Many thanks to Ridge Wallet for sponsoring this video! www.ridge.com/MONSIEURZ We have new videos every Wednesday at 2:30pm EST. Don't miss them, and please like & share the video if you enjoyed it! Become a channel sponsor: ruclips.net/channel/UCQR_kmeb0lBEk1Zj_9LWDHAjoin Buy official shirts: modernmediamerch.com/search?q=monsieur+z Join our "Discord Server": www.usofz.com/forum Pick up a copy of our novel: www.amazon.com/Am-Uncle-Sam-Dean-Mosley-ebook/dp/B07WNG95QH
What if the ilkhanate converted to Christianity instead of Islam? What If the Islamic Golden Age never ended? What if the Reconquista failed? What if the Qing successfully modernized? What if the Soviet Union was a Technocracy instead? What if the French Crusade took egypt from the mamluks? What if the Texan Empire was real? What if the Inca survived? What if the Soviets reached the moon first? What if the Russian army in ww1 crushed the German army early on? Russia wins ww1. What if the Lombards united Italy early and Justinian didn't try to conquer Italy? What if Fraxinetum (Islamic State in France) survived? What if West Rome survived but East Rome fell?
That would be an interesting campaign to behold. Stonewall's dual strategy of rapid redeployment and unwavering defenses versus Lee's dual strategy of mass charges and behind-the-lines cavalry.
i want to expect a pan-pacific trading network, massive gold mining in the Yukon and California, the Natives being converted to, what is it again, Shintoism? and Japan maybe buyign out, with pure gold from the Americas, a huge part of China
Arlington National Cemetery would definitely not have been created. Arlington was his estate and it was seized early in the war. They only began burying men there out of spite towards Lee months into the war as the bodies began filling nearby cemetaries to beyond capacity. Had Lee remained loyal to the Union, I can't see him offering his home to bury the dead.
Huh you're right, one of the most famous cemetery for US soldiers wouldn't exist. I mean it's still likely that his house is still taken by the federal government but it's likely it would have been turn into a semi monument dedicated to him. I wonder where the US buries the dead soldiers. Maybe Jefferson Davis's house?
@@DaveMiller6042 He had two family plantations, Hurricane and Brierfield, on the same 5000 acres. They were near Vicksburg, so perhaps it could be initially started by the Siege casualties. Though if Lee's presence in the Union command altered the war effort enough, they may have been able to take the plantation earlier to warrant its use as a federal cemetery. Though honestly I still think the analogous to Arlington in this timeline would still be somewhere in northern Virginia or Maryland.
@@Shaw4123 Being on the wrong side of the war doesn't make you a bad person. Even if the conflict was over the preservation or abolition of slavery the morality of war itself is complicated. Not every single Union Soldier believed they were fighting to end slavery and not every Confederate Soldier thought he was fighting to preserve it.
@@Shaw4123 That is also true. I forget about that sometimes. It's unfortunate how the alignment of his state was pinned to him, even if he might have not agreed with all of the state's ideals
@@Garangus Nah, wasn’t about slavery until the emancipation proclamation, it was originally about just preserving the union. Lincoln even once said “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
@@Garangus He sent an offer to the southern states allowing them to retain their right to own slaves if they reintegrated back into the Union. People only believe Lincoln was a saint because all textbooks related to the civil war are written in the north. Only 2% of southerners owned slaves. They were fighting to defend their homes from foreigners. Look up Sherman's march to the sea.
@@killertaco8themaster773 What do you mean "foreigners"? The southerners were also fellow Americans. And the 2% of the southern population had hundreds of slaves.
If Lee remained with the Union, the Civil War would have ended in 90 days like Lincoln projected Edit: Have you considered a video over what if the Business Plot happened?
One thing to also consider is that Sherman would not have had as large a debute in this timeline as he had in ours, meaning that the inspiration of Mobile Warfare to some figures in later centuries would have either come from other sources or be forced to surface later in time due to its untested philosophy with modern troops. And we wouldn't have all the Sherman memes that we have now, but that's a different topic.
Germans were already big fans of mobile warfare and Napoleon had made it popular in his time aswell. Still, the march to the sea is a great example of deep infiltration tactics.
@@manualfein9936 That would be breaking their oath and reversing their purpose in being settled in northern France. The Normans would need to remain pagan enough to be okay with inviting another Great Heathen army into Normandy. Then win in protracted war against an enemy fighting on home turf. Then prevent said Great Heathen army from simply destroying France and going home. The end result would likely be a Christian Norman king of France, many more lone words from Scandinavian to French and an elite replacement, exchanging native Frenchmen for Northmen.
@@bjorntheviking6039 very detailed thanks. It was just the idea, regardless of neccesary factors required that the entirety of France would fall under Norman rule and whether or not they would decide to expand further in Europe and beyond.
@@manualfein9936 The Normans, if they had managed to conquer France, would probably still send out their landless second sons to conquer Sicily, England and the Levant, whether or not they'd be more sucessful than in our timeline is up for debate. There wouldn't be as many Normans left to go with them, nor would they be as motivated as even the lowliest Norman would likely own landed titles in France. But then there would also be quite a lot of nobleborn Frenchmen, recently displaced, that may radiate in a similar way, as well as commoner Frenchmen that would follow their new Norman lords.
@@calebburkhart3875 yes, because you and me can almost win a civil war with a million soldiers less, so little equipment that your soldiers have to wear enemy uniforms (which causes fire between your own soldiers) and less capacity of recruiting.
Imagine fighting a bloody civil war over technology (slaves) that would become obsolete pretty soon anyways due to machine farming tools *laughs in scientific progress*
X to Doubt WHILE WE WERE MARCHING THRU GEORGIA! HURRAH, HURRAH- WE BRING THE JUBILEE! HURRAH, HURRAH- THE FLAG THAT SETS YOU FREE! SO WE SANG THE CHORUS FROM ATLANTA TO THE SEA, WHILE WE WERE MARCHING THRU GEORGIA!
There is no "medieval America", "medieval times" only apply to Western Europe, and even there it's a misnomer as it should only apply to the former Western Roman Empire.
@@kuzenskif Sorry for the late reply, I actually don’t think they would have went with the Custus line for a Washingtonian monarchy. They probably would have gone with Washington’s will and went with Bushrod, who inherited Mt Vernon. An elected monarchy like Poland-Lithuania would have also been interesting.
That documentary on Lee was very well done, thanks for bringing him to light as a brilliant but conflicted leader rather than an antebellum antagonist or a flawless lost cause deity.
Man I really feel for Lee. Must be a really hard choice to choose between your nation and state. I am Brazilian and I would chose my state over my country if both sides were in a moral grey area. But over something as clear cut as slavery I would have probably chose my nation.
I mean the thing is that most subdivisions of nation cant survive one their own and rely on their country. If you truly cared about your state you would side with your country
@@theodoretex1068 Yeah, he was fighting for his state, and his state was fighting for slavery. Again, his reasoning was sound, it just goes back to the fact that (at the end of the day), he was still fighting for slavery.
@@ottovonjizzmark9864 and that is the issue with trying to classify civil war generals on either side of the conflict. in one way, Lee was a good man fighting for a bad cause. In another, Sherman was a bad man fighting for a good cause. We look down on Lee for his connection to the CSA while holding Sherman higher up despite his march through Georgia and treatment of the slaves he encountered... meanwhile, Grant (the best general however you look at him: side, morals, actions, successes) has been completely smeared that we remember him more for the lies of his drinking and corrupt cabinet (despite being the least corrupt president ever). In the end I believe the most important thing to remember is that at the end of the day, these were brothers fighting brothers; americans killing one another because of (democrat) politicians afraid to lose their power (aka slaves) even when they had the ability to block any real challenge (see the fight for the 14th amendment which did not have many of this group and still barely passed)
Good to remember that it wasn't just slavery the CSA was fighting for. It was for the rights of states to retain their sovereignty from the federal government.
@@JollyOldCanuck Doubtful. The real Beria (not the totally fictionalised version as depicted in The Death of Stalin) was eager to liberalise the USSR and seek closer relations with the West. That's the reason he was overthrown and executed, not because of extremely flimsy and manufactured "evidence" that he was a degenerate rapist and murderer.
I think it has something to do with the "full-frontal suicide charge" tactic Lee used in several of the bigger battles he fought in. However, most of the critics that use this as their reason for calling him mediocre or even bad leader overlook an important point about this tactic: Lee knew it was a terrible idea. He knew it would result in the loss of hundreds if not thousands of lives that the Confederacy couldn't replace every time he used it. That's why he only used it in a handful of battles that were drawn out over several days, fighting over some critical piece of territory, when it seemed his army still had a chance of winning, but only if they took drastic action. The tactic achieved victory for the Army of Northern Virginia every time Lee used it...until Gettysburg. After the disastrous aftermath of Pickett's Charge, Lee never again ordered a mass assault. Other than that, Lee was a superb commander. He managed to hold at bay and even inflict costly defeats on an enemy that drastically outmatched him in every possible way for four years before he finally surrendered, and he managed to do it in such an honorable way that he had the respect and admiration of many of the foes he faced on the field of battle. That makes him worthy of praise in my book.
Had a EE prof who never gave partial credit on homework or exams, all or nothing and show your work. A few fellow students point blank said that wasn't fair. He point blank answered, "Nobody cares about partial correctness when your bridge falls down." I wish it didn't take me 2 decades to fully understand & internalize that wisdom. So, Lee was not great for the same reason that Napoleon or Rommel were not great: they all lost.
@@thiccsketchyyoshi4029 Well believe it or not but this almost happened. the only reason why Big Bird didn't go to space was because he was too large. so let that sink in. there's a timeline not far from ours, where Big Bird is a casualty on the worst astronomical disaster in history.
Wait, wait, wait, you mean there was a marriage in 1831 and that's it right? If not, I'm going to have to ask if those families currently live in Alabama cause that statement implies some messed up shit.
Lee was good, but he constantly chose to attack the enemy with an army he himself said couldn't take losses, leading to grievous casualties. Pickets Charge is the most obvious one, but he repeatedly tried to one-shot Union armies and again and again the Union could replace their losses while Lee couldn't replace his own. The only reason he did so well was that the Union were not adequately utilizing their advantages until Grant. Lee also refused to send support to the other theaters even after seeing how well Longstreet did when Lee finally allowed him to go west. Well, Longstreet was doing well until he ran into Grant. Regardless, Lee was not the greatest general in the hemisphere, I'd argue he wasn't even the best in the war or even on his own side. Johnston was far more aware of the logistical situation the South faced, and fought as such. For the Union they obviously had Grant and Sherman, but they also had Gen. Thomas, who never lose a movement or a battle for the entire war. He even faced off against basically every Confederate general at some point and still won. And he destroyed an entire Confederate army in Mississippi. I think Gen. Thomas is the best General of the whole war, and world's better than Lee. The Union tore Lee apart once Grant took over because Grant used all of his generals to the best of their abilities, and harnessed all of the advantages the North had to bring a definitive end to the Confederacy, and completely outplayed Lee.
@@xelabadman5824 I would like to point out that neither party were left leaning at the time, Lincoln's Republicans supported free market capitalism, as seen through their ideology of free labor and free land.
@@xelabadman5824wouldn’t make a difference, slavery would end in Texas just a few years earlier. The only difference I could see is Sam Houston, who was pro-union, staying in power as governor.
people in the modern age: "man, lee was a good general, tOo BaD hE fOuGhT fOr SlAvErY aNd SuPpOrTeD tHaT tErRiBlE iNsTiTuTiOn, LeT's TeAr DoWn SoMe Of HiS sTaTuEs" Lee: "Do I fight for my country that I am dearly loyal to and love, or do I fight for my home where I grew up and that supported me? I don't like slavery, but I don't want to betray my people, and I don't want my home to be destroyed. Oh, why did I decide to be a general and force myself into this situation."
@Athens Greece Direct quote from Lee in an interview in 1870: "So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I have rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be great for the interests of the south. So fully am I satisfied with this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained."
@Athens Greece Another quote from Lee before the Civil war that was in a letter to his wife written 27 December 1856: "In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
That's nice and all...but he still fought for slavery and acknowledged it; hell, he even defended the institution with "white man's burden" B.S. as you quote him doing so (thanks for saving me the time to look up the quote lol) George Thomas was also a Virginian and faced the same choices as Lee, but he chose to serve the Union--Lee made a choice and sided with slavers and fire-eating war hawks
@@warlordofbritannia need I remind you of the first quote in which Lee states he was happy to have lost the war as it ended slavery? Oh well, given from the things you said you are likely one of those people who views the world in a black and white manner even though it is far more of a grey.
@@athingwhichexists He said that yes...after war and after he had already fought to preserve slavery Fact is, his actions did not align with such sentiments, either before or after the Civil War
That was a great video! As much as I love and respect General Lee, I had never considered such an outcome. Doesn't make you wonder if General Lee ever did? Despite all of the sick, disgusting revisionism going on today, trying to label Lee a horrible person and to pull down his statues, he was a very honorable, Christian man, but was definitely a man of his times. Once again, a great video. One of your best. Please keep the outstanding videos coming and God bless you, my friend!
After Lee's death, one of his close friends from the war recounted that on his last visit with Lee, the general had privately told him that if he had known during what the Federals would do to the South after they won that he wouldn't have surrendered at Appomatox. Instead, he said, "I would have died with my sword in my hand." So, I don't think he ever seriously regretted siding with the Confederacy. If anything, he doubled down on the position he made in 1861. That being said, it wasn't unheard of for people to spin tales about Confederate generals after their deaths in an attempt to boost their popularity. For example, over a quarter of a century after Nathan Bedford Forrest's death, a man who had had a few interactions with the general said that Forrest was the head of the KKK. (The KKK was a well-respected organization in both the North and South at the time.) However, while he was alive, Forrest repeatedly and consistently denied having any involvement with the KKK, two investigations conducted by the Federal government (including a panel of Nothern Congressmen who were chomping at the bit to throw the book at Forrest) determined that he had no involvement with the organization, and Forrest actively campaigned against the KKK and racism to the point that he gave jobs in his railroad company that were traditionally reserved for whites to freedmen on numerous occasions. Yet to this day all the modern literature that claims Forrest was the head of the KKK point back to the claims of that one man who never had his claims corroborated. So, just because one man claimed Lee had doubled down on his decision doesn't mean he actually did. Though, unlike my example with General Forrest, the man making the claims about Lee did so very shortly after Lee's death, which may lend some credibility to his claims.
@@Jenkowelten well, he could either have sided with people that were pro-slavery but against most forms of segregation or the side that was anti-slavery but pro most forms of segregation. Southerners tended to have a paternalistic view of blacks. True, that does mean they viewed them as only being capable of the same thoughts as children, but it also meant that they viewed them as part of the southern family and allowed them to mingle and interact with whites on a daily basis. Meanwhile in the North, blacks were treated as an inferior species and ostracized them from virtually every part of society. (The n-word used to be a benign descriptor of blacks until Northerners began using it as an insult for blacks that moved into and “ruined” their towns.) This view of blacks continued into the war itself. While it took the North years to allow blacks to join the military and then only in segregated regiments, the South allowed blacks to fight alongside them from nearly the outset of the war. Don’t believe me? Then maybe you’ll believe Fredrick Douglas, who had this to say in his article “Fighting Rebels with Only One Hand” that he wrote in September 1861: “It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas, and they are probably there still. There is a Negro in the army as well as in the fence, and our Government is likely to find it out before the war comes to an end.”
@@comradepolarbear6920 I've done my best to fact check all the information I've been told over the years about the CSA and those that fought for it. While I've definitely been told some falsehoods over the years (e.g. anyone who says the war had nothing to do with slavery is either lying or delusional) but I've been able to corroborate a lot of things I've been told. The Library of Congress has a digitized version of the article Fredrick Douglas wrote that I referenced in the article, and I was able to find the transcription of a speech Gen. Forrest gave supporting the integration of blacks into society written in a newspaper that was printed just a few days after the event. I've found numerous firsthand accounts from slaves that spoke highly of their masters but despised the Federal troops. (One harrowing account I read was from a man who was a little boy when during the war, and said that the Union soldiers "emancipated" his mother and _only_ his mother from his plantation by forcefully ripping her children out of her arms and dragging her away never to be seen again.) However, I've also found evidence that at least some of the stories of slaves being treated cruelly by their masters are also sadly true. I also found an open letter published in a newspaper by former Confederates that derided Forrest as a traitor to whites in general and the South in particular for his actions promoting integration. The South and the CSA definitely have several stains on their records, but I think that many of them have been overblown. Though, judging by your username, I won't be able to convince you myself. So, I'll just encourage you to take an honest look at the evidence brought forward by people on my side of the argument. You might be surprised at what you find.
1. What if USA colonized the Japan? 2. What if Napoleon success to take over Egypt? 3. What if France colonized the Korea? 4. What if Roman Empire discover gunpowder? 5. What if USA join the Axis? 6. What if Operation Paul Bunyan cause the 2nd Korean War? 7. What if Zhang Zuolin survives? 8. What if Xinhai Revolution fails? 9. What if President Park Chunghee survives at 10.26?
Interesting topic, good video. Scenario: Pablo Escobar is elected President of Colombia Point of departure: Pablo chooses not to confront the captain at the police station and is never detained and booked on smuggling charges. As such his political opponents do not have a mugshot and arrest records with which to discredit him and bar him from politics.
Steve Murphy, one of the DEA agents that helped bring down Escobar, remarked about Escobar's ultimate goal during a public forum about the TV show "Narcos." He said that becoming president of Columbia was Escobar's ambition, so your scenario is plausible.
That depends, because it had schisms a couple times. Every since the great schism splitting Christianity Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodox, it was schism after schism, with different "heretic" groups branching off of each, until it exploded once again during the Protestant Reformation, where it got to the point where neighboring towns were following their own branch of christianity. If we're talking about the original schism, it's hard to go back that far, because of all the stuff it changes. It's effects could be anything from a continuation of the Byzantine Empire in the east, the lack of a Holy Roman Empire in the west, no ottomans blocking the silk road, no portugal going around Africa, no columbus sailing across the atlantic - it's likely that everything would be too different to accurately determine.
“I think it well, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.” ~ Robert E. Lee (1869) in a letter to David McConaughy of the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association
He actually resigned to avoid serving against his state. He finally offered to join the South only after the Union invaded. Virginia. He believed in states rights, if Virginia had stayed with the Union, so would he; and probably would have lead the watr against the South. Remember, a hero in the Mexican-American War and commandant of West Point; he would have been the logical choice.
If Lee stayed with the Union, the atrocities Sherman committed in Georgia, and later, the West, probably would not have happened and the bitterness between the two sides would not be anywhere near as massive.
I just want to see What if German empire and Austria Hungry United before ww1 What if Mexico was a French colony What if Brazil became a superpower like US,Russia,China and India What if Argentina became a British colony What if The Cold War never ended
While I don’t support the Confederacy in its entirety, and I’m glad the Union Army won the Civil War, I must say that it is incredibly disingenuous to present the Confederate Army as a fighting force that wanted nothing more from their Civil War endeavors than to keep slaves, and the rest of society be damned. They were not solely fighting for that, though it was a factor. The Confederates were also fighting for a way of life that they didn’t subscribe to. But schools nor educators/media teach you this information. And that’s exactly why Robert E. Lee is America’s ‘Boogeyman’ without even knowing his back story. The South today is nothing like what it used to be (thankfully) and so they just want to be left alone, and they should be. The Elitist soy boy nature of the West Coast, and the snobby brats from the Midwest and East Coast have little right to belittle Southerners or the South in general considering that their own culture and part of the country isn’t any better off, or perfect. If the South want to fly Confederate flags, they should be allowed to. I’m African American, but I do not get “terrified” by the flag. It’s just a flag in my eyes. Nothing more. No modern day Southerners who choose to fly or present the flag in anyway want to see Blacks enslaved again or own them. This nonsense is widely believed today and it’s embarrassing. God Bless the South, and God Bless America.
Thank you. Lee was complicated, but certainly not an iredeemably evil man; he had flaws and virtues like everyone. Slavery was certainly one of the biggest reasons for secession, maybe the biggest, but it was far from the only reason, especially for the average Joe in the army.
If that occurs is possible the native americans would be more populous in the 21th century? Even the USA having a native president in the 20th century?
White Army wins in the Russian Civil War. The Russian Republic is reformed. During the Vietnam War, U.S. Casualties triple, and when Walter Cronkite gives his speech about giving up the fight as 'honorable people who held up there promises.' This lead to Peace Protesters, growing in size. Socialist sympathers slowly begin to turn the Peace Protesters into Socialists. In 1978 these former Peace Protesters began to march on Washington D.C., and a Civil War breaks in the U.S. the Socialists over throw the U.S. Government.
@@dreadedworld8864 Grant actually owned slaves and Sherman was pretty similar to Lee on the issue. Everyone alive then was white supremecist btw too Pretty much all of the people around the time of the war would be considered white supremecists. Hell Lincoln would be considered white nationalist today cause he was openly white supremecist like anyone else then.
@@dreadedworld8864 The funny thing is that Sherman was a total weeb when it came to the south. He loved the south and loved the people even after the war.
@@killertaco8themaster773 even though they are wrong in EVERY regard? Even though what they are fighting for is outright anti-American? You don't see that as a flaw?
@@williamdunhan341 I understand what you're saying, but Lincoln's justification for the war was that the states had no sovereignty when they signed the constitution and that in times of crisis his authority was effectively infinite to maintain the union. Whether you agree with the north or south, that's completely against the concepts of self-determination and republicanism that our country was founded on.
"Greatest general this continent has ever seen..." Lee might not even be the best general from Virginia, pal. Look up Matthew Ridgway. A masterful commander who was a hero in World War II and then saved the ENTIRE Korean War.
I always imagined that if the Civil War never happened or their never was slavery Robert E Lee would have been seen as a nice man instead of someone who owned slaves
What if Robert E. Lee joined the Union? What if Robert E. Lee joined the South? What if Robert E. Lee Joined the East? What if Robert E. Lee joined the West?
I think your right about what would have happened. However as financially bad slavery was and how much it would have been a even more unpopular institution I feel slavery would have been abolished in the South by the late 1870s. It just plain cost to much to preserve.
While is very understandable why Lee declined to accept the job offered by Lincoln, in retrospect it is easy to think it was a terrible mistake. The South probably would have been much better off over the long-term had they lost the war quickly and avoided all the death and destruction caused by the long conflict. The war created a bitter cultural and politcal divide between Southerners and the rest of the country that lingers to this day. The South's economy took over a century to recover from the Civil War and some areas never fully recovered. Slavery would have ended gradually with the industrial revolution and mechanical automation. Most slavery would have dissapeared in North America by 1900 without all the horrors of the 1860s and black civil rights probably would have been granted sooner. Race relations would also probably be less strained today as a result.
Great content yet again! Also, what if the historical figures who were meant to be puppets remained puppets, Napoleon and Hitler being the main examples?
Robert Lee had good intentions tbh and the CSA could have worked (or at least had a legitimate argument behind it) if they hadnt seceded mostly due to wanting to keep slavery legal. If they had just done it over the fact that the government was starting to encroach on State Rights', then they wouldve had more legitimacy and would be looked back on not as harshly as they are now.
The Democratic-Republican party was disbanded in the late 1820s what was left was the Federalist party and the newly self segregated "Democratic" party thanks to the traitors Jackson and Van Buren and have been screwing things up until the remaining members of the last party got together in the late 1850s and formed the Grand Old Party of Republicans and managed to push the first Republican president into office (Lincoln) and naturally the Democrats HATED it. They wanted complete control and power. Still do.
Let's say that Victor Emmanuel iii is a chad king and allies with Allies (U.S. came later) I'd say that it could go either way if he beat the italian fascists. Maybe he could have made an interesting last defense against the Nazis. Italians had a pretty Good military (not good leadership tho) so if they had good leadership then maybe they could stand a but longer. I'd say that the Nazis would mostly win in Italy but Churchill will send british troops to them. Most of the western front may be in Italy I guess.
I figured this was the scenario you were working on based off of your community posts. However, Monsieur President, I still hold out hope that you will one day do the scenario I suggested about a year ago: the Confederates wage a continuous guerilla war against the Union after Lee dies in a last stand at Appomatox, eventually leading to the South rising again in a similar manner to the Irish Easter Rising.
I’m writing this after pausing the pre-vid Advertisement. I’m just gonna guess and say that it would be over much quicker, and will more Brutal for the south. Let’s see if this comment ages like fine wine, or Milk left in 80 degree weather.
I never knew Lee did has some intentions to join the Union, again why any of the history textbooks from the schools never mention Lee almost joining the Union. I do have an idea for what if video, it is what the Byzantine Empire did survive throughout the modern century? Or what if the United States went full colonial? Anyways this great video Mr. Z, keep up the great work of posting new alternate history videos!!
One problem is Lee never ran a successful offensive campaign and it's unclear if he had the skills to do so. He was a competent theater commander whose grasp of wider strategy was shaky at best. Unlike the Union, the South did not have a well developed strategy like Scott's Anaconda Plan. Pair him with a competent strategist with coordinated Union offensives he might be very effective in theater. Lee also built a reputation against mediocrities (being generous in couple of cases) such as Burnside, McClellan, Hooker, and Pope. And he managed to lose two campaigns to McClellan (Lee was blamed for McClellan seizing what is now West Virginia), one to Meade with one drawish affair between them, and a prolonged one to Grant. Grant was the first Union commander who did 2 things that ended the Civil War. Grant had coordinated, ongoing offensives that kept the South from being able to move forces between theaters and Grant did not stop when he faced a tactical set back such as at the Wilderness. Grant and Sherman were probably the only Civil War generals who were willing to go on a continuous offensive.
i think this would be instructing because much of eastern romes history is spent wasting resources on trying to take back Italy and failing with them already have Italy though if they already Italy then they can can spend those resource elsewhere like securing Egypt or keeping back native savages' or stand a better chance agents Persia
Lee wanted to have his cake and eat it, too. His views and actions on slavery are similar to his views and actions when it came to his loyalty to his country. Speaking somewhat honorably, before acting dishonorably.
"What if Singapore never leave Malaysia?" "What if Sarawak and Sabah was given to Brunei and not Malaysia?" "What if Republic of Indonesia Raya(Malaya Raya) was really formed?" 3 ideas for Monsieur Z
How could you go the entire first two-thirds of the video about Robert E. Lee and not mention chattel slavery? PEOPLE OWNED OTHER PEOPLE. Even in the final one-third of the video you go on and on about Lee being a man of "honor" and having great "integrity" . . . and yet the humanity of Black folks didn't factor into it? As I stated below, Robert E. Lee *owned* actual human beings, most notably to me personally, my partner's ancestors.
...Also, Grant wouldn't have become a president... I'd imagine if Lee ended up there, though I'm sure he would've declined, would have been a far better president.
Heres some ‘What if discovered America’ ideas What if the Mongol Empire discovered America What if the French Empire discovered America What if the Song Dynasty discovered America What if the Vikings ventured more Southwards What if the English discovered America What if the Japanese discovered America What if the Ottomans discovered America
It's more like history repeats. The risk of an American Civil War has not been greater since that time. On top of that all of Western civilization is in a much nastier spot compared to back then.
Exactly--he was excellent but far from the best officer even in the Civil War, with guys like Grant and Sherman and Joseph E Johnston and, yes, Stonewall as his contemporaries And, if we're looking at American history altogether, there's Washington and Greene and Winfield Scott among others...
The compelling match ups of lee vs Johnston or Lee vs Jackson is intriguing. Like how does the Shenandoah valley campaign go down with Lee instead of McClellan leading the invasion south? It's all very interesting. Also how do Lee and Grant interact in their own respective theaters? Do they butt heads on strategy and approach? Does Lee withhold recourses from the western theater and Grant the way he did Johnston in our time line? How does this impact the over all war effort? With less men and material can the Mississippi be won? Can the vital line between Texas and the rest be taken? Does it even matter? Can Lee steam roll the eastern theater so efficiently that the war ends before the need to starve out the South becomes strategy? So many questions. Especially when we are doing big man alt hist like this video.
Robert E. Lee is already the greatest man who ever came out of the US Army. Had he fought for the North? The war would have ended in four months instead of four years.
Many thanks to Ridge Wallet for sponsoring this video! www.ridge.com/MONSIEURZ
We have new videos every Wednesday at 2:30pm EST. Don't miss them, and please like & share the video if you enjoyed it!
Become a channel sponsor: ruclips.net/channel/UCQR_kmeb0lBEk1Zj_9LWDHAjoin
Buy official shirts: modernmediamerch.com/search?q=monsieur+z
Join our "Discord Server": www.usofz.com/forum
Pick up a copy of our novel: www.amazon.com/Am-Uncle-Sam-Dean-Mosley-ebook/dp/B07WNG95QH
What if the ilkhanate converted to Christianity instead of Islam?
What If the Islamic Golden Age never ended?
What if the Reconquista failed?
What if the Qing successfully modernized?
What if the Soviet Union was a
Technocracy instead?
What if the French Crusade took egypt from the mamluks?
What if the Texan Empire was real?
What if the Inca survived?
What if the Soviets reached the moon first?
What if the Russian army in ww1 crushed the German army early on?
Russia wins ww1.
What if the Lombards united Italy early and Justinian didn't try to conquer Italy?
What if Fraxinetum (Islamic State in France) survived?
What if West Rome survived but East Rome fell?
You need to change the title it says why instead of what if and you added nearly for some reason
What if the USA joined WW2 when Poland was invaded
hi monsieur, could you make a video on what if the freikorp overthrew the Weimar republic in 1923?
What if maratha empire won the thrid battle of Panipat or What if maratha empire remained centralised?
Stonewall Jackson’s back would break from trying to carry the CSA
That would be an interesting campaign to behold. Stonewall's dual strategy of rapid redeployment and unwavering defenses versus Lee's dual strategy of mass charges and behind-the-lines cavalry.
@Kerry Scott no, he wasnt the stone wall, he was the mason
@@anemu3819 Mason-Dixie Line?
@@PhoenixFires no
Before or after he was shot by his own troops?
I always wanted to see: " What if Japan discovered America?"
i want to expect a pan-pacific trading network, massive gold mining in the Yukon and California, the Natives being converted to, what is it again, Shintoism? and Japan maybe buyign out, with pure gold from the Americas, a huge part of China
Maybe they did, or China too
Supposedly, Japan made contact with Peru around the same time as the Portuguese
I havent heard of this scenario before, that sounds like it could have alot of long lasting interesting changes. great idea!
I’d like to see what if Polynesians made it to the americas first
Arlington National Cemetery would definitely not have been created. Arlington was his estate and it was seized early in the war. They only began burying men there out of spite towards Lee months into the war as the bodies began filling nearby cemetaries to beyond capacity.
Had Lee remained loyal to the Union, I can't see him offering his home to bury the dead.
Huh you're right, one of the most famous cemetery for US soldiers wouldn't exist. I mean it's still likely that his house is still taken by the federal government but it's likely it would have been turn into a semi monument dedicated to him. I wonder where the US buries the dead soldiers. Maybe Jefferson Davis's house?
@@DaveMiller6042 He had two family plantations, Hurricane and Brierfield, on the same 5000 acres. They were near Vicksburg, so perhaps it could be initially started by the Siege casualties. Though if Lee's presence in the Union command altered the war effort enough, they may have been able to take the plantation earlier to warrant its use as a federal cemetery.
Though honestly I still think the analogous to Arlington in this timeline would still be somewhere in northern Virginia or Maryland.
If this happens, Robert Lee will remembered as the greatest general in the US history forever...
@@Shaw4123 I mean he still was a hell of a general, just a shame he fought for racism
Until every demands tearing down his Monuments because he was a slave owner.
@@Shaw4123 good argument, use it in court
“Oh yeah, I’m a war criminal? At least I’m not hitler!”
@@Shaw4123 Being on the wrong side of the war doesn't make you a bad person. Even if the conflict was over the preservation or abolition of slavery the morality of war itself is complicated.
Not every single Union Soldier believed they were fighting to end slavery and not every Confederate Soldier thought he was fighting to preserve it.
@@Shaw4123 That is also true. I forget about that sometimes. It's unfortunate how the alignment of his state was pinned to him, even if he might have not agreed with all of the state's ideals
I was literally just thinking “Mr.Z should do a What if Lee fought for the Union”. Crazy timing!
Great minds think alike
Run
A perfect addition to the Scarverse!
A southerners worst nightmare
Yea... But it may have lessened as Lincoln could have squashed them before needing to make it about slavery...
@@fireshockgamer6734 It was always about slavery though?
@@Garangus Nah, wasn’t about slavery until the emancipation proclamation, it was originally about just preserving the union. Lincoln even once said
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
@@Garangus He sent an offer to the southern states allowing them to retain their right to own slaves if they reintegrated back into the Union. People only believe Lincoln was a saint because all textbooks related to the civil war are written in the north. Only 2% of southerners owned slaves. They were fighting to defend their homes from foreigners. Look up Sherman's march to the sea.
@@killertaco8themaster773 What do you mean "foreigners"? The southerners were also fellow Americans. And the 2% of the southern population had hundreds of slaves.
If Lee remained with the Union, the Civil War would have ended in 90 days like Lincoln projected
Edit: Have you considered a video over what if the Business Plot happened?
Your forgetting Stonewall Jackson
@Tea Time Gaming Junior Even Napoleon had a shit ton of good generals under him
@Tea Time Gaming Junior ?
He already made that video
Didn't he already do the Business Plot a few years ago
One thing to also consider is that Sherman would not have had as large a debute in this timeline as he had in ours, meaning that the inspiration of Mobile Warfare to some figures in later centuries would have either come from other sources or be forced to surface later in time due to its untested philosophy with modern troops.
And we wouldn't have all the Sherman memes that we have now, but that's a different topic.
No Sherman memes.
Crap, now this timeline is a double-edged sword.
Germans were already big fans of mobile warfare and Napoleon had made it popular in his time aswell.
Still, the march to the sea is a great example of deep infiltration tactics.
NOOOOOOOOO not Sherman! ):
Lee tanks now too
Good vid. An idea what if the Norman's conquered France?
@@odinthomas2634 like the Norman's after Rollo who where given the territory in Northern France
Silence celt, france would never fall. Jk tho that sounds like a great idea
@@manualfein9936 That would be breaking their oath and reversing their purpose in being settled in northern France.
The Normans would need to remain pagan enough to be okay with inviting another Great Heathen army into Normandy. Then win in protracted war against an enemy fighting on home turf. Then prevent said Great Heathen army from simply destroying France and going home.
The end result would likely be a Christian Norman king of France, many more lone words from Scandinavian to French and an elite replacement, exchanging native Frenchmen for Northmen.
@@bjorntheviking6039 very detailed thanks.
It was just the idea, regardless of neccesary factors required that the entirety of France would fall under Norman rule and whether or not they would decide to expand further in Europe and beyond.
@@manualfein9936 The Normans, if they had managed to conquer France, would probably still send out their landless second sons to conquer Sicily, England and the Levant, whether or not they'd be more sucessful than in our timeline is up for debate. There wouldn't be as many Normans left to go with them, nor would they be as motivated as even the lowliest Norman would likely own landed titles in France. But then there would also be quite a lot of nobleborn Frenchmen, recently displaced, that may radiate in a similar way, as well as commoner Frenchmen that would follow their new Norman lords.
North or South, Robert E Lee is one of the most respected generals in US history.
Nope
He won some battles with inferior numbers and equipment but he also had his fair share of blunders.
He sucked
@@calebburkhart3875 yes, because you and me can almost win a civil war with a million soldiers less, so little equipment that your soldiers have to wear enemy uniforms (which causes fire between your own soldiers) and less capacity of recruiting.
Great General ngl but definitely not a great man and rather foolish joining the Confederacy
Imagine not having a industrial economy
*this post was made by the union gang*
Imagine fighting a bloody civil war over technology (slaves) that would become obsolete pretty soon anyways due to machine farming tools *laughs in scientific progress*
X to Doubt WHILE WE WERE MARCHING THRU GEORGIA! HURRAH, HURRAH- WE BRING THE JUBILEE! HURRAH, HURRAH- THE FLAG THAT SETS YOU FREE! SO WE SANG THE CHORUS FROM ATLANTA TO THE SEA, WHILE WE WERE MARCHING THRU GEORGIA!
You should do a video on a medieval america, maybe something similar to after the end.
There is no "medieval America", "medieval times" only apply to Western Europe, and even there it's a misnomer as it should only apply to the former Western Roman Empire.
@@-haclong2366 he was talking about the possibility of a Norse colony in the 1000s called "Vinland"
@Geca Productions yes, absolutely.
Lee’s father served under Washington, and Lee’s wife was a Custus (adoptive son of Washington). Very interesting.
If George Washington had been crowned king of the new United States, R.E. Lee probably would've been king.
@@earthball2024 A constitutional monarchy would've been hilarious.
And then he bettayed the very nation Washington fought to preserve
@@kuzenskif Sorry for the late reply, I actually don’t think they would have went with the Custus line for a Washingtonian monarchy. They probably would have gone with Washington’s will and went with Bushrod, who inherited Mt Vernon. An elected monarchy like Poland-Lithuania would have also been interesting.
That documentary on Lee was very well done, thanks for bringing him to light as a brilliant but conflicted leader rather than an antebellum antagonist or a flawless lost cause deity.
What if Ron Paul was elected?
No jeb Bush
@@apollogames246 Clapping time!
That wouldn’t be likely because of Obama
It would have been more likely his son Rand Paul would have been elected
Then all of the world's problems will be solved and there would be nothing but puppies and rainbows
Man I really feel for Lee. Must be a really hard choice to choose between your nation and state. I am Brazilian and I would chose my state over my country if both sides were in a moral grey area. But over something as clear cut as slavery I would have probably chose my nation.
I mean the thing is that most subdivisions of nation cant survive one their own and rely on their country. If you truly cared about your state you would side with your country
@@Bloodraven332 That may be true for European subdivisions or in Japan but when your states are bigger than most countries you are fine.
E. Lee is a classic case of a good man, doing bad things, for the right reasons.
i would say right reasons. HE was fighting for his state, but the CSA was fighting for slavery.
@@theodoretex1068 Yeah, he was fighting for his state, and his state was fighting for slavery. Again, his reasoning was sound, it just goes back to the fact that (at the end of the day), he was still fighting for slavery.
@@martinmemes6791 I totally agree, and have a lot of respect for him.
@@ottovonjizzmark9864 and that is the issue with trying to classify civil war generals on either side of the conflict. in one way, Lee was a good man fighting for a bad cause. In another, Sherman was a bad man fighting for a good cause. We look down on Lee for his connection to the CSA while holding Sherman higher up despite his march through Georgia and treatment of the slaves he encountered... meanwhile, Grant (the best general however you look at him: side, morals, actions, successes) has been completely smeared that we remember him more for the lies of his drinking and corrupt cabinet (despite being the least corrupt president ever). In the end I believe the most important thing to remember is that at the end of the day, these were brothers fighting brothers; americans killing one another because of (democrat) politicians afraid to lose their power (aka slaves) even when they had the ability to block any real challenge (see the fight for the 14th amendment which did not have many of this group and still barely passed)
Good to remember that it wasn't just slavery the CSA was fighting for. It was for the rights of states to retain their sovereignty from the federal government.
What if Kruschev died at Staliningrad, and Molotov succeded him?
What if Marshall Zhukov became Soviet premier after Stalin?
What if Beria took power and wasn't ousted in a coup?
@@Zorro9129 Terror and degeneracy.
@@JollyOldCanuck Doubtful. The real Beria (not the totally fictionalised version as depicted in The Death of Stalin) was eager to liberalise the USSR and seek closer relations with the West. That's the reason he was overthrown and executed, not because of extremely flimsy and manufactured "evidence" that he was a degenerate rapist and murderer.
My school is named after him but they are changing it unfortunately
@@devonf.3803 when is BLM going to get what's coming to them?
@@MrJoebrooklyn1969 soon
How is that unfortunate? The Confederacy needs to be abandoned entirely.
@Joseph Falco They don't. Thats just murder, not all crime.
@Tea Time Gaming Junior Lee wasn't racist dummy. He freed his slaves in 1845
Who the hell would think Gen. Lee was a mediocre military leader!? He was literally the greatest officer in the Western Hemisphere at the time.
The same people that are convinced he was a pro-slavery war monger.
I think it has something to do with the "full-frontal suicide charge" tactic Lee used in several of the bigger battles he fought in. However, most of the critics that use this as their reason for calling him mediocre or even bad leader overlook an important point about this tactic: Lee knew it was a terrible idea. He knew it would result in the loss of hundreds if not thousands of lives that the Confederacy couldn't replace every time he used it. That's why he only used it in a handful of battles that were drawn out over several days, fighting over some critical piece of territory, when it seemed his army still had a chance of winning, but only if they took drastic action. The tactic achieved victory for the Army of Northern Virginia every time Lee used it...until Gettysburg. After the disastrous aftermath of Pickett's Charge, Lee never again ordered a mass assault.
Other than that, Lee was a superb commander. He managed to hold at bay and even inflict costly defeats on an enemy that drastically outmatched him in every possible way for four years before he finally surrendered, and he managed to do it in such an honorable way that he had the respect and admiration of many of the foes he faced on the field of battle. That makes him worthy of praise in my book.
@@nathanbean8763 I am a North democrat and don't think him of a war monger. A man caught in the middle forced to choose.
@@nathanbean8763 well he wasn't anti slavery either he just thought it was it was outdated and he owned slaves but no one talks about that..
Had a EE prof who never gave partial credit on homework or exams, all or nothing and show your work. A few fellow students point blank said that wasn't fair. He point blank answered, "Nobody cares about partial correctness when your bridge falls down." I wish it didn't take me 2 decades to fully understand & internalize that wisdom. So, Lee was not great for the same reason that Napoleon or Rommel were not great: they all lost.
Can you do a video about:
(1) what if Big Bird died on the Challenger space shuttle.
(2) what if the Belgian revolution of 1830 failed.
LOL I can’t with the first one
@@thiccsketchyyoshi4029 Well believe it or not but this almost happened.
the only reason why Big Bird didn't go to space was because he was too large.
so let that sink in.
there's a timeline not far from ours, where Big Bird is a casualty on the worst astronomical disaster in history.
@@jorikrouwenhorst7220 You watch Sam O'nella?
@@ryanmcsharry9405 Of course I do.
The man makes good videos.
2 years later, althisthub did the first one
Fun Fact: the Washington’s family married with the Lee’s family from 1831 to present day!
Wait, wait, wait, you mean there was a marriage in 1831 and that's it right? If not, I'm going to have to ask if those families currently live in Alabama cause that statement implies some messed up shit.
Lee/Grant 1-2 Combo would be unstoppable. Lee had excellent tactics with a smaller army. Imagine if he had a larger and better supplied one.
Lee was good, but he constantly chose to attack the enemy with an army he himself said couldn't take losses, leading to grievous casualties. Pickets Charge is the most obvious one, but he repeatedly tried to one-shot Union armies and again and again the Union could replace their losses while Lee couldn't replace his own. The only reason he did so well was that the Union were not adequately utilizing their advantages until Grant. Lee also refused to send support to the other theaters even after seeing how well Longstreet did when Lee finally allowed him to go west. Well, Longstreet was doing well until he ran into Grant. Regardless, Lee was not the greatest general in the hemisphere, I'd argue he wasn't even the best in the war or even on his own side. Johnston was far more aware of the logistical situation the South faced, and fought as such. For the Union they obviously had Grant and Sherman, but they also had Gen. Thomas, who never lose a movement or a battle for the entire war. He even faced off against basically every Confederate general at some point and still won. And he destroyed an entire Confederate army in Mississippi. I think Gen. Thomas is the best General of the whole war, and world's better than Lee.
The Union tore Lee apart once Grant took over because Grant used all of his generals to the best of their abilities, and harnessed all of the advantages the North had to bring a definitive end to the Confederacy, and completely outplayed Lee.
This scenario would be more accurate if Virginia didn’t secede
WHAT IF TEXAS WAS OR BECAME PART OF THE UNION INSTEAD OF confederates.
Pointless Texas wasn’t really populated at the time at best it would lead to a more left leaning Texas’s and another front to fight on
@@xelabadman5824 I would like to point out that neither party were left leaning at the time, Lincoln's Republicans supported free market capitalism, as seen through their ideology of free labor and free land.
@@JollyOldCanuck I know I was just saying that because most northern states vote blue
As a Texan whose family moved to Texas as German immigrants back in the Texas republic days, I’d greatly prefer this!
@@xelabadman5824wouldn’t make a difference, slavery would end in Texas just a few years earlier. The only difference I could see is Sam Houston, who was pro-union, staying in power as governor.
You sound so similar to Alternate History Hub. Coincidence? I think not....
people in the modern age: "man, lee was a good general, tOo BaD hE fOuGhT fOr SlAvErY aNd SuPpOrTeD tHaT tErRiBlE iNsTiTuTiOn, LeT's TeAr DoWn SoMe Of HiS sTaTuEs"
Lee: "Do I fight for my country that I am dearly loyal to and love, or do I fight for my home where I grew up and that supported me? I don't like slavery, but I don't want to betray my people, and I don't want my home to be destroyed. Oh, why did I decide to be a general and force myself into this situation."
@Athens Greece Direct quote from Lee in an interview in 1870: "So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I have rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be great for the interests of the south. So fully am I satisfied with this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained."
@Athens Greece Another quote from Lee before the Civil war that was in a letter to his wife written 27 December 1856: "In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
That's nice and all...but he still fought for slavery and acknowledged it; hell, he even defended the institution with "white man's burden" B.S. as you quote him doing so (thanks for saving me the time to look up the quote lol)
George Thomas was also a Virginian and faced the same choices as Lee, but he chose to serve the Union--Lee made a choice and sided with slavers and fire-eating war hawks
@@warlordofbritannia need I remind you of the first quote in which Lee states he was happy to have lost the war as it ended slavery? Oh well, given from the things you said you are likely one of those people who views the world in a black and white manner even though it is far more of a grey.
@@athingwhichexists
He said that yes...after war and after he had already fought to preserve slavery
Fact is, his actions did not align with such sentiments, either before or after the Civil War
That was a great video! As much as I love and respect General Lee, I had never considered such an outcome. Doesn't make you wonder if General Lee ever did? Despite all of the sick, disgusting revisionism going on today, trying to label Lee a horrible person and to pull down his statues, he was a very honorable, Christian man, but was definitely a man of his times. Once again, a great video. One of your best. Please keep the outstanding videos coming and God bless you, my friend!
After Lee's death, one of his close friends from the war recounted that on his last visit with Lee, the general had privately told him that if he had known during what the Federals would do to the South after they won that he wouldn't have surrendered at Appomatox. Instead, he said, "I would have died with my sword in my hand." So, I don't think he ever seriously regretted siding with the Confederacy. If anything, he doubled down on the position he made in 1861.
That being said, it wasn't unheard of for people to spin tales about Confederate generals after their deaths in an attempt to boost their popularity. For example, over a quarter of a century after Nathan Bedford Forrest's death, a man who had had a few interactions with the general said that Forrest was the head of the KKK. (The KKK was a well-respected organization in both the North and South at the time.) However, while he was alive, Forrest repeatedly and consistently denied having any involvement with the KKK, two investigations conducted by the Federal government (including a panel of Nothern Congressmen who were chomping at the bit to throw the book at Forrest) determined that he had no involvement with the organization, and Forrest actively campaigned against the KKK and racism to the point that he gave jobs in his railroad company that were traditionally reserved for whites to freedmen on numerous occasions. Yet to this day all the modern literature that claims Forrest was the head of the KKK point back to the claims of that one man who never had his claims corroborated.
So, just because one man claimed Lee had doubled down on his decision doesn't mean he actually did. Though, unlike my example with General Forrest, the man making the claims about Lee did so very shortly after Lee's death, which may lend some credibility to his claims.
What a christian man *siding* with the people who supported the oppression of black people in the form of slavery. Very christian indeed
@@Jenkowelten well, he could either have sided with people that were pro-slavery but against most forms of segregation or the side that was anti-slavery but pro most forms of segregation. Southerners tended to have a paternalistic view of blacks. True, that does mean they viewed them as only being capable of the same thoughts as children, but it also meant that they viewed them as part of the southern family and allowed them to mingle and interact with whites on a daily basis. Meanwhile in the North, blacks were treated as an inferior species and ostracized them from virtually every part of society. (The n-word used to be a benign descriptor of blacks until Northerners began using it as an insult for blacks that moved into and “ruined” their towns.) This view of blacks continued into the war itself. While it took the North years to allow blacks to join the military and then only in segregated regiments, the South allowed blacks to fight alongside them from nearly the outset of the war. Don’t believe me? Then maybe you’ll believe Fredrick Douglas, who had this to say in his article “Fighting Rebels with Only One Hand” that he wrote in September 1861:
“It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas, and they are probably there still. There is a Negro in the army as well as in the fence, and our Government is likely to find it out before the war comes to an end.”
@@benjamingrist6539 i don't who told you those "facts". But they did a great job at bringing you a false understanding of reality
@@comradepolarbear6920 I've done my best to fact check all the information I've been told over the years about the CSA and those that fought for it. While I've definitely been told some falsehoods over the years (e.g. anyone who says the war had nothing to do with slavery is either lying or delusional) but I've been able to corroborate a lot of things I've been told. The Library of Congress has a digitized version of the article Fredrick Douglas wrote that I referenced in the article, and I was able to find the transcription of a speech Gen. Forrest gave supporting the integration of blacks into society written in a newspaper that was printed just a few days after the event. I've found numerous firsthand accounts from slaves that spoke highly of their masters but despised the Federal troops. (One harrowing account I read was from a man who was a little boy when during the war, and said that the Union soldiers "emancipated" his mother and _only_ his mother from his plantation by forcefully ripping her children out of her arms and dragging her away never to be seen again.)
However, I've also found evidence that at least some of the stories of slaves being treated cruelly by their masters are also sadly true. I also found an open letter published in a newspaper by former Confederates that derided Forrest as a traitor to whites in general and the South in particular for his actions promoting integration. The South and the CSA definitely have several stains on their records, but I think that many of them have been overblown.
Though, judging by your username, I won't be able to convince you myself. So, I'll just encourage you to take an honest look at the evidence brought forward by people on my side of the argument. You might be surprised at what you find.
1. What if USA colonized the Japan?
2. What if Napoleon success to take over Egypt?
3. What if France colonized the Korea?
4. What if Roman Empire discover gunpowder?
5. What if USA join the Axis?
6. What if Operation Paul Bunyan cause the 2nd Korean War?
7. What if Zhang Zuolin survives?
8. What if Xinhai Revolution fails?
9. What if President Park Chunghee survives at 10.26?
Japan is too populous to have colonized
The only way the US would join the Axis would be if they joined the Central Powers in WW1.
Interesting topic, good video.
Scenario: Pablo Escobar is elected President of Colombia
Point of departure: Pablo chooses not to confront the captain at the police station and is never detained and booked on smuggling charges. As such his political opponents do not have a mugshot and arrest records with which to discredit him and bar him from politics.
Steve Murphy, one of the DEA agents that helped bring down Escobar, remarked about Escobar's ultimate goal during a public forum about the TV show "Narcos." He said that becoming president of Columbia was Escobar's ambition, so your scenario is plausible.
@@TheKulu42 I've just realized my scenario means there'll be no iconic escobar mugshot to get slapped on overpriced mall t-shirts.
What if Christianity United instead of being split into Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy?
The pope would have had a lot more control over Europe
That depends, because it had schisms a couple times. Every since the great schism splitting Christianity Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodox, it was schism after schism, with different "heretic" groups branching off of each, until it exploded once again during the Protestant Reformation, where it got to the point where neighboring towns were following their own branch of christianity.
If we're talking about the original schism, it's hard to go back that far, because of all the stuff it changes. It's effects could be anything from a continuation of the Byzantine Empire in the east, the lack of a Holy Roman Empire in the west, no ottomans blocking the silk road, no portugal going around Africa, no columbus sailing across the atlantic - it's likely that everything would be too different to accurately determine.
That would be based. The Levant would probably still be Christian.
“I think it well, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.”
~ Robert E. Lee (1869) in a letter to David McConaughy of the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association
He actually resigned to avoid serving against his state. He finally offered to join the South only after the Union invaded. Virginia. He believed in states rights, if Virginia had stayed with the Union, so would he; and probably would have lead the watr against the South. Remember, a hero in the Mexican-American War and commandant of West Point; he would have been the logical choice.
"If the south would've won we would've had it made" - Hank William jr song
And I would of ran foe President.
If Lee stayed with the Union, the atrocities Sherman committed in Georgia, and later, the West, probably would not have happened and the bitterness between the two sides would not be anywhere near as massive.
I just want to see
What if German empire and Austria Hungry United before ww1
What if Mexico was a French colony
What if Brazil became a superpower like US,Russia,China and India
What if Argentina became a British colony
What if The Cold War never ended
I literally suggested this scenario on the website, so glad it came true!!!!
One of the greatest American to ever live
While I don’t support the Confederacy in its entirety, and I’m glad the Union Army won the Civil War, I must say that it is incredibly disingenuous to present the Confederate Army as a fighting force that wanted nothing more from their Civil War endeavors than to keep slaves, and the rest of society be damned. They were not solely fighting for that, though it was a factor. The Confederates were also fighting for a way of life that they didn’t subscribe to. But schools nor educators/media teach you this information. And that’s exactly why Robert E. Lee is America’s ‘Boogeyman’ without even knowing his back story. The South today is nothing like what it used to be (thankfully) and so they just want to be left alone, and they should be. The Elitist soy boy nature of the West Coast, and the snobby brats from the Midwest and East Coast have little right to belittle Southerners or the South in general considering that their own culture and part of the country isn’t any better off, or perfect. If the South want to fly Confederate flags, they should be allowed to. I’m African American, but I do not get “terrified” by the flag. It’s just a flag in my eyes. Nothing more. No modern day Southerners who choose to fly or present the flag in anyway want to see Blacks enslaved again or own them. This nonsense is widely believed today and it’s embarrassing. God Bless the South, and God Bless America.
Thank you. Lee was complicated, but certainly not an iredeemably evil man; he had flaws and virtues like everyone. Slavery was certainly one of the biggest reasons for secession, maybe the biggest, but it was far from the only reason, especially for the average Joe in the army.
@@RealBlueony Absolutely
What if Tecumseh's confederacy actually happened? Aka what if the US lost the war of 1812?
If that occurs is possible the native americans would be more populous in the 21th century?
Even the USA having a native president in the 20th century?
What if USA was Communist?
What if USSR was Capitalist?
Whoa! That would be a good one.
Possible Commie US victory in the Cold War?
nice one
White Army wins in the Russian Civil War. The Russian Republic is reformed.
During the Vietnam War, U.S. Casualties triple, and when Walter Cronkite gives his speech about giving up the fight as 'honorable people who held up there promises.' This lead to Peace Protesters, growing in size. Socialist sympathers slowly begin to turn the Peace Protesters into Socialists. In 1978 these former Peace Protesters began to march on Washington D.C., and a Civil War breaks in the U.S. the Socialists over throw the U.S. Government.
Wait until the 2030's and see.
An even better question: What if Grant and Sherman had seceded?
@@dreadedworld8864 Grant actually owned slaves and Sherman was pretty similar to Lee on the issue. Everyone alive then was white supremecist btw too Pretty much all of the people around the time of the war would be considered white supremecists. Hell Lincoln would be considered white nationalist today cause he was openly white supremecist like anyone else then.
@@dreadedworld8864 The funny thing is that Sherman was a total weeb when it came to the south. He loved the south and loved the people even after the war.
His love for Virginia trumped his love for America at large.
Even the greatest general this continent has ever seen had his flaws.
I don't view that as a fault. Why would he fight along New Yorkers against his own Virginians? I could never fight against my own people.
@@killertaco8themaster773 even though they are wrong in EVERY regard?
Even though what they are fighting for is outright anti-American?
You don't see that as a flaw?
@@williamdunhan341 I understand what you're saying, but Lincoln's justification for the war was that the states had no sovereignty when they signed the constitution and that in times of crisis his authority was effectively infinite to maintain the union. Whether you agree with the north or south, that's completely against the concepts of self-determination and republicanism that our country was founded on.
"Greatest general this continent has ever seen..." Lee might not even be the best general from Virginia, pal. Look up Matthew Ridgway. A masterful commander who was a hero in World War II and then saved the ENTIRE Korean War.
I always imagined that if the Civil War never happened or their never was slavery Robert E Lee would have been seen as a nice man instead of someone who owned slaves
He inherited them from his Father-in-law
He freed them 15 years before the war even started.
What if Robert E. Lee joined the Union?
What if Robert E. Lee joined the South?
What if Robert E. Lee Joined the East?
What if Robert E. Lee joined the West?
I think your right about what would have happened. However as financially bad slavery was and how much it would have been a even more unpopular institution I feel slavery would have been abolished in the South by the late 1870s. It just plain cost to much to preserve.
While is very understandable why Lee declined to accept the job offered by Lincoln, in retrospect it is easy to think it was a terrible mistake. The South probably would have been much better off over the long-term had they lost the war quickly and avoided all the death and destruction caused by the long conflict. The war created a bitter cultural and politcal divide between Southerners and the rest of the country that lingers to this day. The South's economy took over a century to recover from the Civil War and some areas never fully recovered. Slavery would have ended gradually with the industrial revolution and mechanical automation. Most slavery would have dissapeared in North America by 1900 without all the horrors of the 1860s and black civil rights probably would have been granted sooner. Race relations would also probably be less strained today as a result.
Great content yet again! Also, what if the historical figures who were meant to be puppets remained puppets, Napoleon and Hitler being the main examples?
Robert Lee had good intentions tbh and the CSA could have worked (or at least had a legitimate argument behind it) if they hadnt seceded mostly due to wanting to keep slavery legal. If they had just done it over the fact that the government was starting to encroach on State Rights', then they wouldve had more legitimacy and would be looked back on not as harshly as they are now.
The Democratic-Republican party was disbanded in the late 1820s what was left was the Federalist party and the newly self segregated "Democratic" party thanks to the traitors Jackson and Van Buren and have been screwing things up until the remaining members of the last party got together in the late 1850s and formed the Grand Old Party of Republicans and managed to push the first Republican president into office (Lincoln) and naturally the Democrats HATED it. They wanted complete control and power. Still do.
WHAT IF IN BOTH WORLD WARS ITALY 🇮🇹 SIDED WITH USA.
SAY MUSSOLINI DID NOT RISE TO POWER AND ITALY BECAME A FULL REPUBLIC LIKE ITS GREAT HISTORY.
I mean, they did in the first (kinda).
But in the second? Yeah that could be a nice alternative history
Let's say that Victor Emmanuel iii is a chad king and allies with Allies (U.S. came later) I'd say that it could go either way if he beat the italian fascists. Maybe he could have made an interesting last defense against the Nazis. Italians had a pretty Good military (not good leadership tho) so if they had good leadership then maybe they could stand a but longer. I'd say that the Nazis would mostly win in Italy but Churchill will send british troops to them. Most of the western front may be in Italy I guess.
What if you didn’t write in all caps?
The world would be a better place
@@monarchblue4280 wouldn't Italy be a southern front though ?
@@svenneboll3984 yeah. But it counts as part of the west so...
it is interesting to think that if Virginia hadn’t left the Union Lee probably would have fought for the United States instead of the CSA.
What If General Lee Joined The Union Instead? the war would had ended in the first year
The war would've ended alot quicker.
Yeah no shit.
Can you do video about what if Dixiecrat had messed up 1948 election and stayed a third party
I figured this was the scenario you were working on based off of your community posts. However, Monsieur President, I still hold out hope that you will one day do the scenario I suggested about a year ago: the Confederates wage a continuous guerilla war against the Union after Lee dies in a last stand at Appomatox, eventually leading to the South rising again in a similar manner to the Irish Easter Rising.
My 10th great grandfather is Richard Lee I who is Robert E Lee’s 3rd great grandfather
he wouldn't have had his statues torn down
what if the black army won in Ukraine
What if reforms to the American financial sector occurred at the start of the 1920's instead of at the end of the 1920's?
I’m writing this after pausing the pre-vid Advertisement. I’m just gonna guess and say that it would be over much quicker, and will more Brutal for the south. Let’s see if this comment ages like fine wine, or Milk left in 80 degree weather.
Robert E Lee was my mother's great grandfather's cousin we are related to his mother's side
Very interesting! I’d love to know who I’m related to
I never knew Lee did has some intentions to join the Union, again why any of the history textbooks from the schools never mention Lee almost joining the Union. I do have an idea for what if video, it is what the Byzantine Empire did survive throughout the modern century? Or what if the United States went full colonial? Anyways this great video Mr. Z, keep up the great work of posting new alternate history videos!!
In the pass they did. Right up to the year 2000. Afterwards it was p.c. political correctness and being woke from2016 onwards.
What if Douglas MacArthur became President after Truman?
If only General Lee had moved Nathan Bedford Forrest to the Eastern Theatre.
A 14 minute alternate history video with only 4 minutes of alternate history content. 🙄
Nice video can you Do what if the Spanish flu never happend next
So basically. It would basically be as if the war never happened
One problem is Lee never ran a successful offensive campaign and it's unclear if he had the skills to do so. He was a competent theater commander whose grasp of wider strategy was shaky at best. Unlike the Union, the South did not have a well developed strategy like Scott's Anaconda Plan. Pair him with a competent strategist with coordinated Union offensives he might be very effective in theater. Lee also built a reputation against mediocrities (being generous in couple of cases) such as Burnside, McClellan, Hooker, and Pope. And he managed to lose two campaigns to McClellan (Lee was blamed for McClellan seizing what is now West Virginia), one to Meade with one drawish affair between them, and a prolonged one to Grant.
Grant was the first Union commander who did 2 things that ended the Civil War. Grant had coordinated, ongoing offensives that kept the South from being able to move forces between theaters and Grant did not stop when he faced a tactical set back such as at the Wilderness. Grant and Sherman were probably the only Civil War generals who were willing to go on a continuous offensive.
That’s cool and all, but what if Robert E Lee Joined the Navy?
Do, What if Only South Carolina Seceded and not the other states.
what if western and eastern Rome united right before western Rome fell
i think this would be instructing because much of eastern romes history is spent wasting resources on trying to take back Italy and failing with them already have Italy though if they already Italy then they can can spend those resource elsewhere like securing Egypt or keeping back native savages' or stand a better chance agents Persia
Do you propose majorian restoration and union with leo?
@@monarchblue4280 no like western and eastern Rome just forming Rome it's not a union
Could you do what if Sam Houston had accepted the offer for National Guard troops to keep his governorship during the Civil War?
Lee wanted to have his cake and eat it, too. His views and actions on slavery are similar to his views and actions when it came to his loyalty to his country. Speaking somewhat honorably, before acting dishonorably.
What if Alfalfa Bill became president instead of FDR?
What if Puerto Rico would have discovered America
"What if Singapore never leave Malaysia?"
"What if Sarawak and Sabah was given to Brunei and not Malaysia?"
"What if Republic of Indonesia Raya(Malaya Raya) was really formed?"
3 ideas for Monsieur Z
Very thoughtful and well executed. Thank you for another great video.
**Cries in Confederate.*
Same lol
Disgusting traitors
@@yayeet7530 Boot licking Yankee
@@yayeet7530 Couldn't agree more. Filthy slavers.
@@yankee891 And you destroyed the constitution :^)
How could you go the entire first two-thirds of the video about Robert E. Lee and not mention chattel slavery? PEOPLE OWNED OTHER PEOPLE. Even in the final one-third of the video you go on and on about Lee being a man of "honor" and having great "integrity" . . . and yet the humanity of Black folks didn't factor into it? As I stated below, Robert E. Lee *owned* actual human beings, most notably to me personally, my partner's ancestors.
...Also, Grant wouldn't have become a president... I'd imagine if Lee ended up there, though I'm sure he would've declined, would have been a far better president.
What if Genoa financed Columbus voyage with backing from other Italian city states.
Heres some ‘What if discovered America’ ideas
What if the Mongol Empire discovered America
What if the French Empire discovered America
What if the Song Dynasty discovered America
What if the Vikings ventured more Southwards
What if the English discovered America
What if the Japanese discovered America
What if the Ottomans discovered America
What if Québec separated from Canada? Scotland from the UK? Catalonia from Spain? Flanders from Belgium?
The story of the Baltimore newspaper is just another reminder of how ridiculous people sound today when they say "things have never been worse".
It's more like history repeats. The risk of an American Civil War has not been greater since that time. On top of that all of Western civilization is in a much nastier spot compared to back then.
Really liked your content and how it shows another side of the story.
What if soviet invade Japan
He’s a good general but the lost causers make his career more questionable than it should be
Exactly--he was excellent but far from the best officer even in the Civil War, with guys like Grant and Sherman and Joseph E Johnston and, yes, Stonewall as his contemporaries
And, if we're looking at American history altogether, there's Washington and Greene and Winfield Scott among others...
@@warlordofbritannia wait are you saying that stonewall was arguably a better military genius than lee?
@@albertbecerra
I mean, yeah I guess so lol
One of my good friends is related to Robert E Lee
winfield Scott was personally devastated when Lee went and joined the confederacy, they apparently had a very close relationship.
The compelling match ups of lee vs Johnston or Lee vs Jackson is intriguing. Like how does the Shenandoah valley campaign go down with Lee instead of McClellan leading the invasion south? It's all very interesting. Also how do Lee and Grant interact in their own respective theaters? Do they butt heads on strategy and approach? Does Lee withhold recourses from the western theater and Grant the way he did Johnston in our time line? How does this impact the over all war effort? With less men and material can the Mississippi be won? Can the vital line between Texas and the rest be taken? Does it even matter? Can Lee steam roll the eastern theater so efficiently that the war ends before the need to starve out the South becomes strategy? So many questions. Especially when we are doing big man alt hist like this video.
I happen to be related to Robert E. Lee
Much higher opinion of Lee than he deserves.
You mean Robert E. Lee was a _human being_ with both flaws and virtues like everyone else?
Oh my yes.
It would’ve been a very, very short war.
Love ya man
First comment, how do you feel?
@@kwirro I feel great actually. I would I like to dedicate this achievement to you for making me realize I had the first comment. Lmao
Robert E. Lee is already the greatest man who ever came out of the US Army. Had he fought for the North? The war would have ended in four months instead of four years.
What if the Eureka Stockade became a full blown revolution.