most important historical event of past 200 years

[Ginger]

A Confederate victory was certainly possible, I think, as a result of Lee's invasion of Maryland during the late summer of '62. Had the Federal government been forced to flee Washington, the political damage would have been out of all proportion to the military situation. I can easily see Britain and France stepping in to separate the warring sides and impose a negotiated peace.

At the same time, I don't see that having much effect on subsequent European history, especially that of the World Wars*. Europe's cotton markets had already turned to Egypt and the Sea Islands by 1863. I don't think the South was going to recapture a large share of that. The North's natural trading partners were going to remain the South and Britain, and the South's trading partner the North. There would have been hard feelings for a few years after the war, I'm sure, but perhaps not so much as we might expect. By the summer of '62 both sides were more than a little appalled at how out of hand things had gotten, and the bitterness of the late war had not set in. An imposed settlement would have galled the zealots on both sides, but I think most people would not have been too put out.

I can well imagine North and South both allying with Britain and France during the World Wars for the exact same reasons that the United States did in real life.


* I'm one of those who tends to see it as a single war with a timeout to rest and re-arm in the middle. And certainly, it is the most important event of the last 200 years, perhaps even the last 500 years.

[Phil H]

Ginger - are you aware of the Harry Turtledove series of novels (alternative histories) which paint a rather different picture?

While Turtledove clearly seeks drama and rights for effect, he makes some interesting points - such as emphasising the resentments post war, and the influence of differing (and antagonistic) European powers on the two independent American nations.

You on the other hand paint a rather cosy (rose tinted?) picture.

But I DO wonder whether the South could ever really have won. In 1862 and 1863 Lee came nowhere close to threatening Washington. Oh, I agree that there is much talk about the POTENTIAL for him so doing - but in July 1863 he made no attempt to manoeuvre to gain a position between the Army of the Potomac and Washington (or even Baltimore).

Really, the only hope of the actually very disunited Confederate states, which utterly lacked co-ordination, was that a man like McClellan - willing to negotiate and temporise - might have won the Whitehouse.

But win the war? Nah! Not a hope - for the reasons I have given in earlier posts - industrialisation, manpower, the institution of slavery, the lack of international recognition, the quality of much of their leadership - was all against them.

Sorry to disagree.

Phil

[Errata]

But I DO wonder whether the South could ever really have won. In 1862 and 1863 Lee came nowhere close to threatening Washington. Oh, I agree that there is much talk about the POTENTIAL for him so doing - but in July 1863 he made no attempt to manoeuvre to gain a position between the Army of the Potomac and Washington (or even Baltimore).

Really, the only hope of the actually very disunited Confederate states, which utterly lacked co-ordination, was that a man like McClellan - willing to negotiate and temporise - might have won the Whitehouse.

But win the war? Nah! Not a hope - for the reasons I have given in earlier posts - industrialisation, manpower, the institution of slavery, the lack of international recognition, the quality of much of their leadership - was all against them.

Sorry to disagree.

Phil

I think the reasons you give are valid reasons why the South never would have remained a separate nation, but they could have won the war. They could never achieve their post war goals, but they could have achieved the initial step of beating the North. There is a certain tragedy in the idea that if we had just let the south go without waging war, millions of lives would have been saved, and in ten years they would have been back with slavery abolished. Well, maybe not South Carolina, but wrangling one stray state back into the fold is a lot less costly than half the nation.

[Phil H]

A couple of years ago, I might have agreed, but after looking closely at RE Lee, I no longer rate him as highly as a general. And Lee was pretty well their best.

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello what do you think was the most important historical event of the past 200 years I await your posts to see if you agree with what I have in mind

Well, there's Stalin and associates. Russia was a backward shithole with no claim to a personality. But Stalin turned them into a murderous, backward **** hole and commendeered half of Europe in the process. Led to a cold war and spying on an unprecedented scale.

WW1 - the Americans played all of us like a harp. But then you can only be played if you're an out-an-out nugget. So, our fault really. We borrowed money from them and ruined our financial status in the world. And, the Americans took control of everything.

The many innovations that came out of England, as despite our propensity to shoot ourselves in the foot the modern world still has "made in England" stamped upon it.

[Phil H]

the modern world still has "made in England" stamped upon it

Surely made in Britain?

[Fleetwood Mac]

the modern world still has "made in England" stamped upon it

Surely made in Britain?

Naaah.

The Welsh didn't offer very much.

The Scots more entrepreneurial and punched above their weight.

Most of what came out of Britain was made in England.

To all intents and purposes it was the English Empire, as opposed to the British Empire.

[Phil H]

Well, except that it was called The UNITED kingdom of Great BRITAIN etc etc - hence the "British Empire".

I accept that it was quite proper until well into the C20th to refer diplomatically to England as opposed to Britain.

But the Scots were important.

I also accept that Birmingham was widely known as "the workshop of the world" (or was that Worksop?).

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well, except that it was called The UNITED kingdom of Great BRITAIN etc etc - hence the "British Empire".

I accept that it was quite proper until well into the C20th to refer diplomatically to England as opposed to Britain.

But the Scots were important.

I also accept that Birmingham was widely known as "the workshop of the world" (or was that Worksop?).

Phil

Call it what you want, Phil, fact remains England was in the vanguard.

[Mayerling]

I think that had the South gotten the recogntion of Britain and France, and the North was forced to accept it's independence, the CSA, Britain, and France would have ended up regreting that choice of events.

The North would not have been forgiving (the South barely was) by a defeat that cost so many lives. It would have had to swallow it, but would have bided it's own time for revenge. Among other things:

1) Due to British North America's pro-South neutrality (allowing Southern Fifth Columnists to get involved in all kinds of plots for damaging the North - like the St. Albans Raid in September 1864), the American Government did not prevent the Fenians from conducting "invasions of Canada" in the late 1860s. A sort of "tit-for-tat" policy.

2) Similarly, there was widespread support for Louis Riel in 1870 in the U.S., and for several years he lived (and was hospitalized) in the U.S. The MacDonald Government (at that time) could not do anything about it but protest.

A defeated North would have been sniping at Canada and at the CSA in everyway possible. Of course the Canadians and Confederates would have responded in kind, but would have had other problems. The South would have had to deal with Indian Wars (especially with the Apaches) by themselves. Also, the success of the "Maximillian" experiment might not have been as stable as Napoleon III would have hoped (and Napoleon III himself would have had to face Bismarck in 1870 with little chance of getting any military aid of note from the Confederates).


By 1914 it is very likely that the Germans would have approached the North, who would have cooperated with the use of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia's harbors to allow access for the German fleet to attack Britain and France from the West instead of the Baltic. In return we would have most likely ignored the CSA but grabbed Canada, and after establishing our control would have waited to destroy the CSA piecemeal with German assistance.

[Limehouse]

Naaah.

The Welsh didn't offer very much.

Really? Well, for a start, the Welsh language is the oldest language in Europe.

The first passenger railway in the world was also built in Wales.

Then there's poetry, literature and music.

Just for starters.

[Graham]

Surely the most important event ever was the making of the album Layla by Derek & The Dominoes. Wasn't it?

Graham

[pinkmoon]

It's up there so is 461 ocean boulevard nice to meet a man with taste cheers graham

[Cogidubnus]

Really? Well, for a start, the Welsh language is the oldest language in Europe.

I'm sure speakers of Basque may take issue with this...as the origins of this tongue just may stretch as far back as the neolithic...it has to be said though that the welsh too might originate with the troglodytic...

All the best

Dave

[Hunter]

Since folks around these parts compare everything significant as "the best thing to come along since sliced bread," then the most important event in 200 years has to be the invention of sliced bread.

As far as the South ever really having a chance to win the so-called "Civil War"... Yep... at Shiloh. That would have ended it early. The war was won and lost in the west. After it settled down into a war of attrition, as long as the North held its resolve, the South had little chance. Lee could win tactical victory after tactical victory and as long as the Army of the Potomac kept coming, it was just a matter of time. Lee gave them a thrashing at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor in the spring of '64; outgeneraled Grant and Meade at every turn, but they kept coming.