I'm not prepared to go as far into the future as Tommy did, but I'll say at the outset that nothing I'm going to say here would preclude the possibility that he would become the future president of the world.
Anyway, Tommy's scenario was based on the South winning the war.
Many other people have devised similar scenarios, based on a presumption that the CSA, having won the war, would remain a strong and solidly unified nation.
If, however, the southern states had been permitted to secede peaceably, as Dawna postulated, there would have been no Civil War to create the strong unifying bonds that result from engaging in a struggle against a common enemy. With the northern states having shown no interest in taking any military action against them, I can't see that the southern states would have had any reason for forming a military alliance against the North.
If there had been no war, I have to wonder whether those states, having seceded individually, would have seen any reason to form any sort of unified CSA government at all.
And if such a government had been formed, one of its fundamental founding principles would have been that any state had the clearly established legal right to secede peaceably from any sort of union with any other state, whenever it felt so inclined. Such a government could have broken up very quickly and easily, as soon as various states decided that their interests were not being well served by allowing various other states to have a say in how things should be done.
My guess is that after a peaceable secession, the South, similarly to the Italy of that era, would have consisted of a number of small, independent states, and would have remained that way until and unless a Southern version of Garibaldi had come along.