Had the South won the Civil War.. would places still have Grant, Sherman, & Lincoln statues in 2020?

MatthewJ

All-American
Gold Member
Nov 6, 2002
3,894
5,957
113
If people are going to complain about kids getting participation trophies, then cry about how important these "second place, US Civil War" Confederate memorials are, I am not hearing you
They are monuments that honor soldiers that died 150 years ago on the losing side of the war. If we get rid of them, where will people go to pay their respects?
 

StatsMatter

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 18, 2017
6,074
12,059
113
There is no need to worry because in the future it is guaranteed that Lincoln, Grant and Sherman will be discovered to have perpetrated some ugliness upon the earth that some group, probably all below 30, will then have a reason to destroy said statues.

Will the last person on earth please turn out all the lights?
 

granddaddy28

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 22, 2006
2,031
3,135
113
Crime-Free Collierville, TN
The South was never going to win that war, but just to humor you, if the south wins not even the war, but just finishes the Union off on day 1 at Shiloh, we’d never have heard of Grant or Sherman.

But the North would have eventually won anyway, so we’d have statues of Burnside or Meade. I’d rather look at Grant or Sherman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kenews and fntiger

PocketWatch

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Nov 15, 2012
24,056
31,294
113
If people are going to complain about kids getting participation trophies, then cry about how important these "second place, US Civil War" Confederate memorials are, I am not hearing you
A lot of the monuments are to the war dead. The soldiers who sign up for war because that’s what their leaders say they should do, even though it was a very stupid war. Like Iraq.

Now the monuments to the leaders of said war, well that’s different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DM8 and Hornacious

Bassman

GEN. COUNSEL
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
47,995
39,027
113
SoWeGa
I lean no.
No, because the South wouldn't have subjugated the North after the war as the South was subjugated and plundered. That subjugation, that bootheel, is a large part of the reason why southerners clung to and venerated their generals and leaders from that era. Pure defiance.

OTOH, the South, having earned its independence, would have expanded its own government and given border states the option of joining the new nation. The North would have remained the United States, just without those states that joined the CSA.

My guess is that history would then view these same generals and politicians in a far different light than they are viewed today. Some might be rather notorious rather than famous.
 

Hornacious

MINISTER OF BRACKETS
Gold Member
Nov 28, 2010
36,498
50,610
113
If people are going to complain about kids getting participation trophies, then cry about how important these "second place, US Civil War" Confederate memorials are, I am not hearing you
They are monuments that honor soldiers that died 150 years ago on the losing side of the war. If we get rid of them, where will people go to pay their respects?
There are many countries that have lost wars and built memorials to their fallen sons.
 

aler

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Mar 6, 2002
31,453
17,607
113
61
The South was never going to win that war, but just to humor you, if the south wins not even the war, but just finishes the Union off on day 1 at Shiloh, we’d never have heard of Grant or Sherman.

But the North would have eventually won anyway, so we’d have statues of Burnside or Meade. I’d rather look at Grant or Sherman.
South came real close to winning. As time wore on it was impossible. Slavery was dead anyway so I don’t know how different we would be today . I am not for pulling any historical statue down. Stonewall Jackson was a brilliant tactician and a decent man. Sherman likewise. They were not evil
 

PocketWatch

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Nov 15, 2012
24,056
31,294
113
No, because the South wouldn't have subjugated the North after the war as the South was subjugated and plundered. The South, having earned its independence, would have expanded its own government and given border states the option of joining the new nation. The North would have remained the United States, just without those states that joined the CSA. My guess is that history would then view these same generals and politicians in a far different light than they are viewed today. Some might be rather notorious rather than famous.
The real question is does Lehman Brothers (Montgomery) move back south if the south wins the war? (There were several other investment banks with southern roots, but gets a little more complicated for some due to mergers.)

Does the south actually end up with top cities? Or would the cities have gone to crap when most adopted an Over The Mountain strategy with Integration? (Assuming they’re didn’t suck to begin with.) Or would integration actually had worked out better? Or would it have still been run as an experiment on Integrating poor whites and blacks regardless of the upheaval it caused either group?

The thing is the slavery plantation model was never the most efficient means of production, and it was about to be due for a major upheaval without the war.
 
Last edited:

Xkikker360

All-American
Gold Member
Aug 28, 2010
4,171
4,930
113
Alabama
A lot of the monuments are to the war dead. The soldiers who sign up for war because that’s what their leaders say they should do, even though it was a very stupid war. Like Iraq.

Now the monuments to the leaders of said war, well that’s different.
First instinct: go fvck yourself.
2nd instinct: it’s the bunker- go for it bro
 

Tigerbass2

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2012
3,407
4,703
113
Based on what both sides had to endure, I would be fine if there were a lot more memorials for leaders from both sides. I doubt many that complain about this topic would have lasted a day fighting the battles they had to fight. Teenagers removed from their families knowing they would likely never see them again. It takes a tough SOB to walk that line, no matter what color your uniform.

I guess I also fail to see how either side of this blood shed war compares to kids getting trophies.

No one has a problem with us respecting those who put their lives on the line in Vietnam. Again, most of those that pretend the outcome in Vietnam is the same as a kid getting a trophy would never have the sack to step off a chopper in those same conditions.

You don’t have to agree with the purpose to respect those who offered to put their life on the line.
 

aler

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Mar 6, 2002
31,453
17,607
113
61
The real question is do Lehman Brothers (Montgomery) move back to the south if the south wins the war?

Does the south actually end up with top cities? Or would the cities have gone to crap when most adopted an Over The Mountain strategy with Integration? (Assuming they’re didn’t suck to begin with.) Or would integration actually had worked out better? Or would it have still been run as an experiment on Integrating poor whites and blacks regardless of the upheaval it caused either group?

The thing is the slavery plantation model was never the most efficient means of production, and it was about to be due for a major upheaval without the war.
With modernization it had become outdated. Man was never meant to live that way. The sad thing it still exists in places.
 

PocketWatch

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Nov 15, 2012
24,056
31,294
113
With modernization it had become outdated. Man was never meant to live that way. The sad thing it still exists in places.
Actually, before modernization it was relatively hard to successfully pull off.

So much about the south has always been a myth, so the civil war becoming a bit of a myth is actually in line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aler

aler

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Mar 6, 2002
31,453
17,607
113
61
Actually, before modernization it was relatively hard to successfully pull off.

So much about the south has always been a myth, so the civil war becoming a bit of a myth is actually in line.
Great point
 

kenews

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Jun 15, 2001
13,967
10,759
113
No, because the South wouldn't have subjugated the North after the war as the South was subjugated and plundered. That subjugation, that bootheel, is a large part of the reason why southerners clung to and venerated their generals and leaders from that era. Pure defiance.

OTOH, the South, having earned its independence, would have expanded its own government and given border states the option of joining the new nation. The North would have remained the United States, just without those states that joined the CSA.

My guess is that history would then view these same generals and politicians in a far different light than they are viewed today. Some might be rather notorious rather than famous.
That is possible, and very close to happening. The south did not have the resources to win a prolonged war but for just a few slip ups they almost one. Slavery was done one way or another but if the south won they might have kept it for a while out of spite. The two nations would have been interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajpitts

kenews

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Jun 15, 2001
13,967
10,759
113
The South was never going to win that war, but just to humor you, if the south wins not even the war, but just finishes the Union off on day 1 at Shiloh, we’d never have heard of Grant or Sherman.

But the North would have eventually won anyway, so we’d have statues of Burnside or Meade. I’d rather look at Grant or Sherman.
I am not sure the north would have had the stomach if it went a little more sour at a couple of battles. Remember this was a war about secession with unlawful taxes as the south rallying cry and control from the north. The north may have just said let them go.
 

PocketWatch

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Nov 15, 2012
24,056
31,294
113
That is possible, and very close to happening. The south did not have the resources to win a prolonged war but for just a few slip ups they almost one. Slavery was done one way or another but if the south won they might have kept it for a while out of spite. The two nations would have been interesting.
Keeping slavery out of stubbornness would have been an even bigger disaster. Probably what would have happened though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kenews

kenews

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Jun 15, 2001
13,967
10,759
113
Keeping slavery out of stubbornness would have been an even bigger disaster. Probably what would have happened though.
The thing about people in the south in those days is they were very resentful of being told what to do. It might have been a big deal for them to win and then stay a country just out of spite. We are never really United on anything until someone else tries to kick our ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bassman

PocketWatch

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Nov 15, 2012
24,056
31,294
113
The thing about people in the south in those days is they were very resentful of being told what to do. It might have been a big deal for them to win and then stay a country just out of spite. We are never really United on anything until someone else tries to kick our ass.
The south wasn’t exactly united then. Sure maybe at the beginning. But those letters between families sure did change in tone as the war progressed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kenews

kenews

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Jun 15, 2001
13,967
10,759
113
The south wasn’t exactly united then. Sure maybe at the beginning. But those letters between families sure did change in tone as the war progressed.
Hell no. They would shoot their neighbors but when the North came to shoot their neighbors they said hell no. Remember the army was mostly union forces at the time of the split and the South was full of farmers.
 

SigBitty

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 9, 2019
2,714
7,765
113
CHAZ
Based on what both sides had to endure, I would be fine if there were a lot more memorials for leaders from both sides. I doubt many that complain about this topic would have lasted a day fighting the battles they had to fight. Teenagers removed from their families knowing they would likely never see them again. It takes a tough SOB to walk that line, no matter what color your uniform.

I guess I also fail to see how either side of this blood shed war compares to kids getting trophies.

No one has a problem with us respecting those who put their lives on the line in Vietnam. Again, most of those that pretend the outcome in Vietnam is the same as a kid getting a trophy would never have the sack to step off a chopper in those same conditions.

You don’t have to agree with the purpose to respect those who offered to put their life on the line.
Imagine walking into a park and seeing a monument for those who fought to keep your people enslaved.
 

RoberttheBruce

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 23, 2001
9,262
2,798
113
No, because the South wouldn't have subjugated the North after the war as the South was subjugated and plundered. That subjugation, that bootheel, is a large part of the reason why southerners clung to and venerated their generals and leaders from that era. Pure defiance.

OTOH, the South, having earned its independence, would have expanded its own government and given border states the option of joining the new nation. The North would have remained the United States, just without those states that joined the CSA.

My guess is that history would then view these same generals and politicians in a far different light than they are viewed today. Some might be rather notorious rather than famous.
It's not unlike the Taliban removing all signs of history they do not like or agree with. History is not always pretty, and it should make us uncomfortable at times, but if those in fashion today can blot all of what they hate today, what is next? If we as a society are so fragile that words and ideas and symbols cause us to cower, they we are doomed to repeat history. And dang sure won't be able to deal with present reality
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bassman and aler