what would the world be like if hillbilllies i mean confederates won the civil war?
548110
It's kind of like that now. We've got those dang hillbillies holed up in the oval office. The South might as well have won.
511821
North and South. Union and Confederate, it was the war over abolishing slavery. The Confederates left the United States, and started the own government as rebels and traitors. The Confederacy had it's own money (currency) and President, although I can't remember what his name was. The North (Union) defeated the South in the Civil War, and reunited the United States. So look up the Civil War on the Web through "Ask Jeeves". Good Luck.
538784
I just finished with the unit of the civil war, the Union had very unskilled soldiers but a lot of them, but the confederates had less soldiers with more skill, the confederates had the motherland aka England supply them but not enough supplies were able to come to them due to the fact that the Union had blocked most of the trade routes in the rivers, that wasone completed accomplishment.
375060
They were hillbillies. 'Nuff said!
93265
Well ,it depends on what your status was. If you were a slave, it was pretty bad, if you were from the North it depended on how high in society your parents were. In the South, things were generally kind of rough for everybody. Also, just about everybody knew someone who was in the war, and it was especially difficult for the people who had relatives/friends on both sides of the war.
1165344
The South had fewer advantages, but it held several that would pose great threats to attempts by their Northern neighbors to end the rebellion. The South was able to fight on its home terrain, and it could win the war simply by continuing to exist after the hostilities ended later. The South also had a military tradition that encouraged young men to serve in the armed forces or attend a military school; many had served the U.S. military prior to the Civil War, only to resign and fight for their states and family. In addition, the South had the leadership of great commanders, including Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, and "Stonewall" Jackson.
864608
I can certainly see from the answers you've gotten not many people know the history of our great nation,that is most unfortunate.\nThe South did not break away from the union based on slavery it was a greater issue one of economics one that had to do with 'states rights' and with how much tariffs they could charge.\nIt all really began to boil over in the Kansas debates of 1848,and spread even into N.Y. \nRead crack a book some of you folks sometime read the 'war of the republic' 50 volume set written/published by the United States war Dept. just after the war.\nThe Northern States also had slavery before during and even after  Lincoln's Emancipation proclamation.\nIn fact the Northern rich states and the U.S. Flag flew over more slavery than the the Confederate 'battle flag',and certainly more so than the poor mostly ag Southern states could ever dream of having.\nThe South won virtually every major,and minor battle-the South chose to up until the end remain in the South however the North was starving the South,and it had to go north which was the demise of the The Army of Virginia.
37465
There's a great television show on PBS called "Do You Speak American." On it, they detail the various differences in accent in regions across the United States. Their website has many audio clips throughout. You might want to try the "Radio America" section. Of course, the question becomes, where exactly are hillbillies?
274050
I do not think an independent Southern Republic (ie: Confederate States of America) would be easy going or even terribly stable. I think it would be a continuing problem to the peace and prosperity of the Western Hemisphere.\n\nThe antebellum leaders of the American South were extremely expansionist, looking to add at least Cuba and Nicauragua as new slave states. The fast-profit method of cotton cultivation in the south was so wasteful and inefficient that the ariable land available would have diminished very quickly with the requirement for even more of Latin America to be seized. Because of the growing worldwide trend against Negro slavery, the traditional supply sources would have been unavailable. This would have inevitably required the extension of slavery to the indiginous Indian populations.\n\nThe Southern economy, again because of the quick-profit mentality, was dependent on outside sources for capital and for manufacturing. As a one-product economy, the CSA would have been the victim of the fluctuations of the foreign market for cotton. The federal blockade during the Civil War forced Europe to develop other sources of cotton (Egypt and South America) and this would have made those fluctuations even more traumatic. Transportation and Energy production in the South would have continued to lag with obsolete technology, again because of the quick profit mentality - and small government thinking. Public investment would have continued to be discouraged.\n\nEmancipation would never have happened, and the flight of runaway slaves to the USA would have increased. As a separate and unfriendly nation, the CSA would have very little influence on US policy. The USA would never condone the return of runaways to slavery and probable torture (although George W was born in Connecticut). This would have led to the requirement of a long and fortified border between the two countries, a further drag on both country's economies.\n\nThere is a definite possibility that the two countries would have fought on different sides in WWI (South with England, North with Germany). Imagine trench warfare along the Tennessee River. Regardless of outcome, South would probably have become a partial protectorate of England, certainly would depend on the Royal Navy for protection.\n\nNo, this would have been a bad thing.
483246
There would be no preachers. The tenets of peace, tolerance, and nonviolence would be written in the sand at low tide. Anyone expressing an interest in becoming an advocate of the "faith" would be banned for life. There would be no buildings, politics, or symbols.\n\nI would keep the wine and biscuits though! Lol!
509883
Looking at the loss of life and property, that is a fair assessment, it was also very costly for the Confederates...in losing it, they lost the chance for international support they were trying to earn (look up England's role in the Civil War); Gettysburg became a turning point for the war.  The Confederates had won battles on their own soil, but could not win in the North -- that's what the British wanted to see before they'd support them.  Besides that, they needed the victory to gain ground and convince they Union it was losing, they were unable to do that.
1107690
Being from Georgia I think I can at least partly answer your question. Family feuds are always the worst. When the United States wins a war against a foreign enemy we have always helped rebuild them  been merciful and tried to make them our friends  whether we were successful or not. \nAfter the Civil war corrupt northern politicians took advantage of the situation in the south to ruin the lives steal the property , and do almost everything possible to alienate the population of the former Confederacy. Many Families, and only a small proportion of them slaveholders by the way, lost everything they had. My own family went from being well to do landowners to near poverty in one generation. So yes many families have a history of bitterness to people from the north, and have very little patience for their smug self righteous air of superiority.
994977
If that was the case, all hell would break lose and there would be a huge war.\n\nThat'll never ever happen.
365666
Liberals, being more open to new ideas and tolerant of other cultures, would probably get along fine. Conservatives, being closed-minded and intolerant, would probably be executed.
464243
The Confederacy---most believe believe they stood for slavery, when in fact the common soldiers could  not even afford to own slaves, only the rich Southerners. They would not be willing to die for something they'd never even be able to have.  The everyday commoners fought for state's rights, which  is a better form of government in my opinion than a strong federal government because it is more localized and small scale.  Think about it....people in rural South Carolina have, on average, totally different beliefs and ways of life than people in Los Angeles or NYC.  We would've been much better off.
632902
I think it will be like Vietnam where the US won militarily in terms of the number of enemy troops/insurgents that were killed(US lost 58,000 soldiers, Viet Cong lost over 1.5 million) but did not acheive its goal to stop the communist takeover of Vietnam. The US will no doubt kill dozens of insurgents for every soldier it loses in Iraq but public opinion in the States will eventually lead to troop withdrawal and the insurgents may overthrow the undefended and overwhelmed democratic government and install a theocracy like Iran
455955
i don't think there would be a civil war here, anyways not with Americans against Americans.... maybe Mexicans against Americans .........but then again i could be wrong, there are a lot of bleeding hearts out there that want the illegal Mexicans here for one reason or another? and yes i would fight along side my American brothers to defeat the invading forces ( that are already here)....