Had the Confederacy won the War Between the States, I think the United States, consisting of the 25 remaining states, would pretty much have gone on as it has, with some inevitable changes. The westward expansion would have continued, although now the territories would be picked over between the USA and the CSA. And there's no guarantee that another war wouldn't have broken out over the fight for land. Trade and commerce between the USA and the CSA would be established, but I'm not so sure how well that would have worked out. The people of the North may have protested that since the main crop that the Confederacy had to export - cotton - was the product of slave labor. If I were a resident of the USA after my country had just been defeated and slavery allowed to remain in place, I wouldn't be too happy with my government for establishing trade with the nation that kept slavery.
I also think that, eventually, the United States would once again contain the former Confederate states as a part of the Union. The reason I think this is because the main platform that the Confederacy was fighting for was State's Rights, that being the right of the individual states to govern themselves without interference from a centralized, or "federalized," government. Any nation founded on this principle is doomed to failure, because if the nation is to succeed they must have one governing body that can organize and administer the individual states and form them into a cohesive, effective nation. The concept of "state's rights" flies right in the face of this, and I don't think the Confederacy would have lasted more than 25 years, tops. By that time slavery would have died out on its own, so there wouldn't be any reason not to take the former Confederate states back into the Union. Enough time would have passed that the hard feelings on the part of the North would be gone, so the assimilation of the Southern states back into the Union would be relatively painless for all.
But that's just my opinion.
2007-02-04 15:00:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Team Chief 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I suspect it would not be much different than it is currently. There would be two separate countries yes, but then, if you look at this last presidential election, we're already there. There are the land owners: they voted Republican and then you have the inner city dwellers/renters: they voted Democrat. I'd venture to say this time, the South won (figuratively). *later, for the knucklehead that gave me a thumbs down* When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the American economy was so great that America was fianancially supporting England , not the other way around. So, everytime he wrote of "Freedom" what he was actually referring to was money. Those that have it are far more free and have far greater choices from which to choose than those who have little or none. Those who have little or none then, are enslaved to their creditors. He was serving the King due notice that Americans would no longer be willingly enslaved. With all of this in mind, what is socialism (as proposed by the Democrats) but slavery of the masses to the government. Socialism then, goes exactly contrary to the ideals on which America was founded. So again I say, it appears this time, the South won. Stand by to be enslaved.
2016-05-24 09:47:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Slavery would have been totally banned in the North. Slavery would have continued in the south until some sort of machine was invented that not only could gin cotton, but could plant it and pick it. At such time, it would be uneconomical to have slaves and many slave owners would have given them their freedom. Of course, the newly freed slaves would have been in even worse shape than they were after the Civil War and probably many of them would have been forced to go to Liberia. Segregation against the ex-slaves that remained would have been even worse than it was. The north would have continued to be an economic power house and spread to the west coast. The south would have only stayed the southern states going west to Texas. The north would probably be much like the USA is today. The south would still be poorer than the north, but more so, and probably would have remained a predominantly rural nation. Once slavery ended, the South probably would have continued on out of pride but I think by now, they would have moved to re-unit the union.
2007-02-05 11:12:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
2 nations
2007-02-04 14:09:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by Peyton 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
the South would be more than a few fractured states that resisted the Union and the GOP's attempts at infringing upon other peoples way of life
once again people like Bush are at it again, this time the whole US may bust out in civil war when many wake up to see he has successfully be used to rescind a good part of the Constitution, even though he swore to protect it
I doubt we would have invaded Iraq, more likely Mexico
2007-02-04 15:03:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by voice_of_reason 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
What we didn't win?????????
Seriously I believe that neither country would survive long had the Union split. I feel (and this is just a feeling) that most of the states would disband from the Union or another country would just walked in
2007-02-04 14:34:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by freebyrd1964a 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
North America would probably look a lot like Europe and have 30 countries.
2007-02-04 14:12:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
the confederates would dominate the world because they would have all the free slave labor the north hated so much but greatly benefited from. I feel the south will rise again.
2007-02-04 14:11:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by Edna Bambrick 1
·
2⤊
3⤋
In a way, they did. The country's full of rednecks. Look at the president of the U.S. And, by the way, he's STILL the president! No this is not a dream. There is no sign of him being empeached. Americans actually want to have him around the maximum allotted time that a president can be in office. Somehow they want to pretend they want otherwise. Sorry, it doesn't cut it.
2007-02-04 14:18:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
6⤋
we probably wouldn't have as many rights seeing as the southerners were rascist
2007-02-04 14:11:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by Cris 2
·
1⤊
4⤋