How might the united states be different both domestically and internationally had the south won the civil war ?

1 answer:

7 0

That means that slavery could’ve lasted longer if the south won the Civil War. If the Union hadn’t stayed together – that is, if the United States had broken into two – then it’s likely that other regions of the US would have taken advantage of Confederate secession or would have seceded themselves, either from the then-existing North or the South. So you could certainly see an independent Midwest, and the area from California through to Washington state probably could have made itself its own place. Even within the Confederacy, there were certainly sections like East Tennessee that were vigorously Unionist during the war, and which might have pulled away.
Hopefully this helped.

You might be interested in

Kolera is infected with the

masha68 [24]

Answer:

Vibrio cholerae bacteria.

Explanation:

Cholera is a severe diarrheal sickness caused by the V. cholerae bacterium infecting the bowel. When people consume cholera-contaminated food and water, they can become ill. The illness is frequently moderate or asymptomatic, but it can also be severe and life-threatening.

6 0

1 year ago

How many states participated in the Constitutional Convention?

Lorico [155]

The only state that did not go was Rhode island so I'm guessing A.

6 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Choose the correct year range below that corresponds to the 28 century BC

aleksandr82 [10.1K]

Its 2. 2800 BC - 2701 BC i guess that my answer is correct.

8 0

3 years ago

3. Si Aling Iska ay isang biyuda ngunit natutustusan niya ang

mrs_skeptik [129]

3.Katarungang Panlipunan

4.Kagalingang Panlipunan

5.Kagalingang Panlipunan

Explanation:

okayy I found it now

HAVE A GOOD DAY

3 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Describe why much of Southwest Asia became part of European mandates after World War I, and explain the consequences of the mand

erica [24]

Answer: i hope this helps i think its to long but just copy what you need

A League of Nations mandate was a legal status for certain territories transferred from the control of one country to another following World War I, or the legal instruments that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League of Nations. These were of the nature of both a treaty and a constitution, which contained minority rights clauses that provided for the rights of petition and adjudication by the International Court.[1]

The mandate system was established under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, entered into force on 28 June 1919. With the dissolution of the League of Nations after World War II, it was stipulated at the Yalta Conference that the remaining Mandates should be placed under the trusteeship of the United Nations, subject to future discussions and formal agreements. Most of the remaining mandates of the League of Nations (with the exception of South-West Africa) thus eventually became United Nations Trust Territories.

Two governing principles formed the core of the Mandate System, being non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilization” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[2]

4 0

3 years ago