Alternate History: What if the South Won the Civil War? 

I don't doubt that what you say is accurate. But the civil war was famously brother against brother. Didn't a lot of northerners go down to fight for the south too? I'm no historian so I can't claim any expertise here. I don't know. But it seems to offset what you said somewhat.

Ppl in the north did the same California had a regiment of rebel soldiers as well NYC literally supported the csa lol

Lee was a Virginian ​@@Tactical_Nuke0

Are you saying that there are people who exist who would like it if the south won the civil war? I know there are badly misinformed people but that's just ridiculous. How bad at thinking is it possible for someone to be?

It's hilarious how some modern military equipment is named after confederate figures. It's almost like America is proud of America trying to overthrow America.

CHECKMATE LINCOLNITES!!!

Thanks!

It’s pretty boring and stale this is no way to run a RU-vid channel he also has really strong biases that alienate people

@@luisfilipe2023 I don't know bud, it was pretty well researched, and the visuals were really well made + I don't think one should just make content that attempts to be bipartisan when such a base for information has been made.

@@quisqueyancomrade4968 it’s not about bipartisanship it’s about not pushing a narrative. Of course you can do whatever you want but with it come consequences namely some people will not want to see your content

@@luisfilipe2023 True

Nahh Turtledoge have different opinion on USA and CSA alliance to Europeans

That hurts

The South winning would've prevented the US from becoming the soulless global hegemony it is today.

@@sethking8627?????

Not true, with the arrival of industrialization slavery would have been abolished as counterproductive

I see ignorance still remains a problem with some people as Lincoln invaded the South for money. Slaves were freed to take away Southern voting power according to the Constitution's 3/5 Compromise Clause which decided Reps in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The New England States wanted to secede in 1815 with the Hartford Convention. One of the North's complaints was the 3/5 Compromise Clause and how COUNTING SLAVES gave the South TOO MUCH POWER! POINT # 3 BELOW. Slaves were freed to become Republicans and strip power from the South and blacks bought into it UNTIL the 1960s when LBJ signed the Republican-passed Civil Rights bills and most blacks switched to Democrats. Blacks have been played for 160 years! So, keep on believing what you're told! 'Cause you're Uncle Sam's slaves now! The 1815 Hartford Convention covered the following topics: 1. Prohibiting any trade embargo lasting over 60 days; 2. Requiring a two-thirds Congressional majority for declaration of offensive war, admission of a new state, or interdiction of foreign commerce; 3. Removing the three-fifths representation advantage of the South; 4. Limiting future presidents to one term; 5. Requiring each president to be from a different state than his predecessor. (This provision was aimed directly at the dominance of Virginia in the presidency since 1800). *NOTE"* Points 3, 4, 5 were aimed at the SOUTH. As out of the first DOZEN presidents, 10 of them were from the South.

As far as Lincoln and the Union invading the South for REVENUE TAX MONEY.... read their own words. 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). Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 81, April 19 1861, five days after the Union evacuation of Ft Sumter. "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 (TAX MONEY)* can not be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution *WHICH REQUIRES DUTIES (REVENUE TAX MONEY) to be uniform throughout THE UNITED STATES;* ......" Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 82, April 27 1861 (after more Southern States secede due to the Union invasion of Ft Sumter) "Whereas since that date public property of the United States has been seized, *THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY) OBSTRUCTED,* and......" Crittenden-Johnson Resolution issued by the US House of Representatives, 25 July, 1861 (four days after the defeat of the invading US Army at Manassas, VA "Bull Run"). "Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, *WILL RECOLLECT ONLY ITS DUTY (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO THE WHOLE COUNTRY;* that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing *OR INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHTS OR ESTABLISHED "INSTITUTIONS" (like slavery) OF THOSE STATES,* but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to *PRESERVE THE UNION (TREASURY),* with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease. Slavery was legal under the Constitution: Migration and Importantion Clause, Fugitive Slave Clause, 3/5 Compromise Clause, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 9th Amendment and 10th Amendment. Slavery was recognized as legal by federal laws of Congress: 1794 Fugitive Slave Act, 1820 Missouri Compromise, 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, 1854 Kansas - Nebraska Act, etc. Slavery was recognized as legal by SCOTUS in their decisions, such as 1857 Dred Scott v Sanford based on the 5th Amendment. Lincoln recognized slavery as legal in his first Inaugural Speech, paragraphs 4, 6 and 9 (quoting the Republican Party Platform plank #4 in paragraph 6 and the US Constitution 's Fugitive Slave Clause here). "No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due." Paragraph # 6 of Lincoln's 1st Inaugural: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and *WE DENOUNCE THE LAWLESS INVASION BY ARMED FORCE OF THE SOIL OF ANY STATE or Territory, NO MATTER WHAT PRETEXT, AS AMONG THE *_GRAVEST OF CRIMES"_.* ANY PRETEXT? Like "slavery or keeping the Union together!" Especially when documents prove it's all about REVENUE TAX MONEY! Lincoln's paragraph # 6 is copied from the Republican Party Platform Plank # 4, published 17 May, 1860, SEVEN MONTHS before the legal secession of South Carolina and the "lawless invasion" of Ft Sumter!

And to kill that "slavery story," I'll use Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 95 known as the Emancipation Proclamation: "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; " *JUMP TO FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH* "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 this0 proclamation were not issued." *MY NOTE:* Does Lincoln release any of the estimated 1 million slaves still held 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!* Did he release any slaves in the Southern Border States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri? *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!* *WHOOPS!* English author, Charles Dickens, author of A Christmas Carol and Oliver Twist: "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for *ECONOMIC CONTROL* (cotton and other raw materials) of the Southern states." (Google: Charles Dickens, piece of specious humbug). Dickens owned a magazine called All the Year Round. In it, an article attacked the tariff . “…under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle,” it said. “Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; *SECESSION MEANS THE LOSS OF THE SAME MILLIONS (OF DOLLARS) TO THE NORTH.* The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils…” The role of slavery became the proclaimed cause of [Lincoln's] war because it was necessary to put the South at a MORAL DISADVANTAGE by transforming the contest from a war for independence into a war waged for the maintenance and extension of slavery!" Woodrow Wilson, US President

Still 3rd World Brazil abolished slavery in 1888 (the last western hemisphere country to do so) and you REALLY think you'd be in chains in 2022 in the U.S. South? Rofl

Lol thanks

Why would states like Alabama Mississippi and South Carolina support this? Too many states of the CSA would never abolish slavery for a constitutional amendment to pass

@@wildviper I'm not saying that they would, I am saying that it's unrealistic for them being unable to do so because of words on a peace of paper. I don't see a reason for them to ban slavery as I personally believe that it would have continued but looked different with time as the CSA would move it's slaves from the fields to the factories

​@@bolle9810the factories you probably have a point there but even if the South wanted to keep slavery alive it would have lots of pressure from the United Kingdom and France and other allies of the Confederacy they were pressure the Confederacy to eventually abolish slavery even though it pushes their standards if they need support they would eventually stop the slavery act making the north eventually not as much as a devil to the South maybe or maybe not become great allies

I definitely think the CSA would have had to abolish slavery at some point or adopt a freedom of the womb policy. Slavery was simply unsustainable and pointless going into the 20th century, and it was getting harder and harder to manage over time. The landed gentry of the south would have to over time trade agrarian riches for industrial riches. This would not have occurred under the Union since the north already had an established industrial elite, landed gentry southerners would not have made this transition as easily.

Not that I want anything like that to happen but I bet some damned good food would come out of the Confederate occupied Mexico. Could you imagine? Crawdad tacos maybe. BBQ enchiladas. 😋

The Confederate Constitution was a mix of the older Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution. It had a just strong enough central government, with much more control for the individual states.

There's no reason the USA couldn't have fed Britain through WWI, meaning WWI would more likely have ended in an exhausted draw with a negotiated settlement. Since the allies occupied all Germany's colonial territories they had enough bargaining power to return to an antebellum status quo on the western front.

I agree. A ceasefire in 1865 is a reasonable scenario. Personally I think the most tantalizing and realistic "what if" is the battlefield death of George Thomas at Chickamauga leading to the collapse of the Union position and the eventual capture/destruction of the besieged Army of the Cumberland at Chattanooga. Even though the Union could eventually rebuild the Army of the Cumberland, the political blow would have been enormous. Further, it would have delayed Sherman's invasion of Georgia by months, and Sherman - no battlefield genius on his best day - would be deprived of Thomas, his most capable subordinate. This timeline easily pushes the capture of Atlanta (if Sherman could even achieve that without Thomas) beyond the presidential election...and the rest is alternate history. Of course the South is still bankrupt and in ashes, and I think the video does an excellent job of spinning out plausible scenarious from there.

Based

Lincoln was a master politician.

@@billkallas1762 Indeed he was also a great liar (ad the majority of the politicians)

Bill Kallas He was personally responsible for the deaths of 750,000 people, invaded the South to preserve the Union Treasury, and decided to unconstitutionally free slaves to give the North more control over the South in the federal government (the Hartford Convention). The Hartford Convention's final report proposed several amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These attempted to combat the policies of the ruling Democratic-Republicans by accomplishing the following: 1. Prohibiting any trade embargo lasting more than 60 days; 2. Requiring a two-thirds Congressional majority for declaration of offensive war, admission of a new state, or interdiction of foreign commerce; 3. Removing the three-fifths representation (3/5 Compromise Clause of the Constitution) advantage of the Southern States population in the US House and Electoral College; and 4. Limiting future presidents to one term; and 5. Requiring each president to be from a different state than his predecessor. (This provision was aimed directly at Virginia's (the South's) dominance of the presidency since 1800.)

Industrialization would have led to increased slavery, like the cotton gin. Plus the CSA constitution made it illegal for the government to ban slavery. It would have to be state-by-state if at all, and no way would Alabama, Mississippi, or South Carolina would abolish slavery on their own.

@@wildviper Mechanical Harvesters that need only be attended to by a mechanic and operater can pick cotton much more cheaply than slaves.And slave labor is expensive, they need housing, food, and healthcare. The Confederate Constitution had a process for amending it just as the US Constitution does. And there was nothing in the Confederate Constitution forbidding private investment into industry and technology. With the exception of the national armories like Harper's Ferry and Springfield and the various arsenals, all the Northern Industry was private and privately funded. We will never know, but the CSA could've freed the slaves and funded their relocation to Liberia. There were only two million of them, according to the 1860 Census. The South had way more industry than they were given credit for, so much was destroyed by invading Union Armies or disassembled and shipped North like the Augusta Rain's Brothers Powder Mill that DuPont reassembled in Delaware. And remember support for the Mexican War and annexation of Mexico was less in the South, it was New England business interests that wanted parts of Mexico and later Cuba, the Philippines and Puerto Rica. The Southern Slave owners were Evil, so were the New England Industrialists and Robber Barons, but they weren't stupid! They'd have had tractors and machines picking the cotton by the late 19th, early 20th century.

@@wildviper You need to read up on the annexation of Hawaii, Gunboat Diplomacy and Perry in Tokyo, The Spanish American War, the Phillipine-American War, the Boxer Rebellion, the Banana Wars, Smedley Butler and the 1914 and 1916 US invasions of Mexico, and United Fruit Company.👍🤪

@@justdustino1371 idk bro i'm no expert but james k polk was basically elected to manifest destiny mexico, and seemed to have widespread support in the north and south based on the election results and he himself was from tennesse, but he only narrowly won anyway and there were plenty of northern states and southern alike that voted whig. Funny enough, tennesse voted against polk.

@@joshuapartridge5092 Well, either way, the Unionists, Abolitionists and New England tycoons were hardly saints! Slave Owners were evil, but if Southerners as a whole wanted independence then they should've had it! Slavery would've died a natural death. And we don't use the amount of industrialization to determine if countries deserve independence or not in modern times. There were distinct cultural differences between the North and South showing as far back as the 1600s when New England settlers favored the Parliamentarians and Southern settlers favored the Monarchy. And it can be argued that the US isn't a homogeneous country, it is an empire comprised of regions, each of which could be countries! Empires fall! I'd think it far more likely we will see an independent south in 2100 or 2200 than a stumbling, decrepit and crumbling USA still in existence and ruled by little blue New England, Illinois, New York and California. The general consensus is 11 countries will emerge from the collapse of the US. Like it, or lump it! That statue you have of the Whore of Babylon in New York harbor will collapse and fall in the sea one day We will still be here.

Why?

@@FiammaNera1917 I wouldn’t be American as a freeman. It’s a different government. The north allowed immigrants equal rights. I don’t think that would be a possible with slavery.

@@TheSwanlake2009 To this day even the confederate would have replaced slavery

yep, reality always makes conservatives look bad.

I love this preposterous fan fiction where the South always becomes an expansionist empire, slavery never goes away up to the present day despite even Brazil doing so in the 1880s, oh and they were allies with Nazi Germany. That one is always rich and full of mental gymnastics. lol

@@digbyjones4203 Why would it go away? The institution was engrained both culturally and by political decree in the CSA. Also, even the US as is nearly allied with the Reich, why wouldn't the CSA?

"Why would it go away?" Oh jeez I don't know... the rapid advanced in technology which even made Brazil (still a 3rd world country) abolish it in 1888? The Zeitgeist / spirit of the age where slavery becomes less and less viable all around the world? The sheer economic and geopolitical isolation they would have experienced if they were some magic holdout of slavery? Use your brain Marquis.@@MarquisLeary34

@@digbyjones4203 Then why did the cornerstone speech still declare it essential? That zeitgeist sure didn't seem to affect the Confederacy much.

its funny that liberals idolize Sherman, given he was extremely racist. More so than Robert E. Lee could ever dream of being.

@@badcholesterol exactly not even mentioning the fact that his march to the sea caused thousands to either die, or losing there homes and some of the women raped and he thought that was just

Taxes in 1860 were at historic lows, and the north paid by far the larger share. Consumers paying the increased costs of goods due to tariffs were most likely to be affluent, while poor subsistence farmers - of which there were more than plenty in the north, by the way - would have purchased very few store-bought goods. Further, the supposedly evil Morrill Tariff protected many agricultural products, not just industrial goods, and that included many southern products. Morrill was from Vermont and some of his greatest concerns were cheap Canadian imports of items such as lumber and butter. Slavery was the main cause of the war, which we know because the secessionists told us so. That said, I heartily agree that Sherman was a monster. I don't think he approved of rape or murder, but you're correct that his destruction of civilian property led to widespread famine and disease and, in my opinion, contributed nothing of strategic value to the war effort.

@@badcholesterol it's hard to be more racist than a guy whose family owned something like 300 slaves and who betrayed his oath of allegiance to defend a slave-owning oligarchy, but Sherman was indeed deeply and his March to the Sea was an atrocity and should be remembered as such, and he did it because he was otherwise an incompetent general.

Government is not the only thing that can lead to industrialization but Congress directing funds to support railroad and port construction in real life was KEY to the industrial revolution in real life. The Confederacy blocked that sort of thing. Not least to mention the economic blackhole of slavery

@@wildviper It wasn't key at all, it hardly made any difference. Slavery was indeed an economic burden, but the idea that slavery would continue into the early 1900s is a massive stretch

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ez9Emsj7cas.html Sure southern traitor

@@Hi1234Ismyname IT'S TREASON THEN! GENERAL SHERMAN, THE TIME HAS COME, EXECUTE ORDER 66!