What If The Radical Reconstruction Succeeded? | Alternate History 

Opinion on jREG?

What your favourite Dinosaur?

*What is your social security number?*

Is Jack Teixeira a Hero?

Can I have your wallet?

He ensured the survival of the south in a way, so booth probably sees it at as a success.

When you’re focused on hate you’re not thinking in terms of consequences.

Good.

@@boopie6635 no not good at all 1 he shot the president and two he worsened the situation for the south, it’s terrible

​@@Badstrref267 I hate to tell you, but not thinking about the consequences of your actions is what's responsible for the majority of what people have ever done wrong.

They managed to survive till the Normans goot control of Tunisia. They gradually died out when the Almoravids cam3

These Afro-romans were basically just colonizers Being more closely related to European or northern Mediterranean Europeans They weren't exactly native to North Africa and theirfore when islam came and the native Semitic Berbers took up arms with their Arabian counter parts in the east they were basically wiped out Just like the vandal barbarians and other colonies by Ancient civilizations from the eastern and northern Mediterranean Most north Africans are semites, they always have been

@@caniblmolstr4503so what if the Normans had been able to establish an enduring Afro-Romance kingdom?

@@terranceramirez4816 just saying they didn't die out at the time he mentioned. The early Caliphates both Abbasids and Ummayads were xenophilic Abbasids in particular. Not the case with the latter ones like Fatimids or Almoravids or the absolutely fanatic Almohad Btw it was the Almohads who wiped them out, ended many native Berber customs and traditions as well as Andalusia just coz they thought they weren't Islamic enough. If you guys want to see what would happen to America if the televangelists get power just look at the Almohads

@@terranceramirez4816 oops... I misunderstood your message. For the Norman kingdom of Africa to endure - the Hautevilles of Sicily would convert to Islam. Roger II already employed most of the Fatimids administration and courtly practices. And if Africa became secure the Kingdom would have more Muslims in it than Orthodox or Catholics. The Hautevilles probably wouldn't mind it as they were a pragmatic bunch. Especially Roger. In fact Count, Duke, King and then Caliph seems in tune with Roger's ambition. Yes i am saying Roger would declare a Caliphate in Sicily

It sounds as if you have a story that is worth telling.

I’d be curious if you’re willing to post anything your grandmother spoke to you about or told you about her life in the South in those days. I’ll subscribe to you to see that video if you feel comfortable.

@@effix9097 the big thing she told us was about learning how to be deferential to white people because they didn't want what happened to Mr Harris happen to them which I'm assuming was lynched. She's from South Central Alabama near Opelika originally and said they killed his family and him. She would talk about how people would get arrested and once a year or so they'd just disappear; no letters or anything just gone in jail. I do remember she had some copies of the Chicago Defender or maybe it was Defense etc paper; she said that she bought it for her father and when he was done she saved it. If I recall it has someone about the new colored people's organization and how she remembered seeing her dad getting yelled at for reading that "red" paper. I was young and didn't understand a lot of what she was saying; my other grandparents were born in the 1910s and 1920s in the Delta and had other stories, letters and even a few news clippings. I remember vividly because the last few years of her life when her mind was going shed repeat the same stories over and over again. I miss her wisdom so dearly and wish I could have recorded her and my other grandparents.

Dude you should upload a video telling your grandmothers stories to your RU-vid. I'd watch!

Ramsdell was a bit of a racist jerk but his book on Reconstruction in Texas was good despite that.

Danish? kingdom?

I actually played out a scenario like this in Civ3 years ago for the lulz. As the Norse, I crushed England and made London my new capital, after which I began regular raids on mainland Europe capturing civilians as slaves to build roads and infrastructure on my Norse Britain. Without bothering to convert to Christianity, I had my troops seize the Holy Grail and ransack our way to Jerusalem, pissing off Muslims and Catholics alike along the way. Good times!

Most likely this would occur if Harald Hardrada wins at Stamford Bridge and when William invades, there's no English King to oppose him so they meet somewhere in the middle and agree to a divide England into a new Danish North and Norman South.

@John Potts I think William would be too ambitious to agree to a divide, and the inferior Norman army would be wiped out by Harald's warriors, with William being killed in the battle.

@John Potts I think a better scenario would be William invading earlier due to the weather not changing before his invasion was set to commence (his initial invasion plan was much earlier but the weather was not favourable), and his army being crushed by the much better-prepared and better-organised Anglo-Saxons, who had been waiting there for months anticipating an invasion. Then, Harold would hear that Harald has taken York and would forcemarch his men up there, where they would meet their end at the hand of the Vikings; this leaves all of England open to Harald.

Or at the very least the lost cause myth would be extremely more powerful then it is in our time line

@Tyler Swann You must not be a Southerner. The “Lost Cause” remains powerful. It allowed for Jim Crow and the use of flimsy vagrancy laws to name just a few policies to keep the formerly enslaved people from being able to exercise their full rights as citizens for decades. And continues to be the operating principle for governing in the southeastern region of the United States. I don’t think it could get much more extremely powerful than that.

The US did get more Socialist as a result of the Great Depression. All government is a form of Socialism in that socialism is government control of the economy.

@@OtawoOnlineGaming Yes FDR created federal social programs that directly played a role in bolstering the economy to try and alleviate the depression (WWII truly ended the depression) and these programs continued into the 50s & 60s until they ended when president Nixon ended what was left in 1971 effectively giving the federal reserve the power to print money how it so pleased.

​​@@OtawoOnlineGaminghe socialist idea of dictator of the proletariat, It more Falls in line with fascist ideology use government power to unite the interest of all in One Direction, and national socialism just add race to the proletariat.

It would've stayed much poorer The visigoths weren't exactly known for being great intellectuals They just took over an already dead Roman Empire who lost financial and intellectual property At vest the iberians wouldn't be a major power in Europe anymore

@@maddogbasil Actually Spain would have likely been able to centralize more effectively, and its history would play out like a less populous France. Without the split between Spain and Portugal, we may have seen a virtual monopoly on exploration into the New World and around Africa, even if it all happened slightly later. What wouldn't have happened was the insanely rapid conquest of the Mesoamerican civilizations, since this was largely driven by the surplus of soldiers and adventurers after the end of the Reconquista. On the intellectual front, much of the Mozarabic culture we saw in Andalusia was an Islamic continuation of existing Visigothic cultural styles, to include art and architecture. The one area in which Spain may have lagged behind was in certain sciences that the Muslim world excelled in, like astronomy and medicine. Additionally, the geopolitical changes this involves may have led to the Crusades encompassing all of North Africa.

@@maddogbasil could make the same argument for Arabs, who did not and still do not understand urbanism

@@anon2427 ? i feel like arabs understand urbanism fairly well as of now. egypt has it's cairo and alexandria, morocco it's casablanca and all of fez, libya has tripoli, palestine has jerusalem and gaza city, jordan has amman, iraq has mosul, baghdad, etc. what else? hmm i guess sudan and the sub saharan countries are less so but they're in civil war so i don't think you can expect much

Missouri as well

He had to.

@@flyingsquirrell6953 sic semper tyrannis

@@aa-qx1cg Couldn’t have said it better - death to the tyranny of the Confederate States of America.

@@aa-qx1cgLincoln did the right thing

He bought us time, but the wound did fester and got infected by the Frankfurt School to become Critical Race Theory. Now woke policies are trying to bring us back to segregation and conflict. However Lincoln bought us enough time to bring down the Axis powers and the Soviet Union. This prevented an unholy alliance of what would have been a very Marxist late 1800's America that would form an unholy alliance later with the Soviet Union and Communist China that would have been almost impossible to stop. Thanks to Lincoln our current situation is dire but winnable, not insurmountable. Most importantly he prevented that unstoppable alliance of Communists that would have taken global control.

​@@NuclearFalcon146please take your meds

@@tedbacon1283 That's me on my meds.

Lincoln destroyed the United States of America in all but name. What the heck are you talking about?

He kept it together through force. The US has been held together by violence ever since. The whiskey rebellion being an exception from before the civil war.

It doesn’t help the federal government continued trying to domineer the South for decades after. People don’t realize it but their was discriminatory freight rates for the South well into the 1950s. On top of this numerous state laws have been overturned by federal courts at a whim.

@@thomaswatson1739 The use the civil war to justify constant violations of States' Rights just like Israel uses the Holocaust to justify their Apartheid regime currently.

Unless you live near a military base then no one talks about it

Incredibly well said

I lived around Fredericksburg, Va for a few years. Before the war it was one of the bigger cities in the South. It was so devastated by the war that it’s population and economy did not recover until the 1970s.

BSF International would not have done their lecture-study series on the "Kingdom Divided" era, that's for sure.

@@stirlingmoss4621 and perhaps the 10 tribes to the north wouldn’t have been conquered by Assyria. And if that happened there’s a chance the Samaritans wouldn’t exist

So the Jews would have been more numerous during the Roman-Jewish wars. The Bar Kochba rebellion establishes an independent Jewish state ruling the Eastern Roman Empire. Christianity dominates the Western Roman empire. Rabbinic Judaism never emerges as the temple is rebuilt. Islam never emerges. ‘Christianity’ is understood as a schismatic group within Judaism.

@Tainted-RN and there’s also the fact that Solomon’s son Rehoboam was harsher with the 10 northern tribes even after his father’s advisors said to ease their burden. But he went by advice of his friends to be even harsher. This caused the tribes lead by Jeroboam to rebel.

​@tainted-rnthe bible is not history it is more like Greek mythology, if you go to grace you can see old temples and even mount Olympus like you can see the mount of Zion.

Liberia as a state... interesting...

I unironically believe this should happen

​@@rantingrenegade4225NO WAY

@@rantingrenegade4225 bruh administering Liberia from all the way in Washington DC would not work

@@SpaceMarine500 We own guam?

I know this comment is old but something similar is happening with Idaho and Oregon, I bet 500 dollars this one will be unheard of by the end of this year

That's not really why germany went the way it did, every other loser of the war ended up fine

​@@dillonblair6491Turkey rebelled against the Entente and win and Austria-Hungary was destroyed. Even winner's like Italy didn't "ended up fine".

@@Tuliotrivinooficial I mean none of the countries became fascist revanchists obviously losing a war is sad or whatever. But he said carving up lands legitimized worse ideologies when that's not even what happened in Germany. It was literally just the great depression Also Italy was fine, they were just mad because they only gained some more land instead of a lot more land. Italy wasn't destroyed or anything.

Leftists are mentally ill. They hate themselves, their heritage, and their own people. Nothing has changed in 150 years. They delight in seeing White Americans disenfranchised. This will not end until they've completely destroyed society.

I mean the north was still extremely racist

@@night6724 good

@@night6724 True, but the South is extremely racist.

@@redcrown5154 Ayo 📸🤨

In long US still winning, unfortunely.

Nothing would’ve happened differently. Maybe it would’ve delayed their inevitable conquest for a few weeks at most. They were so heavily outnumbered and facing a military with technology radically more advanced than anything a Stone Age people could have resisted. They might as well have been invaded by the aliens in Independence Day

Not even close.

Then the troops would come in

This is what happened OTL and it almost failed@@aydenee558

Cite your sources for this reasoning. I’ve never heard of this and it quite frankly sounds like white nationalist propaganda.

I think it would still exist in the North. Radical Republicanism, under the impetus of the top 3 executives of the country being dead, would be more about vengeance against the South than equality for blacks. So the segregationist elements in the North wouldn’t change, and the federal government wouldn’t interfere noticeably more in Northern affairs than it did in OTL.

You are pretty anti-Southern to suggest that the South slavishly copied Northern practices. The South might have been defeated, but it never lost. After Reconstruction, the South was in charge of its own fate. Stop spreading Anti-South propaganda.

Japan would rule Oceania

He wouldn't be viewed as a demon That and likely a Japanese empire in the East. Earlier modernization

Probably makes a war between Spain and America impossible, as it would involve the German Empire

@@Reichsritter Yeah, I would assume Spain and Germany would become militarily and financially aligned. Then when America tries to start the Spanish-American War, Germany steps in and prevents it. Spain would probably be a Central Power in WW1 as well.

@@morsecode980 Maybe open a second front with France, could have been nice

@@Reichsritterlmost certainly would’ve caused France to fall possibly in 1914 and if not definitely later in say 15 or 16

Who cares?

I think the black states would be misruled, based on Nordhoff's reportage from the Reconstruction South. The white minority would be abused. They already were crying foul ('Birth of a Nation', anyone?) only this time they would be harder to ignore.

Oh man that'll be good... Like not stopping till we are a 3 Contant nation?

Alternatively, what if there had been a resurgence in the 1890s, inspired by the closing of the Western frontier, of interest in the reclamation of the sick, decaying South? It might have taken the form of finally trying to reconcile the races, or it might have resulted in the creation of "orderly and scientific" segregation on a town or county level, akin to the attempt by conservatives in the final days of Apartheid in South Africa to establish racial "cantons".

​​​​@@arcadiaberger9204 how would the USA win a land war against Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and all of south america combined around the 1890s in the first place?

@@eduardopupucon Are you proposing that Latin America would unite in the 1890s? How would that happen? Was this intended as a reply to my comment about renewed interest in "the reclamation of the sick, decaying South"? I was referring to the Southern states of the U.S., not to Latin America. As for the U.S. expanding southward, I think that would more likely take the form of gradually annexing islands in the Caribbean and the acquisition of the low-population northern states of Mexico, north of the densely populated middle region of the country, and eventually an attempt to seize the real prize, the remainder of Mexico.

The whole "Lincoln wanted to send the slaves back to Africa" is a myth.

Didn't Lincoln change his mind after meeting with people like frederick Douglass?

@@weirdlanguageguy He became less insistent. Lincoln basically went from "Ship them all" to (after meeting Douglass and befriending him) "Only ship the ones that Want to go!"

@@Rensune good to know, thanks!

America would’ve thrived for longer if that happened

By the time the civil war was over the opinions of northerners on slavery shifted in a big way as evidenced by the radical republicans

It never left.

and probably many in the north where not that wiling to destroy white people to make blacks masters of the south

Any rebellion would’ve been crushed just like the first rebellion that started the civil war.

I could see it pushing for a second civil war and a permanent sense of "two countries within one nation" amongst the southerners. Even if they had failed again, I would suspect that the south would continue to revolt against the state for at least an entire generation.

Fight with what arms? What population? You can’t ask starving masses to fight a war.

It would've been a guerilla war, with a lot of terrorism; much harder to stamp out. Never underestimate how dangerous starving, angry people can be

Yes! This is what we want to know!

God I wish we were still independent.

I wish that too. Not because I'm a Texan nationalist, I just really hate Texas.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-z0e7DHr0_4U.html

@@NunyaMcBusiness We hate you too.

Belisarius was a weak man in his personal affairs and was never able to recapture the glory of his early military career. His wife held him by the nuts and slept around in plain view. Procopius explains well

​@anon2427 bruh the secret history isn't real, literally everyone knows that

that has an easy answer: he couldn't. No supply-lines. The man couldn't even hold Italy. A better question would be, what if Justinian had held the line at the historical Magna Graeca, letting the rest of Italy stay Latin.

More Southern whites emigrating to KY and MO (especially those unable to vote back home) means the Democrats can count on their votes. Might not matter in the 1860s but their voices will be heard in the 1870s. I can easily see Ohio, Indiana and maybe even Illinois and Iowa being sympathetic.

we would be able to afford homes

bushes as far as the eye could see,

@@roberthoffhines5419 😎

Was not

Yeah Z went a bit over board with squiggles and divisions. No real reason to assume this empowered Radical Reconstruction wouldn't just forcibly relocate people, so they don't have to follow demographics, and make a more reasonable map that doesn't balloon the number of southern states so much.

Uhmm… isn’t he considered one of the worst presidents in American history?

@@BlackDoveNYC he acknowledged that lol

@@BlackDoveNYC I did say that I wasn't related to a cool or vaguely acceptable president.

​@@thomasdevine867 One could say you are president

Mostly untrue

I love how antisemitic dogwhistles are so well known you can just point and laugh at the Nazis now. Just say it with your chest, pussy

@@unovasfinest2623 take your meds schizo

If you’re gonna be racist at least be a man an own it. Don’t hide behind dogwhistles like a coward

winner takes the chicken dinner

theyd accidentally nuke themselves(the previous president of S Africa couldn't even say numbers over 10,000)

It'd be useless eventually cause they wouldn't have the money to keep maintaining them.

It's a stretch, considering the northerners hated blacks too. The slavery issue was far more economic than socially based, remember Lincoln wanted them all on the first boats back to Africa and the northern states hardly treated them any better than the Jim Crowe south. They saw them as cheap potential labor for factories and the south as a cheap source of materials that was then going to Europe instead of the north exclusively.

Calhoun is underrated king

@@thomaswatson1739 So true!

Thoughts on John C. Calhoun? Force for good or not so much? Same two questions for George Wallace (pre-shooting).

*Martin (not "marther")

​@@Eidolon1andOnlysorry voice typing😅

@@dominicadrean2160 LOL, happens all the time.

The whole "we'll race swap your historic figure and see how you like it" strategy feels kinda weak. It'd be nice if we had the kind of culture that just stomped out the race-swapping entirely.

very bad hoteppian we wuz kangz movie

No no, he addressed it perfectly.

What's more telling is that you hold Trans-Atlantic Slavery which was done away with over a hundred fifty years ago, against White Southerners today. I descend from Confederates, but I shed a tear at the thought of what could have been if Abraham Lincoln had lived to enact his plans for Reconstruction and solve Slavery in his way.

​@@rustyshackleford1465Way I see it, this guy just has anti-⚪ hatred in his heart, and you need to be on guard for it, lest he catch you unaware. Also, RU-vid shadowbanned your comment for some reason. I only saw it by clicking 'new' comments and manually finding this comment thread.

@@jakesoros2376 A lot of the comments I've made recently are just gone now.

@@rustyshackleford1465 Yup. Hate when that happens. It's insidious, because it stifles honest conversation for the sake of an antagonist's feelings.

How would the Aztecs defeat Cortez? And if they did, what would stop the Spanish from bringing a larger force in order to defeat them? It’s like saying What if Germany won WW2. How would something so outlandish happen in order to bring a What If?

@@somehistorynerd Cortez almost died several times during the fight against the Aztecs, and he was the only thing holding the coalition against the Aztecs together. If he died, everything would've fallen apart. Also, Cortez was actually acting against orders from the Spanish crown; he was just supposed to explore and establish relations, not conquer. But his success, and Aztec gold encouraged further expeditions, with many wanting to replicate Cortez's conquest. If Cortez had died, and his expedition had failed, the Spanish would probably have been discouraged from further attempts.

So basically the Sassanid Empire conquered Egypt, the Levant, and Anatolia from the ERE and the WRE decides to just reunify the Empire? That could happen. Though I couldn't see how the Romans would let the Sassanids keep Egypt since both Rome and Constantinople depended on grain shipments from Egypt.

@@sgauden02 god, gold, glory. By virtue of the Aztecs being heathens, the Spanish would be back to subdue them. The moment the Aztecs reject Christ, the Spanish will invade. There is no plausible scenario where the Aztecs come out winning without diverting into fantasy.

I suspect a constitutional amendment would end up being enacted to move the election back to even-numbered years, just because it's much more convenient to have presidential elections and congressional elections at the same time. And that would be a far bigger factor in the 19th century.

The President Pro-Tempore of the senate was actually a position officially held by the vice president, with only other senators holding it in an interim position when the vice president wasn't present. In truth there was no line of succession officially established by the constitution so it would come down to congress to nominate an interim president in all likelihood.

@Cool123 False, look up the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. It listed the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives after the Vice President in the event of a double vacancy (created out of fear that Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson could succeed to the presidency in the 1790s). The Vice President holds the office of President of the Senate concurrently while serving as Vice President. The office of President pro tempore of the Senate is held typically by the most senior Senator of the majority party in the Senate at the time, and has been held that way since its creation. From 1911 to the 1920s the office was held by rotating people at different times but the office had been removed from the presidential line of succession since the Presidential Succession Act of 1886, which replaced the 1792 line of succession with the cabinet in order of department creation instead of the Pres pro temp and Speaker. The office would not be put back into the line of succession until the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 which put it in the line of succession but after the Speaker of the House (the cabinet again in order of creation would come after the President pro temp in the line of succession). The 25th Amendment ratified in 1967 actually didn't alter the presidential line of succession but rather clarified that in a majority vote of the cabinet with the Vice President that the President can be deemed not able to exercise their duties and be replaced by the Vice President as Acting President until the situation was resolved. It also allowed for the nomination of a Vice President in the case of a vacancy in the office.

@@williamjol5205 you are correct, my apologies.

@Cool123 No problem, sorry if I sounded rude at all. I just know a LOT about the way the US Constitution works, probably more than I should, tbh given the fact that I'm Canadian.😅

No plan would work without the military. The military would be the teeth behind the policy

Your forgetting that “Nestorian”(Church of the East) Christianity already had a foothold among the Mongolian tribes with even one the major Mongolian generals who lead campaigns into Syria being a Christian of this denomination.

@@BigBroTejano Right, that would also be an option, my mind blanked on that one for a bit. So, thanks for pointing out a third potential path to the Christian Mongols and Mongol successors.

If the mongols of the Golden Horde converted to Christianity instead of Islam, then the Ilkhanate could focus on fighting the Egyptian Mamluks and perhaps they could even conquer Egypt (In our timeline the Khan of the Golden Horde who had converted to Islam made an alliance with the Mamluks, which prevented the Ilkhanate from focusing their attention on fighting the Egyptians)

Also Buddhism might or might not be still widespread around Central Asia, depending on whether the Christianized Mongols tolerated them more than the Islamized Mongols of our timeline

​@@ryannathaniel9296 Fighting heretics tends to happen opposed to heathens. So this timeline would have crazy internal religion problems

The negotiations would have broken down, McClellan would have lost political-capital, and time wasn't on the South's side. Radical-Reconstruction is coming (especially since the South, like, doesn't have Senators). McClellan 1865 looks to be going the way of Johnson but harder. ... all this assumes that European powers don't start supplying the South. Portugal-Brasil-Angola was a slave power still. Also there were 'Reactionary Enlightenment' types in the South considering how to humanise the Institution. Benjamin and Longstreet are usually cited here.

Interesting idea.

The good ending

@jeansanchez2805 If Britain conquered Mexico instead of Spain.

it would basically be Australia

They have learned alot from the radical Republicans. Like flooding the country with foreigners in order to secure political power. At least when the Republicans did it we were allowed to oppress them into being Americans. Nowadays your the bad guy for expecting immigrants to learn English.

It's clear that the Democrats have much less respect for rule of law, than the Republicans, and this serves as a good explanation.

I tend to disagree. The modern Dems have really nothing in common with then Dems of the 19th century be it thier socio-political or economic stances. The republican party at this time on the other hand, was a primitive version of progressive leftist of today. Be it hostility to the free market and racial self-hatred. It wasn't the democrats of the 1850's trying to start slave uprisings which would surely spiral into a genocidal race war that would have put Haiti to shame. But what would become radical Republicans sure did.

How so?

The civil war goes far beyond political party lines both the republicans and democrats from then are completely unrecognizable today the only thing they share is their names

I mean, the north didn’t allow black people to vote either

Habsburg Mexico might still exist

@@night6724 at least they did not enslave them🫤

@@unreliablenarratorz2772 they did tho

@@night6724 not while the radical republicans were in charge😎

The Whites that live in it have been stripped of their precious plantations and possibly forced to go live with Appalachian cousin-shaggers or Midwesterners, so Idk if I count that as a win for South Carolinan racists.

Piss off, Nazi.

Never heard of locals, I'll have to look into that. Vanillo is a thing again, not much of a viewer base yet. Would be nice to see a decent size creator migrate (ofc, not as big as Mumkey so as to destroy the servers again)

That would be terrible! Thank God every social, political and economic formation of the -Confederacy- South were kept alive by Northern Democrats before the war even ended. I can’t imagine how awful the post-war situation would have been if a Southern -Democrat- separatist party -that created- with links to paramilitary groups responsible for terrorism would have been like. Imagine all of the political violence, lynchings, massacres, and literal coups that might have taken place if the Union hadn’t immediately started paying reparations to slave owners whose -humans- property was unjustly seized. The war started by the Confederacy killed more Americans than every war in American history combined. I shudder to think of the horrifying consequences of a Reconstruction that did anything else but reinforce the antebellum status quo for another century and beyond.

@@wafflepoet5437 you are an unhinged and psychotic wannnabe despot. I hope you can get professional therapy for your homicidal tendencies.

Have you not heard of the KKK you dumb dumb. Radical reconstruction would have more aggressively clamped down on these terrorist elements in the south

nah the soulth would have been pacified

Russia wanted to sell it for various domestic reasons at the time. Given Seward himself was a Radical Republican and would most likely be replaced by another Radical Republican under a new administration the sale of Alaska to the US would probably still happen. A lot of the idea of "Seward's Folly" was an exageration created by partisan newspapers, but the American government knew full well the strategic advantages of taking Alaska. Any Republican administration existing at this time will jump at the chance to take Alaska basically and no matter what, you're going to have Republican administrations for quite some time under this scenario. I also wanted to add, that given the geopolitical situation at the time if they were going to sell it, their only option was the US since Britain/Canada still appeared to be the longer term threat.

The U.K would invade and hold Alaska in this timeline, it was only a matter of time.

@@jackphillips6742 Perhaps but that would really piss off both the Russians and Americans. At some point the US will take it, and in that kind of situation...likely would be taking a chunk of Canada with it.

@@newworldman2112 Doubt it. The border stays as an even line, completely solves the Oregon disputes and gets one power completely out of that hemisphere while not really changing the man power the U.K has on that continent.

@@jackphillips6742 Seriously did you not read my prior comment...Alaska was going to be American. UK would not fight a war in the late 19th century over it.

@@Skiritai By force... Remember we just left and only begun the war because the north decided to leave bases in the south something they forbid doing to other peoples a few years before...

@@Skiritai being reunited by force is still conquest, America is not a Nation State, and the South similar to New England, Appalachia, the Midwest, etc. are all separate nations. By reuniting through force you inherently break the confederal bond of the various nation states. For example imagine if one of the members of the Iriqouis confederation seceded because a policy was made by the central authority that they disagreed with (even if said policy may be good), then the other Iroquois nations crushed them to force them into the fold, that nation would be forever imbittered to the confederation since it was no longer be a bond of mutual trust but instead one of conquest. That’s entirely unsustainable, and the only way to resolve it is to do one of two things the Romans did: 1. Make it more beneficial to be a part of the country than not (this means not just on an economic level but also a social and political level), Ex: Greece, Hispania 2. Wipe out their leaders and a good chunk of the men, salt the earth, and never allow them to rebuild. Ex. Carthage Option 1 is easier but doesn’t work if they were a prexisting member state of the federation that left through vote since that means most of the population doesn’t see it as beneficial to be a citizen/member of the original country, so that wouldn’t work probably. Option 2 is bad because geno*ide is bad, duh.

In India?

The Confederacy wasn't a legitimate government though. The Union had complete jurisdiction over the South. He couldn't free slaves in the Union/Union controlled territory, because he didn't have the extra administrative authority over non-rebellious areas.

@MrMah-zf6jk what part of secession do you not comprehend? By that argument, the United 23 colonies weren't a legitimate government. The Union did not have jurisdiction over the South any more than England had jurisdiction over The United States or Russia has over Crimea Does your standard also apply to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau, Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Osseetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, the SADR, the TRNC... Conflict states don't cease to exist just because you don't recognize their authority. Your opinion of a government does not make it legitimate or not. It is the government's opinion of itself. Lincoln didn't have "extra administrative authority". He granted that to himself. He was acting as a tyrant. If Lincoln didn't have authority to free slaves in the areas he controlled, then he had even less authority in the areas he didn't. Please stop arguing in favor of the very actions America was founded in opposition toward