CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

I figured this would be a fun thread for those history buffs out there.

We will present an alternate history idea then we can comment on it and give some theories as to what we think would have happened(all in good fun of course).

I shall begin. What if Frederick I Holy Roman Emperor had not drowned at the Saleph River and led his armies into battle against Saladin.(historically after he drowned, a lot of his men either deserted, committed suicide or were killed. Without a strong leader they were helpless). Would this have changed the outcome of the Third Crusade?

so would you accept stuff like:

What if Jonah didn't go to Ninava? (I know I spelled the place wrong...)

or is that too boarder line?

Yamamaya... is your signature a picture of a girl with her throat slit?

Really freaky, man...

Mr. SmartyPants (post: 1429606) wrote:Yamamaya... is your signature a picture of a girl with her throat slit?

Really freaky, man...

You think that's creepy you should hear her laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1hiYPLYz9c

Yeah that's fair Furen lawl.

What if Great Britain had given the American colonists representation in Parliment? Was the Revolution inevitable, or would it never have happened? Maybe we would eventually have gained our independence peacefully. How would this change other events, like the Civil War?

Edward (post: 1430529) wrote:What if Great Britain had given the American colonists representation in Parliment? Was the Revolution inevitable, or would it never have happened? Maybe we would eventually have gained our independence peacefully. How would this change other events, like the Civil War?

I think independence was inevitable, but maybe not revolution. Think about European colonization in other places like South America, Asia and Africa - independence eventually occured, whether by revolution or peaceful means.

The reason I think that revolutation may not have happened with the U.S. in this scenario is because so many (in fact, the majority of) colonists were royalists. America, by and large, liked being British.

For the British, supporting such a rapidly growing and large colony on the other side of the ocean was becoming difficult by the 1770s, and certainly would be even harder as the years passed. It would make sense for them to let the U.S. have it's freedom as the decades passed, with little or no violence.

The Civil War...I dunno. It's possible that the U.S. would feel more a sense of union if British colonization was longer and ended peaceably. That's an interesting question...

Edward (post: 1430529) wrote:What if Great Britain had given the American colonists representation in Parliment? Was the Revolution inevitable, or would it never have happened? Maybe we would eventually have gained our independence peacefully. How would this change other events, like the Civil War?

We only need look at the other British colonies and their eventual "release" from their status. Sure, they still pay lip service to the queen but they are effectively independent.

I think that the biggest difference would lie in the political culture. For all the flak that we get for being almost indistinguishable with you guys, if you take a deeper look at it, you'll find a lot of significant differences between Canadian and US political culture. I'm not even talking about fairly surface-level or obvious things like the setup of Congress versus that of Parliament. There's a fundamental difference in the core values that the two governments (and electorate) hold and place an emphasis on.

TWWK wrote:The Civil War...I dunno. It's possible that the U.S. would feel more a sense of union if British colonization was longer and ended peaceably. That's an interesting question...

Not really. The Civil War had pretty much nothing to do with a sense of union since it was about slavery and states' rights in regard to slavery, which would have happened anyway regardless I'm sure.

EDIT: Actually since Britain abolished slavery by the time of the Civil War, it's possible that they could have extended that to the US if colonization had ended peacefully. Of course, a new war between the South and the North/Britain could possibly have occurred, but there's no way the South would have won that one, so it's pretty much a moot point.

Nate (post: 1430573) wrote:Not really. The Civil War had pretty much nothing to do with a sense of union since it was about slavery and states' rights in regard to slavery, which would have happened anyway regardless I'm sure.

Nate, it had EVERYTHING to do with union. The south felt the United States were a looser confederation than the north did. States' rights were being infringed upon, according to them.

The U.S. decided to be separate but together because of their experiences with Great Britain. My point was that if war had never occurred, the U.S. might have had stronger federal power. That certainly may have affected whether a Civil War occurred or not.

TWWK wrote:Nate, it had EVERYTHING to do with union.

Except it didn't. As I said, it was about slavery, and the fact that the South felt that the North was infringing on their states' rights because the North refused to return escaped slaves to the South.

The North basically said "We don't think slavery is right. Deal with it." This in turn caused the South to say "Well then forget you, we'll make our OWN country where slavery is totally awesome."

If you continue to deny this, I can go dig up the Charters of Secession for all the states that seceded and show you were they said "We're quitting the US because of slavery," as well as the Vice President of the Confederacy saying "We're the first country in the history of the world to be created based on the truth that blacks are inferior to whites."

It was always about slavery. It had NOTHING to do with union. Which is why I said that barring Britain extending the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 to the US, the Civil War would have happened anyway.

Nate (post: 1430610) wrote:Except it didn't. As I said, it was about slavery, and the fact that the South felt that the North was infringing on their states' rights because the North refused to return escaped slaves to the South.

Maybe we're arguing the same thing, but with different semantics. The Civil War occurred because the northern, industrialized states were wanted to tell the south to get rid of slavery. The agricultural south depended on slavery, and told the north that they had no right to infringe on their landowners' rights to own slaves.

This is what you said:

The Civil War had pretty much nothing to do with a sense of union since it was about slavery and states' rights in regard to slavery...

So we agree.

The north took a more federalist approach, believing in a stronger central government. The south argued for more freedom for the states. Of course, this struggles go on 150 years after the Civil War began, now in the pose of Republicans and Democrats.

My argument was that if the U.S. gained freedom through peaceable means, there would be a stronger sense of federalism throughout the country. The states came together in a distrustful manner, fearing that the same centralized power would rule in the U.S. as it did in Great Britain. However, this distrust may not have existed if there was no need for revolution. Perhaps, then, the U.S. may have industrialized the south, making slavery less of an issue, and maybe most southerners would have thought the idea of secession silly, as most would today, since the union would be stronger.

What I meant by a strong sense of union was that it a feeling of being "American" rather than a "Virginian" may have developed if the central government had been stronger from the start.

Would the Civil War have happened? Probably, possibly, maybe, who knows? But I'm giving an argument that a stronger central government would have come out of a peaceful breakaway and could have prevented a war.

TWWK wrote:Maybe we're arguing the same thing, but with different semantics.

This is quite likely, actually.

However, this distrust may not have existed if there was no need for revolution. Perhaps, then, the U.S. may have industrialized the south, making slavery less of an issue, and maybe most southerners would have thought the idea of secession silly, as most would today, since the union would be stronger.

Hmm, I dunno. It's hard to say. Slaves were very important to the south because of agriculture, as you were saying. I don't know if they'd felt more unionized or together, if it would have made a difference if the South had been opposed to industrialization. Without turning this TOO religious, the South at the time was pretty dominantly Christian (not too different from today), and we all know that traditionally, many Christians have problems with new technology or inventions...look at radio, TV, comic books, video games, internet, rock music, and so on.

With that in mind, it's likely that the South at the time just saw industrialization as "them evil machines" and wanted no part of it, especially since they were doing pretty well for themselves with plantations and farms. In that sense, a feeling of unity might not have been enough to overcome that.

That's all theory of course, and I have no way of proving if the South was technophobic or what, but it would make sense. Still, there's really no way to know for sure, I suppose, but at any rate like I said, it probably wouldn't matter. Even if the South had seceded anyway despite the US gaining independence through peaceful means, they would have been soundly defeated anyway, and not much would change on that front.

Well, sticking around with Britain for a bit longer hasn't stopped us from having our politics defined by regionalism and fights over provincial-federal jurisdiction for almost 150 years now. I think that when you have countries as large and diverse as Canada and the US, national unity is going to be a non-trivial problem, regardless of the circumstances.

Edit:

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang[/color][/font]

What if no one invented waffles?

Mess up on my editing: Oh well!

Midknight74012 (post: 1430636) wrote:What if no one invented waffles?

I guess they'd call it Pancake House then. :p

blkmage (post: 1430563) wrote:I think that the biggest difference would lie in the political culture. For all the flak that we get for being almost indistinguishable with you guys, if you take a deeper look at it, you'll find a lot of significant differences between Canadian and US political culture. I'm not even talking about fairly surface-level or obvious things like the setup of Congress versus that of Parliament. There's a fundamental difference in the core values that the two governments (and electorate) hold and place an emphasis on.

I would strongly agree with this statement. The origins of a country will always strongly determine the culture of the politics therein.

What if Google created self-writing e-mails instead of self-driving cars?

I think it will work just as well as the Google search. Searching for one thing but not seeing it in the thousands of sites that's displayed.

What if we had personal airplanes instead of cars?

What if after the U.S Civil War The Jim Crow laws of the south never succeeded into becoming law. What would America be like without ever having any legalized segregation?

Let's not take this thread that direction, please.

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause a problem.

What if the thread hadn't gone that direction?

What if Theodore Roosevelt's name had been Bill Roosevelt?

We'd call our stuffed bears 'Billy Bears'? :?

But then we'd get it confused with Billy Beer.

What/who?

I Wiki'd it, and "Billy Beer" is both a kind of beer and a really old English football player. o.O

What if aliens had invaded during WWII? We could all be speaking Martian today.