If General James Longstreet had commanded the Confederate forces at Gettysburg instead of Lee the Confederacy might very well have won the Civil War.

The outcome of a Confederate victory would have been the break up of the United States but not quite as President Jeff Davis wanted.  The Confederacy was never a country, which is obvious from its name.  The Southern states were allied by expediency but were as disparate among each other as they were with the North.  It is difficult to see how they would have formed an alternative long term Confederate States.

The Confederacy could not have occupied the North and had no intention to do so.  The invasion of the North by the Army of Northern Virginia was tactical, not strategic and the Southern Government's intention was to sue for peace based on a rather naive idea that capturing Washington would have ended the war.

If they had captured Lincoln and his government that might have happened, more likely though they would have decamped to another major Northern city before the Army of Northern Virginia got there.

Great question, I was looking forward to a debate on the Civil War!

Counterfactuals is one of my favourite subjects. Great, dear Rüdiger.

As we know from the work on counterfactuals, the only condition is to follow up the issues till the end. Not just a "what if?" problem. Therefore the space here is not enough. I would like to mention three possibilities, thereafter:

Most probably Mexico would have never lost so much territory ("sold"), and the black population (slaves) would have remained slaves for a long while. The importance of masonry as a "hidden source" would have never important in the entire history of the U.S. And the South would probably undergo a number of wars against Mexico looking for more territory. 

Longstreet was certainly more circumspect than Lee.  The conduct of the battle at Gettysburg was reckless.  The frontal attacks including the infamous Pickett's charge lost the battle for the Confederacy.  

The Confederate forces lost the initiative and had to withdraw to Virginia badly mauled.  

Lee relied heavily on anachronistic tactics employed by Bonaparte, in a time of modern weapons.  Frontal assaults on redoubts had been shown to be crazy in the Crimea more than five years earlier.  Longstreet favoured flank attacks which would have been far more effective.

The Confederate forces in Pennsylvania were cut off from their supply lines and therefore very vulnerable.  The Yankees could expect a steady stream of reinforcements and resupply.  For Lee to fight effectively a war of attrition under thsoe circumstances was not good Generalship.

Longstreet never got the credit as one of the South's best commanders because he was a Republican his treatment after the war was shameful.  

While there is no doubt that Lee was a brave and resourceful General in many of the battles of the war Gettysburg showed his weaknesses.    

Dear Barry,

obviously Robert E. Lee's Army of Virginia made various mistakes at Gettysburg and one profoundly wrong decision of Lee seem to be on the last day of the battle: launching “Pickett’s Charge” uphill across an open battle field against the heart of the Union defense with only a  fifth of his forces. - Interesting is maybe the theory of military historian Tom Carhart, that Lee wanted to act in a similar way as the Prussian King "Friedrich der Große" in the battle of Leuthen, means “Pickett’s Charge” was as part of a coordinated, three-pronged attack.

The real strategic brain of the Army of Virginia was most probably General Thomas J. Jackson, who just died a few month before Gettysburg. I would not blame Gen. Lee for the old fashioned tactics, the infantry applied. The entire civil war followed such, as you rightly say, anachronistic tactics employed by Bonaparte.

Thank you, that you like my question. I also look forward having a great discussion about the Civil War.

Ruediger

The tactics of the Confederate forces during the war were mistaken for several reasons.  Napoleon Bonaparte once boasted that he could afford to lose 30,000 men, Robert E Lee never had that luxury.  The Confederacy was always on the backfoot when it came to men and materiel, it is a testament to the bravery and tenacity of their soldiers and in particular the excellent officers in the Confederate Army that they lasted so long.

The military science and technology had leapt forward by a huge degree between 1815 and 1860.  Napoleon's tactics would simply not work in an age of rifled infantry weapons and breach loading howitzers.  The use of the railways and the telegraph made mobility much faster and the days of single decisive battles was over.  Gettysburg was a both a strategic and tactical failure for the Confederacy because Lee did not sufficiently understand how much the changes mattered.

In the same week as Gettysburg the Confederate forces also lost at Vicksburg cutting the South in two along the main transport waterway.  It would probably have made more strategic sense for the invasion of Pennsylvania to have been abandoned in favour of securing the Confederacy's transport arteries.  Marching on Washington was a huge gamble.

The biggest mistake of all made by the Richmond government was the cotton embargo, designed to entice Britain and France into the war on the South's side.  This robbed them of money and resources as Britain and France sought alternative supplies.  British and French weapons and materiel did get to the Confederate Army but in very small amounts.  A direct intervention by the Royal Navy or the French Navy, or both would have made a vast difference to the war with a Confederate victory almost assured.

That could never happen while the Southern States insisted on keeping slavery. 

A contemporary war of the American Civil War was the 2nd Schleswig Holstein war of 1864.  The Danish government had taken a belligerent position against Prussia who had a far more powerful military and much more up to date weapons.  The Danish, like the Confederate Army fought bravely and hard but the fight was utterly futile.  The Prussians were bound to win.

There are a number of similarities, as there always are in wars.  The Danish government was very keen to involve the British in the war but this was not acceptable at all to the British government and seemed to be remarkably naive.  At the time the United Kingdom and Prussia were far too closley entwined for Britain to side with Denmark.

The Danish Army was equipped with out of date weapons and soon encountered highly accurate quick firing breech loading howitzers and needle guns.  This war is overlooked by military historians as something of a mid 19th century side show.  In fact it began a series of Prussian expansions involving Austria, the Franco-Prussian War, World War One to World War Two.      

It might be interesting to speculate what would have happened if Denmark had beaten Prussia.  It is certain that this, like a Confederate victory in America would have led to a very different world to the one we live in today.

Barry, I really like your highly knowledgeable input!

Yes, the 2nd Schleswig War, where Prussia and the Austrian Empire were allies (more or less the strongest military forces in Europe at this time). - Highly unlikely for Denmark to win. Similar to the Union, Prussia & Austria had not only far more troops, they also had the better military leaders such as Graf Moltke, v. Wrangel and Wilhelm von Tegetthoff.

I also think that the Prussian victory over France in 1870/71 or over Austria (Königgrätz 1866) had a far larger impact than defeating Denmark.

It is well-known, that also quite a number of former Prussian Officers served in the Civil War (on both sides). Immigrants born in the German states were enormously overrepresented in the Union Army and formed with about 200,000 German-born Soldiers the strongest ethnic group in Lincoln's Union Army. Would be also interesting to speculate what would have happened when the German Fortyeighters after their failed Revolution would not escape to the US. General Robert E. Lee once allegedly remarked: Take the [Germans] out of the Union Army and we could whip the Yankees easily.

The cotton diplomacy was really one of the the largest mistake of the CSA and definitely played a major role in the defeat of the South.

kind regards Ruediger

Dear Carlos,

You have mentioned ......masonry as a "hidden source" for the civil war.

Since Jefferson Davis (due to my knowledge) was not a mason himself, but in the cabinet of the confederacy were about the same number of masons than in Lincoln's. Masons were involved in both sides. I would say the mason aspect is more a point concerning the war of independence?

Ruediger

17 of the winners of the Congressional Medal of Honour were German in fact as well as a dozen middle and senior ranking commanders. Many were indeed forty-eighters and they were attracted to the Union because they had seen the consequences of disunity in Germany.

The Irish contingents that fought in the Civil War fought on both sides and at Fredericksburg actually fought each other with all the ferocity of sworn enemies. There is no recorded example of German soldiers fighting each other and few appeared to have been in the Confederate Forces.

Many English combattants served under the Confederate flag, particularly in the Confederate Navy and the last Confederate surrender was in fact the CSS Shenandoah in the River Mersey near Liverpool in November 1865, a good seven months after Lee surrendered at Appomatox. The Confederate surface raider the CSS Alabama also had an English crew commanded by two Southern officers.

As well as the Civil War I am a dedicated student of German History with a huge collection of books on the subject. I love to tell my English colleagues of how the Germans defended Gibraltar in the 18th century and about the very large number of German troops in Wellington's army at Waterloo (The Kings German Legion were mainly Hannovarian)

In World War One there was a famous tale of British soldiers being confused by seeing German prisoners with Gibraltar written on their cuff titles, belt buckles and Pickelhaube badges. These regiments were  direct descendants of the ones that defended the siege of Gibraltar from 1775.

Dear Barry, thank you for that interesting reply. I am also deeply impressed about your profound knowledge and I am pleased that you love German History.

Yes, Irish troops fought very brave and particularly at the storm on Mary's heights. As a German / German confrontation I would claim: Battle of Chancellorsville, when the Stonewall Brigade (mainly recruited of the sons and grandsons from early German Settler from the Shenandoah Valley) chased up Howards XI Corps. - There was also the story that on both sides soldiers were singing at their camp fires German Songs and Lee was afraid, that they could transfer messages, therefore he gave order to stop that, but brave General Kemper, from German decent himself (same as Armistead), went to Lee and requested to stop this nonsense immediately.

In Ella Lonn's excellent book "Foreigners in the Union Army and Navy" you'll not find plenty of Englishmen rather Scots... The German Legion: That is a very interesting story, when the King of Hannover and Great Britain recruited troops in his home territories. Goettingen, for example was counted as a British University at this time.

I also know this story with the Gibraltar Cuff Title. My own grandfather served in the 3. Hannover, which became then the 79. Preuss. Infanterie-Regiment and they were wearing the Cuff Title "G I B R A L T A R". - At the end of the WWI Hannover Regiments mainly were used to fight against French but not against British troops.

I really like this discussion

regards Ruediger

Indeed this is an excellent discussion.

The reality of both armies in the Civil War is that all of them came from foreign ancestry with one notable exception.  Native American troops fought with the Confederacy and even had their own units commanded by their own officers.  This was in part because some tribes, like the white plantation owners had black slaves.

My favourite General was of Dutch ancestry, Longstreet’s ancestor Dirck Stoffels Langestraet emigrated to America in 1657 and his family were long established and Anglicised by the mid 19th century.  Many of the German Americans were of families well established before the Revolutionary wars while many other had arrived within the last couple of decades after the revolutions in Europe.  Very large numbers of the Irish troops were also of course first generation having emigrated after the great famine.

On the subject of foreign troops fighting in the armies of other nations this was very common in the 18th and early 19th century.  During the Seven Years War soldiers of all nationalities could be found in the Prussian Army and some regiments had more foreigners in them than Prussians.   In the Napoleonic Wars English soldiers were found in the French Army and there were French sailors in the Royal Navy, even in the crew of HMS Victory.   

Dear Barry, native Americans also fought for the Union: In the 1st Brigade of the "Army of the Frontier" (Gen. James Blunt) served two Cavalry Units of the Choctaw and Chickasaw under their own officers (Batte of Newtonia - Sept. 1862).

Yes, German families were well-established particularly in New York. - A very interesting person is William N. Reed (a German Afro-American). Originally born on St. Croix (Virgin Islands), which was Danish at this time, he came to Holstein as a boy and graduated from the Military Academy Kiel. He also studied at the University Kiel were he was a member of Corps Saxonia. - He served as 1st Lieut. in the 1st German-Danish War. After emigrating to New York he didn't join any of the various German Volunteer Regiments. When the Union started to recruit Afro-American Regiments he joined as a Lt. Col. the 1st North Carolina Colored. The Col. of this regiment was  James W. Beecher (Brother of Henry ward Beecher and of Harriet Beecher-Stove). - The Regiment fought in the Battle of Olustee (Ocean Pond), Febr. 1864 - Col. Beecher was absent. After trapped by Confederates, Gen. Truman Seymore left mainly colored regiments behind. Reed fell, when he saved the life of Adj. Manning under heavy enemy fire. - He was never suggested for the medal of honor. Years later James W. Beecher committed suicide:

https://books.google.ae/books/about/Korporierte_im_amerikanischen_B%C3%BCrgerkri.html?id=DMTaPgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

Foreigners in Prussia were common. Frederick's father the "Soldier king" welcomed huguenots from France and protestants from Salzburg as settlers for East-Prussia. Tsar Alexander gave him military musicians as a present. He was a very caring king and built for the original Russian wooden houses (Alexandrowka - in Potsdam) with an nearby orthodox church. He recruited also in entire Europe soldiers of excessive body height (Lange Kerle) to form entire Regiments of them. This eccentric tic was often misunderstood in our days. - The truth is that the "Langen Kerls" could carry heavier muskets with a far higher shooting reach than normal infantry arms.

kind regards

Ruediger

If the South Had Won the Civil War was a topic dealt with in a magazine article at the time of the Civil War Centennial; while I don't recall the author's name, he was a well-known Civil War historian.  A number of things he proposed was that Texas later left the Confederacy and that the United States could not purchase Alaska which resulted in Soviet missiles in Alaska during the Cold War.  Published in the 1960s, I believe the magazine was Look and the author may have been Shelby Foote.

Frank

Shelby Foote was a distingushed Civil War Historian so I hope he did not write anything so silly.

If the Confederacy had won the war the entire timeline following it would have been different.  The direction the world would have taken without a United States would have been fundamentally different.  We can only hypothesise in total but we can start with a few likely variations.

The Confederacy would indeed have broken up because there was no intention for it to become a fully fledged nation.  The Southern States would have gone their own way and the westward expansion of the United States would have not happened.  As the territories sought consolidation it would have been to a completly different national entity.   

The Spanish American War would probably not have happened and American foreign policy would have been spectacularly different.  The world would have entered the 20th Century without the emerging powerhouse of the United States.  This would have had profound influence over the situation globally, but especially in Europe.

A war in Europe would still have been likely because the European imperial powers were inexorably heading towards one anyway, it would however have been quite different to World War One.  The absence of the US from the outcome of this war, an outcome that would have been very different to what actually happened would have led to an entirely different world order.  

World War Two may not have happened, so no Cold War either.  

I would suggest that the Union States would have taken a very different political journey too.  The industrialised North would have become unionised and more socialist in outlook.  The South would have abolished slavery as an economic expediency but would probably have remained ultra conservative.  The Western States would have developed a completely different character since many would never join either the Union or the Confederacy.  The America Dream would in fact be multiple American dreams.    North America would look more like South America with multiple nation states, sharing similar cultural values instead of one federal state.

All of this could have been the result of just one decision on a hot July day 156 years ago.

Just my two cents: there is an interesting mockumentary on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.S.A.:_The_Confederate_States_of_America

Mainz, Germany

Dear Turner,

Thanks for your invitation to comment. I must say at the start, however, that I am pretty skeptical of extended, counter-factual history. So, basically, in answer to the present question, I would say that no one knows what would have happened if the South had won the American Civil War. I notice, however, that the counter-factual question is employed above in the interest of various topics related to the cultural differences between the North and South, etc. It is not my intention to deny the interest of such further tangential questions.

Historically, I would say that the tendency toward ethnic nationalism has always been stronger in the American South. (BTW: It is often remarked that the U.S. Army "speaks southern.") This will sometimes go unnoticed, because of the diverse European influxes to the South early on--English, Scots, Irish, German chiefly. But basically the various European sources managed to combine themselves into the "white" South, excluding the slaves and later drawing strict lines of segregation after the Civil War. The later immigration to the U.S. tended to avoid the deep South. No one wanted to compete against slave labor, earlier on, and later the system of segregation was also an impediment to larger-scale immigration. In consequence, the North is historically more diverse in the background sources of the population. Northern society is dominated, more or less (again traditionally) by the pervasive efforts to integrate the diversity. "E pluribus unum," as we say. I regard this as a great cultural accomplishment.

In contrast, I would say that the recent "multiculturalism" from the 1990's on is more akin to southern patterns of separation and distinct development, "separate but equal" as the old segregationist slogan had it before the desegregation of the American public schools. (At one time, during the Clinton administration, all the major federal offices where held by southerners. Recall that President Clinton himself came from Arkansas.) If the South had done better in the Civil War, one would expect a greater influence of its traditional social pattern of segregation by "race."

So I see it from my Philadelphia perch--just 40 miles north of the Mason-Dixon line. 

H.G. Callaway

Dear Barry your analysis is convincing and logic to me, But also Frank's input that Texas could have left the Confederacy later is comprehensible.

The CSA would maybe not join WWI. - WWII is only the continuation of WWI, generated due to the unfair treatment against Germany by the allies after WWI. - Interesting is maybe that the same" type of people", they were forty-eighters in earlier days formed "Freikorps" after WWI to defend Germany against aggressors from inside and outside such as Communists in Bavaria, Berlin and Rhine/Ruhr but also the Polish invasion of Upper-Silesia, the Yugoslavian occupation of South-Carinthia, and Skirmishing in the Baltic States... Unfortunately these actions smoothened the way for Adolf Hitler to come to power.

kind regards

Ruediger

The topic posed was "What would have happened if the Confederacy won the civil war?"  What I posted previously was based on an old man's memory of something read more that half a century ago.  What I have found out is that the article, If the South Won the Civil War" was written by Mackinlay Kantor and appeared in the 22 November 1960 issue of Look.  I hope I did not disparage Shelby Foote by stating that I thought he may have been the author.  There was, after all, no intent to do so.  Whether or not the original is available on-line I cannot say.  If I saved the copy I read, and I don't know why I would have, it is buried under a lifetime of detritus in the basement of my house which is some two hours of driving and twelve hours of flying from my current location and so I am not in a position to mount a search to find if it is there.

Still, if it could be found on-line it might make an interesting read.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Harris,

I don't know if this is exactly the Look article you are talking about, but there are some promising connections here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/csa/if-the-south-had-won.htm

Good luck with it. I'm going to resist speculating on the historical counter-factual! 

H.G. Callaway

This is only speculative, but my hypothesis is that improved social justice in race relations in America would have been delayed somewhat but - notwithstanding - would have still make significant headway. Best wishes. Paul

Dear Dr. Callaway,

I like your earlier input, but I think, that is not the article Frank has mentioned. - There is written: If the South had won, the United States would be a quarrelsome collection of a score of independent countries, unprogressive as the Balkans. - That sounds to me more like farfetched propaganda.

kind regards

Rüdiger B. Richter

Mainz, Germany

Dear Richter,

Thanks for your comment.

The idea that you contest is, in fact, already present in the arguments favoring the Union in the Federalist Papers. I seem to recall that Alexander Hamilton made just such an argument. Without the Union, we would fall into squabbling. The American founders were in several ways a quite idealistic lot, and the last thing they wanted to happen was to replicate the European wars of the 17th and 18th centuries on the North American continent. I have a very nice quotation to this effect from the historian Gordon Wood.

One way to look at the period of the 18th-century American crisis, is that we first combined with the British to throw out the French, in the French and Indian War (the Seven Years' War), and afterward, we combined with the French to throw out the British.

On the back of every dollar bill, in a semi-circle under the pyramid (the back of the "great seal") it reads "Novus Ordo Seclorum"  --"the new order of the ages." The hope was that the republican and federalist ideals of the early American founding would spread. The "comity of the states" was a central objective. It has effectively meant hundreds of years of relative peace on the North American continent. 

To substantiate your claim of "farfetched propaganda," I think you might have to examine the Federalist Papers or the related claims and objectives stated there. My impression is that the British, or at least the English, have entertained similar views of continental European history. In consequence they were long content to sit off shore, playing "balance of power" and patrol the channel with the Royal Navy.

I don't know if I will have convinced you, but I hope I have sketched some of the background of the judgment you found objectionable.

H.G. Callaway

Counter factual hypotheses are of some use to the historian if only to contextualise the history itself.  

Since we live in history rather than view it from the outside it is of some value that we look at what might have been to give us some view of what might be.  I have been an amateur student of history for five decades and my American history teachers at school attracted my interest in American history as a teenager.

Their skill, well before its time taught me that history is everyone's history just as destiny it seems is shared too.  There is no such thing as British history, French history or American history, we are all connected by history.  

Wars are always portrayed as the battle betwen the righteous and the evil.  Every combattant in war has God on their side.  Wars are written in the first instance by the victors so all military history is suspect.  My American history teachers taught me that the conflict, later known as the War of Independence was nothing of the sort.  They also taught me that the Civil War was about states rights, not freeing the slaves.  As an English school boy taught by Americans I had a very different view of those wars than my English contemporaries.

By looking at what might have been, sometimes what might have been as a result of one snap decision on one day centuries ago we can have a vision of very different worlds, worlds that could easily have happened.  

Today we try to predict a world with Donald Trump as President of the United States, we can look further to a world 50 year after President Trump.  I do hope the American people look to a world 2 years after President Trump.  It might save them asking a very painful counter factual question in 2020. 

If the southern states would have wan then they would have made sure that the northern states would not be united under a strong centralized governments.   They would have establish a confederation (weak central government) of all american states.  They may not have organized the systatic slaughter of the bisons and of the north american indian in the plains.  This is best accomplished with a strong centralized government.  Since we are in fiction, I will imagine a nice one.  I would imagine one where the natives would have remain on the plains with million of bison and that would have formed a state part of the confederacy and that all the canadian colonies instead of regrouping under a strong centralized government to counter the threath in the south would have instead joint that confederacy.  Since it would have given large autonomy to the individual states then it would not have been tempted in the empire building on the other sides of the seas.

@ Dear Louis ...

don't forget the herds of wild mustangs might have survived, too ... their descendants may have inherited vast expanses of the plains in which to run ... free as the wind

You all may soon know the answer. If Donald Trump is elected President of the United States, the Confederacy will have won the Civil War!

Donald Trump is then a Republican Confederate? - Now we may come back to Bob Skiles' earlier question: Is Donald Trump a Christian, and RG will skip all our scores.

By the way: Most Confederates were Christians and showed also a surprisingly high tolerance against their Jewish population. In the Confederate Army also served far more Jewish soldiers than in the Union.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Richter & contributors,

I take it that Trump is a symptom of a good deal of alienation in the country--delayed consequences of globalization. So far as I can see, Trump is all about promoting Trump. He is basically a real estate developer from New York. His greatest electoral appeal, however, may be in the South.

I take it that he is no conservative and least of all a Christian conservative, though he does publicly confess a faith.

For political conservatives anywhere, business and money may be a means to a social or political end, but my impression is that for Trump, whose book, is titled "The Art of the Deal," business and money are ends in themselves. Any real estate developer is likely highly dependent on the favor of big finance.

It was a great mistake of the Republicans to allow Trump to be nominated. He was in fact roundly denounced by a host of the most respect American conservative thinkers and commentators. Virtually the entire staff of the National Review, wrote against his nomination. George Will quite the Republican party. Need I say more?

H.G. Callaway

Dear Professor Callaway and others,

I confess to egregious tongue-in-cheek facetiousness in bringing Donald Trump into this forum but I suggest that his success with his adherents in spite of his flaws is symptomatic of a recurring political disease in the United States that was brought on by the American Civil War of 1860-1865. I will also add that I'm not keen on applying "What-ifs?" to past historical events because we attempt by reasoning to foretell inherently unpredictable events whose outcomes we can never know.

Dear Dwight

I don't think the Civil War brought a political disease to the United States.  The Civil War was a result of an already chronic political disease that pre-dated the revolutionary wars, a chronic disease that is not confined to the American continent by any means. 

There is all too often a view expressed that self willed resilience and independence are in all cases virtues.  Similarly that the 'litle man' is always oppressed and that their views are ignored.  This is not the politics of success and co-operation it is the disease of resentment, hate, xenophobia and ignorance.  Sadly for all the romantic glorification expressed about the Confederacy those were some of its real characteristics.  While we may admire the bravery of the underdog in its plucky and brave fight against powerful interests we should not lose sight of the hideous backward and atavistic realities that underpinned its existence.

One thing that can almost certainly be said about the outcome of a Confederate victory is that what ever came out of it, it would not be better than what we have now.    A Confederate victory would certainly have meant no United States as we know it and the world would be worse for that.

The United States has been an enormous force for good, a force that could never have been applied by a Confederacy or a multiple nation North America.  The contribution of the United States to peace in Europe is underestimated beyond belief, especially here in Europe.  Everyone who crticises America for its faults, and their are many, should always pause to thank their lucky stars it is there.  The alternatives do not bear thinking about.

It is quite appropriate that this thread contains comments about Trump.  He also wishes to harness the hatred, resentment, contempt, spite and xenophobia of past politicians who declared for narrow interests first.  He favours walls and borders, trade disputes, dreams of ever greater personal aggrandisement and the panegyric for the demagogue.   Every country that gained its greatness that way ended in ashes.

I partially agree about asking 'what ifs' but add the caveat that it is not always a silly question.  In the UK just over one month ago we did not ask 'What if Brexit?' and now we have got Brexit.  I sincerely hope that the people of the United States ask the question 'What if President Trump?" and that they ask it before November.  

That might be it, Mr. Callaway, but in truncated form.  Your link, however, points to a book on the subject by Kantor which likely expanded on the issues of the topic.  It is an interesting topic, but the best we can do is conjecture about the possibilities.  What if the American Colonies had lost the revolution?  What if Rome had not fallen?  What if the Little Ice Age had continued another half millenium?  The possibilities are endless and impossible to answer with more than educated guesses.  But that too can be said about history.

Hillary versusTrump ?

Joseph Brodsky said: '' Life - the way it really is - is a battle not between Bad and Good but between Bad and Worse. '' Since the electoral process end up with a choice between Bad and  Worse, I would go for:  "Better the devil you know..."

Frank

Educated guesses are the best we can do in a number of areas and not exclusive to either history or 'what if' scenarios.  The key to getting the guesses right more often than not is indeed education.

Here is an interesting comment which is apparently the source of Harvard President Derek Bok’s  “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance”

 “Knowledge is less expensive than ignorance. Ignorance is a dangerous and costly factor under any form of government, and under a republican, destructive”.

                                      1874, The Statistics and Gazetteer of New Hampshire,

                                              Compiled by Alonzo J. Fogg, 

                                              Chapter VI: Public Schools, Quote Page 508,

                                              Published by D. L. Guernsey, Concord,  New Hampshire.

Texas, almost certainly would have reverted to being the Lone Star Republic, and likely would have not only survived, but prospered into present times as an independent country ... and likely have been inhabited and governed by more sensible folk than the current nest of viperous know-nothing anti-science politicians (Republicans) who run (ruin) the state.

I cannot but help to imagine it would still have been populated by immense herds of wild horses ... and populated by the caring conservation-minded descendants of great thinking men like Henry A. Bullard (a Harvard graduate, and young attorney, who fought in the FIRST war for the independence of Texas in 1812-1813, known as the Gutierrez expedition) and later became the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and first president of the Louisiana Historical Society, from which seat he penned the following words (in 1836 on the eve of another apparent war for independence breaking-out in Texas):

"During the existence of the Spanish Government, the natural resources of this beautiful country [the province of Texas] appear to have been wholly unknown, or never appreciated... At the period we speak of [ca. 1813] those extensive and woodless plains were the haunts of innumerable droves of horses "desert-born;" and nothing can be imagined more grand than their movements in squadrons of thousands, when frightened by the approach of the solitary traveller.

   'A thousand horse, and none to ride,--

   With flowing tail and flying mane,

   Wide nostrils, never stretched with pain,

   Mouths bloodless by the bit or rein,

   And feet that iron never shod,

   And flanks unscarr'ed by spear or rod.

   A thousand horse, the wild, the free,

   Like waves that follow o'er the sea,

   Come thickly thundering on.'"

~~~ The National Review 43 (No. 92, 1836), p235. 

Well, horses are a bit off the subject but last Tuesday ( 19 July 2016) I met a horse I didn't know while hiking here in Mexico. The horse was shy but we became friends. I submit this incident as evidence that we live in a remarkable Universe that we, especially as scientists, daily need to recognize and appreciate.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Turner,

Let me here briefly reiterate my general skepticism of extended counter-factual history and of the present question in particular. What I regard as more useful is in-depth study of particular episodes of history as a possible repeating (better: near-repeating) pattern of human behavior. That can be useful; and some of what appears in this thread might be regarded in somewhat this way. 

Let me also take brief issue with you regarding a comment you made a page or two back in reply to someone else. You wrote:

There is all too often a view expressed that self-willed resilience and independence are in all cases virtues. Similarly that the 'little man' is always oppressed and that their views are ignored. This is not the politics of success and co-operation it is the disease of resentment, hate, xenophobia and ignorance.

---End quotation

While I generally agreed with your comments in that note, and I found it an interesting contribution, what you say in the quoted passage strikes me as simply an unsupported over-generalization. Its too broadly phrased to invoke very broad agreement or acceptance. This is not to deny that "resentment, hate, xenophobia and ignorance," are not sometimes deep and genuine problems. But it strikes me as excessive to tar "self-willed resilience and independence" or the aim for political protection of the interests of ordinary citizen with these words generally.

Whether something like "self-willed resilience and independence" may be a justified response seems to depend on what a person may be up against. For some, unfortunately "cooperation" simply means going along to get along, no matter the price--the proverbial "deal with the devil." The supposed "politics of success and cooperation" on the other hand, may be a thin disguise for unprincipled acquiescence in things that simply should not be tolerated--as in our recent discussion of the failures of the policy of "tolerance of intolerance."

If we believe in "government by the consent of the governed," then this means the citizens generally, and this is going to include the less educated, the under-educated and the unenlightened as well. People generally deserve a chance in life. Lack of suitable representation may amount to a neglect of the needed articulation and recognition of the interests of particular segments of the population, even the lack of desire to articulate their interests--since, as may often be the case, articulation of opposing interests may be politically more profitable.

Great outbreaks of populist protests, such as we are witnessing generally, especially where they do not command educated agreement, are an appropriate point to consider which interests and points of view have been neglected and have gone without appropriate representation. Because of that it is a mistake to simply reject and denigrate the entire phenomenon in terms appropriate to its least appealing expression.

It seems to me, e.g., that the British Labour party is rightly giving some serious reconsideration to the Blair policies and the former platform of "New Labour," and likewise, it is fully appropriate for the next Democratic party nominee in the U.S. to devote some serious questioning and re-thinking on themes such as growing inequalities, "identity politics," "multiculturalism," militarization of American society and neo-liberal globalization.   

H.G. Callaway

Sorry, but that is too philosophical for me. - Why Beauregard did not march to Washington after 1st Bull Run?

H.G.

When I talk of 'self willed independence' I am not illustrating the 'spirit of the pioneer' but the arrogance of the demagogue.  The kind of "I did it my way" smugness being expressed by the current Republican nominee and many of the Brexit campaigners here in UK.

That kind of attitude where "I will continue to do it my way" represents a danger to those both supporting and those opposing the holder of it.  

I agree entirely that co-operation should not mean aquiescence or appeasement of the bully or the cheat.  However we no longer live in a world where we can dictate terms and rely on might as right.  We live in a world where even the strongest are vulnerable and all actions are subject to the law of unintended consequences.

Returning to 'what ifs' for a moment we should perhaps not be asking "what would have happened if the Confederacy had won the Civil War'  but "what would have happened if the Virginia state legislature had stopped to consider the alternatives to secession" or "what would have happened if Lincoln had decided on a less beligerent response to state secession".  

If those who rule us more fully considered the cost of their actions before willfully taking them.  If they asked "what if" we would live in a more sensible and peaceful world. 

The causes of the Civil War were as in all wars complex,  the North was just as much to blame as the South and in both cases it was the misdirected 'will' of the politicians that resulted in the cataclysm.  This 'will' was repeated in the run up to an even greater cataclysm in 1914.

Your excellent thread on PC has some overlap here.  There are times where our 'will', however righteous must be surrendered to the greater good.  There are times where we must tollerate those who offend us and they must tollerate us when we offend them.  The alternative to compromise is conflict, the result of "an eye for an eye" is a world where all are blind.

On a final note I grew up thinking Mr Lincoln was a dictator and a chicken pickin' carpet bagging Yankee who raised an army to terrorise his neighbours.  As I thankfully matured in my views and studied more history I realised that the concept of states rights (will) at any price was not worth the candle and that the 'will' of the demagogues and the strongmen were not worth anything. 

As the US moves towards the general election I hope that the people of that already great country might consider the price of "making America great again" and spare a thought for their forebears of the 1860's.     

Mainz, Germany

Dear Richter,

The conviction arose, during the American Revolution, that a foreign army could not effectively occupy an armed and resisting territory. That is part of the original rationale of the 2nd amendment. Though the British forces could occupy and control the cities for extended periods, if they marched out into the countryside, the small farmers, fearing loss of their land to aristocratic invaders, would rise up in arms, and often the American army had to run to keep ahead of the farmers. This was a consistent pattern in the North, during the Revolutionary War, and the Jeffersonian Republicans in particular sought to populate the West (particularly the old Northwest territory, East of the Mississippi and North of the Ohio) with small farmers for this reason. If you fly over the area, to this day you will see the great square blocks of land which were demarcated for this purpose. 

Many in Philadelphia were skeptical of the Civil War at the time, and there were very important business interests running North and South. Quaker Philadelphia, as you'd expect, given their pacifism, was not enthusiastic. But when the southern armies invaded Pennsylvania, a Philadelphia General (Meade) was sent out to meet and defeat them at Gettysburg. The invasion increased Northern support for the war effort.  Jefferson himself had regarded Virginia as "his country," and the importance of local and state loyalty was much more important in the early republic. Such thinking may have entered into inhibition of Confederate invasion plans.

Toward the end of the Revolutionary War, the British changed their strategy and invaded the South. With a few important exceptions, given the slave system, they did not there encounter the same popular armed resistance in the countryside. In consequence the aid of French troops and the French navy was crucial to the final victory over the British at Yorktown. However, when the Northern armies invaded the Confederacy, no foreign forces came in to actively support the South.

H.G. Callaway 

Mainz, Germany

Dear Turner,

Thanks for your clarification concerning the target of your critical remarks which I find congenial. I am unsure why you think of Trump as "independent." I suspect he's no more independent than his various "deals."

Regarding Lincoln and the Civil War, I recall that James Madison (A Virginian), who was the chief author of the constitution, gave as his final advice to this countrymen, one sentence, to the effect: whatever you do, preserve the Union.

That is exactly what Lincoln, as President, chiefly aimed to do, and I think the judgement of history is that he did the right thing. Traveling widely and even living for a time in the South, I have never encountered serious political opinion questioning the federal union. What you do encounter is local and regional pride and local loyalties which are in many ways admirable. This, too, belongs to a proper appreciation of American diversity.

For myself, I prefer our cold Northern Winters.

H.G. Callaway

H.G.

History often makes an action the right thing even where it was done for the wrong reasons.  No one would sensibly question the union and regional pride can be a good thing so long as it is not based on supressing the rights of others.

As for Trump, Lincoln did what he did for the Union, for what he believed was the greater good and history proved him right.   Trump does what he does for Trump, the sooner the 'little man' he claims to be 'the voice of' realises that the better for all.   

Ruediger

I think that Beauregard would not have even contemplated an attack on Washington that early in the war.  The Confederate Army was still largely a citizen militia, albeit commanded by extremely competant officers.  It is unlikely that it had the capacity for an offensive action against the Federal Capital.

1st Manassas (Bull Run) was a shock to both sides and a portent of what was to come.  

Dear H.G.

The reason for the "Southern Phase" of the Revolutionary War was the Treaty with the French in 1778, where France had officially recognized the United States as an independent nation with the signing of The Treaty of Alliance.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Richter,

As I recall, the treaty with France was a crowning achievement of the diplomacy of Benjamin Franklin. But do you mean to imply that the British shifted their strategy, because of the alliance?

The fact remains that the British had less trouble in the countryside where dominated by slavery and plantations--as contrasted with the small farmers of the Piedmont areas. Often enough, I don't think the great slaveholders much cared who ruled the country. Much the same was true of the tobacco traders in the South.

H.G. Callaway

Barry,

both sides in the Civil War were largely recruited as citizen militia troops. Maybe it appeared to audacious to march straight away to Washington? Johnston's troops arrived in Manassas by railway, anyway. Maybe they should have left just one station later.

In WWII there was a similar situation. After the victory about France the Germans stopped suddenly haunting the British Expedition Force and let them escape at Dunkirk.

regards

Ruediger

Ruediger

There are many theories about why Hitler did not destroy the BEF at Dunkirk.  If the German Army had chosen to it would have been a bloodbath on both sides and although the German Army would most likely have won the cost in casualties would have resembled the Kindermord bei Ypern, something many of the German commanders would have remembered.

Hitler never had an appetite for invading England and even during the half hearted plans for Sealion his mind was on the forthcoming Barbarossa.  He expected that England (Britain) would eventually, upon the subjugation of all Europe come around to suing for peace.  That was in fact at that stage of the war a sensible strategy.

As regards bad and worse options, I find that too cynical. If we settle for the lesser evil, as we usually do, where does that leave the greater striving for the greater good. A rhetorical question; hence no apostrophe. Paul

Ruediger,

Because Napoleon III helped the South from Mexico where he had troops, the winning North encouraged Bismack to enter into a war against Napoleon III and helped Preussia with new automatic guns, more efficient than french ones. So the most important consequence could be that the Franco-Preussian war would have never happened as well as WWI and II.

Napoleon III came into the french leadership by a putsch. I think Napoleon III was a dangerous "Illuminatus" and was fighting the North only because the French Monarchy had supported USA in the 1770's. He also had a dangerous agressive politic together with the British Empire against China ( opium wars ) and against Russia refusing Crimea to be in Russia. ( This question is again dangerously very actuelle ! )

Au diable guerres, rancunes et partis !

Best regards.

Jacques

Mainz, Germany

Dear Berthellemy,

It is true, of course that Napoleon III --and French troops--placed the Austrian Maximilian on an imperial throne in Mexico, during the American Civil War. As soon as the war was over, the French withdrew their support and Maximilian fell from power. However, you go beyond this. You wrote:

Because Napoleon III helped the South from Mexico where he had troops, the winning North encouraged Bismarck to enter into a war against Napoleon III and helped Prussia with new automatic guns, more efficient than french ones.

---End quotation

I wonder if you can give us some sources for this claim. It sounds interesting. Still, the Franco-Prussian war took place some 5-6 years after the end of the American Civil war, and by that time, as I recall, the U.S. Army had been built down from millions to a mere 30,000 men--at which level it stayed for the next 30 years. This was substantially a return to the "fear of standing armies" prevalent among the American founders.

After Napoleon III was released from captivity by the Prussians (he had been captured at Sedan), he went and lived in England where he was well treated; and he was even visited by Queen Victoria. This suggests that the British were not all that favorable to the Prussian cause at the time. Since the French had left Mexico at the end of the American Civil War, it is not clear to me what might have motivated an American intervention in European affairs at the time of the Franco-Prussian war --such as you claim. My impression is that most Americans, at the time, could not make much of the Franco-Prussian war. There was, certainly, a good deal of distaste for an Emperor in France, but likely also considerable distaste for Prussian militarism.  There was some perception in the U.S., I believe, of the decline of the Germany of "Dichter und Denker."

Can you say any more?

H.G. Callaway

This important question must address another important question. To what extent is it feasible for social science to predict - both hypothetically and empirically - future social trends? Popper would certainly have some relevant views on the matter. Paul

Dear Jacques,

nice to hear from you. I like your slightly mystic input! - Definitely the French ruling elite had a strong sympathy for the Confederacy. However they had declared their neutrality during the Civil War and had also abolished slavery in all of their territories. Therefore they were trapped to provide active support. Nevertheless France (even not officially recognizing the CSA) had accepted a CSA ambassador to represent the Confederacy in France (John Slidell - involved in the Trend affaire).To me it sounds reasonable, that France tried to support the CSA via Mexico. For a certain time it fairly looked as the confederates could win that war.

Napoleon III, Emperor of the French, tried to establish a six-month armistice, which certainly would help the CSA, but unfortunately was refused by the Lincoln Cabinet in 1863. Maybe Napoleon III was not a bad "Illuminatus". In case that he would have been be successful he would have saved the life a ten thousands of soldiers on both sides.

Libertas vita carior!

Rüdiger

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

The following may be of some interest to several contributors.

Looking around a bit, I found that after the Civil War, the U.S. put pressure on France to withdraw its troops from Mexico, which they eventually did. This greatly weakened the regime of Emperor Maximilian. He had been, in part, called in by Mexican monarchists, but didn't accept the call until after the French invasion of Mexico. During the entire time of his reign, his government was under great pressure from Mexican liberals and republicans who refused to recognize his rule. They ended up in a very bitter fight with many executions on both sides.

What the American government did, by way of aid to the Mexican republicans, was to "allow weapons to get lost" from American posts on the Texas border; and in this way the Americans aided the revolt which eventually overthrew Maximilian. I found no indication that Maximilian's government did anything to aid the CSA. Napoleon III might have wanted to foster such indirect aid to the Confederacy, but he wouldn't do so openly given that the British were not so inclined. Maximilian did resist French advice at times. 

It is hard to see how any American weapons could have got from the Mexican rebels to the Prussians; and it is somewhat implausible that the Prussians would have needed support from Mexico in their fight against the French second Empire. Of course the lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary, but I am left without any reason to believe that U.S. guns were sent to Prussia during the Franco-Prussian war.

It was clear from my readings that President U.S. Grant did not hold a high opinion of Napoleon III. He expected the Prussians to win once the war broke out. He sent a special envoy to Europe to observe what was going on, and this fellow decided to observe from the Prussian side. However, the American Minister in Paris at the time remained at his post through the war and through the siege of Paris. He acted to protect citizens of the North German confederation who were present in France during the war, and facilitated communication between the French and the Prussians. After the war, he was given awards by both sides.

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G.

Interesting, tat Napoleon III put with Maximilian I (Habsburg-Lotharingen) an Austrian Prince on the throne of Mexico, after he earlier had supported actively the Italian separatism in the French-Austrian War in 1859 against the K& K Monarchy. - Maybe Maximilian was the right candidate, because he was close to his uncle the King of Spain and Maximilian's Wife, as a Princess of Belgium, belonged to the German House "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha", which ruled Britain (and still does). At the End of the Civil War Napoleon III obviously tried to get in a closer touch to both of these nations (Spain and the UK).

kind regards R.B. Richter

I own the Memoirs of U.S. Grant, where he writes about Preussen (Prussia in English sound like Russia):

Like our own war between the States, the Franco-Prussian war was an expensive one; but it was worth to France all it cost her people. It was the completion of the downfall of Napoleon III. The beginning was when he landed troops on this continent. Failing here, the prestige of his name—all the prestige he ever had—was gone. He must achieve a success or fall. He tried to strike down his neighbor, Prussia—and fell.

With neighbor Grant is not completely right. Prussia only became neighbor with France after Bismarck took over step by step the other German States in order to create a DEUTSCHES REICH under the leadership of PREUSSEN.

Bismarck himself knew from his time as a student in Göttingen two Confederates: His Corpsbruder (Corps Hannovera) Mitchell C. King, Capt. 1st Carolina Inf. and, his "Gegenpaukant" in a student duell, Albrecht v. Röder (Corps Guestphalia Göttingen) in 1832 (24 Gänge Schläger):

http://www.wjk-verlag.de/buch.php?id_buch=65&kategorie_id=1&kat2=1

Regards

Rüdiger B. Richter

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Readers of this thread may find the following new question of interest:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_were_the_causes_of_the_American_Revolution

Please have a look.

H.G. Callaway

Maybe, because some honorable brothers freemasons found it necessary to provide an entire country with a constitution of a lodge.

Our good King Louis XVI was very happy to help these honorable brothers, because they were considered as merry fellows just singing and having good meals.

Unfortunately he lost his head after that. So the question could be the following :

Why did Louis XVI decide to send an Army ( Rochambeau ) and a large modern fleet ( de Grasse ) to America  ?  May be with the hope to free Quebec ?

Dear Jacques,

Masons also triggered the "French Revolution": The masonic book "A Ritual and Illustrations of Freemasonry" states, that: "The Masons… originated the Revolution with the infamous Duke of Orleans at their head.’”

Dear Ruediger,

Yea, Thanks ! it is an interesting book then it is a masonic book recognizing facts always well known in France but usually kept secret. 

The most important agents were Weisshaupt ( from the illuminati ), Marat ( the one that was stopped by the heroical Charlotte Corday ) and Robespierre ( obvious real name Rubinstein or Ruby : one of his descendant was still very activ in Dallas on 1963  fighting against catholic influence in the States ).

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby

Dear Jacques,

I think the "Illuminatenorden" is fully misunderstood, because of the recent literature (is it literature?) of Robert Shea, Robert Anton Wilson, even Umberto Eco (that is literature) and Dan Brown. 

When Prof. Adam Weisshaupt with a couple of his students at the University of Ingolstadt (Germany) founded the "Bund der Perfektibilisten" (as a forerunner of the Illuminatenorden) his original idea was to establish a countermovement against the overwhelming influence of Jesuits at his University and the "fraternity" and was at the beginning not much different to other student orders in Germany at this time such as "Harmonisten", "Amicisten" or "Constantinisten". It is assumed, that the German student orders had an impact on the American Greek letter societies. Only "SKULL AND BONES" in Yale is different, but definitely of German Origin, how it can be read in the "tomb": Wer war der Thor, wer Weiser, wer Bettler oder Kaiser?” [Who was the fool, who the wise man, who was the beggar and who the emperor?] and below the vault is engraved, in German characters, the sentence: “Ob arm, ob reich, im Tode gleich,” [Whether poor or rich, all’s the same in death.]. - Highly interesting, isn't it?

Regards Rüdiger

The problem with secret societies is their requirement for loyalty that has often extended beyond other loyalties such as to the state.  This is undoubtedly the basis of the conspiracy theories and the wilder fantasies often described in fiction.

Allegiance to these organisations more often than not is only ritual but outsiders naturally are supicious of them to the extent that any of their activities appear sinister and threatening.      

Freemasonry was a powerful influence in American politics and society from before the Revolutionary Wars and Masonic symbols are prominent in modern America most obviously on the currency.  

One of the most interesting influences of Freemasonry was on the foundation of the Church of Latter Day Saints and some of its rituals are still practiced by Mormons.    

Dear Barry,

nice to have you back on this forum of discussion.

kind regards

Ruediger 

Dear Barry,

nice to have you back on this forum of discussion.

kind regards

Ruediger 

I have read Malden A. Jones's account of German immigration to the Americas and notice the interesting patterns of distribution in each wave of immigration. 

Jones talks of the arrival of Germans in the late 17th century, principally to Pennsylvania, upstate NY, Georgia and North Carolina.  This population in the South would of course have provided a German element to the Confederate forces but they would by then of course have been several generations removed from their German and German Swiss Canton forebears.

The 17th century German immigrants had been largely displaced by the wars of Louis XIV particularly in the Rheinland Palatinate.  Most of these immigrants were not of sects such as Mennonites or Amish but were Lutheran or Calvinist Protestants.

According to Jones the wave of German immigrants arriving in the mid 19th century were not refugees from the German revolutions of 1848 but rather what we today call 'economic migrants'.  They were in the main from Württemberg, Baden or Bavaria and had left due to the economic consolidation of farms leading to small farmers being squeezed out of the market. Many of this wave of German migration settled in Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota and Iowa, predominantly in what would become the Union states.

One very interesting observation is of Bellville, Illinois in 1850.  The town had a German mayor, a German majority of the town council, three German language newspapers and even the local black population spoke German.

If Jones is providing us with an accurate account then it would appear that the Germans who took part on either side in the Civil War were actually ‘different’ Germans originating in different parts of Germany and with different histories.   

The skull and crossbones is a universal symbol not only of death but of loyalty.  One of the most famous cavalry regiments of the British Army the 17th Lancers wore it as a cap badge (see below).  The regiment saw extensive service in the American Revolutionary War and it was one of its members who informed George Washington of the cessation of hostilities.

Another famous unit who wore this badge was the Prussian Deaths Head Hussars.  The badge symbolises loyalty until death or death before dishonour.

It was worn also by the Nazi SS as a cap badge (totenkopf) and by some members of the Wehrmacht panzer troops on their collar patches.    

The origin of the cap badge is traced to a Colonel Hale (the regiment was also known as Hale's Light Horse) and it is said it was a memento mori of General Wolfe who was killed storming the Heights of Abraham in Quebec during the Seven Years War.  The Lancers Skull and Crossbones bears the motto "Or Glory"

An earlier manifestation of it was seen during the English Civil War on a flag which had a picture of both a skull and crossbones and a laurel wreath with the motto "One of These". Believed to also mean 'death or glory' or 'death or victory'.

Dear Prof. Clausel,

sorry for my late input. - I think you refer to the 17th Regiment of Hussars of Brunswig (Braunschweig). They were established only a little bit later than the 17th lancers.

By the way: the habit of the entire British Army is of Hannover origin (since 1742). From George I to Victoria (which was the grand mother of emperor Wilhelm II Hohenzollern). The ruling house of England just changed their name during WWI from Saxe Coburg (Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha) to Windsor.

kind regards

RBR

Dear Cecilia,

It is my fault, since I have replied late to your earlier input. I am also enthusiastic about classic architectural styles and have restored as a main business neo renaissance and art nouveau buildings for a couple of years. since it was more a practical issue I didn't publish a lot about my work.

I have loaded down your article: The Image of Architecture in Objects and I really like it. - Thank you about this anecdote. I believe it is true. Unfortunately Wilhelm is one of the most misunderstood rulers of the German Empire.

Himself I think he didn' t call it a "Hungarian Uniform" (Attila). He liked it because the "Husarenuniform" reminded him on the "Pekesche" of his Student-Fraternity "Corps Borussia Bonn", where he just was called "Fuchs Hohenzollern".

The picture below shows him as "Alter Herr" with the ribbon of Corps Borussia.

Thank you for your always interesting input.

R.B.R.

The Kaiser's daughter also thought the skull and crossbones chic!

Dear Barry,

nice to hear from you. Yes, That is Princess Victoria Louise of Prussia, Wilhelm's only daughter, named after her Grand-Grandmother. She was Honorary Colonel and Regimental Chief of the 2nd Life Hussar Regiment.

She married Ernst August of Brunswick (Braunschweig), son of the Duke of Cumberland and Grandson of King George V. - Therefore the link to Brunswick, Hanover and England is closed again.

I have the same picture in color.

kind regards

Rüdiger

One factor that is often forgotten somewhat conveniently is that the government of the North and Lincoln himself  were not talking about emancipation of the slaves, only the freeing of them.  The eventual if hopelessly impractical plan was to ship them back to Africa.

Few in 19th century North America, including the northern states loyal to the Union envisaged black former slaves becoming full citizens, it was in fact 100 years later that this became a reality for many descendants of the freed slaves.

The Confederacy with its anachronistic and inhuman institution of slavery could not have 'won' the Civil War.  It could have gained many more tactical advantages had its general staff been a little less reckless and its government less intransigent but in terms of an ultimate victory, that was never on the cards.