The United States without the Confederates.

One factor would be how the separation was accomplished. A peaceful resolution of a situation that usually led to bloody war would be something to be proud of. On the other hand, a defeat sufficiently decisive to let the southern states have their secession could make people question the viability of our republic or succumb to bitterness, frustration, revanchism, or other negative feelings.

Very true. The devil is always in the detail. Even various forms of defeat for the north could have different impacts, including as BreuandGrayl says above possibly resulting in some border states joining a victorious south, or possibly in Kentucky's case being the POD that leads to a southern victory.

The worse case scenario you mentioned, with bitterness, possibly infighting over scapegoats, high level militarism and possibly increased xenophobia is a possibility but hopefully some level of democracy and political stability would survive else the rest of the century, at least, could be nasty for both the rump US and its neighbours.
 
You've read what I've said and it would directly translate into some of what you say. Though if we were talking about a "dramatic" force that ends slavery in the South it would a Panic of 1873 or at least an alternate timeline parallel I can compare to. As for the "loyal" slave states (Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland) in all honesty there is the possiblity of Missouri and Kentucky joining the Confederacy be it military success in 1861-1862 or perhaps Fremont's proclaimation doesn't get rescinded by Lincoln and kept for the purpose of putting down the "insurrectionary rebels" and for Maryland I just don't see the entire state joining the other Southern States maybe Eastern Shore and Southern parts of Maryland could join but not the rest of it. For blacks (once slavery ends for economic reasons) there would be an ATL version of Jim Crow (called the Black Laws) imposed to keep the hiearchy intact.

Are you presuming that slavery would formally end but that the south would seek not just to keep its black population 'down' but in effective slavery of forced labour? Otherwise how would it stop many seeking to escape to the north - where however they might not be welcome? Especially when a fair number of white southerners, especially outside the former plantation owners, would probably want to get rid of the 'damned n*****s' both to remove them from their country and increase the economic opportunities for the whites.

I must admit that I'm not sure a economic crisis would be enough in itself to end slavery in the south. Apart from anything else the idea seemed to have imprinted itself into the minds of so many southerners as the best/only way to keep the blacks under control. As such some plantations and other businesses might go under but I can't see them all doing so and there would be the desire to maintain some form of ownership of the bulk of the blacks. There were some whites opposing slavery in the south but they were few and far between overall, despite the fact the institution was probably very bad for most of the whites as well as - even if not to the same degree - the enslaved blacks.
 
We also have to look at the East-West divide in the Union and a Confederate victory would only mean a new divide would open for the next decades.

Do you mean a similar division is likely in the south, which is quite possible, given the cultural differences, as well as a probably increasing difference between the deep south, so dependent on slavery and the 'northern' south where it will probably be seen increasingly as a problem.

Or do you mean that if southern independence legitimises succession, even if the union then passes a constitutional amendment formally rejecting it you might see separatist movements in the western states, unhappy with eastern political and economic dominance? That's a possibility as there were some important divides but unless Washington and the east really screws things over I think this would be unlikely.
 
Do you mean a similar division is likely in the south, which is quite possible, given the cultural differences, as well as a probably increasing difference between the deep south, so dependent on slavery and the 'northern' south where it will probably be seen increasingly as a problem.

Or do you mean that if southern independence legitimises succession, even if the union then passes a constitutional amendment formally rejecting it you might see separatist movements in the western states, unhappy with eastern political and economic dominance? That's a possibility as there were some important divides but unless Washington and the east really screws things over I think this would be unlikely.
What I mean by Northern East-West states divide is not outright secession and yes culturally and politically it's going to get into conflict with the "Yankee" East though not necessarily separatist movements like the Confederates just competing for influence in the U.S. government with the "Yankee" Easterners vs the "Butternut" Westerners. I even explained this East-West divide in one post citing Jennifer Weber's Copperheads. Yes, in short there will be a divide between the Yankee East and the Butternut West.
 
I think when talking about what happens to those who supported the war (Republicans and War/Unionist Democrats) they'd be effected the most and as I said the Republican Party would be in absolute shambles and it would take quite a while for them to recover. But in a worst case scenario the Republican Party could collapse afterwards and with the Warmonger (or War Hawk) Democrats at odds with the Pacifist (or Dovish) Democrats it might even result in a split that results in the Warmongers/War Hawks walking out of the Democrat and joining with their former Republican rivals to form a new party like say a resurrected Constitutional Union Party becoming the main rival of the Democrats in the process.
 
Back
Top