I was reading Shermans memoirs and as bad as the dems were then towards lincoln and the war effort it made me think we'd be the ununited states if hillary and pelosi and reid and company were in the majority back then.
2007-11-15 06:51:44 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, it's not a serious question. It's ridiculous speculation.
2007-11-15 06:55:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 6⤋
You have to understand that most Democrats were from the South in those days, quite the opposite of today. Of course the Democrats of that time would oppose Lincoln. Today's Democrats, would be a mix. Some from the South probably still would have been against Lincoln as they were then and some would be for Lincoln as there were, from the North in those days. Many Republicans today would also oppose Lincoln. Many of the Southern Republicans of today are more akin to the Whigs of that era. Lincoln was a Whig until the Republican party was formed as an anti-slavery party. Nevada was not yet a state and California had just become a state prior to the Civil War. California was a Union state and so even as a Democrat Pelosi is likely to be more on Lincoln's side as the war was about culture and the right of states to cedede from the Union. What few Southern Whigs and Republicans there were then would have opposed Lincoln. By the way with the 13 Southern states that ceceded don't you think we were ununited states already?
2007-11-15 07:07:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Apples and Oranges. A civil war in the united states is different than a civil war in a foreign country in which we are occupying. Besides, today we live in a more civilized society where intellectualism can trump rifles.
btw - the Republican and Democratic party of back then have almost switched over time. Lincoln's abolitionist party of the north is what the Democrats of today came from, and the racist state's rights advocates from the south have mostly turned into what the Republican party is today. You should read about the civil rights movement and how the party platforms and election maps have changed since that period.
2007-11-15 07:01:38 · answer #3 · answered by Frank 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes--though the labels would have been different. At the time f theCivil War, Democrats were the conservatives and Republicans were the liberals. So--todays Democrats would have been Republicans in Lincoln's time, and todays's cons would have been Democrats.
And--as you'll note, the liberals (Democrats in the 20th century) won World War 1 and World War 2. The GOP wre the ones who couldn't win in Korea, and were the ones who lost Vietnam. Bush 41 did win the Persion Gulf War--but Bush 43 has managed to lose 2 wars.
So--which way would YOU bet?
2007-11-15 07:03:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think we would still be the United States but slavery would have continued for a couple more decades. The dems would have given in to the states in the south and South Caroline would have never tried to leave the Union. Slavery was already under attack and a great deal of attention was being given to its abolishment even in the south. John C. Breckinridge came from a border state (Kentucky) and Stephen Douglas came from Illinois. Either democrat would not have forced the issue as James Buchanan didn't. Slavery would have probably come to an end state by state in the 1880s.
Went back to read some of the answers, wow is our education system in trouble.
Lincoln was known as a radical republican. He was called a tyrant, an imperialist, a monkey, and a dunce. Sound like anyone else you know?
The southern democrats did join with the republicans after 1948 but they didn't bring their racism with them into the republican policies. Note the Civil Rights Act of 1964; a larger percentage of republicans voted for it than democrats. It wouldn't have passed without the GOP. The dixiecrats could not return to the democratic party as they almost lost the election for them. They had burned that bridge and still wanted power so there was only one place to go...the GOP!
As for wars; Lincoln won by at a very high cost that was plagued by strategic blunders, poor generals, and a resentful public.
McKinley (R) won the Spanish-American war and acquired Cuba and the Philippines among other possessions.
T. Roosevelt(R) won the war of the Philippine Insurrection.
Wilson(D) got us into World War I after promising not to go to war. His failures helped lead to World War II. Plus he was unable to secure the Mexican border against attacks by Pancho Villa.
Wilson started the gutting of the military which left us hollow and defenseless in the Philippines.
FDR (D) did not start building up the military until 1939 which was almost fatal to the country and it was fatal to thousands of servicemen. This countries committment to victory was NOT questioned by the GOP like the dems do today.
Truman (D) started the Korean War by neglecting to mention Korea when talking about the countries the US was committed to protecting. North Korea invaded two months later.
Eisenhower (R) did exactly what he said he would do (and the American people elected him to do it) and that was to end the Korean War at the 38th parallel.
LBJ lied about the abilities of Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin) and committed hundreds of thousands of men to combat in Vietnam. He micromanaged the war to the detriment to the cause. Our troops paid dearly for the same ground over and over.
Nixon (R) said that he would end the war with honor. He ended the war but the honor was sold out by the democrats in Congress by refusing to keep a promise of aid to South Vietnam. The aid stopped just in time for the North to invade.
Reagan (R) took down the communists in Nicaragua and beat up on the Soviet Union to collapse it during Bush 41s term. Sounds like a win to me.
Bush (R) won the war in Iraq in 1991.
Bush (R) will win the war in Iraq today even against the interference of the democrats in Congress.
2007-11-15 07:01:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
The Democrats were the Confederacy, they are trying to win the Civil War and bring back slavery.
2007-11-15 07:09:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
definite. A revolution in attitude in the direction of desire and greed. With the could desire to look after your self and community. The crumple of the US Empire decrease than the burden of its debt will bypass away human beings sitting around waiting in ineffective for the nanny state to rescue them. (or fox / ccn information tell them what to do) Be arranged for exchange.
2016-10-02 10:38:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
With the people we have in office today, of both parites they'd probably still be debating it, and making snide comments back and forth, instead of actually going to war.
2007-11-15 07:07:55 · answer #8 · answered by scorch_22 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Copperheads were Northern Dems who were against the war. They called Lincoln,Abraham Africanus.
2007-11-15 06:56:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Thank God we had democrats in office during WW2
or we won't be America today!!!
Notice when democrats go to war the war is worth fighting AND we win
2007-11-15 06:59:42 · answer #10 · answered by Deidre K 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Yes, only difference would have been the Civil Rights Movement would have occurred much earlier.
It appears you aren't very educated in history, or you would know that the Southern Democrats opposed the more liberal democrats throughout the Civil Rights Movement, eventually joining the Republican party, where they continued to do so.
even copperhead democrats wanted Lincoln and the Republicans ousted from power, seeing the president as a tyrant who was destroying American republican values with his despotic and arbitrary actions.
hmm sounds like something extreme rightwingers would say.
2007-11-15 06:56:41 · answer #11 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 6⤊ 5⤋