What if the South won the Civil War?
video description
Second, why everyone assumes that the two countries would have been hostile towards each other? I think they would more than likely went the route of US/Canada or US/UK instead of, lets say, North and South Korea.
Yes, there would be some resentment up North, but at the end of the day, the two would still share history and ideas of freedom. The only difference would be that one country is a confederation of several independent states, and the other is a centralized government. Much like the European Union prior to and after the Treaty of Lisbon.
Im convinced the majority of public opinion would be against any future wars, especially the ones to conquer and occupy other states. I mean, the reason several states joined the Confederacy in the first place, was because they were asked to raise an army and to attack other states. To them it was a sin of monumental proportions. More importantly, there would be nothing down South that the US would be interested in, at least until the oil in Texas comes to play. By then, however, the two countries would probably be strongly economically connected, as Im sure both would invest a lot of money in each other. Also, who knows, maybe Texas by then would have decided to go solo and declare independence?
Overall, I feel like this would be more beneficial for all of you in America, as you would have avoided 150+ years of one half of the country telling the other what to do. Sometimes its better to get a divorce and remain friends than to force one spouse to like what the other one likes.
Date: 2022-07-15
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Mark
Oh for heaven's sake. Winning at Antietam was not going to magically allow the South to logistically support an army any significant distance North of the Potomac River. Supporting an Civil War army in the field required either rail lines or water transport to bring the food, ammunition, and other military supplies to the troops. (the only notable exception was Sherman's March from Atlanta to the sea, which worked only because they never really faced any significant Confederate opposition, and looted food as they went. And the South had no ability to use either water or rails North of the Potomac River. But even if they magically could have cut the rail lines to Washington DC, encircling it. So what? Did you forget that the US Navy controlled both the Potomac to the head of navigation as well as the Atlantic along the Eastern seaboard? The Union Navy could have supplied any siege of Washington for as long as a Southern Army wanted to try to maintain it. .Rebs would be more likely to starve or run out of ammo before the Union Washington garrison) And don't make me laugh to think that the Confederates could have kept supplied an army strong enough to actually take Baltimore, 75 miles from the nearest crossing of the Potomac the Confederates could hope to control. and 100 miles to the nearest railhead (at Leesburg, VA) The South did not have enough supply wagons or draft stock to pull them to manage to keep their army fed that far from a railhead or river landing they controlled. Philadelphia? That's ludicrous, since it's more than 200 miles.
reply
Oh for heaven's sake. Winning at Antietam was not going to magically allow the South to logistically support an army any significant distance North of the Potomac River. Supporting an Civil War army in the field required either rail lines or water transport to bring the food, ammunition, and other military supplies to the troops. (the only notable exception was Sherman's March from Atlanta to the sea, which worked only because they never really faced any significant Confederate opposition, and looted food as they went. And the South had no ability to use either water or rails North of the Potomac River. But even if they magically could have cut the rail lines to Washington DC, encircling it. So what? Did you forget that the US Navy controlled both the Potomac to the head of navigation as well as the Atlantic along the Eastern seaboard? The Union Navy could have supplied any siege of Washington for as long as a Southern Army wanted to try to maintain it. .Rebs would be more likely to starve or run out of ammo before the Union Washington garrison) And don't make me laugh to think that the Confederates could have kept supplied an army strong enough to actually take Baltimore, 75 miles from the nearest crossing of the Potomac the Confederates could hope to control. and 100 miles to the nearest railhead (at Leesburg, VA) The South did not have enough supply wagons or draft stock to pull them to manage to keep their army fed that far from a railhead or river landing they controlled. Philadelphia? That's ludicrous, since it's more than 200 miles.
reply
Soldat
Keeping it simple
Basic facts anyone can check. Pope Pius IX sided with President Jefferson Davis. They wrote to each other- So consider the CSA [Confederate States of America] as Christian
Karl Marx, along with Engels, was a bi weekly columnist in the NY Tribune, employed by its owner Horace Greeley- Consider the Union as pro Socialist
1848 failed socialist revolutions against the (Catholic) Austro Hungarian Empire and another against the Papal states (Garibaldi)-Year Karl Marx/Engels published Communist Manifesto. Many leaders banished to the US joined the Abolitionists and then the Union army. They were called the Forty Eighters
Moneys earned working for the NY Tribune helped Marx publish the 1st volume of Das Kapital in 1867.
Had the CSA won it would have been 770 thousand square miles, controlled the Mississippi and its ports, the Gulf and southern Atlantic coast. Region rich in fertile soil, sun and water would have been the breadbasket, outstripping even California ( if it was developed. Massive natural resources in oil, coal and minerals.
As for slavery the proposed corwin amendment would have made slavery permanent if the CSA stayed with the Union. The CSA turned it down. The Dred Scott ruling was maintained till the end of that war in 1865. It stated that runaway slaves to Free states are still the property of the owner. There is a lot more but I am keeping it simple
reply
Keeping it simple
Basic facts anyone can check. Pope Pius IX sided with President Jefferson Davis. They wrote to each other- So consider the CSA [Confederate States of America] as Christian
Karl Marx, along with Engels, was a bi weekly columnist in the NY Tribune, employed by its owner Horace Greeley- Consider the Union as pro Socialist
1848 failed socialist revolutions against the (Catholic) Austro Hungarian Empire and another against the Papal states (Garibaldi)-Year Karl Marx/Engels published Communist Manifesto. Many leaders banished to the US joined the Abolitionists and then the Union army. They were called the Forty Eighters
Moneys earned working for the NY Tribune helped Marx publish the 1st volume of Das Kapital in 1867.
Had the CSA won it would have been 770 thousand square miles, controlled the Mississippi and its ports, the Gulf and southern Atlantic coast. Region rich in fertile soil, sun and water would have been the breadbasket, outstripping even California ( if it was developed. Massive natural resources in oil, coal and minerals.
As for slavery the proposed corwin amendment would have made slavery permanent if the CSA stayed with the Union. The CSA turned it down. The Dred Scott ruling was maintained till the end of that war in 1865. It stated that runaway slaves to Free states are still the property of the owner. There is a lot more but I am keeping it simple
reply
Dakota
I don't know I think it would still be quite a bit different than even that example. Simply because the fact the civil war started because the industry was up North and they were getting all the money for the cotton the South had grown. So with the money they could get from selling the cotton they could possibly industrialize parts of the south. It would be primarily a farming industry, but still a southern industry none the less. Slavery was a whole show the government put on to get more soldiers to fight for the government/north so the south couldn't split and they wouldn't lose any money from pretty much the only booming industry they had being cotton. Most southerners could even afford slave a very small majority actually supported and owned slaves. Hell the south couldn't even afford military uniforms they just fought with their street clothes and the guns they had personally owned prior to the war.
reply
I don't know I think it would still be quite a bit different than even that example. Simply because the fact the civil war started because the industry was up North and they were getting all the money for the cotton the South had grown. So with the money they could get from selling the cotton they could possibly industrialize parts of the south. It would be primarily a farming industry, but still a southern industry none the less. Slavery was a whole show the government put on to get more soldiers to fight for the government/north so the south couldn't split and they wouldn't lose any money from pretty much the only booming industry they had being cotton. Most southerners could even afford slave a very small majority actually supported and owned slaves. Hell the south couldn't even afford military uniforms they just fought with their street clothes and the guns they had personally owned prior to the war.
reply
Dej
I'm not sure the trench warfare would be a thing in America. Mainly because of enormous length of the front. It's much more likely to see something like an eastern front of WWI with large scale offensives across the great plains. Also with CSA and Canada on the south and north respectively, the USA would be in threat to get their western territories cut off. On the other hand European powers wouldn't have enough resources to intervene much in American theater just to lose in European one. Especially if US start quick offensive and took Toronto and rest of southeast Canada, the UK has not much to do with that. France wouldn't have enough resources to intervene in America at all. So the WWI in America would be pretty much American conflict.
reply
I'm not sure the trench warfare would be a thing in America. Mainly because of enormous length of the front. It's much more likely to see something like an eastern front of WWI with large scale offensives across the great plains. Also with CSA and Canada on the south and north respectively, the USA would be in threat to get their western territories cut off. On the other hand European powers wouldn't have enough resources to intervene much in American theater just to lose in European one. Especially if US start quick offensive and took Toronto and rest of southeast Canada, the UK has not much to do with that. France wouldn't have enough resources to intervene in America at all. So the WWI in America would be pretty much American conflict.
reply
tom
I got an idea for you! Do a video of if the south used longbows and arrows and always fought from cover and feinting. A total defensive policy! No lining up to get slaughtered. Before you laugh consider 'experts believe that the longbow drew anywhere from 80 to 110 pounds of pressure. However, these powerful weapons were effective as far as 180 to 200 yards. The longbow was considered a formidable weapon when used correctly. A skilled archer could shoot six to ten arrows in a minute with accuracy'. Lightweight easy to make and move, arrows would be easy to mass-produce. DO THAT PLEASE!
reply
I got an idea for you! Do a video of if the south used longbows and arrows and always fought from cover and feinting. A total defensive policy! No lining up to get slaughtered. Before you laugh consider 'experts believe that the longbow drew anywhere from 80 to 110 pounds of pressure. However, these powerful weapons were effective as far as 180 to 200 yards. The longbow was considered a formidable weapon when used correctly. A skilled archer could shoot six to ten arrows in a minute with accuracy'. Lightweight easy to make and move, arrows would be easy to mass-produce. DO THAT PLEASE!
reply
Linda
Not taught when the Civil War is brought up is the fact that the Southern states did not have solid support from within. So their wish to succeed had no way of ever coming to fruition.
There were a surprising amount of whites in the South who wanted the country to stay intact. My ancestors who were living in Arkansas, Missouri and Texas at this time fought for the Union
BTW, the thumbnail for the video is inaccurate depiction of Civil War Confederate states. They DID NOT include New Mexico and Arizona territory
reply
Not taught when the Civil War is brought up is the fact that the Southern states did not have solid support from within. So their wish to succeed had no way of ever coming to fruition.
There were a surprising amount of whites in the South who wanted the country to stay intact. My ancestors who were living in Arkansas, Missouri and Texas at this time fought for the Union
BTW, the thumbnail for the video is inaccurate depiction of Civil War Confederate states. They DID NOT include New Mexico and Arizona territory
reply
Skeleton
Great video, keep up the great work! I reference this video in the description of my own video on this topic. Check it out, as I cover it from a unique and original angle, focusing on the effects that Southern secession would have had on the US Constitution as well as looking at the Constitution of the Confederacy, whilst also refuting the Lost Cause Myth.
reply
Great video, keep up the great work! I reference this video in the description of my own video on this topic. Check it out, as I cover it from a unique and original angle, focusing on the effects that Southern secession would have had on the US Constitution as well as looking at the Constitution of the Confederacy, whilst also refuting the Lost Cause Myth.
reply
Sionnach
So they did win. The Union soldiers fought for monumental change, but reconstruction failed. Then the south reverted to a system of white supremacy and near-slavery known as Jim Crow. The Civil Rights movement dismantled Jim Crow. However, during and following the Donald Trump administration elements of Jim Crow began to return.
reply
So they did win. The Union soldiers fought for monumental change, but reconstruction failed. Then the south reverted to a system of white supremacy and near-slavery known as Jim Crow. The Civil Rights movement dismantled Jim Crow. However, during and following the Donald Trump administration elements of Jim Crow began to return.
reply
Nancy
They basically did. The North was primarly Republican and the south was overwelmingly Democrat. After 150 years Democrats have convinced Americans they are for the worker, minorities, and business. All of which they are against. Democrats (the south) won. It just took 150 years for us to realize it.
reply
They basically did. The North was primarly Republican and the south was overwelmingly Democrat. After 150 years Democrats have convinced Americans they are for the worker, minorities, and business. All of which they are against. Democrats (the south) won. It just took 150 years for us to realize it.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
