Does anyone else wish that the Confederacy had won it's independence?

Question

This question is NOT racially motivated!! Rather, about individual states to determine for themselves the legality of gay marriages, abortion, and other issues.

Answer 1

Yes I do. However it would not have taken long for them to realize that slavery would have to be abolished to gain ecinomic relations with other countries in the world.

Answer 2

First off....
The South didn't need the North to export the crops, that is straight stupid...much more that the North needed the crops of the South to supply the industry. Foreign relations would have been the only thing that would have stopped the Confederacy from export.
We were a battle away from getting help in the war, so foreign relations were being talked about during that time and the path was already being laid.

Unfair treatment of all minorities has been/ will always be/ the US problem. We fought a couple wars before the Civil War to protect our rights of independence and slave ownership as well.

The South would have owned the majority of the shipping industry belonging to the coast. We had America's heartland of farms. It would have been more of an possible lack of industrial progress that would have halted things...

The Union fought the war because half the country was leaving and the big fear was not the moral ground of slavery but the loss of a nation in whole. Slavery was added as a moral issue "after" the turning point of the war.

Now....

It would have depended on the focus of the government that spawned from the Civil War. I really think there would have been little difference, because the South gets the hateful glance no matter what.

Answer 3

There are many reasons that the south should have won, these are all based on superiority of the tactics that they had and the leadership. To be honest the General Lee was a mitiltary genious and had been offered the position at the head of the Union army and would have gladly taken it had Virginia not seceded from the Union. I saw an answer that said that slavery would have not lasted and that is very true, things would have evened themselves out since the rest of the "civilized world" had abondoned slavery by this point, but still held fast to the ideas of social standings, more based on background than colour. The fact that the union won is because of the overwhelming numbers that U.S. Grant had at his disposal, and when I say disposal that is exactly what he used them for.
Alot of people believe that the war was fought over slavery and the such, but that is just crap. The reason that the southern states had pulled out of the union is they believed that there rights had been taken away from them and that they could not govern themselves without the "approval" of the government.
The south was a very agriculturally based society, and the industrial revolution that swept the northern states scared these "farmers," who felt that there way of life was being threatened.
It is a little known fact that the son of John Qunicy Adams was actually a diplomat to Europe and used a glib tongue to prevent France and England from aiding the south in the war, for each country strongly wanted the southern confederacy to gain its independence (possible for the British as a sort of "justice" proving to the americas that it could not rule itself as they had thought.) Because of his Charles Francis Adams the south received little "official" aid from the British Empire and the French.
I don't know if the outcome would have been any better had the South won, or if things wouldnt have dissolved into something different, but I am certain that the world may have been a quite different place.

Answer 4

This is a fairly good question. I will have to say no, and not because of any issues regarding slavery or race. Part of the principle of the Confederacy was that the states were in a sense independent of each other with the Confederation existing for purposes of trade and mutual defence. However, it left open the door for unilateral secession. Indeed, South Carolina almost seceded from the Confederacy at one point. The result would likely have been a Confederation split apart once the Cotton States and the more northern industrial-based states realised their differences. This would have meant easy pickings for several would-be colonizers, with Britain being the most interested, and this might have happened with various states' consent. (Something of a nice way of regaining their former colonies.)

Answer 5

Slavery pobably woudl not have survived long in an independent Confederacy, but the racism would probably have been worse. I take what you asy at face value, and believe that your question is not based in racism, but to not address the core issues before and after the civil war would be shortsighted.
The south would have struggled hard to rebuild post war, most of the fighting happened in the south, the infrastructure was pretty much destroyed, and there was no industry outside of Richmond, this would not have proved very viable in the post war south. Salvery would eventually dissapear, but how would it have been done? What would the south do with freed slaves, one can only assume that there would be no equality, no vote for freed slaves. The massive povertry and disenfranchised masses would cause problems that we can't imagine, even with the historical events in our own country, without the big cities in the north ready to take a migration of freed slaves for industry, things would have been even worse than they were in reality.
As for the states rights issues, the confederacy in practice was far from the states rights model the apologists want to make us believe. Of course in a time of war the "government" in Richmond took steps to bring everyone together that likely would have relaxed once the war was over, but not to the levels of independence we might think.
I am a federalist, I believe in the importance of a strong central government, many of the improvements and lifestyle benifits we have today would not have happened without a national movement, do you think the state of Florida could have put a man on the moon, or irradicated Small Pox? Together we are much stronger.
The issues you mentioned are not simple issues state to state, the red state vs blue state is a gross over simplification of our nation, and those who fall into that simple minded model are meerly tools for the political hacks that run things. The fact is there are people who are very much for gay rights in the middle of Indiana, and there are strong pro-life people in the middle of California.

Answer 6

It seems to me that your question is really about states rights, and not about a hypothetical Confederate win in the Civil War. For many reasons, there was really no way the South could have won that war. If the early Union generals had not been so militarily inept, the North would have won in a matter of months, not years.

But...... I digress......

I am in favor of states rights being strengthened, along with a strong federal government that defers it's authority to the states on many issues. However, when it comes to the issues you mention, not only are the logistics of such a system unfeasible, but in actual practice it would probably lead to the continued polarization of America.

Only the changing of hearts and minds can lead to true liberation and grace for all under the ultimate authority of God. And that cannot be achieved through hatred or violence.

Answer 7

No. I think the Civil War came about because there was a realization that there are aspects of running a country comprised of individual entities that require a common understood set of laws. Slavery was certainly an obvious issue and it did pave the way for the issues you mention in your question. However, if your issue is about the intrusive nature of the Federal governement and its control over states, I think money is the real issue.

The Federal governemnt attaches conditions to funds it provides the states. States are free to turn down the funding and free themselves of meeting the conditions in question, but there aren't too many states that could afford to do that.

Answer 8

The south would have collapsed without the North. They depended on the north to purchase and export their crops. A plantation system of slavery wouldn't have survived on it's own for long. And the Civil War was about race, along with state rights. The "black question" needed to be resolved.

Answer 9

Only for the fact that many young boys gave their lives in a lost cause. The courage and valor of Pickett's Charge was for naught....just sad to think about the losses, you'd think they'd earn independence after spilling their blood...but that's just me.

Regarding the guy above who thinks that Germany would've won WWII if the South was independent doesn't think of the high likelihood that the north and south would've been allies in WWII.

Answer 10

It would make an interesting change in our current situation. Although I would probably not be allowed to use the Internet if that happened, so I have to say no!! The irony is that the ideas of the Confederacy are the same ideals that started America, in a way, you an say they were true patriots...in a very odd demented way...but patriots nonetheless!!!

Answer 11

if it had, i think a large portion would have later returned to the union.
there would not have been enough manufactureing to bring needed prosperity in the long run.
i do think that if the south had won the war it would have set a precident whereby the us government would have been more wary than it is now about lording it over the state governments, and therefore the rights of the individual.