Pot Legalized

Quote: AZDuffman

No, America would have come up just fine without slavery. Slavery made most southerners poorer. A different system of tenant farming would have come about.

Sure, but it would be a different America... for one, your countries obsession with race related issues wouldn't be the same. Lack of a Civil war may be another, but less important difference.

Quote: TheCesspit

Sure, but it would be a different America... for one, your countries obsession with race related issues wouldn't be the same. Lack of a Civil war may be another, but less important difference.

I'd be all for getting over the race obsession here, but too many people get too much money and power from it to happen. I think a civil war is inevitable in any great society. Usually it is not organized on both sides, but it almost must happen. Sometimes it is disguised as a revolution, as in France and Russia.

Quote: TheCesspit

Sure, but it would be a different America... for one, your countries obsession with race related issues wouldn't be the same. Lack of a Civil war may be another, but less important difference.

That's interesting.

When you read Us history, the event is capitalized "The United States Civil War." To be sure it is an important event, one that did much to shape the subsequent course of history, not to mention it saw bloodshed at rates never seen before.

But for all that it was the only civil war in the US in over 230 years. For a large and diverse country, this is almost remarkable. Mexico, for instance has had several such wars. Some by themselves, some coupled with foreign invasions (like the Wars of Reform). France, too, had its share over that span of time (and contributed to the Reform thing cited earlier; in fact, French foreing policy in the XIX Century affected Mexico deeply).

To be sure, some countries have never fought such conflicts. As far as I know Canada hasn't.

Quote: Nareed

To be sure, some countries have never fought such conflicts. As far as I know Canada hasn't.

There was two Metis rebellions, the Red River Rebellion, which effectively created the province of Manitoba, and the North-west Rebellion, which was a complete mess and failed. These are both pretty small fry in the scheme of things.

The English Civil War was actually three wars, and then we can follow with all the fall out, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the 1715 and then the Forty-Five... the last of the Jacobite uprisings. That was a big thing at the time, but doomed to fail. Since then, it's been quiet.... in Great Britain. The split of Ireland in 1910's can be seen as a civil war, I guess.

The US Civil War was very important to the US. I am not sure it's actually important to the rest of the world, or if in fact it's actually had a long term effect that slavery, emancipation and the later civil rights movement had in the US.

I agree with AZDuffman it'd be nice if the US got over it's racial obsessions. But it is, to me, a huge characteristic of your cultural mindset, in a way that sets apart the US from other countries. Much like the pioneer spirit and the right to bear arms, and other features. For good and bad, it's there, and I mean it with little judgement.

EDIT: I wonder, out loud, maybe there might have been more disunity later if there hadn't been the terrible, bloody ACW? Maybe it had unifying effect... or at least 'not doing that again'. I've never really seen/read much of a serious secessionist movement since 1860... plenty of small scale ones exist, sure, but it'd be surprising if they didn't.

I await the People's Republic of Cascadia to rise.

Quote: TheCesspit

There was two Metis rebellions, the Red River Rebellion, which effectively created the province of Manitoba, and the North-west Rebellion, which was a complete mess and failed. These are both pretty small fry in the scheme of things.

There were rebellions everywhere in the XIX Century and before. Strikes in the XIX Century got pretty violent, too. Riots were more common as well.

Quote:

EDIT: I wonder, out loud, maybe there might have been more disunity later if there hadn't been the terrible, bloody ACW?

That's hard to say. In large part it's a function of how the surviving Confederate leaders acted after the war. I don't know much about that. Often the aftermath of a war is more important, in the long term, than the war itself. See how Japan, Italy and Germany were treated under Alied occupation after WWII, for example.

Quote: TheCesspit

The US Civil War was very important to the US. I am not sure it's actually important to the rest of the world, or if in fact it's actually had a long term effect that slavery, emancipation and the later civil rights movement had in the US.

It is hugely important to the rest of the world. Its tactics set up much of WWI. Might be no Vegas without it. Usual technology wartime leap. It ended the practice of calling up the US Army by states, after the war the Army would simply come from all over the country and be assigned units. No more "1st Maine." Had the practice of assigning a volunteer quota to each state and assigning troops by state together, WWI might have seen the Yanks assigned to French and Brit command.

Quote:

I agree with AZDuffman it'd be nice if the US got over it's racial obsessions. But it is, to me, a huge characteristic of your cultural mindset, in a way that sets apart the US from other countries. Much like the pioneer spirit and the right to bear arms, and other features. For good and bad, it's there, and I mean it with little judgement.

Follow the money, and there is money in being a minority. The USA now has a gay obsession to go with our race obsession. To me the powers that be do not want it gotten over. It keeps the nation conveniently divided, same as they do in any prison. All else is scenery. Of course I am among the top cynics here.

You're just a little jaded and warped if you go to bed at night crying you're not a minority in America. Advantage? I soberly and sincerely have to place this belief in the betting system category AZ. I wouldn't say I would be disappointed being born a minority, but I'm sure life would be more difficult. If you would say having a foreign origin country might be at an advantage, I might agree if deportation would be the punishment for crimes instead of imprisonment. I've seen this kind of story in legitimate news and not just rant sites.

Quote: AZDuffman

It is hugely important to the rest of the world. Its tactics set up much of WWI. Might be no Vegas without it. Usual technology wartime leap.

While the end of the war saw trench warfare around Petersburg and Richmond, and the rest was a lot fluid fights, I think it only shows that war was changing. There was other similar conflicts in the next 50 years that revised and redefined warfare. No-one expected WW1 to be static trenches. The first 3 months were fluid with the race to the sea on the western front, and the disaster at Tannhauser (?) on the East for the Russians.

Quote:

It ended the practice of calling up the US Army by states, after the war the Army would simply come from all over the country and be assigned units. No more "1st Maine." Had the practice of assigning a volunteer quota to each state and assigning troops by state together, WWI might have seen the Yanks assigned to French and Brit command.

I am not sure that matters outside the US. What mattered was the US entering in 1917 (thanks guys for turning up in the end), with enough man power to make a difference in 1918 (first in the German Offensive, see the Rock of the Marne) and the counter offensive were the lines started to move backwards. I don't believe (but show my I'm wrong, for sure) that it mattered if this was a central US command, or not. The US army units were green, but fresh. And that helped, as they didn't break (see the Lost Regiment) whereas the more battle weary French and Commonwealth troops might have.

I don't think we can thank the US Civil War for that. I -do- think the end of the ACW was a start of uniting the country from a federation of states into something bigger than it's parts. On that score, we can take the 1066 and all that line that this ended with America as 'Top Country' in 1918, and thus history ended. :) As I say, I think the ACW is important for US history... but outside it's borders, the repercussions were not as huge.

I'd rate the French revolution as a more import world event, for starters. And 1776, as well, for that matter.

Quote: TheCesspit

EDIT: I wonder, out loud, maybe there might have been more disunity later if there hadn't been the terrible, bloody ACW? Maybe it had unifying effect... or at least 'not doing that again'. I've never really seen/read much of a serious secessionist movement since 1860... plenty of small scale ones exist, sure, but it'd be surprising if they didn't.

I await the People's Republic of Cascadia to rise.

Quote: AZDuffman

EDIT: I wonder, out loud, maybe there might have been more disunity later if there hadn't been the terrible, bloody ACW? Maybe it had unifying effect... or at least 'not doing that again'. I've never really seen/read much of a serious secessionist movement since 1860... plenty of small scale ones exist, sure, but it'd be surprising if they didn't.

I await the People's Republic of Cascadia to rise.

Strange. An unfinished attempt to quote Cesspit and then comment, I guess.

Regarding Secession, there are people getting serious about California splitting up into as many as 6 states. I can't tell you how surprising it is that this is calmly discussed to Southerners. I think you can say now that it is an unwritten part of our Constitution that Secession is not to be allowed, sealed by the blood of 600,000+

10 more senators from what used to be California? I don't think so.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/02/21/california-six-states-plan-tim-draper/5673283/

Quote: odiousgambit

Strange. An unfinished attempt to quote Cesspit and then comment, I guess.

No, just didn't proof my work. Corrected it.