@Background Pony #E989
General Sherman should’ve finished the job. Imagine how based history would be if he could’ve salted the cotton and tobacco fields with nuclear residues.

Stay mad traitors

Honoring the fallen is the duty of every red blooded American! - Liberty Prime, Fallout 4.

[Remembrance intensifies]

@Background Pony #B006  
Thanks ^-

Cute

@Background Human  
I’m basing my assumption on US/UK relations. They thawed after a period of conflict and both countries are now close allies because of cultural similarity.

@O’Shaunal  
Unlikely. Remember the infighting after the American Revolution? Imagine that twice over. Both the Union and the Confederacy would be weakened from the war, and having established the principle of secession, individual states would be more keen to assert their own interests. Neither central government would be long for this world. Slavery would still be ended by force, as northern abolitionists would be free to settle things on their terms. You might even see some southern states overthrown by abolitionists and freedmen. Things would probably have calmed down by the end of the 19th century, perhaps with some moves toward reunion–Tidal Charm’s right that we have too much in common to stay apart long–but it would definitely put a dent in our military and economic standing. 20th century America might be limited to a regional power, like 20th century China, rather than a world power. What all that would do to Old Europe, who the hell knows?

@Tidal Charm  
I think that’s a valid case to be made. I personally don’t assume things would keep trending toward disunity and conflict, since the central government would realize they have to cater to their members, and would hopefully adjust their tact.

@O’Shaunal  
I think both the north and the south would still have been formidable nations by the mid 20th century, and due to cultural similarity, after the war would probably have formed a loose alliance.

@Phaoray  
I was going off mycutiemarkisagun’s premise that a defeated Union would devolve into some state where they couldn’t act as a superpower during the 20th century — and importantly — that a German- or Russian-speaking state would instead be the dominant international force.
 
I was going with an idea that the existence Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union depended on a strong US entering late in World War I; that Nazi Germany came to be because of Germany’s total defeat, and the Soviet Union because the Germans sent Lenin to cause havoc in Russia because they needed more divisions on the western front (presumably because the US had just declared war). But i’m not a historian; this is just an idea i heard years ago.

@O’Shaunal  
I think this is probably a issue of ‘what parts of history people know’, are you saying that due to the Civil war England’s and other nations in Europe’s involvement in it caused the rise of ideas and/or issues that allowed other nations to come to pass? I can see it being feasible since one little decision can change so much and spread pretty far, but I have personally never looked up Germany or Russia’s history.

@O’Shaunal  
Mkay.

@Zintenka  
I think you’re lost.

@O’Shaunal  
The atrocities committed in the past by traitors has nothing to do with the atrocities committed in Europe and Russia.

@Zintenka  
Nah, Bro. They weren’t.

@O’Shaunal  
Nah bro, those were separate issues within their own nations.

@mycutiemarkisagun 
Wait, i just thought of an important question. If Lincoln hadn’t had his war, thus allowing imperial Germany or Russia to rise, does it follow that there wouldn’t have been a Nazi Germany or Soviet Union?
 
xD

@mycutiemarkisagun  
So TL;DR, Lincoln was anti-slavery, Blacks liked Lincoln, some Confederate states were White-supremacist, and if not for Lincoln’s War, you omnisciently know that history would have been worse.
 
This doesn’t justify the war or denigrate fighting to protect your home.
 
@Zintenka  
That’s hardly the worst thing he did.

@mycutiemarkisagun 
Glad ya did man, and thanks for clearing that statement about Lincoln up. I myself started to question him on that too, but realised that we all have our prejudices and that actions speak much louder than words.
 
A bit late to the party though, my friend ;)

Hoo boy, I’m glad I missed this fiasco.
 
I’ll just note that the infamous Lincoln slavery quote™ is always used (by folks with a curious desire to downplay Abe’s anti-slavery beliefs [THINKING EMOJI]) to ignore/disregard his tireless work to ensure the 13th Amendment permanently outlawed slavery in all states. Nevermind that black people and freed slaves of the era clearly considered him their hero and champion, instead of holding his relatively mild racist beliefs against him. Does that count for anything? How about when Frederick Douglas himself went into the White House and chewed Abe out for not ending slavery fast enough? Lincoln’s counter-argument was that he was pragmatically waiting for right moment. Douglas left satisfied that Lincoln was sufficiently committed to ending the evil of slavery. People can say whatever they want 150 years later, but the sworn testimony of Frederick f’n Douglas is good enough for me when it comes to ANYONE crapping on Lincoln - white or black. He was there, we weren’t.
 
Also hey remember that time when Lincoln visited Richmond and throngs of freed slaves greeted him like Jesus riding into Jerusalem or Faust at Bronycon:
 
Once the party set foot on land, they were mobbed by jubilant crowds of African-American slaves, some of whom knelt down to kiss Lincoln’s feet and the hem of his trousers. “Don’t kneel to me,” Lincoln rebuked them. “That is not right. You must kneel to God only, and thank Him for the liberty you will afterward enjoy.”
 
How bout that. Right outta Lord of the Rings…..
 
@Tidal Charm
 
Texas Declaration of Secession
 
…in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states….
 
like dude I really get you have pride in your state & its war heroes but you have to understand on some level that they fought valiantly for the wrong cause just like Grant said. The North’s own failures and racism does not excuse the South’s, especially since the South raced to break every slavery compromise and ban black people from voting etc for 90 years after Reconstruction ended.
 
Nevermind that America would be a war-torn basket case if the CSA had survived. Revanchism in the North would ensure follow up wars. Bloody slave rebellions would be inevitable. CSA would struggle to be anything other than a backwards 3rd world nation - Georgia or South Carolina might even secede from the CSA like they threatened to do DURING A WAR TOPKEK. America’s rise into a superpower would be cancelled and Europe would probably be speaking German or Russian a century later. So yeah.
 
P.S - ponk is best pony or ur literally hitler bro

@Drflash55  
No offense, but the last comment was like two days ago.
 
I think everyone already moved on except you, my friend.

Yeesh, this is still going.

You guys may believe in smaller government but you guys seem to forget that before the Constitution, there was a thing called the Articles of Confederation. We changed over from a Confederation to a Federation for a reason. Because the states bickered amongst themselves like babies and not much got done.
 
There are also other reasons why the Federal government should have a fair amount of authority over the states. We’ve seen this with the Jim Crow era and how it took a president who thought beyond mere hatred and looked on with humanity in mind to “curtail” and set Crow States in line.
 

 
In law, there are two sayings in Latin that should be learned about more:
 
Mallum in se. Mallum prohibitum.
 
The first one is “Evil by nature” or whatever and the second one is “Evil by prohibition”. I believe that Federal Governments should have control over the first one while the second one should MOSTLY be left up to the states until such time that prohibiting it becomes “Evil by nature”.
 
How about denying recreation. Denying them this infringes upon the first amendment and therefore has become Mallum in se.
 
Me personally, I believe that Guns should be a privilege and not a right - categorised as Mallum prohibitum. They have so much potential to injure and kill a lot of people in the span of minutes - probably seconds if someone knows to shoot at brains.
 
You can argue with me that handguns this and AR-15 Semi-auto that… But a bullet still does a lot of damage to the body, we aren’t Elephants.
 
Plus, guns remove the stress and emotion of physically gutting someone into pieces and makes the problem go away faster. Just one flick of the finger and they go down, right?
 
Through precise psychology exams and monthly exams, things will go just fine.

@Zintenka  
Heh, I wish Bernie had made it through. He might not have won, but damn I liked him. Of all the candidates, he at least stuck to what he believed in. :)
 
From what I am told, most of the country would be purple colored as opposed to red or blue. There are mainly things that republicans want that I want, and there are many things democrats want that I want. Just a shame to have to pick which is more important to you when voting, specially with the lack of choices. >.<
 
I also prefer tap water. We have some of the cleanest water in the world, but it’s not good enough? Meh to that. And the price of bottled water that most of the time comes from a tap with a filter is…crazy. o.o;;