Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that the south would have effectively become a colony of England - reliant on it for capital and trailing in its political orbit like many south american countries. The north would have benefited economically, the south was long a drag on the US economy as well as progressive legislation. What would have happened to the south is hard to say. By the 20th century at the latest cotton would have ceased to be a major economic boon.
The war would have left the region in the hands of a planter class unable to see the value of industrialization, with much of the population an uneducated, demoralized slave class who would have been useless in factories let alone high technology. Education, tarrifs, and internal improvements (electricty anyone) would have languished and with it the building blocks of the economy. By the thirties the south would have been a third world state.
Nonsense. Cotton was King. The North was a drag on the South.
Leading up to the present time - Slavery would have ended in the late 19th century regardless, in the south. The south would have undergone a period of imperialism and instability - Cuba and more chunks of Mexico would have been annexed. Other states would have broken off and declared independence and waring would occur between these states and possibly again with the northern union. The CSA would decline to third world status.
All these conclusion are from my readings of the political climate and thoughts of it's leaders in the CSA - designs on Cuba, state government bickering and talks of independence (i.e. Georgia) with Richmond, the process of eventual manumation of slaves in Brazil, etc.
Things would have eventually settled down in the mid 20th century as I see the loose group of confederate states (probably more than one nation) rejoining the U.S. The U.S. would be poorer, less powerful, less industrious as a result of the CSA winning.
Instead of worrying about Mexicans sneaking across the border for better opportunities and living conditions, it would be Billy Bob and Joe Ed who are the problems.
What are you talking about?
Billy Bob and Joe Ed (gotta say, Eddie Joe woulda sounded better for a hypothetical...) would be sitting in lawn chairs at the border with their shotguns shooting at the Mexicans trying to cross the border....
No, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO ,NO, NO, NO....
I simply cannot do this again.....
Alas, I am finding that almost 70% of the posts here now have been discussed once before in one variation of another. This one isn't bad but indeed it's been discussed many times, but if I see another "what is the reasons for the civil war" or "what is the best president" I may foam at the mouth.
Alas, I am finding that almost 70% of the posts here now have been discussed once before in one variation of another. This one isn't bad but indeed it's been discussed many times, but if I see another "what is the reasons for the civil war" or "what is the best president" I may foam at the mouth.
The last thread is still fresh though... I don't think anyone will mind if I sit this one out...
I saw the movie, it was very very interesting and I would recommend this film. Spike Lee produced it. The inter-cut commercials showing real products were an eye opener as well as the ending. We still have Aunt Jemima pancakes and Uncle Ben's rice.
The Confederacy was by design a very loose confederation. While there might have been some expansion, to Cuba, into Mexico, and so on, there would also have been fragmentation. Instead of a confederacy, it would have been more like the European union, with states running themselves as individual countries, and fostering economic and diplomatic relations amongst themselves. The Southern states also felt stronger bonds to the European countries, and some would have forged alliances with Europe that would have made the network of treaties that led to World War I much more complicated.
What is far more interesting, to me, is the what if of the Northern states. New England would have seceded rather quickly after the war if the South had won. It had toyed with secession before the war, and the very distinct identity of the region combined with its economic interests would have led to a speedy withdrawal, I think. Canada would have expanded further into the United States, and would probably be the world power today. I wonder, also, if the South had been successful in secession, if Quebec wouldn't have pursued secession from Canada even more vigorously, so that it would be a separate country today, perhaps with territory in Vermont and northern New York as well.
Canada would have expanded further into the United States, and would probably be the world power today. I wonder, also, if the South had been successful in secession, if Quebec wouldn't have pursued secession from Canada even more vigorously, so that it would be a separate country today, perhaps with territory in Vermont and northern New York as well.
Interesting. A nation made of those American states and Canadian provinces on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence would be an industrial, financial and agricultural powerhouse. Sounds good to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
