Suppose that the Southern States had won the Civil War?

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cCu8H6RbbI&feature=related[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cCu8H6R ... re=related

What is now the U.S. would have been divided into at least three sovereign nations; USA, CSA and California (or Pacifica -- add on State of Washington and Oregon). Perhaps even more separate nations would have formed, once the Union broke down. All the parts would be English speaking nations. Trade and commerce would have flourished.

Europe has existed as many nations, so there is no reason why North America could not have done so also. As things are now there are three major nations: Canada, U.S.A. and Mexico plus smaller republics in central America.

ruveyn

An independent South would have been a backwater s**thole.

Oh wait...

The southern economy and infrastructure were decimated by the war. It would have been a weak, independent nation... But with slavery.

The North would also have been weakened, both politically and economically, the general attitude of the people would have been cynical, and there would have been states threatening to secede whenever things weren't going their ways.

Additionally, the British may have seen this as an opportunity to play the various anglophone American nations against each other and seize any power that they could.


The result would be a very different world from the one that we're living in now.

Slavery would have still been destined to die out.

The USA would now be CSA. The nation would probably be more caucasian, gun possession not an issue.
The CSA would not have intervened in WW I, so for Europe: three major nations: Germany, Austria-Hungary and Soviet Union (or Russia). The English would now sing 'God save the Kaiser'.
There would have been no Hitler, no WW II, no state of Israel.

If the south won the civil war....my ass

I'm confused as to how you can understand geo-politics of an alternative history SirTwittThornwaite. You must not understand the concept of a 'butterfly' in alt history, Twitt, it means that if an event such as the CSA winning the civil war, or Napoleon beating the Russians causes massive amounts of changes in the timeline making any predictions based off of what really happened nigh impossible. In other words, you vastly simplified history to a comical level.

I'd recommend reading some discussions or timelines on the civil war here to help your understanding.

I see someone is ignoring my point.

When the South wins is important, earlier the better for it's economy.

If some form of magic was created to involve the French and British on the Confederate side with them ignoring the fact that the whole war was about slavery the Confederates could survive as a country with Brit/French help.

I can a revanchist 'second civil war' caused by the US wanting it's former states back with likely British support of the confederates and invading new england.

You cannot predict the future, and you especially cannot predict where butterflies may land.

No, I'm saying you abruptly declaring the CSA being neutral in ww1 saves the planet is wrong.

If the south had won:

- We'd have more lynch'ns and cross bonfires.

- We'd be rich with free slaves at work...oh wait China and Mexico's almost already doing that for us. But at least we wouldn't have to pay them.

- We'd be predominantly christian and preferrable baptists.

- We'd fly our rebel flags around without controversy.

- Had the south won, we'd be payn' too much for what cotton and tobacco's worth.

- We'd have more crazies running around in white sheets.


That's all I could think up for now....

The war of secession had nothing to do with slavery. It was about economics.

The north had pledged assets for the national debt. They failed to pay off the national bankruptcy. They were rolling over into another bankruptcy period but the creditors wanted a pledge of greater assets. All the assets were already pledged, so they wanted to pledge the assets of the individual states (not legal) for the national bankruptcy. The north (original 13) was willing to do this, the south was not. The southern states were new creations independent and after the indebtedness of the national government. They had no obligation to pledge their wealth or substance for the debts of another.

Slavery was just the excuse used because it was a major difference in the working economies of the north and the south (which was heavily agricultural).

What I meant was slavery stopped at least Napoleon III from helping them. That's rather major to me.

I wonder if the Southern states would have developed their own standard form of English? Or perhaps an entirely new language would have evolved, distinct from English? Something like the way that Afrikaans descended from Flemish?

Do any Southern grammar school teachers cringe at the diction?

"If the South wooda won the war weeda had it made..."

It really isn't any different from Ebonics.