I'll start by acknowledging that the slavery issue was a portion of the Civil War taking place but far from being the primary issue. Here is my question that I ponder often:

What would our country look like today if the South had won?

Would Richmond be the capital? Atlanta?
How many states would there be today?
Would there be a two party system?
Which countries would have come calling? Which countries would have pulled away?
World War 1 influence? WWII influence? Would there have been a Vietnam?
Would Lincoln have been assassinated?
International trade? Boom or bust?
What would our crime rate look like?
Would prisons be as large & numerous?
Would we have allowed immigration to be a major factor?
What would slavery look like? Would it even be an issue?

Okay, we get it. You are a liberal lunatic with bad TDS, and is for anything that isn't Trump

CW1 was more about States rights than it was about having/owning Slaves. (which by the way, we are all slaves today - just comes in different forms.).....

DW2 will be against Muslims/Islam....you have millions just waiting for the first shot (event) and then it's on like Donkey Kong...

Thee University said:

---

I'll start by acknowledging that the slavery issue was a portion of the Civil War taking place but far from being the primary issue. Here is my question that I ponder often:

What would our country look like today if the South had won?

Would Richmond be the capital? Atlanta?
How many states would there be today?
Would there be a two party system?
Which countries would have come calling? Which countries would have pulled away?
World War 1 influence? WWII influence? Would there have been a Vietnam?
Would Lincoln have been assassinated?
International trade? Boom or bust?
What would our crime rate look like?
Would prisons be as large & numerous?
Would we have allowed immigration to be a major factor?
What would slavery look like? Would it even be an issue?

---

Defends on the country...USA or CSA

The CSA would be a defacto humid subtropical Canada

Economic allied (vassal) to the far more GDP rich and militarily powerful USA

It would be dependent on USA markets

It's an interesting question to ponder. For one thing it is highly likely that permanently splitting the country in two would have meant that America ultimately becoming the world power/world leader it became would have never happened and I shudder to think what other country might have emerged to fill the void.

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's an interesting question to ponder. For one thing it is highly likely that permanently splitting the country in two would have meant that America ultimately becoming the world power/world leader it became would have never happened and I shudder to think what other country might have emerged to fill the void.

---

The USA probably did not needed the Southern States to be a world power.

In fact to make up for the lack of the Southern States it would have been more driven to expand its population with European immigration between 1870-1920 and develop the Western part of the USA above Arizona (assuming Arizona & New Mexico were incorporated into the CSA)

Canada and CSA (Dixie) then become the agriculture and resource providers for a dynamic capitalist-factory society in the USA.

Europe still commits suicide in two world wars.....USA still comes out on top

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

Thee University said:

---

I'll start by acknowledging that the slavery issue was a portion of the Civil War taking place but far from being the primary issue. Here is my question that I ponder often:

What would our country look like today if the South had won?

Would Richmond be the capital? Atlanta?
How many states would there be today?
Would there be a two party system?
Which countries would have come calling? Which countries would have pulled away?
World War 1 influence? WWII influence? Would there have been a Vietnam?
Would Lincoln have been assassinated?
International trade? Boom or bust?
What would our crime rate look like?
Would prisons be as large & numerous?
Would we have allowed immigration to be a major factor?
What would slavery look like? Would it even be an issue?

---

We would have it made

Thee University said:

---

I'll start by acknowledging that the slavery issue was a portion of the Civil War taking place but far from being the primary issue. Here is my question that I ponder often:

What would our country look like today if the South had won?

Would Richmond be the capital? Atlanta?
How many states would there be today?
Would there be a two party system?
Which countries would have come calling? Which countries would have pulled away?
World War 1 influence? WWII influence? Would there have been a Vietnam?
Would Lincoln have been assassinated?
International trade? Boom or bust?
What would our crime rate look like?
Would prisons be as large & numerous?
Would we have allowed immigration to be a major factor?
What would slavery look like? Would it even be an issue?

---

Atlanta would have been the capital.

An additional 3-5 states would have joined by 1890.

Yes....a 2 party system

All countries would have established relationships .

Would have entered WW1....avoided WW2.

Lincoln would not have been assassinated.

International trade...... bust.

Crime rate would be even worse than today.

Prison farms would be privately owned and a collective nightmare.

Immigration would continue to be a major factor.

Slavery was already a losing business practise by 1860. It would have been totally abolished by 1880. Only because it was not profitable.

By 1925 whites ( those with enough money to do so ) would be immigrating to the North and West in droves.

BluesBear said:

---

CW1 was more about States rights than it was about having/owning Slaves. (which by the way, we are all slaves today - just comes in different forms.).....

DW2 will be against Muslims/Islam....you have millions just waiting for the first shot (event) and then it's on like Donkey Kong...

---

Every democrat vote is complicit on what they wrought upon their children for the few that have em and the rest of us.

Thee University said:

---

What would our country look like today if the South had won?

Would Richmond be the capital? Atlanta?
How many states would there be today?
Would there be a two party system?
Which countries would have come calling? Which countries would have pulled away?
World War 1 influence? WWII influence? Would there have been a Vietnam?
Would Lincoln have been assassinated?
International trade? Boom or bust?
What would our crime rate look like?
Would prisons be as large & numerous?
Would we have allowed immigration to be a major factor?
What would slavery look like? Would it even be an issue?

---

These are always interesting intellectual exercises. I'll give it my best shot.

Richmond would still be the capital. For starters it was already there and political inertia is hard to overcome. Also, population growth in the deep south like you see in the 20th century really only took off after the invention of air conditioning.

How many states? That is hard to say because this would have directly affected westward expansion. I have no idea how the southern states felt about manifest destiny apart from trying to balance slave vs non-slave states for representation in DC. Both the USA and the CSA might have expanded west. Or the USA may have expanded west to incorporate 3/4ths of the continent. Or several nations may have arisen, the Mormons getting their Desert Kingdom in Utah and the Pacific States forming their own nation.

Involvement in WW1 would probably not have happened, forcing the European nations to hammer out a more sensible peace treaty than Versailles, precluding a second world war. I doubt there would have been any interest in the sort of foreign misadventures as you see today.

The industrial revolution would have put an end to slavery as it did all around the world. The North American Negro population would likely have concentrated in what was left of the United States as a result of slaves running away and natural attrition after the end of slavery. You would see northern demographics look more like parts of the rural south, and the CSA remain a majority white country.

As a result, crime rates in what was left of the USA would be higher than those in the CSA.

At some point you might have even seen white northerners emigrate south or a form of segregation persist into the modern era.

I think the downstream result of this would be a very different immigration policy in both the USA and CSA than you see today.

The Republicans arose as an anti slavery party. There would be no room for it in the CSA. What would probably arise were Democrats who, like Jefferson Davis were advocates of a stronger central government from Richmond and Libertarians descended from Alexander Stephens.

Lincoln would not have been assassinated.

...and this future was probably as close as not firing on Fort Sumter as there probably would not have been the political will in the USA to launch a war against the CSA without that spark.

BluesBear said:

---

CW1 was more about States rights than it was about having/owning Slaves. (which by the way, we are all slaves today - just comes in different forms.).....

DW2 will be against Muslims/Islam....you have millions just waiting for the first shot (event) and then it's on like Donkey Kong...

---

It was primarily about the refusal to recognize Federal supremacy, and the issue of slavery was the cause.

Realitybites said:

---

Thee University said:

---

What would our country look like today if the South had won?

Would Richmond be the capital? Atlanta?
How many states would there be today?
Would there be a two party system?
Which countries would have come calling? Which countries would have pulled away?
World War 1 influence? WWII influence? Would there have been a Vietnam?
Would Lincoln have been assassinated?
International trade? Boom or bust?
What would our crime rate look like?
Would prisons be as large & numerous?
Would we have allowed immigration to be a major factor?
What would slavery look like? Would it even be an issue?

---

The Republicans arose as an anti slavery party. There would be no room for it in the CSA. What would probably arise were Democrats who, like Jefferson Davis were advocates of a stronger central government from Richmond and Libertarians descended from Alexander Stephens.

---

Yep,

Also, the planter class would have gone back to being Whigs (new Whig party)

So they would have taken the Democratic party in that director or launched their own party (the new Whigs)

The Appalachian Whites and Poor/working class Southerners would have taken over the Democratic party or launched a more populist party of their own.

[Many wealthy Southern planters supported the Whig Party during the Second Party System in the 1830s and 1840s , though political loyalties varied and many planters also joined the Democratic Party.
Large plantations operated as commercial businesses focused on cash crops like cotton, tobacco, and rice. The Whig Party favored pro-business policies, a national bank, and federal funding for internal improvements (like railroads and waterways), which appealed to market-oriented planters.
Whigs often viewed themselves as a party of property, order, and elite leadership, contrasting with the populist rhetoric of Jacksonian Democrats]

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

I'll explain.

Sometimes, you get a feedback loop that reinforces your actions regardless of all the contradictory evidence. The Confederacy believed was right and justified by God. They were willing to send your children off to die for it. If I'm willing to send your kids off to die so I can own people, then I must make sure the best death isn't in vain.

The only other option would have been a Confederacy where no one would do trade with.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's an interesting question to ponder. For one thing it is highly likely that permanently splitting the country in two would have meant that America ultimately becoming the world power/world leader it became would have never happened and I shudder to think what other country might have emerged to fill the void.

---

The USA probably did not needed the Southern States to be a world power.

In fact to make up for the lack of the Southern States it would have been more driven to expand its population with European immigration between 1870-1920 and develop the Western part of the USA above Arizona (assuming Arizona & New Mexico were incorporated into the CSA)

Canada and CSA (Dixie) then become the agriculture and resource providers for a dynamic capitalist-factory society in the USA.

Europe still commits suicide in two world wars.....USA still comes out on top

---

I know we're all totally speculating here, but with all due respect I believe you are way underestimating the importance of the CSA states and the long term impact of America being divided instead of united. While I agree the USA without the southern states may well have gone on to still become a strong powerful country, I still think the likelihood of the USA going on to be the superpower world leader that it became and still is today would've been greatly diminished to say the least.

Johnny Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

It's an interesting question to ponder. For one thing it is highly likely that permanently splitting the country in two would have meant that America ultimately becoming the world power/world leader it became would have never happened and I shudder to think what other country might have emerged to fill the void.

---

The USA probably did not needed the Southern States to be a world power.

In fact to make up for the lack of the Southern States it would have been more driven to expand its population with European immigration between 1870-1920 and develop the Western part of the USA above Arizona (assuming Arizona & New Mexico were incorporated into the CSA)

Canada and CSA (Dixie) then become the agriculture and resource providers for a dynamic capitalist-factory society in the USA.

Europe still commits suicide in two world wars.....USA still comes out on top

---

I know we're all totally speculating here, but with all due respect I believe you are way underestimating the importance of the CSA states and the long term impact of America being divided instead of united. While I agree the USA without the southern states may well have gone on to still become a strong powerful country, I still think the likelihood of the USA going on to be the superpower world leader that it became and still is today would've been greatly diminished to say the least.

---

You certainly might be right

I am basing that idea on the USA and CSA having no wars between each other...and the CSA falling into relationship with the USA like Canada.

And the USA having all its current territory other than Arizona back to the South.

If Europe destroys itself in those two horrible world wars...and the USA still industrializes like it did in our current timeline.

If that happens....then the USA essentially is the only great power standing that is capitalist after 1945

Losing the South hurts the USA....but its not fatal.

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

I'll explain.

Sometimes, you get a feedback loop that reinforces your actions regardless of all the contradictory evidence. The Confederacy believed was right and justified by God. They were willing to send your children off to die for it. If I'm willing to send your kids off to die so I can own people, then I must make sure the best death isn't in vain.

The only other option would have been a Confederacy where no one would do trade with.

---

Slavery was an established money loser long before the civil war began. Was not uncommon for plantation owners to die heavily in debt. ( Thomas Jefferson for example. )

The North had found a far cheaper source of labor....the Irish. And southern businessmen were aware of it.

Slavery was headed to extinction.....not due to God or morality........but because it was becoming increasingly clear......it was not a viable long term economic platform.

---

Yep,

[historical research shows that most antebellum planters lived deeply in debt despite owning vast nominal wealth tied up in land and enslaved people.

Planters' fortunes were tied to the high market value of land and enslaved human beings, but this value was not ready cash. A planter might "own" hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets while possessing very little actual currency.

Because of fluctuating global cotton prices, over-expansion, and the high cost of maintaining enslaved workforces, many large plantations perpetually rolled over their debts from one harvest season to the next. Individual recorded debts varied from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands -sums equivalent to millions of dollars today- meaning many plantations operated under a crushing burden of credit that ultimately enriched northern and British financial institutions more than it secured liquid cash for the planter]

There would be a slave rebellion

Waco1947 said:

---

There would be a slave rebellion

---

There had always been minor ones...

But like in Brazil (ended slavery by law in 1888) there would have not been a major one that overturned the system.

Just like Brazil... the CSA would have done a slow roll manumission of slaves and end of slavery by the 1880s

There were never enough slaves in the South to sustain a successful revolt...free population of the South was 65% in 1860....35% slave

And it was concentrated in certain counties.

[...roughly 250 to 300 counties across the South where enslaved people made up 50% or more of the total population.]

There were about 1,050 counites in the South at the time. 250 counties had free populations of 90% or more.

[slavery was heavily concentrated in specific counties and regions across the American South. Historical maps from the 1860 census, analyzed by the Smithsonian Magazine, show that enslaved populations were tightly grouped where rich soil and profitable cash crops..
Mississippi River Valley: This river region held the highest density of enslaved people. Rich soil made large cotton plantations very successful here
South Carolina and Georgia Coasts: Coastal counties used massive numbers of enslaved workers for rice and long-staple cotton.
Eastern Virginia and Chesapeake Bay: This older southern region relied heavily on enslaved labor for tobacco and grain farming]

In the over 200 years of slavery....never a major slave revolt in the South.

Primarily due to severe repression of the slaves by whites, and the difficulty of organizing such a revolt involving people who could not read or write and ( in the overwhelming number of cases ) had no idea of the world even 30 miles from their plantation.

Thee University said:

---

I'll start by acknowledging that the slavery issue was a portion of the Civil War taking place but far from being the primary issue. Here is my question that I ponder often:

What would our country look like today if the South had won?

Would Richmond be the capital? Atlanta?
How many states would there be today?
Would there be a two party system?
Which countries would have come calling? Which countries would have pulled away?
World War 1 influence? WWII influence? Would there have been a Vietnam?
Would Lincoln have been assassinated?
International trade? Boom or bust?
What would our crime rate look like?
Would prisons be as large & numerous?
Would we have allowed immigration to be a major factor?
What would slavery look like? Would it even be an issue?

---

I love these kinds of questions ... thank you! This also is really difficult ...

My gut is ...
1. RIC would be the capital
2. The CSA would not have grown - no more slaves states to be had
3. Over time, I think you would see more alliance / cooperation but much less centralized federal power and more state autonomy ... but I also think that might fail and we would get back to where we are today ...
4. I suspect slavery probably ends around 1880 ...

Some of the other curious questions I could not even fathom to try and answer.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

---

1. It did everywhere else....

Cuba officially abolished slavery on October 7, 1886
Brazil abolished slavery on May 13, 1888
Dutch Colonies & Caribbean (Suriname, Aruba, Curaao, etc.): 1863 (with a 10-year transition period ending in 1873)
Colombia: 1851
Ecuador: 1851
Peru: 1854
Venezuela: 1858
Paraguay: 1870


2. It was economically unprofitable compared to wage labor.... debt heavy and cash poor...and once the British & French decided to stamp out the sea/ship based trade of slaves it was an institution on borrowed time.

[As various nations banned the transatlantic slave trade (starting with Denmark in 1803 and Great Britain/US in 1807), the supply of enslaved people dropped, causing the cost of buying enslaved labor to skyrocket]

Once land owners had the chance to turn slaves into low wage free labors...and mechanization meant less laborers...the institution was on its last decades. Ideology or no ideology

[Historian Eric Williams famously argued that profits from the transatlantic slave trade initially funded Britain's industrialization, but once industry matured, British capitalists found slavery to be an inefficient drag on the new economy...
Enslaved people had no personal economic incentive to work efficiently, preserve tools, or innovate, meaning plantations required high surveillance and enforcement costs.
Business owners preferred wage workers because employers could easily fire them during economic downturns, whereas slave owners had to pay for the food, shelter, and security of enslaved people regardless of market conditions.]

Interesting question, want to cogitate on that and circle back.

All the economic arguments in the world cannot erase the central fact the defenders of the CSA's long-term survival keep avoiding: human beings do not willingly remain slaves forever.
The argument here is far too mechanistic. You can calculate cotton production, railroad capacity, trade agreements, and military strength, but you are treating millions of enslaved human beings as if they were machinery in an economic system rather than people with minds, courage, families, hopes, and an overwhelming desire to be free.
The enslaved population was never simply going to sit quietly for generations and accept permanent bondage. Resistance to slavery was already a constant realityescape, sabotage, rebellion, and every other effort to reclaim human freedom. An independent Confederacy would have faced the same fundamental contradiction indefinitely: a society claiming independence and liberty for itself while denying both to millions of people.
And why assume the North would simply make peace with a permanently slaveholding nation on its border? Perhaps abolitionists, governments, or private networks would have supported escapes and resistance. Perhaps the Confederacy would have faced an ongoing guerrilla struggle from within, assisted from outside. The very existence of a large enslaved population created a permanent internal vulnerability that no economic spreadsheet can adequately measure.
That is the weakness in these purely economic arguments. They treat slavery as though it were a stable business arrangement that could continue indefinitely if the numbers worked. But slavery involved human beingsand human beings yearn to be free. You cannot permanently reduce the desire for freedom to a line item in an economic calculation.
The CSA might have survived for a time. But the idea that it could have created a permanently stable slave empire ignores the most powerful force in the equation: the people being enslaved.

Waco1947 said:

---

All the economic arguments in the world cannot erase the central fact the defenders of the CSA's long-term survival keep avoiding: human beings do not willingly remain slaves forever.

---

Which is why the logical assumption is they would have moved away from Slavery over the coming years.

(just like all the South American and Latin American States that had slavery)

The assumption on the other side is that the CSA would have just kept on with slavery long into the 20th century...without giving us a practical reason for why that would have happened.

Just some version of "CSA evil...so CSA would have kept on doing evil things like Slavery forever"

With slavery being rampant in Africa could it have been better for those slaves, largely captured and sold by African chiefs and headed to the US………….wasn't being a slave in the US far better in the long run than being a slave in Africa?

Thee University said:

---

With slavery being rampant in Africa could it have been better for those slaves, largely captured and sold by African chiefs and headed to the US………….wasn't being a slave in the US far better in the long run than being a slave in Africa?

---

This question has been asked for centuries. In either situation the lives of blacks was likely to be very short.

IMO the better question is...... was the United States better off in the long run allowing slaves to be deposited on its shores ?

This board is too woke for my answer.

Sorry

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

I'm sure slave owners knew John Deere tractors were coming.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

I'll explain.

Sometimes, you get a feedback loop that reinforces your actions regardless of all the contradictory evidence. The Confederacy believed was right and justified by God. They were willing to send your children off to die for it. If I'm willing to send your kids off to die so I can own people, then I must make sure the best death isn't in vain.

The only other option would have been a Confederacy where no one would do trade with.

---

Agreed. Thee trots out the old trope that the Civil War wasn't about slavery when any credible historian or academic clearly states it was about slavery and not states rights.

One of my history professors at Baylor (1980s) once said that history is not written in the subjunctive and that idea sticks because it is profoundly true. While such discussions can be entertaining (& occasionally irresistible) they are ultimately pointless. No one knows or can know what would have happened if only X, Y, or Z. Whether it's changing who won a war (WWII is popular in fiction and movies) or some other event, it's impossible to do anything except make wild guesses.

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Slavery was in decline and would have ended almost completely with the industrialization of agriculture.

The CSA was comprised of states that believed each had the right to their own individual destinies. As such, several of the member states would have eventually become independent nations or have sought admission back into the US as the US continued to amass military, industrial, financial, and political power.

---

Slavery would not have ended on its own. I see (not a southerner) the southern states similarly to how I see the current Israeli leadership.

I'll explain.

Sometimes, you get a feedback loop that reinforces your actions regardless of all the contradictory evidence. The Confederacy believed was right and justified by God. They were willing to send your children off to die for it. If I'm willing to send your kids off to die so I can own people, then I must make sure the best death isn't in vain.

The only other option would have been a Confederacy where no one would do trade with.

---

Agreed. Thee trots out the old trope that the Civil War wasn't about slavery when any credible historian or academic clearly states it was about slavery and not states rights.

---

Makes you wonder then . . . why do so many want to make the Civil War about slavery when there were so many other factors in play?

And on the flip, why do so many want to make the Civil War about states rights when slavery was a critical component of states rights.

I wager there is a middle area between the two camps where the actual truth lies.