How would the US be different if the south won the civil war?

Answer 1

We are still fighting the Civil War. It has and always be between liberal and conservative views on the constitution. If the south had one we would not have the Imperial federal government that invades most aspects of our lives and also steals our hard earned wages at the point of a gun only to waste and give to more dead beat liberals. The growth federal government started with the civil war and has continued with the help of liberal Democrats and activist judges until the present. A victorious south would have put the feds where the founding fathers wanted them in Washington but without the fangs they later grew.

AnswerNo. Both sides would be both poorer and weaker. Probably weak enough not to beat Japan and Germany in WWII. AnswerAssuming the South would Survive... probably not. There would probably be such a great resentment, that the two nations would forever squabble and have numerous wars. Both would be weak, in relation to Europe. I pobably wouldn't be an American/Confederate. My family probably would not have come. I don't think the North American Continent could survive with two squabbling nations. AnswerThe country would definitely NOT BE better off if the South had won. Lincoln was not a liberal Democrat as someone mentioned above. (And even if he had been that wouldn't be a bad thing). He was actually a Republican and up until JFK's presidency, African Americans regarded the Republican party as their ally because it was Lincoln's party that freed them. By the way, Lincoln was not an abolitionist which is defined as someone like William Lloyd Garrison who believes in the IMMEDIATE emancipation of slaves. Lincoln was only interested in the gradual emancipation of them- for political reasons not because of moral standards.

In addition, had the US been divided into two separate nations, the South would not have survived because it was too dependent on the industrial capabilities of the North. An agrarian society can only survive so long.

Had the Civil War not taken place, the South would have eventually given up slavery on its own. While slavery sustained the region's agriculture, it only promoted limited economic growth since the principles of capitalism could not be fully realized by those who provided labor without compensation.

Therefore, the theory that we would have been too weak to fight Germany in World War I and II is true, but assuming that the South would have abolished slavery on its own whether they won the war or not, that theory is null.

AnswerBut it certainly would have been worse off for the slaves, and possibly for Central and South America. Slavery was a dying institution in most of the world, but not in the South. In 1860, there were 28 million free people in the North and South. How many African slaves were there? 4 million! That is a staggering number, but many in the South wanted more. They wanted to annex Cuba, and enslave its 1 million inhabitants. This is not obscure: pro-southern US Presidents Pierce and Buchanan both worked toward this end. And there were "filibusters" such as William Walker and Narcisso Lopez who worked to win territory for the South in Central and South America. The obvious point here was to expand the "empire for slavery." AnswerThere still IS slavery in the world. Look at Africa; look at the Muslim slave traders. In 2005 they still trade and sell slaves (mainly Christian). Slavery would have ended in the Confederacy because machines (especially the cotton gin) could do the work faster, more efficiently and with less slacking off then the slaves. Slaves have to be fed, sheltered, and generally cared for. They are not economically efficient. The Civil War was about state's rights to make their own decisions and decide what happened within their own borders. It is too complex to say whether America would be better off if the south had won but the South would be better off, I am sure. Lee Henderson AnswerAs a history teacher I find it hard to believe that people still think that the South couldn't make it without the North.The fact of history are 1)The South wanted to be on its own, and 2)the North wouldn't let the South go.If anybody is really dumb enough to think that this war wasn't fought by the North for economic reasons then you shouldn't be driving a car.First of all the federal government made huge sums of money off tarrifs(there were no income taxes yet).These tarrifs not only took money from Southern pockets, but in return most of the tax dollars were spent north of the Mason-Dixon line.Additionally quite frankly the Southerners had to pay way too heavy prices for northern manufactures due to the tarriff.We all know just about all American manufacturing was in the North.So to the Southerner a shovel that could be bought for $5 directly from Britain ended up costing $12 due to the tarrif.So the Southerner bought the Northern shovel for $9.In the Confederate constitution there was a clause banning tarrifs.Why? The South had unfairly been screwed financially for years and they knew it.With no tarrif for protection the Northern manufactures couldn't have competed with Eoropean imports.Not to mention that there would probably have been a real backlash against anything Northern following seceession.also one of the first things Lincoln did in office was pass an even higher tarrif.Also didn't Lincoln state at the onset of the war that he had no plans for ending slavery where it existed before the war.Yet we're brought up in school brainwashed that slavery was the major issue of the Civil War.The South of the mid to late 19th century would obviously have been better off with more money in their pockets.As to the North their economy would have obviously been adversely affected by the loss of the Southern market.I reaaly don't think the two sides would have fought a war again.Canada sided with England in our two wars with them but we haven't fought them since.So its no guarantee we would fight again.After all both nations would be Americans.The Great Depression would obviously have hit the south hard but it would have hurt the North toObviously slavery would have died anyway but I'm not sure what would've happened with the Civil Cights Movement.The Confederate economy today would not be still based on cotton.Manufacturing would have evolved in dixie like it did.I would say taxes would be lower in the South and you would probably be allowed to have an opinion that isn't politically correct.Prayer in school would probably still exist in the South and abortion would have never been made legal.I would think that laws would be much tougher on crime and that prisons would be like well prisons used to be.Neither the Confederacy or Union would be the military power America is now.But neither would be a France either.I also see no guarantee that they would choose opposing sides in WW1.It would be really stupid and reckless of either govt. to send troops overseas knowing their neighbor could be poised to invade them.Neither would in my opinion be so stupid.Many people talk of the large German population in the North and theorize that the North would have sided with Germany.First of all the German portion of Americans in the North weren't close to 50% and what all of the other Americans in the North with different backgrounds blindly followed their lead.I think both countries send supplies make money and avoid the war unless they join the same side.As for WW2 may never have happened as it did.Hitler may have just been a strange fanatic with not much if any following had with no US entry Germany not have been defeated so badly in world war 2.Japan would still be a titan but whose to say Hawaii or the Philippines wuold have belonged to the US or CS.Without Europe to deal with Britain could have contained them much better.Plus the Russians were old enemies of the Japaneese too.Anyway I would say that life in the South would defenitely have been better when the War of northern Aggression was fought had the Confederacy won.Life in the North would have been worse then thus the reason for the war.As for today I think the South would be a better place for me for the most part.But what about interstates and highways I'm not sure.I'm also not sure minorities would be as welcome.There would have never been affirmative action.But maybe welfare wouldn't be the same either and people would have to work to eat just like I do.Also having lived in both the North and South I would say it was my experience that there are more race problems in the North.I would also say that as a whole people in the South are more friendly and more likely to attend church(Christian that is).But I would also have to say that Southerners get involved in other people's business more than Northerners and that's not a good thing.Cooking is way better in the South if you don't include New England.As a whole the two regions are still opposed politically they just won't fight another war over it. AnswerBetter off? Certainly not.

What if Lincoln hadn't been President of the United States? What if instead the President had been someone who thought it was too much trouble to fight to preserve the Union, and simply had said "Let the southern states go, who needs them?" Today we would have a third-world country south of the Mason-Dixon line. After the inevitable slave revolt, I expect that the Confederate States of America would have evolved into something a lot like Haiti is today. Instead, reconstruction saved the South from itself, and would solve our racial problems if it hadn't been discontinued by the Hayes administration in the late 1870's.

Of course there are right-wing nuts ("wingnuts") who say that the Civil War ended American democracy and began the era of Federal tyranny. But without the strong Federal government of FDR, the USA would have been unable to participate effectively in World War II and, as it happened, to save Western civilization.

No, if the Confederacy had won the Civil War, it would have been a disaster for the Southern states, the Northern states, and the entire world.

AnswerDepends on how you define "our country". My country, the South, would have absolutely been better off. Slavery would have eventually died out peacefully, perhaps with some kind of compensated emancipation like was done in Brazil and there would have been no poisonous Reconstruction that led to Kukluxism, instituted segregation and awful race relations. The American Indians would have definitely been better off as at least five nations of Indians would have had a semi-autonomous state of Oklahoma (five civlized tribes). Southern industry, which took off wholesale during the war, would have blossomed and prospered. Northern industry would have lost a great deal of power and influence when the united states lost its protective tariff over the South and had to actually compete on the free market with European manufacturers.

THere is no reason to think that the two separate republics would have needed to be antagonistic either. Canada and the US fought each other twice in the Revolution and in the war of 1812 and we are not enemies nor competitors. Southern independence would have been threat, however, to northern "manifest destiny" zealots who believed that the whole continent had to be ruled from DC. There would have been a different ending to World War I which could have possibly prevented World War II entirely..

It can't be said definitively of course but I can easily see how the world would have been better off with an independent confederate states republic as a foil to the increasingly militant and aggressive united states.

AnswerNo. If the South had won, the North would do what they did, and the Americas would be drenched in the blood of men and boys. The Nations would tear the contanent appart in the bloody fights, and we would be consumed by chaos. The Union's victory and total war method both repressed a violent and bloody future that would lead to the destruction of us all. AnswerIt seems that people don't know the small truths about the war. England was just waiting for a respectable win from the Southerners to prove their legitimacy. It is thought that the battle of Antietam was the "proving point" for England. If the CSA would have won the battle, England would have supported the South. In exchange, the CSA was prepared to abolish slavery all together. Many people think the war was over the north hating slavery and the south loving it. Not quite.

Answer 2

It is hard to determine what would have happened if the South had won the civil war. I personally believe the South would go back to Britain for the strong trade, and once again become their colony (With better ties). The North would then maybe become closer to Mexico (There you go!) because of the need of warmer growing climates for the things they needed. Who knows, maybe Mexico and the North would have become prosperous together and taken over the world! (I'm kidding about the world part). But with them on either side of the South, the southerners would probably begin trade with both Mexico and the North because of location. Slavery? Well that isn't an easy question to answer either... Though machinery that the North produced was more efficient then paying for a whole mess of people, I don't think the black population would have had a very good time of it. Integration would have taken a lot longer, or may not have happened at all.

Answer 3

A common, but good question.

I have often wondered this myself, what would have happened if the South won. There are many versions of how that could have happened, but this is my theory:

The South wins the Civil War because they find sunken gold in the Atlantic in 1862, a year before Gettysburg. They use this gold to not only buy more weapons and a better position in world economics, but to use it in technology. Just as they produce an early machine gun called the Gatling, the British and the French declare war on the Union and land in New York. Eventually, by 1863, not only does the Confederacy win the Battle of Gettysburg, but the French capture New York City and the British capture Washington. The North is forced to give independence to the Confederacy, and while Northern Virginia (including Washington D.C.) becomes a colony in the British Empire, the French annex the captured territory of Pennsylvania. The US capital becomes San Francisco. President Abraham Lincoln is still assassinated, but by Confederate spies in 1866. A second civil war ten years later, on July 4, 1876 (the hundredth anniversary of the United States) begins, this time with a Union victory, resulting in Pennsylvania and Northern Virginia being taken from Britain and France and the rest of Virginia being taken from the Confederacy, who stays independent after the London Treaty, which resulted in the end of the War of Revenge as the Union is calling it.

When WWI comes, the Confederacy and the Union have heated up, as tensions between Britain and France rise on account of who's fault it was for losing the War of Revenge. France becomes a part of the Central Powers and invades England, who regretably ends its alliance with the Confederacy by declaring war on it after the Confederacy declares war on Britain as a part of an alliance with France. The Confederacy invades Virginia, which becomes No Mans Land, just like what the countryside outside London has become; trenches everywhere, and soldiers fearing the order to charge the next trench.

By 1918, England is overrun, and the old Blue and Gray signs a peace treaty, in favor of the Confederacy, who regains Virginia and takes Washington yet again, Sacramento this time becoming the Union capital. Germany wins WWI (and also backstabs all the other countries in the Central Powers by invading them and adding them to the German Empire, along with Russia and England and France as well). Of course, Russia never becomes communist, and Japan never becomes Imperialist (partly because Germany invades and takes it over in 1925, along with most of the Pacific, even non-US controlled Hawaii. America responds simply by planning Operation Once And For All, a large scale US offensive all over the world with the help of the now-powerful Egyptian Army. When the German Empire becomes a Nazi nation and is led by Hermann Goering, the Confederacy also adopts Nazism and becomes the Nationalist States of America, opening concentration camps for slaves and all the "enemies of the Nazi culture".

The American offensive begins on July 4, 1976, and starts four fronts: One in Hawaii, one in North Africa, one in an amphibious landing in Eastern Europe, and one in Virginia. In Hawaii, the Union Air Force bombs Nazi targets all over Hawaii and invades on July 9, 1976. A reverse battle of Midway occurs, with the Americans winning. They stay on the offensive the whole time until the end of the war 1980, taking the Solomons, the islands between Australia and the Philippines, the Philippines, and Japan. In Eastern Europe, the 1st Marine Division lands at Murmansk, Russia, and makes its advance towards Moscow, which it takes from the Germans. They continue their offensive into the Caucasus, where they meet a heavy German tank offensive at Kharkov which fails, and then they push east all the way into Paris and everything in between.

Meanwhile, the Egyptian Army advances in North Africa and eventually invades German Italy, and after that, invades Southern Germany. Germany is crushed (besides the rest of their empire in Asia) and surrenders when the Confederate Last Stand is made and defeated at Miami, Florida, after a long and brutal US offensive in the South. The whole of the world except Asia becomes annexed to the newly United States, having been separated for 117 years, from 1863 to 1980. Eventually, in 2000, the US invades German China and, when China falls, the rest of Asia is surrendered to the United States of America. By 2008, the year the China Offensive ends, the world is united.

Answer 4

The entire history of the country (and of the world) would have been radically changed had the South remained an independent country. The Mexican American War and the annexation of the West could have been undone or challenged, since the Union would have had difficulty maintaining control in the divided Southwest. The Spanish American war might also never have occurred, and without the US intervention in World War I, all of Europe would have faced a different future. Japan would definitely have fared better with its empire in the Pacific without the huge influence of the United States in the region.

---

A possible alternate timeline (not the only possible one)

Let's say that Lee won at Antietam and routed the Union forces. He then positions his troops near Washington while Jefferson Davis tries to get the European Powers involved. Lincoln needed that victory to back up the Emancipation Proclamation. British recognizes the South after seeing an easy opportunity to besiege Washington with Lee close by. The Confederacy also recognizes France's claim to Mexico which lets them join in too. The Union is now facing the South, Britain and France.

British forces land near Dover (Delaware) and quickly take Baltimore with little resistance as most of the North's forces are in Washington. The siege of Washington begins with a joint UK-CSA effort. DC quickly falls and Lincoln is forced to sign a peace treaty which involves a ton of money for the South. The North has to move its capital, Lincoln must immediately resign, and the US must recognize France's claim to Mexico without interfering.

1865:

The CSA consists of Virginia (Including West Virgina), Tennesse, Missouri, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida, Southern Kentucy, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, and Delaware (Both were slave states before the war and there was a lot of southern sympathy.)

The USA consists of Ohio, Indiana, Northern Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Kentucky, Pennslyvannia, New York, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and some territories (The Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah).

Jefferson Davis is elected as president while the US president is Grant. The Capitol was moved to Philidelphia. California became its own nation including Oregon and Washington the state and Texas is also its own republic including Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma.

Alaska is never bought because the U.S. uses its money elsewhere (Mainly towards buildings for the new capitol.

1914:

In the First World War, the South joins almost immediately in order to help their close allies, and the North joins around 1916 due to constant pressure from the CSA and her European Allies. The War is quickly won and the International Council is formed with CSA, USA, UK, and France as the members forming a kind of super alliance.

1939:

WW2 begins and the CSA joins in quickly, membership is extended to The Texan Republic for joining in. Japan attacks Pearl Harbor then completely steamrolls thru California and occupies all of the Californian nation. The US , CSA, and TR declare war on Japan and devote tons of men and resources towards expelling them. This leaves Great Britain alone against Germany. In 1943, after seeing the the American nations won't come to help them due to their war against Japan, sue for peace. (The US war has now moved to the Pacific Islands, with the TR taking California and the US taking Oregon and Washington.) sue for peace. Germany is now in control of Central Europe, France, Italy, and Scandinavia. They start to concentrate on Russia which they manage to overcome. The American Nations reinforce Alaska in order to stop the German advance.) In 1944, there is still no war with Germany and Japan only has its own Islands. There is no invasion, but there is peace eventually.*

A new coalition is formed between the USA, CSA and TR and there is prosperity. A Cold War happens between the alliance and Germany. Sound familiar?

(*With the division of the US, and the turmoil in Europe, would the US have built the Bomb by 1945? Or would Germany have developed theirs and ruled the world?)

Answer 5

At least temporarily, the US would have remained split into two and there would be a South and a North. Also the South would most likely have slavery which would give them a manpower advantage over the North.

However, the South would have become much poorer as the years went by. The north had capitalism and machinery which is more economically efficient, creating a stronger nation.

If the south had won, America might not even be here: the Germans could probably have taken over the world if it hadn't been for the US in two World Wars.

If the south had won there would be two separate nations, and we probably would not be able to defeat the Germans as we would have half the power we had then, and the south wouldn't be much help because they would still be on slavery or a nubile capitalist society which can't much support itself let alone a full-scale war. To make it short we would probably be all Germans if the south had won, and if we somehow did repel them then the North America would probably be less wealthy and not the trade center of the world. Also all the American inventions would not be here for a lot longer than they would have because we wouldn't have the time or resources to do it.

Answer 6

The South would have maintained its separate government, or perhaps have divided the remainder of the West and become an industrial power. But, being mainly agricultural, they might have been absorbed into a separate growing industrial country in the western regions. The North would have been set back and might never have established Manifest Destiny and its spread across the continent. Or another war might have broken out.

In any event, the question of the continuation of slavery, having been outlawed in Europe, might have again resulted in conflicts within the South or with other countries.

Answer

If the south had won the civil war the country would be different no doubt about it. but first slavery needs to be addressed. Slavery would have still been gone, first of all it is cheaper to pay a man $1 a day and make him buy his own food and shelter rather than the master doing so and 2nd they're not at your home where they could start a rebellion. The country would still have been divided and the South would still be a states' rights government and the north still a strong central government.

Some Novels Based on this Premise

• If The South Had Won The Civil War, by MacKinlay Kantor

• Dixie Victorious: An Alternate History of the Civil War, by Peter Tsouras

• Lee at Chattanooga: A Novel of What Might Have Been, by Dennis P. McIntire

• The Guns of the South, by Harry Turtledove

• How Few Remain, by Harry Turtledove

• Return for Confederate Victory, by Bradley Burch

Some FAQ Farmers' Opinions

• My own opinion is that had the Confederacy gained its independence it would not have lasted long. Based as it was on the principle of secession I don't think it would have been long before the states fell to squabbling about something, quite possibly slavery, and various of them would have seceeded to protect what they saw as their interests.
• "If the South would have won we'd had it made!" - Hank Williams Jr. I agree, the South would have around 74 million people making it the thirteenth most populous nation on earth. The South would have more people than England and France, as well as MANY other countries. Also, the South is very different than the north in the way of voting (even with all of the yanks down here). Surprisingly, the South would function very well in today's world. States' rights doesn't mean there is no Federal Government. States' rights means that no state can answer for another. The reason for a Federal Government in the Confederacy was to regulate post offices, money, an army, etc. not to control everyone like in England during the Revolutionary War. This is what the original Federal Government was supposed to be able to do, but Lincoln ended Constitutional Government.

• Slavery would have lasted longer but in the end, it wouldn't have lasted forever. Once the South emancipated the slaves I tend to feel that the Southerners would have repetitioned for admission into what was then a more prosperous and powerful North.

• I think that if the South had won, things would be decidedly different. Surely slavery would have eventually ended: farm machinery is less expensive, doesn't get sick, and doesn't run away. However, if black slaves had been re-patriated (as was the wish of many), crime would not be the problem it is today, the welfare state as we know it would not exist today, and most importantly, southern nationals would not be subject to federal income tax, social security, and other ridiculous programs.

• If the South had won the Civil War, they would not have lasted long as a nation. Their dependence on slave labor and agriculture would render them "backwards." They would depend heavily on imports for technology before they would be forced to create their own. By then they would be so far behind that the country would probably collapse into a Communist/Fascist revolution, but never to gain enough strength to be able to fight the US. I wonder how long the US would sit before going to fight, most likely with a huge technological advantage, to bring the South back into the Union. Which may actually start a World War, since the great web of late 19th century Alliances would undoubtedly be thicker with yet another nation.

• I don't think it's really an issue of if the South had won, rather, the issue is - if the South had been recognized as a separate nation. General Lee had possession of a letter from the Southern government to be delivered to Lincoln the day after the destuction of the Federal army at Gettysburg. That letter's contents offered peace in exchange for recognition. If that so happened, a sound, more perfect, more constutional government would have arisen from the southern states and along with that, I think a pact would have been formed by the two governments to come to the aid of each other in times of conflict. The South wanted a peaceful recognition, but Washington bullied its will upon South Carolina and Virginia foremost. Too bad the South did not gain a victory in its endeavors. One cannot forget the men that died in the American Revolution, with the guts of the Continental Army right here in the South. Our war and victory over England was no different than what was tried during the civil war. The Constitution grants strong state government, but the Lincoln administration (the Republicans) wanted states to answer to a more powerful Federal government, which was totally against what the Constitution guaranteed. Yes, if the south had suceeded, we would all have it made.

• If the South had won the Civil War this land would be very diffrent today. We would not have to worry about the things we do now.

• If the South had won in the 1860s, there would have undoubtedly been a "reconquista" of sorts on the part of the Union to regain the lands lost. Also, the Confederate government, in trying to manage the war, came to overstep its confederate powers. Jefferson Davis and the Confederate Congress began curtailing states' rights to maintain the war effort. As such, even if granted independence the Confederacy would have collapsed.

• I'm reading several novels on the Civil War including The Killer Angels which gives Robert E Lee's idea on the future of the Confederacy as well as Longstreet's. I think if the South had won at Gettysburg, England would have come to the South's aid as revealed in a letter from England to the CSA. in fact not only would England give aid, they would take over operations and rout the Union in the West finishing off the North. It was planned for Davis to give the Queen control over the Confederacy, treating it as a privileged colony. I am a devout southerner but I think we would not be as happy if the South had won. Slavery would have been abolished as soon as England took over. The South in the beginning of the Civil War issued an emancipation but the US government overshadowed it with its own. Also in 1860 the CSA issued a decree that said all slave holders had to give their slaves the option of being deported and this could have been carried out by law.

• If the South had won and become independent, even if both economies did not collapse and we did manage to survive, we would still have been involved in World War 2, and we would have lost. As it is we were stretched thin during the war and we would all be speaking German now or we would all be dead. It is quite possible that we might not have made it through World War 1. I think we are actually quite fortunate that things worked out as they did.

• Above is completely inaccurate. Had we not entered the First World War due to a weakened economy, or not been able to tip the scales in the allies' favor, the Germans most likely would have fought to an eventual stalemate with the allied powers, or achieved a small margin of victory. Without the harsh reparations the Germans were meant to pay according to the treaty of Versailles, there would have never been the power vacuum in Germany that allowed the rise of Adolf Hitler, the Nazi Party, and the Third Reich, thusly preventing a European theater during WW2. This would leave only the Japanese as a foe during that engagement, which we handily defeated with about 10% of our military. Secondly, had we not entered WW2 and all the other events held true, less our involvement, the Russians would have defeated Hitler all on their own, it simply would have taken more time.

• If the South had won the civil war the idea of representative democratic republican form of government, which was in its infancy in the mid nineteenth century, would have been discredited. This form of government can only be sustained if the minority abides by the decision of the majority. The progress to this form of government in Europe would probably have halted leaving the world even more susceptible to totalitarian rule.

• The South would probably, in time, have developed into a society similar to apartheid South Africa.
• I think it depends on whether the North would ever have really let go of the South, even after the war. The South would never prosper with the North harrying them to rejoin the Union, but the South was really always its own country, so I think it would have suceeded. Slavery probably would have ended just as quickly if the South had won, seeing as how it took 100 years after the Civil War for it to kick in anyway; besides, many slaves in the South were freed during the Civil War, and the rest would have followed. But the idea of winning wars after the Civil War is troubling, and would depend on whether the Union and the Confederacy forgave each other before the later wars started. The Northerners and Southerners compromised anyway, or we would have failed as a country altogether.

The United States would have been divided in two, the Southern states would have held on to slavery for a little longer, but world outrage would have forced them to eventually comply.

They would probably be hostile to each other still. But eventually they would have started trading with each other and become like what the U.S. is today: two countries that are allies or peaceful with each other (e.g. U.S. and Canada). Plus for awhile or forever the south would have had slaves. An alternate way would be that the U.S. and the Confederacy will still be fighting it out in different wars. To see the possibilities, try reading one of Harry Turtledove's books.

AnswerBush would be president of the Confederacy instead of the US.

Answer 7

The US government would be at least two different countries. The South would have successfully seceded into the Confederacy.

Answer 8

what would the world be like if the south had won the civil war