Do you think the confederates should of won the civil war?

Question

and what do you think things would be like now?

And how do you think things would be know?

By the way this is for a paper I'm writing.

Answer 1

Morally, do I think they should have won? No, not with slavery apart of it.
As for the state's right part of it, YES! Each state should be able to dictate what happens in their own state. There's too much corruption in DC.

COULD the south have won? Absolutely. We all know the monumental mistake Lee made at Gettysburg, but the Southern states weren't helping. The Governor of North Carolina was hoarding guns and uniforms, claiming that they would only be used by North Carolinians. State's rights helped kill the Confederacy.

As for what it would be like now? It's hard to say. You would need seperate money for each southern state, quite possibly needing a passport to get in. Who knows? One thing is for sure though, is that slavery would have been abolished even had they won. There's no way it would have lasted. It's the primary reason Great Britain didn't aide the south in the war.

Answer 2

Most people think the civil war was about freeing slaves, it really wasn't. The slave issue simply triggered it.
The civil war was really about which governing body rules supreme, the federal government, or the state government. This is not explicity stated anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, so it is up for interpretation. The northern states decided that the federal government should reign supreme, and south wanted states rights to trump national ones.
If the south had won the civil war, then I believe the US would not be the world superpower it is today. We would not have the supreme court system as it stands today. I think we would probably be a loosely-bound group of smaller nation-states that would tend to argue amongst each other over what the country as a whole should do. We probably would have had several civil wars since then.

Answer 3

The confederate states in 1860 had as much right to independence and self-determination as the 13 colonies had in 1775.

The USA of 1860 was a strange place. The country was split between a populous and industrialised north, paying low taxes, and a sparsely populated and mostly agricultural south, that paid heavy taxes. The north had many poor people, and some extremely rich - mostly from commerce or politics. A massive social divide was based on money (as the USA has now). The south had many poor people, and some fairly rich - mostly from owning land. Both north and south had slave owning states, and both discriminated against blacks, Indians, Jews, Chinese, Irish and Catholics.

The southern states were oppressed by the north, paying far more tax than they received in benefits from the federal government. Corrupt officials ensured most money remained in the north. Corrupt politicians - mostly northerners - deprived the south of its fair share of federal money. Lincoln, one of the most corrupt US presidents ever, had received no votes in the south, and all of his patronage and bribes went to northern lackeys. The south was more and more in a situation of "taxation without representation", and being bullied and pushed around by northern politicians who had no knowledge or understanding of the south. No wonder southern states wanted independence. They should have been allowed to secede.

Answer 4

They didn't. End of story. However, there was a "history" based on the South winning at Gettysburg, and, therefore, the war. It continues to have Texas succeeding later on and the freeing of the slaves as cotton became less important. Eventually, the North and South reunited during WW I as the Zimmerman telegram became known and mutual protection was needed against Mexico. By the mid 20's, the differences would have be forgotten.

Answer 5

In 1841 when southerners threatened to secede President Taylor threatened to have them hung without waiting for a trial. The secession talk ended. In 1861 President Buchanan sat on his duff and did nothing while southerners got organized and mobilized. The confederacy should never have existed. 600,000 men died because Buchanan was to foolish to act.
What if the confederacy had won ? secession is a never ending cycle. The south breaks away from the union. State by state breaks away from the confederacy. County by county breaks away from the states. Until a foreign power comes and conquers all.

Answer 6

no, i don't think they should have won and i think we should all be thankful that they didn't. this country simply couldn't have survived if it had been split in two at taht time. the south provided agriculture whereas the north produced the manufactured goods. if the south had won and the country had split, probably neither side would be as strong as teh united states is now as a whole. the south didn't have the means to produce things out of their grown products and the north was able to make things, but had nothing to make them with.

Answer 7

As Hank Williams Jr. said, "If the South had won, we'd have had it made!" History would have been far different, that's for sure. But I don't think the Confederacy would have survived to the present day, because once the doctrine of succession is established, anybody can leave the coalition whenever they get pissed off. That's not a recipe for long term survival!

Answer 8

"ok, i understand that the slaves had little to not something to do with the conflict! ... the south fought against vast government! they fought for states rights and individual rights!" that's all incorrect. The "states' rights" element became positioned up-conflict propaganda promulgated by way of the South in an attempt to rehabilitate their image. study ordinary aspects from till now the conflict, it is all approximately slavery. That became the only states' proper they have been extremely fascinated in. and that they easily weren't combating for individual rights--that concept is so ridiculous it would not benefit greater effective remark. Had the CSA gained the conflict, slavery could have lasted longer than it did. they could have greater effective the slave capacity into new states, establishing up new slave markets. yet finally, technologies could have made slavery unprofitable, and it may wither away. unfastened blacks could in all risk be compelled to stay under some style of Jim Crow rules, and could to migrate to unfastened countries as without delay as plausible.

Answer 9

Probably not a whole lot different than they are now. Industrialization was already causing slavery to become less profitable and I really believe the events of the late 19th century would have re-united North and South. If not re-unification, the two countries would be close allies.

Answer 10

You know you're an idiot for asking this. If the confederates would have won, do you really think America would be as successful as it is today?