User Panel
Posted: 2/18/2018 11:33:12 AM EDT
It's a question I'm really not well enough educated to answer. Obviously, the North had more manufacturing capabilities, and a greater population. The South was more agrarian, but the North had farming as well. Slavery would have ended eventually, as machinery made it a more expensive way to get work done. Northerners were already on average more affluent than Southerners - at least that's what I read in Frederick Douglas's autobiography. Would the continent have become similar to modern North Korea and South Korea, where one side had more trade and more wealth, and the other side was mostly poor, and angry about it? Would the South have eventually petitioned to rejoin the Union? And what about the Federal Territories? New Mexico, Colorado, California? Would they have been free to join whichever side made the best deal for statehood?
|
|
The South would probably be most like Brazil.
However,I don't think if,for example,the Confederacy managed to make the US capitulate the week after Bull Run that things would have been settled once and for all by any means. |
|
|
|
From what I recall, the N. had issues with its food demand and issues with markets for its manufacturing. The South's trading with Europe was a thorn in the N'ths side. The south had issues with import taxes that made it costly to trade with Europe (and forced it into less profitable trading) with the north.
I would need to research, but suspect transatlantic shipping to the south would still be more comical than with South America. - hard to say. Mexico was no ecomic powerhouse. Texas succeeded in its revolution and I don't think Mexico ever had desire to expend the costly resources to get it back-especially since it was bankrupted in its fight against Spain . |
|
No 2nd amendment in the north. The Dakotas would be part of Canada.
|
|
South would be what we would call "America"
North would be like North Korea |
|
|
|
The South would be banana republics dealing with slave insurrections.
|
|
I believe there would be flare ups over land disputes as borders were still being drawn west of Missouri. The discovery of the value of oil and its abundance in Texas would have definitely made for interesting economic times for both north and south as well.
Who knows. I think even though it's not perfect, we are better off whole. |
|
|
here's what i always say..
south would have remained agrarian. slavery would have persisted for perhaps another 30 to 40 years. the united states divided would have not developed into the power it became. most likely we would have not fought in wwi. if so, most likely only the north would have become involved. the germans would have won wwi, and either immediately thereafter would have turned on the soviet union who was especially weak towards the end of wwi. germany, having won wwi would not have been humiliated. hitler would not have come to power, wwii would not have occured, the brits would not have taken over large parts of the middle east as they did after turkey lost in wwi. there would have been no partition of palestine and the founding of israel. bottom line the south would have been a backward agrarian nation, the north would have been weak. and the japanese would most likely dominated the pacific also. and perhaps even communist china would never have risen. |
|
The south would look like a 3rd world nation and be asking for aid from the north.
|
|
Quoted:
The yankees would've fallen to communism View Quote The South, you see, retained several forms of slavery until the North finally removed them in the 1920s and 1930s. This did not endear the upper class with the poor. |
|
The South would be a bastion of firearms freedoms.....machine guns, etc.
The North would look like East Berlin |
|
|
|
The north would have been a wasteland. They would forget how to govern themselves and probably break up into separate tribe like groups. They would no longer be able to grow crops or produce goods. They probably would be unable to make babies as well. It might sound crazy, but it looks like the south saved the union by losing the war.
|
|
By now the Confederacy would have subdivided into at least 230 fiefdoms and declared war on each other at least 250 times. Two thirds of them would be anarchist wastelands.
|
|
The South supposedly had designs on the Caribbean and Mexico/Central America. I imagine that if they'd been successful, you'd have seen an empire of sorts, and slavery there would have continued for a long time.
|
|
GD has hit the trifecta today:
Probable AWB thread What if the South won “Stop saying ...” threads Gotta love 3 day weekends, it always leads to free range autism. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
In many ways that is already the situation today. If you look at a welfare heat map the South looks pretty bad. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted:
The South wouldn't have any major gun makers. View Quote A modern south born out of the Confederacy would have no shortage of sporting or military arms. Or agriculture, and probably plenty of mineral resources. Most likely it would extend far into the modern western states, and probably include Missouri, maybe Colorado, Utah, and Nevada or parts of them. Kansas would have ended up in the north after more years of blood. |
|
|
|
If the Confederacy could’ve held on long enough for the discovery of oil, Texas and Louisiana would look like Dubai with trees and grass.
|
|
Everyone in the south would have interbred and look like microencephelactics and education would end by 6th grade.
|
|
|
Quoted:
don't let little details get in the way of furious Confederacy masturbation. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted: Nope. Slavery would have ended fairly quick. The south would have been too reliant on Brittain and France for markets, manufactured goods and to a lesser extent, naval protection. Blacks might have ended up better off than they did. View Quote |
|
|
|
Southern revisionists are literally the white versions of “We wuz Kangs” black people
|
|
|
Quoted:
Blacks probably would have ended up like the Indians. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Nope. Slavery would have ended fairly quick. The south would have been too reliant on Brittain and France for markets, manufactured goods and to a lesser extent, naval protection. Blacks might have ended up better off than they did. |
|
|
The south wouldd have lost thier aparthide and the farmers would be driven from thier lands by blacks.... or just murdered.
The South was not sustainable as a oligarchy-slave state. Becuse that is what it was. What is worse is that the Austrians and Prussinas/Germans that helped arm The South would have kept then nuetral in WWI and probably WWII much like Ireland was. If the US was not renuified we would be totally fucked. Let the butt hurt flow.... |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.