Comments John Farrier Likes

For me, it was seeing a "Luminist Movement" exhibit at the Smithsonian in the 1970s. It introduced me to the Luminist and Hudson River School painters. I went through the gallery several times with my jaw out of place. Since then, I've sought out the works of Church, Bierstadt, Moran, Cole, and others, and I've been to Church's "Olana" estate in New York. I especially love those who employed that romantic style to the great western landscapes of the U.S.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

That's awesome. It reminds me a little of a photo I made using a completely unrelated method: I used a cheap plastic magnifying glass in lieu of a proper lens on my camera. The blurry streaks off the back sort of look the same. (that's a mannequin)
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The first Doctor said his body was wearing a bit thin, then he collapsed to the floor. The seventh woke up in surgery and pleaded with the OR team to stop because the anasthetic was killing him.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
There are a few people who lived such a life. I know one who sponsors what education she can and inserting her story when she is able.

One time we toured the Museum of Tolerance and at the end, she slipped the guide a tip. He tried to give it back. I told him that he could either keep it or donate it, but returning a compliment from a Holocaust survivor is an insult that would reverberate for life.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Had the honor of speaking to Bob Denver on the phone for an interview for about 30 minutes in 2002. A fine gentleman. He told a story of kids in a foreign airport storming Alan Hale, yelling Skipper!, which alarmed security people who were brandishing automatic weapons.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@ JoeD: I'm not sure I'd ever heard that Lincoln believed it was going to die out on its own. That's very interesting, so I will try to find a copy of those letters you mentioned.

@ John Farrier: What if, as part of my overall alternate timeline, Lincoln decided that he wasn't going to be so gung-ho about keeping the Union together in the short term. So, instead of going to war over it, the South is given what they want: their own country. And that country slowly suffocates and dies out bit by bit due to its continued use of slavery. Other anti-slavery countries won't do business with them as much anymore, and any farmer that chooses machines over slaves can manage more crops for less cost, so they underbid the slave-owners in every market.

As the CSA dies out over the next several decades, the USA re-acquires whichever territories willingly come back to the fold. Of course, in the intervening time period, the USA would have passed anti-slavery laws, as well as establishing citizenship and voting rights, which the prodigal states must agree to before being readmitted. Imagine the welcome home celebration as each state returned!

Under these circumstances, I could envision a situation where, by about 1900, half the CSA seceded from itself and re-joined the USA. What's left of the CSA would be dying, as the cancer eats away, as you put it. That means mass emigration, as we have seen from Mexico for many years. Since I haven't heard anyone suggest that we forcibly take over Mexico just because many of their people are suffering, I don't see why we would forcibly rescue the CSA over many people suffering. We tend to have a National Security/Defense of the Nation reason to invade another country, like Bush did with the WMD's in Iraq (whether you believe he told the truth is irrelevant to this point).

It's also possible that if Mexico decided to allow slavery, part of the CSA would go that way. Or maybe they'd join Mexico, stay for a few decades, finally realize the grass is just brown and dying there, and secede their way back to the USA the long way.

We didn't have 50 states till Hawaii in August of 1959. I cannot bring myself to think that it is a bad thing to allow that to occur in a slightly different manner. I believe most, if not all, of the CSA would have come back to the fold by 1960.

Yes, that's 100 years later, but I think that would be an interesting alternate history, if nothing else.

IMO, allowing at least some of the southern states to break away without conflict would result, in the long run, in exactly what Lincoln said he wanted, "...a more perfect Union..."
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.


Page 247 of 303     first | prev | next | last

Profile for John Farrier

  • Member Since 2012/08/04


Statistics

Blog Posts

  • Posts Written 19,344
  • Comments Received 51,966
  • Post Views 30,960,947
  • Unique Visitors 25,287,742
  • Likes Received 29,133

Comments

  • Threads Started 3,745
  • Replies Posted 2,208
  • Likes Received 1,618
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More