If the Civil War in the US had of resulted in the formation of two distinct, stable countries (along roughly Union and Confederate lines), what would be the changes to our world today?
[ul]
[li]Would both countries (USSouth and USNorth) be world powers, helping each other in finance, trade etc. Or …[/li][li]Would both be diluted to minor nations in current times due to intense competition and resource limitations? Or…[/li][li]Would one, north or south, have prevailed as the dominant partner? If so, which one had the greater potential to do so, IYHO?[/ul][/li]Thanks for any opinions.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that the industrialized North with it’s railroads and industries would’ve become a powerhouse. That is what took the combined halves to being the predominant super-power, not our proficiency to grow cotton.
I do wonder how the slavery issue would’ve resolved though. Eventually, perhaps world pressure would’ve made a difference, but surely not immediately after the split.
By the way, that initial thread has an amusing assertion that the whole thing was about economics, because the South apparently had all the important goods, and the North couldn’t bear to let go of those goodies. Yeah right.
Good point, though I think that really only came into play decades (a century?) later. I guess a good experiment would be to look at the projected GNP of each proposed nation based on the output of each state, during that time. After all, it’s pretty unlikely any state would do things much differently had they been part of another country.
Sounds like a fair amount of effort; perhaps someone else has some insight of how to quickly come up with those numbers.
Sure, we are all only guessing and offering up opinions. But things could have easily been radically different.
Would either USN or USS nation have been sufficiently developed enough in time to help with WW1 or 2? Would Russia have still been the same threat without the USA to bounce against? Who would have won the race to space? Would both North and South have adopted similar laws and constitutions? Perhaps without the balancing affect of the conservatism of the South, the Northern states may have tinkered with communism after disregarding the DoI and the constitution.
Is the US a country which has become something more than the sum of its constituent parts?
If you’re really interested in this, you might want to read Harry Turtledove’s How Few Remain, and his Great War series. They are alternative history novels based on the premise that the North lost Gettysburg and thus England and France came in on the side of the CSA, leading to its successful establishment as an independent nation. I think you’ll find it to be fascinating and enjoyable; he’s a very readable author.
Talking about the North and the absence of Texan oilfields, you can look to Japan and the UK for evidence of how highly industrialised societies can grow without any access to oil (North Sea oil didn’t come on stream till the 1970s, and Japan has no oil).
One big imponderable is what would have happened to the new states in the West: would California have joined the North or the South? What about midwest states like Kansas with all their agricultural land?
If you were left with a North that didn’t extend beyond the boundaries of the Civil War Union, it would doubtless be a massive industrial force, with all its iron, coal, water, trade and commerce. But would it be much weaker? I’m not convinced.
Aro raises the point of politics: would the mainly Democrat North have become more like a social democratic European state?
Also the USA has benefited from having no particularly strong enemies: the Civil War was by far the biggest war fought in North America since US independence, and by and large it has been free to develop without the distraction of invasion and bombing. A divided USA might have fragmented (with new states declaring their independence), and led to a European-style continent riven by wars and alliances.
