Suppose the American Civil War was a draw, or that both sides lost, what then?

Question

Would the Monroe Doctrine place limits on how much help we could accept from other countries, or is that even a factor?

Answer 1

"Godoompah" & "Starry Eyes" are correct. The Civil War was an unmitigated disaster for both sides. If that doesn't make sense to you; if you really can't understand how both sides could lose, then just try this simple three-step process....

1) Open your eyes and read the deathtoll:

120,000 killed in action
240,000 died of other causes
~360,000 TOTAL Union dead and/or missing

95,000 killed in action
165,000 died of other causes
~260,000 TOTAL Confederate dead and/or missing

~620,000 Union and Confederate soldiers
UNKNOWN total Northern and Southern civilian
casualties

2) Open your mind and think about it....

3) Open your heart and feel about it....

If you really do this, neither the Civil War nor any of the other Overklass-generated orgies of mass murder will ever look the same again.....

Before some damn fool says so, I'm not a pacifist, a communist, or even a liberal ; I'm just a middle-aged guy who lived long enough to see through some of the crap our Beloved Leaders keep throwing at us to keep us all permanently mind-f***ed....

Nimadan

Answer 2

If the war was a draw , All the industry would be in the north & all the slaves in the south. Florida would be broke because the wealthy from the north& northeast would not be comming there for the winter. The Monroe Doctrine applys only to forign goverments.

Answer 3

The Civil conflict exchange into lost by the accomplice States of u . s ., a distinctive u . s . a .. u . s . gained that conflict. The bay of pigs used no US troops or kit or help, different than for the planes and boats that dropped off the Cuban rebels. So, i'd exchange your record to: Vietnam: government supported by the U. S. fell 2 years after very final withdraw human beings forces. Iraq: unsure, yet solid skill for fulfillment if Iraq government can unite a number of factions and family individuals risk-free practices forces are bolstered. conflict of 1812: gained Civil conflict: gained Mexican American conflict: gained Spanish American conflict: gained WWI: gained WWII: gained Korea: gained (desire evidence? verify out how undesirable off N Korea is whilst in comparison with the south) i'd say our protection rigidity historical past mirrors heavily maximum different countries, some wins, some losses and a few attracts.

Answer 4

NO, the american civil war was a winned by the NORTH and the south LOSED because South were lossing control in the battle fields in america and the south has not enough food and supplies and by the way THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR IS NOT A DRAW!

Answer 5

lol two people cant loose...if it was a draw, then im guessing it would probably just continue the way it was, until it started up again....what does the monroe doctrine have to do with the civil war??....

Answer 6

First, you obviously don't understand war, or for that matter
a street fight between two people.

In any conflict, small or large, there is no winner, Only a person
or group or nation that has less cuts, scrapes and bruises.

But, to answer your question, we would be a physically divided
country. And it is passable that slavery would still exist in the
South.

Thank you very much, while you're up!!!

Answer 7

Well, both sides can't lose. One side must always win. However, if there was a draw it's likely some sort of backroom deal would have taken place granting the southern states the right to be autonomous (not that the rest of us would actually miss them).

Answer 8

didn't both of the sides lose for real? hence the UNITED states of America?

Answer 9

You can't change history without drasticly changing the present.

Answer 10

It would be like north and south korea... always making threats.