NationStates Jolt Archive

O.K. Just for fun, whats everyone think the U.S.A. would be like if the south had won? And please answer the poll before replying.

Hm.

I believe international pressure and advancing technology would have phased out the need for slaves before the turn of the century. I could see them being granted citizenship, then rights of some sort then civil unrest then more rights, until you couldn't really tell the two Americas apart.

I could see the USA and CSA reuniting in the WWII era, and solving differences along the way.

Eh, it didn't happen that way anyway.

Read Harry Turtledove's alternate history series beginning with "How Few Remain."

The CSA would have abolished slavery in 20-40 years, than they would have become what they are today, they would be the most obese nation on the planet and would probably be pretty poor also. The Union would be a great place to live, except would have no cotton industry. People like Bush and Reagan would not be elected. The world would be a better place.

Or in 1868 the would re-unite because the industries cant work alone.

I can see slavery lasting up until the early 1900's and the oppression of African Americans lasting until 90's. Industrial technology would be a bit more advanced, but civil technologies would be of lesser quality than today. I would also assume there would be a hell of a lot more involvement in wars and there would most likely be more than 50 states due to conquoring.

I don't know really. They probably would have allied with the Nazis in WW2?

Ditto on the Turtledove. I like "Guns of the South".

IIRC Lee would have likely proceeded with the Brazillian model (with slavery dissapating through grandfathering), and since there would have been no Reconstruction with all its JimCrow followed by the "Forced Equality" of the Civil Rights era, there would have been fewer racial tensions all around.

Government Intervention usually = Bad Feelings all around.

the South would have annexed Mexico and Central America pretty quickly after the Civil war.

Both the north and the south would have been far more imperialistic than a single US, because there would have been two powers sharing the continent. So I expect both of them would have gone on land grabs elsewhere as well.

The phillipines would probably have remained spanish.

Oh, and the north would certainly have tried to invade Canada, to make up for lost territory.

I would imagine if they did it to early on after the civil war however, the UK and france would have bitch slapped them back into the stoneage, and it would have been a good excuse for the south to take more territory from them.

Also, don't get the idea that the south was massively less industrial than the north. That's not the case. at the begining of the war the CSA had an industrial output greater than any other nation except the US and Britian. Also, while the south's constitution prohibited government subsidies and protection of manufacturing industry - which might actually help in any case - there was a climate of industrial innovation in the south.

Union- After the defeat in the Civil War. The Republicans would have been gone, leaving the Democrats to hold a long and nearly dictatorship-like reign until some other party rose to oppose them, prehaps a Communist Party. The American peoples will would have been relatively spent, their country now divided they would try to move on. This would strain Union foriegn trade as Great Britian and France would have eagerly moved to support the now indepedant Confederacy. This may have led to America being bullied by Britian, France, and the Confederacy. The Union would return to an isolationist country, for fear of angering the Confederacy and her allies. Union, due to its quietness, would have been left alone to develop herself. Assuming that World War 1 still happened, the Union would probably have to be in the hands of a intelligant leader (Teddy Rossevelt maybe?), with Britian and France fighting Germany in Europe. The Union would have seen an oppurtunity to throw off the yoke of the Confederacy. By this point in history, however, the Confederacy would have probably been industralized (maybe not as much as the North, but still industralized). The war between the States would be much like the War in Europe, with both sides suffering heavy losses. In the end, however, if history goes the way it has in this timeline. The Allies (Britian and France) would have made peace with Germany, since now at this point neither side had enough manpower remaining to throw back the other.

With the War in Europe over, and neither Germany nor Britian and France able to held either the Union or the Confederacy, a peace treaty would have been settled between the two, settling nothing and having massive losses on both sides.

With no War Reperations, the nations of the world would probably still experiance a Great Depression, though not nearly as bad as it was. Both sides would have continued to rearm and regrow their numbers. This is where history makes a big change. I'm assuming that by now the Confederacy has given slaves their freedom (since Britian and France would have demanded it). Probably World War Two would have started in 1950 or so. With another event sparking the war.

I won't go into any great length of who wins or whatever. I'll just say that by this year today. The States would still be divided and on relatively peaceful terms with one another.

Confederacy-After fully declaring indepedance and this indepedance regonized by Britian and France, the Confederacy would probably be left alone by the two great powers for ten or so years while he settled down and formed a government. Soon Britian and France would demands that the South free the slaves, after a few years of tension between the Confederacy and the Great Powers, the Confederacy would give in an give blacks their freedom, though racism would still be a major problem in the South. No doubt there would be revolts from the blacks (due to white-black tension), eventually the Confederate Army would put the revolts down and stabilize the country again. In terms of political parties, not long after the blacks were freed a Republican-type party would rise and a Industrial-party would arise, their names I can't think up. Though, seeing the growing Union industrial might and the advice by Britian and France to industralize, the Industrial Party (Liberal) would come to power and move the Confederacy in the direction of Industralization. For the next century things would be peaceful in the South, maybe a few border clashes with the Union and Mexico, but nothing serious.

By World War I, the Industrial Party would probably be in power, but with tension from the people, due that the Southern Way is gone because of them. The Confederacy would watch and probably Declare War on Germany when her allies (Britian and France) went to war. The Confederacy would probably send supplies, and even some men. Though when the Union realized the oppurtunity (probably due to Confederate bullying) it would launch and attack against the South. The South would probably recall all forces to defend the fronts. Like in the Union history, neither side wins, and both settle down. The Confederacy would move on and try recover from the Great Depression. Again, I won't get into WW2 details.

Though by this year today, the Confederacy would probably be an Industrialized nation with a lot of technology (just like the North), since the American People (North and South) while holding a general distrust of one another, would probably cooperate in each others capitilist societies. Civil Rights for Blacks would have already occured, and racism still remains a major problem for the South.


(OOC: So yea...)

Read Harry Turtledove's alternate history series beginning with "How Few Remain."

I love his books!

there would have been constant border wars. constant fighting over the territories. constant fighting over the need to return escaped property.

we would continue fighting each other to this day. we never would become a world power because of our need to fight each other. we wouldnt have been able to meddle in european wars, leaving them to be won or lost without us. the entire world would be different.

These are some things which came out of Turtledove's series which I think he absolutely nailed... but he's a history professor, so he should get a lot of hits:

1) CSA absolutely had to get rid of slavery shortly after the close of the Civil War. They could not count on the continued support of Britain and France otherwise... and the reality was that the South needed protection and access to industrial markets while they were still overmatched by the North. However... conditions would never get very good for blacks in the South. The racism would run deep. Jim Crow laws were inevitable.

2) The two nations would inevitably fight a second war later in the 1800s, as tensions on the continent increased. But since the CSA would have built closer ties to Britain and France (and both had good reason to support the CSA in order to limit the USA), the US would get overwhelmed by trying to fight on too many fronts.

3) The CSA would be forced to find some way to get to the Pacific. Turtledove solves the problem with a purchase of the northern two Mexican provinces.

4) The US would foment rebellion among the blacks in the CS. Retribution would be ugly. Racism would deepen.

5) The USA would be forced to build closer ties with Germany. WWI would feature the CSA on the side of the Allies, and the USA on the side of the Central powers.

With Britain and France occupied with affairs in Europe, Canada and CSA are on their own against the US. USA finally wins one.

6) The USA exacts extortionate war reparations from the humiliated CSA... think what happened to the Germans. USA also keeps territorial gains.

7) Demoralized and destitute CSA sees rise of its own version of the Nazi party.

When you think about it, the Nazis really aren't that different from the KKK, or the neocons. The South would be in a bad situation parallel to post-WWI Germany, and they would have a minority to blame, one they hate even more than the Germans hated the Jews.

One turn that Turtledove takes is that, after the second War Between the States, the communist party rises to power. I'm not so sure about that one.

Ah, then everyone would have been a redneck.

Actually, at that point in time, many Jews lived in the south and were strong supporters for slavery. In fact, the majority of American Jews fought for the confederacy. American Jews, on the whole, did not acquire a liberal disposition until later...but that's another story.

Jefferson Davis, while anti-African-American, was not an anti-Semite. In fact, he appointed Judah P. Benjamin, a South Carolinian Jew, his secretary of state.

However, the majority of racists include Jews on their "hate lists"...so, while Southern Jews would have been treated decently by the government, the majority of Southerners probably would not have approved co-existing with Jews.

If the South won Wil Smith wouldn't of had such a good career. He'd be enslaved.

The South would have economically collapsed within a few years. Europe wouldn't trade with them while slavery was in place, and their entire economy depended on slavery. The South was fucked as soon as Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

we'd all be talking reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyy sllllllllllllloooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww, we'd all be predijice, slave, or outlaw abolitionist, we'd have lost ww2 & be speaking German, & the U.S. wouldn't exist.

Hm.

I believe international pressure and advancing technology would have phased out the need for slaves before the turn of the century. I could see them being granted citizenship, then rights of some sort then civil unrest then more rights, until you couldn't really tell the two Americas apart.

I could see the USA and CSA reuniting in the WWII era, and solving differences along the way.

Eh, it didn't happen that way anyway.
Thats pretty much how I see it.

If the south had won the Civil War (obviously a hypothetical situation since it's impossible for the south to ever win against the North), the United States would be no more. They would have either started too many wars to handle or they would have drunkenly killed eachother off. It is a well known fact that all "people" from the south are really just alcohol addicted hicks with nothing better to do but shoot anything and everthing. If they had won, their kind would have spread throughout the United States contaminating its residents and polluting its future youth. Undoubtedly, they would be drunk 24/7, even when they raped the women and men of the North to rid of all good remaining in the United States. The result is mutated children of the raped, with southern genes of course, hence mutated children, and a large decrease in population because all Southerners would have killed all people of the North. They would have created what is in their minds, if existent, a utopia for all scum of the earth. Once over their victory they would get bored, get drunk, and kill everyone until there is no one left.

The only other possibility is being bombed into nothingness (what they are already worth) by foreign countries angered with the South's common stupidity and lack of intelligence. They would be a disadvantage to themselves in this situation also because, as proven, they would be drunk and killing each other rather than the enemy (avengers of the Northerners deaths).

If the south had won the Civil War (obviously a hypothetical situation since it's impossible for the south to ever win against the North)
No offense, but did you even study history? The confederates were kicking the Unions ass in the begining of the civil war. They went through several Generals, that failed miserably until Lincoln pulled Grant out of his hat, It was really random how he picked generals, and if Grant has not been chosen the south would have won

Well there is one simple answer. The U.S. either wouldn't have been able to keep up with the Germans in WW2 and lost, meaning the germans would be ruling the world. Or the U.S. would have allied with them, and then the germans would have beat the U.S. and Japan to a pulp after "we" won the war, and the germans would be ruling the world. So either way, the Germans and Hitler actually would have won if the South would have won.

If they had won, the North would have simply waited and eventually attacked again, mostly because it probably would just end up a kind of uneasy truce like the two Koreas A massive majority of the immigrants, industrial cities, and infrastructure were concentrated in the North, and would be so for a long time. Plus, the shifting of warfare technology would just make the South more outadated, since they would not be able to arm their troops with advanced weaponry due to the lack of production capacity and knowledge.

No offense, but did you even study history? The confederates were kicking the Unions ass in the begining of the civil war. They went through several Generals, that failed miserably until Lincoln pulled Grant out of his hat, It was really random how he picked generals, and if Grant has not been chosen the south would have won

Actually Grant was running the missippi valley end of the anaconda plan, not pulled out of a hat, and ultimately the south would have lost a war of attrition (which is what the Civil War wound up being).

As can be seen Here (http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesdivison.htm) the North had: 18.5 Million compared to 7 Million (which includes slaves) in the south, even giving all the border state's population to the south boosts them to 10 Million counting slaves.

The only real argitculutrural advantage the south has is in cotton and tobacco, both of which requires a selling partner to serve a puropose during war. In both manfucaturing and fiances the north had the advantage.

The southern tradition of military service gave them the superior generals, such as Lee, Beauregard, Hood and others. While this gives the advantage in a short term war, in longer wars superior generals lose out to superior numbers and better manfucaturing of the north (bullet making ratios). It is possible, had Europe had a poor cotton or tobacco year, for the south to have won, but after Gettysburg (which as evidance here (http://www.civilwarhome.com/gettysburgorderofbattle(union).htm) Grant did not lead) the south's declining troop count began to spiral out of control.

It should noted that while Grant was a decent general was clearly outmatched by Lee, but Grant realized and accepted that he had many more soliders than Lee or the south, and as such could grind the southern armies into dust, given time.

As a side note, no feeding trolls, anyone who would state It is a well known fact that all "people" from the south are really just alcohol addicted hicks with nothing better to do but shoot anything and everthing. is in my mind a troll.

We must all rememeber that in 1864, July 11 specifically, Jubal Early came very close to taking Washington because Grant had emptied the defenses for the Virginia campaign. Had he done so the South would have likely been able to force a peace settlement solely due to the psychological effects of the loss at the Wilderness and the fall of Washington.

actually after the battle of manasus the south could have taken DC, but they didn't for whatever reason.

the south probably wold have re-annexed and relations would improve, cause remember people still had family in all parts of america.

besides you guys act like the war was about slavery and the south was only fighting cause they hated blacks or something which ins't the case, it was about states rights.

actually after the battle of manasus the south could have taken DC, but they didn't for whatever reason.

besides you guys act like the war was about slavery and the south was only fighting cause they hated blacks or something which ins't the case, it was about states rights.

The primary reason for the lack of followup after First Manassas was due to the sheer disorganization of the green Confederate troops after the battle and supply problems.

Slavery would have only hurt the South, since Britain had taken a very strong anti-slavery stand, and Southern cotton wasn't anywhere near its prior demand in that country. It would be likely Britain would aid the US to have an alliance against their newest rival Germany.

It wouldn't have been called a Civil War.

It would be the Revolutionary War to the Confederacy.

No offense, but did you even study history? The confederates were kicking the Unions ass in the begining of the civil war. They went through several Generals, that failed miserably until Lincoln pulled Grant out of his hat, It was really random how he picked generals, and if Grant has not been chosen the south would have won

My boyfriend: Lincoln didn't pull Grant out of his ass, Grant CRAWLED out of his ass. Grant walked up to Lincoln and said, "put me in!".

My boyfriend: Lincoln didn't pull Grant out of his ass, Grant CRAWLED out of his ass. Grant walked up to Lincoln and said, "put me in!".
I was being polite

and I like the way you said that

That's a bit of a lame poll. I'm from the south but I'm not a rebel. And I'm not a Yankee either. If you're asking where people are from, how about giving some locations. And leave out the 'not sure' option. Unless a lot of readers were abducted from their homes as children, most people will know where they come from... :rolleyes:

I must be missing what the rest of you are missing, because the unaminity on the subject of slavery ending anytime soon is lost on me. The South depended on cotton for export to prop up its economy; if it didn't have high cotton production, its economy would have collapsed. England's biggest industry at the time of the Civil War was textile manufacturing; if it didn't have a lot of high-quality raw materials, it would have gone into an industrial tailspin. So on the one hand, you have the British upper class poo-pooing the idea of slavery. On the other hand, you have the threat of wrecking both nation's economies if slavery stops. Call me old-fashioned, but in my mind, the only possible result was that the British intelligentsia would be eating a crapload of crow, and slavery keeps going to feed King Cotton.

As for what would happen, I can't really say for sure; it depends on too many variables. The likely result for the South is economic devastation as its closest market for cotton shuts them out. This is especially true if the Union maintains its blockade, which would cripple the South's ability to sell their cotton anywhere else. The North would probably move to solidify a hold on the West, as their industrial capacity requires raw material to supply it, material that previously came from the South. If they can grab the western states, then my guess is that the Confederacy would collapse in 20 years or so and reenter the Union in some kind of negotiated armistice. If they can't get a chokehold on western states, then the Union is screwed: hemmed in on all sides, with a rapidly-growing industrial sector but no place to easily supply it. As such, they might try to colonize other areas, such as Africa or the Caribbean for the supplies, which would bring them into conflict with the British. Or they might try refighting the Civil War to regain Southern or Western territories.

If the South would have received support from the UK and maybe even France(I doubt that) then the US war effort would come crashing down. English ships would sweep the ocean clean of Union ships and with english forces attacking from Canada, the US would sue for peace quickly(don't want them to sack New England and DC). With such a defeat the US industrialisation would take place later and the US economy would not have grown to the importance it did.

The immigration to the US is likely to be smaller than in real life without a rapid economic expansion. With American isolationism the Spanish-American war never takes place and world war one effectively becomes a stalemate, ending in a status quo peace agreed upon by the exhausted belligerents. The next decade is spent by Europeans to build up their armies. Russia may or may not become communist depending on a wide variety of factors.

In Germany the Kaiser remains head of state but he has lost much of the people's faith because of the failed war. World war 2 may or may not happen, people might have realised how terrible the first was and since Germany was not humiliated it won't demand revenge.

Today Germany, Russia/USSR(depending on what happened before), UK, France and Japan are permanent security council members in an alternative UN. China is on the rise. The US is mainly isolating itself in foreign policies, while the CSA is more active. It follows UK's lead in international affairs. Germany has the world's foremost space program while UK and France has a smaller cooperative program. A German flag was raised on the moon. The leading languages in international affairs are French and German.

Plausible? Yes. Likely? Don't know really, it all depends on millions of factors going my way. Like I said, I think it IS plausible though.

I don't know really. They probably would have allied with the Nazis in WW2?

Unlikely. If you read the [a summary] of the Confederate Constitution, it's pretty much the same as the US, 'cept presidents can serve only one 6-year term, slavery is a property right, and probably a few other things.

And seeing as slavery wouldn't last too long, as others have posted... it's likely that the south would've either a.) been neutral or b.) on the side of the allies. Fascism calls for a strong centralized government, which the confederates opposed... but who knows, maybe they'd end up centralizing their gov't.

If the south had won the Civil War (obviously a hypothetical situation since it's impossible for the south to ever win against the North), the United States would be no more.

While studiously ignoring the rest of the indefensible tripe that made up this post...

Turtledove's scenario turns on a HIGHLY plausible turn of events. Britain and France were interested in supporting the South, but weren't sure they could sell a war to support a slave state to their people. The Brits were aiding the South by running supplies through the Union blockade, but were doing it surreptitiously. One big victory by the South would tip France and Britain towards recognizing Confederate independence.

To neutralize this threat, Lincoln created the Emancipation Proclamation. Remember, this proclamation didn't do anything for slaves in Union slave states (Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri), but only freed slaves in conquered Confederate territory. By capturing the moral high ground on the position of slavery, Lincoln ensured that Britain and France would never get actively involved. But a declaration like that is absolutely toothless if it has no major military victory to give it credence. With McClellan dragging his feet, and Lee abusing him at every opportunity, Lincoln was forced to sit on the proclamation for some time.

Then comes Antietam. Lee's army is in Maryland, continuing its campaign to circle around from the north and take Washington at its unprotected flank. McClellan has numerical superiority, but, as usual, takes up a defensive position and sits on his butt. Lee develops a plan for serious demonstrations at each flank of McClellan's position, with an eye to drawing forces from the center, where the main attack would go later. Successful execution would envelope McClellan's army and utterly rout it. But a runner carrying Lee's orders wrapped around a pair of cigars lost them on the road. They were picked up by a Union sergeant excited to find a treasure of fine Southern tobacco (which was, for obvious reasons, no longer readily available). When he discovered the greater part of his treasure, it was forwarded to the commanders post haste.

In typical McClellan fashion, he doubted the authenticity of the orders, and debated them for 18 hours before taking any action. Ultimately he decided to act as if the orders were genuine, and it saved his army. When the battle started going well for the Union, McClellan was slow to seize any advantage, and Lee was able to improvise and give a good fight anyway. But there was no victory to be salvaged that day, and Lee was forced to retreat. McClellan gave no chase, and Lee got away with his army intact. Though the battle could not be scored anything but a draw, Lee was forced to leave Maryland for a time to regroup, and on that basis the Union declared a major victory.

Lincoln showed up at Antietam straight away, and delivered the Emancipation Proclamation. Britain and France were frozen out of the war, and the stage was set for events to follow.

What if the runner never lost those orders?

The leading languages in international affairs are French and German.

What? What are you talking about why an earth would German be the main language just because the South won? English would still be spoken in the British Isles, North America, India, Australia, Hong Kong, and half of Africa!

I must be missing what the rest of you are missing, because the unaminity on the subject of slavery ending anytime soon is lost on me.
Southerners were already discussing the necessity of ending slavery while the outcome of the war was still very much in doubt. Lee was prominent among them, though the dialogue also featured many members of elected government Davis himself had sent a minister to Britain and France, asking for recognition of the Confederacy on condition of the abolition of slavery. It would not have been a tremendous financial hardship for plantation owners to switch to paid labor, because unskilled labor would have been cheap and plentiful. Or they could get good results through use of tenant farmers, and raping them on rents.

Ok then what would have happened if Mexico had won the Mexican American War?

Well, since Virginia was the capital state, and it had already began the process of phasing out the institution over a long period, even as early as the 1790's... Chances are Slavery would have ceased to exist regardless by the end of the 19th century (1900) due to mounting pressure from relatively active states like Virginia, and mounting technological advancement...

The history would work fine as two seperate nations untill the late 1800's when the US became much more involved in the world... Though, with the Confederate Alliance with the Indian Nations (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole etc) chances are there would have further pressure upon union territories, and we likely would not have seen the continued genocide upon the western tribes later in the century...

In all, history, at least the bulk of it, would have been much different... It is unsure if there would have been a Spanish-American war in the 1890's... WW1 and WW2 could have been drastically different (WW2 may never even have happened)..

I think if the South had won the Civil War, the United States would have been dissolved by 1876. Several factions would have seceded to form their own countries and several states would have gone on their own. There would have been an intense rift between the Confederate States and the remnants of the Union.

As for the South, I believe they would have had the same problems that bedeviled the newly independent United States back in 1783 with the Articles of Confederation. By 1900, Texas probably secedes from the CSA and the rest of the country is too weak to stop them. After that, the rest of that country disintegrates into several independent and warring states.

World War I would have lasted far longer, ending no earlier than 1924 with a victory for the Allies because there was no United States to enter the fray. Failing that, Hitler would have failed to conquer the world because he couldn't defeat the Soviet Union and ultimately, a tenuous alliance between Great Britain and the Soviets keeps Hitler from realising his goals, but he still would have remained a dangerous foe.

Ok then what would have happened if Mexico had won the Mexican American War?

Mexican-American war was 1846-1848.... Civil War occured from 1861-1865... So we're talking AFTER that... The Mexican-American war would have been the same...

I was born in California, although I've lived in Washington state and Oregon as well. But yeah, I guess that makes me a Yankee, although I do have roots in the South (my dad was from Oklahoma).

It's tough to say what would be different now, except that there would probably be two countries where there is now one (the second one being the Confederate States of America). Both countries would probably be a lot freer from Federal government control, since the Federal government would have been given a severe reminder of its intended role. Slavery still would have gone the way of the dinosaur, since that was the direction the rest of the world was heading anyway and the South would have been forced to move forward or suffer the economic consequences. Other than that, I don't really think much would be different than it is now.

Mexican-American war was 1846-1848.... Civil War occured from 1861-1865... So we're talking AFTER that... The Mexican-American war would have been the same...

I have set this up as a new topic, discuss here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=415532

I'm Californian--Is that Yankee or not?

What? What are you talking about why an earth would German be the main language just because the South won? English would still be spoken in the British Isles, North America, India, Australia, Hong Kong, and half of Africa!

Hong Kong is not an English-speaking place. I lived there for seven years. Try asking for directions, even in Chinese, for an address written in English -- you'll never find it. :p

We seem to be splitting on the same fault lines as during th Civil War (Red state-Blue state). Maybe North USA and South USA would never become world powers. Maybe an eventual split is inevitable.

California is neither Yankee nor Confederate. California was busy doing its own thing during the war. I am from California, and this is why I did not answer the poll.

Well there is one simple answer. The U.S. either wouldn't have been able to keep up with the Germans in WW2 and lost, meaning the germans would be ruling the world. Or the U.S. would have allied with them, and then the germans would have beat the U.S. and Japan to a pulp after "we" won the war, and the germans would be ruling the world. So either way, the Germans and Hitler actually would have won if the South would have won.

This assumes that Nazi Doctrine would have been popular all over Europe, there were resistance movements in many of the countries that Germany occupied. Even before the US entered the War, the Germans had failed to conquer Britain, and they were still fighting the Russians on the Eastern front. How far would Hitler have delved into Russia? Would he have been able to control all the peoples from France to Siberia with just a "Germanic" upper class?

If Hitler had won the Second World War, his Reich would probably not have lasted into the new millenium. In fact I would imagine it dissipating after his death.

Chances are more likely that there simply would not have been a second world war...

You Would not have seen much if any "American" involvement in the first word war..... Making it more likely for the war to end in a cease-fire, and not a victory for either side.... Without a Post-WW1 sanctioned Germany, Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists would not have found any fertile soil to be born into, and thus there never would have been a Nazi state to begin campaigns... And more likely, the war would have been a Soviet instigated war sometime in the 1950's or so... Possibly in conjunction with China... More or less, the birth of the "Cold war" would have been WW2... without as many neat new inventions...

There never would be a Hitler, or a Nazi Party. Those things were born out of the terrible terms of the Treaty of Versailles. If the US loses the Civil War, they would be fighting their own front of WWI, and would not become involved in the war in Europe. The war would drag on for many more years, and ultimately be settled under milder terms. It's even possible that the US, after defeating Canada and CSA in the North American front, sends troops to Europe to aid Germany.

An entity similar to the Nazi Party would arise instead in the CSA, under terrible peace terms exacted by the US in WWI, and it would select the black population for eradication. WWII would again feature the British, French, Canadians (what's left of them), Japanese, and CSA against the US and a Germany ruled by a Kaiser. It's unclear who the Soviets would join, but I see them turning against Japanese aggression and joining the side of Germany/USA.

Read Harry Turtledove's alternate history series beginning with "How Few Remain."

Very good series, I liked it.

There never would be a Hitler, or a Nazi Party. Those things were born out of the terrible terms of the Treaty of Versailles. If the US loses the Civil War, they would be fighting their own front of WWI, and would not become involved in the war in Europe. The war would drag on for many more years, and ultimately be settled under milder terms. It's even possible that the US, after defeating Canada and CSA in the North American front, sends troops to Europe to aid Germany.

An entity similar to the Nazi Party would arise instead in the CSA, under terrible peace terms exacted by the US in WWI, and it would select the black population for eradication. WWII would again feature the British, French, Canadians (what's left of them), Japanese, and CSA against the US and a Germany ruled by a Kaiser. It's unclear who the Soviets would join, but I see them turning against Japanese aggression and joining the side of Germany/USA.

Not likely, CSA had an eventual not loss in the bag, I don't say victory, just that they wouldn't lose, CSA sends troops early on to aid allies, Since most of their great generals would still be alive(Forrest, Lee, etc.) the CSA forces use their superior tactics to defeat the enemy entrenchments, remember, if theres one thing Forrest could do, it was beat a defending force, even if he was badly out numbered, like at Shilo, one confederate brigade under the command of then-colonel Forrest forces a division and two additional brigades, under the command of Sherman, to retreat, thereby saving the southern army in that battle, he attacked nearly six times his own number and won, he was a real man.

Not likely, CSA had an eventual not loss in the bag, I don't say victory, just that they wouldn't lose, CSA sends troops early on to aid allies, Since most of their great generals would still be alive(Forrest, Lee, etc.) the CSA forces use their superior tactics to defeat the enemy entrenchments, remember, if theres one thing Forrest could do, it was beat a defending force, even if he was badly out numbered, like at Shilo, one confederate brigade under the command of then-colonel Forrest forces a division and two additional brigades, under the command of Sherman, to retreat, thereby saving the southern army in that battle, he attacked nearly six times his own number and won, he was a real man.
Uhhh... no.

The CSA would have no troops to spare for their allies, because the US would still heavily outnumber them. The Civil War generals who managed to stay alive (doubtful) would have been long past retirement.

In addition, by WWI defensive technologies were superior, and the tank had not yet given the mobility necessary to break through those defenses. The war was one of attrition, and the South simply could not pay the price. Remember what happened when Grant took over?

And Germany would be tying up CSA's allies in Europe, meaning very little help from that quarter.

Uhhh... no.

The CSA would have no troops to spare for their allies, because the US would still heavily outnumber them. The Civil War generals who managed to stay alive (doubtful) would have been long past retirement.

In addition, by WWI defensive technologies were superior, and the tank had not yet given the mobility necessary to break through those defenses. The war was one of attrition, and the South simply could not pay the price. Remember what happened when Grant took over?

And Germany would be tying up CSA's allies in Europe, meaning very little help from that quarter.


The CSA would have negotiated a peace with the north by then, remember, the topic was what if the south won, not what if the south had been around for the world wars. When General Grant the butcher took over the unions already prohibitive death toll continued to rise, had the war continued much longer the south was garaunteed an eventual victory becauase of tactical mobility and better leadership, Lee and Stonewall beats Grant and Sherman any day, and if you replace Stonewall with Forrest (assuming Stonewall still dies after the battle, which was one of the things that screwed the south) then Sherman gets royally screwed up the butt by a knife without the benefit of anesthetic or lubricants, Forrest beat everyone he fought till April 1865, when he finally lost, outnumbered and surrounded, with few supplies.

The South would have plowed ahead on tank research, their horses were built for speed and the south would have made it so their tanks were too. As for germany tying up their allies, so what, if the germans are tying up their allies, then the Germans are tied up too, if they took forces off of the line to stop the confederates then the lines probably would have broken somewhere and the germans would have been eaten alive, if they hadn't taken forces off of the front lines to stop the confederates then the confederates would eat them alive, no matter what the Gwermans would have been stretched too thin to stop that many forces at once.

If the south had won the War...?


I would try to put the beginning of "Dueling Banjos" into words... but it just wouldn't work

The CSA would have negotiated a peace with the north by then, remember, the topic was what if the south won, not what if the south had been around for the world wars. When General Grant the butcher took over the unions already prohibitive death toll continued to rise, had the war continued much longer the south was garaunteed an eventual victory becauase of tactical mobility and better leadership, Lee and Stonewall beats Grant and Sherman any day, and if you replace Stonewall with Forrest (assuming Stonewall still dies after the battle, which was one of the things that screwed the south) then Sherman gets royally screwed up the butt by a knife without the benefit of anesthetic or lubricants, Forrest beat everyone he fought till April 1865, when he finally lost, outnumbered and surrounded, with few supplies.

We're past the Civil War here and onto what comes later. Try to keep up. Do you really think any peace between the USA and CSA would be permanent?

The South would have plowed ahead on tank research, their horses were built for speed and the south would have made it so their tanks were too. As for germany tying up their allies, so what, if the germans are tying up their allies, then the Germans are tied up too, if they took forces off of the line to stop the confederates then the lines probably would have broken somewhere and the germans would have been eaten alive, if they hadn't taken forces off of the front lines to stop the confederates then the confederates would eat them alive, no matter what the Gwermans would have been stretched too thin to stop that many forces at once.

The South was full of romantics who loved their horses and their cavalry officers. They also lagged way behind in industrialization. There is almost no chance they would beat anyone to the development of tanks.

My point about the Germans is that, since they would be fighting Britain and France, the CSA would have no allies, leaving them to fight the US alone. And they just couldn't match up.

I thnik we are all asuming that the USA and the CSA would have an adversarial relationship. Perhaps, with the growing threat of other powers, they would choose to be allies instead of enemies.

Remeber Great Britian and France. They were at war untill roughly 1815. In the 1840's, they alled against the Russians in the Crimean war.

Just a little something to chew on.

But who would emerge in North America as a greater threat? Geographical isolation would give them the opportunity to pick at old wounds, because nobody outside presents a credible threat.

Had the Confederacy won the War of Northern Aggression, and our brave armies thrown back the invasion, an atmosphere of Christianity, Conservatism, and traditionalism would have prevailed. The murder of the unborn would never have been legal, whether or not one makes over 300 Grand a year would not be the first thing on everyone's minds, and we would not have experienced disastors like Clinton and JFK. Without a Damnyankee (yes, it is one word indeed) population controling things like the media and parts of the government, our culture would have more ends than godless pleasure. Reason would prevail, as would learning, unlike the Fruedianism, deconstructionism, and moral relativsm the Ivy League has been spewing for years (I'm going there next year I'm afraid :headbang: ). God bless Dixie!


PS As to slavery, while a terrible wrong we Southerners did commit, racism was at an almost equal level in the North, and if you read history you would know that only 1/20 actually fought for or against slavery. This having been said, eventually pressure from the British and French would have ended that horrible institution. People are commenting, very lucidly, that it might have been much like Brazil. I am inclined to agree.

The murder of the unborn would never have been legal

I am misunderstanding......how can you murder someone who has not been born?

Here are the definitions:

Born: Brought into life by birth.

Murder: To put an end to life

If someone has not yet been brought into life, how can you "put an end to their life?

If the South had won the civil war, the more Industrial North would have been capable of retaking the South in a few years.

If the South holds out several Union attempts to reclain it, and a peace settlement reached, then the history of the South would have mirrored the history of South Africa.
Slavery would have eventually ended, prehaps with European economic pressure. but Apartheid would ensue.
There would be a very wide gap between rich (generally whites) and poor (generally blacks).
A rigid class system would develop, the rich white plantation owners and the few industrialists there were in the south would dominate the government and industry, poorer whites would work in the military and police, and the blacks would live in abject poverty.
Parts of the South would industrialize, but most of it would remain rural
Racial equality would remain a clash point for several hundred years
Culturally the North and South would diverge
The north would work its way into a more progressive and liberal nation, much like Europe

The CSA would have abolished slavery in 20-40 years, than they would have become what they are today...
I agree...
they would belong in the G8...and would belong in NATO and Pan-American Treaties...

...then the history of the South would have mirrored the history of South Africa....not quite...

in SA the White are a small minority...that is not the case in the USA..

The problem is that the Confederacy would only have beaten the Union if they had destroyed the Union army to a degree that it would be impossible to keep running. This could not happen. The Union was just in a better economic situation. If it happened, the Union would have taken them over eventually.

BTW - I'm a New Jersey Yankee (not for the team though)

If the South had won the civil war, the more Industrial North would have been capable of retaking the South in a few years.

If the South holds out several Union attempts to reclain it, and a peace settlement reached, then the history of the South would have mirrored the history of South Africa.
Slavery would have eventually ended, prehaps with European economic pressure. but Apartheid would ensue.
There would be a very wide gap between rich (generally whites) and poor (generally blacks).
A rigid class system would develop, the rich white plantation owners and the few industrialists there were in the south would dominate the government and industry, poorer whites would work in the military and police, and the blacks would live in abject poverty.
Parts of the South would industrialize, but most of it would remain rural
Racial equality would remain a clash point for several hundred years
Culturally the North and South would diverge
The north would work its way into a more progressive and liberal nation, much like Europe

You paint the entire system very arbitrarily.... The South already had large industrial centers, even before the war... Virginia and Lousiana playing a large part of it... And Tank development would have been an eventuality on both sides... There would have been more pressure for quickness in the south, due to their aquirements of faster-'breeds' of calvary horse from Texas than the North was applicable too...

Remember, you are talking about the CSA here, the country with the first ironclad (CSS Virginia) and the first submarine (CSS Hundley, though it didn't work as well as it was designed to)....

...This could not happen...)I tie would be like a Victory for the South...and that was a possible oucome...

There is no arguing, the USA would be stronger than the CSA after the war. The only way the rebels could have won the war was with outside help. I doubt capturing DC would have been enough to end the war.

If we assume Britain and France helped defeat the north you would have two rival nations. Why? Because they share the same continent. The CSA would ally with Britain for protection against any attempt by the Yankees to retake it. The US would most likely not purchase Alaska from Russia since it would have a weak economy(remember the historical purchase was ratified with one vote). The south would industrialise slowly, the north would not grow as fast as it did in our time.

I can see both nations becoming relatively isolated, the civil rights are not ratified in the south until the late 1980s after international sanctions.

The reason English is used in international affairs is because the US has been important. If population mattered Chinese and Arabic would be very important. In world war one and two French was commonly spoken by diplomats. If Germany would have become a super power it is likely German would play a large role in international affairs.

I was born in NC so I voted Rebel.
I think the blacks would still be slaves today if the South had won or atleast slaves to the 1950's.
Then again I think the South would have probably shot them all or deported them back to Africa if international pressure was involved.
A litle harsh but that is what I think would have happend.

The slaves would rebel and take over making them a nonminority

It is a historical improbability for the South to have won. From the beginning of the war, the South was playing for a tie. The best they could hope for was a Vietnam, a stalemate in which the North gave up and went home. This would have left both sides devastated, with few men to repopulate the (now divided) nation. Both sides would have been broken, neither side would try to conquer anything, and the United States may have failed to develop into the economic powerhouse that it is today. Slavery was on the way out for the second time when the war started. The cotton gin was the only reason that slavery maintained economic feasibility as long as it did. Had the South "won", the capitol might have moved, so as not to have the capitol city be a border town. The possibility that the two nations would even have been prepared to fight WWI is a slim one, both economies, being unable to support each other (and probably suffering from trade embargoes against each other) would have suffered, maybe even collapsed, States' rights would have won out, and it would still be the United States of America instead of The United States of America. (seriously, until the civil war, the t was rarely capitalized. after the civil war, we went from being a conglomeration of states to being one nation.)

Speaking of the possibility of WW1 engagement between the USA and CSA. If England was allied with the Confederates, then all Her colonies would be too. Including Canada. Wouldn't this mean that the U.S. would have to fight on two fronts?

in SA the White are a small minority...that is not the case in the USA..

not yet, It will be soon, thank God.

not yet, It will be soon, thank God.
And just what the hell is that supposed to mean?

And just what the hell is that supposed to mean?


Being that the poster is in CA. and wants whites to be a minority .. the thought that he/she is mexican came to mind.