Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How would America be different if these things occurred

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How would America be different if these things occurred

    1-The Confederates won the war

    2-Columbus actually landed in India


  • #2
    Big questions
    the honkey quakers would have converted sinners.

    wait::::::::
    when Commodore Mathew Perry can to Japan on his Kuro Fune—-black boats—- war ships j wimmin were ready willing and able to drain their (kin Tama) golden balls..

    j wimmin used to go naked to cool down in the summer months


    pull their kimono down to let their **** breath
    l

    Comment


    • #3
      Well, the civil war wasn't originally about slavery, but many things. Lincoln didn't even mention slavery until a few years into the war. That being said though, it was an obvious factor, since a large portion of the southern economy relied on Slavery. What I find truly fascinating, which is NEVER discussed is the fact that England was incredibly close to stepping in and assisting the confederate states in the war due to the fact that they weren't getting their cotton imports. Funny they act so high and mighty about slavery now though.

      Easier question to answer would be Columbus, since he didn't really "discover America" He discovered the West Indies, (Cuba, Jamaica, etc.) South America, and what later became the Spanish territories of America (Florida) The 13 colonies later became America, but the stuff owned by France and Spain can't really be put on America until they became part of America.

      And please don't think I'm being political with any of these answers. I'm just someone whos fascinated with global history.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by LarryX.... View Post
        1-The Confederates won the war
        You ever watch CSA: Confederate States of Amercia? Probably something like that.

        2-Columbus actually landed in India
        There'd be a hell of a lot more Indians & a hell of a lot more white folks in India.

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't think the first would have made much difference in the long run. The Union gets a bit of extra credit they didn't deserve because the Confederates were pro slavery but it's not like either side was pro-black or even pro-human. The north didn't want black america to exist, the south didn't want black america to be free, in the end who gave black america their freedom and saw them as real Americans? Black America of course. Waaaaay more credit ought to go to the black social movements of the era and waaaay less to the white war over what whites are gonna do for blacks. Those Americans were gonna give the rest of the US that don't tread on me attitude one way or another. Dudes like Jack Johnson are why we respect the black man today even though all our great grand pappies and **** did not. Well, y'all's, I'm PR so I ain't got no pony in that race. Just how I see it.

          I wouldn't be so ****ing spanish bruh!

          For real though, they were bound to get here by sometime. Same **** just different timeline. You can't expect it to be the Taino finding the Spanish. They had galleons and the taino had canoes. So, eventually the Euros would have found the Taino and enslaved them anyway. Because the Taino worship sex they ain't even hard to enslave. I might be french or some **** but I don't really believe any Euros would have been nicer to the ancestors nor do I believe like out of no where we'd stop fishing and go exploring. We were pretty set by the time Spain showed up. Native tribes run north to south not east to west like modern states in NA and since Taino loved to ****, they just ****ed everyone passing through and got **** for it too. From Canada to Brazil we only had one or two tribes to worry about, Caribs and Mexicans. Easy work to chuck a spear from a canoe.

          Maybe if Europe had ****ed over the Asians and Africans before focusing on America then we'd've gotten taken over after slavery was no longer acceptable, but, I doubt it. There's not much timeframe for the Euros to come over and not enslave and we're just easy to enslave. All you gotta do is make them a sex slave and bam. you done it. They worship that ****.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by _Rexy_ View Post
            Well, the civil war wasn't originally about slavery, but many things. Lincoln didn't even mention slavery until a few years into the war. That being said though, it was an obvious factor, since a large portion of the southern economy relied on Slavery. What I find truly fascinating, which is NEVER discussed is the fact that England was incredibly close to stepping in and assisting the confederate states in the war due to the fact that they weren't getting their cotton imports. Funny they act so high and mighty about slavery now though.

            Easier question to answer would be Columbus, since he didn't really "discover America" He discovered the West Indies, (Cuba, Jamaica, etc.) South America, and what later became the Spanish territories of America (Florida) The 13 colonies later became America, but the stuff owned by France and Spain can't really be put on America until they became part of America.

            And please don't think I'm being political with any of these answers. I'm just someone whos fascinated with global history.
            Isn't it!!

            No dude, that's my biggest fascination with the civil too. England, BE-Canada, France, there were a few who told the CSA they'd help but got scared off by the prospect of full war with the USA. My take, even when America is fighting America and half of America is your ally that other half is a hefty cost no matter what.

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't really think the confederates could have won the war. There was not enough Southern population to occupy the North. lets remember the whole situation with the civil war: The South had a large contingency of well trained vets from the Spanish American war. They were the better trained force of the two. The North had manpower and lots of it. In war often enough having the numbers is enough to win. The North had a steady supply of immigrants to throw into battle off the boats of Ireland, etc.

              In a Japanese type battle, where intelligence, alliance, craft, and having B a lls mattered, No Northern General would have stood a chance against Lee. Lee was a military genius. Ulyssis was by comparison... lacking... But with enough scorched earth, through attrition Lee could not previal.

              The best the South could have hoped for was a "hands off" policy. But even then, who was going to process that cotton?

              Regarding Columbus. Those guys could say aything they wanted, who could verify? There was no GPS back then lol. If Columbus had landed in India I believe he would have been there around the time of the Muslim invasions. It would have been like a Marco Polo experience.

              Comment


              • #8
                1 - There would have been further war and we could have ended up as 2 separate nations.
                2 - We'd be speaking Spanish, Portuguese, or French, cause somebody would have landed here eventually.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
                  I don't really think the confederates could have won the war. There was not enough Southern population to occupy the North. lets remember the whole situation with the civil war: The South had a large contingency of well trained vets from the Spanish American war. They were the better trained force of the two. The North had manpower and lots of it. In war often enough having the numbers is enough to win. The North had a steady supply of immigrants to throw into battle off the boats of Ireland, etc.

                  In a Japanese type battle, where intelligence, alliance, craft, and having B a lls mattered, No Northern General would have stood a chance against Lee. Lee was a military genius. Ulyssis was by comparison... lacking... But with enough scorched earth, through attrition Lee could not previal.

                  The best the South could have hoped for was a "hands off" policy. But even then, who was going to process that cotton?

                  Regarding Columbus. Those guys could say aything they wanted, who could verify? There was no GPS back then lol. If Columbus had landed in India I believe he would have been there around the time of the Muslim invasions. It would have been like a Marco Polo experience.
                  Grant was considered a butcher back then too for pushing on and getting so many of his own men killed. Lee was a military genius as you put it, Stonewall Jackson was also another great general. Grant was able to push forward with unlimited troops as you mentioned. He was not a well liked man until after the war

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'd still be going to Jeff Davis Highway to pick up hoes rather than Richmond Highway

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP