"Liberal" support of the Civil War?

[Mechaman]

The other day I saw someone on Youtube argue that the US would've been better off letting the Confederacy exist in the South. His argument? Society would've progressed much faster in most other areas of the country without the cultural values of the South stemming the progressive tide of reforms. This person argued that if the Confederacy was left as it is the rest of the US would've had passed Civil Rights in the 1930's and have a national health care system in the 1950's.
I thought it was a most interesting take on the Confederacy, quite different than what I hear most American "liberals" say about the Civil War. What do you guys think?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No because a large part of the cultural changes involved are due to the emergence of the American economy as the world superpower after the civil war. And welfare spending would have been non-existent in a second-rate power threatened by a more powerful neighbour to the south.

[Mechaman]

Fixed

[Scam of God]

We need the in-breds for bitchwork. I advocate letting the very Deep South (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi) secede, and keeping the Outer South.

[Lief 🗽]

While it's a good idea in theory, I'm not sure that a slightly more progressive society is worth the continued enslavement of millions of people.

Also, the United States may have been even less progressive, as a large standing army would have been needed in the decades after the war to defend against the South, and American culture would have been even more militarized even earlier.

[12th Doctor]

The other day I saw someone on Youtube argue that the US would've been better off letting the Confederacy exist in the South. His argument? Society would've progressed much faster in most other areas of the country without the cultural values of the South stemming the progressive tide of reforms. This person argued that if the Confederacy was left as it is the rest of the US would've had passed Civil Rights in the 1930's and have a national health care system in the 1950's.
I thought it was a most interesting take on the Confederacy, quite different than what I hear most American "liberals" say about the Civil War. What do you guys think?

And how many black people would there have been in the North for Civil Rights to have really mattered?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Would the Great Migration still have happend under such a scenario? Presumably not in the same way.

[pogo stick]

The South post-segregation is better then the North pre and post segregation.

 But the South pre-segregation was waaaay worse then both Norths.

 

[Alexander Hamilton]

The South post-segregation is better then the North pre and post segregation.

 But the South pre-segregation was waaaay worse then both Norths.

 

No, the South always has and always will be a sh**thole. MA has always been a freedom state.

[Хahar 🤔]

The South post-segregation is better then the North pre and post segregation.

 But the South pre-segregation was waaaay worse then both Norths.

What's that about you hating North Carolina and wanting to go back to New York?

[dead0man]

No because a large part of the cultural changes involved are due to the emergence of the American economy as the world superpower after the civil war. And welfare spending would have been non-existent in a second-rate power threatened by a more powerful neighbour to the south.

The South was never more powerful than the North.  The North has always had more people and more factories and more transportation options.  What would have made the south more powerful?

[Хahar 🤔]

No because a large part of the cultural changes involved are due to the emergence of the American economy as the world superpower after the civil war. And welfare spending would have been non-existent in a second-rate power threatened by a more powerful neighbour to the south.

The South was never more powerful than the North.  The North has always had more people and more factories and more transportation options.  What would have made the south more powerful?

More powerful than the actual neighbor to the south (Mexico), presumably.

[Mechaman]

The South post-segregation is better then the North pre and post segregation.

 But the South pre-segregation was waaaay worse then both Norths.

 

No, the South always has and always will be a sh**thole. MA has always been a freedom state.

LMAO.
Does the Temperance Movement ring a bell?

[dead0man]

Ok, but I don't think that was the point he was trying to make.  He said

And welfare spending would have been non-existent in a second-rate power threatened by a more powerful neighbour to the south.

He implied that the North woud be a second rate power and the South would be more powerful than the North.

[Citizen James]

The South post-segregation is better then the North pre and post segregation.

 But the South pre-segregation was waaaay worse then both Norths.

 

Do you mean pre and post de-segregation?   Segregation means to separate, and existed before desegregation.   Could you elucidate on your position?

[k-onmmunist]

You would have been better off letting them go, to be honest. Had you done that, you would have less problems with religious right nutters today, and an individualist liberal society could have emerged.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The South post-segregation is better then the North pre and post segregation.

 But the South pre-segregation was waaaay worse then both Norths.

 

No, the South always has and always will be a sh**thole. MA has always been a freedom state.

LMAO.
Does the Temperance Movement ring a bell?

The temperance movement, like the War on Drugs, has created thousands or entrepreneurial opportunities for individuals, rather than corporations. What other policies have done that in such a great way?

[Mechaman]

The South post-segregation is better then the North pre and post segregation.

 But the South pre-segregation was waaaay worse then both Norths.

 

No, the South always has and always will be a sh**thole. MA has always been a freedom state.

LMAO.
Does the Temperance Movement ring a bell?

The temperance movement, like the War on Drugs, has created thousands or entrepreneurial opportunities for individuals, rather than corporations. What other policies have done that in such a great way?

Oh right, because preventing individuals from having the ability to grow their own marijuana crop is somehow preventing the evil greedy corporatists from taking over? Nevermind the fact that the Temperance Movement created Prohibition which led to an explosion of crime. But no we have to stop the evil corporations, even if legitly evil monopolistic criminal elements gain an almost exclusive market over the said product. The same could be said of the War on Drugs, except now the US sends money to corrupt governments in South America to fight fictional wars against supposed drug lords when all they really are doing is using it fund wars against their own civilians.
But as you pointed out that somehow by making this activity illegal we have made it easier for individual entrepreneurs to participate in it and that corporations have no effect what so ever! Nevermind once again that the biggest benefactors from this are those who profit the most from robbing society and committing acts of violence to get what they want.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The South post-segregation is better then the North pre and post segregation.

 But the South pre-segregation was waaaay worse then both Norths.

 

No, the South always has and always will be a sh**thole. MA has always been a freedom state.

LMAO.
Does the Temperance Movement ring a bell?

The temperance movement, like the War on Drugs, has created thousands or entrepreneurial opportunities for individuals, rather than corporations. What other policies have done that in such a great way?

Oh right, because preventing individuals from having the ability to grow their own marijuana crop is somehow preventing the evil greedy corporatists from taking over? Nevermind the fact that the Temperance Movement created Prohibition which led to an explosion of crime. But no we have to stop the evil corporations, even if legitly evil monopolistic criminal elements gain an almost exclusive market over the said product. The same could be said of the War on Drugs, except now the US sends money to corrupt governments in South America to fight fictional wars against supposed drug lords when all they really are doing is using it fund wars against their own civilians.
But as you pointed out that somehow by making this activity illegal we have made it easier for individual entrepreneurs to participate in it and that corporations have no effect what so ever! Nevermind once again that the biggest benefactors from this are those who profit the most from robbing society and committing acts of violence to get what they want.

I don't think you understood my point. I was really just making a joke out of something I heard SPC say one time about black people looking at crack dealers for role models rather than the President. I thought most people would get it and that no one actually thought prohibition was good. Also remember that MA has a large Catholic population that was strongly opposed to Prohibition, while Prohibition was a strong phenomenon in the South, where "dry" counties remain even today.

[Mechaman]

The South post-segregation is better then the North pre and post segregation.

 But the South pre-segregation was waaaay worse then both Norths.

 

No, the South always has and always will be a sh**thole. MA has always been a freedom state.

LMAO.
Does the Temperance Movement ring a bell?

The temperance movement, like the War on Drugs, has created thousands or entrepreneurial opportunities for individuals, rather than corporations. What other policies have done that in such a great way?

Oh right, because preventing individuals from having the ability to grow their own marijuana crop is somehow preventing the evil greedy corporatists from taking over? Nevermind the fact that the Temperance Movement created Prohibition which led to an explosion of crime. But no we have to stop the evil corporations, even if legitly evil monopolistic criminal elements gain an almost exclusive market over the said product. The same could be said of the War on Drugs, except now the US sends money to corrupt governments in South America to fight fictional wars against supposed drug lords when all they really are doing is using it fund wars against their own civilians.
But as you pointed out that somehow by making this activity illegal we have made it easier for individual entrepreneurs to participate in it and that corporations have no effect what so ever! Nevermind once again that the biggest benefactors from this are those who profit the most from robbing society and committing acts of violence to get what they want.

I don't think you understood my point. I was really just making a joke out of something I heard SPC say one time about black people looking at crack dealers for role models rather than the President.

Sorry it's late.
But for those of you who like Prohibition, you're all idiots.

And good for black people if they do consider crack dealers better role models than the president.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The South post-segregation is better then the North pre and post segregation.

 But the South pre-segregation was waaaay worse then both Norths.

 

No, the South always has and always will be a sh**thole. MA has always been a freedom state.

LMAO.
Does the Temperance Movement ring a bell?

The temperance movement, like the War on Drugs, has created thousands or entrepreneurial opportunities for individuals, rather than corporations. What other policies have done that in such a great way?

Oh right, because preventing individuals from having the ability to grow their own marijuana crop is somehow preventing the evil greedy corporatists from taking over? Nevermind the fact that the Temperance Movement created Prohibition which led to an explosion of crime. But no we have to stop the evil corporations, even if legitly evil monopolistic criminal elements gain an almost exclusive market over the said product. The same could be said of the War on Drugs, except now the US sends money to corrupt governments in South America to fight fictional wars against supposed drug lords when all they really are doing is using it fund wars against their own civilians.
But as you pointed out that somehow by making this activity illegal we have made it easier for individual entrepreneurs to participate in it and that corporations have no effect what so ever! Nevermind once again that the biggest benefactors from this are those who profit the most from robbing society and committing acts of violence to get what they want.

I don't think you understood my point. I was really just making a joke out of something I heard SPC say one time about black people looking at crack dealers for role models rather than the President.

Sorry it's late.
But for those of you who like Prohibition, you're all idiots.

And good for black people if they do consider crack dealers better role models than the president.

I added more to my post

[k-onmmunist]

Heh, I used to support prohibition back in my populist/social con days.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Heh, I used to support prohibition back in my populist/social con days.

That's pretty disgusting lol. I don't think any Americans really support it besides crazy groups like MADD.

[Mechaman]

Heh, I used to support prohibition back in my populist/social con days.

That's pretty disgusting lol. I don't think any Americans really support it besides crazy groups like MADD.

GET MADD ABOUT DRUNK DRIVING!

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No because a large part of the cultural changes involved are due to the emergence of the American economy as the world superpower after the civil war. And welfare spending would have been non-existent in a second-rate power threatened by a more powerful neighbour to the south.

The South was never more powerful than the North.  The North has always had more people and more factories and more transportation options.  What would have made the south more powerful?

The sheer fact of its existence and the fact that it won the war (and that would almost certainly lead to massive political instability in the North - would they have to pay reprerations?  Does anyone who knows more about the Civil War than I do know?). Also the loss of the southern market would also be a factor. And that the US would have to spend alot more than did on military spending as it would have to defend itself from the south.