Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since everyone so far has speculated on the political scenarios, I'd like to try guessing what or what would not have happened if the South seceded. Would we have discovered flight and if so, would it have occurred later than when it did happened?
The Wright brothers were afterall in North Carolina, a southern state. Would have living in the agrarian South affected their upbringing and thus, changed their pursuits of flight?
The wrights lived in Columbus Ohio, and you can visit the place where they worked. North Carolina was chosen because the beaches were a great place to test flight. A split between the people of this country would not IMO robbed us of the innovation that exist in all regions of America. I believe these things would still have been developed. In the case of the airplane, if NC was not available it may have been tested on a beach in New Jersey or on Lake Michigan instead. It still would have been developed. If not by the wrights by the countless others that were on the verge of flight around the world. Flight was a huge scientific and technological goal worldwide at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.
Either the south would have been broken up into a handful of independent states or the unworkability of a confederation would have caused a more powerful central government to take shape.
I could see this happening, to an extent. One thing to understand is that the desire to keep the institution of slavery played a large role. This said, it is important to look at the places that depended on slavery the most: Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, basically, the cotton and sugar cane belt. However, many places of Tennessee and Kentucky weren't as dependent on it. The rebellious mentality towards government has existed in Appalachia for a long time. I would argue that there would be a split between the cash crop belt and the Upper South.
The wrights lived in Columbus Ohio, and you can visit the place where they worked. North Carolina was chosen because the beaches were a great place to test flight. A split between the people of this country would not IMO robbed us of the innovation that exist in all regions of America. I believe these things would still have been developed. In the case of the airplane, if NC was not available it may have been tested on a beach in New Jersey or on Lake Michigan instead. It still would have been developed. If not by the wrights by the countless others that were on the verge of flight around the world. Flight was a huge scientific and technological goal worldwide at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.
The Wrights are from Dayton,OH, same home town as their childhood friend/future writer Paul Laurence Dunbar. But, just the same, I understand your point. Kitty Hawk was chosen for a test flight for its geography.The Wright Brothers were innovators, and would have picked somewhere else. Consider this. They're from Ohio. They could have gone to Cleveland and tried things there.
Slavery would probably still exist. Instead of picking cotton, it would have transitioned into things like factory work, maids, and butlers. There would have been no civil rights movement so raical segregation would still exist for Blacks who were free.
The Wrights are from Dayton,OH, same home town as their childhood friend/future writer Paul Laurence Dunbar. But, just the same, I understand your point. Kitty Hawk was chosen for a test flight for its geography.The Wright Brothers were innovators, and would have picked somewhere else. Consider this. They're from Ohio. They could have gone to Cleveland and tried things there.
Oh I did write Columbus, when I actually have been to the very spot in Dayton where they worked. Thank you for pointing out my mistype. I don't know why I did that, I must be losing it.
Slavery would probably still exist. Instead of picking cotton, it would have transitioned into things like factory work, maids, and butlers. There would have been no civil rights movement so raical segregation would still exist for Blacks who were free.
I disagree. Slavery would have been doomed by mechanization in a few decades. It would have been gone by 1900. Blacks would likely have gained rights slowly and at a steady pace instead of in the confrontational manner that occurred during the civil rights era. Much of the resistance to black rights came from the confrontational north vs south attitude that developed around civil rights. This goes back to the civil war and continued with all the northern agitators. If left alone the south likely would have slowly changed the discrimination state by state, and the call for change would have come from the churches. It would have looked much different from the civil rights movement that occurred, but eventually citizenship for blacks would have happened. I doubt however that the politically correct society that exist today would have ever developed, but equal rights for black people likely would have happened in time. What timeline??? hard to say, but by now it likely would have happened. No civilized western nation has racist laws or a racist caste system in the 21rst century. The Confederacy would have been no different. The south is very religious and in time it would have been apparent that discrimination is un-Christian. It would have been labeled that way. Northern agitation prevented that from happening on its own, as the conflict about civil rights became an US vs. THEM thing.
Oh I did write Columbus, when I actually have been to the very spot in Dayton where they worked. Thank you for pointing out my mistype. I don't know why I did that, I must be losing it.
No problem. You did get the general idea right. The Wright Brothers would have had plenty of options to choose from if the South had won. Ohio borders one of the Great Lakes, so it wouldn't have been necessary to go to Kitty Hawk.
One thing to consider is that a large amount of innovation and development in the South was due to Northern investors. Look at southern Florida. Much of that development came from northerners.
I could see this happening, to an extent. One thing to understand is that the desire to keep the institution of slavery played a large role. This said, it is important to look at the places that depended on slavery the most: Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, basically, the cotton and sugar cane belt. However, many places of Tennessee and Kentucky weren't as dependent on it. The rebellious mentality towards government has existed in Appalachia for a long time. I would argue that there would be a split between the cash crop belt and the Upper South.
This is a good point. Parts of Tennessee, North Carolina and north Georgia and north Alabama were not for secession. Many resented the planter culture and yes a rebellious attitude toward government has existed here in Appalachia for a very long time. It could have ended up being directed toward the Confederacy in a bigger way. Look at the history of northeast Tennessee and you will see anti confederate violence during the civil war. Your point has validity.
The Confederacy had a better chances than you think. The Confederacy was in a better position to win independence than was the thirteen colonies against Great Britain. The British held all the industrial advantage, all the military advantage and yet they lost.
The distance between London and NYC is 3,461 miles. The distance between Washington D.C. to Richmond is 109 miles. The biggest problem for the British was transporting troops and supplies long distances by ship; the North, with an extensive railroad network, had no such problem. Rather, it was the South, with a much smaller railroad network that was vulnerable to disruptions from incursions from the North, that had large transport and supply problems. The British were also fighting the French at the same time they were trying to suppress the revolt in the Colonies. The North was able to blockade the South, while the British were never able to blockade the Colonies.
The only real similarity is that both the Colonies and the South were defending their own land. This, however, highlights the failure of the South to effectively take the war to the North. The South's defensive strategy ultimately led to the loss of the war - only an aggressive strategy early in the war, when the South had the military advantage, had any chance of success.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
