Sorry, I’ll let you guys have this one. Where would I be today if the south had won?
Granted you have a different point of view here, but do not misconstrue where most Southerners stand on this subject.
Slavery is and was an evil, no ands, ifs or butts. Yet while slavery had been said to be the only reason for the Civil War, that is wrong. Anyone, whether they be from North or South of the Mason-Dixon Line, if they read in depth about the reasons for the rebellion, it is more States' Rights against enhanced Federalism where the industrial section of the nation was trying to force their values, taxes and tariffs on the agricultural section.
When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, he set Slavery as the main reason for the war in order to keep Great Britain, France and other nations from recognizing the Confederacy and giving support and aid. The Emancipation Proclamation actually only freed slaves in areas under rebellion. Slaves in land occupied by Federal troops, Maryland, Kentucky, etc were still slaves or 'contraband' as there were called in Federal custody. The Emancipation Proclamation was more a political move than actually freeing slaves in Confederated hands.
Excellent question. Bear with me while I attempt to offer a bit of context and then I'll try to answer it.
If you look at the early history of the Americas you'll see that it was replete with acquisition and conquest. The world powers of the time were expanding their presence onto the continent in a "open season" fashion. Everything was up for grabs - even territories claimed by others.
Our little confederation, which became a constitutionally protected Constitutional Republic came about not just as a rebellion against the crown, but as a pledge of mutual defense against all foreign threats. There is a quote that I believe sums up the American spirit of the time: "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin
James Monroe introduced a nationalistic defense policy in 1823 that came to be known as the Monroe Doctrine. Simply stated it claimed North America for the Americans and warned foreigners (Europeans and the British crown) to look elsewhere for acquisition and conquest. A variation of this attitude was expressed in the view called Manifest Destiny which emphasized the imperative to develop and "tame" the continent.There was an element of arrogance displayed but also a lot of positive enthusiasm for development and growth. The enthusiasm came from the natural affinity of people to create and build things. The arrogance came from the methods some chose in claiming territory.
Interestingly enough, this became one of the first expressions of the philosophical differences between the left and the right in this country. Democrats being Democrats and wanting what they want regardless of the consequences favored Manifest Destiny. As a concept of national conquest Democrats favored it while Whigs did not.
As America grew a schism developed between north and south. A curious subculture developed with the evolution of the slaver aristocracy and the Plantation Society. It was wonderful - if you happened to be of the planter class, but pretty much sucked of you had the misfortune to be born a commoner.
Manifest Destiny helped push the development of fertile land further and further west - until the topography changed to prairie and then to mountains. Over the decades the race to claim and develop had taken on a twist - would new acquisitions be "slave" or "free"? Barters and bargains and battles in Congress resulted in odd compromises such as the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. These bargains were intended to allow development while simultaneously keeping the peace. They only served to flame tensions - tensions that ultimately culminated in civil war.
So what conclusions may we take from our early history? I would say that development of the continent was inevitable - first and foremost. But hand~in~hand with that there was keen competition amongst the factions within our own culture. Those factions became known as the phenomenon of Sectionalism. In my opinion these two key elements would have taken place irrespective of the outcome of the Civil War.
I do not believe that the south could have won the war. Even in the event of beating the astronomical odds against victory on the battlefield, any win would have been Pyrrhic and temporary. The south lived and prospered because of the defensive liaison with its northern neighbors. That gave it the defensive strength to repel its enemies. When it declared itself an enemy to those same neighbors it lacked the wherewithal to successfully sustain its aggression. Had it emerged victorious it lacked the ability to sustain itself economically. And it is my belief that, due to its unholy reliance on The Particular Institution it lacked the moral strength to sustain itself.
Built on a flimsy foundation of expedience, greed, and deceit the southern confederation would soon enough find itself in perpetual conflict with itself, as well as its northern neighbors. Weakened from the civil war the south (as well as the north) would find itself vulnerable to exploit and conquest from foreign predators. The natural pursuit of acquisition would take on an even more deadly tenor as perpetual clashes of north and south took place all across the continent.
Eventually the south would be subsumed back into the United States or be consumed by aggressors. Personally, I'm thankful that things turned out the way they did.