If you could go back in time and hit the reset button...

[Logwyn]

Lincoln never laid out any sort of plan for reconstruction because he was too busy trying to end the war. He didn't have time to work out any details about what might have come after it. I also don't think Lincoln would have "punished" the South, but he certainly wouldn't have made things easy for them either.

I'm going to skip the other section as this one is wrong very very wrong. Lincoln devised the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction or the 10% plan. He had plans and ideas just Booth decided to shoot him and it fell to Johnson.

[Grimbold21]

330 bc and convince Alexander the Great to go west. See how that shapes the future

[downnola]

I'm going to skip the other section as this one is wrong very very wrong. Lincoln devised the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction or the 10% plan. He had plans and ideas just Booth decided to shoot him and it fell to Johnson.

That's fine, don't mind me while I skip the rest of this conversation then.

[Orby]

I'll just reset my life again, selfish I know.

But there is so many times I feel like I messed up, took something for granted or could have done better, I would wanna do it right this time. Maybe enjoy my childhood more.

[Logwyn]

That's fine, don't mind me while I skip the rest of this conversation then.

Sounds fine to me when you have tons of inaccuracies and aren't willing to admit it.

[downnola]

Sounds fine to me when you have tons of inaccuracies and aren't willing to admit it.

Inaccuracies? Having "ideas" about how to navigate reconstruction (like moving former slaves out west, for example) is not the same thing as having a concrete plan laid out. We don't know how Lincoln would have managed reconstruction and we can only guess at how he would have went about it by piecing some of his comments and speeches together. He was literally killed before he had a real plan worked out. That's a historical fact.

If you want to talk about inaccuracies, how about the claim that the North was more racist then the part of the country that spawned the Klu Klux Clan, routinely lynched black people, and made segregation law in every former confederate state? And you want to cherry pick what you want to respond to from my posts just to win some "gotcha games?" How disingenuous can you possibly be?

[Stelio Kontos]

Either April 1204 AD or April-May 1453, the Fourth Crusade sacking Constantinople or the fall and desecration of Constantinople to the Turks, though if the first didn't occur, maybe the second could have been avoided.

[tromage2]

Between 1999 and 1900

Could finally return to the 80s and 90s where people were normal and the SJW/PC crazy cult was not around yet destroying everything.

[Coolthulhu]

I'd go way, way back. 650 BC, give or take. I think it'd be interesting to see the result of the Achaemenid flame getting snuffed before it turned to wildfire.

[Zeth Hawkins]

I would go back when I was like 14 years old and just discovering girls. We used to go over her house and play in the backyard. One day she asked me to help her clean up the toys in her backyard. I didnt, and my buddy did. Now their both married.

That’s rough, buddy.

[Flarelaine]

I would have prevented Bush Sr from being elected, This Dukakis preventing the first Iraq war and each subsequent action thereafter as a result.

That war was a necessary intervention, flowing logically from the fact that Saddam invaded a sovereign country. Dukakis would have moved in just the same.

- - - Updated - - -

Change the treaty of Versailles to let Germany save some face, include with it a need for European governments to work together based on social democratic principles and the goal to establish one united Europe free from nationalistic ideas.

Considering all the havoc the Great War wrought in Europe, I would rather go back and try to prevent it. Being softer on Germany may or may not prevent the second war. Having the European nations work together is nice, but the Second World War was barely enough incentive to cooperate in earnest so I don't really see the following you would need after the First.

- - - Updated - - -

Eh ensuring humans never made it to America until the 1000s would be a fun one

Suddenly mammoths

Even sinking the three little boats of Columbus could have made a profound change.

- - - Updated - - -

Either April 1204 AD or April-May 1453, the Fourth Crusade sacking Constantinople or the fall and desecration of Constantinople to the Turks, though if the first didn't occur, maybe the second could have been avoided.

I think the sacking of Constaninople was a foregone conclusion by the time the Crusaders were at the walls. The empire had been hollowed out by usurpation and civil war.

On the other hand, going back the Battle of Myriokephalon and warning Manuel of ambush may have tipped the balance of power in Anatolia. It may have extended Manuel's life enough to raise his son, hand off power to him and keep the Komnenian Restoration going. I think that would have ensured the survival of the empire better than any last-ditch spectacle.

[Die]

I'd go back to 2011 and prevent Fukushima from melting down. In less than 1 year after the meltdown, about 36% of children living in Fukushima Prefecture had abnormal growth in their thyroid glands. I fear all the cancer and lower quality of life for that generation. Also, major storms continue to batter the facility and sometimes new radiation leaks emerge to pollute the Pacific.

If I had the power to go back and change things, this would be it and there's nothing even close. Who knows how many thousands of years this will damage the environment going forward.

10,000 years from now, they may not remember a single thing about life in the 21st century. But they will still be dealing with Fukushima and the sarcophagus housing it. It is our legacy to the future. It will form their opinion of us. When they think of the 20th century, they will think of Chernobyl. Unfortunately, you've only given me the power to prevent 1 of these meltdowns and I'll pick the one that is openly exposed to an ocean every time.

I suppose I could go back in time and prevent the scientific community from thinking nuclear power plants are a good idea. Seems too vague though for this exercise.

[Mayhem]

Considering all the havoc the Great War wrought in Europe, I would rather go back and try to prevent it. Being softer on Germany may or may not prevent the second war. Having the European nations work together is nice, but the Second World War was barely enough incentive to cooperate in earnest so I don't really see the following you would need after the First.

Just too many kings and queens involved in the first to create meaningful change before ww1 I fear.

[Flarelaine]

Just too many kings and queens involved in the first to create meaningful change before ww1 I fear.

By and large I agree, but how about removing Wilhelm II before he gets a chance to sack Bismarck and allows his Anglophobia to turn Britain against Germany?

[Mayhem]

By and large I agree, but how about removing Wilhelm II before he gets a chance to sack Bismarck and allows his Anglophobia to turn Britain against Germany?

Uhm, sure if you can be certain of the outcome and Germany turning to democracy and not to another leader instead? I don't think creating power vacuums is a great idea in most cases.

[Flarelaine]

Uhm, sure if you can be certain of the outcome and Germany turning to democracy and not to another leader instead? I don't think creating power vacuums is a great idea in most cases.

No, I would not be expecting Germany to turn democratic overnight. However, such a change might arguably leave Bismarck in charge who was adamantly committed to his version of the balance of powers (and he was named the Iron Chancellor for a reason). He may also be able to hand off the reins of power to someone sharing his worldview. France was isolated and Russia and England at least peaceful towards Germany until Wilhelm's sabre-rattling disturbed it all.

[Logwyn]

Inaccuracies? Having "ideas" about how to navigate reconstruction (like moving former slaves out west, for example) is not the same thing as having a concrete plan laid out. We don't know how Lincoln would have managed reconstruction and we can only guess at how he would have went about it by piecing some of his comments and speeches together. He was literally killed before he had a real plan worked out. That's a historical fact.

If you want to talk about inaccuracies, how about the claim that the North was more racist then the part of the country that spawned the Klu Klux Clan, routinely lynched black people, and made segregation law in every former confederate state? And you want to cherry pick what you want to respond to from my posts just to win some "gotcha games?" How disingenuous can you possibly be?

If you want me to start pulling out primary and secondary sources to back up my position I'm more than willing to do so. To say Lincoln had no plan at all is flat out wrong.

About the North from the Civil War until the Civil Rights movement racism was bad very bad in the north. Go look up the Great migration. Guess where this sign is from? Detroit.