What if the Confederacy Still Existed?

[@MrShadowThief]

"I deal with the rest of the world by mostly ignoring it." Based.

[@redtomahawk0]

Part of the ship

[@tylerdurden4392]

So freaking based!

[@danieltruman2312]

Yeah man, fuck them fuckers.

[@peaceraybob]

Certainly ignoring recent current events - such as over the last 4 years, for example.

[@tylerdurden4392]

@@peaceraybob I know, the Dem's have been crazy lately.

[@clemenx]

"Oh shit I need air condiitioning" may be my favorite map ever in this channel.

[@markminter3960]

Are you bored?

[@HayTatsuko]

I got a pretty good laugh out of the air conditioning map. Meanwhile, in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, most people still don't have air conditioning. The average high in summer is low-to-mid 80s°F but it can get to over 100°F. I dunno about you, but mid-80s is not a comfy indoor temperature for me.

[@maxmccarty7809]

The winning side always writes history...

[@golagiswatchingyou2966]

Perhaps the quote should be changed to "the victor writes how history is remembered"

[@johnstuartsmith]

And the losing side writes "alternate history" and excuses...

[@edgelordpriestessofwaifust6434]

@@johnstuartsmith I don't think you grasped Max's statement numbnuts

[@joecraskki3175]

Something to consider is that in terms of industry, The south would have found its Pittsburg in Birmingham as it was the only place in the united states where coal, iron, and limestone were all present in one place. In our timeline, this occurred around the 1870s so Birmingham would have boosted the industrial capital and southern steel industry.

[@markminter3960]

Sir I salute you.

[@mattperryman1948]

Another thing to consider is my home state, Arkansas. We have oil in the northern part of the state, and it can be extracted by fracking. But, what everyone seems to forget, we have the only diamond mine in the States. Also, I noticed his timeline showed the Confederacy in control of almost everything south of the Mason-Dixon line. There is gold and silver in abundance in those western states. Silver was mined her as well, but we also have a lot of bauxite which is used to produce aluminum. Another thing to consider are the Wright brothers, first manned flight in Kitty Hawk, N. Carolina. . .just thinking out loud. Lol

[@mattperryman1948]

@ I didn't know that, I thought they were from Carolina, as well. Thanks.

[@calebfielding6352]

You also have to remember the barons in the north specifically went out of their waay to hurt steel production in the south. For instance rail lines charged less to ship steel from ohio to georgia than from alabama to georgia. They wanted to keep their monopolies.

[@scottfoster2639]

Not to mention oil in Texas. That would have been a huge boost in exports at the start of the industrial revolution.

[@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un]

Obviously Jeb would be the South's Supreme Leader

[@GoDawgs18]

Maybe Jeb Stuart lol but not Jeb Bush

[@papakarrbear3767]

“ may you please stand for the national anthem.” - Jeb

[@GoDawgs18]

@@papakarrbear3767 please clap 😞

[@papakarrbear3767]

JC 1026 👏👏👏

[@AE_AnarchistAlexcianEmpire69Bi]

Lol

[@pedrohenriqueassis7915]

Whatifalthist’s content is one of those jewels you find in a secluded pawn shop in the middle of nowhere.

[@nonec384]

pedro engles

[@scholaroftheworldalternatehist]

True. Whatifalthist's the reason why I started making alt-history videos of my own.

[@vadermasktruth]

Like finding original Star Wars figures & ships for .50¢ at the Goodwill!

[@UlisesHeureaux]

I love Brazilian people so much. Are there Brazilian alternate history channels?

[@nonec384]

@@UlisesHeureaux probaly but they arent that good

[@paulmarchlewski6354]

You've missed the most important part. British controlled Iraq and Confed controlled Texas would be producing 2/3 of the world's oil, oil the northern States would want in huge quantities from 1910 onwards. They would have to invade, or come to a cross border trade agreement, making the Confederacy the Saudi Arabia of its day.

[@FinalLugiaGuardian]

I think the relationship would probably be similar to what North and South Sudan has. South Sudan has most of the former country of Sudan's oil but the north has most of the refinery infrastructure. My understanding is the two countries have more less come to an oil agreement.

[@RADIUMGLASS]

There is truth to this, however, it would be northerners who would find the oil, make the deals and drill for it. H.L Hunt took over land from a southerner for just over a million dollars and struck oil where as the previous owner had trouble getting to it.

[@tylergodefroy8713]

Pennsylvania has large oil reserves

[@JR-pr8jb]

Holy moly, the ignorance.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

"The 20s and 30s were brutal decades for the Confederacy" *Shows the California State Capitol building portico in the 1960s*

[@Demicleas]

Very spooky. That's were Emma's 2 mom's were born and rule the American military from.

[@sarkasmomancer266]

Finally, the part no one talks about in alternate history- music.

[@brachiator1]

The Beatles and the Rolling Stones would never have been influenced by American music. No Buddy Holly or Elvis.

[@alexanderbrown4250]

No Skynard!

[@COMALiteJ]

One thing that has to be said about _any_ alternate history in which something drastic changed in the past more than a few generations, is that nobody who’s alive now would exist in that timeline. Anyone who had any direct ancestors whose lives were altered _at all_ by the events prior to their own conception would never have been conceived, because the same sperm would not’ve met the same ovum. Because such events in the USA would have _some_ impact on England, this would include citizens of the UK, so no Beatles. No Rolling Stones or Skynard either. No whole genres of music. Rock never gets invented because no Berry. None of the styles that sprang from rock gets invented. Not just music. While comic books may have come into existence (it’s an expansion of a concept that dates back to Mayan temple paintings, after all: sequential storytelling through sequential artwork), none of the characters and concepts and even companies we know would ever have existed. “Superman” is an obvious enough name so someone may have thought of a character named that in lieu of Siegel & Shuster, but he wouldn’t be Kal-El of Krypton sent here by his parents when his planet exploded, and was adopted by the Kents and raised as Clark Kent, wearing the specific costume. There’d be no Batman or Spider-Man.

[@alliedonovan1978]

Elvis was born in Mississippi, a state of the deep south@@brachiator1

[@Suralin0]

"It'll take me 500 years to understand Florida"... Only 500?

[@MarisaFan411]

Lol, he showed that map a year ago or so, so you can demote it to ~498 years.

[@alexnuge6908]

Maybe in 123,866,990,543,239,765 century’s

[@1Maklak]

One way to deal with Florida would be to cordon it off by a wall and a containment zone, then dump all the criminals, crazies and other undesirables in there, "Escape From New York"-style.

[@wtf1729]

The return of the Confederation has to happen and trump should lead

[@jaushuagrahamthefloridaman1124]

@@1Maklak that IS what happens here

[@ahoraya1047]

The North would have an ethnic German majority while the South has an ethnic English and Scottish majority.

[@proudpackofpringles6009]

🇩🇪🤝🇬🇧

[@benjaminteixeira4709]

I feel like you overlooked the rifts that would form between the Latin American aristocracy and the Confederate ruling class over Catholicism

[@mitchjervis8453]

Something you forgot to mention: as the oil industry grows in Texas, it would most likely become the strongest state in the CSA and possibly secede as in The Southern Victory Series.

[@Deridus]

Heh heh heh... Freedom.

[@sergeantpete6295]

I'm not sure how the territory would be organized, but that northern 1/3 of Mexico has a humongous amount of mineral deposits and wealth. Sure it's a desert wasteland, but so is west Texas where most of the oil is. (OK "desert wasteland" is a bit harsh, but their aren't any lush forests and such. It's arid and full of thorny scrub bushes.) My point being... Combine pretty massive oil and mineral resources and cheap "company store" labor and you might have more money for industrialization than first imagined when looking almost exclusively at the Ag nature of the south. You know, kind of like how Pennsylvania industrialized off of coal and cheap labor.

[@shawnwatson8853]

Strongest state out of all of them provided Texas didn't secede right after the Civil War if the CSA would of won. The reason being is because by 1864 most of the Texas political body was not happy with the CSA. They raped Texas's resources just as the Union did before and after the war. Texas funded huge portions of the CSA and isn't anything like say North Carolina or Georgia. We got screwed over.

[@xxchoo3750]

Texas is very different because of Central European immigration. These people were very anti Confederacy But they didn't hold much power. All states were Anti Confederacy at some level. Look at Tennessee and Knoxville. Virginia split over this issue. The people in Texas that held the power were very Pro Confederacy. Marshall, TX is where the power was at. Pretty much Mississippi in Texas They forced Sam Houston to step aside.

[@xxchoo3750]

After the Fall of Vicksburg all the money ended up there The HQ of the Trans Mississippi ended up there Not to mention "Confederate Missouri" relocated there after they lost Missouri right when the war broke out.

[@baileyarzate1]

In an alternative universe there’s a video titled “what if the union stayed together?”

[@BTScriviner]

That would be a great one.

[@afrenchdude2137]

A universe where that damn runner didn't drop that cigar?

[@frigglebiscuit7484]

well, that alternate universe is about to collide with ours in the next 10 years i believe....

[@shadowling77777]

@@frigglebiscuit7484 oof time for the Boogaloo

[@dulmater]

@Union Jack who needs the south to rise again when you can just trick blacks to re-institute segregation with CRT. Convince them it’s for their own good and GG.

[@jonleggett1543]

I think you overlooked Birmingham, AL as a potential area of southern industrial development.

[@checkyoursix5623]

Richmond, VA had a foundry, Tredegar Iron Works, where the South manufactured rifles, cannon barrels, ship anchors, etc. Athens, GA had a foundry where cannons, among other products, were made. Birmingham was already industrialized to some extent. Cotton gins were already in production in many locations throughout the South.

[@JohnDoe-fu6zt]

Yes, it seems he did.

[@frigglebiscuit7484]

blatant bias tbh.

[@familytreenutshistorygenealogy]

Loved this one. Sharing history is a passion for ours too!

[@dlhphp984]

Can you make a What if the Kalmar Union never feel it would be really cool to see how the world would look if Scandinavia united!

[@jensjensen842]

I wanna see it too

[@AHOLMK]

They would prob have a lot of colonies

[@dlhphp984]

@@AHOLMK agree

[@bigpopparasta8133]

Probably the same as what Sweden did anyway, I mean sure it was based out of Denmark but Swedish was majority and like in the 100yr war video the french became the majority. Sweden owned the majority of the Nordic countries as is so I’d say it wouldn’t have a large impact. If anything it might have a negative impact of the Union didn’t get the same great leadership

[@ThatIcelandicDude]

@@bigpopparasta8133 The population of Sweden didn't exceed the population of Denmark until around the year 1750. So for the vast majority of the Union's existence, it would have been dominated by Danes. When you take into consideration the cultural impact that would have had on the other countries as well as factoring in all the danish speaking territories that Denmark lost in our timeline e.g. Skane (That happen to be some of Swedens most densely populated areas), that domination likely would have continued well after that probably never be surpassed by Sweden. That being said the Kalmar Union being united throughout all that time. Probably would have been less impressive than Sweden actually was historical. A danish-controlled union would have been locked in a continues power-struggle against the Hansa for centuries. Which would have kept them from conquering the baltic countries, which would have lead to a more powerful Russia ready to dominate the Baltic. The Kalmar union probably would have been less effective militarily than Sweden was in our time. Because although they would have had much more manpower. It is unlikely the Danish lead union would have implemented such impressive military reforms as Sweden did in our timeline, nor would they have the fantastic leadership Sweden was lucky to get in our timeline. Their armies would also be less centralized as the decentralized political union would have made having professional armies difficult. So all in all their armies would be larger but of lower quality. One thing this union would have excelled at is in their navy. Danmark already had an impressive navy in our timeline and I don't see how giving them more resources would change that.

[@monad5140]

Confederates: What if we won? Union: Laughs in train tracks

[@unknown-dq6df]

The confederacy nearly won but because of a runner that lost his cigar they lost

[@dechezhaast]

@@unknown-dq6df oh yeah the cigar with their war plans on it, major dub for Union

[@dixiefish0173]

@@dechezhaast that was the turning point for the entire war , cuz when the enemy knows your plans for battle they can prepare for it, that’s how germany lost ww1 & ww2 not recognizing that their enemies had broken their Enigma machine also WW2 was the first oil war & Germany manly lost cuz of a lack of oil , they could build all the tanks airplanes ships they needed for war problem was Germany only source for oil was breaking down coal into synthetic oil which was a expensive process also it required time which wasn’t on their side for producing the synthetic oil , why they tried to take the Caucasus oil fields from Russia but hitler had stupid generals who didn’t see the big picture they only thought let’s take Moscow , in reality they didn’t have the resources to fight them effectively beyond two months that’s when the supply they had was running out of they had put everything on the Caucasus then maybe the war would have ended in their favor, hitler was looking at the strategical warfare while his generals were looking at the tactical warfare & often disobeyed his orders , there are rules of war & sometimes the smaller can out do the stronger, the weaker will hit you where you are weak Turing that into their strength & vise versa. Why the revolutionary war went in the America’s favor they played the long war less with open pitched battles that the British were used to instead the Continentals used hit & run tactics & ambush more often the open battles on fields like Europe with no cover , they attacked supply lines make the British retreat to the costal areas for resupply since they couldn’t defend supply lines effectively the movie the patriot demonstrations this. The south did try to do the same during the war a single cannon held off an entire battalion firing rapidly the general leading the battalion stoped where they was cuz they couldn’t see the single cannon’s position , firing so rapidly they thought their was a bigger group at the top of a hill so they didn’t go up all day night fell the cannon was out of ammo so those group of 15 men held off over 1,000 allowing that first day of battle to be a win , it was over 3 days but eventually the north army won but the historians were saying if the southern army had better supplies like ammo for the cannons army men horses etc then they would have won it sending the northern army into retreat , think it took place in North Carolina maybe I don’t know been a while ago since I watched civil war history since iam no longer in school I just remember that about the battle that was fought , one thing the people of the town hated about this northern army because there was loyalists among the population that was for the north as well as the south , the northern army had ransacked the town & stole items from the local people who were non combatants, it wasn’t general grant think his name was Quincy or something similar, the general was known for being a hard ass on his officers & commanders under him he was one of the generals President Lincoln later fired during the war for loosing some other battle but not the one am talking about. Anyway unlike what the “whatifalthist” about the slavery thing it would have ended sooner cuz Britain & other nations like France had ended the system so unlike what he mentioned in the video about it continuing it wouldn’t have much longer due to outside pressure from other nations doing trade embargo’s etc , Monsieur Z does a video about this scenario a lot better & you can tell who did more research 🔬 vrs this channel lol 😂 who seems to be a bit biased in this thinking of how things would go based on what happened in our time line like the stupid Jim Crow laws still being a thing... doubt that would of happened since it would be a different government & system of laws etc then what happened afterwards during reconstruction which he mostly based his video on.

[@andersolson44]

@@dixiefish0173 I ain’t reading that, 500 words or less, middle schooler

[@firestream93]

Lincoln: "I beat the Confederacy!" John Wilkes Booth: Laughs in .44

[@peterhanes7333]

The one problem I have with this timeline is it does not consider one additional problem for the Confederacy: political instability. The Confederacy's entire existence creates the precedent that if you don't like what the government orders, you can just leave. I could see a second Civil War starting in the Confederacy itself when the leadership in the Upper South (Virginia, North Carolina, and the Chesapeake) would try to end slavery. (The idea would be to appease the British.) The Deep Southern States would not take this lying down, and either break away or overthrow the government. This would create a situation where the Confederate government would be unable to get anything done without unleashing another war. The Confederacy would thus gain a reputation as a viper pit, and economically become a basket case.

[@calebfielding6352]

Honestly if the abolitionist had not been supporting terrorism half the confederacy probably would have already freed their slaves. 4 of the 5 secessionist documents mention terrorism in some way as reasons why they were leaving. Up until 1830 more and more slaves in the south were getting set free but then abolitionist started coming south and trying to stir up rebellions, and that freaked people out. Its worth noting that puritians raised money to give guns to people for the fighting in bloody kansas but they did not raise money to buy freedom for slaves. Considering that it was illegal to import new slaves the abolitionist could have simply spent money to end slavery, but they decided to be violent instead.

[@gunsgalore7571]

This is a really interesting point... It should be noted that there were true Confederate abolitionists in the Upper South during the Civil War who were both pro-secession and anti-slavery. Look up General Patrick E. Cleburn as an example. Perhaps men such as himself would have led the abolitionist cause, leading to that second Civil War. Another interesting question would be Texas, as it around the turn of the century (This happened in 1901 on our timeline.), oil would be discovered and Texas would be a lot less slave-dependent, assuming slavery was still legal at the time, and might also become more abolitionist-friendly.

[@tommyhunter1817]

For you that are so sure the South would not have survived, why the hell is everybody moving here???

[@olympia5758]

What if Russia joined the EU or NATO after the collapse of the USSR? This was very possible in the late 90s and early 2000s.

[@herrakaarme]

It's quite possible Putin would have still risen and performed Ruxit (and naturally left NATO as well). In the first place Russia would be too large to be affected by the EU that fast at all, plus it would have taken Russia quite long to manage to join both organisations, so the period of membership would be relatively short before exiting. If Putin hadn't risen and Russia had actually developed more economically and democractically, it might be quite interesting. It would absolutely require that the oligarchs didn't claim most of Russia's resources. The resources would instead be controlled and refined by state owned enterprises quite far into the future. Maybe that would have required Yeltsin to die of a heart attack soon after the revolution, to be replaced by a really tough guy wanting to create a democratic system and ready to crush the oligarchs from the get-go. As tough as Putin but in a vastly different way.

[@JamesR1986]

This, but also, what if the US bought Russia's nuclear arsenal for a Marshal Plan sum. in the 1990s.(adjusted for inflation is probably about a trillion dollars) www.csmonitor.com/1992/0325/25181.html

[@olympia5758]

@@koonteriskool Putin cooperated with the West, allowing the US to use bases in Central Asia after 9/11, offered to help fight the War on Terror with George W. Bush, and was the one who was bringing up Russian integration with the EU and NATO but they laughed him off and made him look like a total buffoon. It wasn't until 2007 that you see the anti-Western Putin today. The West squandered every chance it had and we're in this Second Cold War we see today.

[@PaulWHall]

This would be most likely and lead to the best outcome (surprisingly enough) if the west had strongly backed Gorbachev in 1991 and helped keep most of the USSR together as a non-communist democratic confederation. Of course, a backslide to authoritarianism would still be very possible, but probably slower than than it happened in our timeline (thanks Yeltsin).

[@PaulWHall]

@@koonteriskool Well, Gorby wasn’t even in favor of state capitalism. Dude actually believed in democratic socialism/social democracy, and thought the USSR would lead the way in a global Perestoika. Gorby’s biggest problem was his naive idealism and his genuine belief that things would just work out after the reforms. In a way though, maybe that naive idealism is what Russia and the USSR needed if the west had kept its promises.

[@AbrahamLincoln4]

If the Confederacy still existed then I'll intentionally start a holiday called *Theater Night*

[@killertaco8themaster773]

@Daniel Daly did you say boothe

[@firestream93]

@SunDew Moon It'd probably kill all these "Racism is bad" people, if they knew what Lincoln said about black people.

[@stevennorris2637]

@SunDew Moon that’s entirely false. Read the articles of secession and behold your ignorance of why the civil war happened.

[@bigsouth010]

@@firestream93 um look here u stupid f****. Everyone knows abe Lincoln and mostly all presidents hated blacks regardless of how they felt about racism. Like duh he was white. But little do y’all know he had a nice amount of African in him. He was basically melungeon. So that means he was the first president with African ancestry. But at the end of the day he was a white man who helped end slavery. Every president and every white person period hates blacks

[@firestream93]

@@bigsouth010 Awww...someone got triggered by my comment. It's ok, Mary! Just go find your safe space, and the mean words won't upset you!

[@MegaCrashman123]

You should make a video on if Scotland gets independents from the uk or if Catalonia goes independent and how Russia and the rest of the east would react

[@immaculatesquid]

please let it happen

[@Andy_Babb]

Always really well done videos. Impressive how well informed somebody can be on so many topics. Good stuff man

[@charlesnegash]

Slavery would still eventually die out in the late 19th century as massive industrialization and new source of cheap labor via immigrants and conscript labor. The cost it took to control and subjugate the slaves and feed them and etc was not worth it as the price of cash crops primarily cotton decreased.

[@jimstafford9409]

Perhaps true but the question then is what would have happened to the newly freed slaves. Possible horrific possibilities to this question have been proposed.

[@cudamopar557]

@@jimstafford9409 still looking at about 100 years of apartheid post Civil War

[@randlebrowne2048]

@@cudamopar557 That, or forced expulsion of former slaves to places like Liberia.

[@buckplug2423]

@@jimstafford9409 I suppose we can look at what happened to serf states like Russia in the 19th/20th century, since blacks and landowners would fill similar roles to serfs and the nobility.

[@alexlaw1892]

I don't know I think the South would have realized immigration was an even bigger threat then freed slaves.. As we know from our modern timeline immigration has destroyed the US.

[@vcrsalesman2606]

I wonder what movies made there would be like. Their scripts would probably have more N-bombs than a Tarantino film

[@blllblll3200]

Great

[@falloutboisumbish9409]

Actually funny that the south was racist at the time. More racism in California

[@hongo3870]

​@@falloutboisumbish9409 the north was just as racist as the south was, so much so in fact that the north allowed slave catchers to operate in their territory, even after the civil war had ended.

[@sassymedea3065]

@@hongo3870 only because the south made it a federal crime to hide runaway slaves in the north, the fugitive slave act lead to the acceleration of the civil war. What fantasy world do you have to live where you believe states which had slaves were less racist.

[@kotzpenner]

Probably something like kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6nRqIeNm6uFg5o A movie made in a what-if scenario where the confederation won, the ads are the best part and yes, it's exactly like you imagine.

[@masmustacheo891]

The South: "Industry is stupid!" *Britain Finds New Source Of Cotton* The South: "What!?" The North: *Laughs In Industry*

[@calebfielding6352]

actually if you read the entirity of the cornerstone speech the south was, "Hey stop taxing us and building industry in the north. We want industry to." North, "We are raising taxes to build more industry in the north" 500,000 deaths later south, "We should have seceeded in 1828 when this started."

[@danielstupin1801]

What if order 191 is never found by Union troops during the Maryland campaign, that's the way you should have started the video

[@voxveritas333]

what is order 191?

[@allanaban617]

@@voxveritas333 i think it was splitting the union in 2 by invading the middle (ohio?)

[@hardlineamerican8495]

What if Sun Yat-sen's Republic of China managed to stay united? (Sun Yat-sen stays in power and Yuan Shikai stays out of the image for whatever reason)

[@siuhongwong6983]

As a Chinese who's studied a bit of Chinese, history, here's my guess Yuan not coming into power isn't too unrealistic (maybe he tries to stage a coup but fails) but Sun staying in power is not too realistic. Sun was an idealist but a poor strategist and lacked military power. His ideas were not popular among the generals and the people did not understand his ideas well, hence support for him was not too strong. Even if Yuan didn't come into power, Sun would most likely still have lost power. In this timeline Sun's more pragmatic and realizes his government's shaky position, so he allies with Yuan, a powerful, capable general who is probably most accepting of his ideas. (Sun did choose Yuan as his successor, showing his trust in Yuan) Yuan did not oppose democracy entirely, he just believed China needed a dictator if it were to survive from the western powers, so if Sun was a strong man ruler, this alliance could be possible. The 21 demands from Japan ends unchanged as Sun would have to accept reality and accept the demands. Without the fall of Yuan his generals never inherit his troops and never become warlords, so fighting between warlords and agreements that compromised China's interests signed by the generals with western powers in exchange for their support never exist. China stays unified under the rule of the Nationalist Party. Yuan died in 1916 so let's assume he dies at the same time. The ccp still forms but without the Nationalists needing their aid to fight the warlords, they don't have a chance to exploit to rise to prominence quickly. Sun dies and Chiang Kai Shek takes over. With the ccp just another normal party, the country more stable and the Nationalists more popular, the ccp would be allowed. As President of Republic of China and a Qing official, Yuan carried out successful economic, educational and military reforms. Assuming Chiang (for the most part) follows his footsteps, China would develop quite well. This means the ccp's appeal is much smaller with the people's lives better. War with Japan still occurs but China would suffer slightly fewer casualties with a better military. The ccp, without fighting the Nationalists earlier, do not develop great guerrilla tactics and would be pretty irrelevant in the war effort, meaning they do not seize control of any land or Japanese war material in Manchuria, With the Nationalists more powerful and popular and the ccp a lot less and effectively just another normal party without a military, the Nationalists stay in power and the ccp becomes irrelevant. China becomes a US ally. With so many years of headstart, China develops a lot better and the population will probably have more freedoms, though I don't think China will become a western democracy but is instead a benevolent dictatorship. Eventually we arrive at today where the rise of China causes China and US to split. The future from here is still unfolding.

[@siuhongwong6983]

@John Conquest I agree that Republic of China would become the preeminent world power and that communism would fade out more quickly, but I don't think China would be as democratic as Taiwan or South Korea. Many people neglect that China has large ethnic minorities, and that some regions with great geopolitical value, like Tibet and XinJiang, are populated by people who don't strongly identify themselves as Chinese. If China gave its people too much political freedom, those regions may break away. Chinese would probably enjoy civil rights close to the level of the west and have a lot more political freedoms, but elements like voting probably wouldn't be too prevalent, especially for the ethnic minorities. Instead, China may continue practicing Confucianism as it has done for centuries. Then again, I did not study Chinese history extensively. It's also very possible that the ethnic minorities, under a more benevolent government, assimilate or identify themselves more as Chinese, allowing China to transition to a Taiwan/South Korea like democracy.

[@Skywarslord]

While I don’t study Chinese history, I remember hearing there was a plan for a alliance of the nations who lost stuff in the First World War (Germany, China etc) But since China sort of exploded it didn’t become r reality, so maybe that could happen and it would pit Germany and Japan against eatchother

[@spaceman081447]

@@siuhongwong6983 RE: ". . . be as democratic as Taiwan or South Korea." Both Taiwan and South Korea were rather authoritarian during much of their early history.

[@fdjw88]

@@spaceman081447 great point, in this alternate timeline which Nationalists were much stronger, it's more likely for the Nationalist to stay dictatorial for much longer. in the reality, Taiwan didn't really start its democracy process until the late 70s which was when China made its economic reforms. the reality itself showed that the Nationalist aka the Kuo Ming Tang was never pro-democracy. but without CCP taking power China would have developed much earlier, without waste time and human lives in useless power struggle such as the Great Leap Forward and Culture Revolution. China would literally be the world's first fully developed dictatorship nation in the 21st century, much like the current day Singapore, but on a much much much bigger scale.

[@snakey934Snakeybakey]

Its actually unrealistic to think that the south wouldn't industrialize on its own.

[@SB-gt7nt]

As an Appalachian gal I agree

[@NemoBlank]

Especially after the Texas oil strikes.

[@Bandit_Sudo]

As an appilachian resident, I disagree entirely. Not a skyscraper in sight across the entirety of the mountain range

[@bobanderson6656]

True. A lot of industrialization that went to the North would have gone to the south instead and a lot of the immigration as well.

[@dickon728]

They rose to the occasion for the war so yeah. It would be for national security. You bet.

[@thedriszen8350]

Most of this is based on the author's own beliefs/agenda (which is his right), but I tend to disagree with a couple of the core beliefs, and therefore much of his timeline. Industrialization took hold in the North quickly because they obviously didn't have slaves or the agricultural base that required them. But the South was quickly becoming aware of the limitations and social costs of slavery; I believe they would have followed the North's lead and brought in industry also, tho perhaps not as completely as their cousins. The so-called Southern aristocracy would not disappear, but it would diminish. I also disagree that relations with the North would continue to be adversarial. The US and Canada didn't hate each other after the Revolution & War of 1812. We still had the same language/ relatives/ history... things may very well have been cordial... even more so after slavery faded out. Would they have reunited? Maybe/ maybe not. Much of the rest of your future timeline may have happened as you say, tho I doubt the South would back the Axis in either world war. Your alternate reality is interesting, but who knows what would've happened.

[@morgainedepolloc4161]

Good comment. Going with the common stereotypes most people have of "southerners". - this presenter is very short-sighted and shows obvious prejudice. My theory is with the current climate of cancel culture and racial unrest (mostly now occurring in areas outside of the traditional "south," coincidentally) it is popular to go with the opinion "nothing good comes out of the south." or that "southerners are stupid and cruel." "The South" keeps getting dredged up as a convenient "whipping boy" for racial problems -- helps make others feel better about there own prejudices. Sorry to say...but the problems we have today are much bigger than just "the south." Naive video.

[@Falconlibrary]

Relationships between the Confederacy and the rest of the country have been tense since Lincoln was shot. What alternate universe are YOU from?

[@crenfick7750]

@@morgainedepolloc4161 If you think whatif is a supporter of cancel culture and racially woke then you haven't seen a single minute of his content.

[@morgainedepolloc4161]

@@crenfick7750 i think the presenter in this video does not fully understand the effects of the US Civil War on US society both past and present. As a US citizen, it would be analogous to me making assumptions about UK culture and society regarding the struggles between the UK and the IRA--or to use a more recent example the societal and cultural impacts of "Brexit" on UK citizens.

[@crenfick7750]

@@morgainedepolloc4161 You absolutely could. The field of history, anthropology, and politics all depend on understanding and analyzing other cultures. Also whatifalthis is american.

[@matthewmiller3322]

Confederacy still existed I would move there

[@jackdonnelly4166]

Last time I was this early the confederacy was still winning the war

[@freedamerican5243]

Honey wake up, Whatifalthist uploaded again.

[@themediumcheese]

wake up babe, new whatifalthist

[@unclesam5230]

Sweetheart wake up, Whatifalthist uploaded.

[@bakthihapuarachchi3447]

Damn ideal babe

[@dunkendohnuts5841]

@@unclesam5230 BRUH

[@bigsouth010]

Honey wake up!!! Whatifalthist is joining us tonight!!! 😎

[@EliteMedic87]

I know this video has been out a year now but I just came across it recently. Thank you for putting this together and providing so much information. It was a great listen while cooking breakfast this morning :-)

[@ANKAMedien]

"The end of Racism is likely just a reaction to Nazis" sooo.. we Germans ended racism? 😂😅

[@Mana-xd2tp]

Ironic and Poetic

[@dominickharris3020]

I will ask until I die for what if France won the Franco Prussian war. This seems like a great timeline that’s not talked about enough

[@nono_Hoi4]

How? France didn't have a good chance of winning at all because north German confederation had a better understanding of modern firearms and way more railroads for complete mobilization. France was seen as the aggressor so south german states would be involved. France would have to get an ally (which they failed to do) to do a 2 front war on the rest of the german states. Lets say russia: germany would not unify and Russia would advance into east Prussia and takes land (lots of stuff later) and Germany surrenders. Austria is useless, Britan would maybe turn the tides but very unlikely to join. Denmark would have died. Ok so France and (insert nation here) won so what now? Germany would not unify and france gets lets say the Saar land and the west bank of the Rhine (so now we have a pissed of Prussia). Italy might have to give the pope the papal territory back but this is might not happen because France just won a brutal war and dont want another one with Italy (even if they are bad at war). long term: france is an empire for a little longer but will become a republic again (because revolution) Germany isn't unified Papal states ''might'' come back

[@INWMI]

let me enlight you, FRANCE DOESN'T EXIST

[@dominickharris3020]

@@nono_Hoi4 I mean the timeline all depends on how France wins and by what margin. If you give france maybe a better understanding of modern technology with a better general staff compared to Germany so they barely can win. You could go a lot of ways maybe the U.K doesn’t enter ww1 or sees France as a bigger threat. Russian empire never has to deal with a unified Germany therefore it survives longer and pushes into Central Europe. I’m not sure what would happen to Austria they could reform or just break up. Personally i think it’s an interesting timeline.

[@cottonysensation3723]

What if the black prince didn’t die and was successful in his campaign in france

[@JohnDoe-fu6zt]

What if the Dutch won the Anglo-Dutch Wars?

[@jackpada7015]

why does his tone always go down at the end of each sentence

[@j.s.7335]

Out of breath?

[@TheOpalHammer]

It's like an Anti-Aussie accent.

[@StoutProper]

He's not a valley girl

[@markminter3960]

Silly

[@mikedrown2721]

In Canada, we have the question mark explanation syndrome where the tone goes up at the end of the sentence

[@aof9964]

The South Shall And Will Rise Again!

[@jimsmith6547]

If the South would've won. Then the day Elvis presley died would have been a nation Holliday.

[@akiramasashi9317]

Alright, here's one for you: What if the American Civil War never happened?

[@wpc9163]

Slavery probably would've continued for decades, eventually being replaced by some form of ultra-Jim Crow. Lincoln, as president, originally supported the Corwin Amendment, which would've given constitutional ,protection to slavery where it existed (1861). Even after his preliminary proclamation of limited / selective "emancipation," (September 1862) he argued for a gradual emancipation up to the year 1900 (December 1862). Even in our timeline, President Andrew Johnson pursued a reconstruction policy that greatly favored the planters over the nominally emancipated slaves. Had Johnson not been a political bungler, he could well have succeeded in preventing "radical" Reconstruction and the 14th and 15th amendments as we know them, keeping in place a much weaker Civil Rights Act.

[@waynechambers69]

what if the North allowed the South to secede? no war, just a new independent country racial slavery wouldve continued in the broke ass North for many years perhaps into the 1930s slavery in the South wouldve survived as Convict Labor, which we still have today in the USA the North controlled the Atlantic Slave Trade, Rothchilds, ect. the North didnt invade the South to free slaves but to keep them from seceding the South was tired of buying new slaves from the Rothchilds every season to replace runaways that wouldnt be returned, it was suggested, back in the 1850s, that the North would return convicted criminals (and why should taxpayers pay to keep em in prison when plantations will put em to work?) the South had international trade using the Dix, a note backed by solid gold, the North had money problems in the South, eventually the Dix would become a Centralized bank, again, backed by gold in the North the Federal Reserve would have the same crapola fiat cash we have now

[@robertaguilar2124]

Call me crazy but I've seen visions & dreams of another dimension where gold rush didn't occur & Republic of Texas didn't ever join USA but continued independent until it allied itself with new CSA which included Oklahoma and Stephen Douglas died in 1858, so Lincoln became a Senator for Illinois, not President, and civil war started 18 months earlier & 15 months shorter. In my vision, there are 2 Southern countries- the CS of America & the CS of Texas, which has New Mexico & Arizona(no Gadsden purchase) & South Nevada & California Alta Sur & also jointly annexed Tamaulipas, Cuba, & Haiti, & Puerto Rico. Slavery has become more like serfdom in recent decades. CSA & CST are now in talks to actually unite & integrate finally.

[@markminter3960]

Thanks for the wisest question.

[@markminter3960]

Thanks for the wisest question

[@innosam123]

What if the Millennium Eruption (a supervolcano eruption that destroyed an entire Korean Kingdom) never happened?

[@bobbywise2313]

What if Toba never happened.

[@Sean12248]

What if Minoan culture survived and wasn't ruined by a volcano

[@hongo3870]

What if it was actually butter

[@elperrodelautumo7511]

It’s a scenario where they allow the confederacy to exist as a nation. Not that it won the American civil war. It’s more of they won their independence and the Union let them be.

[@QueerChica]

I just stumbled across this channel whilst doing my housework. Fascinating analysis x

[@killertaco8themaster773]

As a southerner I honor my ancestors but im ultimately glad the Union held strong. We are better off.

[@Madara-rz8hv]

Wrong

[@Madara-rz8hv]

Dont let this moron fool you had we won the war or at least forced them to make peace we would have become a very powerful nation and the north would have never tried to invade us later because millions would have perished due to population increases and more deadly weaponry. Think ww1 levels of carnage they would never have the stomach for it just to rule us

[@Madara-rz8hv]

also the northerners didnt want to fight us the first time Lincoln essentially forced them to while brutally suppressing any opposition to his agenda. These linconites aren't half as smart as they believe they live out their emotions like women

[@killertaco8themaster773]

@@Madara-rz8hv Im not basing this off this guys video. I think you're right. My family lost as much as any in the war. But at the end of the day both North and South would be second rate countries. Some autonomy would be nice but we should stay together in my opinion.

[@killertaco8themaster773]

@@Madara-rz8hv Yeah I remember reading about how he arrested several governors and such who proclaimed neutrality.

[@AverytheCubanAmerican]

What are you talking about? You are the best philosopher the universe has ever seen

[@captainjackpugh6050]

See you all the time. If I commented as much as you everyone would see me all the time too because you and me seem to watch the same things

[@AE_AnarchistAlexcianEmpire69Bi]

Aye It’s This Guy

[@bendixon8704]

Tell me you don't understand Southern thinking and history, without telling me you don't understand Southern thinking and history.

[@carterbentonjr399]

For your information the color for the confederacy is gray, not red. I hope this doesn't make me sound like a smart aleck.

[@universalserialbus4554]

What if the indians and jesuites had won the guarani war and declared independence from Portugal and Spain

[@infinitycookiesh6070]

Séria bem épico

[@joze838]

I really liked the last 20 seconds. You could do a video about how the reaction to the nazis changed everything.

[@1voiceofstl]

Its called "Hitlers revenge"

[@MrJeep75]

To bad it didn't end like this

[@nathanokun8801]

If you read Harry Turtledove's alternate-world series assuming just this fact, you see a very bad result: The Union far outdoes the Confederacy in economic "might" (compares to US and Canada today) and the two hate each other's guts. Unfortunately for the 20th Century, Britain BACKED THE CONFEDERACY! As a result, the Union ALSO HATES BRITAIN'S GUTS! Guess what happens in WWI and afterwards? The results are so depressing that I could not even finish the series, as it was a step-by-step descent into Hell itself...

[@Convertscafe]

watifalthist: "what if the confederacy still existed" Victoria 2 players: "allow us to introduce ourselves"

[@blllblll3200]

Me:yay

[@ToiyeuNuocVietNamvadantocViet]

No, it can't not be possible, the Confederates could not cease to exist, reasons: - There is no country in the world recognize the Confederates. - No origin of that sucession country. Also the Confederates was conservative country, while Union was libreal country that exists fighting for independence against British in 1776, whi - Without slavery, the Confederates can't take it anymore. So they could cause war another country like Mexico, Cuba, then occupied it make the people in that country to became slaves. Or not, because slavery was now illegal in the face of the world organization. - Confederates could surrender to Union easily after WW1, so they can control their mind and reunite with Union. Because the organization not recognize the Confederates. It will remained the current United States, the United States country will be from the 1980s like that from now in the current time.

[@claudiusflavius2493]

Yay, new video!

[@pwmiles56]

6:50 "the whole idea the Civil War was about slavery is facetious" --- this makes no sense in the context. I think he meant "about states rights". As such, a heck of a Freudian slip.

[@m.stewart8094]

I think he meant to say “wasn’t entirely” but spoke too quickly.

[@douglasquaid7550]

Listening to Billy Idol's "Rebel Yell" and this comes as next automatic video, LeMAO

[@Bushy-gq9sz]

Ethno-nationalist is the normal state of man, Muti racial nations fail, the west is falling apart for this very reason.

[@danuk500]

Yep. You just have to look back to countries like Yugoslavia with varying cultures, nationalities, religions and races to see how nasty it will eventually get. Once there is no dominant group of people a break up of a country is inevitable.

[@tuehojbjerg969]

Ethno states are a pretty new things up to a few hundred years ago pretty much everyone identified with their local region that often had their own languague, the state itself was seen as most as those that taxed them and not much else, for example you wherent French but bretagne gascon, corsican and so on

[@PyroManZII]

To say the West is collapsing... well it is an interesting perspective that is based in no objective fact and is a myth as old as the concept of "The West" itself (there were even books in the 1700's suggesting The West would collapse within the next few years following the publishing of said books). Someone has already mentioned in these comments that it was only about 150 years ago that ideas of "nationalism" started springing up, inspiring peoples to band together to form common national identities such as "French" and "German" etc. which led partially to the catastrophes of WW1 and WW2. Before these ideas of "nationalism" every village had its own identity, its own dialect and its own culture. If you take Germany in 1830 for example, there were about two hundred different cultures and dialects of peoples (and even to this day there are many distinct sub regions in Germany). It should also be noted that even as little far back as 1960, the Italians and Greeks were considered "non-western" and "aliens" who were rejected by entho-nationalists and other racist groups. After about twenty years though they were considered "fine" and "worthy" of being "white/western". Nowadays in Western Europe for example, many still debate if the Polish and Romanian migrants are worthy of being "white/western" - in about twenty years from now I doubt ethno-nationalists will consider Polish and Romanian's as anything other than "white". If you look at pure statistics, there is no "ethnically homogenous" nation on Earth that performs anywhere remotely as well by any objective indicators as a comparable "multicultural nation" (except for rare cherry-picked examples here and there). It is why there are hardly any nations left which attempt any pretence at "ethnic homogeneity". Much of Japan's economic collapse in the 1990's has been explained by a lack in diverse thinking (caused by tight restrictions on who could work in the country and not), which led to large investments being made into poor areas and stagnant economic policy (this is also why dictatorships will usually face economic collapse - there is no one group that has all the answers for all situations).

[@Admiral_Jezza]

It sucks that he conflates ethnocentrism with racism.

[@PyroManZII]

@@BigGainer98 So you perceive the death of The West as being linked to how "white" you perceive the population of these nations to be? Your fear certainly isn't unique, we were told in the 1970's that the Chinese would outnumber us all over the world in the next thirty years... and as I mentioned earlier many feared in the 1950's that the Italians and Greeks would ruin our culture forever with their high birth rates and "invasion" of our nations. Interestingly none of these came to pass, as just like current fears, they are only used by politicians to further their agendas. I am sure in 2050 we will once again be talking about how "The West" will collapse any year now under the weight of Russian immigration or something like that (which does remind me in the 1990's we feared the Yugoslavian immigrants would ruin "The West").

[@estiandcountryhumansdiscon4320]

Germany during WW1 and WW2: yes yes its all coming nicely USSR during the Cold War: yes its my time to shine

[@ethpling165]

“The Civil War may have ended 150 years ago, but you can keep fighting the most incredible battles today” Yeah, in the comment section on any video about the Civil War.

[@ryanhynes6596]

1:20 "Stonewall Jackson" **Photo of James Longstreet**

[@davegreenlaw5654]

Thanks. I've been going back over my notes and refining the timeline for my old GURPS Alternate Earths Dixie campaign during this whole mess. Videos like these - not just from you, but also others like Cody and Monsieur Z - are really helping me to flesh things out more so then I ever could back in the 90's. (Interestingly enough, a few of the things you pointed out here - the need for the South to industrialize to some extent, the North allying with Germany, harsh apartheid-like conditions for blacks and coloureds, etc. - were in the whole scenario as well.)

[@bevbevan6189]

That's not what the Dred Scott decision was actually about, but close enough.

[@CollinM24]

What was it about, then?

[@bevbevan6189]

@@CollinM24 There was no dispute that slaveholders legally could pursue escaped slaves on to free Northern soil, though there was a lot of Northern, abolitionist passive resistance to this. The Dred Scott decision said that slaves brought to the North by the owners (as servants, for example) did not automatically become free when they stepped on to free soil. Actually, the Supreme Court weaseled out by saying that the slave (Dred Scott) couldn't file a case because he wasn't a citizen. That weaseling drove everyone crazy.

[@CollinM24]

@@bevbevan6189 well it’s actually both. The Supreme Court decided that Dred Scott was unable to sue the state, but instead of dismissing the case outright (which they should have done if it was invalid) they went on to decide against him & make a constitution decision - that being that not only were slaves not free upon arriving in the north, but that they legally had to be returned to south. Which sorta extended the idea of slavery throughout the entire nation. The Dred Scot decision was essentially the largest case of judicial review since the process had been established and it was very much viewed as the court over-stepping its bounds and nullified previous congressional compromises.

[@CollinM24]

@@bevbevan6189 the real issue of the Dred Scott decision is that the Supreme Court ruled that according to the Constitution, blacks were never intended to be citizens and could not be anything more than slaves, and in fact congress does not have the authority to ban slavery in any of its territories, thus striking down the Missouri Compromise. This was insane. The court was asked to rule on whether an individual slave could be determined to be free by being introduced to the north, and instead decided that no slave could legally be truly free within the US.

[@SquireThomas]

@@CollinM24 Great post. Dred Scott is perhaps the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever made, ruling that all blacks anywhere could never be citizens was an insane overstep of his authority. Oddly, Taney was apparently convinced he was saving the nation from war by removing slavery as an issue forever. Instead, it was one of the strongest factors in causing it come about.

[@2528drevas]

Harry Turtledove wrote a whole series of book predicated on this. They are excellent.

[@calebfielding6352]

Harry turtle dove has things backwards. The north would side with the germans, the south with the british, but thats what happens when someone only looks at stuff written about the confederacy after 1960.

[@brianginn6075]

You missed how the north needed the southern goods. I believe that the south would have industrialized and ended slavery with a lot more lenient relations between the races.

[@DongusKongus]

12:07 For the Midlands, you managed to draw the borders of Northwest England (Cheshire, Lancashire, Cumbria) and miss almost all of the actual Midlands below it. I don't know if you meant the north west and just mislabelled it or if you meant the midlands and misplaced it on the map, but yeah other than that, really interesting video. I like that you take the time to make these maps for your videos too.

[@abac6404]

Can you do what of Mexico was stable enough to been the US in the Mexican American war?

[@abelardodelatorresolis3966]

I really dont think Mexico would have won the war, it would lose the war but the treaty wouldn't be that harsh.

[@pabloarellano5485]

@@abelardodelatorresolis3966 in that case what if México lost Texas but kept the rest of the states

[@JamesRDavenport]

Not possible because Mexico has NEVER been a real country. Even before it was a Banana dictatorship lead by Mexican generals, it was a Banana dictatorship led by Spanish, Mayan, and Aztec ones. Even today, it's basically still a banana republic led by puppets of the Narco-trafficantes. Not that the US didn't have a hand in keeping them down...(sorry to say)

[@SenorGuina]

@@JamesRDavenport seems pretty real to me mate

[@pabloarellano5485]

@@JamesRDavenport are you kidding me? Why do you think this videos are called alternate history? He literally said it was impossible for the confederacy to reach independence and yet this video is still here. You are just making up excuses.

[@sarrjel]

There is no way that California is turning out smart people, the public schools are poorly run and most of the students drop out by their sophomore year. Public schools in the United States have been in the decline since 1970. The public school system in the whole United States is ranked at 35 out of the world. George Bush made it even worse with the "Leave No Child Behind " Act which switch useful tools for public teachers of critical thinking to visual thinking.

[@Renaissance-dude]

How do you you think the Texas oil boom and oil industry in general would affect the Confederacy’s economy and place in the world? I think this would be a defining factor in its history and would allow for greater prosperity in the south. It would also be interesting to see how oil negotiations between the north and the south would be handled and the degree to which the two economies associated with one another. It also seems like there would be a lot of tension between them and at least a possibility for war afterward.

[@purpledurple621]

Wouldn't the black population continue revolting even past the 20s and 30s. I see no reason not too

[@ohioagainsttheworld676]

well considering the confederacy doesn't exist yet they're still "revolting" to this day, I'd say yeah that's a pretty good possibility

[@forlornvaalan7630]

No. Thats not how slavery ever ended. Ever. And thats when you had to put down rebellions with spears and shields. In the age of machine guns and barbed wire? A large black uprising in a neoconfederacy is just a genocide of blacks waiting to happen. They'd just get lumped in with the American Natives.

[@Rudenbehr]

@@forlornvaalan7630 I really think it might be a North Korea/China situation, with those who have white skin being akin to members of the communist party, in an organizational/hierarchical way. Blacks get the brunt of authoritarianism. And all dissent is quashed, and information flow is carefully vetted. No one can escape or leave unless your skin color permits you to.

[@Heff-Curry]

@@forlornvaalan7630 Its completely different circumstances to this video: but Haiti is a pretty big example of a successful slave revolt. So no, not never

[@forlornvaalan7630]

@@Heff-Curry They made up 95% or more of the population, and Haiti was extremely isolated from French reinforcements. Even then, when the Haitians moved to conquer the rest of the island, they couldn't hold it after succeeding. The main reason they stayed independent was that the French force sent to retake died of disease iirc. In any event, barbed wire and machine guns and high explosives makes what they did extremely difficult if not impossible to replicate anywhere else, especially with the demographic reality being what it was.

[@lerneanlion]

What if the Mali Empire discovered the New World during the reign of Mansa Musa?

[@DeoVindice999]

Then he would've been the kang of the Americaz n shit.

[@lerneanlion]

@@DeoVindice999 Personally, I think this will established what is known as the Salt Road.

[@ngn6708]

@@DeoVindice999 whats the 'n shit' thing

[@frigglebiscuit7484]

all you have to do is look at the current state of africa....

[@yourtypicalrebel4354]

One major thing brought up that i must say isnt true is the confederacy was founded on slavery, the confederates fought against the tyrants of the north because of tye high taxing from the north (history repeating itself) soon after lincon said if they rejoined they could keep the slaves, the confederacy still fought meanwhile the confederate states were ending slavery, slavery ended in 1864/1865 a good 100 years before the union did. By the way did you know lincon had no intentions to free the slaves. This is lost history that people tend to avoid

[@yourtypicalrebel4354]

@Yankee Heritage You can only find four of the 13 states saying it was about slavery, those states were a little paranoid and that’s a lot less than half, you’re basing this comment off less than half what made up the confederacy. Also South Carolina stated tax’s as one of three reasons. Also had people not attacked the confederacys history or had been offended by it they could have looked into history of the confederacy and the war they would have learned that Lincoln said the war wasnt about slavery. “ my paramount object in this struggle is to save the union, and it’s not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it” -Aberham Lincon So Lincoln said the war was only about re-joining the union. The reason the confederacy left the union is because the states were being misstreated. The biggest reason the south left the union was because of taxation without representation. It came in the form of moral tariff. The effects it had on the southern states was that although the south had 25% of the population, They paid 80% of the nations tariffs. The northern states use their majority in Congress to use that tax money on improving the industry and infrastructure of the north. So the southern states paid 80% of the nations taxes, however, so less than 20% of the entire tax revenue spent by the federal government on or in the southern states. This is pretty much the same reason the American revolution happened. The attempt to destroy anyone’s confederate heritage says they can rebuild the way they want is oppressive.

[@mickeyray3793]

I like this alternative much better than the present. I would probably move to Baja.

[@jameshudkins2210]

The North and South had very different economies. The North wanted to get Southern Agricultural products and sell them Northern manufactured good. The South wanted to buy higher quality and lower priced European manufactured goods and export their cotton, tobacco, etc. to pay for it. The North wanted higher Tariffs on the importation of European manufactured goods. That would have solved everything for the North. Before the Civil War most of the wealthiest states were in the South. After the War most of the poorest states were in the South. Because the North won they could dramatically increase import taxes on European Manufactured good. The North got richer and that fixed it for the North. They didn't mind if the Slaves became wage workers. The Northern workers did not want the freed slaves moving North to compete for their factory jobs.

[@venomknight7031]

One question what if California was independent from Mexico

[@goldenrepublic6848]

@Random Entertainment what is California stayed independent from Mexico and didn’t join the US

[@Sarif2056]

It would petition to join the union, same as Texas.

[@markbarnaart2381]

I’ve been to parts of South Carolina where those boys don’t know they lost !

[@Et_Rex_Texana]

Hey, what would happen if Japan did the Northern Plan instead of the southern plan in WW2

[@Shusiareed]

Suggestions for future Videos: - What if Maria Theresia had to bow to her familys will and married Frederick the Great instead of Franz Stephan von Lothringen. - What if America became a kingdom under Frederick the Greats Brother (he was a candidate for pro monarchist factions) - What if Germany was formed under the German greater Solution (Großdeutschland which included Austria, Czechia, Slovenia and Istria) - What if Germany was formed under Austria as "Großösterreich" - What if Germany invaded Austria Hungary before WW1 - What if Germany went communist after WW1 instead of facist

[@savagedarksider5934]

Here's one: What if Rudolf had lived and took over ?

[@wonderbread7327]

Whatifalthist: What if the Confederacy still exists West Virginia: Surprised Pikachu Face Edit: Thanks guys, 25 likes is the most I’ve ever gotten

[@markminter3960]

Last SLAVE STATE to enter the union 1863,

[@markminter3960]

Although under shady means, 3 Governors ?

[@johnnyfirecrotch7229]

Which comes to the fact that you can take all your monuments down but people will not forget Bill Cosby is so funny

[@beeyurself]

In terms of economic diversifying, equal rights, and industrialization in the south, the north didn't want this. That is why it took 100 years for the south to equalize instead of 25 years. If the south won the war, it would have come naturally and in less time than 100 years.

[@oni2538]

I'm inclined to believe that the South, having won the war by the skin of their teeth, would have many incentives to industrialize as quickly as possible in order to remain economically and militarily competitive with the North. Of course, industry and militarizationnare only part of the puzzle. They would also need to reform their educational standards in order to remain on par with the Union- you can't just yeet farmers into factories and expect them to do well, with some exceptions. Your attitude is especially puzzling considering the fact that you project that the South would conquer territories in Mexico and the Carribean. How would they do this if all they did was half-heartedly maintain the rag-tag militia they called an army during the Civil War, let alone maintain their border with the North, who would, in this timeline, likely be forever buttmad that Lincoln's goofy ass essentially split the nation in half because he treated a socio-economic issue as if it were a moral/religious imperative? With great difficulty, if at all.

[@bobbywise2313]

The would have reunited after a few decades.

[@jimstafford9409]

Probably utilizing slave labor.

[@oni2538]

Provided a Confederate victory, in that they either win the war or find a means to end it while retaining their sovereignty, there's no reason to believe they would cling to slave labor. Their principal ally at the time of the end of the war would likely be Britain, who was one of the first and most vocal nations to support abolition. On top of that, slavery is costly, and in the face of industrialization, redundant. Even if the whole world were populated by nothing but heartless psychopaths, slavery still would have been abolished when industry became viable, for the simple reason that it is more efficient and less costly. That's just my two cents, take it or leave it.

[@bobbywise2313]

@@oni2538 You are most likely correct in that slavery was on its way out. I have heard Europe was putting pressure on the US to end slavery but as far as I know they kept buying the cotton from slave labor. Perhaps they should have stopped buying the cotton to force the issue. I am of the belief that pretty much everything people in power do is for selfish reasons. Northern states abolished slavery because it was not profitable. Europe claimed the moral high ground but kept buying cotton . Today we continue to buy from China even though they have terrible working conditions. But it's has always been about the money. As you pointed out slavery would have ended not because the plantation owners were boy scouts but because it was becoming less profitable.

[@oni2538]

@@bobbywise2313 On top of that, slave labour was only abolished in part: the 13th amendment clearly states, and I quote: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a punishment for crime* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." So many people have such strong opinions on this subject, and refuse to take a more impartial view of history, and often because they view it as a moral issue with strong relevance even today. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that notion, but rarely if ever do I hear such individuals vocally protest the slavery baked into our prison system, something that is going on even as we speak; nine times out of ten they're focused on promoting the idea that state sovereignty is this boogeyman that can only lead to some kind of slave-labour backed white ethnostate, and rehearsing tired hand-me-down critiques of long dead men. And for what? Apparently, slavery is perfectly kosher in the American mind, as long as those who endure it deserve it for the right reasons: not for being black, but for being a criminal. Perhaps if more discussions were held as discussions in the proper sense and not as yet another outlet for vain social signalling, more people could finally have sane discussions about these topics, and we might finally stop living our lives as if moored to the sins of our ancestors. On top of that, we might have a better grasp on the issues of today, and be able to discuss them in a constructive manner that might lead to some actual conclusions. Of course, heavens forbid this should happen, as that might challenge some current moneymaking racket in our present system.

[@savagedarksider5934]

America and the German Empire working together + The German Monarchy continuing= Awesome Timeline.

[@travishenty1113]

Yeah Harry Turtledove wrote an 11 book series about that like a decade ago

[@savagedarksider5934]

@@travishenty1113 I know. I want two things from that series... 1. A spinoff. 2. How the fuck did the Wrestling and Boxing world develop.

[@voxveritas333]

I'm for that one! Conquer the world!!

[@senorpepper3405]

No hitler

[@mint234567898765432]

The South probably wouldn't have prohibition in the 20's, which would mean no bootlegging, which would mean no Nascar.

[@Sb129]

I was thinking of writing a story in such a universe.

[@SecretPersonComment]

Same.

[@selihom]

Everytime he says *The answers will surprise you* I feel like I'm clicking a sketchy link on a torrent site. 😆

[@rokball4892]

Yes! This is the one that I want to see it! And I’d like to see the What if Bulgaria won the second Balkan War.

[@johnsiders7819]

I bet the crime rate would be really low .

[@Eh-nj4qj]

idk if the south wouldve gotten rid of segregation without international pressure.

[@bradledoux6885]

Uhhh I'm from the South dude....to put it bluntly...all politics in this whole region revolves around race.

[@killertaco8themaster773]

Im guessing you're in Louisiana by your name.(that has nothing to do with anything) But thats not even true anymore. Atleast not in North Carolina.

[@clovismerovingian2239]

I'm from South Carolina and you are full of crap. Politics does not revolve entirely or even primarily around race here.

[@immaculatesquid]

I'm fron Atlanta Georgia, and you're correct. Other black people will not stop talking about race and I think it is retarded.

[@frigglebiscuit7484]

no the fuck they arent.

[@Hogan231]

My dad says he doesn’t want another civil war.

[@ohioagainsttheworld676]

nobody does except for BLM. if people are getting along, then they have no reason to exist. and that's unacceptable.

[@frigglebiscuit7484]

@@ohioagainsttheworld676 youd be suprised. get ready for hell, because its coming.

[@AA-zm4ow]

Food is the main strategy of war, clothing ,hygiene shelter , mental health,

[@DLYChicago]

The South ran a deficit economy. The planters were rich but the South as a whole ran at a deficit by selling raw materials and not producing any manufactures. They even had to buy back their own cotton in the form of finished clothes. Southern politics and society was dominated by the planter class but they would be challenged by the oilmen of Texas. Except, Texas would not be able to develop its own oil industry and would need outside investments. So the South would still run at a trade deficit.

[@osaka4615]

I once heard in one of Atun-Shei’s “Checkmate Lincolnites” videos that it’s likely the South would’ve actually been a very centralized state with the central government being so involved that they’d essentially take part in central planning in order to industrialize the newborn Confederacy using slave labor. This is bcuz the secessionists didn’t view slavery and industrialization as mutually exclusive, but instead figured that slavery could be utilized to industrialize the South. Southern politicians championing state’s rights only did so bcuz they’d be under the North’s mercy without it, but they’d be more than willing to throw that concept out the window if they got an independent country. Atun-Shei backs this up with a book called “Modernizing a Slave Economy: The Economic Vision of the Confederate Nation”. I’d say it’s a very interesting concept to think abt and I wonder what you think of the idea

[@petertrudelljr]

except the whole point of a 'confederacy' is decentralized power (much as you see Republicans striving for today). "States Rights" are greater than 'National Rights'. Central planning would be shit.

[@charliem4416]

What if napoleon won in egypt?

[@KlynerKaiOffical]

That’s a good one!

[@scholaroftheworldalternatehist]

I doubt he could do much. The French navy then was garbage, so there would be an isolated outpost in Egypt that could be easily seized/cut off by the British once Napoleon returned to France.

[@charliem4416]

@@scholaroftheworldalternatehist the French Mediterranean fleet was not that bad, as the British had yet to destroy it. The invasion of egypt was in about 1800 and the French fleet was destroyed around 1805. Also, napoleon had already landed troops in egypt and so the battles he would have to win to take egypt would be on land

[@scholaroftheworldalternatehist]

@@charliem4416 I agree, Napoleon could've probably won in Egypt on land. However, how would he be re-supplied? I think the French Navy's mostly upper-class leaders were purged during the French revolution, leading to severe lack of good leaders. In this alternate timeline, the French navy would also have to be much better to give Napoleon a lasting chance in Egypt.

[@charliem4416]

@@scholaroftheworldalternatehist the French navy would not necessarily have to be better. With control of egypt, napoleon might not want to risk that control with a risky invasion of England and thus keep their fleet in the med where they could possibly keep control of the seas

[@ThePoerio]

This guy doesn't understand immigration either. The US only allows so much immigration from each country per year which is why Jews and Italians as well as other people's would end up migrating to South America. In this timeline the US would have smaller quotas and the Confederacy would be the next closest option.

[@edwardclement102]

In reality, we had two Civil Wars Union vs Confederacy and later it was the South using guerrilla warfare to beat the Northern Radicals.

[@margarettealfeche8730]

What if Constantinople survived the siege of 1453

[@vincenttabone6007]

Do a what if the Normans where able to keep tunisia

[@adamm8067]

No rap? I’m sold.

[@harvey1954]

The Gatling gun really wasn't used in the Civil War even though it was offered to the Union (by Mr. Gatling, who was a Southerner). It was widely used in the Indian Wars.