It's completely acceptable to mock their regional accents, to stereotype them as uneducated racists, to fantasize about committing war crimes or genocide against their ancestors, etc. And, setting aside the political argument, an argument which holds true only since the 1990s given Reagan swept the country, the arguments about poverty and graduation rates are simply unintentional white nationalist and classist arguments.

To answer the main question posed by the OP, no, the United States would not magically become better if Lincoln had permitted the South to secede from the Union and I'm quite glad he didn't. The South contributes a third of our GDP and is the fastest growing region of the United States economically and demographically. It's also had an important cultural impact on the rest of the country with its cultural milieu producing multiple genres of music, types of cuisine, and cultural touchstones that have had a global impact.

[Langnord]

No. /thread

Also this is ours and will never return to Virginia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28th_Virginia_battle_flag

[Weldassaikinia]

No The CSA Was Cooked the mountent that they raided one of our forts The USA would be seen as racists for allowing The South to secede!!!!!!!!!

[Fahran]

No The CSA Was Cooked the mountent that they raided one of our forts The USA would be seen as racists for allowing The South to secede!!!!!!!!!

I've legitimately met people who will passionately rail against American racism and then, with minimal self-awareness, begin complaining about the Roma. It's never ceased to confound me.

[DashOfCarolinian]

Nope for preservation of union, abolishing slavery, and not having a mega conservative state.

[Socialist Ancomistan]

No The CSA Was Cooked the mountent that they raided one of our forts The USA would be seen as racists for allowing The South to secede!!!!!!!!!

I've legitimately met people who will passionately rail against American racism and then, with minimal self-awareness, begin complaining about the Roma. It's never ceased to confound me.

That is the main reason why I am not in agreement with anyone who states that America is more racist than insert European country

[Pale Dawn]

If any of you believe Abraham Lincoln made the right decision to take back the South, even if that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of American men and increased resistance to the Civil Rights Movement by filibustering Southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond, I would like to know your reasons as to why.

I mean as far as alternate timelines go you are being really really optimistic about the outcome of two American nations sharing the Atlantic coastline. Setting aside what others have already said, the precedent it would have set if other regions wanted to break away down the line, slavery, less of an economic foundation to build into the modern era, we could follow this trail of bread crumbs but two nations continuing to expand westward would have found a point of conflict along an ever growing border to rehash the argument. There is no reason to suppose the two American nations would not have fought a war before 1900 and if they did both survive to ww1 what would keep us from getting embroiled in a ww1 style trench warfare in Virginia? There are a million reasons things would have been worse in the long run.

[Adamede]

No he shouldn’t have. Even disregarding the illegality of it, crushing the confederacy freed over 4 million people from slavery. That and preserving the Union made it the right thing to do.

Should we have just left those people in bondage? As bad as the failure of reconstruction was, it was better than what the Confederacy had in store for them.

Your whole post is just some very bad cope over anger at American conservatives, which ends up with an arguably extremely conservative argument. You’d be dooming 4 million people and their millions of descendants.

[Kasdados]

… why is this even a question? No.

[Turenia]

No The CSA Was Cooked the mountent that they raided one of our forts The USA would be seen as racists for allowing The South to secede!!!!!!!!!

I've legitimately met people who will passionately rail against American racism and then, with minimal self-awareness, begin complaining about the Roma. It's never ceased to confound me.

That’s how it is in the UK.

People will sneer and smugly slander Americans for being racists, and then in their next sentence wish genocide on the Romani people.

[Adamede]

No The CSA Was Cooked the mountent that they raided one of our forts The USA would be seen as racists for allowing The South to secede!!!!!!!!!

I've legitimately met people who will passionately rail against American racism and then, with minimal self-awareness, begin complaining about the Roma. It's never ceased to confound me.

Had one dude tell me it was different because Roma were actually like the stereotypes and so it was ok to call for their expulsions and/or death.

Dude also didn’t believe me when I told him that this exact same talking points were used against blacks.

[Deblar]

seems like an open and shut case of "fuck no" to me

[The Lazarene Republic]

It’s like Quebec. They’re being intolerable on purpose so the long-suffering majority finally lets them leave. You can’t let them win.

[Floofybit]

No, we should all be friends

[Socialist Ancomistan]

I've legitimately met people who will passionately rail against American racism and then, with minimal self-awareness, begin complaining about the Roma. It's never ceased to confound me.

Had one dude tell me it was different because Roma were actually like the stereotypes and so it was ok to call for their expulsions and/or death.

Dude also didn’t believe me when I told him that this exact same talking points were used against blacks.

When Europeans say xyz group isn’t European, it’s a lot like when Americans say xyz group isn’t white. From personal experience, American racism is focused more on skin tone while European racism focuses more on nationality

[Fahran]

When Europeans say xyz group isn’t European, it’s a lot like when Americans say xyz group isn’t white. From personal experience, American racism is focused more on skin tone while European racism focuses more on nationality

While this is true, provided you substitute ethnicity for nationality, it doesn't represent a substantive difference. And anti-blackness is absolutely something present in several places in Europe and else-where. It's less salient because 14% of the population doesn't have to experience it across the pond.

[Socialist Ancomistan]

When Europeans say xyz group isn’t European, it’s a lot like when Americans say xyz group isn’t white. From personal experience, American racism is focused more on skin tone while European racism focuses more on nationality

While this is true, provided you substitute ethnicity for nationality, it doesn't represent a substantive difference. And anti-blackness is absolutely something present in several places in Europe and else-where. It's less salient because 14% of the population doesn't have to experience it across the pond.

The same could probably be said with the Roma if they were to make up a substantial enough population in America. Racism is in many ways a mentality that is exposed as soon as a substantial enough “outgroup,” whether black, Hispanic, or Roma, exists in the same vicinity as the racist

[Federation of Great Lake States]

When Europeans say xyz group isn’t European, it’s a lot like when Americans say xyz group isn’t white. From personal experience, American racism is focused more on skin tone while European racism focuses more on nationality

While this is true, provided you substitute ethnicity for nationality, it doesn't represent a substantive difference. And anti-blackness is absolutely something present in several places in Europe and else-where. It's less salient because 14% of the population doesn't have to experience it across the pond.

Never ask a European the original name for a German confectionery consisting of whipped cream covered with chocolate. Especially the Germans.