How Different Would America Be If the South Won the Civil War?

Подписаться 214

Просмотров 3,1 тыс.

50% 1

In this episode, we take a deep dive into one of the most pivotal moments in American history: the Civil War. But what if the South had won the Civil War?
Join us as we reimagine a world where the Confederacy emerged victorious. This thought-provoking journey will examine how a Confederate victory would have reshaped the United States and the world at large. We explore the political, social, and economic consequences of a Southern triumph and the profound changes it would have brought to American history.
Key Topics Covered:
Decisive Battles and Confederate Victory:
Discover the pivotal battles, such as Gettysburg, that could have led to a Southern victory. Learn about the strategic moves and international support from Britain and France that might have tipped the scales in favor of the Confederacy.
Political and Economic Repercussions:
Explore the division of the United States into two separate nations: the Union and the Confederacy. Understand how the North, free from the burden of reconstruction, would continue its rapid industrialization, while the South, heavily dependent on slavery, struggles with economic challenges and a slower pace of industrialization.
Prolonged Slavery and Social Impact:
Delve into the grim reality of a prolonged institution of slavery in the Confederacy. Examine the deep societal divisions and the extended fight for civil rights in a more hostile environment. Discover the roles of influential abolitionists like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman in this alternate timeline.
Altered Roles of Key Historical Figures:
Analyze how key figures like Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln, and Ulysses S. Grant would navigate this new world. From Jefferson Davis consolidating Confederate independence to Lincoln becoming a symbol of resistance in the North, see how their legacies would be dramatically different.
International Relations and Alliances:
Investigate the new international dynamics, with the Union and Confederacy forging different alliances. Understand how the Union might align with European powers like Britain and Germany, while the Confederacy seeks support from nations with similar economic structures, such as Brazil or Cuba.
Cultural Divide and National Identity:
Explore the deepening cultural divide between the North and South. Learn how the Confederacy would develop a distinct national identity, separate from the Union, with its own traditions, values, and social norms. Understand the lasting impact of slavery and racial segregation on Southern society.
Westward Expansion and Territorial Conflicts:
Examine the alternate paths of westward expansion, with both the Union and the Confederacy competing for control over Western territories. Understand the impact on indigenous populations and the balance of power in North America.
The Benefits of a Union Victory:
Reflect on the significant benefits that arose from the North winning the Civil War. Learn how the abolition of slavery marked a monumental advance in civil rights, paving the way for the 14th and 15th Amendments. Understand how the end of the Civil War laid the foundation for a more cohesive national identity and positioned the United States as a formidable global power.
Why Watch?
If you're intrigued by alternate histories and enjoy exploring the "what ifs" of the past, this video is for you. Our comprehensive analysis and in-depth exploration will provide you with a new perspective on one of the most critical periods in American history. By understanding these alternate scenarios, we gain a deeper appreciation for the actual events that shaped our world.
Engage with Us:
Don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon to stay updated on our latest episodes. Share your thoughts in the comments below and let us know what other historical events you'd like us to reimagine next. Your engagement helps us create more content that sparks curiosity and fosters a deeper understanding of history.
Thank you for joining us on this journey through alternate history. Keep wondering about the possibilities of what might have been!

Опубликовано:

29 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 87

@gbennett58 3 месяца назад

The Confederacy did have an opportunity to win the war immediately after the battle of Bull Run. If they had known that there was no defense of nearby Washington DC, they could simply have marched into Washington and taken over. I disagree that slavery would have persisted in the south. Slavery was very expensive and industrialization would have led to the south discarding slavery as being more expensive than machines.

@cheesecrackers3928 3 месяца назад

Bull Run galvanized the North and showed that it was going to require a bigger effort. The South was probably better off losing that battle. Also the army that won that battle was so disorganized it would never have gotten its self together to take over Washington. Lol.

@gbennett58 3 месяца назад

@@cheesecrackers3928 I've heard Lincoln was aware of the vulnerability and was convinced they were about to march on Washington. If the South was going to win the war, that seems like the moment that was lost.

@LonesomeDove-dn8dk 3 месяца назад

@@gbennett58 Taking Washington in no way meant the war would end. The US literally had a history of simply relocating the government out of the city when it was threatened so just as in the War of 1812, they would have abandoned Washington and the armies would still fight on.

@GH-tp6vu 3 месяца назад

Correct, on all issues. The South had the same opportunity at Gettysburg when they lost the high ground on day 1 and if they had disengaged and headed for DC as Lee's 2nd in command wanted they would have won the battle and the war right then and there. The rest of Gettysburg was a disaster for the South and Picketts charge was lunacy, they lost the war then. It's said Lee had a heartattack on day 3, he died 5 years later. If the South had won that war individual and states rights would be much stronger today and slavery would have been gone.

@LonesomeDove-dn8dk 3 месяца назад

@@GH-tp6vu If Lee abandons Gettysburg and marches on Washington he merely places his army between a vastly larger Union force and the most heavily fortified city on the continent and it gets annihilated. He never had sufficient numbers to take the city, and his plan of defeating the Union armies and then marching on Washington simply showed how little he understood how to win. His only chance of winning the war for the South was to wage a defensive war, which he excelled at, and allowing the war of attrition to work in his favor to deplete the will of the North to continue fighting. His repeated insistence on going on the offensive simply cost the South manpower it couldn't replace and supplies it couldn't afford. He came close to winning politically, but losing at both Gettysburg and Vicksburg, both squarely at his feet since he refused orders to reinforce Vicksburg in order to invade Pennsylvania, rejuvenated Northern morale. He was the best general the North could have asked to fight. It almost makes you wonder if he secretly sided with the Union, as literally 2/3s of his family did openly. Slavery in the South was permanently written into their constitution and specified that there was no way to repeal it. No slave could ever be freed. Slaves children would be slaves in perpetuity. The South loved states rights, when it wasn't them controlling the federal government. When they were in control, they loved Federalism. It allowed them to push through so many laws that favored the South and as soon as political power swung to the North, they decided it was too onerous to remain in the republic and declared secession. As long as the Southern Democrats controlled all branches of the government, they were perfectly happy enacting legislation that oppressed states.

@Psmock 3 месяца назад

Slavery existed in northern states so this idea that slavery was only in the south is not factual

@gbennett58 3 месяца назад

I seem to remember the war was really about unfair tariffs on cotton imported from the South.

@GH-tp6vu 3 месяца назад

Absolutely true and slavery was the number 3 issue to the south.

@LonesomeDove-dn8dk 3 месяца назад

@@gbennett58 The South exported cotton, and thus no tariffs were paid on it. In fact, 93% of the entire federal tax income came from the ports of New York and Philadelphia. Claims that it was over unfair taxation is yet another lie told by the Southern revisionists because Northerners paid the taxes, not the South.

@LonesomeDove-dn8dk 3 месяца назад

@@GH-tp6vu And yet mentioned first in almost every declaration of secession... Do tell what were the two other issues you think they rebelled over? Oppressive government? The South loved Federalism as long as it was their people who controlled the government. Once the first president was elected who didn't seem like he would kiss Southern ass, they rebelled.

@GH-tp6vu 3 месяца назад

@LonesomeDove-dn8dk why don't you read a real history book, ever spent anytime down south investigating and talking to people, of course you haven't? First was individual citizen rights which were already being eroded away, rights I fought and bled for, just like in England, France, Germany etc which was fresh in their minds. Then State rights also being threatened, those rights barely exist today. And thirdly slavery. Did some of the South want slavery, yes, were they willing to fight for it, yes. I believe 20% of the South had slaves, 10% of confederate soldiers had slaves. It was an obvious issue to be dealt with it was not the first issue to them, try talking to someone from the south. The Federalist issue, yea both sides are guilty of that.

@markenna5955 3 месяца назад

The European countries were on the verge of boycotting cotton, slavery would have been abolished either way.

@iviekicklighte673 3 месяца назад

That's not what the war was over

@sid2112 3 месяца назад

@@iviekicklighte673 Well, it always boils down to population pressures, but you generally have to dig to get to the bottom of it. Suffice to say the fountain of population sprung forth the reasons for the conflict that came.

@thehowlingmisogynist9871 3 месяца назад

Europe found alternative sources of cotton ie India and Egypt!

@LonesomeDove-dn8dk 3 месяца назад

@@iviekicklighte673 Says nobody who actually knows history. You should try educating yourself more.

@petebondurant58 3 месяца назад

@@iviekicklighte673 If there were no slavery, there would have been no civil war.

@PaulinAsia_ 3 месяца назад

I think slavery would have been eventually abolished, due to international pressure and trade embargoes. There would have been vehement opposition, but eventually it would have to be abolished in order for the Confederacy to prosper.

@LonesomeDove-dn8dk 3 месяца назад

The South was never going to prosper. They had written into their constitution that slavery was never going to be abolished and under no circumstances could a slave ever be freed nor could the institution of slavery be abolished. If we pretend the South somehow won the Civil War and formed their own nation using the Constitution they had adopted, they would have simply created a failed nation which would bankrupt itself in a matter of years. England had been the predominant trading partner for the Southern states, buying their agricultural produce and stockpiling it. When the war broke out, the South attempted to blackmail England into joining on their side by denying them cotton, not knowing that England had a 3 year stockpile of it in warehouses so there was no leverage. Additionally, Egypt and India had been found to be ideal climates to grow cotton at a lower cost than Southern cotton. With no market for their goods, the CSA would have bankrupted itself in short order, the institution of slavery would have continued to make them pariahs in the world stage, and lacking any significant industry, the country wouldn't be able to import or produce the manufactured goods necessary for society to thrive. As a result of all these factors, the Southern states would have faced two potential consequences, either becoming de facto colonies of European nations or begging for re-admittance to the Union. If they rejoined the Union, it would be as territories, not states, and they would have been forced to endure a decades long period of waiting to regain statehood and representation in the government. Losing the war was the best outcome for the South.

@howardwilder6989 3 месяца назад

Maybe the Southern States would just go their own way, and if the North had any sense, would've let them... The South would never have attacked the North.

@LonesomeDove-dn8dk 3 месяца назад

Yes, absolutely. Then, when the South bankrupted itself because nobody wanted to buy their expensive slave produced cotton, they could have begged to be re-admitted to the US as territories.

@DavidWhy-y7i 3 месяца назад

Wait! What! They didn’t?

@GH-tp6vu 3 месяца назад

Well having spent a lot of time down south they are still trying to figure out a way to win the Civil War there in places.

@treefrog156 3 месяца назад

Y’all definitely don’t have yawls facts and the conclusion y’all came up with couldn’t be farther from reality

@lawrenceallen8096 3 месяца назад

You skipped past the two world wars pretty fast. Count on at least 15~20 million dead on the North American continent from those wars alone. No question that mortal enemies (USA vs. Confederacy) would have chosen opposite sides in WWI and WWII: meaning that the catastrophic European wars would certainly have spread to North America. And, the Japanese empire would most certainly have capitalized an a smoking ruin of the North American combatants to invade the North American west coast. While we're at it, the "Westward Push" competition between the USA vs. Confederacy would most certainly been more than a few border skirmishes, and may have resulted in what is the contiguous USA today being split between the USA, Confederacy and Mexico. In short: North America would have degenerated into just another "waring states of Europe" on the North American continent.

@ianlayton6949 3 месяца назад

I'm not sure that's true. The N and S may have supported opposite sides in WW1 but the European powers were too stretched to involve themselves in an American war. Furthermore which ever side supported Germany/Austria would have had zero impact due to the Royal Navy's total control of the seas. If the American "nations" had not involved themselves in WW1 it could well have ended in a stalemate and negotiated peace - meaning no punitive Treaty of Versailles, no German resentment, no rise of the Nazis and no WW2. It is possible to argue that - from a European (even global) perspective - the survival of the US was a disaster and it's involvement in WW1 led to a century of bloodshed and violence. I know this is herecy to how the Americans see themselves and their role in the world - but numerous academics have made similar cases.

@lawrenceallen8096 3 месяца назад

@@ianlayton6949 I'm not talking the Europeans fighting on the North American Continent, I'm talking the USA and Confederacy fighting as allies here. As it was, Mexico was already sending diplomatic dispatches to the Central Powers during WWI and looking to provide support material support for $$$. Imagine that, but with the UK-aligned Canada to the North, a Mexico in the west stretching up to Northern California, and the Confederacy to the south, and the United States sandwiched in between, all looking to war profiteer in WWI and support their allies, there is no question that WWI battlefields would have materialized on the North American continent. It is the same argument as the lack of an Electoral College would not have led to a United States, but various colonies all declaring themselves independent nations (or clusters of colonies), and that the USA would have been as bloody and warlike as Bloody Europe (which has has one war or another going on for 2 millennia). No way the smaller states would have joined a union to be subjects of the large-population states. Therefore, shortly after independence, the Republic of Ohio would have been at war with the Kingdom of New York over the Erie-Onterio waterways, the principality of Rhode Island fighting constant invasions from the Duchy of Massachusetts over fishing rights, and so on. Just the way Europe was from 1783 to 1914. Aside from the so-called "Indian Wars" (which killed 24,000 Native Americans) and the American civil war, purely home-grown wars on the North American continent were next to nothing when compared to Bloody Europe. If our continent was equally as fractured into competing national interests, we would certainly have followed the very same pattern. It would be impossible to imagine why not.

@ianlayton6949 3 месяца назад

@@lawrenceallen8096 You pretty much reinforce my point. If N America had been wrapped up in its own trouble, it wouldn't have had the capacity to involve itself in Europe - thereby leading to WW1 becoming a stalemate - and ultimately

@ianlayton6949 3 месяца назад

@@lawrenceallen8096 There would have been no WW2. In this sense the Union victory led to a century of bloodshed in Europe which would eventually spread worldwide - therefore it is possible to argue that - from a European perspective (possibly a global perspective) - a divided N American would have been far preferable.

@lawrenceallen8096 3 месяца назад

@@ianlayton6949 "The ONLY reason WWII happened is because Corporal Schicklgruber got mad and because of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles." Yeah, OK, we've heard that forever. But no one ever uses their brain power to ask: "So what makes you think the Euros wound't have been at it anyway over something else? Why should we assume that peace and the current American Century status that we enjoy today would have existed after WWI: whatever the outcome. Its not like the Germany haven't been waging /preparing for one war after another since the formation of Germany in 1871, right? And, of course, there is the Japanese? What did they care about Schicklgruber and the Treaty of Versailles? What silliness, the so-called conventional wisdom is on that piece of history. "Nonsense! The Great War was the war to end all wars, and would have if it had just ended more fairly." Is that the idea you're sticking with? Really?

@allalbenadam 3 месяца назад

Just reading the title, I considered the title stupid, why? Because the South lost the war the Moment Morocco got involved and defended the colonies.

@bornagaintory 3 месяца назад

😂 Institutional racism 🎉😂

@thehowlingmisogynist9871 3 месяца назад

Harry Turtledove wrote this alternative history in a series of books. IMHO - I suspect the economic expansion of he North would have created unstoppable combat power. There would simply have been a re-match within 20 years!

@pretorious700 3 месяца назад

Nonsense.

@thehowlingmisogynist9871 3 месяца назад

@@pretorious700 - But, we'll never ever know!

@danboyd2725 3 месяца назад

For starters, Southerners wouldn't be so Butt Hurt. 😂

@ratfinkie62 3 месяца назад

They were. “The Lost Cause”. 👎🏼

@markvilla2889 3 месяца назад

If you really want to know just wait until Trump is elected...However no 40 acres and no mule..

@petebondurant58 3 месяца назад

The 40 acres and a mule slogan was disseminated by the Union, not the Confederates.

@WalkenDead 3 месяца назад

In this alternate history you seem to discount the first and second world wars. If ever there was a time that the 2 would reconcile those would be it. You also think that the south would neglect modern advancement in industry, that is a negligent way of thinking. Even if they did at first, they would be able to see the advantage the Northern states had and work to offset it. Slavery would have eventually died because of ingenuity and invention. As much as people like to think that slaves were cheap, machines would have been much cheaper.

@ortho-g9826 3 месяца назад

History is screwed up enough without fantasizing about BS! Come back to EARTH!

@BS-vx8dg 3 месяца назад

This was a nice attempt, but ultimately, a failed attempt at alternate history. The paths woven were sometimes internally contradictory.. Downvoting.

@outdoorlife5396 3 месяца назад

I think a few points were missed. One there would have been more than a cold war on the west. Unless the Golden Circle became a reality. Then Mexico would have given the csa a western coast. There would be a problem with being attacked though. The csa would have to learn to make its own materials for war and industry. Also, since the USA was close and free territory, I think the slaves would make a big run for freedom.

@petebondurant58 3 месяца назад

Why would Mexico "give" the Confederacy anything? They Confederacy would have had to taken it.

@outdoorlife5396 3 месяца назад

@@petebondurant58 It was using the Golden Circle. You have to read up on it. But it still would have been agricultural. I think you need a certain amount of Industry to support a county.

@petebondurant58 3 месяца назад

@@outdoorlife5396 I know what the Golden Circle was. I also know that it was a dismal failure.

@outdoorlife5396 3 месяца назад

@@petebondurant58 Well that is what they believed. How it was going to happen, I don't see it. But it's there story, let them tell it. The crazy thing about the KGC, is they still have gold around like pirates or Jesse James. If you believe that sort of thing.

@karlfowler3742 3 месяца назад

The North forced the South to remain agricultural. They were expected to supply the North with agriculture and be happy about it. The Emancipation Proclamation was a Law passed by the Northern States and only applied to the Southern States where the North had no say in their affairs. The South was an independent Nation at the time of the Proclamation. The North didn't free their Slaves until after the War was over in 1865 with the passage of the 13th Amendment. Why did they wait so long if that's what the War was over?

@LonesomeDove-dn8dk 3 месяца назад

The North didn't force anything on the South. In fact, the election of the very first president who they believed would be moire in line with Northern sympathies over Southern resulted in the South seceding. Hardly an act that supports a belief that the North had any control over Southern life or lifestyles. Southern agricultural goods were EXPORTED. Northern industry wasn't based on Southern cotton, tobacco or rice, it was based on iron, coal and wool, none of which came from the South. The North didn't start the war to free the slaves. The South started it to maintain slavery. The Unionists fought to preserve the nation as a whole and the Emancipation Proclamation was an economic and political attack against the South, not a humanitarian relief act.