English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If the South had won the War of Northern Agression (or 'Civil War'), where might our two countries be today? Given how bad things have gotten in the U.S.A., it's not hard to believe that history might have taken a better turn. Slavery of course would be long gone, for economic reasons. Race relations today in the Old South, in rural areas and cities such as Charleston, South Carolina, are generally better than they are in northern cities.. When southerners say they have a special relationship with blacks based on many generations of living together at close quarters, they have a point. The real damage to race relations in the south came not from slavery, but from Reconstruction.

Certainly Southerners would not be living under the iron rule of an all-powerful federal government, as we all do now. Northerners might not be, either; a Union defeat would have given states' rights a boost in both countries. The Tenth Amendment might still have the force of law even up north.

2006-12-08 07:09:50 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Alternative Parapsychology

It is possible that both countries might still be republics, instead of a single empire. That transformation traces to America's entry into World War I, which might not have happened. No American entry into the war would have meant no Communism in Russia and no Hitler in Germany.

That's not a bad bargain. It is highly unlikely that the Confederacy would have embraced the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness that is fast becoming the official American state ideology. So at least part of North America would still stand for Western culture, Christianity and an appreciation of the differences between ladies and gentlemen.

2006-12-08 07:09:58 · update #1

16 answers

I know one thing. If the Old South would have been attacked by terrorists on 9/11, the terrorists would be no longer. We would go in, and win the war, not pussyfoot around like we are doing now.

The South would be full of ladies, not these women we have nowadays, and would have little need for abortion or same-sex marriage laws.

And I promise you, illegal immigration would have stopped long ago if illegals had to go to a different hospital and school than citizens.

The North would have their high taxes, and abortions, and homosexuals, and illegal immigrants, and no war, and they would be happy. The South would have ladies, and low taxes, and no illegal immigrants, and war and more capitalism, and we would be happy.

In fact, that seems like a pretty good idea.

2006-12-08 07:12:55 · answer #1 · answered by i hate hippies but love my Jesus 4 · 4 3

Harry Turtledove has written a whole series of alternative history novels based on the concept of the South winning the war.

Alternate History — The South have won the American Civil War; this posits what would then happen over the next century. (The series consists of several smaller series and has no official title)

How Few Remain (1997)

The Great War Trilogy
American Front (1998)
Walk in Hell (1999)
Breakthroughs (2000)

The American Empire Trilogy
Blood and Iron (2001)
The Center Cannot Hold (2002)
The Victorious Opposition (2003)

The Settling Accounts Tetralogy
Return Engagement (2004)
Drive to the East (2005)
The Grapple (2006)
In at the Death (expected in 2007)

2006-12-08 07:16:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Aviator: what does "Norther" mean?
> When you started out by calling the civil war the War of Norther Aggression I started to have my doubts<
If you are going to criticize someone else's typo, you should at least spell-check yourself.

As for the question...

Maybe if the South had won, the US wouldn't have a central government which has grown ridiculously powerful far beyond anything the Founding Fathers envisioned. State's rights have been thoroughly trampled.

The Confederates were just dismayed at what they saw as a betrayal of the stated purposes of Founders, who had envisioned a weak central government. You hear many on the Left today who embrace dissent, but many of these same leftys would have denied the Confederacy the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established.

2006-12-08 07:48:41 · answer #3 · answered by robertbdiver 3 · 2 0

There could stay 2 separate countries. The CSA could have ended slavery themselves interior of 10-15 years. The races could have a much greater efficient commencing place for peace between as an excellent style of the justifications for racism interior the South right this moment is a right away results of Reconstruction and subjugation with the aid of the U. S.. the USA of a could have a weaker state and local government with a good greater overbearing Federal government than is at present right here. The CSA could proceed to have a stable State and local government with a small streamlined properly prepared Centralised government. individual rights could be in place interior the CSA yet no longer interior the USA of a. Democrats may be the conservatives and different events could flesh out something interior the CSA. interior the USA of a the liberals could stay the Republicans. The Democrats could stay the conservatives interior the USA of a besides. countless of the northern Mexican providences could have entered the CSA giving them get right of entry to to the two oceans. the USA of a could have persevered to enhance west besides giving her get right of entry to to the two oceans. The CSA could be better economically than the USA of a. the two could grow to be superpowers one after the other and for various motives. the USA of a could have entered the two wars as she did. The CSA could have despatched help yet would not have invaded yet another united states of america.

2016-10-05 01:33:13 · answer #4 · answered by lashbrook 4 · 0 0

Interesting question - one of the better one's on Y!A. But I disagree with your connection between Hitler, Communism and the effect the configuration of the United States being one country instead of two, had on Germany and Russia. But I think you are right about gentlemen and ladies, manners and courtesies, and the race issue. Reconstruction, as you correctly point out, was anything but 'reconstruction'. It was a fancy term for solidifying control over the people, culture, economics and dreams of the southerners.

Most of my ancestors fought for the Southern cause, and some were forced to fight for the Union. I will be exploring some of the items you raise, as I write my book about the history of a family and what they had to do during the Civil War, including the stories of those who didn't care for either side and were forced to choose, or simply just 'forced'.

2006-12-08 07:26:57 · answer #5 · answered by commonsense 5 · 3 2

I think you are confusing the issues. Happy dreaming!! I believe that the South losing the war was inevitable, taking into account the drastic changes that were happening elsewhere in the world. Even if the South won militarily in that war, it would still be a matter of time before things would have changed, forcefully or otherwise, in the South in the form of civil disturbances, outside aggression, revolution, anything.

2006-12-08 07:17:24 · answer #6 · answered by seek_fulfill 4 · 1 1

Northern Aggression my butt. The rebels fired on a legitimate Federal military installation to start the formal war, and had been conducting guerrilla war in the years preceding (see Bleeding Kansas, for example). This was all done in the name and for the purpose of maintaining human chattel slavery, an immoral institution that could never be the foundation of a true republic.

Don't just think it is the blacks that are offended by seeing a Confederate flag today. Anyone with a knowledge of history should appreciate that it is a banner of a bunch of rebels who committed an act of treason against the country they owed allegiance to, and further that it stood for a pretended nation where one man could own another.

2006-12-08 07:25:11 · answer #7 · answered by LoneStar 6 · 3 3

I think that world history in the last 150 years is far too complex to answer this question easily.

I think there'd be inherent problems between states, perhaps even border disputes. We'd have splintered, and we'd probably not have had the industrial revolution when we did.

2006-12-08 07:31:50 · answer #8 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 1 0

We would be several smaller countries. No reason for Texas or California or the Northwest to stay in the union if it doesn't exist.

2006-12-08 07:13:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

The South would be a backwater totally dominated by the superior industrial and military might of the North.

And that "special relationship" stuff is a paternalistic bunch of crap it exists as long as blacks "mind their place and don't "get uppity" after reconstruction ended you had the KKK, Jim Crow, Lynchings and segregation -- separate and unequal.

2006-12-08 07:15:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers