What would the US be like it the South won the Civil War?

What would the US be like it the South won the Civil War?

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A strong social democracy in the north and a Maoist (or Marxo-Lenin if it flips early) fascist shithole of mulatto blackshirts in the South. Realistically, they wouldn't be able to hold on to anything north of maybe Tennessee.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds... familiar
      Nazi maoism ftw

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, Italy is probably the best comparison. The total lack of willingness to reform feudal laws is what kills those agrarian economies, even if it keeps them strong against subversive ideologies. Organized crime would hit them about as hard as industry finally coming to the South did in OTL. Of course, if the Virginians and Tennesseans are as proportionally powerful as New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania were in the North at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if they go in and invade the Carolinas to stop rebel plantation lords from being so moronic. Then there would be the subversions of the Seminoles and the charismatic crackers to deal with, and this country would functionally become a poorer U.S. with an outnumbered but not outgunned intelligentsia trying to push its morons into doing stuff they don't want to until mass politics kicks the door down for them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Nazi maoism

        Ever read SIEGE by James Mason? It's literally Mao's Little Red Book dressed up in Nazi rhetoric.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes I have, a while back though. I imagine James Mason is familiar with nazi-maoism, I've seen him say "you gotta take what you can to get what you need, that's a chairman Mao quote" to some sped reporter asking him why he lives off gibs

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Is this it?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The South would be like a colder Brazil

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The South would have just been Brazil 2.0

      >muh Brazil

      You do realize that Brazil never had the strictly-enforced prohibitions on race-mixing (sexual or otherwise) that the South had right up until Loving v. Virginia right?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >strictly-enforced prohibitions on race-mixing (sexual or otherwise)
        Studies put the average African American at around 20% European ancestry.
        Southern independence and persisting slavery would only increase that share.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He meant just for whites, evil white slave owners raping slaves has always happened and i’d reckon is why even the blackest Brazilians is still atleast 30% white too, we’d totally see another pardo situation in the south and i wonder how that would affect how its race relations form

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I don't care. American Black folk are like 1/4th White. Thank God those homosexuals lost the war.

          >he doesn't know that Black folk practiced bleaching too

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't care. American Black folk are like 1/4th White. Thank God those homosexuals lost the war.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The South would have just been Brazil 2.0

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Impossible what if because the confederacy was doomed the minute it declared war.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >

    [...]

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Paradise
    Jannah
    Nirvana
    Elysium
    Aaru

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Evangelical theocracy in the South with obligatory Blacked courses in high schools

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    North would be around 80% white, 9% Hispanic and the rest Asian. South would be 40% white, 20% Hispanic and 40% black. There would be massive braindrain from the south to the north much like Russia is suffering post Soviet collapse

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >North would be around 80% white, 9% Hispanic and the rest Asian.

      Most of the Asians are concentrated in California, so technically that's the West.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        West is part of the north, they only got Texas which is where their mass Hispanic influx will come to

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The CSA would still be in debt and a bit of a pariah state. They'd have to abandon slavery to ever get Britain and France to work with them full time. Confederate currency was worthless to the point the Confederate government was already thinking about declaring wars in Central America and the Caribbean just to get a bunch of land to hand out to Confederate Civil War veterans to pay them off for their service.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What would the US be like it the South won the Civil War?
    Honestly? The US wouldn't actually be all that different, if anything it would be better off without the South. Southern states are consistently rank lowest in human development, economy, and life expectancy compared to northernn states while also consistently ranking highest in violent crime. The US would unironically be better off in every single way without Southern States. The South would be the equivalent of a third world shithole if they were independent.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Honestly? The US wouldn't actually be all that different, if anything it would be better off without the South.
      I will never till the day i die understand how liberal fricking yankees can jerk themselves off
      >so.
      >fricking.
      >hard.
      about forcing us to stay in this country then in the same breath
      >bitch
      >like
      >HELL
      about how we are
      >"holding this nation back!"
      and are basically a cancer on what would otherwise me a 60% pozzed leftist country.
      Want universal healthcare?
      Want your student debts forgiven?
      WELL GUESS YOU SHOULD HAVE LET THE SOUTH SECEDE SHOULDN'T YA b***hES!!!
      ENJOY AUSTERITY AND REAGANOMICS AND ABORTION BANS AND TRANS BANS AND GUN RIGHTS AND PRAYER IN SCHOOL TILL THE END OF FRICKING TIME YOU homosexual YANKEE FRICKS!!!
      HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHH

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    people seem to forget that the CSA would be an oilrich country with texas and maybe oklahoma being part of it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You vastly overestimate the degree to which Texas, especially West Texas, would want to stay in a shithole nepotism country managed out of Richmond. Besides, even if it did get the oil money, it wouldn't truly kick off development there until the 1930s at the earliest because it would be their agricultural giant and their massive frontier. Think more like California's oil production.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Confederate constitution was extremely… confederate meaninv Texas would be beyond autonomous

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Which means that the moment Richmond tries to come in looking for centralization (which would have to happen) Texas breaks off. Their contribution to the civil war was never based in the land rights of the East Texas cotton magnates but in a mercenary attitude of deep patriotism to Texas. It might end up independent and do well for itself, certainly, being about at the level of a pre-crash Venezuela and with a deep German character, but it really wouldn't share the revenue it had with the Confederate federal government. That leaves Tennessee and Virginia to try to wring civilization out of the rest of them, and that's without controlling St. Louis or New Orleans.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Confederate constitution was extremely… confederate meaninv Texas would be beyond autonomous

        Which means that the moment Richmond tries to come in looking for centralization (which would have to happen) Texas breaks off. Their contribution to the civil war was never based in the land rights of the East Texas cotton magnates but in a mercenary attitude of deep patriotism to Texas. It might end up independent and do well for itself, certainly, being about at the level of a pre-crash Venezuela and with a deep German character, but it really wouldn't share the revenue it had with the Confederate federal government. That leaves Tennessee and Virginia to try to wring civilization out of the rest of them, and that's without controlling St. Louis or New Orleans.

        >Texas would secede from a country they liked when they still havent seceded from a country they didnt like in the past 160 years

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I like to prognosticate on this scenario a lot too, but not so much on whether slavery would still exist or how race relations would be, or would Anne Frank be pregnant, that's been done to death. What interests me more would be how would the international order and technology, and to a lesser extent how minute facets of our culture, be different if there were two Americas so to speak.

        Like, would there have ever been a Nazi Germany or a Soviet Union? Would we still have baseball and football? Hotdogs? Smart phones and the internet? Nuclear weapons? Would we still be using Imperial or switch to Metric?

        If you think about it, a Confederate victory the American Civil War could have dramatically altered all of these.

        We could be living in a world where the Spanish Empire limps on for a few more decades because the Spanish-American War never takes place, or where it collapses even earlier because instead you have the Spanish-Confederate War of 1880.

        I disagree, if the Confederate States had survived to the present day, it would be economically and politically dominated by Texas. A Confederate California if you will. If anything, it would Virginia and Tennessee getting mad at their ever-increasing irrelevancy.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Football originated in the North's elite ivy instiutions. We'd still probably have Football but the South was largely irrelevant in the Football world until at earliest the 1899 Sewanee Ironmen but even they were not named national champion despite going unbeaten in incredible fashion having played 5 games in as many days and winning all of them. However, due to perceived lack of competition they still weren't named national champions by any selector. I think it's possible "football" would be viewed as a Yankee invention and maybe the Confederacy would've tried to come up with a different sport of our own to stick it to them. It's possible too that the 1906 crisis which resulted in Roosevelt's intervention to stop the loss of human life could be used in propaganda painting the North as barbarous. I almost think it might be viewed similarly to how soccer is viewed in the US (by whites) nowadays; just instead of the "wow what a bunch of pussies" vantage point it'd probably be more along the lines of "wow what a bunch of savages".

          I'll grant however that it's somewhat dependent on if the sport could've spread through the border prior to baseball losing it's relevance and being supplanted by American Football in the first place which is usually considered to have taken place around the time of the 1957 NFL Championship game. Had football trickled across the border into schools in Virginia, the Carolinas and Tennessee in say the 1870s when the game was still evolving out of it's rugby roots it's possible that we could even have two different variants of the sport similar to the modern day CFL and NFL. Maybe the South would've never legalized the forward pass for instance. It's fun to speculate.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Worked for Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, Egypt, Brazil, Mexico, Iraq,..., right?
      Then the primary consumer of that oil would be the United States, introducing trade complications that did not historically occur.
      Independent CSA likely affects funding/the organizational base available for widespread prospecting and exploitation of resources.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        None of those have white Anglo Saxons leading the nation. Even Brazil had inferior Med genes leading the hem

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The entire Confederate strategy/rationale/development plan was that cotton was king i.e. they would live off commodities exports. No different in practice than any of the examples mentioned. Much of the actual development of the region post-war took place because it had an economic integration with the rest of the United States, while many of its problems lingered because it had limited political integration (as seen by the time and effort spent in a failed contestation of racial integration). The quality of leadership and nurturing of high-performance skills/attitudes was/is ever more lacking.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Anglo Saxons just do better anon, there's no coping around that. South Africa and Rhodesia were rich because of their stewardship.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The South was the most Anglo-Saxon region of the US (and prided itself on that fact). It notably did not "do better".
            In South Africa (white population < 5 million) and Rhodesia (white population <300,000), the dominant population was tiny, and could coast off the combination of high per-capita commodity exports and mandated low-cost labor.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Did better against all of Latin America, cope however you like but a 99% white region under Anglo Saxon leadership will do better than a 50% one with their leadership. The mental gymnastics you're doing is pitiful

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Did better against all of Latin America
            What high standards you have.
            The white Southern population in 1860 exceeded the combined white South African-Rhodesian populations over a century later.
            And that population was only ~60% of the Confderate total.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Those are the and I quote
            >Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, Egypt, Brazil, Mexico, Iraq
            >No different in practice than any of the examples mentioned
            Not anyones fault you forget the garbage that leaves your fingers the very instant you press post

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And that comment was in response to saying that it would be "oil rich".
            So now we're at "rich by comparison to Latin America" because it was, to quote Geoge Wallace, the "great Anglo-Saxon Southland".
            And even that would only work if one pretended (like their fans do for Rhodesia/apartheid South Africa) that
            only the white population's standard of living counted, that the race problem could be indefinitely deferred, that per-capita commodities exports could be sustained and enhanced even with international competitors arising, and that some means for spreading that revenue beyond the planter class to a far greater extent than historically happened would happen, in a South even more dominated by that planter class. Oh, and that institutional divergence wouldn't leave it too degraded compared to OTL (the feared mexicanization of politics). Our Wallace in this independent CSA would likely not be talking up rockets.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And it would still be better off, you're losing your own argument

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Apologies.
            I was thinking of "rich by Western standards", where even Mississippi, the poorest state in the Union, has a GDP per capita on par with the UK.
            And given that you're now reduced to arguing that the CSA would be "better off" than Latin America (and implied not on par with the advanced economies), I think the point is shown that oil is not a magic instaprosperity button like

            people seem to forget that the CSA would be an oilrich country with texas and maybe oklahoma being part of it

            seemed to believe.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And that comment was in response to saying that it would be "oil rich".
            So now we're at "rich by comparison to Latin America" because it was, to quote Geoge Wallace, the "great Anglo-Saxon Southland".
            And even that would only work if one pretended (like their fans do for Rhodesia/apartheid South Africa) that
            only the white population's standard of living counted, that the race problem could be indefinitely deferred, that per-capita commodities exports could be sustained and enhanced even with international competitors arising, and that some means for spreading that revenue beyond the planter class to a far greater extent than historically happened would happen, in a South even more dominated by that planter class. Oh, and that institutional divergence wouldn't leave it too degraded compared to OTL (the feared mexicanization of politics). Our Wallace in this independent CSA would likely not be talking up rockets.

            And also in practice, it was no different than any of those places as well. GDP per capita was higher in Brazil than South Africa or Rhodesia-Zimbabwe. Given the small size of the white population in those countries, and levels of inequality/stratification in Latin America, it would be like if Mexico said "hey, the top 10% of the Mexican population makes over $48,000 a year, therefore Mexico is rich.".
            https://en.www.inegi.org.mx/temas/ingresoshog/
            And within the US context, Texas (42% of US oil production) is about at the national real median household income level, North Dakota (9%) is slightly above, and Oklahoma (3%) is below.
            https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?eid=259515&rid=249

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Civil War very much jump-started industry in the South (one need only visit Tredegar Iron Works or the Confederate Powderworks in Augusta, GA to see that), if the Confederacy had survived, the trend would have very likely not only continued, but accelerated. There would have been a pressing need to build up a Confederate industrial base to oppose the United States in any future military confrontation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But it didn't continue. In fact the south was heavily resistant to industrialization during reconstruction, northerners basically had to force the soutg to not have a moronic economy. If we can just throw out conjecture like that, we can equally assume that given a victory in the civil war proved their agrarian ways superior to the industrialised north, the south would be reinforced in their view that they could and should be a natural resource exporting economy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But it didn't continue. In fact the south was heavily resistant to industrialization during reconstruction, northerners basically had to force the soutg to not have a moronic economy. If we can just throw out conjecture like that, we can equally assume that given a victory in the civil war proved their agrarian ways superior to the industrialised north, the south would be reinforced in their view that they could and should be a natural resource exporting economy.

            More likely, if they do secure independence, it will be mediated and guaranteed through Britain and France. OTL negotiations between them and Southern representatives included trade agreements that would (depending on how much of a role you think protectionism plays in a proto-industrial economy) lock them into agrarianism for the next few decades. The chivalry/planter class would in any case have little incentive in rocking the boat, and capital/prestige would continue to be locked in slaves and land. Other than consolidating its independence, much of the CSA's capacity for national effort would probably go into Caribbean expansion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >if the Confederacy had survived, the trend would have very likely not only continued, but accelerated. There would have been a pressing need to build up a Confederate industrial base to oppose the United States in any future military confrontation.
            Exactly the idea the Confederates would been some Banana Republic is legit non-sense they were on industrial on par with the likes of Prussia in the same time frame and had over 21k factories compare that to rest of the America they were a century ahead of all of them

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well for starters, I don't think the fighting would have really stopped even after the Union and Confederate governments had formally made peace.

    Take the border states for instance, there were tens of thousands of men from states that remained nominally loyal to the Union, such as Kentucky, who fought for the Confederacy, and tens of thousands of men from states had joined the Confederacy such as Tennessee and North Carolina who remained loyal to the Union to the point of waging a guerrilla war against the Confederate government.

    Would the men of the Orphan Brigade have had any reason to lay down their arms and return to Kentucky as long as it remained in the Union? Would George Thomas or Newton Knight have had any reason to swear allegiance to the Confederacy?

    Personally, I don't think so. I think that even if the Confederate States had won their independence, you would have seen decades of lawlessness and guerrilla warfare in the border regions, with Southern Unionists and Northern Confederates launching raids into the opposing nation's territory.

    It'd be Northern Ireland on steroids.

  13. 1 month ago
    Radiochan

    the Union might have had at least 2 or 3 other secession crises by 1990
    also far less Black folks in the USA, there could have been at worst a Communist Black Republic in the South starting in the 1930s
    sarff efrica on our doorstep

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the Union might have had at least 2 or 3 other secession crises by 1990

      I imagine the first thing the United States would have done after letting the Confederacy go would have been passing a Constitutional amendment permanently banning secession so such a crisis would never happen again.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    better for both sides

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *