One counterpoint: I suspect that had the South been enabled to secede, it would have been quite inferior. economically, to the North, and the North would likely have won almost all battles for the West. People work harder for themselves, starting businesses, inventing new ways of doing things, etc., than they do for others. And see Susan Knox' comment directly above yours.
One counterpoint: I suspect that had the South been enabled to secede, it would have been quite inferior. economically, to the North, and the North would likely have won almost all battles for the West. People work harder for themselves, starting businesses, inventing new ways of doing things, etc., than they do for others. And see Susan Knox' comment directly above yours.
Yes. It's also why, so long as the North maintained its focus on victory, the South could never win. Other than cotton, the rest of the southern economy wa 15% of what the equivalent sector was in the North.
Thanks David. I knew I was opening a speculative can of worms. You are probably right in the main, but settling the west would have been a messier picture. One thing would have been very different for me personally. My grandfather went to Montana from Texas on a cattle drive. He met my grandmother there and settled down. Without a definitive end to the Civil War, itтАЩs possible that doesnтАЩt happen. And then thereтАЩs the 20th century wars in Europe. ItтАЩs easy to imagine the Confederacy staying out of the first and aligning itself with the Axis powers in the second. Does the Normandy invasion happen without southerners in large numbers? IтАЩm not well enough read here to go farther on this, topic but I canтАЩt imagine a hostile southern neighbor would have left the US to develop as it did but just without the South.
Very interesting points.
One counterpoint: I suspect that had the South been enabled to secede, it would have been quite inferior. economically, to the North, and the North would likely have won almost all battles for the West. People work harder for themselves, starting businesses, inventing new ways of doing things, etc., than they do for others. And see Susan Knox' comment directly above yours.
Yes. It's also why, so long as the North maintained its focus on victory, the South could never win. Other than cotton, the rest of the southern economy wa 15% of what the equivalent sector was in the North.
Thanks David. I knew I was opening a speculative can of worms. You are probably right in the main, but settling the west would have been a messier picture. One thing would have been very different for me personally. My grandfather went to Montana from Texas on a cattle drive. He met my grandmother there and settled down. Without a definitive end to the Civil War, itтАЩs possible that doesnтАЩt happen. And then thereтАЩs the 20th century wars in Europe. ItтАЩs easy to imagine the Confederacy staying out of the first and aligning itself with the Axis powers in the second. Does the Normandy invasion happen without southerners in large numbers? IтАЩm not well enough read here to go farther on this, topic but I canтАЩt imagine a hostile southern neighbor would have left the US to develop as it did but just without the South.