The Issue with this that i can see, even if the South had Won earlier in our timeline. The South would still and forever be even stagnate and Poor due to barley if not any Industrial Power. they were most and heavily agricultural based. even in the Confederate Constitution Slavery was supposed to be in the south forever this was even mentioned in Several Southern state constitutions at the time, the south would have a major struggle industrializing and due to how poor the south is any form of Industrializing could be a Threat to Slave owners who fought to keep the rights of slavery. so therefore it would be realized of a Confederate Civil War. Not to mention It would be highly likely that Black Slaves would commit to several uprisings further hindering Confederate Success. and you are correct about corruption in the south. As for the Union It would see some struggle after the Civil war and would be Heavily Bitter towards the south and Britain. however the U.S. on the positive side would not and no longer be hindered by slavery and could immediately abolish Slavery and any form of Laws against Blacks in the rest of the Northern and Western States, and could begin earlier and much more capable Industrial Power. Overall the Points you have made in the Video are correct, Great Video.
Who said they couldn't use slave for industrial labor? Slavery like everything in society will evolve in the South, nobody said that slavery can only used for agriculture. If the South industrialized, they would do it fast.
@@UdinJibral The Problem is Keeping the Southern way of Life, which is agrigculture based society. Industrialization at all in any aspect would be a threat to every Southeners life style. The south was born and made into an Agrigcultural based society. and it wouldn't be Fast either, the south would struggle even building Industrial might, from many things of being Poor, economically unstable from the Civil War, and due to the upcoming corruption.
You’ve made some excellent points.The South’s reliance on agriculture and resistance to industrialization due to the power of slaveholders would’ve been a huge barrier to progress, even if they had won. The idea of a Confederate Civil War seems likely too, with all the internal conflicts that would arise. Black uprisings would add to the chaos, making it even harder for the Confederacy to survive long-term. On the flip side, the Union might have faced initial struggles but would’ve been better positioned to thrive without slavery dragging it down. Plus, it’s possible the North could have become more militarized, gearing up to eventually try and win back the South.
The south was on par with the Union in terms of the wealth of their citizens until the civil war. The continuation of slavery in the south is not very likely as it was on its way out and even if it did stick around while the CSA was expanding would risk revolts from the general population. Because when the war began less than 7% of the population owned slaves, and when you add the population of the conquered territories would further decrease the percentage to 2-3%. The institution of slavery in the south wouldn’t last more than a couple decades longer especially when their economy starts to drop . Slavery relied on the union to prosper as it would continue buying its products and keep the southern economy afloat. Once trade stops, the CSA would need to industrialize which would end slavery due to industrialization needing a much larger population base than what slavery could provide which would be 1/8th of the population based on estimates especially since the slave trade would end within the late 1800s. This would cause the middle class of whites to employ whites, Latinos, and free African-Americans which would outnumber and compete the slave-labor which would cause a gradual decline in slave labor and likely abolishment when most plantations become obsolete. An analogy would be the Great Leap Forward just slower, less death, and successfully. There will be discrimination but not slavery due to the industrialization which the same thing happened in the north just on a smaller scale. All in all, once Slavery became less prosperous, the general populace would create change as they did in the Civil War since most Southerners at the time were subsistence farmers which would be hit hard once the north and Europeans stop buying goods from the south.
20:58 Probably not. The reason Italy didn't get as much land as they were promised wasn't because they Entente were being leanient towards Austria or Hungary. It was because Yugoslavia also wanted the land and they wanted to secure Yugoslavia as a future ally. Maybe without Wilson's self determiniation the Entente would back Italy's claims, but with how poorly Italy preformed in WW1, I don't see Italy being able to enforce them
I will admit that, yes, Italy winning more territory does have less of a chance of happening when compared to most things in this Scenario, but in terms of Italy's performance, they would have at least performed slightly better/been able to contribute more with the longer duration of the war. I find it likely that the Entente sees Italy as more competent than they were in OTL, still incompetent yes, but less so, as they were even more influential in the collapse of Austria-Hungary.
I feel like the South did a little too well in this, but I suppose this has me wondering what a Spanish American War might look like with a still independent South. Even if the US did all of the naval fighting, the South could contribute troops and maybe be compensated with Guantanamo and Puerto Rico while the North focuses on the Pacific. The idea that the already war weary South could prop up Maximilian seems rather silly, though. I don't think the Dominican Republic would choose the CSA to annex them? I mean, not only was their navy not as good, but reinstating slavery would probably controversial. If the North turns them down, maybe they'd go to the South before Spain, but this expansionist CSA seems implausible.
While the idea of propping up Maximilian seems far-fetched at first glance, it’s not entirely crazy. The CSA might have seen strategic value in supporting a regime that could counterbalance U.S. influence in the region or even secure a trade partner sympathetic to Southern interests. The South’s leadership might have taken calculated risks for perceived geopolitical benefits, even if the resources weren’t fully there. Regarding the Dominican Republic, I’d argue that their choice of annexation could be more pragmatic than ideological. If the North outright rejected them, the South-despite its flaws-might still look like a better option than Spain, especially if the CSA offered favorable terms like reduced interference in local governance. Slavery would be controversial, yes, but remember, by this point, the CSA could have been evolving or compromising to expand its influence. Expansionist ambitions may seem implausible, but if survival depended on growing their power base, the CSA might have pushed harder than you think.
@@coquimarinero7246 If the Civil War had ended earlier, the CSA would likely have emerged with more intact infrastructure, manpower, and resources. That would’ve given them a stronger starting point, making them more capable of pursuing military or expansionist goals. Compared to armies to their south-like those in Mexico or Central America-the CSA could potentially have been a formidable match, especially with their battle-hardened troops and leadership. However, even with more resources, long-term sustainability would still be a challenge. The CSA’s economy, built around agriculture and slavery, lacked the industrial base needed to maintain prolonged campaigns or significant territorial expansion.
I do agree, because as slavery became less prosperous, it would cause a revolt in the general populace as the far majority had no slaves and we’re subsistence farmers which relied on trickle down and craftsmanship to get money, and as the currency devalued because of the economic turmoil would cause the general populace to demand change and possibly more revolts would end in the abolishment of slavery and the industrialization of the south.
@@JasonJenson I agree with you too as change would be necessary to prevent collapse because the majority of the southern populace did not enjoy the same prosperity as slaver owners did.
You may be slightly confused on the borders of Poland, since you may be thinking of the Polish Borders after the Polish-Soviet War. The map I showed was dated in August of 1920, and so the Polish-Soviet War, which determined the Pole's Eastern Border, hadn't finished yet and they were in fact on the backfoot at this point, before they would later manage to push back the Soviets, leading to the more familiar interwar Polish borders following the Treaty of Riga. Here is an animation on the Polish-Soviet war so you can get a better idea of the conflict: ua-cam.com/video/8RiQEnmsaww/v-deo.html
Please remember that the American civil war was the only one the US won by itself; after all the USA even owes it's independence to France,the War of 1812-15 led to a collapse of the US economy and the White House being burned down and even the Spanish-American war relied on Cuban and Filipino allies and support. The less said about WWI and WWII where US owned companies were selling weapons and materiel to both sides right up until 1945 as the US turned up late to both the better plus as late as October 1941 the US was mulling over joining Germany and Italy
Then the south be remembered for maintaining slavery sure they fought for state rights but by keeping slavery going they always be remembered for holding onto slavery. And it would alwyasing be the big stain on the south. And regardless pf the various reasons they tried to secese my and dad, I agree they still primarily were still fighting for slavery not just state rights. Ig they got rid of slavery, then the civil war would not have ben so black and white.
@@PaperSmudge the rich plantation owner along with African Americans who owned slaves to in America and also sway the others to secede so they can keep there slaves they all know keep practicing slavery those plantation owners were bent on keeping it to the very end as long as they made profit. It would be to them the end of the world as they know of they had to give up there s!ages other southerns who didn't own slaves will unfortunately they know its the right of the plantation owners they don't have a say in that if there State tried to ban slavery then the plantation owners bribe the politicians to keep it going this alternative idea did well to show how they keep to the second civil war.
I think it would take more 30 yrs to integrate the mexican states or make it majority black. New Mexico to this day still majority Hispanic and these are states further south and fairly populated in the east and way to arid in the west. So introducing slavery might ruin the economy and make it a hot spot for slave revolts considering the local and majority population would be against it.
11:46 That WhatIfAlthist reference hit different💀💀💀💀
Britain: opposes slavery in America
Indians being basically enslaved by Britain in India: 💀💀💀
They were hypocrites.
Whataboutism
@@eidoneverchoosen1171 Whataboutism
@@alenahubbard1391 Hypocrisy
nice video and strong start to the year. You'll soon reach 4,000 subs!
Happy new year! Thanks For this ❤❤❤❤
Cool video
The Issue with this that i can see, even if the South had Won earlier in our timeline. The South would still and forever be even stagnate and Poor due to barley if not any Industrial Power. they were most and heavily agricultural based. even in the Confederate Constitution Slavery was supposed to be in the south forever this was even mentioned in Several Southern state constitutions at the time, the south would have a major struggle industrializing and due to how poor the south is any form of Industrializing could be a Threat to Slave owners who fought to keep the rights of slavery. so therefore it would be realized of a Confederate Civil War. Not to mention It would be highly likely that Black Slaves would commit to several uprisings further hindering Confederate Success. and you are correct about corruption in the south. As for the Union It would see some struggle after the Civil war and would be Heavily Bitter towards the south and Britain. however the U.S. on the positive side would not and no longer be hindered by slavery and could immediately abolish Slavery and any form of Laws against Blacks in the rest of the Northern and Western States, and could begin earlier and much more capable Industrial Power. Overall the Points you have made in the Video are correct, Great Video.
Who said they couldn't use slave for industrial labor?
Slavery like everything in society will evolve in the South, nobody said that slavery can only used for agriculture. If the South industrialized, they would do it fast.
@@UdinJibral The Problem is Keeping the Southern way of Life, which is agrigculture based society.
Industrialization at all in any aspect would be a threat to every Southeners life style. The south was born and made into an Agrigcultural based society. and it wouldn't be Fast either, the south would struggle even building Industrial might, from many things of being Poor, economically unstable from the Civil War, and due to the upcoming corruption.
You’ve made some excellent points.The South’s reliance on agriculture and resistance to industrialization due to the power of slaveholders would’ve been a huge barrier to progress, even if they had won. The idea of a Confederate Civil War seems likely too, with all the internal conflicts that would arise. Black uprisings would add to the chaos, making it even harder for the Confederacy to survive long-term. On the flip side, the Union might have faced initial struggles but would’ve been better positioned to thrive without slavery dragging it down. Plus, it’s possible the North could have become more militarized, gearing up to eventually try and win back the South.
The south was on par with the Union in terms of the wealth of their citizens until the civil war. The continuation of slavery in the south is not very likely as it was on its way out and even if it did stick around while the CSA was expanding would risk revolts from the general population. Because when the war began less than 7% of the population owned slaves, and when you add the population of the conquered territories would further decrease the percentage to 2-3%.
The institution of slavery in the south wouldn’t last more than a couple decades longer especially when their economy starts to drop .
Slavery relied on the union to prosper as it would continue buying its products and keep the southern economy afloat. Once trade stops, the CSA would need to industrialize which would end slavery due to industrialization needing a much larger population base than what slavery could provide which would be 1/8th of the population based on estimates especially since the slave trade would end within the late 1800s. This would cause the middle class of whites to employ whites, Latinos, and free African-Americans which would outnumber and compete the slave-labor which would cause a gradual decline in slave labor and likely abolishment when most plantations become obsolete.
An analogy would be the Great Leap Forward just slower, less death, and successfully. There will be discrimination but not slavery due to the industrialization which the same thing happened in the north just on a smaller scale. All in all, once Slavery became less prosperous, the general populace would create change as they did in the Civil War since most Southerners at the time were subsistence farmers which would be hit hard once the north and Europeans stop buying goods from the south.
Subbed
20:58 Probably not. The reason Italy didn't get as much land as they were promised wasn't because they Entente were being leanient towards Austria or Hungary. It was because Yugoslavia also wanted the land and they wanted to secure Yugoslavia as a future ally. Maybe without Wilson's self determiniation the Entente would back Italy's claims, but with how poorly Italy preformed in WW1, I don't see Italy being able to enforce them
I will admit that, yes, Italy winning more territory does have less of a chance of happening when compared to most things in this Scenario, but in terms of Italy's performance, they would have at least performed slightly better/been able to contribute more with the longer duration of the war. I find it likely that the Entente sees Italy as more competent than they were in OTL, still incompetent yes, but less so, as they were even more influential in the collapse of Austria-Hungary.
Ay he uploaded
Suggestion: What if the spanish Habsburgs survived?
Pls do a what if boers won the boer wars.
What if Franklin D. Roosevelt lived out in his fourth term?
3:32 I smell harry turtledove
When will you continue history 2.0
A very interesting timeline I wouldn’t mind living in.
I feel like the South did a little too well in this, but I suppose this has me wondering what a Spanish American War might look like with a still independent South. Even if the US did all of the naval fighting, the South could contribute troops and maybe be compensated with Guantanamo and Puerto Rico while the North focuses on the Pacific. The idea that the already war weary South could prop up Maximilian seems rather silly, though. I don't think the Dominican Republic would choose the CSA to annex them? I mean, not only was their navy not as good, but reinstating slavery would probably controversial. If the North turns them down, maybe they'd go to the South before Spain, but this expansionist CSA seems implausible.
While the idea of propping up Maximilian seems far-fetched at first glance, it’s not entirely crazy. The CSA might have seen strategic value in supporting a regime that could counterbalance U.S. influence in the region or even secure a trade partner sympathetic to Southern interests. The South’s leadership might have taken calculated risks for perceived geopolitical benefits, even if the resources weren’t fully there.
Regarding the Dominican Republic, I’d argue that their choice of annexation could be more pragmatic than ideological. If the North outright rejected them, the South-despite its flaws-might still look like a better option than Spain, especially if the CSA offered favorable terms like reduced interference in local governance. Slavery would be controversial, yes, but remember, by this point, the CSA could have been evolving or compromising to expand its influence. Expansionist ambitions may seem implausible, but if survival depended on growing their power base, the CSA might have pushed harder than you think.
@@JasonJenson Expansion is not just a matter of desire; it's also ability. The south wouldn't have the complex war machine the North did.
@@coquimarinero7246 If the Civil War had ended earlier, the CSA would likely have emerged with more intact infrastructure, manpower, and resources. That would’ve given them a stronger starting point, making them more capable of pursuing military or expansionist goals. Compared to armies to their south-like those in Mexico or Central America-the CSA could potentially have been a formidable match, especially with their battle-hardened troops and leadership.
However, even with more resources, long-term sustainability would still be a challenge. The CSA’s economy, built around agriculture and slavery, lacked the industrial base needed to maintain prolonged campaigns or significant territorial expansion.
I do agree, because as slavery became less prosperous, it would cause a revolt in the general populace as the far majority had no slaves and we’re subsistence farmers which relied on trickle down and craftsmanship to get money, and as the currency devalued because of the economic turmoil would cause the general populace to demand change and possibly more revolts would end in the abolishment of slavery and the industrialization of the south.
@@JasonJenson I agree with you too as change would be necessary to prevent collapse because the majority of the southern populace did not enjoy the same prosperity as slaver owners did.
Why is Poland smaller ?
You may be slightly confused on the borders of Poland, since you may be thinking of the Polish Borders after the Polish-Soviet War. The map I showed was dated in August of 1920, and so the Polish-Soviet War, which determined the Pole's Eastern Border, hadn't finished yet and they were in fact on the backfoot at this point, before they would later manage to push back the Soviets, leading to the more familiar interwar Polish borders following the Treaty of Riga.
Here is an animation on the Polish-Soviet war so you can get a better idea of the conflict:
ua-cam.com/video/8RiQEnmsaww/v-deo.html
i never like southern victory scenarios, it's just a personal preferance
Please remember that the American civil war was the only one the US won by itself; after all the USA even owes it's independence to France,the War of 1812-15 led to a collapse of the US economy and the White House being burned down and even the Spanish-American war relied on Cuban and Filipino allies and support. The less said about WWI and WWII where US owned companies were selling weapons and materiel to both sides right up until 1945 as the US turned up late to both the better plus as late as October 1941 the US was mulling over joining Germany and Italy
Away down south in the land of traitors...
rattlesnakes and alligators...
The US was fought for by traitors
Then the south be remembered for maintaining slavery sure they fought for state rights but by keeping slavery going they always be remembered for holding onto slavery. And it would alwyasing be the big stain on the south. And regardless pf the various reasons they tried to secese my and dad, I agree they still primarily were still fighting for slavery not just state rights. Ig they got rid of slavery, then the civil war would not have ben so black and white.
The civil war would not have happened.
They would have since the majority of the population don’t own slaves.
@@PaperSmudge the rich plantation owner along with African Americans who owned slaves to in America and also sway the others to secede so they can keep there slaves they all know keep practicing slavery those plantation owners were bent on keeping it to the very end as long as they made profit. It would be to them the end of the world as they know of they had to give up there s!ages other southerns who didn't own slaves will unfortunately they know its the right of the plantation owners they don't have a say in that if there State tried to ban slavery then the plantation owners bribe the politicians to keep it going this alternative idea did well to show how they keep to the second civil war.
I think it would take more 30 yrs to integrate the mexican states or make it majority black. New Mexico to this day still majority Hispanic and these are states further south and fairly populated in the east and way to arid in the west. So introducing slavery might ruin the economy and make it a hot spot for slave revolts considering the local and majority population would be against it.
Huh
oppan gangnamstyle
Ho hum. Another lost cause weebo ASB scenario. 😂
This is very very unrealistic. But its fun so who cares!