If the South had won the War Against Northern Aggression...?

what, the constitution clearly states any power not directly given to the federal government within the constitution is directly given to the states...


The states retained the power... no, the right, to leave the union if they so chose.

It took a war to settle the matter, and as wars tend to do, it did.

If not, the right must still be there...so why have states not attempted secession again?

The US already let the traitorous citizens of the CSA live once (except for those who were foolish enough to fight in battle).

Don't think we'll be so kind a second time.

god you're dumb.

"My God, you're dumb."'

Otherwise you're calling God dumb.

No, you're correction is correct. I was using a lazy vernacular similar to how I speak aloud. I'll attempt to correct such structuring in the future, but make no grantees.

I'm glad that you're trying.

('out loud' and 'guarantees' )

You missed the perennial "your"

Nobody got my Damn Yankees! joke.

Even better:

If I were going to write a textbook about now NOT to handle secession, I'd be hard pressed to come up with a better example than the CSA.

Everything about their handling of the Civil War was backwards and wrong-headed.

Mostly the fanatical nature of the waxing nostalgic

No it wasn't. Any number of compensation plans existed (not that abolition was by any means imminent) and a number were even enacted during the war to varying affect.

But, quite frankly, if you're going to traffic in human misery why the fuck should I care if you lose a few dollars? Are you going to start screaming about "compensation" when sex slave rings get shut down in Eastern Europe?

And

A CSA victory at Gettysburg would at most have prolonged the war, IMO. Much like World War II, the US Civil War was determined mostly by productive capacity and manpower. Win or lose at Gettysburg, Lee was going to run out of supplies and return to Virginia. Sure, he might have done some rampaging, but it would have required a different general to carve a Shermanesque swath through Pennsylvania. And again, I think such a step would only have radicalized the Northern war effort.

I've always wondered why if the North was such a mecca for free blacks, why didn't all the Southern blacks move up there.

Good thing I never claimed anything close to that!

Then you admit that the South would essentially be a third world country right now if it had won the war as well. Otherwise you are claiming that

They kept geting knocked over by the pre-Civil War stampede of blacks moving from the North to the South

I think in his more reflective moments, he might admit substantial parts of the South are a third world country under the reality scenario.

Nevermind the fact the Lee didn't have the supplies to run roughshot over PA and parts north. He couldn't have turned on DC either as he didn't have an army nearly large enough to beseige the most fortified city on the planet at that time. What a victory at Gettysburg would have done is possibly brought the French into the war, which would have made things somewhat more competitive. The French didn't have a Navy that could break the Union blockade. The did dhave an army large enough to threaten Union control of the Mississippi River. Significant trouble in the Western theater, one pretty much dominated by the Union from the get-go, might have caused support in the North to collapse.

It makes me shake my head when I hear all the yankess harping on the racism of the south, etc. I lived in the south for 16 years and saw whites and blacks get along just fine, for the most part.

Then the first time I went to Boston, I heard a guy loudly telling black jokes in the market in Feneuil Hall. Nobody standing around even batted an eye.

Go figure.

And here we finally get to some interesting speculation. I suspect under such circumstances, France's position in Mexico would have been significantly weakened, leading to an earlier withdrawal there. Mexico, after tossing Maximilian might have entered the war allied with the Union, perhaps with the offer of getting back the portion of Texas disputed before the Mexican-American war.

I also wonder what the British view on French intervention would have been. They were suspicious of Napoleon III, and definitely by that point disenchanted with the CSA government. Perhaps an AVN victory at Gettysburg would have led to a much larger great power conflict.

Also a possibility. Europe as a whole was very wary of Napolean III, they had learned their lesson about people using that name. It's why when the Prussians were beating the snot out of him some time later, the British didn't really take any sides. I don't really think Mexico would have joined on the side of the Union for the reason you site. It's almost certain they would have wanted back some of the land lost in the Mexican-American War and I doubt that the Union would be willing to give it up. Lincoln was hell bent on keeping the whole country together, after all.

The whole invasion of the North in 1863 was a fools errand. The smart thing to do would have been to send Longstreet to relieve Vicksburg. That's where the war really ended, after all. Meade was as decisive as Little Mac when it came to attack plans. It's likly he would have stayed in Maryland had Lee had kept most of his army in Virginia.

Too cold.

It certainly wasn't a Mecca, better than the South yes, but no Mecca. And to answer your question directly, where were these poor people supposed to get the money to move North?

Yep...Mexico probably would have exploited the opportunity of a distracted CSA to retake some territory, but probably outside of an alliance with the Union. A two-front war would have made the CSA's defeat come that much faster, but a second Mexican-American War might have followed if Mexico swiped back any territory.