There’s an argument to be made that slavery was already fading out until the invention of the cotton gin, which increased production of cotton in the South, and increased the value of keeping slavery in place. What would have happened had the cotton gin never been invented?
Considering how much of a key component in textile making and especially clothing since the invention of the cotton gin, this is one of those super specific PoDs that would probably end up in a lot of butterflies that would be hard to imagine.
I sit here and I think of what it would be like to own another human being. I just can't imagine or comprehend doing that. And I don't understand how they did either
@@arsenamcintire961 not for all slave owners (or their descendants), but I think many were born into owning slaves, and just never gave it a second thought. Also, many or most slave owners didn’t see slaves as people. Not that any of that makes it right, but it does explain how they weren’t bothered by it, and even found it defensible.
The man in the blue union uniform, running for the democratic party, he look like william howard taft understudy. He look like he lose battles to general lee for a living. How is that even a job?
Well, firstly he’d have to break the Hungarians without them being able to break away. If we assume a federal model is able to be created, it definitely would probably help (also assuming the notoriously insane imperial parliament can be put into actually functioning order), it would probably be rather benifitial overall as not only would most of the ethnic minorities be happy, but the country overall could actually function as a real country. This however, is mostly just an idea proposed at the tail end of WWI as an alternative to Woodrow Wilson’s ideas of national sovereignty and proposed in an attempt to avoid the dissolution of AH (obviously, it didn’t come to pass and the country dissolved and monarchy abolished). If we assume, however, that he just ends up making more “crowns”, such as example crowns for the the South and/or west Slavs in a similar veins to the Hungarian and Austrian ones for otl Austria-Hungary, then the country is still totally screwed. This is because Austria-Hungary “functioned” in a really (to us) weird grey zone between an actual country and multiple sovereign states in a super national organization. Rather than, say, the UK, which also has seperate “countries” inside it with devolved parliaments and such, but ultimately there UK is the sovereign state, the parliament in London made up of members from the whole reigns supreme, and it all overall functions as a unified nation on the government level at the end of the day, AH wasn’t like that. With Austria-Hungary, beyond sharing a head of state being the emperor of Austria/king of Hungary in the same person, and having some shared organs in the military and such, for the most part, they operated completely separately, right down to a citizen of one not being considered a citizen of and not being able to freely travel to/from the other. Adding more of those types of crowns would likely have further made AH non-functional. Unfortunately, this option is the more likely of the two in a scenario where the trigger for WWI didn’t happen.
There is no way in hell that Southerners, having held off the Union for three and a half years (in your scenario) are going to just give up their independence and live under the Stars and Stripes.
Their people were starving and the Union would have occupied part of the south. The south ultimately wins the war in that scenario, as they continue economic benefits of the Union while retaining slavery
Nit pick, prewar there were very few abolitionists. I read somewhere that percentage wise there were less abolitionists in the north than modern libertarians today.
True, most abolitionists before the war favored a gradual approach, but the few radical abolitionists that did rise made big waves, scaring the South about Republican leadership
Abolition was a fast growing political movement. But there were few truly hardcore adherents who wanted immediate, total abolition. Most favored a more moderate approach.
I disagree just a little bit. The cultural forces that pushed for the abolition of slavery still existed. You would have millions of people in the north mainly New England absolutely horrified that slavery is constitutional protected. I think that would set up a second Civil War this time with the north succeeding a few decades down the line.
I don’t think so. Slavery existing in the South didn’t pose a direct threat to New England, and especially not to the same degree as abolitionism for the South, which threatened to destroy their entire economy. And, even then, secession in many places only barely passed. Only the most extreme of all radical abolitionists would push for secession, and it wouldn’t get off the ground.
Exactly. I also don't get how McClellan got popular if he ended the war but not favorably, bc at that point it had already become about slavery. So what? the war ended after yrs of bloodshed to start back at square one and McClellan and Demos suddenly popular? I don't get it. One other thing. This is speculation, but just how the cotton gin reinvigorated slavery would not industrialization do the same yrs later, like sure slavery might disappear decades later like early to mid 1900s, but class and racial animosity would remain like in apartied SA. That kind of grievance doesn't disappear over night or 2 of 3 generations.
Hard to imagine a world where slavery continued leading to more unity. You didn't really get into the decade it would have been repealed. I imagine a us with more recent slavery would be more bitterly divided by race issues.
Could you do an alternate 1880 election video? I recently finished listening to "The Last Lincoln Republican" about the 1880 Presidential Election and there are so many scenarios that could of happened that didn't. Like Garfield not being nominated and Grant or Blaine getting nominated or elected. Or Hancock, the Dem, being elected, making him the first Democratic president elected since 1856 instead of Grover Cleveland in 1884. I think some of those scenarios might make for an interesting video
No, this is inaccurate, the northern Democrats were not remotely abolitionist. The dividing line between northern and southern Democrats was over maintaining the union of states. You might say they were moderately pro slavery and pro union as opposed to very pro slavery and anti-union in the south. In the 1860 presidential election Senator Stephen Douglas who was an Illinois Democrat, held a pro union, pro slavery (decided by states) position. The only reason Douglas did not win is because the Democrats split over the issue of preserving the union. Their candidate in the south denied Douglas enough electoral votes to hand the election to Lincoln. If you want to try and dispute that northern democrats were abolitionist? (because they weren’t) all the northern Democrats, (except for the ones Lincoln gave jobs to buy their votes) all voted against abolishing it with the 13th amendment.
Hard disagree about McClellan negotiating with the South. He would have wanted the victory that was handled to him on a platter and the resulting love from "his" army. Militarily, he doesn't take office till March 4th 1865. That is a month away from Lee's surrender. By March the Union controls almost all the South. Sheridan was victorious in the Shenandoah and was moving to reinforce Grant. Sherman was marching north from the Carolinas and doing whatever he pleased including not taking a navy ride to join his army with Grant at Petersburg in January. Grant had Lee confined to Petersburg for the last half year and had him out numbered 2 to 1 and starving with even more Union troops on the way. By March of 65 the war is already over.
The funniest part about this is that it was LINCOLN who co-authored the Corwin amendment which would've enshrined slavery. Razorfist has a great video going over this and more.
There is a 3 volume set of this scenario. The first volume is called: Gettysburg: A Novel of the Civil War. Followed by: Grant Comes East. Concluding with: Never Call Retreat: Lee and Grant: The Final Victory. It's a very good series in alternate Civil War timeline.
Great video, but a major problem: you misunderstand the South's reasons for seceding, and the second option you depicted was actually an option that existed for the Confederacy for virtually the entire war. The South's whole argument for secession rested on the Republicans' platform of prohibiting slavery in the Territories. Part, but not all, of the reason the South despised this is because they felt that the Republicans could then abolish the system without the approval of the Southern states. The Republicans, noting this concern, actually offered the exact same suggestion that your second option depicted: The Corwin Amendment, an amendment that protected slavery and actually made amending it impossible, introduced by Thomas Corwin (R-OH) was passed with bipartisan support by March 1861 (before the war began) and sent to the states for ratification. The Confederate States refused to accede to the Union, even when their military successes of 1861-1862 were stifled by military stagnation and defeat in 1863-1864, all the while with the Corwin Amendment still on the table. The only catch was, the Southerners would still be prevented from taking slave property to the Territories. The Confederacy outright rejected your second option in our own timeline.
5:20 -- Yep, just goes to show the idea of a September/October Surprise is nothing new. And until this happened Lincoln himself figured that he was probably going to lose reelection.
Lincoln said that if he lost the 1864 election, he would have done everything he could to win the war before McClellan's inauguration in March 1865. He said McClellan was elected in a way where he couldn't finish the war.
I wonder if the War (just as is) would be seen as a loss or victory in this timeline. I can definitely see it becoming a major historical debate on whether the Union *really* lost.
Extra decades of slavery “somehow” makes the South less racist is a weird take. This would not happen. Plus by 1864 there had been so many dead on both sides in the war that resentment alone would make peaceful reintegration difficult if not nearly impossible. Getting the slavery is constitutionally protected amendment would not have been able to pass.
After Gettysburg, the South no longer had the will to fight especially Lincoln appointed Grant and Sherman as the head Generals in the Eastern campaign and let's not forget General Sherman's March through Georgia.
I understand where you're coming from but I feel like racial tensions in this version would be worse. If Slavery was abolished let's just say 30 to 40 years later, I feel like the newly freed slaves would have fewer rights than even our own timeline. For example, in this timeline, Slavery wouldn't be seen as a great evil, and its abolishment would more likely be viewed as just an economic issue. Thus, making the idea of giving rights to freed slaves quasi useless. I could see this timeline developing into a situation similar to apartheid South Africa in which Jim Crow is turned up to 11, especially since the federal government wouldn't really care to protect the rights of freed slaves. I don't even think free black men would have had the right to vote. Even though I disagree with your assessment, I enjoyed the video. Keep up the good work Josh!👍
It's interesting how we regard Gettysburg is the turning point of the war but forget that in the 1860s, they didn't have the benefit of 100 something years of perspective. I don't think that I was ever explicitly taught in school that the siege of Atlanta was hailed as the definitive turning point of the war in the public's opinion at the time.
fun fact: the battle hymn for the republic has been adopted by a football team called Manchester United and is used as a chant at the teams games called Glory Glory Man United.
It’s a real shame that wasn’t the outcome, especially when you consider the fact that given 10 or 15 years slavery would’ve been irrelevant anyway. There was literally no reason to go to war on slavery. The only reason to go to war was literally the same reason we went to warfor the revolutionary war with the taxes
If the man on the picture of this video became president we'd have lost to the Confederate and my black family would either be dead, still enslaved, or living in liberia
An interesting video, though I think the South was on the losing side earlier than the victory at Atlanta, for the South was already sliced in half at the siege of Vickburg (July 1863) and the South was repelled in its only significant invasion of the North at Gettysburg (also July 1863).
I think you missed a key point... If McClellan won, he would have reintegrated the south, but allow gradual emancipation. And under the most famous federal gradual emancipation plan for the states (Henry Clay's) didn't have slavery being abolished in every state until the 1920s.
Love it. I couldn't agree more. Except I doubt the protection of slavery would have ended the war, as it wasn't even the reason it began (Emanc Proc wasn't brought up until 1863). But regardless of whether the South was able to seceed or was kept in the Union, slavery would have been phased out through industrialization and technological advancements within agriculture i.e. the single-piston assistance mechanism,the tractor, hay bailer, combine, etc.
Given the breadth and degree of opposition to slavery and the difficulty of passing a constitutional amendment, it seems that any effort to "enshrine" or protect slavery would fail.
I have a video idea what if Austria joined the Crimean war on the side of Russia. (context: Russia wanted help in the Crimean war asked Austria for help , to return the favour after Russia helped put down the failed Hungary revolution)
There's a book that explores this very scenario called Grey Victory, but Jefferson Davis keeps Joseph Johnston and they dig in at Atlanta rather than abandon it, JEB Stuart survives, and without the Atlanta victory and the March to the Sea being a success, the South holds out until the election and the North gets tired of the war and Lincoln and McClellan wins election and makes peace with the South and they become independent.
I don't think the reintegration with slavery protected option is likely since it had already been unsuccessfully tried with the Corwin Amendment at the start of the war. I think it's likely that some, maybe all of the southern states return to the Union. But I could also see the nation eventually splitting into Northern, Middle, and Southern federations and California eventually splitting away from whichever it winds up in and heading a western one.
I think if McClellen wins, he probably just lets the CSA succeed. I just don’t see how the CSA would ever agree to be part of the union willingly, even if slavery was protected by an amendment. Not only were they defending keeping slavery, but also wanted to expand slavery, which the union was firmly against. Also the notion that slavery would just slowly die out is a little presumptuous. There would definitely be a lot of foreign pressure to end slavery, but slavery was going very strong in the south. It would probably persist into the next couple decades, but chattle slavery would just get replaced with the neoslavery of our timeline. This scenario would just delay another civil war that would probably happen in the 1870’s or 1880’s.
McClellan would have had a hard time getting an agreement to protect slavery in the Constitution. The Republicans would certainly have held the Senate and no amendment to allow slavery would pass. Also, Lincoln had vowed to end the war before the end of his term.
Agreed. I believe a more likely outcome is that the North agrees to recognize the South as an independent nation and the two countries go their own way…
Personally, I think with McClellan being a war Democrat and it being so late into the war at this point, I see Lincoln using the remaining of his time in office to continue the war as fast as he could so that by the time McClellan is inaugurated, McClellan wouldn't have to do much more in order to gain a victory.
(1) The South had already refused the Crittenden Resolution to make slavery constitutional. After several years of war, it may have been more attractive to them. (2) Lincoln did not free the slaves, at least not all. He freed slaves only in areas under Confederate control. The 13th Amendment freed the rest of the slaves but Lincoln was dead by then. (3) As an alternative to the Confederates winning at Atlanta, Jubal Early's attack on Washington DC may have had an effect had he been able to break through the line of forts. Grant seems to thought that was possible, so he sent a corps of veterans to augment the garrison troops holding Washington City (as it was then called). They arrived simultaneous with Early's forces. Had the line been breached and Lincoln captured (he was brought under fire), it may have changed the election.
This time would lead to diminishing of the Federal government. The civil war in our time line had establish the federal government as supreme law of land. With a southern negotiated peace it would prove that federal was weaker than the states. It set a bad precedent that succession and oppose federal authority was a viable option. Because the US would face more rebellion and disunity down the road as the South Succession could be as example of successful armed rebellion against centeral government.
I don't believe McClellan would've gotten re-elected. I think a lot of people would be dissatisfied with him. A lot like when he was a general, he'd have his supporters but the masses would want someone else
Here's what would have happened: Lincoln would have made peace with the south before March to keep that fucker Mac from getting the credit The federal republic would have become a haven for escaped slaves, crippling the southern economy further, since the south relied on northern shipping to get their goods to European markets. The north would have begun to rely more heavily on wool (which they did during the war) because it was cheaper to get and easier to deal with in the long run. The southern economy would have been further crippled due to the lack of serious industry and infrastructure (they were against infrastructure improvements even before the war). Furthermore, and this is a personal theory, Maximillian could have used a weakened south as a rallying point to the factions in Mexico and retaken Texas. The confederacy already had an issue with sending troops to different states because they thought those soldiers were meant for their own states (Georgia tried to secede from the confederacy over it). Without a cohesive government or military, Mexico (who had the help of France) would have rolled right into the American southwest and retaken it. Mac wouldn't have done shit to stop them. Just because he had no use for black folks doesn't mean he would have done anything to stop a trading partner from taking territory from a foreign nation.
The ideal ending would have been achieved if everything stayed the same as real history except Lincoln’s assassination didn’t take place. The South would have ended up much better off as Lincoln was likely going to offer some cash value in exchange for a person’s liberated enslaved folks. Lincoln was smart enough to see that this offer would have forced Southerners to affirmatively accept the Union and US Constitution while also still allowing for some means to rebuild the war-ravaged South. Less poverty and bitterness, in addition to making the abolition of slavery less linked (psychologically at least) to crushing economic loss, would have, hopefully, made for less fertile soil for the tragic reality of post-war racial resentment and violence. In short, Lincoln would have been prudent enough to defeat the “Lost Cause” myth just as he was clever and strong enough to defeat the real “cause.”
Great video, but I disagree with certain aspects of this alternative history. FIRST, assuming McClellan had pulled a victory out of his hat in 1864, he wouldn't have been inaugurated until March 1865. That said, the union war effort would have continued as it did with Lincoln still at the helm (in spite of being a lame duck) and the South would have continued to die on the vine at the hand of union forces. By the time Little Mac became President, negotiations would have been pointless as the North would have been at the brink of victory, and McClellan, as a "War Democrat" would not likely have been inclined to seek peace while virtually at the finish line. Therefore, I still see the war ending at its normal timetable in April 1865 with the surrender at Appomattox. The 13th Amendment ABOLISHING SLAVERY would still have passed both houses of Congress by January 1865 and sent to the states for ratification as Lincoln (as in real life) would have ensured these things occurred before he left office in March. SECOND where I see a McClellan victory making the most difference is with the PEACE afterwards. With a President McClellan, believe it or not, I can see LINCOLN'S desire for a quick and drama-free restoration of the union taking place. Like Andrew Johnson, I can see McClellan moving rapidly to pardon Southerners who would take a simple loyalty oath to the union and subsequently have their rights of citizenship restored. With slavery decimated in all of the former Confederate states, it would be asinine to even think of letting these states restore the "peculiar institution", not to mention be a huge affront to the 600k+ people who had died from 1861-65 to extinguish it from America. The 13th Amendment still gets ratified, though perhaps not as quickly with McClellan as President. I still argue that it would have been ratified by the required 26/38 states no later than early 1866, not much different than the original timeline in December 1865. I can still see the Radical Republicans seeking to not only enforce the abolition of slavery, but also protect the civil rights of southern blacks in this period. Like with Andrew Johnson, we may have seen some resistance from McClellan, but as a Northerner with greater political skills, McClellan would have likely not be AS RESISTANT. He would likely have worked out a deal of sorts with the Radicals (especially after 1866) in order to avoid angering them too much, getting his vetoes overriden, and risking impeachment. Whether he would have signed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 into law is a huge question, and a veto as with Johnson would have certainly still led to the enactment of the 14th Amendment for ratification by the states. Though he may not have supported a military occupation of the south, he would not have done very much to oppose and undermine this. There are likely many other aspects of Reconstruction where he and the Radical Republican controlled Congress would likely have disagreed, but again, I do not see him being as confrontational with them as was Andrew Johnson (fighting was not Little Mac's strong point). With a 1865-1869 McClellan term, the biggest difference I can see from Johnson is no impeachment. Ultimately, the Radicals would have their way, and McClellan, though an able President would not likely remain in office for more than one term, being viewed as too conservative by Republicans and too lenient by Democrats. My timeline has him either not-running for re-election in 1868 or being dumped by the Democrats for a more conservative candidate. In either case, I still have Ulysses S. Grant winning the Presidency in 1868 and the normal timeline of events taking place as in reality.
People give McClellan way too much crap. Guy was a good general, a little slow, but his plans were actually pretty sound, and there’s been some pretty strong evidence that’s come out recently that the Lincoln administration sort of hampered with his ability because he was a democrat working for a Republican administration. The first plan Grant wanted to do when he became head of all Union forces out east was to try McClellan’s Peninsula campaign again, but Lincoln, Stanton and Hallack didn’t let him because it would’ve made them look bad. He also wasn’t a peace democrat, he was a war democrat who wanted to keep fighting the war, just slower and more methodical.
i my self very much daubte that B Mcclen Wuld offer peac with the Confederancy Yes his party was anit war but he him self was very much Pro war and by the point of 1864 November was Practickly over it wuld have been very hard for the CSA to achive anything else that total loose. Sure maby Protest wuld have broken out but Union even if not to win at atlanta had planty major Victories very close to that time that will surly risen up th e war support
I really don't think that the republicans would cease to fight over slavery even if it were constitutionally protected. You could just push for the state to purchase and free slaves British style since the slave trade would still be illegal so you could kill it by attrition. Abolition would be sweeping the world with the US as one of the few industrial states to hold onto it so there'd be mounting pressure from outside as well. The US would basically be apartheid South Africa in the '80s.
The alternate history community in general once to go back to a time of peace please please Josh we beg of you just apologize so we can end this ordeal
@Bud88883 yep usa won the civil war and slaughtered the indians, stole hawaii, stole puerto rico, droped nukes on japan, finally ended segration 100 years after the civil war. Good going usa, such a nice country.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I didn't lose. I merely failed to win!
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought about it 😂
Makes no difference to me!
Oversimplified sees this See I’m not poor I’m merely not rich
beat me to it
@@amirshayanshariat well, there is middle class, so that is possible
There’s an argument to be made that slavery was already fading out until the invention of the cotton gin, which increased production of cotton in the South, and increased the value of keeping slavery in place. What would have happened had the cotton gin never been invented?
Or better yet, what if slavery was abolished before the cotton gin was invented?
Considering how much of a key component in textile making and especially clothing since the invention of the cotton gin, this is one of those super specific PoDs that would probably end up in a lot of butterflies that would be hard to imagine.
@@youthoughtaboutit6946 that's how althist turns into historical fanfiction
I sit here and I think of what it would be like to own another human being. I just can't imagine or comprehend doing that. And I don't understand how they did either
@@arsenamcintire961
not for all slave owners (or their descendants), but I think many were born into owning slaves, and just never gave it a second thought. Also, many or most slave owners didn’t see slaves as people. Not that any of that makes it right, but it does explain how they weren’t bothered by it, and even found it defensible.
The man in the blue union uniform, running for the democratic party, he look like william howard taft understudy. He look like he lose battles to general lee for a living. How is that even a job?
He look like, if Napoleon III work at macdonalds
Dixieland forever
@@JoshSullivanHistorygold coins credit +4% the BBB will rise
@@JoshSullivanHistory Napoleon III had a Great Mustache though 😢
@@JoshSullivanHistoryHow dare you! Napleon III is way better than that!
George B McClellan: I didn't lose! I merely failed to win!
Suggestion josh: What if Franz Ferdinand survives and reforms the austro-hungarian Empire?
Well, firstly he’d have to break the Hungarians without them being able to break away. If we assume a federal model is able to be created, it definitely would probably help (also assuming the notoriously insane imperial parliament can be put into actually functioning order), it would probably be rather benifitial overall as not only would most of the ethnic minorities be happy, but the country overall could actually function as a real country. This however, is mostly just an idea proposed at the tail end of WWI as an alternative to Woodrow Wilson’s ideas of national sovereignty and proposed in an attempt to avoid the dissolution of AH (obviously, it didn’t come to pass and the country dissolved and monarchy abolished).
If we assume, however, that he just ends up making more “crowns”, such as example crowns for the the South and/or west Slavs in a similar veins to the Hungarian and Austrian ones for otl Austria-Hungary, then the country is still totally screwed. This is because Austria-Hungary “functioned” in a really (to us) weird grey zone between an actual country and multiple sovereign states in a super national organization. Rather than, say, the UK, which also has seperate “countries” inside it with devolved parliaments and such, but ultimately there UK is the sovereign state, the parliament in London made up of members from the whole reigns supreme, and it all overall functions as a unified nation on the government level at the end of the day, AH wasn’t like that. With Austria-Hungary, beyond sharing a head of state being the emperor of Austria/king of Hungary in the same person, and having some shared organs in the military and such, for the most part, they operated completely separately, right down to a citizen of one not being considered a citizen of and not being able to freely travel to/from the other. Adding more of those types of crowns would likely have further made AH non-functional. Unfortunately, this option is the more likely of the two in a scenario where the trigger for WWI didn’t happen.
I don't know about this timeline, seems too optimistic in my opinion. Still an interesting video, can't wait to see what's next.
What if Lincoln kept Hannibal Hamlin as VP and he became president in 1865?
There is no way in hell that Southerners, having held off the Union for three and a half years (in your scenario) are going to just give up their independence and live under the Stars and Stripes.
Their people were starving and the Union would have occupied part of the south. The south ultimately wins the war in that scenario, as they continue economic benefits of the Union while retaining slavery
Checkmate Lincolnites!
😊
❤ from West Virginia
*Checkmate, Jeffersons!*
Obama no!!!😢
So protect slavery with a Constitutional Amendment and everyone lives happily ever after . Your idea makes me appreciate Lincoln and Sherman even more
Alternate history always seems to turn out better than real history
Nit pick, prewar there were very few abolitionists. I read somewhere that percentage wise there were less abolitionists in the north than modern libertarians today.
True, most abolitionists before the war favored a gradual approach, but the few radical abolitionists that did rise made big waves, scaring the South about Republican leadership
@@JoshSullivanHistory I’m a southerner and I’m glad you seem to have an interest. God bless and Deo Vince!
@Warnerus2005 both really
Abolition was a fast growing political movement. But there were few truly hardcore adherents who wanted immediate, total abolition. Most favored a more moderate approach.
@Warnerus2005 neither, considering current factory and child labor conditions it is an exact lineup to today lol
What if Lincoln pulled a Phineas Gage and survived being shot in the head but came out aggressive and rude?
He suddenly becomes an ardent proslavery and tries to reinstate it as President
Amazing video Josh! Love your content!
another W from JSH keep it up!
I disagree just a little bit. The cultural forces that pushed for the abolition of slavery still existed. You would have millions of people in the north mainly New England absolutely horrified that slavery is constitutional protected. I think that would set up a second Civil War this time with the north succeeding a few decades down the line.
I don’t think so. Slavery existing in the South didn’t pose a direct threat to New England, and especially not to the same degree as abolitionism for the South, which threatened to destroy their entire economy. And, even then, secession in many places only barely passed. Only the most extreme of all radical abolitionists would push for secession, and it wouldn’t get off the ground.
Exactly. I also don't get how McClellan got popular if he ended the war but not favorably, bc at that point it had already become about slavery. So what? the war ended after yrs of bloodshed to start back at square one and McClellan and Demos suddenly popular? I don't get it. One other thing. This is speculation, but just how the cotton gin reinvigorated slavery would not industrialization do the same yrs later, like sure slavery might disappear decades later like early to mid 1900s, but class and racial animosity would remain like in apartied SA. That kind of grievance doesn't disappear over night or 2 of 3 generations.
@JoshSullivanHistory what defines a radical abolitionist?
Hard to imagine a world where slavery continued leading to more unity. You didn't really get into the decade it would have been repealed. I imagine a us with more recent slavery would be more bitterly divided by race issues.
Could you do an alternate 1880 election video? I recently finished listening to "The Last Lincoln Republican" about the 1880 Presidential Election and there are so many scenarios that could of happened that didn't. Like Garfield not being nominated and Grant or Blaine getting nominated or elected. Or Hancock, the Dem, being elected, making him the first Democratic president elected since 1856 instead of Grover Cleveland in 1884. I think some of those scenarios might make for an interesting video
I would have voted for Hancock
Suggestion Josh, What if Austria kept sea access after ww1?
Lincoln deserves more attention! How about what if he survived his assasination attempt?
RIP to all the brave men who died fighting in the Civil War, God bless them.
RIP to the Union soldiers.
@Ryuk1138 As well as Confederate Soldiers!! All are Classified as VETERANS Today! They ALL DESERVE Our Respect!!
Howdy josh! Love your content 😊😊😊❤❤❤
Now THIS is epic
No, this is inaccurate, the northern Democrats were not remotely abolitionist. The dividing line between northern and southern Democrats was over maintaining the union of states. You might say they were moderately pro slavery and pro union as opposed to very pro slavery and anti-union in the south. In the 1860 presidential election Senator Stephen Douglas who was an Illinois Democrat, held a pro union, pro slavery (decided by states) position. The only reason Douglas did not win is because the Democrats split over the issue of preserving the union. Their candidate in the south denied Douglas enough electoral votes to hand the election to Lincoln.
If you want to try and dispute that northern democrats were abolitionist? (because they weren’t) all the northern Democrats, (except for the ones Lincoln gave jobs to buy their votes) all voted against abolishing it with the 13th amendment.
The war wasn’t over after Lee surrendered at Appomattox, only mostly over. It was 16 months after Appomattox that the war was declared over.
Why is Louisiana in the election maps? Wasn’t it confederare?
I believe the North controlled most of the state after New Orleans and Baton Rouge were taken in 1862.
Hard disagree about McClellan negotiating with the South. He would have wanted the victory that was handled to him on a platter and the resulting love from "his" army.
Militarily, he doesn't take office till March 4th 1865. That is a month away from Lee's surrender. By March the Union controls almost all the South. Sheridan was victorious in the Shenandoah and was moving to reinforce Grant. Sherman was marching north from the Carolinas and doing whatever he pleased including not taking a navy ride to join his army with Grant at Petersburg in January. Grant had Lee confined to Petersburg for the last half year and had him out numbered 2 to 1 and starving with even more Union troops on the way. By March of 65 the war is already over.
This guy must be a big Henry Clay fan
The funniest part about this is that it was LINCOLN who co-authored the Corwin amendment which would've enshrined slavery.
Razorfist has a great video going over this and more.
Video suggestion: What If South Vietnam won the Vietnam War?
What if the Confederates defeated the Union at Gettysburg?
There is a 3 volume set of this scenario. The first volume is called: Gettysburg: A Novel of the Civil War. Followed by: Grant Comes East. Concluding with: Never Call Retreat: Lee and Grant: The Final Victory. It's a very good series in alternate Civil War timeline.
Video suggestion: what if Italy united as a republic under the lead of Mazzini?
Great video, but a major problem: you misunderstand the South's reasons for seceding, and the second option you depicted was actually an option that existed for the Confederacy for virtually the entire war.
The South's whole argument for secession rested on the Republicans' platform of prohibiting slavery in the Territories. Part, but not all, of the reason the South despised this is because they felt that the Republicans could then abolish the system without the approval of the Southern states. The Republicans, noting this concern, actually offered the exact same suggestion that your second option depicted: The Corwin Amendment, an amendment that protected slavery and actually made amending it impossible, introduced by Thomas Corwin (R-OH) was passed with bipartisan support by March 1861 (before the war began) and sent to the states for ratification. The Confederate States refused to accede to the Union, even when their military successes of 1861-1862 were stifled by military stagnation and defeat in 1863-1864, all the while with the Corwin Amendment still on the table. The only catch was, the Southerners would still be prevented from taking slave property to the Territories.
The Confederacy outright rejected your second option in our own timeline.
Can you do a similar video where the Union Army did a coup after Lincoln lost and explore both pro North and pro South outcomes.
5:20 -- Yep, just goes to show the idea of a September/October Surprise is nothing new. And until this happened Lincoln himself figured that he was probably going to lose reelection.
Lincoln said that if he lost the 1864 election, he would have done everything he could to win the war before McClellan's inauguration in March 1865. He said McClellan was elected in a way where he couldn't finish the war.
I wonder if the War (just as is) would be seen as a loss or victory in this timeline.
I can definitely see it becoming a major historical debate on whether the Union *really* lost.
Extra decades of slavery “somehow” makes the South less racist is a weird take. This would not happen. Plus by 1864 there had been so many dead on both sides in the war that resentment alone would make peaceful reintegration difficult if not nearly impossible. Getting the slavery is constitutionally protected amendment would not have been able to pass.
After Gettysburg, the South no longer had the will to fight especially Lincoln appointed Grant and Sherman as the head Generals in the Eastern campaign and let's not forget General Sherman's March through Georgia.
I was hoping to hear more about the survival of Lincoln and his impact on politics in the latter part of the 19th century.
I understand where you're coming from but I feel like racial tensions in this version would be worse. If Slavery was abolished let's just say 30 to 40 years later, I feel like the newly freed slaves would have fewer rights than even our own timeline. For example, in this timeline, Slavery wouldn't be seen as a great evil, and its abolishment would more likely be viewed as just an economic issue. Thus, making the idea of giving rights to freed slaves quasi useless. I could see this timeline developing into a situation similar to apartheid South Africa in which Jim Crow is turned up to 11, especially since the federal government wouldn't really care to protect the rights of freed slaves. I don't even think free black men would have had the right to vote. Even though I disagree with your assessment, I enjoyed the video. Keep up the good work Josh!👍
Sic Semper Tyrannis
It's interesting how we regard Gettysburg is the turning point of the war but forget that in the 1860s, they didn't have the benefit of 100 something years of perspective. I don't think that I was ever explicitly taught in school that the siege of Atlanta was hailed as the definitive turning point of the war in the public's opinion at the time.
Suggestion Josh, what if Lucifer never rebelled
fun fact: the battle hymn for the republic has been adopted by a football team called Manchester United and is used as a chant at the teams games called Glory Glory Man United.
It’s a real shame that wasn’t the outcome, especially when you consider the fact that given 10 or 15 years slavery would’ve been irrelevant anyway. There was literally no reason to go to war on slavery. The only reason to go to war was literally the same reason we went to warfor the revolutionary war with the taxes
You should do a what if McLellan had remained the unions army commander instead of sherman and Ulysses
If the man on the picture of this video became president we'd have lost to the Confederate and my black family would either be dead, still enslaved, or living in liberia
What if John Wilkes Booth missed?
An interesting video, though I think the South was on the losing side earlier than the victory at Atlanta, for the South was already sliced in half at the siege of Vickburg (July 1863) and the South was repelled in its only significant invasion of the North at Gettysburg (also July 1863).
Love these videos! I’m the first view, like, and comment!
I kinda imagine slavery still being legal for criminals both white and black in this type of timeline
I think you missed a key point... If McClellan won, he would have reintegrated the south, but allow gradual emancipation. And under the most famous federal gradual emancipation plan for the states (Henry Clay's) didn't have slavery being abolished in every state until the 1920s.
Is Abraham Lincoln the guy that got shot?
naw dat was franz ferdinand
Love it. I couldn't agree more. Except I doubt the protection of slavery would have ended the war, as it wasn't even the reason it began (Emanc Proc wasn't brought up until 1863). But regardless of whether the South was able to seceed or was kept in the Union, slavery would have been phased out through industrialization and technological advancements within agriculture i.e. the single-piston assistance mechanism,the tractor, hay bailer, combine, etc.
Given the breadth and degree of opposition to slavery and the difficulty of passing a constitutional amendment, it seems that any effort to "enshrine" or protect slavery would fail.
good topic
what if former PM of Japan Shinzo Abe's paternal grandfather Kan Abe became Prime Minister of Japan
I have a video idea what if Austria joined the Crimean war on the side of Russia.
(context: Russia wanted help in the Crimean war asked Austria for help , to return the favour after Russia helped put down the failed Hungary revolution)
By 1864 the war was already decidedly won
Hell it could have been considered that since Gettysburg
Most important thing. Lincoln may have lived longer.
There's a book that explores this very scenario called Grey Victory, but Jefferson Davis keeps Joseph Johnston and they dig in at Atlanta rather than abandon it, JEB Stuart survives, and without the Atlanta victory and the March to the Sea being a success, the South holds out until the election and the North gets tired of the war and Lincoln and McClellan wins election and makes peace with the South and they become independent.
I don't think the reintegration with slavery protected option is likely since it had already been unsuccessfully tried with the Corwin Amendment at the start of the war. I think it's likely that some, maybe all of the southern states return to the Union. But I could also see the nation eventually splitting into Northern, Middle, and Southern federations and California eventually splitting away from whichever it winds up in and heading a western one.
Wow I’m here early lol what is this vid?
A video on if Lincoln lost reelection!
@@JoshSullivanHistory Oh srry lol 😂
I think if McClellen wins, he probably just lets the CSA succeed. I just don’t see how the CSA would ever agree to be part of the union willingly, even if slavery was protected by an amendment. Not only were they defending keeping slavery, but also wanted to expand slavery, which the union was firmly against.
Also the notion that slavery would just slowly die out is a little presumptuous. There would definitely be a lot of foreign pressure to end slavery, but slavery was going very strong in the south. It would probably persist into the next couple decades, but chattle slavery would just get replaced with the neoslavery of our timeline.
This scenario would just delay another civil war that would probably happen in the 1870’s or 1880’s.
What if JFK was never assassinated?
Read 11/22/63
McClellan would have had a hard time getting an agreement to protect slavery in the Constitution. The Republicans would certainly have held the Senate and no amendment to allow slavery would pass. Also, Lincoln had vowed to end the war before the end of his term.
Agreed. I believe a more likely outcome is that the North agrees to recognize the South as an independent nation and the two countries go their own way…
Personally, I think with McClellan being a war Democrat and it being so late into the war at this point, I see Lincoln using the remaining of his time in office to continue the war as fast as he could so that by the time McClellan is inaugurated, McClellan wouldn't have to do much more in order to gain a victory.
(1) The South had already refused the Crittenden Resolution to make slavery constitutional. After several years of war, it may have been more attractive to them. (2) Lincoln did not free the slaves, at least not all. He freed slaves only in areas under Confederate control. The 13th Amendment freed the rest of the slaves but Lincoln was dead by then. (3) As an alternative to the Confederates winning at Atlanta, Jubal Early's attack on Washington DC may have had an effect had he been able to break through the line of forts. Grant seems to thought that was possible, so he sent a corps of veterans to augment the garrison troops holding Washington City (as it was then called). They arrived simultaneous with Early's forces. Had the line been breached and Lincoln captured (he was brought under fire), it may have changed the election.
This time would lead to diminishing of the Federal government. The civil war in our time line had establish the federal government as supreme law of land. With a southern negotiated peace it would prove that federal was weaker than the states. It set a bad precedent that succession and oppose federal authority was a viable option. Because the US would face more rebellion and disunity down the road as the South Succession could be as example of successful armed rebellion against centeral government.
What if Richard Nixon had Edward Brooke as his Vice-President and not Agnew?
I don't believe McClellan would've gotten re-elected. I think a lot of people would be dissatisfied with him. A lot like when he was a general, he'd have his supporters but the masses would want someone else
Here's what would have happened: Lincoln would have made peace with the south before March to keep that fucker Mac from getting the credit The federal republic would have become a haven for escaped slaves, crippling the southern economy further, since the south relied on northern shipping to get their goods to European markets. The north would have begun to rely more heavily on wool (which they did during the war) because it was cheaper to get and easier to deal with in the long run. The southern economy would have been further crippled due to the lack of serious industry and infrastructure (they were against infrastructure improvements even before the war).
Furthermore, and this is a personal theory, Maximillian could have used a weakened south as a rallying point to the factions in Mexico and retaken Texas. The confederacy already had an issue with sending troops to different states because they thought those soldiers were meant for their own states (Georgia tried to secede from the confederacy over it). Without a cohesive government or military, Mexico (who had the help of France) would have rolled right into the American southwest and retaken it. Mac wouldn't have done shit to stop them. Just because he had no use for black folks doesn't mean he would have done anything to stop a trading partner from taking territory from a foreign nation.
Brilliant history channel, or at least it used to be, before you started that pointless horrible drama with possible history.
We would all be speaking with a twang.
What if Portugal and Spain make an fereracion of Ibéria during there golden years.
We can only wish
The good ending, for all Americans, North and South.
of course a neo-confederate would say that
Silence communist
Sherman should've gone farther
The ideal ending would have been achieved if everything stayed the same as real history except Lincoln’s assassination didn’t take place.
The South would have ended up much better off as Lincoln was likely going to offer some cash value in exchange for a person’s liberated enslaved folks. Lincoln was smart enough to see that this offer would have forced Southerners to affirmatively accept the Union and US Constitution while also still allowing for some means to rebuild the war-ravaged South.
Less poverty and bitterness, in addition to making the abolition of slavery less linked (psychologically at least) to crushing economic loss, would have, hopefully, made for less fertile soil for the tragic reality of post-war racial resentment and violence.
In short, Lincoln would have been prudent enough to defeat the “Lost Cause” myth just as he was clever and strong enough to defeat the real “cause.”
@@rogeliovaldez6594 Yeah all the way to Mexico City
Great video, but I disagree with certain aspects of this alternative history. FIRST, assuming McClellan had pulled a victory out of his hat in 1864, he wouldn't have been inaugurated until March 1865. That said, the union war effort would have continued as it did with Lincoln still at the helm (in spite of being a lame duck) and the South would have continued to die on the vine at the hand of union forces. By the time Little Mac became President, negotiations would have been pointless as the North would have been at the brink of victory, and McClellan, as a "War Democrat" would not likely have been inclined to seek peace while virtually at the finish line. Therefore, I still see the war ending at its normal timetable in April 1865 with the surrender at Appomattox. The 13th Amendment ABOLISHING SLAVERY would still have passed both houses of Congress by January 1865 and sent to the states for ratification as Lincoln (as in real life) would have ensured these things occurred before he left office in March.
SECOND where I see a McClellan victory making the most difference is with the PEACE afterwards. With a President McClellan, believe it or not, I can see LINCOLN'S desire for a quick and drama-free restoration of the union taking place. Like Andrew Johnson, I can see McClellan moving rapidly to pardon Southerners who would take a simple loyalty oath to the union and subsequently have their rights of citizenship restored. With slavery decimated in all of the former Confederate states, it would be asinine to even think of letting these states restore the "peculiar institution", not to mention be a huge affront to the 600k+ people who had died from 1861-65 to extinguish it from America. The 13th Amendment still gets ratified, though perhaps not as quickly with McClellan as President. I still argue that it would have been ratified by the required 26/38 states no later than early 1866, not much different than the original timeline in December 1865. I can still see the Radical Republicans seeking to not only enforce the abolition of slavery, but also protect the civil rights of southern blacks in this period. Like with Andrew Johnson, we may have seen some resistance from McClellan, but as a Northerner with greater political skills, McClellan would have likely not be AS RESISTANT. He would likely have worked out a deal of sorts with the Radicals (especially after 1866) in order to avoid angering them too much, getting his vetoes overriden, and risking impeachment. Whether he would have signed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 into law is a huge question, and a veto as with Johnson would have certainly still led to the enactment of the 14th Amendment for ratification by the states. Though he may not have supported a military occupation of the south, he would not have done very much to oppose and undermine this. There are likely many other aspects of Reconstruction where he and the Radical Republican controlled Congress would likely have disagreed, but again, I do not see him being as confrontational with them as was Andrew Johnson (fighting was not Little Mac's strong point). With a 1865-1869 McClellan term, the biggest difference I can see from Johnson is no impeachment. Ultimately, the Radicals would have their way, and McClellan, though an able President would not likely remain in office for more than one term, being viewed as too conservative by Republicans and too lenient by Democrats. My timeline has him either not-running for re-election in 1868 or being dumped by the Democrats for a more conservative candidate. In either case, I still have Ulysses S. Grant winning the Presidency in 1868 and the normal timeline of events taking place as in reality.
People give McClellan way too much crap. Guy was a good general, a little slow, but his plans were actually pretty sound, and there’s been some pretty strong evidence that’s come out recently that the Lincoln administration sort of hampered with his ability because he was a democrat working for a Republican administration. The first plan Grant wanted to do when he became head of all Union forces out east was to try McClellan’s Peninsula campaign again, but Lincoln, Stanton and Hallack didn’t let him because it would’ve made them look bad. He also wasn’t a peace democrat, he was a war democrat who wanted to keep fighting the war, just slower and more methodical.
Lee only surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia. Other Confederate armies kept fighting.
Dewy by Default. Idk I havent watched the vid yet
Now that possible history has fixed his Maps will you please just end the beef
What's the beef?
i love the reactions of the southern whigs when theres consequences to treason
What if Crassus conquered Persia
Kind of better, no war and in the end slavery is ended anyway.
Lincoln wouldn’t have lost! He would’ve merely failed to win!
Abraham Lincoln is King of Diamonds ♦REST IN POWER Blessings and HUGS 👑💜
Long-tern better, short-term just 🤮🤮🤮
i my self very much daubte that B Mcclen Wuld offer peac with the Confederancy Yes his party was anit war but he him self was very much Pro war and by the point of 1864 November was Practickly over it wuld have been very hard for the CSA to achive anything else that total loose. Sure maby Protest wuld have broken out but Union even if not to win at atlanta had planty major Victories very close to that time that will surly risen up th e war support
I can give you two reasons he is not the greatest. 1. Illegally suspended habeas corpus 2. Unconstitutionally attempted to impose an income tax
I really don't think that the republicans would cease to fight over slavery even if it were constitutionally protected. You could just push for the state to purchase and free slaves British style since the slave trade would still be illegal so you could kill it by attrition. Abolition would be sweeping the world with the US as one of the few industrial states to hold onto it so there'd be mounting pressure from outside as well. The US would basically be apartheid South Africa in the '80s.
If the Confederacy won, we wouldn't have the same problems today.
Least delusional confederate sympathizer:
What If Thuh Horse Eated Troy
Made us all slaves to taxes. Thanks.
The alternate history community in general once to go back to a time of peace please please Josh we beg of you just apologize so we can end this ordeal
WE WON!!!!😂😂😂😂
@Bud88883 yep usa won the civil war and slaughtered the indians, stole hawaii, stole puerto rico, droped nukes on japan, finally ended segration 100 years after the civil war. Good going usa, such a nice country.
I still havent forgotten josh, And I still havent forgave you.
Disgusting
🥔