[dtel]

Putting aside the slavery question for a bit...has anybody considered if the country had been split into north and south permanently?
Whose government would have become the monolith we have now?
Or would both have grown into what we have now?

[GOPcapitalist]

Whose government would have become the monolith we have now? Or would both have grown into what we have now?

IMHO there are two possible scenarios. The one I tend to think would have happened is that both countries would have emerged in the "big government" direction of what we have now, but at a significantly slower pace. I say this as it is a natural tendency for any government to grow in size over time, often to the point that it parents its own destruction.

The second scenario, to which I believe an argument could be made, is that the south would have grown more slowly just as in the first whereas the north would have quickly turned into a centralized industrial state of big government. But I suppose we'll really never know.

[stand watie]

You are asking one of the most common questions that i am asked by students when i speak to college & secondary school groups.

i suspect, but do NOT know, that the southland would still be a conservative, God-fearing,CONSTITIONAL REPUBLIC, with a decentralized government.

the north would be the arrogant, racist, anti-semitic,mean-spirited,anti-2d amendment, ANTI-life,PRO-drug use, PRO-sexual perversion,statist,socialist, nanny-state sort of country that the majority of the NE intellectual/academic/political "elites" want the whole of the country to be NOW.

free the southland,sw

[Democratic_Machiavelli]

Hmmm. I think that if the North hadn't won the war, Great Britain (alone with other nations) would have taken the opportunity to reclaim land from the weakened republics. It is possible that neither republic would still be standing today.

That's just my opinion based on what little I've read. I've discovered from this thread that history is the most anemic course I took when I was in school.