If the CW ended differently...

[spteach]

OK, I am just starting to read Robert E Lee's manuscript, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. LOL Let me make note that I am the Northern daughter of a Southern father. Exploring the "other side" is fascinating. I figure I would take this musing to this group. What would have happened if the South prevailed in the Civil War? Would they still be a slave holding area? Or would they have come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong just a little later? Just wondering what everyone who is better versed in all of the variables thinks.

[Rogerm]

If the South had won the Civil War, maybe slavery would have experienced a world-wide revival. Or, at least, maybe its staying power would have increased. I believe slavery remained in Brazil until 1881. You have to wonder if a victorious Confederacy would have been able to establish itself across what is now the continental United States. Would there have been industrial development of the country. Or would the Southerners have favored a plantation-style, agrarian economy? Would some people from the defeated North have attempted to re-group in Canada and make cross-border raids? Or, would a victorious South have tried to conquer Canada as well? Would they have tried to conquer the rest of Mexico and perhaps Cuba? Alaska probably would have remained in the hands of the Russians. Slavery, as a practice, would probably be over-with by now. But, race relations would probably be back where they were fifty or more years ago.

[spteach]

Thanks for the thought out reply. I hadn't considered Southern Influence spreading farther. Now there is an intriguing thought

[L Verge]

This is just my personal opinion, but I believe the South had no intentions of conquering the North and taking over the entire country. I believe that they were fighting to create their own country and be recognized as independent of the U.S. by other foreign countries.

I further believe that they did hope to extend their agricultural economy into regions south of the border, but would have also realized that pockets of industrial growth would be necessary also. Quite a few of the Confederate leaders had cut their teeth serving in the U.S. Congress prior to the war and would have a good feel for what railroads and industries could do. If/as their new country developed industrial strength, I believe that slavery would have come to a natural end as machines became the work horses.

I would also hope that the pitfalls that came with Reconstruction would have been avoided without meddling "alien" politicians and money-grabbing carpetbaggers entering the picture. Leave people alone to work out their own problems, and they usually do. (And before some of you jump on that sentence, I am not espousing anarchy. I am, however, suggesting that big government needs to back out of regional problems whenever possible.)

OK - I have painted the target on my chest. Have at it.

[spteach]

LOL Actually, I would agree with that part of your reasoning, Ms. Laurie. If I am reading his writings correctly, Jefferson Davis felt that secession was a basic difference of a stronger/ weaker central government. He makes the point that slaveholders were worried about the very issue that the Dred Scott decision addressed. That if said owner took his "property" into a free state (ie moved into a different state). Now, before you all label me... I am speaking from the contemporary POV, not my personal. It seems to me to be roughly identical to the current marriage equality arguments. If a couple married in a state that has marriage equity, would that union be valid in a state without equality?

It would seem that the strength of the central government is the ongoing issue even into current politics.

[Gene C]

If the south had won the civil war, we probably could not have won WW II. We could not have fought Germany and Japan at the same time.

[Jenny]

I'll just say I agree with Laurie and hide behind the couch.

[spteach]

Gene, good point. Our combined forces would have been much smaller. Most of our current military (and at the time of WWII) are southern. It would make for a very different military.

[Rob Wick]

To add to what Gene said, the historian Douglas Southall Freeman told of how his father, an unreconstructed rebel for decades after the war, finally realized how it was better for America that the south lost when he saw how necessary a strong and unified government was for America to win World War I.

Best
Rob

[My Name Is Kate]

But if the South had won, would there have been a WWI and a WWII, and maybe some of the other wars? War is big business, and good for industry...

[Eva Elisabeth]

(09-04-2013 06:37 PM)Rogerm Wrote:  If the South had won the Civil War, maybe slavery would have experienced a world-wide revival. Or, at least, maybe its staying power would have increased. I believe slavery remained in Brazil until 1881.

The last country that has outlawed slavery (for the third time after 1905 & 1981) in 2007 is Mauritania (although slavery there still exists illegally). I can't imagine other than that it would have been outlawed in the (US') South long before.
But what about secession? Would it have been anyhow possible that the South would still be independent, or would some or all southern states at some point in time have seeked reunification, e.g. for economic reasons?
Personally I can't imagine any of these visions. First of all because history just didn't happen another way than it did, maybe for some "higher" reason we can't make out. And to figure the possible consequences for the world's ensuing history, particularly regarding the world wars and other wars, but also regarding other fields like economy, science etc. goes far beyond my imagination.
As well you could speculate on what would have happened had Abraham Lincoln not gained presidency in 1860 (and 1864), as it had seemed rather likely preliminarily.
On the other hand, exactly this, the chain of unpredictable events and turns and the variety of motives and intentions that moved the people involved makes it all so fascinating.

[Gene C]

It is possible that had the south won the civil war, that further division would have resulted as the country grew. Instead of one country with 50 states, we would be a region of 4-6 different countries, and be fragmented much like europe. We would not be a world power economically or militarily.

[Hess1865]

Read some of the sci-fi/fiction books Harry Turtledove has written for some interesting thoughts

[brtmchl]

Newt Gingrich has a book " Gettysburg " in which he rewrites the battle, claiming that if the South had won a Southern victory would be inevitable.

I agree with Laurie that the South had no vision to conquer the North. They simply wanted their independence. Sadly slavery would have continued, but in my own belief wouldn't have lasted ( at least in the aggricultural areas). Slavery was on a decline before the advent of the cotton gin and I believe after the war, slavery would have seen a rapid decline about twenty years later with the invention of the tractor. I cannot say how slavery would have been in mining communities. Since I would imagine that the South would have tried to expand.

I believe that because World War I and II started in Europe they still would have existed.

I believe there may not have been much change in the outcome of World War II. The North would most likely have still become an industrial giant. Their factories could have still built the war machines. The South throughout history has always sent more men to war. This could have continued. In fact if one Government in North America had gone to war I believe the other would follow suit. North America could have also gotten into the war sooner than Roosevelt had, thus ending it sooner with the potential of less loss of life. The power structure of the world would definitely be much different.

That is of course, as long as both North American governments sided with the Allies.

I also agree with Gene when he wrote :It is possible that had the south won the civil war, that further division would have resulted as the country grew.

[wsanto]

I agree with the previous post. A Southern win would have validated secession as a continuous threat against any central government for the North or the South. That would have led to a form of minority-rule that would have handcuffed the central governments of both nations keeping them both very weak.