Conderate states never rejoin US

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Suppose that the confederate states never rejoin the US, but magically politics are the same in the non-Confederate states.

We have no TX, OK, AR, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, TN, SC, NC, VA

Electoral vote
* indicates from south
# means solid south
Bold indicates different from real life

1868: Grant beats Seymour 173-64
1872: Grant beats Greely 236-23
1876: Hayes really beats Tilden 166-108
1880: Garfield beats Hancock 214-60 #
1884: Blaine beats Cleveland 182-75 #
1888: Harrison beats Cleveland 233-61 #
1892: Cleveland betas Harrison, Weaver 163-145-22 # election thrown
1896: McKinley beats Bryan 271-62 #
1900: McKlinley beats Bryan 292-41 #
1904: Roosevelt beats Parker 336-20 #
1908: Taft beats Bryan 321-35 #
1912: Wilson beats Roosevelt, Taft, 299-88-8 #
1916: Hughes beats Wilson 254-147 #
1920: Coolidge beats Cox 382-13
1924: Coolidge beats Davis, LaFollette 382-0-13 #
1928: Hoover beats Smith 372-23
1932: Roosevelt beats Hoover 337-59 #
1936: Roosevelt beats Landon 388-8 #
1940: Roosevelt beats Wilkie 314-82 #
1944: Roosevelt beats Dewey 295-99 #
1948: Truman beats Dewey, Thurmond* 205-189-0
1952: Eisenhower beats Stevenson 377-18
1956: Eisenhower beats Stevenson 382-13
1960: Kennedy beats Nixon 222-179
1964: Johnson* beats Goldwater 397-5
1968: Nixon beats Humphrey, Wallace* 236-166-0
1972: Nixon beats McGovern 383-17 #
1976: Ford beats Carter* 220-179 #
1980: Reagan beats Carter* 363-37
1984: Reagan beats Modale 379-13 #
1988: Bush* beats Dukakis 280-111 #
1992: Clinton* beats Bush* 331-52
1996: Clinton* beats Dole 328-55
2000: Gore* officially beats Bush* 272-211(officially #)
2004: Kerry beats Bush* 252-126 #

[Speed of Sound]

hmm. those are interesting #'s. If only, if only.

[??????????]

What an awesome dream. To bad this really didn't happen.

[A18]

Interesting. Of course, the parties and candidates would be totally different if this happened.

[afleitch]

Exactly, and I wonder who the Confederate Presidents (if the presidential system survives) would have been?

[12th Doctor]

Wilson was from Virginia.

[Wakie]

As Super points out, many of those politicians and/or their ancestors were from Southern States (making it highly unlikely that they would run for President of the Union).

I have always believed that if the United States had seperated in the 1860s that it would have continued to further seperate and that the Nation we currently know as America would look a lot more like Europe.  The precedent would be set that any time a state wanted to leave it could.  And with the great # of disagreements of the years you know it would have happened many times.  Some states would experiment with different forms of government (imagine a truly Communist state in North America).  Maybe a war or two could have erupted in the Americas.  And it is almost certain that not every state/nation would have wanted to jump into WWII.

The truly United States of America have managed to accomplish quite a bit of good over the years that a fractured America would not have been able to accomplish.

[A18]

First of all, not all 11 states would have left. Several broke off in retaliation to Lincoln's call for troops. They weren't going to fight fellow southerners.

Second, I don't think it's fair to say that remaining states would break off. So long as the Union continued to serve the interests of the people, no such thing would happen. It might even have the benefit of discouraging factionism, to the extent that there is doubt.

[Wakie]

I disagree.  Certainly not all 11 would have left at first.  But ultimately what happens when a state is faced with a strong federal measure with which it disagrees?  They have the option to break away and they would certainly use it.  Whether the issue is slavery (some states would want to hang onto it longer than others) or abortion or whatever there would be issues which some would see as being worth leaving the Union or Confederacy over.

[A18]

What federal measure? No federal measure pertaining to slavery or abortion would be constitutional, and none was attempted until after the Civil War.

[MaC]

yeah, good point.  You wouldn't likely have people like Carter, Gore, Clinton, or either Bush since they'd be in the "confereate states".  Jfern continues in making crummy posts...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

yeah, good point.  You wouldn't likely have people like Carter, Gore, Clinton, or either Bush since they'd be in the "confereate states".  Jfern continues in making crummy posts...

I already made that point, fool.

[Wakie]

What federal measure? No federal measure pertaining to slavery or abortion would be constitutional, and none was attempted until after the Civil War.

But fear of them is what ultimately led to the seperation, wasn't it?

[A18]

What federal measure? No federal measure pertaining to slavery or abortion would be constitutional, and none was attempted until after the Civil War.

But fear of them is what ultimately led to the seperation, wasn't it?

I would disagree with that assessment. Most of the battle was about the spread of slavery into the territories. Lincoln himself made it very clear he had no intention to interfere with slavery in the South, and even endorsed a constitutional amendment that would prohibit any future amendment giving the Congress the power to interfere with the domestic institutions of any state.

[12th Doctor]

yeah, good point.  You wouldn't likely have people like Carter, Gore, Clinton, or either Bush since they'd be in the "confereate states".  Jfern continues in making crummy posts...

Acctually, the Bush's probably would have stayed in Conn.  However, it is likely that there would be no Bushs today, as we know them, because, without a certain circle of precise events, George and Barbra never would have met, thus, there would be no "Dubya" or Jeb as we know them, in the very least.  I can annticipate jfern dancing at the thought.

Also, assuming the time line would have stayed together as much as possible and not totally fragmented into something we wouldn't recongnize, there would be no Bill "Clinton" because Clinton's biological father (Blythe) would never have died in a freak car crash on the way home from Illinois.

And, Grant would have probably died a poverty stricken, drunken, nobody, had the Union lost the war.

And also, a Republican Party that lost the war probably wouldn't be nearly as prominant as the acctual party.  At best, they would be the competitive centrist party in a three party system.

[Burn baby, Burn]

yeah, good point.  You wouldn't likely have people like Carter, Gore, Clinton, or either Bush since they'd be in the "confereate states".  Jfern continues in making crummy posts...

Acctually, the Bush's probably would have stayed in Conn.  However, it is likely that there would be no Bushs today, as we know them, because, without a certain circle of precise events, George and Barbra never would have met, thus, there would be no "Dubya" or Jeb as we know them, in the very least.  I can annticipate jfern dancing at the thought.

Also, assuming the time line would have stayed together as much as possible and not totally fragmented into something we wouldn't recongnize, there would be no Bill "Clinton" because Clinton's biological father (Blythe) would never have died in a freak car crash on the way home from Illinois.

And, Grant would have probably died a poverty stricken, drunken, nobody, had the Union lost the war.

And also, a Republican Party that lost the war probably wouldn't be nearly as prominant as the acctual party.  At best, they would be the competitive centrist party in a three party system.

argubally, had the south won, the northern democrats would have taken the presidency in 64

[Wakie]

What federal measure? No federal measure pertaining to slavery or abortion would be constitutional, and none was attempted until after the Civil War.

But fear of them is what ultimately led to the seperation, wasn't it?

I would disagree with that assessment. Most of the battle was about the spread of slavery into the territories. Lincoln himself made it very clear he had no intention to interfere with slavery in the South, and even endorsed a constitutional amendment that would prohibit any future amendment giving the Congress the power to interfere with the domestic institutions of any state.

Why were slave states concerned with having slavery in new states?  Because they were fearful of slave states becoming a minority in Congress.  Why were they so concerned about that?  Because they were afraid that Congress would interfere with their ability to retain slaves.  They didn't trust Lincoln and so they left.  Same thing would have happened for other contraversial issues.  Remember that the city of New York considered secession during the Civil War.

[A18]

As I noted, Lincoln himself made it very clear he had no intention to interfere with slavery in the South, and even endorsed a constitutional amendment that would prohibit any future amendment giving the Congress the power to interfere with the domestic institutions of any state (which passed Congress).

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The Confederacy likely evolves into a nasty slave empire taking over lands in latin america. The long night of slavery would still reign beneath the mason-dixon line as slaves work in cotton plantations and steel mills even today..

[Speed of Sound]

The Confederacy likely evolves into a nasty slave empire taking over lands in latin america. The long night of slavery would still reign beneath the mason-dixon line as slaves work in cotton plantations and steel mills even today..

good use of drama.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'm working on a timeline where the south wins the ACW due to the border states all opting to secede too and no fort sumter(gives the south more time to prepare). The US eventualyl retakes some of the border states but in 2005 the confederacy is still around. Its a militaristic apartheid slave state superpower by now. The US is a technocratic nation and the world economic/space superpower.

[memphis]

As I noted, Lincoln himself made it very clear he had no intention to interfere with slavery in the South, and even endorsed a constitutional amendment that would prohibit any future amendment giving the Congress the power to interfere with the domestic institutions of any state (which passed Congress).

The trouble is nobody in the South believed him. After the House Divided speech, people the South were convinced that Lincoln was an abolitionist.

[??????????]

The Confederacy likely evolves into a nasty slave empire taking over lands in latin america. The long night of slavery would still reign beneath the mason-dixon line as slaves work in cotton plantations and steel mills even today..

Of course that never would have actually happened if the south won.

[memphis]

No, the South would have obviously been on the cutting edge of Civil Rights.

[12th Doctor]

I'm working on a timeline where the south wins the ACW due to the border states all opting to secede too and no fort sumter(gives the south more time to prepare). The US eventualyl retakes some of the border states but in 2005 the confederacy is still around. Its a militaristic apartheid slave state superpower by now. The US is a technocratic nation and the world economic/space superpower.

This is highly unlikely.  First, it is based on the assumption that the South, pre-Civil War, was fundamentally racist.  This is not the case.  The anti-bellum South was prodominantly paternalistic (and still is to some extent, even today).  The slave owners who treated their slaves well (which made up the vast majority, BTW) didn't think it terms of White or Black so much as the Father-Family ralationship which existed between Wealthy Southern Gentalmen and, well, pretty much everyone else.  Wealthy Southern men saw it more as their duty to community and God to "take care" of people who were, for whatever reason, of lower circumstances than themselves, including poor whites.

In fact, institutionalized racism was acctually more popular in the North, as Northern "intellectuals" were deeply involved in the formation of the various race theories, which sought to prove that North Western Europeans (except the Irish) were supirior to all other men, because of evolution.

Without the social collapse that came after the war, it is doubtful that racism would have been such a huge issue in the South as it was in the RTL, and blacks probably would have eventually been emancipated anyway.  Acctually, what is more possible than the senerio that you proposed is some sort of communist revolution which united poor white and blacks against the wealthy elite.