maybe you could clarify the question by defining on what basis the craven North surrendered?
Making the minimum number of assumptions, I think the South would have had to be in a position to quit while they were ahead, go home and build a new nation, and let the North go hang.
Being a Texan, I think we might have been a frontier state with limited support from whatever the Conferacy has morphed into. During the 1830's to the 1860's, Texas desperately needed help from outside its own borders. I'm a little afraid Texas might have had a hard time making it, either as an independent state or as a Confederate state.
But if we had survived until Spindletop, and then the East Texas Oil Field, what then? A SLAVE HOLDING oil rich state?
I'm not going to get into the question of whose culture was superior, north or south, but I do think the North's culture had more survival strengths, resources, etc. than the Confereracy and that the Confederacy would ultimately wind up being subsumed by the North.

But whover brought up reconstruction is right. I'm so mad I still call myself a Democrat.
(Early voter 4 GWB, BTW!)

There is a whole genre of Sci-Fi called alternate history that deals with ideas like this.  I have read at least three or four about the Civil War. The best was "How Few Remain" by Harry Turtledove which is actually about the second war between the states in the 1880's.  This is the begining of a series that gets a little tedious.

$0.75 plus shipping at amazon


Edited to remove html screwups

Edited again to remove more screwups, this board is different from others I use.  Sorry

Quoted: ok, what if the north had won?

I think that if the CSA had won the war, slavery would have been abolished around the turn of the century[1900ad]. I think that the civil rights movment would have been much moor violent, and that the U.S.A. would still be the world superpower we are today.       I belive that if the war of northern agresion ended in a draw, we would be like North and South Korea. That is a sad thought. It is to bad the south lost the war, but I am glad the US is one country. God Bless America

Quoted: Trailer homes would be seen as "high living". Public School would stop at the 10th grade. Having more than 4 teeth would be considered "flashy" The whole country would think Jeff Foxworthy was a "high faluting intellectual..........."

Do you really have that low of an opinion of the North? Don't forget your inner cities and sKerry, Kennedy, Hitlery, etc. are from up in your area on the country.

Quoted: Quoted: Trailer homes would be seen as "high living". Public School would stop at the 10th grade. Having more than 4 teeth would be considered "flashy" The whole country would think Jeff Foxworthy was a "high faluting intellectual..........." Do you really have that low of an opinion of the North? Don't forget your inner cities and sKerry, Kennedy, Hitlery, etc. are from up in your area on the country.

Actually, Hillary is from your neck of the woods.  What state was her husband governor of again?

We would not be a super power. Most of the history involving the US as a super power over the past century would not have happened, so its likely that Europe would be speaking German, most of the Pacific area would be speaking Japanese, etc. We would be a third rate world power.

Quoted: Trailer homes would be seen as "high living". Public School would stop at the 10th grade. Having more than 4 teeth would be considered "flashy" The whole country would think Jeff Foxworthy was a "high faluting intellectual..........."

More marriages between cousins

Quoted: During that time California attempted secession to start own country, but failed.

What a shame!

Quoted: Quoted: During that time California attempted secession to start own country, but failed. What a shame!

Yeah.  We wouldn't get that influx of hippies infestation in the sixties.

Quoted: What would our country be like TODAY, October 20th, 2004. Would we be a super power? Would we be a part of the global economy? Would the industrial revolution have occurred? Would we have a history of fighting against Communism and have fought in Vietnam, Korea, etc.? Would we be more evil or more good? Would our laws be stricter? Would liberalism have risen during the 60's? Perhaps we would have ended up exactly where we are today anyway? Let's hear some opinions. 13 states of the Confederacy South Carolina (Dec 20, 1860) Mississippi (Jan 9, 1861) Florida (Jan 10, 1861) Alabama (Jan 11, 1861) Georgia (Jan 19, 1861) Louisiana (Jan 26, 1861) Texas (Feb 1, 1861) Virginia (Apr 17, 1861) Arkansas (May 6, 1861) Tennessee (May 7, 1861) North Carolina (May 21, 1861) Kentucky (secession tried but failed) Missouri (secession tried but failed)

We would have been 100% FUCKED

The US would never have developed any of the inventions, weapons, or products that we take for granted. No internet, no AR15, etc...

We would have no military power, as the Federal government would be too weak to organize it...

Europe, destroyed even worse by a longer, dragged out 1st World War where the US was an impotent isolationist 3rd-world hellhole, would have fallen to Communisim , and Stalin would control everything from Normandy to Siberia.

WWII would have been the USSR vs Japan (Hitler would not have come to power), and the Japanese would easily control everything from their homeland to Hawaii .

And we'd have no civil liberties left to complain about them being 'threatended', as the STATES were and are far more TYRANNICAL than ANY incarnation of the Federal Government ever yas been...

Quoted: We wouldn't be dealing with silly-ass gun control!

Because the 'sovreiegn' states, not bound by the US Constitution (either thru the precedent of a weak Federal government, or because they could secede whenever an election didn't go their way), would have beanned 'em all allready...

The worst gun control is and allways has been municipal and state level...

um basically AGNTSA.

But to answer, we'd have two countries.  One exactly as it is now in the North.  And one more closely mirroring the separation of powers doctrine that the country was originally founded on.
Whether the CSA would have lasted in its original form is doubtful tho.  Simply put, the Confederacy TOO closely mirrored the Articles of Confederation.  The South just didn't have enough central authority.

Thats my opinion anyways.

And the divided nation part is kind of ridiculous.  The vast majority of heavy industry was STILL in the north by world war 2.  

Actually, there is some speculation that the USA would have gone on the side of the Germans in WW 1 and the CSA would have sided with the British and French because of its extensive dependancy on european trade.  But thats just speculation.

Quoted: Quoted: If the South won, Southeners would have even less State's Rights than they do now.   The government of the COnfederacy trampled over the rights of it's own citizens worse than the North ever did.   Davis institutied the first Draft in American History, a year before the North started it's own draft.  The Confederte govt. had the power to confiscate property, regulate interstate commerce amongst it's own member states, taxed the member states for the purpose of maintaining the Confederate govt., instituted laws that prohibited it's member States from passing any laws that interefered with Slavery (so much for States Rights), suspended Haebus Corpus, and a secert law was passed that gave the Confederate govt. control of each member state's militia (that's how Davis could order the SOuth Carolina militia forces to open fire on Ft. Sumter) Good thing for our Southern members of this board that the South lost.   Yeah, but have a little context here.  The Confederacy was entirely a wartime government.  I don't think any of those things would have lasted post-war.  I can't imagine a victorious Confederacy establishing a national army or police force to enforce those kinda things, or even an IRS.  Hell, they couldn't get the state govs to coordinate when they were fighting for their lives, why would they do it in peacetime? This inability to coordinate would have eventually doomed the Confederacy-some federalism is necessary to have a country.  But it's reabsorbtion into the Union would have left us with a much stronger state's rights tradition and a government based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  No Roe v. Wade, no gun control, no forced removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses, no federal DEA jbts kicking down doors and shooting innocents, etc.

A 'strict interpretation of the constitution'

Like the one that said Linclon, not Davis, was the legitimate president, did not permit secession, and BANNED the formation of the CSA (No state shall enter into...)...

Face it, the South decided to ignore a lawful election and up-and-leave because the Democrats lost...

You can't blame Linclon for DOING anything to precipitate secession, as it all started MERELY BECAUSE HE WAS ELECTED....

You're forgetting.  When the FORMER states formed the CSA they were NO LONGER a part of the USA. They seceded first, THEN they came together into a willing consitutional convention.  Nothing in the constitution prohibits a state from LEAVING the union just as nothing compelled it to join against its own will.

Much like the 13 colonies did 80 years before, the southern states each and of its own accord individually left the United States.  They then came together for mutual defense.

They apparently needed to, considering who invaded who.

First off the South could never have won, never had a chance and anybody that thinks they had a chance is just showing his abyssmal ignorance, of the economics of the war, economics of the mercantile world,  etc.  Anybody that thinks the South would have been a bastion ov Civil Rights is abyssmally ignorant of how egregious the South was on Civil Rights, as noted above, they abolished Habeus Corpus, the free press,  many property rights, instituted gun control.

Add to the list that they expanded the internal passports reserved for blacks before the war to all citizens

They hoped to expand the country and slavery into Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, even though the current governments and peoples  were already there.  In other words they were going to try to compete militarily and economically with the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Portugese Empire, re-instate slavery where it had already been abolished.  And of course all they had was cotton, some tobacco, and some sugar.  Which was and could be replaced by cotton grown in Egypt, Brazil and Argentina, tobacco throughout the Caribbean and Philippines and sugar grown in almost all tropics areas.  With minimal manufacturing capability, they expected to take on empires that could build and  arm their militaries?

Give me a break.  Various European countries were more than happy to see the North get a black eye but they weren't going to support the South to the detriment of their own merchants and colonies.

Without Southern obstructionsism the North would have built it's RR connections to the Pacific Coast , just like it did .  Do you think Mexico would have ceded the Gadsden Purchase allowing  a southern RR route to a CSA that was an active competitor?

The government of the COnfederacy trampled over the rights of it's own citizens worse than the North ever did.
Davis institutied the first Draft in American History, a year before the North started it's own draft. The Confederte govt. had the power to confiscate property, regulate interstate commerce amongst it's own member states, taxed the member states for the purpose of maintaining the Confederate govt., instituted laws that prohibited it's member States from passing any laws that interefered with Slavery (so much for States Rights), suspended Haebus Corpus, and a secert law was passed that gave the Confederate govt. control of each member state's militia (that's how Davis could order the SOuth Carolina militia forces to open fire on Ft. Sumter)


Similiar to what goes on now.

Quoted: Quoted: Again, what powers did the Confederacy have?  How exactly was it supposed to "take control" of the state militias?  Civil War history is full of examples of state military commanders and government officials telling Davis to take a walk.  Look at the lack of coordination at opposing Sherman.   I don't think you can base any speculation about the eventual form of the Confederacy by looking solely at the actions of the impotent wartime Davis administration. These powers "The Confederate constitutional crises seemed to start with its creation. Because the rebel constitution invested war-making powers in the Confederate congress, wasn't the governor of South Carolina really the only authority able to order the attack on Fort Sumter? Jefferson's Davis' order to attack Sumter and another Federal fort in Florida, it was later discovered, was authorized by a secret law passed by the Richmond congress." In other words, Jefferson Davis was able to order two different member State's Militia (in this case, South Carolina and Florida) to attack federal forts, when the power to do that should have rested with the respecitve state governors.   This is from David Currie,a professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School and a noted expert on American constitutional history. www.law.virginia.edu/home2002/html/news/2002_fall/confed.htm The Confederacy also had the power to confiscate property, regulate interstate commerce, leveled a tax, and started a draft.  These all go against the States Rights concept they supposedly seceeded for.

sure.  All you have to do is point out to me exactly how is was that the Confederacy, i.e. Davis, was able to wield ANY power whatsoever, given that he had NO army, NO police force, and NO ability to raise funds without the expressed consent of the states.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the South won, Southeners would have even less State's Rights than they do now.   The government of the COnfederacy trampled over the rights of it's own citizens worse than the North ever did.   Davis institutied the first Draft in American History, a year before the North started it's own draft.  The Confederte govt. had the power to confiscate property, regulate interstate commerce amongst it's own member states, taxed the member states for the purpose of maintaining the Confederate govt., instituted laws that prohibited it's member States from passing any laws that interefered with Slavery (so much for States Rights), suspended Haebus Corpus, and a secert law was passed that gave the Confederate govt. control of each member state's militia (that's how Davis could order the SOuth Carolina militia forces to open fire on Ft. Sumter) Good thing for our Southern members of this board that the South lost.   Yeah, but have a little context here.  The Confederacy was entirely a wartime government.  I don't think any of those things would have lasted post-war.  I can't imagine a victorious Confederacy establishing a national army or police force to enforce those kinda things, or even an IRS.  Hell, they couldn't get the state govs to coordinate when they were fighting for their lives, why would they do it in peacetime? This inability to coordinate would have eventually doomed the Confederacy-some federalism is necessary to have a country.  But it's reabsorbtion into the Union would have left us with a much stronger state's rights tradition and a government based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  No Roe v. Wade, no gun control, no forced removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses, no federal DEA jbts kicking down doors and shooting innocents, etc. A 'strict interpretation of the constitution' Like the one that said Linclon, not Davis, was the legitimate president, did not permit secession, and BANNED the formation of the CSA (No state shall enter into...)... Face it, the South decided to ignore a lawful election and up-and-leave because the Democrats lost... You can't blame Linclon for DOING anything to precipitate secession, as it all started MERELY BECAUSE HE WAS ELECTED....

I don't contend that Lincoln was the one to blame for the War of Northern Aggression.  Buchanan was to blame.  And are you, or is anyone else, seriously going to attempt to argue that the colonies would have entered into any agreement that they felt did NOT allow them to leave at any time if they chose to do so?  I'd post a BS animation, but I think the point is obvious enough to do without one.

WTF are "states rights"?  States do not have rights, people do.  States have power and/or authority, but no rights.  I know that you mean decentraliztion of the federal government, and the fact that we are supposed to be a confederation of people from already established states, for the common good, with competing legal systems yada yada yada, but saying states have rights is just wrong.  

I get aggravated when people claim the Civil War was caused by something that doesn't even exist.  Then the same people claim slavery, which was very real, had nothing to do with it.

If the South won grits would still suck, the best reciever in the NFL would still be from WV, and Gore-Tex would have never been invented (PHUCK cotton).  It really don't matter.  For what its worth though, I'm fightin with yall next time - if Kennedy, Kerry, Klinton, and Schumer are all the North have to offer phuck 'em.

Quoted: There was some city in Virginia that closed it's public schools edit to add For 5 years-rather than give up segregation. I suppose the confederacy would have been better for white guys who were into guns, but for the rest, probably not so good. Oh and a divided US would not have been able to stop the Nazis so we'd all be speaking german at this point.

Actually, there probably would not have been any Nazis.  Lacking the entry, on specious grounds, into WWI, malcontents like Hitler would have rotted in jail.  LAcking a serious WWI (it would have been only a local conflict) there would have been no WWII in Europe.  

WWII in the PAcific might not have even involved us.  The real beginning of the PAcific war was between the British and Japanese Empires.  Classic.  Since Britain would not have been engaged with a Nazi Germany Power, they would have handily kicked the Japanese back to their islands.

Further, after WWI, there would have been no arbitrary divisions of territory such as the creation of an artificial state of Yugoslavia. Or, creation of states in the Middle East, the results of which are being fought at this moment in Iraq.  The bunch of drunken old men at conference tables in 1919 and 1920  would not have been in a position to lay the groundwork for world destruction.

As far as unification, my suspicion is the Northern and Southern halves of the nation might have reunified or, at the very least entered into a mutual defense treaty.  How about a confederation like Switzerland, a confederacy with the Confederacy?

RJRoberts is on the right track here.

You have to assume that no matter what was happening in North America, it's probably a safe and reasonable assumption the European powers would have made sure the country or countries in North America did not rise to the point they could have competed on the world stage.

This still leaves many of the precursors to WW1 and the war in the Pacific in pay.  The Baattenburg family was still in charge in the UK, Germany and Russia, the Spanish Empire was still pretty much intact and the Japanese would have eventually broke out of their shell and with the Shinto based view of the world would not have faded into the morass that China did.

So Communissm and the Russian Revolution would have happened, the Germans and British Empires would still have clashed, Spain would have kept the Pacific possessions and Japan would still have wanted to expand and become one of the big kids on the block.  Spain stayed out of WW1, where would they have lined up with ermany, England or stayed out?  I postulate she would have jumped in with Germany at some point if only to take back Gibraltar, maybe Malta.  

Could the United States have been a player on the world stage?  Maybe, she was  a manufacturing, food and resources rich country closer to Europe than most of the colonies in Africa and Asia.  The CSA would not have been a player, based on an economically bankrupt  agri-feudal system, she had nothing to bring to the game.  Assuming slavery got dumped, best case by 1880, worst case by 1900, she's still to late and too poor to be a player, think of her as a big Cuba, big Philippines, another Mexico, another Brazil, not as bad off though as China or India.  Would Texas have stayed in the Confederacy?  How about after the rest of the states tried to get in on the oil $$$  Texas may have been able to go it alone.  She could be a supplier of food and pol to Europe.

One also needs to figure out what would have happened with the Indians, Indian Territories and?? would the war between the states grind on absorbing military assets leaving the great plains and interior southwest to the Indians (Sioux, Commanche, Apaches), could the Indians ever have consolidated their hold on the area to the point that a larger "Indian Nation" was formed, could they  have formed some kind of non-nomadic lifestyle and come to a political conclusion?  or would they end result have been the same, another aboriginal population overcome by a stronger migrating population?  As has happened many times and places over the centuries.

I wouldn't have to clean my own house?