If the South won the Civil War?

[Senator-elect Spark]

What would have happened?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They would have elected Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson, as president. Blacks wouldnt have been kept enslaved, but their rights to a public defender and Miranda rights wouldnt have been galvanized. It would have been same as South Africa apartheid.  And lynchings, maybe even to this day,, sparsely would have kept going on, due to no blacks having public defenders when whistling at females.

[Dan the Roman]

There would have been fits of reform, driven by the tendency of the Southern elite to wish to be viewed as European. As such, the steady pilgrimage of their sons(and perhaps eventually daughters) to Europe for education would create a liberalizing impact, but tar it as foreign influenced and elitist politically.

[diptheriadan]

They would probably have slowly collapsed with individual states and regions becoming independent. Whether or not they're absorbed back into the United States depends on the North's willingness to fight.

[CatoMinor]

The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom would go on to spread it's Christian/Chinese Folk religion fusion throughout China. The God-Emperor/Brother of Jesus  Hong Xiuquan would likely see everything he had worked for collapse as he instructs his subjects to begin eating "mana" for food, leading to mass death. China would then be divided up among European powers for colonization in the 1870's-80's.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

They would have elected Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson, as president. Blacks wouldnt have been kept enslaved, but their rights to a public defender and Miranda rights wouldnt have been galvanized. It would have been same as South Africa apartheid.  And lynchings, maybe even to this day,, sparsely would have kept going on, due to no blacks having public defenders when whistling at females.

I'm not exactly sure how Grover Cleveland becomes President of the Confederacy.

[MATTROSE94]

They would have elected Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson, as president. Blacks wouldnt have been kept enslaved, but their rights to a public defender and Miranda rights wouldnt have been galvanized. It would have been same as South Africa apartheid.  And lynchings, maybe even to this day,, sparsely would have kept going on, due to no blacks having public defenders when whistling at females.

I'm not exactly sure how Grover Cleveland becomes President of the Confederacy.

Maybe if the Confederacy was able to gain control of the area of New York where Grover Cleveland lived during the time of the Civil War?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Woodrow Wilson was from NJ, too. Obviously, the South would have recruited him to come to VA, as well, later on Wilson to run the confederacy. The Northern Dixicrats, were known as copperhead Dems and both Cleveland and Wilson would have industrialized the South, but have it like South Africa, apartheid.

[Kingpoleon]

They would have elected Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson, as president. Blacks wouldnt have been kept enslaved, but their rights to a public defender and Miranda rights wouldnt have been galvanized. It would have been same as South Africa apartheid.  And lynchings, maybe even to this day,, sparsely would have kept going on, due to no blacks having public defenders when whistling at females.

I'm not exactly sure how Grover Cleveland becomes President of the Confederacy.

Maybe if the Confederacy was able to gain control of the area of New York where Grover Cleveland lived during the time of the Civil War?

Mayor Fernando Wood would have approved.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Woodrow Wilson was from NJ, too. Obviously, the South would have recruited him to come to VA, as well, later on Wilson to run the confederacy. The Northern Dixicrats, were known as copperhead Dems and both Cleveland and Wilson would have industrialized the South, but have it like South Africa, apartheid.

Wilson was born and raised in the South.  It wasn't until he was in college that he ever came to the North and in an independent Confederacy, he wouldn't have.

That said, back to the original question, the only way the South could win the Civil War was to have it not be fought, but be allowed to depart in peace.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Grant was the unifying force that carried the Union to victory after Gettysberg. Had Grant failed at Gettysberg, the Civil War would have been lost and the South would have succeeded after that, adding MD, DEL and MO to their statehood status.

An independent South, might have wanted to go back to the US after slavery was abolished, in 1920, due to the North's economic expansion under Calvin Coolidge with the automobile industry.  The South would have depended solely on trade and agriculture and the Dust Bowl would have wiped them out in the 1930's.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Grant was the unifying force that carried the Union to victory after Gettysberg. Had Grant failed at Gettysberg, the Civil War would have been lost and the South would have succeeded after that, adding MD, DEL and MO to their statehood status.

Grant wasn't at Gettysburg, Meade was in charge of the Army of the Potomac, as he would (at least officially) remain so, Grant didn't come east until March 1864 when he was simultaneously promoted to Lieutenant General and appointed Commanding General of the Army. (Grant was only the second person to achieve that rank in the USA Washington. was promoted to that rank during the Quasi War and Scott was only given a brevet to that rank in 1855 in recognition of his service to date. The U.S. was leery of handing out permanent commissions back then. Indeed, the USN didn't get its first Rear Admiral until 1862.)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

They would have elected Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson, as president. Blacks wouldnt have been kept enslaved, but their rights to a public defender and Miranda rights wouldnt have been galvanized. It would have been same as South Africa apartheid.  And lynchings, maybe even to this day,, sparsely would have kept going on, due to no blacks having public defenders when whistling at females.

I'm not exactly sure how Grover Cleveland becomes President of the Confederacy.

Maybe if the Confederacy was able to gain control of the area of New York where Grover Cleveland lived during the time of the Civil War?

Mayor Fernando Wood would have approved.

Considering he called for NYC to secede from the Union in 1861—indeed.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Grant was the unifying force that carried the Union to victory after Gettysberg. Had Grant failed at Gettysberg, the Civil War would have been lost and the South would have succeeded after that, adding MD, DEL and MO to their statehood status.

An independent South, might have wanted to go back to the US after slavery was abolished, in 1920, due to the North's economic expansion under Calvin Coolidge with the automobile industry.  The South would have depended solely on trade and agriculture and the Dust Bowl would have wiped them out in the 1930's.

I have no idea how the Confederacy would take Delaware.

[Karpatsky]

The North would likely be better off today without the continuing reactionary influence of the South. The South would be a banana republic.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The North would likely be better off today without the continuing reactionary influence of the South. The South would be a banana republic.

The North needs the South, too, not as much as the South needs the North. Both are dependent on each other, TX, LA and FL proximity to Mexico and its trade with that region in agriculture and oil.

[lordroel]

What would have happened?

then this is how the White House could have looked like.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What would have happened?

then this is how the White House could have looked like.

Doubtful for two reasons.

First off, that was never the flag of the Confederacy.  Second, it's doubtful that in the event of a Southern victory in the Civil War that either side would have kept their capital in DC. Maybe Maryland would have relocated the state capital to there from Annapolis assuming that it was retroceded to Maryland after the war.

When I've imagined a successful secession, I've always figured on a Confederate District of Washington centered on either Chattanooga on the Tennessee-Georgia border or lower down on the Tennessee River at the Tennessee-Mississippi-Alabama tripoint as the eventual capital.  The U.S. capital would likely either be in a non-districted Philadelphia or perhaps a District of New Columbia would be established centered on Dubuque (Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois), Gary, (Indiana, Illinois) or Toledo, (Ohio, Michigan).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No way the Confederate flag flies with the Federalists or National Whig Party over the Oval Office.  

[I Can Now Die Happy]

They would have elected Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson, as president. Blacks wouldnt have been kept enslaved, but their rights to a public defender and Miranda rights wouldnt have been galvanized. It would have been same as South Africa apartheid.  And lynchings, maybe even to this day,, sparsely would have kept going on, due to no blacks having public defenders when whistling at females.

It's hard to say what individual people would have later become President of the CSA. I'm sure many would have been Civil War Vets and/or prominent aristocrats, but that's about it.

Also, everyone born after the Civil War would have been butterflied out. I'm not sure if there's a more specific term for this, but because a person's identity depends on a specific sperm meeting with a specific egg, any change in a person's series of movements before they do the deed would result in a different child being born. For instance, let's say a man goes home from work to engage in marital congress with his wife, producing a son nine months later. If you delay his commute home by just one second, through something as miniscule as the cars in front of him just taking a second longer to get out of the way, his specific combination of movements up to his wife is changed, which would most likely lead to a different sperm, which would lead to a different child - maybe a daughter, maybe a son with more athletic potential, maybe a son with a mental disorder, et cetera.

This means that every President from Calvin Coolidge up to Donald Trump would almost certainly not have been born. Chances are that Warren Harding isn't born either, being born November of 1865 (a victory for the South would have likely meant that the prior conditions would lead to him being butterflied out). Of course, this doesn't just extend to Presidents, but to almost everyone worldwide.

Anyway, the reason I mention all of that is because some of these alternate timelines involve people who would have been butterflied out. There is this funny alternate history movie on what would have happened if the South had not only won the Civil War, but conquered the North in the process. IIRC they had John F. Kennedy winning the Presidency as one of the first Presidents from the North in a hundred years, despite the fact that he would have been butterflied out along with everyone else who hadn't already been born before the end of the Civil War.

So, unless you were to just handwave that idea away, all you can really work with when it comes to alternative history are societal trends, geographical resources, established military/political/economic systems, etc. For instance, the South right after the Civil War would still be an agricultural economy heavily reliant on slavery. Eventually, abolitionism would take root as advances in technology rendered slavery obsolete. This would lead to the question of "What would they do with all the slaves?" Free them but relegate them to second class citizens until a Civil Rights Movement starts? Deport them to Africa?

Their relations with the North would also be a major topic. Would they conflict over western territory? Possibly, though I'm sure a peace treaty would prevent war between the two nations for at least a couple decades. Would they be cordial? Northerners would likely be bitter at their defeat. How would people traveling from the USA to the CSA be treated and vice versa (after all, there would be people with family in both sides)? Would there be another war between the USA and the CSA eventually? It's a definite possibility, especially after a few decades have passed.

What would the new political factions in the CSA be? After all, there's undoubtedly quite a difference between Texas and Virginia. There would still be conflicts between poor whites and rich whites, and some conflict between urban and rural areas.

What would the new political factions in the USA be? There's quite a difference between places like New York and Indiana. There would still be issues with immigration, urban vs rural, how blacks are treated, unions, trust busting, women's rights, etc.

What would their attitude towards Mexico be? If a Great War erupted in Europe, who would they align with? What would happen to the lands currently occupied by Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado? Would the CSA take them? Does the Philippines get taken from Spain? Are there any colonial ambitions from either of the two nations?

There are so many questions to answer, and each question raises more answers in turn.

[The Mikado]

I really don't think abolitionism would be a natural step for the South as an independent state, even as agricultural work becomes somewhat less labor intensive (and even that is a far later development than you might think). For one thing, people wouldn't want to free their domestic slaves, and for another, slavery is a form of social control and prestige in addition to an economic model. Plenty of other potential uses for slaves emerge, as well. Mining comes to mind as a real boom sector later on, especially coal mining.

[Cassandra]

If the South won the Civil War it would be ripped apart by a Black Nationalist/Socialist revolutionary war within two generations.

[The Mikado]

The North would likely be better off today without the continuing reactionary influence of the South. The South would be a banana republic.

Good luck having the middle of the US thrive economically with Confederate control of New Orleans preventing importing/exporting using the Mississippi River. Loss of control of the Mississippi River Delta has staggering economic and political ramifications.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The North would likely be better off today without the continuing reactionary influence of the South. The South would be a banana republic.

Good luck having the middle of the US thrive economically with Confederate control of New Orleans preventing importing/exporting using the Mississippi River. Loss of control of the Mississippi River Delta has staggering economic and political ramifications.

It comes down to whether Missouri and Kentucky go with the north or the south.  If they stay in the Union, then with control of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers and the more extensive rail and canal network in the north, the loss of New Orleans becomes merely an inconvenience rather than a major economic problem.For that matter, without a Confederate Kentucky, Confederate Tennessee will have economic problems due to steamboats on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers being cutoff unless some sort of relatively free trade back and forth across the border is allowed.

[Karpatsky]

The North would likely be better off today without the continuing reactionary influence of the South. The South would be a banana republic.

Good luck having the middle of the US thrive economically with Confederate control of New Orleans preventing importing/exporting using the Mississippi River. Loss of control of the Mississippi River Delta has staggering economic and political ramifications.

1861 is not 1803. The Chicago and Erie Canals and extensive railroad development would make the North quite able to manage its exports. Not to mention it's very unlikely the South would totally block Northern access to the Mississippi, given river tolls from Northern industry would likely be one of the few reliable sources of income many of those regions would have.