>Lincoln lets Confederacy succeed
>Confederacy ends up a borderline if not total 3rd World country
>Union doesn't have to deal with the backwards States holding back potential
>Union marches ahead with its industry
>Union has a way smaller population of Blacks
It wouldn't have ended slavery but meh.
Other urls found in this thread:
civil-war.net
twitter.com
It would be the other way around.
The north would become just like any other european nation currently in decline and the south would be the land of free market where even the federation has almost no power over what the locals decide.
>Implying that a country with legal slavery can ever be a free market
...
It can, yes.
Blacks wont be a part of it because they are literally property but we dont say we cant have a free market because dogs cannot purchase private property.
I understand this. But if the north was a place where there would be absolute rule of the state over the economy then it would not be this way.
A free market is based on the assumption that labor is voluntary. Slavery is the literal direct opposite of that.
The free market would have decimated the confederates, lol. Slave-based agrarian society in the age of rapid industrialization. Fuck off with that.
>literally 6% of the south owned slaves
>slave based economy
How can you wage war with corn?
Yes they lost because they had less industrialization but that doesnt mean they were living without it dumbasses.
The thing that made the north conform to freedom was the principles of the south. To keep both together is what made that middle ground.
>6% of the south owned slaves
source?
Also, they wouldn't have done jack shit either way with an agrarian economy and zero industry, at best they would have arrived at the same level of the economy of 1900 Poland.
The problem is it would have caused disorder among the whole of North America. Also, having a slaveholding aggressive nation on your doorstep is bad. Inevitably some retard from he south would've waged a war on the north.
>e land of free market
Slave-owners are welfare queens, living off the sweat of another man's brow. The Free Market is literally the exact thing they were fighting against.
South BTFO forever
>>literally 6% of the south owned slaves
But it was the wealthiest 6%, and they owned vastly larger numbers of slaves, and virtually their entire society revolved around buying, trading, transporting, maintaining, and overseeing the slaves. They were the only guys in town offering poor landless whites a paycheck
>succeed
Learn to fucking spell if you're gonna talk shit Yankee.
Is there any agrarian based economy that is even close to the industrial and post industrial economies nowadays?
>>succeed
HE MEANT LET YOU SOUTHERN SISSIES "SUCCEED" IN ACTUALLY WINNING THE WAR
But you lost, and now you're crying because Yankees are taking away all your taxpayer-funded participation trophies. Sorry Cletus, only winners get to make statues of themselves.
That's assuming they can even hold it together. One of the flaws of the Confederate's Constitution is that they have no actual incentive to stay together. The seceded from the Union, what would stop them from seceding further from the Confederate States and become their own independent states? Their only advantage was that they had superior military leadership, but the Civil War proves that it hardly matters over the might of Industrialization.
>The south relies on the labor of niggers otherwise its an irrelevent shithole
>Still a third world shithole even with slaves
The south sucks, their history is defined by their relationship to niggers, they take pride in losing the rebellion they started, oh and slavery is inferior to just paying them pennies without housing and feeding them
The Confederate economy would have collapsed once the Boll weevil was introduced in the 1890s. The Confederacy would have collapsed into a bunch of shitty banana republics like most of Latin America. Texas would probably have ended up being able to avoid that by getting fat off of oil, but the former Confederacy would be no different from the rest of Latin America. Mississippi would probably have a revolution and turn into an even larger shittier version of Haiti that would necessitate American intervention.
>tfw the south collapses once the 98% of people who weren't rich planter-class aristocrats realise they were duped into a meme state with a meme economy
>meanwhile the north is industrialised and wealthy
>b-but at least we can be racist to black people
>1900
>Poland
What did he mean by this?
They'd likely scapegoat the blacks and the planter class when their economy begins to collapse. It's the perfect recipe for a radically racist populist movement to arise and demand a final solution to the black problem and the the aristocrats.
Two competing republics.
No "manifest destiny" no foreign war involvement because of mutual distrust. WW1 settled evenly without Wilson's huge blunder of entering the war.
No WW2.
Unless they go full Popular Party and become woke enough to realise that the planter class was screwing both poor whites and blacks
>become woke enough to realise that the planter class was screwing
possible, but the racist attitudes towards blacks among power whites and their strong religiosity makes it more likely, at least imo, that they would move towards a populist nationalism that continues to value their whiteness over the Confederacy's Black population. Probably crash industrialization under a populist leader that is untainted by the stink of the aristocratic planter class like Huey Long who started out being very sympathetic to the black population of the South, but embraced a more racist and fascistic stance as time went on.
>Wilson's huge blunder of entering the war.
Wilson would be a Confederate politician and a surviving CSA would almost certainly be closely politically allied to Britain and France, more so France since Napoleon III really wanted to recognize the CSA to secure his position in Mexico