Lose the south

The North fought the Civil War primarily to preserve republican government in a period when world opinion frankly doubted that it would ever last, and secondarily to end slavery.

Both battles were won; maybe it's time to look at the downside of the program.

Most "if the South had won" narratives suppose that the two sides would have ended up well-matched and hostile rivals.
Not likely. The population in 1860 was already 19 million Northerners vs. 8.5 million white Southerners, and 90% of the Republic's business activities took place in the North.Today, the eleven states of the Confederacy account for about 29% of the population-- 84 million people-- and 27% of the GDP-- $2.8 trillion. That's comparable to Germany on both counts. The South would be a viable country and an excellent nearby market, but no rival.
The South has been pretty much a drag on the rest of the country since the Civil War. It stymied racial progress for a century, and it's always had a disproportionate and reactionary political influence. We'd be a considerably more liberal country without it. (Without the Confederacy, Gore would have won a landslide in the electoral college-- 266 votes to 124-- and a five-point lead in the popular vote. That's assuming Bush was still the opposing candidate, of course; as a Connecticut native, he'd squeak by legally. And Gore was from Tenn., as well. Hmmm....nevermind.)


In other words, we'd have the big business, but not the government dominated by big business; and the cultural conservatives would be mostly off in their own country, where they could create monuments to the Ten Commandments to their heart's content, and not intrude on our television programs.