What if the South Won the Civil war? A Confederate victory

[@stakuyi]

Hey all the new alt history video on what if Britain won the American revolution is up. Please watch as if that video does well I will go full time to make content kzbin.info/www/bejne/pabUaqCXhsqcd9U

[@testecalle3378]

I always wondered what an industrial revolution would've looked like in North America without any European interference

[@Redjoekido]

How about if the United States stayed in it's 1783 border and never expand.

[@richardmartin2646]

We are Britain now NATO whatever you want to call it

[@playfulpanthress]

Why do all the civil war buffs do the “What if the South won??” yet you never do “What if the slave uprisings were successful and freed all the slaves?”. Cause that’s a video I’d like to see.

[@testecalle3378]

@@playfulpanthress they'd all of gotten shot by white people because humans are awful.

[@JoelBrothers]

There would be a Waffle House in Times Square. The National Anthem would be "Sweet Home Alabama". Elvis's birthday would be a National Holiday. Larry, The Cable Guy would be our foriegn minister. 🤣🤣🤣. I have to stop. This is way too much fun....

[@hazmathauler4536]

Omg that’s so true 🤣🤣🤣😂😂

[@rocketsmall4547]

it be legal to marry cousins and siblings. not just in Alabama but in every state!

[@hazmathauler4536]

@@rocketsmall4547 Right?!!? And promise to always hate them damn Demonrats I mean Democrats lol 😉😉. Thank God they lost 🙌🏻

[@JoelBrothers]

@@rocketsmall4547 I overheard my neighbor's wife ask her husband," Billy Joe, if we get divorced, will I still be your sister...? 🤣

[@oaklandtraphouse]

Lol

[@jeffersondahmer5330]

There's actually a bumper sticker you can buy down south that says "If I had known it would turn out like this I would have just picked the cotton myself"

[@justinpennington7682]

If that ain't the damn truth

[@tobiasisrael3758]

Imagine that white people doing their own work....and leaving other people alone....hmmm

[@garyguyton7373]

Gen. Longstreet said WE should have freed the slaves, then fired on Ft. Sumter.

[@scs2850]

@@justinpennington7682we wish you did you wouldn’t had a enough money to go to war 😂😂😂

[@Nettassafehaven]

You have yet to begin to pay for what your 4 father did yet lol. You were lazy then and you're lazy now smh. I all the bumpers sticker I found down south lol.

[@thepowerofluck2432]

I like how he's not afraid to disagree with other alt histories as well as uses EU4 to make good visuals

[@wezu4972]

​@@georgeqiao3309All ingame screenshots are from EU4

[@1992zorro]

Man of Culture

[@themetalgamer9864]

People in the comments need to remember that the South "winning" just means that the country would have successfully been split in two, NOT that the South would've conquered the North. The Continental Army won the American Revolution, but that didn't mean that Great Britain became American territory.

[@shanewinters3121]

I think we're already split in 2...have been for a while. Democrats on one side Republicans on the other. With one trying to bully the other on how they should live.

[@Bill-cb4bh]

Probably still are a British Territory

[@davidparker6332]

This is correct

[@tookatzen]

not literally split in 2, which is obviously what the videis about​@@shanewinters3121

[@thelakeman5207]

In a lot of ways, the North and South are still rivals.

[@jplaza68]

This video just blew me away. I see things a bit different now being a Hispanic living in Florida. I smashed the LIKE button and have subscribed.

[@shakx3795]

oh u gonna subscribe to a piece of shyt that doesnt mention the rape torture and brutality of YOUR people as HIS lazy people profit from it....makes alternate sense

[@toainsully]

The novel series, Southern Victory by Harry Turtledove gives us a full alternate history of how the Confederate States of America reshaped the late 1800's, early 1900's and both World Wars

[@marcusaustralius2416]

I do think that his ham-fisted way of handling the Freedom Party, his handwaving of the Union not annexing the CSA outright after WWI and the sale of Cuba implausible, but honestly I don't care, it's a fucking great series

[@marcusaustralius2416]

Also I love that he always includes a Mormon or two somewhere in his books making them seem all peaceful, and then turns them into American ISIS in Timeline 191, because he thought it would be a great meme, and it turned out to be a great plot point

[@SovereignStatesman]

Once the CSA states sceded, the Northern states would too; and re-form a union where voluntary secession was ENUMERATED as a right of every state, not simply left to interpretation of charlatans.

[@jasonlynn1017]

One can only guess the obvious: the CSA would side with Hitler and Mussolini, thereby changing the course of the war, even "with the bomb." Ohhh well...

[@toainsully]

@@jasonlynn1017 Hitler doesn't come to power in Harry Turtledove's novel. It's actually done by a Confederate General known as Jake Featherston

[@TheWinterShadow]

It takes an above average knowledge of a given topic (in this case the Civil War) in order to 'speculate' an outcome. Nicely done.

[@edwardbaker1331]

Not quite. His belief that the South was as wedded to slavery as he contends is off the wall. There were numerous Southern abolitionists, and the South would have abandoned the practice on their own for practical as well as cultural reasons soon after the war. It was economically obsolete, and a freed share-cropping population would have been exponentially more productive, and most understood this even during the war, especially with the invention of the cotton gin.

[@TexanIndependence]

​@@edwardbaker1331 Indeed, the Confederacy offered to abolish slavery to the British in exchange for military support, and the war actually started because the North offered eternal slavery if the South would rejoin with the "Corwin Amendment" that Lincoln himself pushed as a way to reunify the nation without war. It worked. Enough Northern states had ratified it, that the South only needed to rejoin to pass the unrepealable (entrenched) amendment, the only reason that didn't happen is because President Jefferson Davis panicked when hearing his home state legislature was considering rejoining, so he ordered Beauregard to attack Fort Sumter to start the war and prevent reunification and also cause the vacillating border states like Virginia to defect to the CSA. If Fort Sumter failed to start the war, he gave orders to attack Fort Pickens next. His gambit worked and it started the war. Most people think the war started as soon as they seceded because it was "illegal" when in reality there was peace for 4 months (December to April 12th) and Lincoln himself was determined to never fire the first shot with strict orders, under court martial (aka pain of death), to union soldiers who shoot first. The main plausible ways the South would survive is if it never fired the first shot, but in such a situation, probably all of their states would rejoin the union to ratify the Corwin amednment, and I can't see South Carolina even staying out by itself when the Union all ratified the Corwin amendment. That would be a more interesting alt history though, because it would probably lead to a NORTHERN secession at a future date, as an increasingly despairing North realizes they can never get rid of slavery or any "institution" of another state, it would also mean polygamy would be totally legal in Utah, and it's even possible a state could legalize concubinage or all sorts of things, it's wording is super broad. The only other real path to victory once the war started was they needed either British or French support, that almost came during the Trent Affair if not for a deathbed intervention by the late Queen Victoria's still alive consort Prince Albert, and the French were always wanting to support the Confederacy (for reasons this video points out with Mexico) but Napoleon III knew he needed Britain to be on board (he didn't want to risk war with the United States AND potentially have Britain attack him while at war with the US), so another alternate timeline that's more plausible would involve British intervention OR Britain just becoming BUSY elsewhere, i.e. if Britain had another Indian rebellion or another Opium war, it might have lent France support in the Americas in exchange for France backing it's efforts in China or India. It was actually quite UNUSUAL that Britain was at peace for the entirety of the American Civil War, hence France's nervousness with a very much not busy Britain that might see an opportunity to take colonies from France once France engaged with America. America was totally lucky that all of Britain's wars had ceased during the civil war, because otherwise Napoleon III most certainly would have gotten involved in the US civil war. Heck, Napoleon III even made that announcement public in the French press as early as November 1862, when he called for a FORCED armistice upon the Union to be enforced by the United Kingdom, France, and Russia. The only reason it did not occur was because the UK didn't want to partner with France on anything at the time still looking for opportunity to take colonies from France. If the UK had been busy with another Indian rebellion or Opium war (which it allied with France for). Basically if the Second Opium War had broken out 4 years later, the joint Franco-British amity would have been at it's peak, Britain would not have felt grateful for US support (the USA helped Britain in the Second Opium War just years before the Civil War so it was harder for Britain to turn around and attack America). It was in 1859 at the Battle of Taku Forts, when a US Admiral came to the relief of the British and French ships against US policy of neutrality, saying "Blood is thicker than water", and turning what was going to be the worst defeat for the British in decades, and changing what would have been the headline of "HUGE DEFEAT" in British press instead the headline became "BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER" and America joining them against China. Which America then did begin to do, like at the Battle of the Barrier Forts where we helped Britain in a critical battle later. That same admiral who helped the British against US policy and basically singlehandedly changed that policy, was later a CONFEDERATE Admiral, but the pro-US feelings it put into Britain ironically may have helped avoid Britain recognition of the Confederacy. So point is, if the Second Opium Timeline moved up a few years, that Admiral would become a Confederate Admiral so no possibility of him breaking the USA neutrality policy like he did, so there never would have been such pro-US feelings in the British military establishment, and if Napoleon III was helping Britain with China (as it did in the real timeline, just shift the dates 4 years to be during the civil war) then it's much harder to imagine Britain not supporting Napoleon III's forced armistice proposal in 1862.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@edwardbaker1331 Wishful thinking. Why would a nation founded on the cornerstone belief that slavery is good and holy, give up slavery "pretty soon"? Here's some facts we know: > The Founders thought slavery would go away "pretty soon" on its own, but seventy years after the Constitution was ratified, slavery was more entrenched than ever before. > After slavery was forcefully ended, Jim Crow lasted another hundred years - and only ended with pressure from the Federal government. > The Confederate Constitution forbade even discussing emancipation, a position consistent with previous attempts to gag Congress for the same reason. > Abolitionists, or even suspected abolitionists, were subject to lynching or imprisonment. > The south had been censoring the U.S. mail for decades to prevent the dissemination of abolitionist material.

[@redhairedviking2657]

@@aaronfleming9426 not to mention during Reconstruction and after, sharecropping was essentially slavery and kept newly freed slaves in a contract to work land for the owner. Only about 4% of newly freed slaves could find legitimate work in southern cities. The rest were desperate and taken advantage of.

[@redhairedviking2657]

​@@edwardbaker1331 That's not true. Slavery in the South didn't end with the emancipation of slaves. Only 4% of freed slaves were able to find legitimate work. The rest were desperate and either subjected themselves to predatory sharecropping contracts (and became financially dependent on the land owners) or risked traveling to northern states and working close to the same jobs. Sharecropping very much was a loophole for Southern landowners. Yes, they were free to pick where they toiled, but all they knew was the land they were on. This mixed with Jim Crow laws made for a very subjugated African American population. It is widely accepted that white landowners didn't like the idea of paying their former slaves. To think that they were even close to equal is asinine. Sharecropping is predatory and was 100% used as a way to keep a sense of superiority. I'm very curious about what rights of states you think they were fighting for since you think that the South wasn't wedded with slavery.

[@thomaslawson801]

If the South won all restaurants would serve Sweet Tea. 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊

[@rogermorris3244]

IT SHOULD BE A CHOICE!!

[@TLowGrrreen]

To diabetes or not to diabetes? That is the question.😂

[@alonenjersey]

Instead of only Popeye's.

[@fredpalmer-x5i]

They would be BoJangles restaurants in the north

[@alonenjersey]

@@fredpalmer-x5i Ah, good point.

[@shawnmer8735]

I loved the history of the Civil War so much that I got involved with reenactments in the early 90s 95-96. Being from Maine I was a Union troop and was with the 164th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry during Herr's Ridge, and the 20th Maine, which I loved because I'm originally from Maine. Great break down amazing.

[@Dad-979]

I’d have all the fiddles made in Virginia, cause they sure can make them sound so fine.

[@joejones9520]

I wonder is any reenactments have ever accidentally turned into a real fight?

[@darbllirdod5723]

Been to national reenactments in the South here, and let me tell ya... A lot of proud black Sons of the Confederacy still to this day!!!

[@yourfavouritepodkast1058]

Do they ever redo Andersonville?

[@konstantyk.3320]

@@yourfavouritepodkast1058 Would need a couple thousand walking skeletons ... the HORROR of Andersonville..........

[@floodhunter2156]

You should really go into more alternate histories, it’s so fascinating

[@lustyom]

And he does them amazingly

[@danf2]

However, the southern Christians were phasing out slavery at the time of the war. I think the south would have given more freedoms sooner as voting rights for blacks and women did not come about till modern times. Also a lot of blacks signed up for the confederate army.

[@michellebrown4903]

@@danf2 haha .... how very disingenuous of you . Why would anyone " willingly" join the army of a state which enslaved you? Some stuff happened of course, but the vast majority of Confederates would have been very uncomfortable to see firearms in the hands of blacks . You some kind of Apologist ? They were used to dig encasement and defensive positions.

[@ferdinandsiegel4470]

@@michellebrown4903 You're one of those brainwashed and indoctrinated useful idiots. Read the journals of the people of that time period. Lincoln illegally started the war. This guy is just repeating what the Union did after the war.

[@katzgar]

@@danf2 troll

[@ntnsty]

Don’t forget Pea Ridge. Too few remember Pea Ridge when rattling off major battles like you did near the beginning. It’s victory as a major strategic win for the Union is underestimated. If the Confederacy was to win, a major key would’ve been winning this battle, running the Union out of Missouri and securing it and the Mississippi River for the South.

[@johnu1100]

Military understood control of supply lines but political leaders did not.

[@michaelross6792]

My great-great Grandfather fought for tge Union at Pea Ridge. He lost his hearing there. He was from St. Louis and started his military career by helping stop Confederates from robbing the armory at Jefferson Barracks and imprisoning them in Illinois

[@ntnsty]

@@michaelross6792 As did my Great-great Grandfather John E. Brown, 59th IL Co B

[@michaelross6792]

@ntnsty mine was fresh from Germany and didn't speak a lick of English (which is why he was loading Canon and why he lost his hearing) his name was Roman Studt. His brother sided with the south but spent the whole war in prison in IL.

[@ntnsty]

@@michaelross6792 awesome that you know these details about your ancestor. After the war, my Great-great Grandfather homesteaded in Kansas, eventually becoming a Methodist pastor, had twelve children with two wives, (widower once) and died in 1912.

[@tosborne8062]

Wow, very well done. Great VO work (I'm hoping to get into that my self soon...) great visuals and pictures. They pictures remind me of old library books I would borrow from the library many years ago when I young, early 90's when I was between the ages of 9 and 13; fascinated with civil war, or even world war 2 information and find myself still interested too this day. (I come from large family of vets...) Anyway great quality and will def thumbs up and subscribe! Good solid content! tnhx!!!

[@brianmurray1395]

I'm Canadian and have always been fascinated with this conflict. I know I shouldn't say this however I just LOVE that Southern battle flag. I think it's the nicest looking flag across the planet. The confederacy was allowed to enter Halifax NS because it was a British colony and to this day a major port and the home of the RCN. A very deep port here and also a major trade center. A Confederate ship called the Tallahassee out maneuvered the Union navy in a strategic incredible naval move around our eastern seaboard. It was one of the greatest moves even to this day. They named a school after this ship. Hence the school name CSS Tallahassee. The leftist nutters in the past 5 years had the name changed because of the name of it. You know ... they raised the racist horse shit. It took pla e when BLM, Antifa were destroying American history. Total mental illness sponsored by George Sorrows agitaters. I feel it's a dam shame they destroyed Robert E Lee's statue. Totally disgusting to watch among many man more. Right out of the Karl Marx handbook. USA like Canada has had our national pride and history CRUSHED! Utter catastrophic for both countries. Communists have to destroy history and wipe it out in order to bring in their agenda. It will continue until these death cultist leaders ate gone.

[@erikmartin4996]

One alternative most people don’t explore in the South “winning” would be guerilla warfare over a long period of time aka Vietnam style.

[@corygoodman753]

Yep! If General Lee had told his men to hit the woods and conduct guerrilla warfare we'd still be fighting that war.

[@markg.7865]

@@corygoodman753 The Confederates did use guerrilla warfare in the South, but once your supply & communicates lines are cut off, staying in the woods with no ammunition and food doesn't matter. While Grant and Sherman burn and sack the fields and the cities.

[@carlsilverman754]

maybe

[@jprosey]

@@brianmaricle9646 and then we tried to wipe them out

[@sebastianwatson1558]

start that now and watch guerilla personified

[@PeterTea]

I remember someone that I met from North Carolina who had a striking resemblance to Abraham Lincoln, when I asked him what people down there thought of him, he said that there are plenty of them that are still fighting the civil war.

[@godfreydaniel6278]

This is true all across the Old South. I married a Georgia girl - they STILL call it "the war of northern aggression"...

[@FM-ig3th]

Actually North Carolina (my home) had a lot of Union sympathizers in the mountainous western part of the state, and was somewhat reluctant to join the Confederacy. Although one in every four Confederate soldier was a North Carolinian.

[@PeterTea]

@@FM-ig3th That’s interesting because I think he was actually from the mountains of NC. I know my friend at the time was. We met in Chicago, “the land of Lincoln” none the less. He was a cool guy.

[@clintpreslar452]

North Carolina is interesting, way less confederate sympathizers than the Deep South, but the ones that exist are very loud and obnoxious. I don’t think they realize their ancestors were just pawns dying for rich slave owners that didn’t give a damn about them lol. Also my family is from North Carolina and one of my ancestors had a farm that was burned down by the confederacy because he didn’t help them in the war effort or something so I may have a grudge 😂.

[@godfreydaniel6278]

@SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN WHITE MAN The war was in fact to preserve slavery - that it wasn't is a lie you people tell yourselves over and over again. There are MANY documents authored by Confederates that admit exactly that. PLENTY. And yes, farms - and cities - get burned in war...

[@faithdefender5186]

Harry Turtledoves guns of the south is an interesting interpretation on the south winning. Please make more videos like this. I really enjoyed the history lesson.

[@scarletmoon777]

I liked it as well but it seemed more a story about reimaging WW2 within America, with the south winning scenario just being a means to tell that American centric version of WW2 rather than the point of the story.

[@Commanderziff]

@@scarletmoon777 "Guns of the South" was a story about time travelers giving the Confederacy a bunch of AK-47's. The Confederacy joining a different side during both World Wars was a different series.

[@Commanderziff]

@D Sullivan I liked story through WWI, once we got into WWII and the South just become Nazi Germany with their own version of Hitler, I started losing interest. My favorite series from Turtledove is still the first one I ever read, the "World War" series, it is much more original. Of all of his works, that would make the best film or series. A lot his work is just him retelling some historical event but mixing the players around. He uses WWII a LOT. "These guys represent the Nazis, and they're trying to commit genocide on these people who represent the Jews. Look! Here's this stories version of the Battle of Kursk!" He's beat for beat retelling the actual history. You basically know what's going to happen once you know what stand-in represents which historical faction. "The Lost Legion" series is pretty unique, although I only read the first two books.

[@blackwatersportfishing1814]

@D Sullivan How Few Remain was super!

[@sherrysmith9609]

Don't belive that yankee crap . Less than 5% owned slaves . The south was taxed to death . And the south was invaded like he said . The south was forced to fight

[@Space_Debris]

Where would the this Country be if the Republicans hadn't come along, bringing with them the 13th (freedom), 14th (citizenship) and 15th (righting rights) Amendments?

[@amadhaun22]

Nice try. Republican Party rotated 180 degrees under Nixon and Reagan. Today's GOP would like to see the return of Slavery

[@SBC581]

You know the Trump bible left those out.

[@Space_Debris]

@@SBC581 You know Democrats haven't removed slavery from their Party platform yet.

[@Space_Debris]

@@SBC581 You know Democrats haven't removed slavery from their Party platform yet.

[@macmcgee5116]

As someone who has considered myself a Republican all my life, though I do not support Trump. You cannot compare Republicans and Democrats from 150 years ago to those of today.

[@roberteleeking4627]

This video was very detailed and well organized. Great work!

[@jagforce91]

As a southerner, a proud southerner. I agree with the this fully. Not the alternative history part, (I’m in different$ but to the facts. And I really enjoyed this thank you. And thank you for not being modern politics into this.

[@johnstuartsmith]

Much of "modern politics" is still being shaped by things that happened over the last 200 years. We can't change the future without understanding how our history got us to where we are now.

[@MGTOWPaladin]

Too bad a lot of the facts are not stated!

[@cynicallydepressed1]

@@MGTOWPaladin, which major, important-to-the-thesis facts aren't stated? The whole video is a huge what-if, obviously. Was it possible the slavers could win? Yes. Was it likely? No.

[@MGTOWPaladin]

@@cynicallydepressed1 Obviously, you are a victim of slanted Yankee teachers, school books and media. Or, as Patrick Cleburne said..... "Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision!" General Patrick Cleburne, CSA First, slavery was legal under the Constitution, the federal laws of Congress, decisions of the SCOTUS and stated by Lincoln in his first inaugural on 4 March 1861 (4th paragraph). "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful (constitutional) right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Second, to back that statement up, Lincoln sent General John Charles Frèmont to St Louis to keep Missouri in the Union. Frèmont, an abolitionist, published an emancipation edict on August 30, 1861. For doing so, Lincoln removed him from his post charging him with *INSUBORDINATION* on 2 November, 1861. Third, the war had nothing to do with slavery. Secession, according to Abraham Lincoln, was a *RIGHT!* Abraham Lincoln, US Congressman, 12 January 1848 on the floor of the US House of Representatives: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and for a new one that suits them better. *THIS IS A MOST VALUABLE, - A MOST SACRED RIGHT - a RIGHT,* which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it." Four, secession is a legal right, slavery was legal under the Supreme Law of the Union, the Constitution, so what was the war all about? Two things: *LAND and MONEY!* In the 1800's, the US for lack of a better word, *_EXPLODED!_* It gained land from France (Louisiana Purchase), tried to gain parts of Canada during the War of 1812 and gained Texas and the Southwest in the Mexican - American War. So, the secession of 11 - 13 States had the Union losing real estate. When the US was starting, so did the Industrial Revolution (1760-1840). One *HUGE* part of that revolution was the textile industry. Automated machinery, manned around the clock, was mass producing CLOTH and THREAD in bundles. And, to do that, they needed *COTTON* and the Southern States supplied 2/3 of the world’s *cotton* which made the *SOUTH* the *FOURTH-RICHEST country* in the world in 1860. The Confederate States of America (1861-1865) started with an agrarian-based economy that relied heavily on slave-worked plantations for the production of cotton for export to Europe If classed as an independent country, the area of the Confederate States would have ranked as the *FOURTH-RICHEST country of the world in 1860."* (Wikipedia: Economy of the Confederate States of America). Five, the truth of invading the South comes immediately on the heels of the evacuation of Ft Sumter. Abraham Lincoln, 16th US President, five days after the evacuation of Ft Sumter: Lincoln's 19 April, 1861 Proclamation for Naval Blockades of Southern Ports: "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the *COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE* cannot be effectually executed therein comformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires *DUTIES (TAXES)* to be uniform throughout the United States:..." Six, if you still think slavery had anything to do with Lincoln's invasion of the South, consider this: What does the President of the *US* do? Like King George before him, he releases slaves in the States from whom he wants to collect taxes! Does he release any slaves in the Union States? *NO!* Does he release any slaves in the Union Territories? *NO!* Does he release any slaves held in Indian reservations or territories? *NO!* Does he release any slaves in the Border States? *NO!* Does he release any slaves in West Virginia? *NO!* Does he release any slaves in the Confederate State of Tennessee? *NO!* Does he release slaves in select counties/parishes of the Confederate States of Virginia and Louisiana? *NO!* Lincoln illegally declared emancipation in the following locations in his Emancipation Proclamation: "Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, *(EXCEPT* the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, *(EXCEPT* the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which *EXCEPTED* parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued." Seven, Princeton.edu puts the information like this: Abraham Lincoln's *Invention* of Presidential War Powers: Facing the unprecedented crisis of civil war in 1861, President Abraham Lincoln invoked his "war power" as commander-in-chief to "take any measure which may best subdue the enemy." *Defying the chief justice of the United States,* he suspended the writ of habeas corpus by presidential decree. He also declared martial law, authorized the trial of civilians by military courts, and proclaimed the emancipation of slaves--all on the grounds that *"I may in an emergency do things on military grounds which cannot be done constitutionally by Congress."* Even Lincoln admitted his war was *UNCONSTITUTIONAL!* There's more but I think that's enough for know! If you have any questions, let me know!

[@thelakeman5207]

@jagforce9 Hypothetical question: "If the south had won the war, how long do you think slavery would have lasted?" Taking into account, world views at the time, I'm thinking maybe it would have lasted into the 1920's but not much longer that that. Seeing you are from the south, you could probably give me a better idea on this question. Also if the south had won, would the CSA still be a separate country today? My professors at college and I have had some pretty good debates about this!

[@jonathanherman2412]

That was awesome. Thank you so much! Considering the difficulties of Reconstruction and generational bitterness in our timeline after Union victory, I can't imagine the societal and southern hatred in your timeline after, yet again, another Union victory, albeit after two destructive wars.

[@bluskies1000]

The best possible result of the Civil War was a Union victory. Anything else leads to far worse world. The Japanese Empire would triumph.

[@aarondigby9859]

Reconstruction was not difficult, the government renigged on all it's promises to AA after Lincoln was assassinated, old Andy didn't go far from his raisin' that's what was said of Andy after he ended the Reconstruction period in only ten years.

[@kringle7804]

I mean just look at Germany or Japan if the usa wins such a dominating victory the usa could do a de dixefication of some sorts assuming if they rebuild the south from scratch

[@anon2427]

@@kringle7804 they tried that and it didn’t work very well

[@kringle7804]

@Adora because after Grant they gave up but with a population with a personal vendetta I see they're less likely to give up

[@michaelwilson9986]

No Sir He Did Not Try To Bring About A Peaceful Resolution..

[@oldblackstock2499]

@michelwilson9986 You are correct.

[@ugaladh]

A friend of my son's was taking a history class once and had this book on War ( I wish I knew the name or author) but it covered the major wars of history and at the end of each chapter had a discussion on what the ramifications of that war were later or even today. I recall it saying, that with a Southern victory, a divided United States could not have influenced the outcome of WW I and WW II in Europe, today's world would likely be much different.

[@LittleBunnyKungFoo]

Interesting thought study, but I disagree with them on the point of WW2. While it is reasonable to think that the US would have stayed out of WW1, if the 'white superiority' and expansionist beliefs remained in the Southern political ideology, it would be reasonable to believe that they would side with the Axis and fought to acquire the North. That resurgence of fighting in America would leave the North unable to provide essential supplies and armaments to Britain (much less provide an invasion force) and Germany would eventually crush Europe as a whole before throwing their full force against Russia.

[@ugaladh]

@@LittleBunnyKungFoo I think much of that was his point. I guess I used " influenced" when the author was trying to say the US couldn't have come to the aid of the Allies as they did.

[@LittleBunnyKungFoo]

​@@ugaladh Ah! I misread your comment. Totally my fault. Words are hard. 🤣😂

[@LittleBunnyKungFoo]

@@strangequark420 The GOP was the Union… Also, the statement “the GOP supports Putin” is one of the most politically obtuse and bigoted statements I have seen on this comment section. A small subset of Republicans have said things that the media has portrayed as “support” for Putin. Develop some objectivity.

[@LittleBunnyKungFoo]

@@strangequark420 You “arent trying to characterize political parties” while explicitly doing just that. Also - you need to refresh your history. During the Civil War racism was everywhere, and still is. Today the South is no more racist than the North or West. Youre repeating a worn out trope intended to demonize Southerners - you probably think we all run around shoeless carrying kegs of bootlegged alcohol strapped to our banjos too…

[@BarefootBillPacer]

Try alt-history with Booth. 1) Lincoln was never attacked 2) Lincoln was shot, but not a head wound, and survived, and 3) The full plot was achieved with Johnson, Seward, etc all killed. Three totally different resulting outcomes

[@josephsoto9933]

As a teenager my family subscribed to LOOK magazine (not LIFE). In November 1960, LOOK published two-part (I think two) special on the subject of what would have happened if he South had won the Civil War. At 13 years old I found the subject extremely interesting.

[@jackbpace]

They confederacy would have ended up freeing the slaves pretty soon anyhow, as it was the direction the world was going at the time. The northern industrialists found out that only paying wage slaves when you need them was much more profitable.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Wishful, fantastical thinking. Why would a nation founded on the cornerstone belief that slavery is good and holy, give up slavery "pretty soon"? Here's some facts we know: > The Founders thought slavery would go away "pretty soon" on its own, but seventy years after the Constitution was ratified, slavery was more entrenched than ever before. > After slavery was forcefully ended, Jim Crow lasted another hundred years - and only ended with pressure from the Federal government.

[@theblackpan4426]

China still technically uses slaves, like India and other parts of Asia. We purchase from them all the time. Also why would countries not participate in buying slaves goods?

[@hustlaus]

Part of what's missing is that the Federal Government fought a 40 year war against the Black Seminoles which depleted the troops and cost millions of dollars. The war was fought from 1818 to 1858.

[@aminamuhammad4578]

I'm glad u mention this because I wasn't even taught that in school. I didn't find this out until years into my adulthood.

[@chaboi7]

I seen a documentary awhile back and the Seminole natives were there saying that they won and had never been taken out of their homelands till this day, of course many died but there they were and I never heard about this before

[@hustlaus]

@@chaboi7 In a way that is true. The US Government actually signed a Treaty with the Seminoles and got them to leave Florida and move to Oklahoma. So signing a treaty is not a victory. It's actually a truce.

[@chaboi7]

@@hustlaus there's alot that are still down there, look it up

[@hustlaus]

@@chaboi7 I know. I have books on the topic and I've actually lived in Florida. My comment was towards providing elucidation concerning the Seminoles lack of being conquered.

[@hbkadt89]

I'd be very interested in a what if, the British had won the revolutionary war. Not just in its effect in America but also the empire around the world.

[@JimmyK5505]

The Brits could have won if they wanted to but it would of eventually ended up the same eventually

[@kidfox3971]

@@JimmyK5505 No they couldn't have? They got bodied?

[@tylerboshoff2720]

I believe this is because they did not have the will to hold America, if they simply gathered there forces they may have been able to reach a Pyrrhic victory but overtime I believe they would be pushed out just like our timeline. I am not a qualified historian though so don’t take my word I just have an interest in history ( I may be biased as I am English)

[@WarriorofChrist612]

@@kidfox3971 Bodied? Without France we would’ve of lost

[@PantsuGirl]

@@kidfox3971 The British could have won if it wasn't for such things such as French troops in north America, countries like Spain and France attacking the British on a global scale tying down british troops elsewhere and the british commanders would have cooperated instead of being rivals.

[@tomstreicher5877]

Fascinating take. I thought about the what if and came to the conclusion that a 2nd war would occur also. Unlike you I had no specifics. Thanks for your take.

[@alexwilliams5482]

This is one of the best counterfactuals on this topic I've seen. Great job.

[@JasonTaylor-po5xc]

Time and again, never underestimate a home turf advantage. To many wars should have been won quickly by a vastly superior force only to be dragged out way longer or even defeated given enough time. Vietnam and Afghanistan are two prime examples of this in modern history. Even our own Revolutionary War was basically that concept. I agree, considering the proximity, it would be very unlikely for the South to win a long, drawn out war of attrition. The best hope would be to resolve their differences earlier - use those early victories as a negotiation tactic or go on the offense. I think Lee was trying to do that with Gettysburg - but it was a bit too late in the war. Although, he nearly pulled it off. After that, Lee was going to march on Washington itself - which would have been a huge blow to morale. If Lee had done that a year earlier, our timeline might look very different. Now, if the CSA had managed to survive the Civil War. While they were born with the idea of preserving slavery, it is unlikely this would have lasted very long - perhaps not even into the 20th century. One of the reasons none of the European powers came to the South's aid was because of slavery since they just recently abolished it there. I could see the US making the issue of slavery a condition to resume trading with them too. I'm thinking Lincoln still manages to get reelected and isn't shot like in our timeline - so he is able to stand strong on the trading policy. If the CSA had won, they would effectively be on their own regarding continuing slavery without outside trading partners. So, at some point, the CSA would have to slowly but surely abolish slavery and replace it with industrial factories instead. This would limit the South's need to expand rapidly - they would still do so, but at a slower, more natural rate - perhaps with deals with France or Spain to purchase nearby territories - much like the early US did. Keep in mind that much of tropical Mexico through South America was really hard with tropical diseases and much of the Southwest and northern Mexico is just desert. From a social perspective, I'm thinking the former slaves would still be treated very poorly - with many fleeing to the North anyway. I could see the CSA doing a forced removal (repatriation) back to Africa - which was the original idea behind Liberia - once slavery was eventually ended. Anyone left behind would be subject to harsh segregation laws - perhaps even worse than Jim Crow. I suspect that even that would change over time. It is also possible the North, while abolishing slavery, would remain effectively segregated (MLK came from Atlanta in our timeline). Of course, this assumes that the government of the CSA would be able to remain in place - even Jefferson Davis wished he had the governing power like Lincoln - which is kinda ironic. So, either the CSA would revise itself into a strong federal country (republic or dictatorship) or it would fracture into several independent countries - all with different governments and trading partners.

[@Juan-qu4oj]

Vietnam and Afghanistan were lost due to political reasons back home. If the political will allowed it the United States would be able to bomb, invade and conquer those nations.

[@jasondill7505]

great insight

[@aaronfleming9426]

The CSA didn't need to win a long war of attrition, it merely needed to make the USA hurt bad enough for the public to vote out Lincoln. The Republicans (if I recall correctly) got pasted in the midterms and by 1864 Lincoln was genuinely and deeply worried that he might lose the election. The CSA left lots of opportunities on the table due mostly to lack of strategic vision.

[@JasonTaylor-po5xc]

@@aaronfleming9426 I'm going to agree and disagree on a few points. First, I do agree that one strategy would be to get Lincoln voted out or impeached - that way the CSA could remain separate or rejoin the union retaining slavery indefinitely. However, the only reason the Civil War was an actual war and not a minor rebellion of little note was they had all the decent generals (Lee, Jackson, etc) early on. If Lee had accepted Lincoln's request to lead the Union army, things would have turned out very differently. But, of course, Lee was more loyal to Virginia than the US as a whole (not an uncommon position at the time). Oh the consequences of making wrong choice!

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@JasonTaylor-po5xc Thanks for the thoughtful response. But I'd say the reason the war took so long was the Union army was so small at the beginning, and training an army to go on the offensive was much more difficult than operating on the defensive - especially against a landmass as large and rugged as the Confederacy.

[@LA-nl7ip]

That was a well researched and produced video … good job !

[@pughoneycutt1986]

I have an idea for an alternate history, what if after pearl harbor Adolf Hitler had accused Japan of betraying the pact of steel and had declared war on Japan? Thus becoming an American ally? He was certainly capable of violating treaties, and he never wanted war with the British empire. Would that not have forced Britain to make peace? Allowing Germany to focus completely on Russia? To me that is the greatest what if in history.

[@rebelbatdave5993]

GENERALS PATTON AND ROMMEL! WOULD HAVE MADE A GREAT TEAM! JUST LEAVE THE JEWS ALONE! SHALOM! AMEN!

[@bluskies1000]

What if Hitler had simply not declared war on the USA?

[@michaelrumfelt3106]

Feel like they were already in a war with lend lease and the uboats

[@pughoneycutt1986]

@@michaelrumfelt3106 true but he could have turned the entire situation on its head with one speech

[@Fitzwalrus06]

@@bluskies1000 A far more plausible scenario. Had Hitler done that (in abrogation of the Tripartite Pact) then public sentiment in the US after Pearl Harbor might well have made the Pacific "our" war, while the war in Europe remained Britain and Russia's responsibility. Without Lend-Lease do Britain and the USSR succeed against Germany? If not, and assuming the US defeats Japan in the Pacific, what relationship then develops between a Germany supreme in Europe and the US predominate in the Pacific? War? Co-existence? 🤔

[@Kimberly-xi5fc]

I'd love to hear you and Atun-shei discuss this subject. I'm a sucker for very well thought out alternative history. Nicely done!

[@robbiegarnz7732]

If McClellan had won in 1864 the north would have sued for peace. The copperheads in the north were mad that Lincoln had made abolishing slavery the centerpiece of his campaign for the second term. The south knew its best chance was if the north lost its resolve to fight. Very interesting video!

[@brianasalone1978]

Yes. A far likelier scenario with the north getting tired of the war rather than a miracle victory by the south. The south would then have become a poor agricultural country supplying a northern (and west) industrial powerhouse.

[@billmoretz8718]

First a country held together by force is not a country. Recognizing the benefits of staying together preserves unity. No matter what happened slavery was on its way out. As the industrial revolution brought new machines that could replace hundreds and or thousands of workers the writing was on the wall. Slaves had to be fed, housed, and had medical help.

[@dpg227]

@@billmoretz8718 Not true. Slavery was flourishing in 1860 and poised to expand into other labor intensive industries in the west such as railroads and mining.

[@billmoretz8718]

@@dpg227 most of the western areas were against slavery and it was the agricultural south that needed them most. You must remember then like today the profit margin of farms were not as great as mining and RR building. Therefore they preferred free men.

[@wills2379]

An additional point to the south allying with the French is that much of the southern aristocracy we’re francophiles and greatly admired French culture (Thomas Jefferson for example adored French culture and went on many visits to France). However, I can’t imagine that they would be thrilled with the deposing of Napoleon III.

[@lemmyhead8578]

And they loved slavery.

[@jamesring5383]

slavery ended with president davis. The technology development was slower as they didn't have a oppressive federal reserve and IRS dumping money into USAP DOCs. @@lemmyhead8578

[@michaelbyron1166]

There actually is a movie already out about this called "C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America". It is a 2004 American "mockumentary" that is directed by Kevin Willmott.

[@sscalercourtney5486]

If you were a slave in the Confederate states during the Civil War, to walk in the other man's shoes, how would you feel if the South had won the Civil War. 99.9% or so approach this question from that of being a free, white man. But suppose you, literally were a Southern slave in 1865? How would you feel then? Just curious.

[@wilsonle61]

As far as I can tell, this is just a Historical hypothetical. Not an endorsement of slavery.

[@lisaazzano1811]

Yep...the democrats would have then held onto slavery for as long as possible

[@ericbunker6242]

I have always viewed secession as valid. The North should never have gone to war to bring the South back. The US wasn't a dead end for states. They were and should be sovereign states, not playthings of an overblown Federal government.

[@wilsonle61]

@@ericbunker6242 I concur. And we may yet see it replay again.

[@ilbhaley79]

@@ericbunker6242 you’ve always been wrong then. Once the United States Constitution has been excepted by given state it is intended to be upheld forever. It’s important because the states can break away for whatever grievance you could end up with a European model where states are in constant competition in the form of warfare.

[@brunog3768]

I still think Venezuela and Colombia would be out of reach for the Confederates, and a full annexation of Mexico is something I don't think would go right (a satellite collaboration state seems more likely in my opinion). Great video, really a lot better than what I usually see on KZbin

[@joshuascafidi3851]

Agreed, as soon any majority of southern forces get turned south, the north would mobilize and fight again

[@PantsuGirl]

The annexation of Mexico would be possible, but it would take a lot of time and tie down large amount of troops, which in turns would hamper and delay any movement southwards into Nicaragua, Panama and Colombia. Any invasion of north South America wouldn't take place until late 1800's or early 1900's, enough time for both Colombia and Venezuela to see the threat coming and prepare for it.

[@balghar493]

Full annexation of grand Colombia and the Central American states? Without any outside interference, no way.

[@yagami1134]

if in this universe the Confederation defeat the union, is very possible that Mexico is a french state/satellite/poppet

[@joshuascafidi3851]

@@balghar493 exactly. They simply wouldn't have had the manufacturing ability, manpower, or railroad assets to do that. Just look at the civil war itself. Even the eastern confederate states, which had colonists in them for 2-3 centuries still had bad rail access, much less the frontier states like Texas and the New Mexico territory.

[@mikeharrison1868]

My guess is that with the huge maritime empire envisaged here, the confederacy would naturally get a lot better at sailing, and at fighting at sea.

[@cynicallydepressed1]

Slaves probably don't make the best sailors. No way the lazy and evil plantation owners are sending their sons to scrub pots or haul up sail.

[@stuartbluefield769]

Those who say the Civil War wasn't about slavery have never bothered to review ANY of the Articles of Secession sent to Congress, as most of the seceding states specifically included their desire to retain slavery, and even expand it into the western territories.

[@adamturner7436]

In fact the civil war was NOT all about slaves. Remember the south started the underground railroads.

[@TheGuitarReb]

And how long do you think that would have lasted after the invention of the John Deere Tractor?

[@justinpennington7682]

It didn't start over slavery. Accept it

[@TheGuitarReb]

So true! It was over the western expansion of states. The South wanted slave states and the North just wanted to kill Indians and mine for gold. By the way, Indians had peace treaties with the CSA.@@justinpennington7682

[@SuperDuper-ni4il]

​@@justinpennington7682it did start over slavery and was fought over slavery the Civil War was about slavery, facts don't care about your feelings

[@dwkeelan]

Well done. Watched the entire video. Going to check out what else you have because I am a first time viewer

[@oake6180]

a fun alternate history would either he like trostky taking reigns of the soviet Union or what if mosley took reigns of the British empire or what if the United States kept the articles of Confederation

[@tombailey5413]

When I was in high school back in 1980 I asked a friend who was obsessed with history especially military history (he went on to serve 27 years in the Army and retired as a Lt. Colonel) what he thought would have happened if the South had won and he simply answered "We would have been conquered by another country by now." I also remember Southern historian Shelby Foote saying in Ken Burn's Civil War miniseries "The South never had a chance to win that war."

[@jinoziniosti5633]

If the South won and there was any threat of being conquered the South and North would unite to defend against any possible conquering forces and the US most likely wouldnt have a 100 year history of going to war every 10-15 years what with the Southerners laid back mentality.

[@bobprescott]

i think if south won north been better football players

[@micnorton9487]

Tom,, your study of the Civil War covered the bases and Shelby Foote is (was) the analyst most respected for his knowledge of the matter and you're right the South really didn't have an even chance to win.. but Mr Foote is right about a couple things that most overlook -- The South wasn't seeking economic dominance over the North,, they wanted major capital banks in the South rather than in Boston and New York and Philadelphia and Baltimore... The slavery aspect was important but not everybody was on board with the philosophical aspects of abolition yet,, BUT even the average working man knew that he'd never get a fair wage as long as slaves were doing work for practically nothing... Foote was quite clear,, the war wasn't primarily about slavery but rather preserving the Union to avoid the same kinds of political and Military problems that have plagued Europe for centuries... A side benefit of preserving the union means that a corporate country can rise to extreme prominence on the world stage by having a massive population and massive resources to exploit... The other point that Shelby Foote ironically points out, that the South fought that war honorably.. there were of course war crimes done on both sides but Confederate armies didn't ever invade the north with the prospect of burning It to the ground,, but from the beginning of the war that's what the union did and what they tried to do... Can you imagine surrendering to an army that burned your farm,, abused your wife and children,, basically laid waste to entire areas and then just expect people to come around and say, yeah why don't we just join these people and forget everything ever happened?

[@NikiLivi5]

@@micnorton9487Thank you for pointing this out. So many tried to burn the south to the ground while killing all the men. They raped and beat women and daughters. They would raid what food and valuables they had then burn their homes leaving them homeless. The north literally tried to commit genocide on the south.

[@davestang5454]

Shelby Foote was WRONG in his claim that the South never had a chance to win the war. The South had a much better chance to win than most historians claim.

[@ak8990]

As someone who is from the South (and by that I mean my ancestors date back to having lived in NC since the 1600s), I appreciate your video. It is very informative and accurate. I actually grew up not far from Bentonville, NC. I am so glad that the South didn't win, I think it was divinely inspired that the North won and we ultimately rid ourselves of the evils of slavery. I just wanted to mention that in your video you stated General Sherman attacked the agriculture structure of the South, but that is putting it nicely. He burnt all their homes and destroyed all their food, leaving them to die of starvation. Of all the Union generals who fought against the South, he is the only one that still is thought of with hatred amongst us. I have old diaries from some of my ancestors (poor dirt farmers) stated how they had to bury what ever bit of food they had left deep in the earth along with any possessions they had to keep it out of the hands of Sherman's army.

[@bobrodriguez5415]

Sherman was the devil -- there shouldn't be a statue of him ANYWHERE and if there is it should come down. I don't know this, but I suspect we don't share sympathies on the general subject of the civil war. But we do agree on Sherman. Many people don't realize that when he was burning we're talking 5-7 mile-wide swaths almost the entire way. Thank you so much for sharing such an intelligent and thougtful commentary. Just goes to show, people can have different views about very deep-seeded things, and still not have to get in each other's faces. Too bad the rest of the world can't figure that out.

[@ak8990]

@@bobrodriguez5415 Thanks for your comment, I completely agree. I get so tired of people who disagree trying to attack each other personally instead of having an open honest debate, which happens so often now these days. I do believe (or at least hope) that eventually the South would have ended slavery on its own with time (I am not saying that was the sole issue causing the Civil War, but that it did play a role in it), however I can't help but see how the civil war did help end slavery quicker than it probably would have on its own, and I think we can all agree that slavery is wrong, no matter what nation it is done in (ie Ottoman Empire, Irish slaves, Hebrew slaves, slaves in Africa and even among the native Americans, not to mention modern sex trafficking slavery which should be addressed and dealt with by US government with even more vigor than it currently is). Having said that, I completely agree that the Reconstruction era was done horribly and should have been handled a lot better. What they did to the South was awful.

[@cynicallydepressed1]

@@ak8990, we will never know if a slaver-sympathizer hadn't shot Lincoln how much better post-Civil War times might have been for the slavers. As for Sherman... I can't say his methods would have been mine, but I CAN say I'm not ever going to feel sympathy for the people that DID fight to keep slavery. Like feeling bad for the Nazis...um, nope. EVERY southerner that fought to protect and continue that way of life was a traitor to humanity. If they supported secession, they were a traitor to the United States. As the previous president pointed out, there is a way to treat traitors. Their houses were burned? Their crops destroyed? They stole human LIVES. They murdered and sold and traded humans like cattle. They were scum that thought themselves better than others on the basis of...what, exactly? If Sherman had executed everyone of them, I'm not sure the South would think much worse of him, but the South still all too often doesn't think they were wrong at all anyway. Also, make no mistake, slavery WAS the preeminent reason, not just a factor, in the cause of the Civil War. It is in most of the secession documents and most of the fake constitutions drawn up by the slave states. They ONLY 'state' right they were concerned with was the ABILITY to keep having slaves. They were actually all FOR the federal government overriding the states when it was about the Fugitive Slave Act. They got mad and had their hissy fits when northern states were repeatedly turning a blind eye to the inhumane practice that the slave-owners were still dependent upon. Most of the trash that fought to keep slavery was NOT rich and had no slaves. Those dolts were fighting for the idea, the concept, the dream that they too, one day, could own slaves of their own. It wasn't some grand and romantic notion of 'a time gone by' or a more 'civil time'. If they weren't smart enough to understand that, even, that is also their own fault. They were supporting a failing notion in a failing region with failing ideas of education and infrastructure. No excuses...they made their choices. There are still far too many who believe in the whole fairy tail...

[@cynicallydepressed1]

@@bobrodriguez5415, how do you feel about the statues erected in the early part of the last century celebrating the slave-owners and slave-owning protectionists?

[@redraven_y2k]

@@bobrodriguez5415 As a person from the south Maryland now back in Georgia, as well as a descendant of a violent sexual deviant slave master and 11 year old female African slave, I believe what Sherman did was divine Karma! He was the Union Moses. The same way Mose parted the Sea to free slaves so did Sherman by parting Georgia from Atlanta straight to Savanah. My newly freed 6th generation Grandmother made it her business to name my great great great grandfather Sherman and since then every male born in her bloodline has carried the name name Sherman.

[@ericgregory9478]

There would be graciousness, elegance and genteel folks abound...

[@rushevents]

Love your points. My only counters would be as follows: If the South captures DC just as you say, The US still has the advantage of having a fully realized government. That government has steps when parts of itself are removed. So it could stand to reason that the gov would rapidly reconstitute itself (new acting president and new senators rapidly appointed by governors), say in Philadelphia and regroup still defeating the south eventually. Another way to Southern victory the slow way could have been the South early on creating a small fleet (as little as 5 or 10) of converted Ironsides to open holes in the blockade and force trade. While the north could follow suit the South could have annihilated the US's traditional navy ships before the north could respond quickly enough. Finally in the post war victorious South I believe that capitalism would have rapidly modernized southern manufacturing. Farming maybe not at first but eventually there would be enough wealth generated by entrepreneurs that the South's economy would shift quickly and irreversibly. This would one day spread even to farms and the plantations. I do not know how that would affect slavery but I think it would eventually end as the expense of keeping it intact would become too expensive to remain competitive with India and other Cotton producing states. That combined with the fact that social pressure would have ended it eventually as well (or so I hope to believe anyway). Please don't misunderstand, I think your video was excellent, I just love tossing around ideas like this and thank you for your study and hard work.

[@mastermonarch]

You give the south too much credit... (1) The south had to scrap together what iron it had to build the Virginia early in the war many didnt think much of iron clads as none of the iron ships in Europe had seen real combat it wasnt until the Monitor met the Virginia that wooden ships became obsolete. The same way the North learned of the rasing of the Merrimack they started building monitor classes.... in the time it wouldve taken the south to build 5 or 10 iron clads the Union wouldve had twice as many City class and monitor iron clads in the blocades. ( 2) The South was slow to change it had no interest in industrializing or freeing its slaves and we see how the cotton gin made slavery profitable imagine how they couldve exspanded plantations with the use of a tractor. If anything if the confeferacy had become sovereign it wouldve had to end slavery and compete with the British East India company for cotton customers which wouldve lead to massive inflation and a national depression. By 1900 the South wouldve been a third world country forced to ask for reentry into the Union.

[@nedames3328]

Cheap labor: slavery and serfdom means no need for better technology or industrialization. The South would stagnate. Their military would not keep up. Unjust societies cannot compete with more just ones.

[@liamliam5341]

@@nedames3328 how does China compete?

[@kennethquesenberry2610]

The United States is still a major cotton producing and exporting country, although we don't produce a lot of finished goods these days. Capitalism does not mean that any modernizing would necessarily take place. Slavery (of blacks only, of course) would have remained because it gave a cost advantage, which was the whole point of the war. Social pressure would have done nothing.

[@nathanmorgan3647]

@@nedames3328 Uhhh..... You do realize that history proves the exact opposite, right? Slavery was the norm across the globe. Then technology happened, and not only enabled the freeing of slaves, but eventually the emancipation of humanity from jobs as robots and techs replaced the need for human labor and all the industrialists handed out pink slips like candy.

[@hearmeout9138]

If the CSA had allowed West Virginia to secede, I believe that they would have possibly faced an attempt at secession from some of the other areas of Appalachia which did consider creating their own state of Nickajack.

[@johnshelton1141]

If Kentucky had seceded, the eastern part of that state, eastern Tennessee, and western North Carolina would have joined what became West Virginia.

[@williambowling8211]

Some other fascinating aspects of just railroads in the Confederacy. Southern railroads were of various gauges. They were often not permitted to run through towns, but instead would have to be offloaded, hauled through the town on wagons and then reloaded onto the railroad again. Most southern railroads ran from the interior to river ports or seaports and did not interconnect commercial centers; they were primarily for transporting cotton for export. The South received no new rolling stock for the duration of the war.

[@Lucas_Antar]

Sounds like modern day Africa besides the whole “no trains through towns”

[@hankkingsley9300]

And the reason behind this was somebody had to get their money something that still goes on in the south even today you think the mafia takes a cut try dealing with the South. You gotta figure out who and his sister mama you gotta prime. And the shatjackets won't tell you. They don't want your gd Northern money they want you gone. Gonna take you decades unless you gots lotsa extra millions to throw around. Inbred mouth-breathers f****** lived here almost 50 years I hate this f****** place

[@tenniswilliam]

Likely oil would have turned the south in to a wealthy region. In the south agriculture or basically the food supply depended on forced labour so the whole economy was based on slavery. The south was successionist and was not intended to invade or overcome the north. I doubt however that slavery would have lasted long as mechanization along with the ethics of slavery would have changed the society and slavery would have been abandoned rather quickly. The peace agreement however promised investment and economic aid to reconstruct - that did not happen and former slaves were disadvantaged systemically. Possibly freed slaves under an independent south might have done better - who knows.

[@Guinnessmonkey1]

@@tenniswilliam Right. Because that's what oil does. It brings peace and prosperity to every country who has it. /s Why would mechanization have lead to slavery being "abandoned rather quickly"? They would have just had enslaved factory workers.

[@cynicallydepressed1]

@@tenniswilliam, not to pick on just you, because many have said the same thing... The South was secessionist BECAUSE OF SLAVERY. It is literally in nearly every secession document and most of their state-level 'constitutions'. THAT was the 'state right' they were SO worried about. Also, anybody that has driven through the South NOW, in 2022 can STILL find plenty of yokels and inbreds that want to bring slavery BACK. In 2016 I was driving through a podunk little Tennessee town that had a yardarm on an ancient barn, over the main road(state highway) with an effigy of Obama, right next to a giant banner for MAGA Boy. Stopped into the diner (one of four buildings open on the whole strip) and talked to a 'vice-mayor'. Because I look like I do (middle aged white male), he thought I was in the "Club" and told me all sorts of horrible things in horrendously colorful language. So while the 'need' for humans may have dwindled, the mindset clearly wouldn't have changed much. Also, this flawed theory forgets/ignores/overlooks that people ARE still needed to do things in the South (and everywhere else) and they are PAID for it. So if businesses need human labor so bad they are willing to pay for it even now, what are the odds people were going to give up their FREE LABOR? That just isn't logicial.

[@greenktoo]

France and england both were on the verge of entering the war on the souths side, but lincoln pulled a brilliant move and made the war about slavery. That kept both countries out of the war.

[@Dougster58]

Bullshit. The Wah was always about slavery...

[@danvitale1825]

You are correct. England and France could not enter an immoral conflict. Howeer, I have read that Napolean would have if the French had won at Pueblo, cynco de mayo

[@greenktoo]

@Dougster58 read the real history and see why it started. Yes, slavery was horrible. Yes, it ended up being about slavery, but the months leading up to it wasn't about slavery. It just wasn't. Less than 10% of people in the south even had slaves. Lincoln even said, "one war at a time". Once he made it about slavery, no other country could enter into it. Truth. The north lost the first few big battles, the south was winning, other countries were ready to come into it on the south's side. Lincoln needed a cause to unite the people and keep other countries out of it. That's not being racist, thats called knowing your history.

[@dawoifee]

Neither would have sent Troops, no matter what. The Interest was to stop the war to buy cheap cotton, but no European Power would have liked to actually enter the war, ever. And by the end of the war Europe moved on to Egyptian and Indian cotton.

[@LuLu_0815]

​@@Dougster58totally wasn't, hon. Lincoln passed the Corwin Amendment just after he got in office that permanently preserved states' rights to practice slavery. Why would he do that if his actual intent was to stop slavery? It was years into the war that he passed the emancipation proclamation and it was very, very much strategically done.

[@jaydee5156]

Hank Jr. did a song about this. A bigger question I have is, what if Booth had not assassinated Lincoln? I believe Reconstruction would have been handled much differently. I also believe that the Civil Rights movement would have occurred much sooner, but I don't believe it would have been quite so violent. Unfortunately, racism is big business on both sides and would still exist. Hopefully to a much lesser degree.

[@joefrank6021]

You can't say both sides when Black racism towards whites are just a reaction

[@jaydee5156]

@@joefrank6021 Oops! Already did.

[@moneal25]

Lincoln's assassination was quite possibly the worst thing that could've happened to the South. He wanted to forgive, make peace and put the country back together. Some conspiracy theorists believe Lincoln was assassinated by his own cabinet which had a different plan to bring the South to its knees..... Which they ended up doing with what ironically was called "Reconstruction"....

[@johnshelton1141]

There would have been a two-party south, and 3, possibly 4 states would be Republican.

[@calebfielding6352]

lincoln planned on moving all black men to a new reservation in georgia, 40 acres and a mule. Eventually something valuble would have been found there and sherman would have gone in there and massicred most of them like he did the indians on their reservations.

[@thomasthrift349]

I would have to say that your application of logic in the suppositions gives room for these theorized Concepts to be believed. When we play out the reality of how history actually transpired in our timeline we often see that a small change could have made all the difference in the end result. Thank you for the video it was enjoyed.

[@jeffcharest2118]

whaaat did u just say ?

[@hankkingsley9300]

Jeez blah blah...blah blah blah

[@hankkingsley9300]

@@jeffcharest2118 difficult to translate when it comes down to if the South would have won we'd had it made

[@brotherbreeze8351]

Logic is useless without truth.

[@canary_in_a_coalmine]

Very interesting and realistic theory on how events could have turned the tables.

[@MrDavidBFoster]

When you said, "and they all showed up with opera glasses", my immediate though was how people today keep saying there's going to be another civil war soon; but I can't for the life of me picture any of these blue-haired, twinkie-fed Walmartians fighting in it!

[@garyguyton7373]

And the North thought it would be a cakewalk.....

[@SouthernAnnie]

Nor woke, spoiled, green-haired young entitled narcissists.

[@richardbristol452]

Except, even In the hypothetical timeline, the south was very much aware of the hugely superior manufacturing capability that the north had over them. They fully understood that they would lose a war of attrition because of this and they needed a quick and decisive victory. In fact, this was the reason that they advanced on Washington after 1st Manassas, leading to their defeat of the north. Given this understanding, it is reasonable to presume that, following their victory and faced with a former well-armed and hostile enemy to the north, they would take steps to mitigate this inequity and dramatically increase their manufacturing capability, especially with arms development and production in the years following the war. Their vast new-found territory would have brought with it increased resources to aid in this. It seems unlikely that the imbalance and vast weapon superiority (automatic weapons, artillery, ships) would have continued to the scale that the north could eventually have ‘walked through’ the south in a future victory. The hypothetical timeline is quite fascinating, but it seems to have wrapped up in a quick and convenient manner due to a single factor that I believe is not without debate.

[@bruceduece1]

Your argument has one glaring flaw: The South was bitterly opposed to industrialization. Their defense of slavery, and by extension, state's rights, was rooted in the notion that every white southerner was a noble. The white southerner would work from first light to sundown tending to his farm but would refuse to work another man's field. They considered factory work as just another form of slavery, too. Factories would not have been built in the South, and even if they were, nobody would work them, except possibly slaves. By 1900, the South would have been a 3rd world country on par with Mexico., ruled by a corrupt land-owning class lording over peasants and slaves. What people most overlook about the Civil War is that the poor white southerner was fighting for universal nobility, and slavery made that possible.

[@bruceduece1]

Another point to consider: The South had very few colleges and those that did exist concentrated on military training and humanities, reflecting the interests of the land-owning class. They had no engineering schools. They created soldiers and lawyers, little else. It is one of history's cruelest ironies that the very system they fought to preserve would have led to their destruction. History has not been kind to societies being led by a landed gentry.

[@ltburch2000]

Stated more briefly, an agrarian economy challenged an adjacent larger industrialized economy. However it was doomed from the first time a trigger was pulled. The south had some victories but it was ultimately doomed. I can only imagine they hoped the north would lose the will to fight but in retrospect it seems a rather foolish assumption. It was dark days for our country, every time I see the stars and bars I am slightly saddened that the wounds have yet to really heal fully.

[@haroldk3913]

I agree with you. I believe the primary reason secessionists (who had always been around since the Founding) pushed for leaving was loss of adequate power sharing in the federal government. This was the reason New England secessionists started a movement 1803-1814. The Southern Democrat states that championed 'states' sovereignty' once Lincoln was elected seceded, wanted out in 1860, since they were already the minority in the Congress, and now they lost the Executive branch. The next reason was cotton revenue. It all went to the North, and fed thier industrial growth and into the pockets of the banking elite. Southern secessionists in 1830 already recognized this, and by 1860 the profits in the North from Southern cotton were so great, these men wanted to leave the Union in order to trade directly with Britain and Europe tariff free, as well as develop thier own industrial and financial capability. I am not convinced that this claim the Confederacy really wanted to take over Mexico and then all the way down into South America. Maybe there were some voices who though this, but not many, and the whole scheme seems far beyond the military capability of the South. But, I do think if the South had won thier independence, they would grow an industrial capability needed to be a trading partner with Europe. The reason cotton went North, was all the textile mills, packaging, shipping, rail, and financial venture capitol, loans, banking and insurance was in NYC and other NE cities. If the South won, by Lincoln losing re-election in 1864, and a new President suspended the war, I would think within a few decades the Southern states would have developed a modern industrial base enough to prosper trading thier agricultural products, and well as built new manufacturing for other things. They would have to expand thier rail system, and also invest in a modern army and navy, so I don't think a Confederacy would neglect military preparedness. People like Lee and Longstreet and Forrest would warn the government after the war about all the glaring shortfalls they had during the war, and insist upon addressing these. I also think that once the internal combustion engine came along, and harvesting equipment was motorized - that would spell the end of large plantation slavery. It would be cheaper to buy tractors with picking hardware than own slaves.

[@JamesCovington01]

@@haroldk3913 Your last point is the most relevant. Slavery was already on it's way out world-wide and while the south had put all of their eggs into that particular basket, within a generation, it just wouldn't have been economically feasible any more as more new territories in the north would be able to catch up to the south in a great deal of agriculture through necessity and technology . The south would have had to make the switch to technology just to keep up. To think that the south would just ignore industry just out of spite when that deficiency was so prominently exploited would be something that they would focus on. Additionally, it's not reasonable to think that the south wouldn't be able to compete militarily with the north if the assumption is that they would also have an expansionist campaign going to South America. Would they have the military for it or not?

[@bobsteadman9728]

As a history major and nut, this is a very well done thought out video. Keep them coming.

[@joeshithragman3264]

Further thought out idea - Lincoln had Kit Carson raise an army in New Mexico to meet the expected advance of Rebels who would march north to try to seize the Colorado gold and silver mines. A large part of this army was made up of Hispanic men who had a history of their families living there, some for hundreds of years. There were also family connections extending south of today's southern border. If Confederate men thought they would be taking over territory north and south of today's southern border, they would surely have been met with a great deal of resistance. They would be facing men like Emilio Zapata and Francisco Villa. Zapata and Pancho Villa probably would have fought against the ideas Confederates took to Mexico.

[@bobsteadman9728]

@@joeshithragman3264 Yep, I'm or shall I say was a CA boy born raised, and retired as a cop. I've lived in TX and now in VA. My dad's kin are all born and raised in SC. There's a lot of history here in N. VA as far as the Civil War goes. My wife likes it as I get out of her hair when I leave for days to explore old battlefields. I have used my retired creds to get park rangers to let me stay overnight. I'm still waiting for fr that damn ghost Army to show up. I was woken one night thinking it might happen but it was just some damn kids partying.

[@paullesho2693]

Good job sir. Our history should never be forgotten, In doing so it tends to repeat.

[@lewiswereb8994]

Not "tends to repeat" It ALWAYS repeats.

[@donttreadonme1474]

Well it has been forgotten.

[@davec8730]

@@lewiswereb8994 lincoln and the confedaracy, putin and the ukraine, i see. deny liberty to those wanting out, inflame the situation, and INVADE, damaging private property at will, destroying towns, cities, and infrastructure whilst killing civilians, and swearing blind it's all for good in the long run, and only taking back what is rightfully his. mmm! yes, i see.

[@tymo70fo]

Yea easy to say but when a black person so call complain white folks are the first to say get over it

[@davec8730]

@@tymo70fo many people in this (so called) modern world of ours need to 'get over things', both black and white, you included it seems.

[@MichaelPop72]

Great video, I think it’s also important to point out that Lincoln didn’t care either way about slavery. He simply wanted to save the Union, whether that meant saving slavery or abolishing it.

[@marionbaker5562]

A lot of people want say that even though they know he didn't care either way.

[@bc06693]

Not true he knew that and end to slavery would eventually be the goal but that for america to continue compromises had to be made at the time

[@bloodhunterjosh1614]

he literally said he didn't. @@bc06693

[@nolopez9025]

@@bloodhunterjosh1614you fell for the racist propaganda. Read the rest of the letter.

[@thepamela050]

@@nolopez9025Lincoln felt his race was superior and wanted to ship the blacks out of the USA all together.

[@damonedrington3453]

The civil war was probably the first modern war to show conflicts, even when as one sided as this where the union was ahead in every category by a factor of 5, that any conflict can be dragged out if the opponent is willing to keep fighting even with no real chance of victory

[@7521eric]

I can't believe there were spectators picnicking at the battle of bull run/ monasses.

[@antcantcook960]

How’d you figure that? Guerrilla tactics existed prior to the American civil war.

[@TheLordNovo]

It's like they say, an opponent is never truly defeated if the vanquished does not consider himself so

[@joelmalone7922]

I really enjoyed this video. I suppose that I consider myself to be an amateur historian and I love the concept of alternate history and its arguments when it is done well as long as it doesn't get too fantastical/unrealistic. This scenario was well done and your arguments were realistic, never going too far into the realm of complete fantasy. I'll be interested in checking out your other alternate history videos as I've already both liked this one and subscribed to your channel based on the strength of this one alone.

[@blindbrad4719]

Do you think they would have stuck with just African slaves or would there be a massive influx of South Americans into the population? Especially considering Britain was patrolling the seas taking out slave ships.

[@goldenager59]

I can certainly understand the desire for plausibility in an A-H scenario, to render it acceptably believable. But just don't forget that there are any number of improbable "wild cards" in our own history that someone from a different timeline might normally consider impossible to credit - so you might consider allowing a _little_ leeway on the left-field jaw-droppers! 🤓

[@michaeltarno2979]

@@goldenager59 Sorry I lost this at the point that it was between free and slave states. (sounded like my last American history class; which was honestly politically influenced in my era, God forbid what history is now.) Which every piece of documents prove otherwise.

[@voornaam3191]

Bla bla bla BS. And you know it. Go for president. Only populist lovers understand your BS. Ah, one of ours. Same shit. We love it. Yuck!

[@aaronfleming9426]

the idea of the Confederate army pursuing the U.S. Army after the first battle of Bull Run and capturing Washington D.C. was wildly fantastical to begin with...that pretty much ruins the rest of the alternative scenario.

[@StMiBll]

That is an interesting what-if scenario. I would argue a few points; but, definitely interesting. Certainly fun to think about.

[@voornaam3191]

What if? Then why didn't they make a better choice, back then? No, they simply got the karma they earned. And it was pretty bad. A civil war? In the best democracy they ever built? What the hell was wrong with those aggressive fools?! STOP that war, everybody sees there's only losers. America has never was okay. There is always this violence and aggression just under the surface. Example? How about discrimination? Whites deny everything, the rest is suffering. I call that Apartheid. And the list goes on and on and on. And you all are so proud. Of what?!

[@cynicallydepressed1]

I'm not sure 'fun' is the right word... It would mean a world where slavery was continued. Considering it is an abomination against humanity itself... No thanks.

[@libertycoffeehouse3944]

Lincoln was part of the Whig Party before he was a Republican. He was comitted to the Whig agenda of a national bank, subsidies for corporations, a national Railroad, and a protective tarrif instead of a revenue tariff. The debate over slavery in the western territory was really about ensuring that new states in the union would side with the former Whigs and Republicans on their economic agenda. It had nothing to do with morality. The Republican Party was demogougeing this issue to get their way on the political economy. The western territory was not suitable for growing cotton, sugar or rice. There were less than 80 slaves in the western territory in 1860. The campaingn pitch was the western territory was for free white labor only. Major newspapers had stated if the south left the union it would destroy northern industry. This is why the north could not let the southern states go. Secession was legal and is part of the American legal tradition.

[@444MarlinSS]

This guy needs to teach our middle-school and high-school history classes

[@mark4m557]

As the legendary Hank Williams Jr said, if the south would have won, we would have had it made!

[@davehughesfarm7983]

LOve that song

[@Lewa1110]

I was extremely into this story. You need to do this more. I loved it

[@joelbeck2450]

As Shelby Foote stated, "The North fought that war with one hand behind their back". As a Southern Man, I can't help but be overwhelming proud and even always amazed at the fortitude of these Southern men who fought against such overwhelming odds for four years!! How brave and devoted they were to defending their land and Families!! Undergoing such horrible hellish incidents of death, hunger, and hopelessness, they stood up and charged for 4 straight years! Overwhelming, most people in the South did not own 1 slave!!! However, the invasion of their homes by Union soldiers "fired-up" each Southern Man to take a STAND, and defend their their homes, their families, and their God-given right by the Constition and the Bill of Rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! However, Slavery was Wrong, and the Holy Lord saw fite a a way to get rid of this evil! I love my Southern Heritage, for we Southerners are truly unique Americans!! Much blood and sacrifice was needed to rid this land of liberty of the horror of slavery!

[@aaronfleming9426]

30% of southern households owned slavery, and southern armies were frequently composed of as much as 50% slave owners and/or slave owners' sons. So it is true that a minority of people in the south owned slaves, but it wasn't a small minority. Also, Shelby Foote was referring to the north's economic capacity, not political capacity to sustain the loss of blood and treasure. And even then, Foote was ignoring the very real and rapidly growing threats of debt and inflation that threatened the American economy, or more precisely, the government's fiscal capacity to continue to wage war.

[@theconservativegamer_0485]

My man just explained the entire civil war in 5 Minutes

[@dustinmold7759]

It was a half hour long

[@thomasjaggers3576]

I wonder where that dam on the Mississippi would have been built had southern ambition prevailed?

[@UnknownDevices91]

Hey. In this alternate time line. I wonder how life for the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Cherokee natives would’ve turned out. I recently read an article about the Choctaw fighting for the confederacy with a promise of a state given to them at the end. Research the Choctaw and slavery. You might be surprised to find they owned a large number of slaves both native and African.

[@tonyrmathis]

He also failed to consider the effect of religion to end slavery in the south even without a war. The abolitionist movement began in the churches of the north and unless you believe southerners are less than human and immune to similar influences it would've gained MORE support in the south eventually as well.

[@jonnie106]

@@tonyrmathis Religion almost certainly would've been the end of slavery at a sooner before later rate (in all these fictional scenarios).. However, equality would've been an entirely different concept to sell (also in every scenario). Lost causers can dilute history to expunge 'fought to protect slavery' stigma. They neutralized slavery but did nothing at all about equality. War or no war, you eventually do get the slavery out of society. You can compel some Americans to not own human beings as property, but you can't do jack for how those Americans treat those same human beings it suddenly became illegal to own.

[@kenabbott8585]

Stand Watie, the last Confederate general to surrender, was a Cherokee

[@vernonwillis4546]

All of the Five Nations (aka Five "Civilized" Tribes) were slave owners, not just the Choctaw. Before their deportation from Georgia, a higher percentage of Cherokee Indians than whites owned slaves. By the terms of the treaties signed after the Civil War, former slaves AND their descendants were granted tribal membership. They still have it despite repeated attempts by the Indians to renege.

[@vernonwillis4546]

@@tonyrmathis Anyone foolish enough to preach an anti-slavery sermon in the antebellum south would be lucky if they were only tarred and feathered before being run out of town. The same would happen to anyone who wrote an anti-slavery newspaper editorial. Democracy had disappeared from the south at least as far as the issue of slavery was concerned. NO opposition to it was tolerated.

[@wlee6685]

Just my two cents but one of the things that helped American influence is the idea of American exceptionalism. The notion of a country that could allow people to be free "even if not completely true" and that it was unique in a world of Colonialism and Imperialism. That notion would have hit a brick wall if the South had won and stayed in power till the 20th Century. Furthermore I think the cooperation between Industrialized powers of The US and The UK would have been greatly compromised by the presence of slave States still in power in the South. Of course, if the United States and other Allied countries were all not 100% on board with each other by WWI then there is a chance the Allied countries could have lost to Germany and other Axis countries and thereby greatly diminishing the United States influence and power in Europe, Asia and the rest of the world. Some here have posted comments that if the South had won then they would have abolished slavery themselves in a few decades or so which makes no sense. Why would the South give up its ONE economical strength of cheap labor especially when they fought so hard to retain it? In the end with the US being divided and having a far less positive standing in the rest of the world because of its hypocrisy of Slave States being right next to the Constitution and Free States I feel that the United States itself would not be the powerhouse it is today.

[@johncrocker4209]

You're right that without the speed of American industry our influence globally would have been minimal. So other global powers would have probably changed the world and maybe have even taken the Americas. As for the eventual phasing out of slavery. It's been proven that once it becomes more economically beneficial for mechanization that's the direction that productions go. As there is still slavery today I can understand why you would think it would never be abandoned but no business chooses to loose $.

[@evantolbert3009]

The South probably would've had to give up slavery if they won especially in modern times because of people calling each other racist and other countries pressuring the south to give up slaves but,.that's just me speaking.

[@smartalek180]

That is some well-grounded thinking there -- and I mean that literally. Far too many comments in threads like these rely on *assertions* -- claims made without evidential support. Yours is an *argument*, with evidence provided. Even if one doesn't agree with the conclusion (and I think it's very plausible), it's got to be respected as founded on a discernable logic path. Well done.

[@lamarravery4094]

The United States would not be the United states since they were no longer United. The name would've been changed to the Northern states of America or something to that effect.

[@trallfraz]

you re quite correct......but don't say it too loudly. Everyone might think you're a Limbaugh listener, which would negate all you said. This country is (or was) the most "unique" or actually the GREATEST country the world has ever seen because of our constitutional FREEDOM and the American exceptionlism.

[@bradentoncane8830]

If the south woulda won we’d had it made!! In my Hank Williams Jr voice

[@AutomatedPersonellUnit_3947]

Malls, movie theaters, and restaurants would be nice, quiet, and well mannered

[@hml3672]

Couldn't be any worse than being at the end of the line college admittance and jobs. Everybody goes ahead of white people.

[@hotdog1960]

Might Even Be Better Off…

[@TheGuitarReb]

@@AutomatedPersonellUnit_3947 And don't forget, 9mm Glock hand guns would only be owned by upper class white gentlemen.

[@AutomatedPersonellUnit_3947]

@@TheGuitarReb Well I do declare you are quite correct Suh....

[@michaelduff6715]

Had the CSA had captured Lincoln that first battle and got involved with the French-Mexican conflict of 1861-1867, they would have been shattered worse than Sherman’s march. Their trained military officers “might” have known enough French to integrate with the French but very few would have any Spanish language and culture experience. They would have been on the wrong side, Troops sent south would have been Mercenaries at best. As you pointed out, 9 million of which 4 million were slaves. The CSA would have nothing to offer. The CSA would not be able to repeat the Union’s victory like The Mexican-USA war of the 1840’s. It would have been a foreign policy disaster especially if Great Britain got involved just for the sake of reestablishing a foot hold in the Americas. But what if instead, Lincoln just said, “Bye-Bye don’t let the door hit you on the way out, your northern assets are now forfeit to the Union?”

[@liamliam5341]

If Lincoln was not a tyrannical fuck, he would've let them go, and if he did then states like Virginia would have stayed in the union.

[@nickmcafee3523]

People don't give Lincoln the uncomprehending respect he deserves.

[@liamliam5341]

@@nickmcafee3523 the tyrannical fucker that even pissed on the rights of the people in the north

[@keittkatranch5167]

One other possibility I only recently heard of involved the possibility of Grant being captured in 1864. After he had been made commander of all Union forces he would travel back and forth to confer with Lincoln to keep him apprised of what was going on. One day he was returning by train to the front and saw a big cloud of dust on a road parallel to the tracks and later discovered it was Confederate Colonel John Mosby and his men chasing some Union cavalry. Grant speculated that if Mosby had known of the train he would have gone after it instead, thus capturing Grant before he could implement his grand strategy against the CSA and possibly changing the outcome of the war.

[@FM-ig3th]

There were so many times that the outcome could have easily changed. The two big ones in my mind was the Confederate artillery barrage at Gettysburg prior to Pickett's charge. Most historians agree that the south's cannons had too much elevation and the bulk of the rounds went over the Unions heads. Secondly George Armstrong Custer's cavalry intercepted a Confederate unit that was positioned to attack the Union flank/ rear if successful would have resulted in a Confederate victory.

[@aspenrebel]

There are a million of these "what ifs" for any time or situation. Like "what if" that big sand storm hadn't hit in Iraq? It would have taken US 2 weeks instead of 3 weeks. Point being, sometimes the end is inevitable anyways.

[@rhuephus]

what if ... rumors and myths never existed

[@aspenrebel]

@@rhuephus Life would be even more boring.

[@ValerieGriner]

Too bad Mosby(the "grey ghost") of the CSA cavalry didn't know about Grant being on that train. What a great prisoner he would have made! Better yet...if it had been that DEVIL...Sherman! We hate him in GA.

[@بُطُرسحَسَّان]

Only positive: a lot less looting and a lot less gangs.

[@bootnazz1786]

Yea because whites didn't go in and destroy Evey black community.

[@supermanval]

Qasim you're not American you know nothing about this country

[@بُطُرسحَسَّان]

@@supermanval How can you tell?

[@peytonbrown5394]

that wouldn't be the only positive

[@lokey7210]

hell, looking at our present politics i’m not convinced the south truly lost

[@AlessandroPioltelli]

The failures of reconstruction still remain... Gotta agree with you on that one

[@BillBanyon]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂you must be a trump supporter 😂😂😂🫵🏼🤡

[@trueline2381]

Abraham Lincoln was a republican, everything got reversed when the New Deal was promised to bring jobs to all the minorities

[@michaelross6792]

The south lost, the losers are just louder.

[@BradleyNewman-pt3su]

ant that something! the hole world laughing at us because of our precedent and about 25 to 30 percent beleave Hih and he dont even no which way to walk he need to be in the nursing home

[@blasien1]

Harry Turtledove has some interesting alternate history novels on this very premise. Btw, the Indian Territories were mixed not free, the last CSA general to surrender was Stand Watie of the Cherokee forces. They were slaveholders, and only recently dealt with the legal standing of descendants of their former slaves. Even after his surrender, Gen Watie continued to fight in a limited manner.

[@mikeymasters8459]

Yes I’m Cherokee Indian and live in eastern Oklahoma, near the Arkansas boarder. There was also an intertribal power struggle going on between Watie and chief John Ross. Both the confederacy and union took advantage of this conflict between the two factions.

[@mikloowl4899]

problem with turtledove is he spent too much time taking historical characters and forcing them into the narrative as a wink wink, see who i wrote about? How few remain was just a mess of a book in the long run.

[@TobaccoRoadAI]

Yes nothing like confederate soldiers fighting with AK-47s Good book

[@cynicallydepressed1]

@@TobaccoRoadAI, traitors fighting with commie guns? That actually makes some sense...

[@roguespearsf]

@@TobaccoRoadAI there's nothing wrong with the AK platform you non rate civilian. Just stop before you embarrass yourself further. Go play with your bandwagon AR-15 that's overpriced and has meme attachments. I carried an M4 for 8 years as an infantryman and I'd rather have the ak

[@tophyl7558]

If Lee hadn't made his 2 big mistakes at Gettysburg, the South would have marched into DC with almost nobody to stop him

[@aaronfleming9426]

Nonsense. Lee had beaten the Army of the Potomac before, but he never got anywhere close to annihilating it. And DC was the most heavily fortified city on earth at that time...Lee would have had to besiege it with a.) no siege equipment b.) almost no food and c.) an exhausted and battered army.

[@thelugoffgamecock792]

​@Aaron Fleming get off dat Whambulance. DC would've fallen in about 2.76 hrs

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@thelugoffgamecock792 I apologize for basing my opinions on facts and logic. In the future I will be sure to join you in the wishful thinking department.

[@generalbooger9146]

What mistakes

[@mintz9782]

@@aaronfleming9426after the first battle of bullrun they could have taken it but they decided to stay defense and not to advance.

[@joshuaburns2651]

I liked you version. The fact you tried to stay to historical context and time framed politics lent it to a more convincible version.

[@Mcculock]

What a dream crime rate would be 90 percent less than now

[@dadofmine9957]

100% Fact

[@TheStimpy60]

According to a book I just finished by Heather Cox Richardson, titled How the South Won the Civil War, she posits that they did just that, not on the battlefield, but politically. It’s a fascinating book

[@stephenkammerling9479]

Case in point, many of our recent presidents were from the South, from both parties.

[@BlapwardKrunkle]

@@stephenkammerling9479 just cuz ur from the south don’t mean you have the same ideals. I’m a southerner with trans friends and all my boys back home think me strange for it. I think they’re strange, my friends are wonderful people

[@stanleydaise4899]

Thanks for sharing about Heather Cox Richardson’s book. I listen to her videos. She is a bona fide historian who makes excellent points.

[@scottsand2317]

@@BlapwardKrunkle what!? You make no sense

[@BlapwardKrunkle]

@@scottsand2317 what about what I said is unclear to you friend?

[@fredvaladez3542]

Well done, well researched, and an excellent presentation. Good narration and visuals make the subject matter easy to understand.

[@rhuephus]

ha ha .. how do you "research" non-existent fantasies

[@fredvaladez3542]

No, I meant the research regarding the chain of events that led up to the Civil War. Sorry for the confusion.@@rhuephus

[@odysseusrex5908]

Very interesting contrafactual. I think though, that a far more likely scenario, involves the South winning the Battle of Shiloh. In the real timeline, in the Summer of 1864, with Lee pinned against Petersburg and Sherman moving inexorably east through Alabama, the North was ready to give up. Public opinion had turned strongly against the war with most people believing that it was impossible actually to conquer the South, or simply not worth the cost in lives and treasure. General McClellan was running for president on a platform of making peace with an independent Confederacy. Nobody, up to and including Abraham Lincoln, expected Abraham Lincoln to be reelected. Only the fall of Atlanta changed that. Suddenly it was clear that the Confederacy now consisted only of Georgia, the Carolinas, and the southern half on Virginia, and could not possibly hold out much longer. Now let us consider Shiloh. People on both sides, soldiers and civilians alike, who should have known better, spent the whole war looking for the one great victory that would destroy an enemy army in single battle. The only time it happened was at Nashville, and those were unique circumstances. The one time the South had a similar opportunity was at Shiloh. If Prentiss had not held, and if the Confederate soldiers had been disciplined enough to pursue the Union soldiers instead of their breakfasts, the entire Army of the Tennessee, over 40,000 men, could have been pushed into a ravine not much bigger than a football field, and along the narrow beaches of the river bank, below steep bluffs. The confederates would have been able to fire down on them from the top of the bluffs, both with rifle and artillery fire. They would have had no cover, no concealment, no room to maneuver, and little ability to shoot back. Assuming Grant was not killed in the chaos, he would have had no choice but to surrender. This would have taken both Grant and Sherman out of the war, either captured or dead. Without Grant, there is no way Vicksburg could fall in July of 1863. It might never have fallen but certainly if it did, it would have been months, maybe a year or more, later. Without Grant's particular genius as general in chief, to coordinate all of the Union armies in a combined offensive, there is no way the campaigns of 1864 are ever waged. Thus, it seems to me most likely that on election day, 1864, the Eastern theater armies are still stalemated along the Rappahannock,, the Union's Western armies are not even close to Atlanta, and Lincoln is defeated. McClellan becomes president and offers to negotiate peace. If he was not a complete poltroon, this would involve a recognition of Southern independence in return for certain territorial concessions based on the actual positions of the armies in the field.. One obvious one would be West Virginia. Having accepted it as a state, and with the South having never come close to retaking it, they would have to let it go. Regardless of Union war weariness, i don't the North would have been willing to accept having their capital on the border of a successfully rebellious province. Assuming, as i said, that the stalemate along the Rappahannock had remained the state of affairs, I imagine the North would have wanted that river to be the new border but possibly a compromise would have been worked out along some artificial line between the Rappahannock and Potomac. A big question would be, would Northern Virginia then become part of Maryland, West Virginia, or a new state in its own right? Union armies had occupied Western Tennessee fairly early on. They had never been able to take Eastern Tennessee though, even though Union sentiment was quite strong there. Perhaps a swap could have been arranged. It would at least have been worth proposing. A big thing I would have argued for, had I been negotiating for the North, would have been an evacuation of all port cities occupied by the North in return for a guarantee of duty free passage for Union ships and goods down the Mississippi and through New Orleans.

[@StephenPaulTroup]

Very realistic, tho I think the CSA would have successfully insisted on getting all of Virginia back save West Virginia.

[@markh995]

Had Joe Johnston remained in command, the Army of TN could have held Sherman off from Atlanta until after the election. As it was, John Bell Hood wasted away his forces on useless counter-attacks until he could no longer hold Atlanta. Had Bragg been able to cut off the retreat of the fleeing Federals at Chickamauga, that could have very well changed the whole sight picture of the war. As it was, the AoT forced them back to Chattanooga. Bragg really did not need to remain in command. He was an excellent logistician, but not a good field commander.

[@odysseusrex5908]

@@markh995 I don't know what makes you think Johnston would have defended the city at all. His primary concern was to keep his army in being, hoping to find some favorable place to attack. He most likely would have abandoned the city and begun a retreat to Savannah. Or, had he opted to fight there, where would the food and ammunition have come from to sustain a siege for two entire months, or more? I am not aware that Bragg was in any position to cut off the Union retreat. He was no more capable of performing a double somersault and landing in their rear than Lee was.

[@marcushale1931]

@@odysseusrex5908 he had been defending it up until he got replaced by Hood. Can’t keep your army in the field if your most vital rail hub in the south gets captured by Sherman. Braxton Bragg’s literal battle plan at Chickamauga was to roll up the federal left flank and cut off their line to Chattanooga. His operations order was crap and his generals were pretty much ignoring him by that point anyway so it didn’t really matter. They all just ended up battering themselves into the Yankees like the AoT always did, and probably would have retreated had a gap not opened up in front of Longstreet’s corps.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Well said. I agree that Shiloh was the South's best early chance. Chattanooga might have been a chance later in the war to bag the Army of the Cumberland, which would have changed the campaigns of 1864 drastically. If we imagine the loss of Grant and his army at Shiloh, the one possibility that saves the day for the Union is that Thomas might have emerged as a more prominent figure. Personally I think Thomas was the better general and might have tipped the scales if Lincoln could keep the country fighting after a decisive loss at Shiloh.

[@Akeche]

Slavery would have still eventually been abolished, because it wasn't a sustainable practice as automation advanced.

[@Yumf90]

Maybe a 100 years later....Look how long Jim Crow lasted

[@JustB904]

Slavery was just a catalyst. A way of forcing the south to terms on textile rates. If it was ever about slavery, the 13th would’ve been ratified long before it was. (Could’ve done it while those states were separated) But just like Lincoln’s EP, was all propaganda 🤷🏼‍♂️. If it wasn’t just bs, why did it only free slaves in states of rebellion? States that had already voted to leave a union, that they voted to join.

[@douglasblowe805]

I am a former history teacher and got my 1st degree in history from Virginia Military Institute. I agree with much of what you theorized but do differ in some areas. I would be interesting to discuss it sometime.

[@christurner8668]

This is not up for debate Douglas

[@thomaswayneward]

Yankees don't discuss, they dictate.

[@killaseason82]

You dont know nothin pony boy

[@bluskies1000]

I'm a free man and educated myself, and somehow suspect VMI education to be biased.

[@thunderchief7]

What class at VMI?

[@AnimeJuggz_]

i know tiktok and youtube have very diffrent formats for video making but i really love listening to the way you narrate making alt history videos, so much nice to listen to

[@Jeph629]

Learning history from tiktok is like learning to ride a bicycle from a goldfish.

[@jamesphilip6737]

This was all covered about 62 years ago by the author MacKinlay Kantor in his book "If the South Had Won the Civil War."

[@newsguy5241]

Yes. I read that book. The South wins, Texas breaks away to form it's own country and it ends in 1950's in a unity conference with the three flags hanging together.

[@johnmcmickle5685]

Look up what was funding everything in the north. The problem was at that time the vast majority of the revenue for the federal government came from tariffs on southern agricultural exports.

[@theold4734]

ehm if you look at taxes earning it was mostly new york which paid for everything so not really.

[@12floz67]

@@theold4734 You’re going to compare 1860s New York economy to the entire south? Really?? Go back to school and pay attention this time.

[@theold4734]

@@12floz67 literally look it up most money to the taxes went from New York cause of the ports.

[@12floz67]

@@theold4734 The only article I could find to support claim admits that he no scholar on the subject and purposely trying to prove a point about the cause of the civil war. Keep looking and you can plainly see that the majority state the south paid 75 to 85%. They discuss all the tariffs that started it all and has been a hot point since the revolutionary war. The government over taxed the south, this is not some secret.

[@theold4734]

@@12floz67 kzbin.info/www/bejne/r6rPl2muiriEpdU 3:35

[@dontransue9843]

If the South would have won this war there would still be 2 countries; the South had no ambition to rule the USA, by Washington DC or any other way. You may need a passport to get from Kalamazoo to Chattanooga. Slavery in the South would have ended within about 20 years of Lincoln's inauguration of the US. That's about it. Two countries does not a civil war make; The USSC declared in 1862 that the CSA was a country independent of the USA.

[@dickon728]

What is the USSC?

[@dontransue9843]

@@dickon728 supreme court

[@avenaoat]

Lincoln and the mild Republicans thought a 20-25 years long deslavery action with money compensation not at once abolition. Thy were not John Brown's ally, but the South thought this, The Southern war success was the main cause Lincoln abolished the slavery system to get colored troops to win.

[@Wh40kFinatic]

Except the entire reason for the secession crisis was because the South wanted to *expand* slavery into the territories. Southerners never wanted to get rid of slavery, and never planned to. If they had, they would never have seceded, or came back after the North repeatedly offered to let them keep their slaves, and even proposed the Corwin Amendment to make it unconstitutional to force them to give up slavery as it currently stood.

[@dontransue9843]

@@Wh40kFinatic Not denying that, also taxes. Lincoln supported the Corwin amandment also.

[@looneyville3]

Based on the 1864 election results I would have to say Kentucky would have chosen the South if it had the choice.

[@crawwwfishh3284]

New York was going for the south.

[@sailfly2869]

“What If”is such a big word.

[@allengreen870]

You had me until the second civil war broke out and the south collapsed instantly 😅

[@PeteNice29]

I'll simplify this since it's been a partisan thing. The "slave states" were primarily concerned that the abolition of slavery was more of a risk to overall Constitutional protections than just that one issue. In truth, only about 3% of Southerners owned slaves, and a smaller percentage viewed the practice as anything other than an economic exercise.

[@michaelpaige3398]

Most Southerners hated slavery because slaves took the jobs of the poor and uneducated which was the majority of the South. Agriculture trading in cotton and tobacco was big because they were big commodities. Plantation owners did well with cheap labor. The "people" did not want the government.

[@antcantcook960]

Slavery was a huge part of the Southern economy, pointing out the percentage who owned slaves is an exercise in attempting to downplay its economic significance. Just stop.

[@michaelpaige3398]

Please explain the job opportunities in the South back then to me. Where can I look this up? The majority did not want slavery because slaves took the cheap labor jobs! The people in the South were mainly poor and uneducated. There were no other jobs for poor and uneducated people.

[@Alexis-rt3cu]

​@@michaelpaige3398 a few lower class poor whites didn't like having to compete with the cheapness of slave labor. Overall the southern economy ran on this labor and sought to expand west. What you said about the south being mostly of poor uneducated people isn't true either. Pre civil war the south was the wealthiest part of the country with more college graduates than the north.

[@michaelpaige3398]

@@Alexis-rt3cu Both my Great Grandfathers fought for the South as did my Great Uncles. We were not wealthy. Plantation owners had wealth. It is happening again. Illegal immigration taking the cheap labor jobs.

[@sjsharksfangirl]

There actually is a mockumentary called CSA: Confederate States of America, which is a mockumentary about what would have happened if the south won the civil war. It's on KZbin

[@stephenkammerling9479]

According to Hank Williams Jr., Elvis would have become president of the southern states.

[@jodyguilbeaux8225]

my great grand father was a confederate soldier for the CSA. AND WE ARE PROUD HE SERVED. anyone who mocks this is a communist, and nowadays these communist are everywhere. they will eventually reap what they sow, then i will be mocking them.

[@LCCreole]

@@jodyguilbeaux8225 thank God y'all lost the war.

[@thepamela050]

@@stephenkammerling9479 you mean the best looking man to ever grace this planet..

[@thepamela050]

@@LCCreole yes but we see how it turned out since the Yankees won..Governemnt corruption, open borders, enslaved to debt to the tune of trillions..Giving tax dollars away to foreign countries even though we are in debt..Handing over tax payers money to illegals to house and feed them while our citizens sleep in the streets..Yeah we are seeing how well that is turning out..

[@shanejones7906]

The South could've easily with the Civil War had Robert E Lee and other Confederate military commanders simply avoided all those head-on pitched battles that drained the South of men and resources. Even on the Eve of Lee's surrender the South had the option of fighting a long term insurgency against the Union army and most likely would have won. The Union was trying to subdue a region the size of Western Europe and the cost of trying to occupy such a large area for an extended period of time would've soured the Northern population on continuing the war. It would've been a 19th century Vietnam in America. I personally think that had the South won, there would've eventually been a reproachment sometime in the early 20th century just before the outbreak of WW1. Something that actually taken place between the United States and Great Britain during that time. You probably would've seen US and Confederate troops fighting on the allied side in France and again during WW2 with the Confederate army having it's own beach on D Day... Kansas and Nebraska Beaches ??? I don't see the lasting antimosity that just about every Alternate History theorists throws out because there wasn't any of that lasting antimosity after the actual war ended. Outside of a few radicals you don't see the Southern population waging a long term struggle like you saw in Ireland, Vietnam or the resistance movements in WW2. Why would the Northern population be any different? Chances are, the North would've cut it's losses and blamed Lincoln for the loss of the South and moved on with industrialization. I think the Confederate and American Governments would view each other like the U.S views Canada or Great Britain today.

[@Comradetau1]

Problem is that there was no political will for that in the south. The people demanded that every bit of south was protected and if military just lets the "black republican army" just ravage the south the public would be extremely angry. Imagine the outrage in the border states like Virginia or Tennessee when the supposedly states right protecting CSA which they just joined abandons them and just lets them burn while hiding in the deep south and burns these states with guerrilla fighting against the US army Also even after the war in our timeline many were thinking about guerrilla war but feeding their loved ones and seeing their children took the precedent. Simply put the south had no stomach to go the Vietnam route because it would be so destructive.

[@shanejones7906]

@@Comradetau1 Agreed. The South was in a precarious position from the start. My point is that the only serious chance the South had was to avoid those costly battles and fight a more defensive style war. The South didn't have the manpower or resources to wage the kind of war Lee and Davis tried to wage and ended up destroying itself trying to win the war in a single epic battle. Lee and the other military commanders of the CSA were students of Napoleon and tried to fight the style of war that Napoleon had fought even though Napoleon himself eventually lost for roughly the same reasons as the South eventually did as well. It wasn't the Russian winter or Waterloo that did Napoleon in, it was all those costly battles that drained him of his best troops. Lee wanted to be another George Washington but fought like Napoleon, not realizing that Washington was the one who had been successful.

[@thecreepnextdoor7560]

You forget that Vietnam had foreign aid from other communist nations. The south was pretty much alone, and if they let the north move in and take all their farms, they wouldn’t have any supplies.

[@literallyhope]

I agree on the concept the deadly battles Lee engaged in was a mistake, I don’t agree they could win being fully defensive. Being defensive will just give the time for the north to slowly starve out the south as they push their attack, the large battles in fact almost was a good thing due to usually the north gained more casualties making them loose morale.

[@edwil111]

There were time constraints. The Union had the blockade going on.

[@jackiegreiner8303]

I really enjoyed this "what if" video. Looking at the resources of the North, it's really hard to contemplate any world where the north lost the "first" civil war. Most Americans, and nations around the world, would agree that slavery is a horrendous idea, so even if one of the reasons for the war was states rights, I think the slavery issue would have eventually killed the Confederacy.

[@stephenfogle8699]

Of course it would have, by freeing the slaves the confederate soldiers had to leave the war to go back home to take care of the plantation, do you realize how many thousands and thousands so called slaves fought for the confederate states, they knew their life was better in the new world than Africa where other tribes were capturing them and taking them to Saudi Arabia ports to be shipped were life was miserable! It wasn’t whites that captured slaves it was there on kind that sold them into slavery. Saudi’s were the main slave traders AND let’s don’t forget all the white slaves that the Saudi’s loved to buy to this day!

[@TheGuitarReb]

@@stephenfogle8699 Now if we had won the war then I suppose today, I'd be sittin on the veranda with my whiskey drink and my High Fancy that I had purchased in New Orleans and I'd be watching my little mulatto grand children play. I would be listening to Stephen Fosters "Old Black Joe" on my I-pad rather than AC/DC's "Back in Black"

[@stephentool1316]

@@stephenfogle8699 Biggest bunch of crap I've ever read. Sherman's great mistake was not driving the entire southern populace into the sea, so that decent people could rebuild the nation.

[@andym1594]

Lincoln was an absolute failure in my book. Victors write history and that's the ONLY way Lincoln looks like a hero. By objective measurements, he was one of the worst presidents in history IMO. 1- States rights are critical. The "pragmatist" Lincoln couldn't keep the country together over such an important issue w/out killing half of it? When else in history have we applauded a war that didn't involve an unprovoked attack over territory? 2- Slavery was pretty much done across the globe by the end of the 1800s... w/out a drop of blood in most places.... thank you very much NOT.

[@rachet0708]

@@stephenfogle8699 less than 3% of Southerners owned slaves and only about 1% or less owned a plantation. Being a a land owner and educated instantly qualified you as a officer, soldiers were poor dirt farmers fighting to defend their home state they didn't give a crap about slavery because they didn't own any.

[@havable]

"ceding of northern territory to the confederates that was never a desire for the southern expansionists" It was in their confederate constitution that if they won all free states would have to become slave states. Have you ever read their actual words describing their intentions?

[@peytonbrown5394]

23:37 is a good stop point, anything after that becomes biased speculation imo. To assume the Confederacy wouldn't learn their lesson and heavily industrialize after the civil war is far-fetched. They would simply reallocate their slaves into factories and technologically compete with the north. I mean if we're really looking at this scenario with full objectivism and no quandaries towards morality, the south would most likely surpass the north in power as victors in war tend to do. If I had a time machine though, I'd personally go back to 1770 and finagle my way into influencing the founding fathers to outlaw slavery from the start.

[@aaronfleming9426]

I have three objections to your theory: 1. Winning wars can also breed complacency in the victor. Given that the south was led politically and socially by a strongly conservative aristocracy, why would they change? 2. This video makes the silly assumption that a southern victory would come early in the war rather than at a rational breaking point, like Lincoln losing the presidency in late 1864 and a peace candidate being inaugurated in early 1865. That far more realistic scenario would leave the Confederacy economically shattered, even in victory. There would be almost zero capital for investment in factories, railroads, etc. 3. Given the fractious nature of the Confederacy even under the pressure of an existential war of independence, what reason would they have to stay together after a victory? Given what would have been a proven and justified theory that a state can secede any time they feel a bit pissy about the loss of a presidential election, isn't the most likely scenario that Texas would break off from the CSA within five years, followed shortly by other defections?

[@romulus463]

I have a question: What If, Virginia freed the slaves in 1831? Virginia held a constitutional convention to deal with a number of issues and problems; one being, if the slaves should be freed and how. Popular proposals, by those who wanted to free the slaves, everyone under a curtain age are free, everyone born after a curtain date would be free; too many plantation owners were reliant on slave labor, so just freeing the slaves over time seemed the more pragmatic means.

[@aaronfleming9426]

If Virginia had freed its slaves in 1831, it would have stayed in the Union in 1861. That would have shortened the Civil War dramatically, and perhaps even headed off secession completely. From the beginning of the secession stampede, there was a very strong sense that Virginia would be a key in maintaining the independence of a slave-state confederation...without that hope, they might not have stuck their necks out.

[@romulus463]

@@aaronfleming9426 You think slavery, as an institution would have survived if Virginia became a Free State in 1831? Would the Nat Turner Rebellion have taken place later that same year? Which was used to justify a number of laws that limited Abolitionist activities in Slave States. But then again, such What Ifs create rather interesting intellectual arguments, that we would never really know what would have happened if such events did turn out differently.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@romulus463 Interesting question. It certainly would have helped limit and contain slavery, though the deep cotton states would still have had more incentive to keep slaves. Besides the Nat Turner rebellion, the John Brown raid also occurred in Virginia...would he have attempted a similar raid, farther south? Like you said, we can never really know!

[@JessRenee91481]

My guess is that slavery would have collapsed within 10 years since the US would no longer be obligated to honor the Fugitive Slave Act. From there it's hard to say but, with lack of industrial infrastructure and an economy built around a slave agricultural economy those southern states would fail and likely one by one those states would return to the fold. This was the argument of many contemporary abolishonists.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Excellent comment. I agree. The South would have been an international pariah with a regressive economy and backwards society. I do, however, postulate that Texas might have gone back to being an independent nation and might have survived.

[@calebfielding6352]

Go read the entirety of the corner stone speech (yes there is racism in it). One of the stated reasons for the south leaving was because when they ordered equipment from Europe to build industry they were taxed so high they were paying to build a factory in the north for every factory they built in the south. Morrill tariff made it worse. Simply put the high tariffs were making it impossible for the south to build industry like the north. The south introduced the first attack submarine, first iron hulled ship, mines, etc. They were industrilly minded.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@calebfielding6352 but it was called the "cornerstone speech" because it makes it clear that slavery was the cornerstone of the secessionist cause, as do the Declarations of Causes. Also, 1. Tariffs were at historic lows 2. The north paid the same tariffs as southerners, and since most imports came into the country through northern ports (over 60% of all imports came through the port of New York alone), northerners actually paid far more tariffs than southerners. 3. The Morrill tariff was not passed until after secession so it's not really a cause for secession 4. Justin Morrill was a senator from Vermont, and some of his primary concerns had to do with lumber and dairy imports from Canada. If you read the whole thing (I have, I warn you it's simultaneously interesting and tedious) you'll see that it contained many provisions that protected Southern economic interests as well as New England manufacturing interests...really it had something for everyone in every region.

[@calebfielding6352]

@@aaronfleming9426 1. read the entirety of the cornerstone speech. Then get back with me because the cornerstone speech refutes your first 2 points. Yes its a racist document, yes it has a paragraph on slavery, but it has many more paragraphs besides that one. And yes its annoying when people hit ctrl f type in slavery and act like thats the entire document. 3. Morrill tariff already passed congress, did so before the election, which means the south needed a democrat to win to veto it because the senate was going to pass it when they came back into secission after the election. lincoln won so it was a forgone conclussion it would pass. 4 the morill tariff crippled the souths economy until the passing of the income tax. The way trade worked in the south is that when a ship showed up with goods they bought the ships goods, then with the money the ship just made the ship bought cotton. Tariffs made buying the ships goods more expensive which made it harder for the ship to buy the cotton. The south was buying dramatically different things than new york which magically didnt have the same tariffs as the south had.. And oh yeah, the south specifically said they were leaving because of this.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@calebfielding6352 1. Yes, having read the whole speech (on multiple occasions) I can easily see what Stephens considered to be the most important issue. See my quotes above. 3. No, the Morrill tariff did NOT pass before the election. It passed on March 2 of 1861. With slave-state senators in Congress, it could not pass. When the senators of the slave states withdrew, if did pass. Historical facts. Look it up. 4. Tariffs worked the same everywhere. And, as I mentioned, there were tariffs on an extremely wide range of industrial and agricultural products. And no one was having trouble selling cotton. Plantation owners were making bank on it. That's why they called it "King Cotton". Europeans were buying so much of it, the secessionists thought they could use it as leverage to gain recognition. Working-class British folk, however, preferred unemployment and economic crisis to recognizing the regressive Confederate slave regime. You see, the Confederacy was very clear about slavery being the main reason for secession. I don't know why you can't understand the heart of the Cornerstone Speech (and the Declarations of Causes), but the British certainly did.

[@Chiller01]

At the outset of the war the South possessed 2/3 of the nations wealth as cotton had become so lucrative an export. The Confederates didn’t and couldn’t win outright but, as Gary Gallagher has stated, to be victorious they only had to achieve a tie. They couldn’t really have overrun the Capitol after 1st Manassas. However, if the South won at Antietam and achieved recognition from England and/or France things could have been different.

[@charlesmason1278]

During research for undergrad History final, I was surprised to discover that a fair percentage of Great Britain, particularly in the mill towns of the North, were very supportive of the Confederacy.

[@savanahmclary4465]

@@charlesmason1278 Study the shipping Companies archived records of Ledgers and Manifest in the Maritime Repositories in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Research the individual States Legislatures records. Research the individual States/ Common Wealths Plat maps and property tax records. Research the Civil War statistics. Only 8% of the Southerners who fought for the South, in the Civil War owned SLAVES. 8% 92% Were small, individual Dirt Farmers. (of 40 to 160 acre farms, that they farmed themselves. .)

[@savanahmclary4465]

@@charlesmason1278 The States of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois Representatives did NOT stand with Abraham Lincoln and his WAR against any American people. But they heed their countries call to duty.

[@Guinnessmonkey1]

@@charlesmason1278 Among Tory mill owners, sure. The people of those mill towns tended to side with the Union, with the people of Manchester building a statue of Lincoln during the war, despite the fact that some of them were starving due to the mills being shut down.

[@Fitzwalrus06]

Bingo. Antietam/Sharpsburg was the last real chance the South had of success. England was on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy and offering to "arbitrate" negotiations between the North and South (i.e.: use the Royal Navy to break the blockade if the North wouldn't come to terms); the British government only held back to see the outcome of Lee's campaign in Maryland. Had the South won at Sharpsburg (unlikely, but with McClellan anything was possible) there would have been no Emancipation Proclamation, Britain would have intervened, and the South would have had its independence. As to the British mill workers' support of Lincoln and the North, much of that came AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation, and it was the mill OWNERS who were feeling the loss of profit that were pressing their government to intervene and restore access to Southern cotton. Prior to the Proclamation it was economics, not altruism, that was the driving force there.

[@davidwilliams5283]

Missouri, helped the south out.

[@Pudentame]

The Confederacy was suffering "regional" strains from the beginning. The only way they could have "won" the American Civil War is, as you note, if they had managed to pursue the Union Army after Bull Run, capture it and the Capital at Washington, DC along with the U.S. Government ... but soon after the regional strains would have begun to tell. Any alternate history should take into account divisions within the Confederacy itself that would have manifested fairly soon after a victory.

[@aaronfleming9426]

I agree entirely that regional strains have to be taken into consideration. It seems natural to assume that Texas would be the first to take its ball and go home. Perhaps Arkansas would be annexed by Texas...but perhaps it and other border states would go back to the Union as the Confederacy crumbled. I disagree that the South only had a route to victory through an early victory. The best path to victory lay in discouraging the northern public to the point of Lincoln losing the election of '64 to a peace candidate. As it happened, Lincoln was seriously concerned about losing as late as the summer of '64, and only the fall of Atlanta sealed the deal politically. The Confederate strategy was badly flawed. Davis committed early on to an ineffective cordon defense in the western theater. Lee couldn't see past Virginia, and put all his hope in achieving a single war-winning pitched battle. Of course, both of those strategies reflect regional strains, just as you note.

[@MGTOWPaladin]

The South was seceding over taxes which started with the Tariff of Abomination in 1828 along with the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833. When the Morrill Tax passed the House in May 1860 and the pro-Morrill Tax Republicans took the 1860 elections, South Carolina seceded on 20 December, 1860. Six days later, the US Army left Ft Moultrie and invaded the unfinished Ft Sumter and illegally held it for 3-1/2 months. After the Union "evacuated" Ft Sumter, Lincoln stated the following: Abraham Lincoln, 16th US President, five days after the evacuation of Ft Sumter: Lincoln's 19 April, 1861 Proclamation for Naval Blockades of Southern Ports: "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the *COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE* cannot be effectually executed therein comformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires *DUTIES (TAXES)* to be uniform throughout the United States:..." The Confederate States of America (1861-1865) started with an agrarian-based economy that relied heavily on slave-worked plantations for the production of cotton for export to Europe If classed as an independent country, the area of the Confederate States would have ranked as the *FOURTH-RICHEST country of the world in 1860."* (Wikipedia: Economy of the Confederate States of America).

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@MGTOWPaladin 1. Unfortunately for your position, the secessionists left us massive amounts of documentation about why they seceded, and the vast majority of it had to do with slavery. The "declarations of causes" are a great place to start, and you'll note that South Carolina spilled a great deal of ink on slavery and very little on taxes. But don't let the "declarations" be your last stopping point. Look at the speeches leading up to secession, southern newspapers, and the first Democrat presidential nomination process, where after a week a northern Democrat had to make a motion to get the delegates to stop talking about slavery, since the southern faction of the party wouldn't talk about anything else on the party platform. And it goes on and on from there. The historical evidence is as clear as day, and it's about slavery, not taxes. May I recommend Paul Starobin's excellent work "Madness Rules the Hour" as a primer on the political movement toward secession in Charleston? The Morrill Tax would not have passed the senate if the southern states had not seceded, and is thus a complete red herring to the discussion. Northerners also paid by far the largest share of taxes anyway, with their much higher rate of imports and much larger base of consumers. The southern whining about taxes was never anything more than petulant grasping at straws. 2. South Carolina ceded to the Federal government the sandbar on which Fort Sumter was long before secession. (Ten minutes or less of googling will get you to the precise volume and page of the records of the state of South Carolina's legislature where the transaction is recorded.) Even if we accept, for the sake of discussion, the legitimacy of unilateral secession and SC's sovereignty, Fort Sumter still belonged to the United States of America and the Confederacy attacked that military property without a declaration of war. 3. The Confederate economy was built on slavery...and that slave economy determined the region's attitudes toward taxes. So even if we accepted the argument that secession was about taxes, just for the sake of discussion, we would see that it was still ultimately about slavery. The economies of the "western" states (what we now call the Midwest) were also agrarian, but built on free labor rather than slave. Tariffs affected agrarian states in a similar way, but they remained staunchly Unionist and fiercely anti-slavery. So once again we see that, even if we talk about economy, slavery is still the driving force of secessionist behavior. It's worth noting that the vast majority of southern capital was held in slaves. Unlike other forms of capital, slaves don't like being capital and usually take any chance they get to transform themselves back into free human beings instead of chattel. The slave economy was also profoundly oppressive to poor whites, who were kept under control by propagandists with the specter of slave revolts and the false sense of esteem that came from not being black. Even the small number of wealthy elites were often heavily mortgaged, meaning that Confederate wealth was largely illusory. 4. Your quote from Lincoln is irrelevant to the discussion of the causes of secession. It is part of his Constitutional case for putting down insurrection, and he was of course quite correct. Lincoln was not anathema to the South because of his constitutional stance toward taxes, he was anathema because he was a "black Republican" most famous for his debates with Stephen Douglas in which Lincoln championed free-soil, anti-slavery policies.

[@MGTOWPaladin]

@@aaronfleming9426 You sure can ramble! Since secession is legal, the reason, any reason for secession, is a moot point. You do not need a reason to secede any more than you need a reason to walk around the block or take a drive in your car. You simply do it! Secession took land and finances from the Union. Secession lost almost as much land as gained by the Louisiana Purchase and the money made in the Industrial Revolution (1760-1840) in textile and sugar cane mills supplied 70% of US funds. According to a 1924 Federal Reserve Report on *COTTON,* it was the leading export in 1850 (53.36%) and by 1870 (60.28%) meaning northern ports would be left high and dry as European trade came South for cotton, tobacco and sugar (molasses, rum). Ft Sumter was ceded BEFORE secession making the fort USELESS to the US government. The US troops illegally invaded the *SOVEREIGN* State of South Carolina to take possession AFTER SECESSION on 26 December, 1860. Once the troops were in Ft Sumter, they could not leave nor could US supply the fort *WITHOUT SOUTH CAROLINA PERMISSION* and the US had no TREATY with the *SOVEREIGN* State of South Carolina whereby armed, foreign troops from the US had access to the State or Charleston Harbor. In other words, the US Army illegally invaded the State of South Carolina to occupy land they could not leave and could not supply as the US had no *TREATY* with the nation of South Carolina.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@MGTOWPaladin well I guess we're a couple of ramblers then :D 1. I disagree about the legality of unilateral secession, but I'm happy to leave the constitutional arguments aside, since your OP was about the REASON for it, not the legality. You said secession was about taxes, with no supporting evidence. I claimed rightly that the mountains of historical documentary evidence from the secessionists themselves proves that slavery was by far and away their primary motivation. 2. Interesting information about the U.S. economy, but it doesn't have anything to do with the reason for secession. It may have something to do with the many reasons for Unionists to put down the insurrection, but even so, the historical evidence is that Unionists were motivated primarily by a.) loyalty to country and outrage against rebellion and b.) abolitionism. As far as economic concerns go, Westerners (and as an Iowan that's where more of my expertise lies) were far more worried about free labor competing with slave labor than they were about who was exporting what. Besides, Europeans were already trading directly with cotton ports, so you'll have to justify why you think the already-existing trade with northern ports would have dried up...since New York City received over 60% of all imports, it seems very strange to me that Europeans would give up that enormously lucrative market. 3. Whether or not you think Fort Sumter was useless to the Union is irrelevant. You can't steal my broken lawnmower and then claim innocence because it's "useless"...it's legally my property and until I sell or give it to you, you're a thief if you take it...and a murderer if you shoot at me to steal it. In exactly the same way, Fort Sumter was legally the property of the United States. I refer you again to the legislative records of the State of South Carolina, because you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with South Carolina. Fort Moultrie had been U.S. property for longer than Fort Sumter, and the fact that U.S. troops were driven out of Moultrie by threat of violence doesn't improve your already dead argument that U.S. troops somehow "stole" or "illegally invaded" Fort Sumter.