- NEW!
by youngandinlove on April 4th, 2008
I lov this question! As I am typing this a confederate flag hangs not 2 feet from my head...i love it. THere would probably be 2 countries instead of just one. The south would let the state decide more instead of the governemt doing most of it. I don't know if there would be slaves still...a movement could have occurred that would have abolished it.
by SmashTheState on April 15th, 2009
You mean they didn't? Amerika is run by an evil consortium of sister-marrying christer hillbillies from the Bible Belt and Nazi-loving Texan oil industry billionaires. Maybe all the heat dries out their brains, because it's like living south of the Mason-Dixon line causes mental retardation.
by Miss Madge on July 16th, 2008
This is a fun question, because other than the obvious differences (like slavery) it's a possibility that the U.S.A would no longer exist. I mean, the C.S.A would not have made it as a country. After the war the South was crippled, and even without factoring in wartime damages the South was lagging technologically. As for the North, the fact remains that the South supplied a vital portion of the North's economy and resources. The U.S.A., if it hadn't been conquered or anything like that, would certainly be a much less successful country (so you can forget about all that economic superpower stuff). And conquering, when one considers the wars to come, would certainly have been a possibility. In any case, sectional divisions were hardly limited to North and South. The West - newly won from the Mexican-American War and some sweet negotiating with Great Britain - could have decided to break off as well. The U.S., weakened as it was by the war and sudden lack of a South, wouldn't have put up too much of a fight. So eventually you'd have the small unpopular U.S.A. (even then, we were rubbing folks the wrong way), the weak war-ravaged C.S.A., and the underdeveloped Western States of America. None of them would work.
Also, Gone With the Wind would probably not be as popular.
by Smile loves California on April 15th, 2009
I don't think there was anything wrong with your question, at least not enough to be downrated (so here are some points to help out). The most obvious are that the US would have been divided into two nations, two presidents, two VP's, two currencies, etc. There would have been a great deal of exporting amongst the two nations, agricultural products from the south to the north and industrial products from the north to the south. The abolishment of slavery in the south would have taken much longer, but it would have been abolished. I think anger would have persisted between the North and South (or rather the new two nations) and there is not telling what would have happened.
by Rollie on April 15th, 2009
There would still be slaves. Lots fewer civil rights for minorities. And there would be two US governments; One for the North and the other for the South (They existed that way during the War.)
Who were the leaders of the Battle of Shiloh?
by Answerbag Staff on July 10th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What date was the Battle of Iwo Jima fought?
by Answerbag Staff on July 10th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Who commanded the Battle of Gettysburg?
by Answerbag Staff on July 9th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
When the debt ceiling isn't raised, will there finally be another civil war?
by Mister_Bromide on July 29th, 2011
| 3 people like this
Has your country ever had a civil war? How did that go?
by Weylon on October 22nd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading How would it have changed our life today if the south would have won the civil war?
- which can also be phrased in the following ways:
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments