What if the South Won the American Civil War? History Vlogger Reaction
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2024
- Welcome to my very first reaction video! See AlternateHistoryHub's video & channel here - • What if the South Won ...
If you want to see more of this, make sure to hit LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, and leave a comment! And if you'd like to have more input into the future of the channel, consider joining my patron team. Thank you in advance!
Patreon - / thehistoryguy25
Updated link for Discord - / discord
Twitter - / thehistoryguy25
For business inquiries contact: thehistoryguy25@gmail.com
#History #AmericanHistory #AlternateHistory
Welcome to the history reaction community!
Thank you sir! You blazed the trail. We have chatted before when your followers invaded one of my streams on History Guy Gaming!
@@VloggingThroughHistory Nice video
@Collin Vail I NEED the collab video 😩😩😩
Terry sus 😳😳😳
Collab
In regards to what you said about how America was no longer referred to pluraly after the civil war, I have heard it put pretty well and it really sticks with me, “These United States, became The United States”
This is the first one? Why, this is a piece of history itself!
I too have been binging this content these past couple days 😂
I only just found his channel last week and really enjoying it (and rewatching other history videos with another perspective on it).
Last time I was this new on a channel was AtlasPro.
And thus, the legendary reactions were born.
reaction videos are a great idea for this channel. Sometimes where I hear about a certain historical thing I wonder "what would History Guy think about this?"
The suggestion at around 13:00 that secession *could* breed more secession-like tendencies is something Lincoln noted in an address to Congress in 1861.
I'm not even american, still binge watch all of your videos. Great job!!
same lol
The insight you provide and your delivery has ignited my interest in history, thank you!
I love seeing you build up your opinion as the video goes on. Very interesting and fun to think about
more industry is putting it rather mildly: the entirety of the industrial output of the south was like a third of NY alone iirc
Massachusetts, even, had more industry than the entire CSA.
Also the North also, in a way, had more agriculture the South, too producing more wheat and other foodstuffs of every kind (except rice).
The CSA was not only not industrialized, they were also a one trick pony (cotton) kind of like a nation totally dependent on oil today.
Interesting that you mentioned Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series (14:08) as Cody (AlternateHistoryHub) collaborated with another channel; EmperorTigerstar to explore the entire book series in 4 videos. (Split into two halves on each channel)
Starting with AlternateHistoryHub doing part 1- The Alternate World of A Southern Victory (LORE)
EmperorTigerstar doing Part 2- The Alternate World of a Southern Victory (LORE) Part 2
Then back to AlternateHistoryHub doing Part 3- A World Where the South Turns Fascist (Southern Victory Part 3)
Before ending with EmperorTigerstar doing Part 4- Settling the Score Once and For All (Southern Victory Part 4)
(Although he did do a map timeline as a bonus video)
One alternate outcome that nobody talks about that's also quite interesting is this: what if the North won before the emancipation proclamation was written?
That’s a good idea, someone should make that video.
Love this thank you
My take on this is that the issue of slavery would bring about a second civil war in the South. The CS constitution actually forbids States from abolishing Slavery. I would guess the same Southern States that were last to join would secede. Despite the potential hypocrisy I can't imagine a CS government would just allow these States to secede peacefully.
Personally I always thought that at best slavery wouldn’t have been abolished but instead simply reduced. Perhaps no longer would there be massive plantations but instead there would be slave servants like maids as a sort of luxury item. Not that this is as good as abolition
@@mini2239 lol. Where in the world of capitalism do you see businesses wanting to increase their payroll overhead? Why would slavery be reduced when the greatest obstacle to maximized profits is labor costs?
@@jeffwilliams2828 Oh there's a series of economic thought that explains that. First slaves can't be educated so you can't employ them in many modern careers. Second, security is actually more expensive than just employing workers. This is due to the fact you have to design your factories and farms both as fortresses as well as cutting into efficency.
Third, motivation. Motivated workers are better than slaves, especially in any industry that is dependent on creativity like the service industry.
But that's all speculation
@@mini2239 wow. You seem to know very little about that era. Or at least i should say you seem to only know the snapple cap facts.
First, while it was illegal for Africans to read in certain states, it was never illegal to educate them. In fact many capitalist saw fit to educate individuals on multiple recorded circumstances. That might explain why nearly two dozen black colleges were founded within the first 3 years of black freedom. (Slave engineers are cheaper than independent ones)
Secondly, security cost during that era were miniscule, there’s a reason why white unemployment was at traumatic levels in the antebellum south and it wasn’t because their skill set was too expensive. You dont need high security when you have interstate laws that demand enslaved persons be arrested and returned to their “company” and unemployed citizens can make arrest for freelance fees.
I forgot your last point but it doesnt matter. The southern states through cotton and slavery had a larger economy than the entire rest of the US and larger than every country in the world except three. What’s more motivating than “work or I’ll kill you and starve your children at the same time?” Even Silicon Valley cant rival the wealth creation and concentration of American slavery capitalism in the Confederacy.
@@jeffwilliams2828 Ok I know for a fact that's wrong. After all the main reason the South lost the Civil War was due to the superior economy of the North. It was certainly not superior than the North.
Second while some slaves may have educated it a simple fact that educated slaves are rebellious slaves. In fact barring religious teachings it was made illegal in Southern states. Here's an example from South Carolina:
'Whereas, the having slaves taught to write, or suffering them to be employed in writing, may be attended with great inconveniences; Be it enacted, that all and every person and persons whatsoever, who shall hereafter teach or cause any slave or slaves to be taught to write, or shall use or employ any slave as a scribe, in any manner of writing whatsoever, hereafter taught to write, every such person or persons shall, for every such offense, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money."
spartacus-educational.com/USASeducation.htm
Meanwhile in regards to motivation you show a fatal misunderstanding of how motivational workforces work. It's complicated but one of the most accepted theories is Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This operates in a tier system where with each tier fulfilled people become more motivated.
The very first tier are basic needs, food, water, basic freedoms, safety. Slaves can't even do that. And because of that only fear will motivate them, and that make them work creatively or want to work, and eventuality it will just get too much to the point that they're okay with being shot. And any work they do will be half assed
That opening scene with the cannon ball hole in the barn. My hometown. Gettysburg. I grew up about 15 minutes from that barn
That’s dope!
Could see a move of the capital back to Philly. Due to, and correct if I'm wrong, that Washington was under threat quite a bit from the South during the war.
Even France, which was a well-established empire, had trouble putting a foot down and subjugating us Mexicans, I think the gringos would have it more difficult, and even if the Confederates tried, maybe that would mean a war on two fronts, with Mexico at the bottom and USA above
I like this format
I love Harry Turtledove! My favorite series of his is Worlds War, in which an alternate timeline of world war II sees Earth invaded by a race of alien lizards, but it's much less science fiction-y than you might assume
They have 4 parts of this seeing the other 3 would be cool
Shout out to Harry Turtledove, Guns of the South was an interesting read.
The cover showing Lee holding an AK47 is classic! I love the plot twist at the conclusion of the book. I'm surprised it hasn't been made into a movie yet.
It is easy to say "it could not happen that way." It is more accurate to say, "it did not happen that way." History usually works out one way and not out another for a variety of reasons, including reasonable choices and accidental occurrences. But, the accidents leading to outcome have to be very weighty and are unusual. The weight of each and it's effect on the momentum of events ....? Good luck finding that scale.
As wise men say, "History often turns on the smallest things"
It couldn’t happen that way because it didn’t happen that way.
Usually, when people say "it could not happen", it is usually because of how unstable the situation was.
For example, a bookshelf that is on the verge of falling will always fall over, it cannot be suspended in a permanent state of nearly falling over.
In the case of the Civil War, the odds of the Confederacy actually winning were really stacked against them.
Nope. We CAN imagine what ifs, and judge them to be impossible. That is what is meant to by "it could not have happened that way". It's completely different from "it did not happen that way". The former is a statement about the possibility of alternatives. The latter is a pointless statement.
It's very interesting that Chris's first reaction was to a fellow Buckeye.
At 13:10 New England was making such rumblings just after the 2004 as well.
On the topic of moving the US capital post war: it would make strategic sense to move it further from the border. There is a military reason that most country capitals are located somewhat central in their countries. If hostilities break out with a neighbor you don’t want to risk your capital falling in the opening battles.
Alternate history hub did do an analysis on turtledove's work in collaboration with tigerstar. It would be awesome if you reacted to that, sir.
This is a subject that has long fascinated me. I read Turtledove's series years ago, and added my own short story to the mix a few years back. My idea was all that it would have taken for the CSA to have won was for Prince Albert to have survived his illness, at least long enough for Queen Victoria to have come down rather harshly on the US over the Trent Affair. It's very possible that Albert saved the Union by dying when he did.
Prince Albert living longer would actually have very deep consequences socially too. Him and Victoria were pretty libertine together and threw big parties etc. after he dies Queen Victoria became pretty sour and somber and was mostly where the austerity from the 19th and early 20th century Britain comes from, if he stayed alive that'd probably never happen and a lot of social change could've happened earlier. Best example is Lord Byron (who died a bit before she became queen) who was a crazy bisexual and didn't put any effort to hide it and never faced punishment under the law at the time, and Oscar Wilde (who dies a year before Victoria) that was sentenced to two years of hard labor (the maximum penalty cause the chances of you surviving were minimal) for an affair he had with Alfred Douglas
@@MollymaukT I had not thought of that, and the story I wrote didn't go too deep into social changes. It skips around a bit, and ends with the US invading the CS while the Confederacy has its soldiers in Europe helping the Allies in WW1. I have thought about trying to turn it into a full-length novel, and I may get into social changes if I do.
@@andrewmartin3660 Well I dunno how big the effect would be worldwide, I mentioned it cause a friend of mine was watching a series about Queen Victoria and we talked about the matter. As for your short-stories it sounds super cool, you have it published in any website?
@@MollymaukT It was published by AHF magazine in 2018 or 2019. Just look them up online, I don't know exactly what the url of their site is. The story was in AHF #5, and it was called "Recalled to Life". AHF stands for Alternate History Fiction, you might need that to find it. I hope you enjoy it, and thanks for taking an interest.
I think if the South would’ve won, Hank Williams Jr would have run for President of the Southern states at some point.
At about 4:09 So McClelland was to the Democrats of 1864, (a war candidate in a peace party) as was Hubert H Humphrey to the Democrats in the 1968 election, a guy looking for victory in Vietnam leading a party whose membership wanted to with draw from the conflict.
Always a fan of Alternate history.
The idea of taking a event like WW2, and flip it to be a Axis victory is great, because its somthing you never think about.
You gotta do more Alt history reactions my guy!
Definitely a more realistic possibility then the movie CSA. But that one was a mockumentary, not meant to be serious
I just think of that Hank Williams Jr. song: "If the South woulda won." A pretty interesting take on alternate history.
The song “if the south would’ve won” by hank Williams jr is what I think would’ve happened
he forgot about keeping slavery
@@user-gl9mf3zo7r it would've been phased out regardless of the south winning.
@@FuckTard-dd1ee sure about that? The amount of times the southern states mention slavery in their declarations of secession and the times it gets mentioned it speeches it sounds like the really wanted to keep their slaves.
@@mondoal yea at the time as it was integral to their economy, but with the way the world was changing they wouldve phased it out and favored a more industrial approach to economy.
@@idonthaveone7576 Considering there is still millions of slaves today i dont think it is so likely there, there just seems to be something about the idea of owning someone else and be able to do what you want with them, just prostitution alone would have keep it going
The People's Almanac had a great article about this topic many years ago. Can't remember all the arguments, but they felt the two countries eventually would have reunited. The south would still have all the disadvantages they had going into the war.
I think the scariest part of such a timeline would be in the western territories. Just as before, people are expanding west but now there's no easy diplomatic solution to the acquisition of slave and free states. Now It's a competition for westward expansion and the native american nations would be caught in the middle, probably getting involved in proxy wars as the confederacy sells guns to northwestern tribes and the union sells guns to southwestern tribes. The Sioux, Navajo, Comanche, and Apache nations might have had a fighting chance if peace held but it could have been even uglier.
Very Good!..
It’s interesting to imagine geopolitical positioning in light of the twentieth century world wars given a divided America. If a major global conflict or conflicts erupted in a similar fashion to how these wars began/transpired, would we expect the two American nations to have fought together, or would differences have been enough to engage the two against each other along the lines of the broad international coalitions that formed?
If sectarian animosity continued between the North and South into the 20th Century, which it likely would have, I'd imagine the latter is far more likely.
Slavery would have been phased out earlier, first transformed into a kind of serfdom similar to that suffered by the Irish and which would have maintained business as usual for planters, and such a situation would have resulted in serfs being hired for manufacturing which would have resulted into a class war led by marxists and the formation of a strong left.
Alt history hub is the greatest thing ever in history of all things!
Excellent as always. I differ though with their premise. I think the USA would still have become an industrial powerhouse and proceeded more or less as it did, becoming a major world power, while the CSA would have been a somewhat backward agrarian county, almost a third-world nation, much like Ireland was up through the 1950s.
I like the IFC CSA movie take on it
React to What if Roosevelt Won in 1912!
My take: The US joins the war right of the bat and while still being absolutely bloody it doesn't go past 1916, because of that the vendetta against Germany is far weaker and the Treaty of Versailles doesn't punish them as much, as so Nazism never gets to form as it doesn't have the rage to tap into (Kaiser Wilhelm might also keep his crown as Ludendorf hadn't yet taken de facto power). Also because Russia hasn't left the war yet they are part of the peace talks and get a share of war reparations and it gives Czar Nicholas enough of a popularity boost to keep his throne and stop the Russian Revolution from happening
Pretty good video, Excellent analysis - wish that could have been more extensive!. While I realize that it just wasn't considerable at the time, it would have been a better option to ask for readmission to the British Empire than to stand alone. Yes. I know that they were fully confidant of winning in the beginning and inspired by their devotion to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, they were constitutionally correct. Their biggest disability was their lack of cynicism, which of course would have damaged their morale.
Imagine masked northerners lining up for governmental shots and being barred from eating in restaurants or going to the gym while Southerners passed the time of day on the porch or spent it at the beach.
have you done a reaction to the war of 1812?
1 - South didn't have the material production it needed to support its armies and infrastructure.
2 - It was at a disadvantage of manpower
3 - it didn't have the economy to both support the war, and trade for what it needed
4 - hardly any navy at all, to protect is oceanic border (thus, blockade and various invasions)
5 - their best strategy was to fight defensively, but raid and threaten. Didn't have the means for grand campaigns. All battles of a defensive nature, they won (and Union commands were incompetent until Grant) - Most of the South's commanders had the offensive fire, and disliked defensive war.
6 - they needed to be recognized by the world (UK\France) - without their backing, it would\was tough
7 - They needed to modernize warfare - adapt shoot\move\communicate, instead of linear tactics, huge formations, and a fragile commo setup in the age of rifled arms, rapid\accurate artillery, telegraph, and railroads.
Nevertheless, good take. I wish you success in all endeavors you pursue.
A divided, weakened United States might have resulted in more aggressive European colonization in Central America, South America and the Caribbean. WWI and WWII, assuming they occurred in somewhat similar fashion, might have ended differently if the U.S. and the Confederacy never intervened or were unable to swing the balance as effectively working separately. The territorial integrity of the U.S. and the Confederacy might even have been challenged. If even more states seceded over time and the North American continent Balkanized, who knows what might have resulted.
Can you please do your alternate timeline please
Started watching for an excuse to watch oversimplified again stayed because he expands on it and it’s like a history lesson
On the topic of secession possibly breeding secession I think it would be more likely in the confederate states after a southern victory as you pointed out there were differences between the states like Tennessee and the actual deep south would have been an ongoing conflict. But the precedent would be set in the south where if a state strongly disagrees with the central government the remedy is to break away.
I think you might also be underestimating the stubbornness of the deep south when it came to slavery I don't think they would have ever willingly given it up they would have simply industrialized using slave labor to work the factories. Perhaps calling it something else or moving to a debt bondage system in the face of international pressure but thinking they would willingly give it up after only 20 years seems optimistic.
Please react to the Southern Victory Series by Harry Turtledove (which is also explained in several videos by Alternatw History Hub)! :D
Deeply thought provoking! Ultimately we're crafting historical fiction.
In this alternate US timeline, when WWI breaks out, would the CSA ally themselves with Germany and Austria-Hungary?
The video was paused when I posted my initial comment. I was not expecting the Harry Turtledove reference. I recommended his series of alternate history books to my mom as a teenager and she read all of them. I didn't get as far as she did.
Another alternate history book is 'Fatherland by Robert Harris. The setting is 1964 Germany, in a world where Hitler and the Nazis won WWII. There's no Nazi invasion of America though. The President in the book is Joseph Kennedy, which makes sense. The book is a mystery novel revolving around a German detective investigating the deaths of former high ranking Nazi officials. Bear in mind that in the timeline Harris writes, the world knows nothing of the Holocaust.
All intriguing to think about creatively but at the same time makes me appreciate the actual events in history all the more. Humanity has an ugly side, we've seen it. But in the end, human nature is a course that autocorrects every aspects of our societal norms
At 6:28 that was not the apartheid era South African flag, this one is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_South_Africa_(1928%E2%80%931994)#/media/File:Flag_of_South_Africa_(1928%E2%80%931994).svg
Two things that I don’t normally see referenced in the alternate history‘s where the South wins, although it was addressed in this one. The first is the successful secession would possibly have led to other states seceding As you mentioned, New England had discussed it, and in a situation, where the hotbed of abolitionism is in New England, and if the union agreed to let the South go and let them keepslavery, I could see a scenario where New England seceded. The second part that I’ve not heard anyone mention, but I’ve not listen to everybody, is that we are assuming the Confederate states of America would be able to be a solid unified nation, but I think that wouldn’t have happened. First you had a nation that was built on the basic idea of rejection of centralized government or skepticism or fear of centralized government. Second, during the war, there were governors, who refused to send soldiers to the to the battle against the union, if they had to fight outside of their state, so I don’t think the cohesion among the states in the confederacy was strong enough to have lasted the disagreements that would have come. And I can see because different regions were different, the fracturing of the confederacy. My overall view of what would possibly have happened is that both the north and the south would be broken up into smaller states and we would then possibly be like a European Union or the European nations Since. there’s no longer a cohesive whole European nations would begin nibbling away at some of the little parts, and then it could be a whole colonial thing again. Just a few thoughts thanks for these videos.
React to Oversimplified's American Civil War Videos
he has
@@meginmd yup
Question about world pressure to end slavery. It continued legally into the late 20th century in other countries. Why didn't world pressure end that?
Unlike slavery in other countries, maybe Brazil being the exception, American slavery was self-sustained. In 1808. the US made it illegal to import slaves from Africa. At that point, all new slaves were born on US soil. One of the biggest reasons for the expansion westward was so that slavery could expand in the US. If it was only contained east of the Mississippi, for example, there would've been a point in time were the number of slaves outgrew and outpaced the demand for slave labor. But, there's another problem, too. If the CSA had won, and lets say they got everything under the 36th parallel, keeping to the Missouri Compromise, the land in Texas and other western states wasn't conducive to an agricultural economy that would've relied on slave labor. So the CSA would've had to look for better land elsewhere. That means possibly starting another war with the US.
I'm sure there are other factors I'm missing, but those, and the first is really the overall problem, are the issues that come to mind immediately. And if you're interested in knowing just how much a slave cost in the US, we're talking, in today's money, the cost of a mid range BMW.
@@HistorysRaven slavery was unsustainable after the industrial revolution. History is repleat with major changes altering society.
That said without the Civil War it would have taken alot longer.
If the south had won though I'm positive that like every other war before then, they would have expanded northward keeping captured territory.
From there I believe the south would have pushed westward just like in real time the north did.
@@billlyell8322 But it didn't become unstable. The Industrial Revolution "ended" in between 1820 and 1840. By 1860, slave labor was producing more than two billion pounds of cotton per year. And slave owners would've found ways to adapt new technologies to continue their slave economy.
@@HistorysRaven The idea of industrialization was contrary to Southern values.
@@SandfordSmythe It was. But I don't think, assuming they could hold themselves together, had slavery continued under the CSA and expanded westward the western states would've stayed completely agricultural. I don't think they could have. So while the "traditional" South stayed less industrialized, some western states would've had to become industrialized and slave owners would have used slaves in those factories. In fact, in the few manufacturing factories that were in southern states, slaves were used as labor.
New England secession ala the Hartford Convention led to the disillusion of the Federalists as a national political party. Losing the war, would have spelled the death of the new (at this point, remember the Republican Party was founded in 1854) party.
Slavery would have remained for a short period of time, but would have been impractical with the USA now being a completely sovereign nation and not United with the South. No longer would runaway slaves have to make it all the way to Canada, but just to the States north of the Ohio River. This was the case in Brazil. When one Brazilian state banned slavery, it quickly fell apart in the rest of Brazil.
I personally think that Lee’s biggest mistake during the war was in the planning for July 2 at Gettysburg. According to General Longstreet’s memoirs, he pleaded with Lee to move out of Gettysburg when he say the Union on the heights overlooking the city. The Confederates would have no chance to overtake the Federal lines so it made a lot of sense to pull out of Gettysburg and move southeast towards DC and find a hill where the Federals would have to attack since such a move would have seemed as an attack on the Capitol.
Another thing, I’ve heard it speculated that the reason Lee never moved on Washington was because he viewed the War differently than many others. He simply wanted to win the war, inflicting as little damage on the northern civilians as possible. From things I’ve read about his actions, he wanted to act as close to George Washington as possible, while the Union commanders acted more like the British during the War for Independence.
Wait sorry as a foreign viewer I thought that the US Congress had the power to sign treaties so does it really matter whether a potential president wants war or peace?
Presidents can essentially wage wars without declaring them to be official wars. At the end of the day, he controls the military.
It’s possible that the Confederate states would have become like the Balkans. Economic and political disputes as well as boundary disputes would have led some states to attack their neighbors.
There was a movie called C.S.A. Confederate States of America. that is made like a history documentary of if the Confederates won the war. I remember it being very interesting. Maybe you could do a review of it sometime. You probably couldn't do a reaction video since its an hour and a half long and an actual movie.
The South would have done away with slavery on its own as it became more reliant upon industrialization. THAT was one of the largest reasons that they had remained so dependent upon slavery to begin with. The lack of infrastructure designed FOR industrial improvements. Gas, roads, railways, deep-port shipping access. The more these increased, the more industrial reliability would have been put into place to end slavery. After all, it is FAR cheaper to buy a gallon of gas for your tractor than it would have been to pay to feed/house a large number of slaves to work your field. PLUS, when you rely upon industry, the "off season" (winter) allows you to save additional money as the tractor sits in the barn and you don't have to keep spending to feed/house 100's of slaves per winter. So, the BIGGEST factor would be industry reliant economics, not slavery. And while the 20 year window is possible, I view it more around 40-50 tops.
While true that the South would have been a segregated society based upon racial views. It should be noted that a large portion of the South supported the possibility of shipping blacks back to Africa, the Caribbeans, or S. America. So, a large portion of the Black population would be removed by non-violent means as they were shipped out of the South, or STRONGLY encouraged to fell to the North.
As far as "expansion/colony" possibilities? NO! The Southern States might have thought about it, but the CSA's constitution REQUIRED all the states to agree to that type of policy. It would be extremely difficult to get the approval by Tenn/NC/Ark/SC to agree to "invade or conquer" portions of Mexico or the Caribbean. Especially as those states would be leaning more towards shipping Black populations TO those regions more than obtaining them.
As far as into the 1900's? I do think that the CSA would remain neutral or completely out of WW1. However, they would have been involved in WW2 at some point, and I think that WW2's resulting political scene would have either re-united the North and South, or would have improved the relationships of the US/CS to the point of being allies much as the US/UK are today, or US/Canada, in most situations. Political "bickering" would still happen, but not enough to 'threaten' the relationship overall.
I think that if I were Lincoln, I would have appealed to the south for a truce with a cessation of hostilities so that delegates from both sides could negotiate their wishes. The south could have agreed to give up slavery in five years if the north helped the south to industrialize. The north could have agreed to cease federal control the states allowing them to govern themselves (which would have been beneficial to all states north and south). These two measures and the mutual agreement to stop slaughtering their most important asset, manpower, could have been a good starting point to keep all the states under one flag. As northern born and raised person, I think that northerners looked at southerners as inferiors rather than culturally different brother Americans. In my opinion the underlying cause of the "war between the states" was money which is true of all wars.
Here's question, would a separate USA and CSA have backed different sides during WWI? Before the invasion of Belgium, there were some very pro-German elements in the US, particularly in the Northern states where German immigrants settled. Had the CSA succeeded, particularly by way of British support, then I could see the USA holding a grudge against the British. Even something minor like the settlement of the San Juan Islands in the Pacific Northwest could have gone from a minor border dispute (as it was in our timeline) to an example of "the German Kaiser recognizing and defending rightful American claims from Perfidious Albion". This kind of scenario might see an Anti-CSA Mexico allying with the USA and Germany against a British-aligned CSA and Canada in disputes and possible conflicts throughout North America.
I've read a few things about the prominent people in the south and it really seemed like they were actually moving away from slavery it's just the north wanted it so much faster than the south wanted it to happen. A lot of people saw the dilemma that technically people of the south did have contracts of ownership of their slaves and to abolish slavery instantly would be the government over reaching its place in society. That instead the purchase of new slaves would be abolished but the existing contracts would exist until the owner or slave died. It is an interesting thing to think about and would have been interesting to see, if that was the plan, to see how it would have panned out to give a differing example of how to lead changes to a major institution within a country and if it would or would not work
Slavery was core to the Southern feudal values.
@@SandfordSmythe This is of course a what if thought. I personally believe the words of Bismarck 'The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood' apply to this particular situation. I personally would have liked to see if this would have actually happened or if it was merely talk, and if it did occur we'd have an other source for empirical comparison on bringing about culture change within a society. To argue that something won't change in a society cause it core to their beliefs is like saying a Frenchman in 1800 would have similar opinion about the monarchy and imperialism as a Frenchman in 1700. Societal structures can change, just not always as gracefully as the minds of some imagine
From what I understand the CSA only banded together in order to be able to fight the US. So had they won I think it is likely that the CSA would disband itself and all states would become independent, with the understanding that they would support eachother again if war broke out again with the US or anybody else.
There is something not much touched upon on the scenarios of the South winning the Civil War: The possibility that the Mexican Empire with Maximilian would surive (because it was the victorious North that made Napoleon III withdraw its troops). What effect would have a French enclave down below? Would French recognition be bought with territorial concessions? Would Mexico develop its economy under French influence instead of the US?
Did Turtledove write this?
I think in the decades following the Civil War there would be a repatriation program during an industrialisation effort. Repatriation being a southern idea and industrialisation a suggestion from Europe for the sake of trade alliances.
Industrialization was not Southern belief. They wanted to preserve the agrarian feudal world they had.
Here is why I don't answer "what if" in term of history: What if the Permian extinction hadn't happened
Also have to remember that the north actively worked to prevent industrial development in the south pre war.
But this is pre-war right? We have no idea what would happen after the war. He brings up Russia as a country that changed from an agricultural society into an industrialized power, but i think I have an even better example, Japan. When the Japanese had their civil war of the Meiji restoration, it was because the Shogun wanted to open up the country to the western powers. The Emperor's faction didn't like this and wanted to remain in seclusion. They had a war, And the Emperor won, and just by sheer irony, the Emperor not only opened up to the west, he also did the most aggressive westernisation in history. A very mush cast, and peasant run ecconomy became a powerhouse that not only assimilated the best of European technology and culture, but they were also the first non westerner who properly defeated a western power in an all out conflict with Russia.
what evidence do you have to make this assertion?
The South was spiritually against industrialization.
You forgot about Andrew Johnson
I think one of the factors that you don’t hear in mainstream or academia is the very different climate toward slavery and African Americans for likely the majority of southerners pre-war compared to post war. For example, prior to the war there were 3X as many abolitionist organizations in the south as there were in the north. Of all the slaves, almost all were held by 2% of the population. The south was very religious, and while many of the very wealthy perverted the Bible to justify their own greed and evil, there is ample evidence that a large portion of the south with the common southerner was against slavery. Post-war the north did a lot under Johnson to antagonize the southerner whites and pit them - intentionally or unintentionally - against blacks. And much resentment and hatred stemmed from this. But if you look at the quotes and stances from many of the confederate generals - such as Lee, Longstreet and Jackson - they all stated and even urged Jefferson Davis to free the slaves. Longstreet lamented that the south should’ve freed the slaves and then declared war. However, Jefferson Davis was clearly in the camp of the racist ultra wealthy and aligned himself very much with slavery. All that to say, I think an alternate history would’ve likely played out much differently, in a little more positive way with slavery and integration, than the proposed situation here.
Would we have the four major soft drinks in the US? Coke, Pepsi, Mt Dew and Dr. Pepper all originated in the former confederacy... the butterfly effect of a confederate victory really creates an alternative universe
Dude! This guy sounds just like History Guy Gaming!
It’s almost like we are the same person :)
Coddon and Briddan.
I think what you're saying is actually correct if the South would have gotten Independence but it would have resulted with a civil war within the CSA between states like Louisiana and Mississippi, and Virginia and Tennessee.
Two possible outcomes: The Confederacy would have become an Anglo state on about the economic level of Mexico. But most likely the Confederacy would have fallen apart and all the states rejoined the Union on their own over time.
I was told by my Mom when I was a kid that some people think the South did win... This video must be a real shock to them.
Also, pretty crazy how the parties have changed since the Civil War.
The parties haven't changed much Democrats are still using critical race theory's to push racism.
From what I understand from a different video I watched, the reason why it seems like parties changed isn't because core philosophies changed, but rather that they didn't truly exist before like JFK or something. US politics and political parties were legitimately smoky backroom deals stuff, where parties just pushed whoever thought had the best chance of winning the votes that the party couldn't buy without any real thought towards a unifying ideology for the party beyond that.
Could you make your version of alternate history for this topic?
Kevin Wilmott, a film professor at KU actually made a movie called CSA: The Confederate States of America. He mirrored Ken Burns documentary style and presented it with commercial breaks in which products would be sold. For example, slaves could be bought and sold on the website E-Slave. It's about 15 years old now, but was fascinating.
I beg to differ, the abolition of slavery would have lasted much longer. As the Lincoln cabinet states, as they are considered property in the southern states, we can confiscate these "properties" They cannot if they are citizens. The idea of slavery lasted very long in some countries. Think of the Russian Empire where the people were called serfs and this is more kinder word for slave but technically the same. In the stage of world politics, most European countries did abolish slavery in reaction to the USA in one way or another. England did abolish slavery only to mess up with the States, but it still allowed ownership of a person till 2009. They also used other systems to rank citizens, think of the caste system in India. France was fairly quick, seeing themselves suppressed they quickly accepted equal rights. Spain was quite tolerant as long you were Catholic, although they used also some caste system in south America. Yes those nice coloured robes in Peru, marks them as certain tribe, member etc.
But what about the biggest slave traders. The Portuguese were the masters of the slave trade, it takes a very long time for these colonies to get rights at all, they dominated this trade and only stopped doing it cause there was no demand for it. The Dutch lost their appetite for live cargo a century ago, this due the invention of strong liquors and the need for special ships. The reasoning behind this clearly stated in VOC documents, live cargo is very hard to insure, profit is meager. While beer is always in great need but takes a lot of space, so distill it down to a liquor, more booze for trade. Gets you drunk faster too. Instant succes around the world.
But cotton was in big demand again, wars were raging across Europe and we needed cotton to shoot. Most think it went into the red coats, but they are made of wool. Trade would been very different, The north needed the south for it's cotton, while the south could have traded it in Europe and leave the north hanging dry.
I'm a southerner and had several ancestors serve in the confederate army! I'm glad the war turned out like it did, I think many soldiers served in the war because you were considered a coward and unpatriotic if you didn't! The civil war was a rich man's war primarily fought by the poor man! It that the way most war are?
The capitol would most def be moved, having it so close to a possible enemy is dumb
Unless Virginia sought to re=enter the Union after the end of hostilities.
This a little late so I doubt you see it but how close was Lee to taking Washington at his closest prolly Antietam and if they had won at Antietam what more would’ve had to happen to force a surrender
Lee winning decisively at Antietam would have been huge because the Democrats may very well win the House in the fall of 1862 and, for all intents and purposes, put an end to the war.
Tell me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t there government collapse because what they were trying to do similar to the Articles of Confederation which did not last very long
I believe we can agree that the entire is better for the Union victory. Perfect? No...but far better than had the separation happened.
Haha, imagine if I lost the civil war
My personal opinion of what would have happened had the South won the Civil War, I believe the North would have brought its populous, military, and socio-economic superiority to bare, most likely blockading the Southern ports, allowing no trade with other nations, and using tarrifs, and embargoes to financially cripple the Confederacy. As a result I'd say between 50 and 75 years later the South would be financially forced to rejoin the Union.
I think if the CSA won the war we would have had a drastically different experience.
First France held Mexico and the UK held Canada. You would have seen much MUCH more European influnce take over. It really would be who the UK sided with. The UK did not enter the war but Auther Fremantle wrote the book for a southern victory. So based on that economic intetest you would likely see an allience of the UK/CSA vs. The USA and Mainland Europe.
At this point the slave trade in Africa is largely abolished BUT the CSA had every intention to reopen the slave trade. Part of the Califorina Campaign was to keep the Pacific open so they could stop a blocade. There would have been a second war and border skirmishes. Don't forget from 1876-1838 there were mutiple conflicts and treaties defining the borders with the UK, and likewise 1776- 1855 on the borders of Spain/Mexico. After the Civil War there are mutiple desperitos supported from texas including a pro-slavery one that if he had won the Texas Governor had written a letter of succession likely kicking off a second war of succession.
So if we are doing alternate history we have to ask "What does that look like" and for that to happen 2 key things can not happen. The Maryland Campaign and Gettysburg. Lee would have needed to send the first corps to relieve Vicksburg or committed to attacking Lexington which would have likely been disastrous. Peraonally I dont know why the south never tried to liberate New Orleans in 1863 opposed to the Gettysburg campaign. Lee couldn't support a long term invasion, he really got lucky at Gettysburg in the since that the defeat ended a long term campaign. Had he pulled out and went further north (say Harrisburg) or east (Baltimore) his supply lines would have been cut to shreads.
But i digress
I grew up in Alabama, and personally addicted to global conquest games, esp ones that have some realistic or rather theory logical outcomes. So you'd espect me to be on the side of the south in this, However and this is before I even go further than the intro of this video. I will say it would be devistating if the south had won, or been allowed to leave the union. Not only for America but the entire world. Try to understand that it is because of the United States that the world has had relitive peace and secure borders of other nations lands for the last 80 or so years following WW1 and WW2. Esp since the fall of the USSR, all of which would have never been able to have been acomplished without a united states as it was in those time periords. Infact I will go so far to say that Germany would have won WW2, and maybe even WW1. Reasoning because while the United states clearly did not do most of the fighting they did however Majory support everyone else with, excuse the language, but Shit fucking tons of supplies, supplies of which the other nations could not have done without. Many historians I've read, have wrote that without the USA getting involved to the degree they did, that the only 2 nations left over there would of been england and Russia, and not all of russia. England on the other hand had the english channel which most agree that the Nazi's could of never crossed. However England might as well be Mexico or Brazil with less natural resources today if that had came about. Russia would of lost some where between 20-33% of its current land. It goes without saying that German not english would of been the widest spread language other than chinese as well. The USA also since its divided in 2 halves would be easy to invade.
A radical thought here, but I think about the possibility of a less racist mindset of the people in the modern America + south winning the civil war. Only because the US really dragged on the civil rights laws after Lincoln was assassinated and sometimes I think shock value gives it more effect than a muddy one
When people say “Slavery would die in the south soon”, I really think they’re being way to optimistic. Not to compare slave ownership to gun ownership, but in the US w/ gun ownership we have another constitutionally enshrined right that most of the world find backwards and brutish, and yet we have such a fierce attachment to it that it’s almost impossible to imagine us losing that right in our nation. Why? In my opinion it’s because A.) it’s constitutionally enshrined and B.) it’s one of the thing that caused the Revolutionary War (troops coming to Lexington wanted to arrest Adams and Hancock and collect firearms from the citizenry). The same things would be going on for the South with Slavery, but worse so because Slavery also takes up the position that taxes take up in our American mythos, being the actual catalyst for the war (though, a later CSA might look back in it as a fight for states rights as they do in the South now). Simply put, slavery was an integral part of Confederate identity, and I don’t see it going away from almost a century if ever.
I think you're right. Slavery was enshrined in the confederate constitution. The south didn't fight the war just to turn around and become like the north. They wanted slavery to last forever. However, if the confederacy had succeeded, they would have become a pariah in the rest of the world to the point where they could no longer sell those crops and products at a profit. They would have had to end slavery anyway, just much later and for different reasons. There would probably still not be full citizenship for former slaves without northern influence.
Only to your point about the worldview of our birthrights “backwards and brutish” why do we care their opinion about who we defend ourselves from and how?
🟨🐍🟨 that question is exactly my point. Whether you agree with gun ownership or not (I do), the fact is it is a uniquely American thing for common people to own mass amount of firearms. The other nations and the UN are on us about all the time. Our response? Exactly as you said. Who care what they think? Why would the south be different?
@@polumathes9729 the south didn’t care what anyone thought, so much so they wrote the articles of secession and said they were leaving to keep their slaves and the north told them they weren’t leaving then turned the war into a fight over slavery midway through.
Your mom
The video has no dislikes
My only question is the “Lost Cause Movement” showed hatred towards Longstreet after the war. If anything Longstreet tried to save the army and win the war economical. He knew Gettysburg would be a disaster. Am I wrong? Great video sir!
Absolutely true. Longstreets standing in the south would have been different had they won.
@@VloggingThroughHistory when you say standing what do you mean?
Longstreet would have been one of the winning generals. Winning generals are generally given more leeway and regarded better by the public. Remembering this let's us take a more unbiased look at all successful generals every where and every when.
@@philmccracken7520 that’s a good way of looking at it. I wonder if that drove Lee crazy?
Longstreet was hated in the postwar south because he spoke negatively of Lee and others, and because he became a Republican and served in the Grant administration. None of that would have happened had the south won.
Do you think the CSA would have allied w/ the Axis powers in WWII?
Could very well have made different arrangements with other European governments than the US did leading up to the war. Interesting question.
I am surprised you didn't mention the fact that the flag they show for the confederates is not the flag of the Confederate States of America. The Flag they show is just the flag for Lee's army of Northern Virginia (aka The Rebel Flag).
Not quite. The flag people usually use is the Battle Flag of the Army of Tennessee. The flag of the AoNV was the same design but square, not rectangle like most flags.
It was not the main reason.
The best way for South to have “won” would have been to pave a path for Northern cessation when Massachusetts was trying…
Definitely would have been more than 2 countries than CSA and USA. Not long before the Civil War, Texas was lobbying to be their own nation. CSA would not have been up for another conflict (if it came to that) in Texas.
Let's think one step deeper. What would've happened with Hitler and ww2, or even ww1 for that matter, if the south won the war?
I can imagine that the decisions made back then would've been (vastly) different
That's where Harry Turtledove goes with his Southern Victory series, sort of. World Wars still happen, WWI I think is mostly the same as far as Europe goes, the CSA joins the entente because in his books they have better diplomatic relations with Great Britain and France. The USA joins the Central powers and they end up winning, taking parts of the CSA and all of Canada from the UK. After that it becomes less "alternate" history and more "European history but it happens in the United States", Turtledove's series on WWII is basically just exactly what happened in WWII but the CSA is nazi Germany and the USA is Russia.