How could the CSA have been victorious anyway? The only reason they lasted so long was because the north was holding back until the mid period and didnt have good leadership until near the end of the war.

1880s is my guess, which is when Brazil (of all countries) abolished it.

>>1044508
Stay on topic or fuck off.

>>1044502
1) They couldn't have been, cf: industrial production
2) As long as Brazil

>>1044502
Are you counting slave revolts with this?

The French influence that would have ensued through victory would have eventually lead to the demise of slavery. But sadly lead to a genocide.

>>1044502

Honestly, I doubt a victorious CSA would last more than 10-15 years before the Union re-invaded for round two.

And due to the sword of damocles hanging over their heads, I doubt they'd be too interested in reforming the basis of their economy. If anything, they're likely to double down on slavery, try to free up more white manpower to resist any future northern invasions, and probably turn into a kind of neo-sparta.

Not long at all. Britain would before long embargo the CSA on moral grounds, and the rump Union would do so simply out of butthurt.

But considering South Africa survived as an officially apartheid state up until the 1990s, it's not inconceivable that the CSA could have institutions like that up until this day.

>>1046612
The only realistic South successfully secedes scenario is one where the North doesn't try to stop them. In that case I doubt there's a push toward militarization on either side.

>>1044557

But its a retarded topic Cletus, how about you explain how they could have won in the first place?

>>1046628

I'm not so sure. McClellan was running on an 1864 peace platform, and was leading in the preliminary polls against Lincoln until the fall of Atlanta.

The idea of the Union stopping the offensive if things went a bit better for the south isn't that farfetched.