The key is how they justified it and why the North went to war. The justification was the accusation that the federal government was going to overstep its bounds and the reason the North went to war was to keep the federal government's dominion over the South, or to preserve the Union you might say. Another important question is why did the South want to protect slavery? The answers are complicated and uncomfortable.
And what many people conveniently forget is this. It was the South that attacked the federal government. The invasion of the Northern army into the South only followed after that direct attack on the government. Southerners wanted war, but it wasn't a rational and wise choice to attack the federal government. If they had peacefully seceded, the federal government would have been helpless to do anything about it. Most Americans would never have supported an unprovoked attack on the South. Yet once the South attacked the government, most Americans were in favor of a military response. The South sealed their own doom before the war even began. They did that because, in their own minds, this was what they thought was the best way to protect slavery.
@@MarmaladeINFP That's true but it is also naive to think that the Federal government wasn't trying to reinforce its garrison at Fort Sumnter. The fed wanted the war too.
@@Raycloud - I doubt president Lincoln was seeking to provoke war. Fort Sumter was a military base. The US government to this day regularly reinforces military bases without any assumption that it will provoke a civil war. There was no particular reason anyone would have predicted the American Civil War before it happened. Attacking a military base is not a normal response.
@@MarmaladeINFP You think the federal government was going to let half of its territory drift away and form a rival nation? That was not going to be allowed. Ever. Lincoln never even recognized the secession as legal so how could he do anything but hope for a quick and fast war? Many at the time thought a war would be over quickly, one way or the other. Lincoln needed a pretext and the Confederates gave him one.
What if Alexander the Great lived another 20 years? He was only 32 when he died. I'm curious how far his empire might have evolved and how it might have consolidated its power if he had lived.
Brian Jordan living to the age of 82 in the 300 BC’s was a very rare thing- though if anyone would be able to live that long, it would’ve definitely been Alexander. Edit- changed the number. Serious mistake on my part.
@@thedemonhater7748 Not at all true. Honestly if you lived past childhood you had a good chance of living to be an old man. Granted "old" tended to be more 60s than 70s or 80s like today, but there are records of ancient greeks even living till their 90s.
tyler2114 shit, you’re totally right. I don’t know why I typed in 32, but I had initially meant to say 82. Yeah, I’m aware. Infant and child mortality really brings down the average, but yeah, that’s totally right. There were still sporadic cases of people making it into their 100’s in the 16th and 19th century, so it was very possible- but also very rare- to live to old age.
Regardless it still was an "at the time controversial" idea that the federal government could interfere with state governments that far. So yes. It was an infringement on the state's right to make laws especially regarding slavery. Both framing is the same and correct. Even if you disagree with that framing. Ultimately the federal government was not in charge of deciding what was and wasn't property. If left to their own devices the "radical republicans" would inevitably pass an anti-slavery bill that could of threaten to upend the political system because it would be challenged in the Supreme Court and regardless of the results the system would become delegitimized.
The core states seceded over slavery, one of the bigger complaints was the Fugutive Slave Act simply because the south preferred no interference even in the face of seemingly beneficial federal law over the issue. After the battle of Fort Sumpter, which happened because Lincoln Reenforced the fort after the secessionists agreed that he could send food as long as he didn't send troops, the north declared war, in which case the rest of the states joined the now confederacy model because it pissed them all off that the fed would declare war. Then you have all of lincolns "fuck the south" rhetoric all the way back to when he first started participating in politics and its a giant cluster fuck of both sides were aasholes but fir some reason we are compelled to pick a side for any reason other than "oh, gggpa fought on this side so that's good enough for me"
@Eric Kennedy I would argue that's a naive view. Do we think the north was truly morally superior. They shipped in "slaves" called the Irish to work in factories that had harsher conditions then what most slaves had to deal with, with no Healthcare housing or food provided. Slaves often joked if they had a cruel master they were being treated like Irishmen. To call slavery anti human when factory work was often crueler seems lopsided
It was civil because the weapons at the beginning were poor enough that you would have to get close to kill your enemy. You still needed to look them in the eye. Or hope they died from disease.
Oh for gods sake, they might have been able to stop him... I never thought of the civil war having that big of an effect on how the whole Thanos thing turned out...
5:54 now I can’t stop imagining Robert E. Lee as Thanos “Fun isn’t something I’d consider when protectin’ my home Virginia... but this does put a smile on my face.” “When I’m finish, half of these here states will become a confederacy. The rest will still belong to the United States. Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.”
@@icyr0bin-794 well yes but no, Lee fought for the CSA because he was more loyal to his home state of Virginia than the united states. When Virginia left so too did Lee. IIRC Lee didn't give two shits about slavery
*Thanos E. Lee sits on horse, horse breaks* "Why does this keep happening?" Obviously, Iron Man would star as General Grant....Dr. Strange as Lincoln...which is ironic because Cumberbachian reasons... Oh...This could be fun....
The funny thing is that the whole slave or free thing isn’t what changes most drastically, as many believe. It would rather be the political and economic implications. America being split on this basis would completely redefine world powers and global politics during the 20th century. “America” would still be powerful but European powers would probably remain dominant.
@That’s where you’re wrong Kiddo Once upon a time, there was a great warrior known as ISP who dared challenge the world by marching to war with only artillery. His legend still lives on today, and some honour him by spamming his sacred words.
So basically in this timeline the USA is in a very similar position to Russia at the turn of the 1900s pre industrialization. Just minus the whole monarchy. Interesting concept, I would like to see a follow up on how WW1 and 2 play out in this case.
@@TXkid124 Without the US, it would probably be some super-powered Germany as the primary western power (assuming that the USSR even still comes about). Which would probably make it even harder for the USSR to spread communism in eastern Europe.
The "Cotton Gin" removed the seeds from already picked cotton. Slavers were still needed to pick it, it was just a lot easier to process with the gin (short for engine).
Slaves were NOT needed to pick it, it was just cheaper. Any system will be boosted by an influx of cheap or free labor, that's why we're working to build robots.
THE INFEOR AUSTRALIANS WILL NEVER BEAT THE EMU'S. IF THEY DID THE EMU WILL BECAME ANGRY AND KILL MORE HUMANS AND RULE OVER AUSTRALIA AND THE WHOLE GALAXY AND THEN DESTROY THE YEET PLANET AND FIGHT THE SKIRT ALLIENS.
@@busimagen The point of it was a simple invention as the subject and was exaggerating to make it seem less mechanically advanced to illustrate his point. It was just a simple hyperbole. If he would instead put a"wood or stone device that removed the seeds from cotton" instead of "some wooden thing", it wouldn't get his point across as effectively.
The fact that the North and European powers benefited from slave labor with cotton, it immediately made me think of a book I read called “The Bitter Side of Sweet” which was a peek into the slave work done by children in the Ivory Coast to provide cocoa for major chocolate companies to make chocolate. It’s very intriguing to think about these things.
China and Russia would change dramatically as well. Without cheap southern cotton the industry of England does not get as big and without the massive scale of industry Karl Marx never writes his damned book. No Karl Marx and no Communism. Russia would probably still have its Czars and China would probably still have an emperor.
@@GenJeFT China had a major civil war in the early 20th century. They weren´t only the republicans, communists and the emperor. In China fought several clans against eachother. They wouldn´t have the one empreror.
@@pieceofschmidtgames6389 kmt would not overthrown by commies(Mao), yes, but without commies(Lenin and Stalin), kmt would only 1 of many warlords in China. In real history, kmt had Soviet aid in 1920s, then Chiang exile and executed commies inside kmt for his fascism regime. Without Commies raised in Russia, both Commie and Fascism would be gone, Chiang would have no other political ideology for his dictatorship, just a warlord ruling Canton. Without Soviet aid for kmt, they wouldn't had more resources to defeat the ROC in Beijing and Northern warlords.
*What if the British Isles never existed?* No, Ireland, no Great Britain, just water. Not a place to inhabit, not a place to conquer, not a place that would have conquered a quarter of the world.
During centuries, England and France had the same politics. Try to become the leading nation in Europe avoiding any other had that position. In the same time, Spanish were in war to become the leading power. Without England, there are 2 solutions : - Europe become a French or Spanish Empire ; - An other third country would had the english role of balancing the powers and avoid the empire born. Probably Netherlands or Sweden.
@@himlingpatrice Good scenario, but now I remembered that the emperor Constantinus started his political career in Britannia. Without that island, we can't really say what would have happen to the Roman Empire, which would have changed a lot of history.
Well that's easy: Hong Kong wouldn't be one of the wealthiest cities in the world, India wouldn't have the infrastructure that catapulted it into an economic powerhouse (and likely be ruled by an islamic theocracy), South Africa would be dirt poor and politically unstable (like the rest of the continent), Europe would probably controlled by France or one of the Nordic countries (who incidentally would've also built their own global empire) and all the world's most popular sports wouldn't exist.
@@ahmadtarek7763 Yes. All nations have an experation date. The British Empire turned into the UK, the French Empire turned into just simply France. The Russian Empire was killed and turned into the Soviet Union, and then that was killed and turned into the Russian Federation. All things will die, even the nations we know and "love". America only survived the first Civil War because the South didn't want to take the North over, they just wanted to be independent instead of being apart of a Union. Unlike the Russian Civil War or the Spanish Civil War, either side winning wouldn't have dismantled the "United States of America", it would've just been either less states(and there would've been a Confederate States of America) or its our timeline. Sooner or later, someone will come along in America, either through a political revolt(like the Commies during the Russian Civil War), or someone takes over that no one wanted and states start seceding again. But America's streak of luck will have to end one day.
@@KingDerpy13 holy moly, i was responding to the original comment, if he was sure there was only going to be one civil war, as in I think there might be a second, I don't know why you assumed otherwise.
@@AHappyCub It is were the north colonies the south to make it more north like, it failed for reasons like the north went eick and did not want to finish its job, and left the south broken, also it was easier to steal what they could and not fix what was left in the south, so southers black and white were left to suffer and did. The south is still the redheaded stepchild of the nation today, mocked and cursed. As for as rasim have you looked in a mirror lately?
Delgen1951 exactly this. It’s often isn’t talked about until High School. But imo is one of the most interesting time periods in the 19th Century American History.
You know, I look back at a lot of these historical videos, and can't help but see a pattern, which goes something like this "If this didn't happen at this time, then this thing that happened at this time, wouldn't happen either, meaning THIS thing that happened at THIS time, ALSO becomes irrelevant..." and on and on it goes, The Black Death, struck Europe at JUST the right time, to create Renaissance Europe. Imagine, if it had struck earlier than it did in our timeline, it could have ended a large number of European nations, and left the subcontinent empty, for the Muslims to take over and colonize it. Of course, as Kody discussed in his video about the Black Death, it was the Mongols reopening of trade routes that caused it to spread. And he mentioned in that same video that taking out the Mongols, would have a MASSIVE butterfly effect on the rest of the world Then there's Napoleon, another massive butterfly effect if the timing is adjusted by even a small amount to either side, or just straight up, doesn't happen Stalin vs Trotsky, the Roman Empire clinging to existence, America's war of independence you know what... here's a video idea for you Kody 'All History is Connected' with the premise being a broad look at key historical events that lead into one another, a long line of dominoes that lead into the modern world So many documentaries that I've watched seem to treat certain events as separate from each other, but after watching your videos for so long, I don't believe that is the case. Everything is connected, even before global trade routes became a thing, if something didn't happen in one part of the world, then it causes a knock on effect for the rest of the world too just something to think about
Commander Critic Genuinely not trying to be rude here but of course events are all connected. Every action and variable impacts an infinite probability of other variables and potential reactions. One Roman senator stumbling home drunk two seconds later than he did in our timeline in 57 BCE could have erased the ascent of Napoleon, or prevented the rise of the Song Dynasty in China. Everything is so intricately connected that it's almost absurd to contemplate.
Commander Critic my AP US History teacher would always say “History is linear, one even always causes another. It’s always been connected and it always will. “
@@_Cato_ I think not "everything is so intricately connected". A lot of things have, for lack of a better word, inertia behind them. Minor changes can be made without effecting major changes. Other things are much more pivotal, and even a minor change causes huge ripples. For example -- the Wright brothers fail at Kittyhawk. There were half a dozen other inventors, in at least 4 countries (Sweden, France, Germany, Brasil) that would have had heavier-than-air craft within a couple of years. How do we know this? Because they did in our timeline. The DETAIL of who did it first is less important (in this case) than that it got done. Now, if Otto Lilienthal hadn't been killed when he was, heavier-than-air craft would have been a thing in the 1890's, giving air power a chance to develop for 20 years BEFORE the Great War. The consequences of that minor change would have had HUGE consequences, as both sides would have known of the effectiveness of (at least!) aerial reconaissance.
Commander Critic that video exists. It’s called the history of the entire earth I guess. And it’s BEAUTIFUL. (Ok so maybe it’s not exactly that, but it pours through all of the history of earth, starting with the universe forming, going through earth’s formation, evolution, humans.... all of humans....)
The British wouldn't have done that because the southern economy still was based on slavery. Britain made slavery illegal because they thought it was wrong, having much the same beliefs of the Northern states. The reason it was easy for Britain to outlaw slavery was because their national economy was not based on it, like America's was for half of the 17 century
I thought you might enjoy this. So, some friends and me were working on an alternate history story together. The core idea is "world War 2, but with airships" Our initial POD is the American Civil War, where the confederacy won, forcing the union to recognize it as a sovereign nation. As separate countries, both elected not to get involved in WWI, turning the crushing defeat of the central powers into a slow decline as both sides gradually run out of money and willpower to continue the war effort. Because the central powers weren't smashed the way they were irl, monarchies remain politically relevant. Germany keeps the Kaiser, the British monarch keeps more power for himself. Tsar Nicholas is a wiser man in our alt and only mobilizes his army in a defensive capacity, openly declaring neutrality, knowing that Russia has a lot of modernizing to do before it can hold its own in a European war. No war involvement means no trade embargo with the ottomans, no famine to fuel resentment of the Tsar, which means no support for the communists. Actually, the Russian monarchy is held in high esteem by the Russian people overall. As they see how the rest of Europe ripped itself apart, they largely feel that the Tsar made a wise and intelligent choice. So during that time Russia instead focuses on updating its military, industrial base, and agriculture. The death of the zeppelin was twofold. In WWI, zeppelins were practically indestructible until the British developed incendiary ammunition. So we had them invent it earlier, giving the central powers time to develop better construction methods, armor, and fire suppression systems. These advances keep airships viable military options for decades. In the civilian sector, the Hindenburg incident was the first major televised disaster and the shock of it killed the public's trust in them. So instead, our first major televised disaster was an urban train derailment, robbing railroads of the public's trust instead. The spark for the second world war itself had to do with lingering resentment from the first as countries on both sides are angry and frustrated at having sacrificed so much, and gained nothing. Though we haven't decided yet who actually fired the first shots
The problem with that is that without a diplomatically active Russia, World War I will not occur, both on the direct and the macro scale. Literally (one of) the direct reason that World War I happened irl was the system of alliances that was triggered by Austria-Hungary trying to force the Serbians into submission. The Russians were allied to the Serbians and the Germans were allied to the Austro-hungarians, and so the Russians called in their French allies to help fight Germany. This lead to Germany attempting to attack through Belgium to get to France, which caused the UK to join the war against the Germans because Belgium was the UK's ally. Without that system of alliances, hinging upon Russia as the first chain in the link, it'd literally just be Austria-Hungary beating up on Serbia and nobody would care enough to go to war - at best there might be some diplomatic protests but neither France nor the UK would care enough about Serbia to spark a war. "Ah, but what about the growing militarization and sense of nationalism? There'd be a war sparked eventually, right?" Wrong. While Militarization and Nationalism certainly were certainly the background of World War I and could be considered as indirect causes, without a direct diplomatic cause there would be no war, and so without a diplomatically active Russia, there would never be a cause for war. The French and the UK were really only allies of circumstance, and before World War I their relations were really rather tepid at best. Without a strong ally of either the UK or Russia, France would never attempt an attack on the central powers as it'd be far too risky, and no other nation would have a reason to attack the central powers, or defend from them. Simply put, without Russia, World War I would never have happened. That's not to say Russia was the cause of the war, but a neutral Russia would remove one of the pieces of the puzzle that lead to World War I.
@@TheRedKing247 That's a fair point. One argument I would make though is that there weren't just treaties to consider, but also the underlying politics and military doctrine. As much as I'd love to type up a wall of text explaining it, extra credits has a great series of videos titled The Seminal Tragedy that explains it all far better than I could. I'd have to think about it, but I'm sure I could engineer some motivations for WWI. Ultimately though all of this is only relevant to the extent that it sets the stage for WWII. But that's the war our story is actually about, with changes made to WWI and the prewar period to generate the particular political and technological circumstances that will let us tell the best story.
@@michealdrake3421 I’m going to second what the other guy says by pointing out that the war was sparked essentially by a disagreement between Russia and Austria. Austria wanted war with Serbia which, due to Russian interests in the region prompted them to get involved, prompting Germany, France and Britain to join in. Unless you completely change the event that sparks the war Russia simply must take an active part, they are the ones that started it. Other than that I quite like the premise of what you are going with. I think an alternative way of looking at the Russia thing could be to have Tsar Nicholas II die in the middle of the war, before he has the opportunity to ruin things by dismissing the competent generals and attempting to lead the army instead, the new Tsar can be a more sensible character who decides to pull out of the war and take on a more democratic tone with the central powers, which saves the monarchy.
Honest M'aiq supposedly he even had slave kid i’m not one of those “I’m going to rape a slave” kids...like a legit “I am in love with you let’s have a kid” kid
Maybe when he wrote "for ourselves and our posterity" he really did mean "ourselves and our posterity"? Lincoln himself didn't believe in former slaves being equal either even though he's the one that freed them. Makes you think.
*random comment saying southern secession was due to economic reasons without posting sources* but in technicality it can be argued that it was for economic reasons, after all the southern economy and much of the northern economies were dependent on the southern plantations and the slaves they held. before secession the Missouri compromise was what they held as the saving grace before the civil war, that was at least, until the Mexican-American war where the Missouri compromise would've tilted the political power to the north, which in turn would lead to abolition of slavery and the destruction of southern economies. things only made matters worse when a northern republican: Abraham Lincoln was elected to power, the south saw this as a threat to slavery, and thus their economy, and thus the first secession wave occurred. not defending slavery, or the south, just saying the economic reason for secession does technically have some standing ground... it just so happens that standing ground is based entirely on slavery.
I feel no shame in saying, I love you for this Greywolfe. I would just like to add, that the Missouri Compromise was not necessarily the problem, but rather the part where they did not uphold it. The Missouri Compromise would have seen New Mexico, Arizona, Clark County (Nevada, but it would have gone to another state), and southern California entered as slave states when they were entered. The replacement compromise, the one which brought about the popular vote on whether to be a slave or free state, is what was the problem. It led to Bleeding Kansas, and only served to intensify partisanship and distrust.
Yeah, because Detroit, Newark, etc. are such great bastions of wealth. Oh, and West Virginia belongs to the North as well. The bastard state of the Union lol!
That is basically the consensus amongst the AH community if the South really did manage to pull off independence. Had the CSA gained independence, they would have to face the reality that they will be second or third fiddle to the USA in Great Britain's eye and may be poorer due to the Doylist hubris of the Southern leadership to adopt industrialization. In our timeline, the First Brazilian Republic (a strictly agrarian country with an export economy) rapidly collapsed following the GReat Depression precisely because of that dependence...
I don't see any Southerners moving up north, but I see plenty of yankees movin' into my State of SC for work and to get the hell away from the leftist hellholes that are Massachusetts, NY, and California.
If you mean how half of it is red and half isn't, then I think that's just illustrating the differences in the parts of the state that caused it to separate during the civil war; the agrarian east and the mining dominated west.
yeah but then why not draw a line like that for every states cultural differences and you could bring up the fact that there is a bigger split for Virginia but then if you're only going to do this to Virginia then why even do it at all
Very easy for certain regions to become intrisically loyal though... I dare say Texas has it's regional parochialism as exists everywhere. I live in the biggest state in my country, and the difference between the north and the south part is quite extensive; let alone the idea sometimes suggested of our state seceding from the rest of the nation.
I love that version of the anthem at the end of the video. It made me remember that our anthem doesn’t suck, it’s just most modern renditions are garbage.
Cody, you’re perhaps one of the best youtubers I’ve ever watched. You got me interested in history, and got me into my favorite subject. Hell, I even love your book! Love ya dude! ❤️
@Eros Matthew Montallana Not 100% true, just it would have gone down much different but what would have gone down is very much a mystery. The logic you take assumes only chloroplasts could have created multi-celled life by releasing O2. I have a doubt and it would a very hard and unusual topic to cover. What humans did in the past and how they would have changed history is nothing compared to how the microorganism's past changes would have affected history.
Not really true. The South was by 1860 opposed to state (and territorial) rights, in particular the policy of popular sovereignty, whereby states and territories could bar slavery. The South had in fact used the power of the Federal government from the beginning to insure an unfair advantage in national debates, from the creation of the Senate to the three-fifths rule, and even the building of a new national capitol that would become a Southern city in atmosphere. Fugitive Slave laws and the Dredd Scott decision were other examples of the South trying to convert the local practice of slavery into a national institution, protected and encouraged by the Federal government.
@@jaytee9207 "The South used the Federal government to its advantage"? Like I said, slavery was Federally protected. Slavery wasn't local neither was it regional. Slavery existed all over the country. It was already nationwide. Although along party lines, the Deed Scott case there were 6 justices from Northern states and 3 from Southern States. Northern and Southern Justices 7-2 with two Whigs from Northern States descenting.
Jay Tee Lmao the south was against state rights? You do know that they seceded and created a Confederacy right? A confederacy is based around the states having more power than the federal government.
Answer eventually the white supremacist government would be forced to grant equal rights to blacks in order regain access to the international market like south Africa did or collapse due to bankruptcy
These remain consistently the most well written and well informed history videos on TH-cam. You continue to surprise me with how well done these videos always are.
It’s easier to understand the Civil War if you recognize that “slavery” entailed an entire economic system, and so for the abolition of slavery would be viewed like calls for instituting communism in America or for dissolving the USSR. It’s easy to condemn things in hindsight, but history is not anything close to the clean narrative often presented.
So, slavery still bad, but the scope of the problem is so massive that in order to fix it, there would have to be large societal changes to even begin repairing it?
@@jaidenbrink I think more than half of the population of the South was uncomfortable with slavery at the time of the Civil War but they weren't willing to give up their way of life -- even though really the main ones benefiting were the plantation owners. They saw it as an attack on their way of life and the points of view literally split families. At the end the general consensus was that the war should never happen again. I don't know if the feelings about slavery changed too much because of the war.
Here's my problem with that view: Would it not have been theoretically possible to hire American citizens to work the cotton fields? Surely, some could have come from the North to do it if needed (heck, so could have Irish and German immigrants of the era for that matter). To me, it seems like the plantation owners just didn't want to have to pay fair wages for labor so that THEY THEMSELVES would have more wealth and power. This is a side to slavery hurting America that few ever talk about, it kept TENS OF THOUSANDS of jobs (probably many more than that) away from ordinary free Americans.
Considering how many descendants of the Valois line were still alive, it was only a matter of time France would have become independent again. The War of the Roses would have been the perfect moment to become independent again.
It is legitimately disturbing how many people try the "yes slavery was bad, but..." or the "we were both wrong" arguments in this comment section. No Slavery was not a good thing, and yes the federal government clearly had jurisdiction over said issues as stated in the Constitution. The Civil War explicitly happened because the South thought the very outspoken enemy of slavery got into office. And the reinforcement of a military base is totally normal. Everything regarding the confederacy very clearly implies it was about slavery.
These "what if" reasonings with large chains of events, while entertaining , are based on a long line of improbable assumptions. For them to work, it must be assumed that no other actions are taken to replace the one's that never happened. Like another solution being found to get cotton efficiently etc.
Jean what are you talking about? I’m being dead serious! What if China would launch a full on invasion of the USA but nobody in the US would even notice because they would all have AirPods and wouldn’t hear.
@@markushaahr9194 The US can fight a war half way across the world and the general public doesnt feel a thing. We wouldnt notice even if we didnt have airpods. Plus China doesnt have the capacity to project force across the world, only the US.
@@RodneyLim03 Roman empire, Kody made video about if Rome never existed, he made 2 parts and told that there are some parts he didn't mentioned and he will discuss on part 3, check it out if you haven't seen it, it's really good scenario
@@machida58 "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" The American Civil War song of The North Here's the verse of the joke: "And We'll all feel gay when Johnny Comes Marching Home"
I want an alternate scenario where the the thirteen colonies united as one state with only the federal government as the only government. Without state governments, how would the country have evolved?
In short, it wouldn't. That's exactly what they were rebelling against. Trying that would have simply been them staying under the Crown. Why bother with the change?
Torrence Yarborough the thirteen colonies basically wanted to be thirteen independent nations with their own interests and the biggest problem the continental congress had at the time was that the individual states were not willing to contribute equally to the war effort because they had their own governments to refuse. They were so obsessed with holding onto their own power and claiming territory under their influence that they nearly jeopardized the entire country's foundation. Even after independence was won, the state's insisted on making their own rules without any regards for the federal government's authority. Slavery was on its way out globally, other nations with single state governments abolished the practice without having a civil war. Jim Crow laws and segregation was in clear violation of both federal law and the constitution, governors used their authority to essentially commit acts of treason (Eisenhower vs Governor Faubus and Kennedy vs Governor Wallace) requiring the federal government to use military force against someone who is supposed to answer to a higher authority without question. Today the cost of living and the minimum wage is not standardized since each state can decide how much it gets to be at the whim of local industries who can pay for cheap labor in one state and sell their goods at an inflated price in another. The electoral college generates misleading election results as states are defined by only one political party and those not part of that party are all but forgotten (like say your a democrat in a red state, makes your vote seem pointless doesn't it). I want to see what the country would be like if it was just one state, one law, and one government.
Interesting concept, but in the time between the colonization and the revolution, the colonies had grown so much as separate colonies, they would've had such differing opinions that they would have had to form separate state governments.
@@ab5olut3zero95 It could have happened if scheming bastards like Hamilton had gotten more influence. But it's important to remember that each colony had its own Governor and government which existed independent of the others, even if they were all subservient to the British crown.
@@mcmilk107 Assuming he never had kids (just like in our timeline), Elizabeth would have been next in line when he died (assuming also her own dad was dead).
@@martinfawkes595 Kings can't exactly be forced out by parliament. Parliament derives its power from the crown. It was 1936 not 1680. The head-choppy, catholic-exiling days of yore were long past. The King wasn't even that powerful. It's doubtful that Edward would have been especially targeted merely for being one of many appeasers. This notion that Chamberlain was some effete fool who had the potential to save Europe from destruction and denied it is a product of hindsight. In the 1930s it was not clear to anyone what was going to happen. Europe had just been through a horrible World War 20 years before that didn't really solve anything. Condemning pacifism of the time is frankly a bit unfair in that lens.
OTTOMAN SUPPREMACY. They will eventually influence the world unlike the countries of Europe. The black death was like a spring board to European power as the "Roman"(Byzantine) empire was going away....That or Kievan-Russ influence
Idea: What if the Cold War never happened? You could do a series of videos covering it, or even taking different events from the Cold War and changing it. Such as, what if the Berlin Wall was never erected, what if the Vietnam War never occurred, what if Russia and the U.S. ended on friendly terms after WW2, etc.
I feel like the idea of the states are an alliance more than it is a nation is still alive, maybe not mainstream, but Cody really nailed it on this one with these ideas of states being on their own in a stronger alliance (union) and then the centralization and people recognizing themselves as Americans more, Awesome stuff!
This is a superior presentation! It elucidates our connectivity very well and is a good example how terrible, bloody, traumatic, events can lead to something far better. In context, it is profound, and interesting, a real eye opener on how we grow spiritually through time, chaos, and suffering. We are literally a better, more compassionate people from having gone through that "baptism through fire".
@@AsteroidSpy I was going to say the same thing. There is no way a small country like that could defeat the USA in a war. Well Vietnam did so... Well maybe Mexico can. The chances are very low though.
@@D00MMAST3R Vietnam won mostly due to the fact the US was across the world, Vietnamese guerrilla warfare, and the war was unpopular in the US. Mexico on the other hand is right by the US, has mostly plains and a few mountains to work with instead of a dense jungle for guerrilla warfare, and the war would be more popular in the US, because no one gets drafted. Plus they also were a very new country back then, and the US military was just too much for Mexico to handle
qertysef - Pliocene and Pleistocene are regions of time given to vast periods of time, normally characterised by the environments and creatures alive at the time, such as the Cretaceous being the last age of the Dinosaurs. Megafauna basically just been big fucking plants 😂
Interesting piece... I wonder if slavery had died off naturally, as you put it, then the civil rights for blacks could have occurred at the same time as the Chinese out west? There would have been no resentment or entrenched Jim Crow laws that came about due to the way the Civil War and following Reconstruction eras were handled. But at the same time it could be argued that all the various civil rights moments were related to each other, building off of the ground work laid by the ones before it, so equality could have been delayed for everyone (Asians in the West, Blacks in the South, Irish/Catholics in the North, Native Americans all over). We could have more of a system like you see in parts of Europe, no state defined racism, but a common racist belief held by many resulting in things like more wide spread and common employment discrimination. Or we could still view anyone who didn't fit the WASP category as being an 'Other' and not a true 'American'...
I always wondered how different the South would be had we kept federal troops in control of the South for longer. During military occupation civil rights takes a huge step forward but gets pushed back into the dirt as soon as the North leaves the South to run itself.
@Matthew Chenault "In other words, if the war was about slavery, then the war was completely pointless." You could say that about alot of wars. You could say the Spanish civil war didnt matter because "eventually" they dropped fascism anyway. The point Im making is it wasn't pointless to the people involved at the time. Tell a slave at the time he could be free in 4 years if there is a war or free in 20-30 years if there isn't, the war wasn't pointless to him or her. Yes to the span of human history, it may seem pointless, but to people there at the time, it may have meant everything.
Ironic that Eli Whitney actually extended slavery when he wanted to end it. I also don’t see racism being as long lasting and as toxic as in our timeline. Suffrage for all would likely occurred sooner, if not, no later than in our time line. But without the Civil War decimating our country and military, the US might have tried to conquer Mexico and the Caribbean instead.
@@jasonbelstone3427 You're ignoring that chattel slavery is a fundamentally flawed and inefficient system. It only works in agrarian societies that can emphasize cash crops. But the industrial revolution makes that obsolete. Eventually it becomes more profitable to simply pay fellow citizens to do easier work that turns a higher profit, without having to worry about keeping them from killing you in your sleep. The main difference is the slaves would've been sold back to traders instead of being freed.
Matthew Bittenbender In a way they did through the 3/5 rule which unfairly inflated the number of Southern House of Representative members at the expense of slaves without giving them the vote.
This took far too long
Just like the Civil War.
Indeed
It was worth it
I concur
AlternateHistoryHub Oof
*picks random deep war quote* “What’s so civil about war, anyway?” - Guns N Roses
Does that count? Do I win?
EmperorTigerstar yes you win
armchair history plays roblox!!
You and Cody are my OTP
401st :)
Man I love how you comment on videos, you are hilarious. I also love your channel
"And yes the south seceded to protect slavery. They even say so... here and here..." I love how you he shuts down that argument lol.
The key is how they justified it and why the North went to war. The justification was the accusation that the federal government was going to overstep its bounds and the reason the North went to war was to keep the federal government's dominion over the South, or to preserve the Union you might say. Another important question is why did the South want to protect slavery? The answers are complicated and uncomfortable.
And what many people conveniently forget is this. It was the South that attacked the federal government. The invasion of the Northern army into the South only followed after that direct attack on the government. Southerners wanted war, but it wasn't a rational and wise choice to attack the federal government. If they had peacefully seceded, the federal government would have been helpless to do anything about it. Most Americans would never have supported an unprovoked attack on the South. Yet once the South attacked the government, most Americans were in favor of a military response. The South sealed their own doom before the war even began. They did that because, in their own minds, this was what they thought was the best way to protect slavery.
@@MarmaladeINFP That's true but it is also naive to think that the Federal government wasn't trying to reinforce its garrison at Fort Sumnter. The fed wanted the war too.
@@Raycloud - I doubt president Lincoln was seeking to provoke war. Fort Sumter was a military base. The US government to this day regularly reinforces military bases without any assumption that it will provoke a civil war. There was no particular reason anyone would have predicted the American Civil War before it happened. Attacking a military base is not a normal response.
@@MarmaladeINFP You think the federal government was going to let half of its territory drift away and form a rival nation? That was not going to be allowed. Ever. Lincoln never even recognized the secession as legal so how could he do anything but hope for a quick and fast war? Many at the time thought a war would be over quickly, one way or the other. Lincoln needed a pretext and the Confederates gave him one.
What if Alexander the Great lived another 20 years? He was only 32 when he died. I'm curious how far his empire might have evolved and how it might have consolidated its power if he had lived.
Brian Jordan living to the age of 82 in the 300 BC’s was a very rare thing- though if anyone would be able to live that long, it would’ve definitely been Alexander.
Edit- changed the number. Serious mistake on my part.
@@thedemonhater7748 Not at all true. Honestly if you lived past childhood you had a good chance of living to be an old man. Granted "old" tended to be more 60s than 70s or 80s like today, but there are records of ancient greeks even living till their 90s.
tyler2114 shit, you’re totally right. I don’t know why I typed in 32, but I had initially meant to say 82.
Yeah, I’m aware. Infant and child mortality really brings down the average, but yeah, that’s totally right. There were still sporadic cases of people making it into their 100’s in the 16th and 19th century, so it was very possible- but also very rare- to live to old age.
@@thedemonhater7748 No worries, man! We all make mistakes
Its good that he died
It's amazing how the smallest of things(the cotton gin) can change so much. It's rather terrifying when you think about it.
It really is, just like when you wait too long to talk to your crush and thus a wasted opportunity to possibly have new experiences with that person.
something something butterfly effect
@#1crackfiend he did a video on it
Not really a little thing in this case but I understand
“The smallest things”.... the american civil war to end slavery???? Small????
An upload? We must be on the best alternate timeline.
Early on a Justin Y comment
I must be in the best timeline
Oh hello there young child want some candy?
Justin Y. Dude we have exactly the same interests, gaming and history!
(Assuming your a real person like u have said)
no go away
I call it the best Worldline
The civil war wasn't about protecting slavery. It was about protecting states rights. To have slavery.
Regardless it still was an "at the time controversial" idea that the federal government could interfere with state governments that far. So yes. It was an infringement on the state's right to make laws especially regarding slavery. Both framing is the same and correct. Even if you disagree with that framing. Ultimately the federal government was not in charge of deciding what was and wasn't property. If left to their own devices the "radical republicans" would inevitably pass an anti-slavery bill that could of threaten to upend the political system because it would be challenged in the Supreme Court and regardless of the results the system would become delegitimized.
So slavery? Lmao semantics
The core states seceded over slavery, one of the bigger complaints was the Fugutive Slave Act simply because the south preferred no interference even in the face of seemingly beneficial federal law over the issue. After the battle of Fort Sumpter, which happened because Lincoln Reenforced the fort after the secessionists agreed that he could send food as long as he didn't send troops, the north declared war, in which case the rest of the states joined the now confederacy model because it pissed them all off that the fed would declare war.
Then you have all of lincolns "fuck the south" rhetoric all the way back to when he first started participating in politics and its a giant cluster fuck of both sides were aasholes but fir some reason we are compelled to pick a side for any reason other than "oh, gggpa fought on this side so that's good enough for me"
@@jerm70 Somebody had to step in , because slavery is against humanity. It would been a problem if Bucainion did not ignore the situation.
@Eric Kennedy I would argue that's a naive view. Do we think the north was truly morally superior. They shipped in "slaves" called the Irish to work in factories that had harsher conditions then what most slaves had to deal with, with no Healthcare housing or food provided. Slaves often joked if they had a cruel master they were being treated like Irishmen. To call slavery anti human when factory work was often crueler seems lopsided
"why is it called civil?"
"may I kill you please?"
"sure!" - That one song from Horrible Histories about the English Civil War
OH, MY CHILDHOOD
It was civil because the weapons at the beginning were poor enough that you would have to get close to kill your enemy. You still needed to look them in the eye. Or hope they died from disease.
Well the avengers would have been a lot more prepared for than- wait wrong civil war
Oh for gods sake, they might have been able to stop him... I never thought of the civil war having that big of an effect on how the whole Thanos thing turned out...
Like the DCU?
You are everywhere!
😂😂 Greatest comment of all time!
Yeah. If Makhno would do... wait. That's also wrong civil war.
Then Vampires would be a dying species. Courtesy of our still alive President, Abraham Lincoln.
@Chuck Freaking Norris holy heck chuck norris!!!1!!11!!
marry me please!!!1!!!!111!!!
I don't care what anyone says, that was a great movie
😂
@@A.Mortem Agreed
Just Some Guy with a Mustache
Fuck off we don’t need you spammers on this channel
Please do If Woodrow Wilson was never President.
US imperialism amd interventionism wouldn't be much of a thing.
That would be good.
An interesting scenario would be Roosevelt winning in 1912
Time to rough ride over the Kaiser.
Do we get a president that immediately declares war on Germany after the sinking of Lusitania? Now that would be a fun.
5:54 now I can’t stop imagining Robert E. Lee as Thanos
“Fun isn’t something I’d consider when protectin’ my home Virginia... but this does put a smile on my face.”
“When I’m finish, half of these here states will become a confederacy. The rest will still belong to the United States. Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.”
correction
“fun isn’t something id consider when protectin’ slavery***”
United States
United States: Age of Mexico
United States: Civil War
United States: reconstruction
@@forestfilms472 I'd watch it
@@icyr0bin-794 well yes but no, Lee fought for the CSA because he was more loyal to his home state of Virginia than the united states. When Virginia left so too did Lee. IIRC Lee didn't give two shits about slavery
*Thanos E. Lee sits on horse, horse breaks*
"Why does this keep happening?"
Obviously, Iron Man would star as General Grant....Dr. Strange as Lincoln...which is ironic because Cumberbachian reasons...
Oh...This could be fun....
The funny thing is that the whole slave or free thing isn’t what changes most drastically, as many believe. It would rather be the political and economic implications. America being split on this basis would completely redefine world powers and global politics during the 20th century. “America” would still be powerful but European powers would probably remain dominant.
It was actually the "infringement" of states rights of the action of the abolition of slaves.
@Aspiring Marauder who are you referring to with that remark?
Yeah but what it boiled down to was really them wanting to keep their slaves
(Which they believed to be constitutionally supported)
@@barrybend7189 what about the infringement on the northern states rights with the compromise of 1850?
@@bnuuyes the south was more volatile to the change.
There’s only one point of divergence possible:
*artillery only*
Bit late
@That’s where you’re wrong Kiddo Once upon a time, there was a great warrior known as ISP who dared challenge the world by marching to war with only artillery. His legend still lives on today, and some honour him by spamming his sacred words.
and eu3
Hide your women, hide your men, Isorrow’s back in town again!
no until he do eu3
So basically in this timeline the USA is in a very similar position to Russia at the turn of the 1900s pre industrialization. Just minus the whole monarchy. Interesting concept, I would like to see a follow up on how WW1 and 2 play out in this case.
probably not very good for western europe. Unless you like communism
Kevin Dunn Not our problem
DylanDino2017דילן What the hell does that have do about being “American”
@@TXkid124 Without the US, it would probably be some super-powered Germany as the primary western power (assuming that the USSR even still comes about). Which would probably make it even harder for the USSR to spread communism in eastern Europe.
Without Woodrow Wilson there wouldn't be a WWII.
The "Cotton Gin" removed the seeds from already picked cotton. Slavers were still needed to pick it, it was just a lot easier to process with the gin (short for engine).
I was going to have to say the same thing. I was searching through the comments and couldn't believe that no one had picked that up.
Same
It's still crazy time consuming, that's the point.
Well, not really. Slavers wouldn't be needed because without the ability to mass produce cotton, it wouldn't be profitable.
Slaves were NOT needed to pick it, it was just cheaper. Any system will be boosted by an influx of cheap or free labor, that's why we're working to build robots.
What if Australia won the Emu War?
none21 impossible
that is immposible
This is alt history, not stories and myths
Australia is not real, smh
THE INFEOR AUSTRALIANS WILL NEVER BEAT THE EMU'S. IF THEY DID THE EMU WILL BECAME ANGRY AND KILL MORE HUMANS AND RULE OVER AUSTRALIA AND THE WHOLE GALAXY AND THEN DESTROY THE YEET PLANET AND FIGHT THE SKIRT ALLIENS.
It's quite nice to think that, because you made some wooden thing that spun cotton, you were responsible for the entire sociopolitical order of today
Thanks Ellai Whitney
@@busimagen he was focusing on how a simple intention effected so much
@@busimagen The point of it was a simple invention as the subject and was exaggerating to make it seem less mechanically advanced to illustrate his point. It was just a simple hyperbole. If he would instead put a"wood or stone device that removed the seeds from cotton" instead of "some wooden thing", it wouldn't get his point across as effectively.
A great example of the butterfly effect
Capitalism was helpful to slavery to get work without paying for it.
If civil war never happened, the Avengers would have been more prepared against Thanos
thanos was inevitable
True
@@LuisSierra42 this does put a smile on my face
Lmao my laid back teacher made a joke like this while teaching
Lol
The fact that the North and European powers benefited from slave labor with cotton, it immediately made me think of a book I read called “The Bitter Side of Sweet” which was a peek into the slave work done by children in the Ivory Coast to provide cocoa for major chocolate companies to make chocolate. It’s very intriguing to think about these things.
Yum
“No Civil War= less world intervention”
*Vietnam wants to know your location
China and Russia would change dramatically as well. Without cheap southern cotton the industry of England does not get as big and without the massive scale of industry Karl Marx never writes his damned book. No Karl Marx and no Communism. Russia would probably still have its Czars and China would probably still have an emperor.
@@GenJeFT China had a major civil war in the early 20th century. They weren´t only the republicans, communists and the emperor. In China fought several clans against eachother. They wouldn´t have the one empreror.
@@GenJeFT The west would still make a mockery of the qing, but the Kuomintang would not be overthrown by the communists.
Every third world country wants to know that.
@@pieceofschmidtgames6389 kmt would not overthrown by commies(Mao), yes, but without commies(Lenin and Stalin), kmt would only 1 of many warlords in China.
In real history, kmt had Soviet aid in 1920s, then Chiang exile and executed commies inside kmt for his fascism regime.
Without Commies raised in Russia, both Commie and Fascism would be gone, Chiang would have no other political ideology for his dictatorship, just a warlord ruling Canton. Without Soviet aid for kmt, they wouldn't had more resources to defeat the ROC in Beijing and Northern warlords.
*What if the British Isles never existed?*
No, Ireland, no Great Britain, just water.
Not a place to inhabit, not a place to conquer, not a place that would have conquered a quarter of the world.
During centuries, England and France had the same politics. Try to become the leading nation in Europe avoiding any other had that position.
In the same time, Spanish were in war to become the leading power.
Without England, there are 2 solutions :
- Europe become a French or Spanish Empire ;
- An other third country would had the english role of balancing the powers and avoid the empire born. Probably Netherlands or Sweden.
@@himlingpatrice Good scenario, but now I remembered that the emperor Constantinus started his political career in Britannia. Without that island, we can't really say what would have happen to the Roman Empire, which would have changed a lot of history.
He's done a video similar to that! :D th-cam.com/video/4iXx96DVHX8/w-d-xo.html
What if Ireland is united
Oh wait it is 🇮🇪🇮🇪👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻
Well that's easy: Hong Kong wouldn't be one of the wealthiest cities in the world, India wouldn't have the infrastructure that catapulted it into an economic powerhouse (and likely be ruled by an islamic theocracy), South Africa would be dirt poor and politically unstable (like the rest of the continent), Europe would probably controlled by France or one of the Nordic countries (who incidentally would've also built their own global empire) and all the world's most popular sports wouldn't exist.
where's the rome part 3?
What makes me happy is to know that there was ever ONE civil war. That is why we all know which civil war the title refers to.
until the second one happens, which is inevitable in big nations like the US
ARE YOU SURE THAT?
lol i can't imagine European history
@@ahmadtarek7763 Yes. All nations have an experation date. The British Empire turned into the UK, the French Empire turned into just simply France. The Russian Empire was killed and turned into the Soviet Union, and then that was killed and turned into the Russian Federation. All things will die, even the nations we know and "love". America only survived the first Civil War because the South didn't want to take the North over, they just wanted to be independent instead of being apart of a Union. Unlike the Russian Civil War or the Spanish Civil War, either side winning wouldn't have dismantled the "United States of America", it would've just been either less states(and there would've been a Confederate States of America) or its our timeline.
Sooner or later, someone will come along in America, either through a political revolt(like the Commies during the Russian Civil War), or someone takes over that no one wanted and states start seceding again. But America's streak of luck will have to end one day.
@@KingDerpy13 holy moly, i was responding to the original comment, if he was sure there was only going to be one civil war, as in I think there might be a second, I don't know why you assumed otherwise.
Then Tony wouldn’t have hesitated to call Ste.... wait
How about “what if southern reconstruction was completed?”. I think that would a cool idea.
Agreed
What is "Southern Reconstruction" ?
@@AHappyCub It is were the north colonies the south to make it more north like, it failed for reasons like the north went eick and did not want to finish its job, and left the south broken, also it was easier to steal what they could and not fix what was left in the south, so southers black and white were left to suffer and did. The south is still the redheaded stepchild of the nation today, mocked and cursed. As for as rasim have you looked in a mirror lately?
Delgen1951 exactly this. It’s often isn’t talked about until High School. But imo is one of the most interesting time periods in the 19th Century American History.
@That’s where you’re wrong Kiddo I assume you're not from the South, are you?
Summary of the civil war:
_The Confederate States did an oopsie_
Brittain did an oopsie
Napoleon did an oopsie
Gloria Borger needs to start a history channel
Evolution did an oopsie
Evariste Galois because when I think oopsie, I think defending the rights of states. The Union did an oopsie by exploiting the south
Blud really put a cinematic masterpiece at the end of one of his best videos and thought we wouldn’t notice 💀💀💀💀🔥🔥🔥
No civil war means no harry turtledove southern victory series and that's a would I can't live in
The alternate history books would just be "What if there had been a civil war?"
Ah a gentleman of class.
@@CrimsonPhantom88 And Harry Turtledove's other novel The United States of America.
Instead of. "The Guns of The South" We may have, "The Cotton Gins of The South"
You know, I look back at a lot of these historical videos, and can't help but see a pattern, which goes something like this
"If this didn't happen at this time, then this thing that happened at this time, wouldn't happen either, meaning THIS thing that happened at THIS time, ALSO becomes irrelevant..."
and on and on it goes, The Black Death, struck Europe at JUST the right time, to create Renaissance Europe. Imagine, if it had struck earlier than it did in our timeline, it could have ended a large number of European nations, and left the subcontinent empty, for the Muslims to take over and colonize it. Of course, as Kody discussed in his video about the Black Death, it was the Mongols reopening of trade routes that caused it to spread. And he mentioned in that same video that taking out the Mongols, would have a MASSIVE butterfly effect on the rest of the world
Then there's Napoleon, another massive butterfly effect if the timing is adjusted by even a small amount to either side, or just straight up, doesn't happen
Stalin vs Trotsky, the Roman Empire clinging to existence, America's war of independence
you know what... here's a video idea for you Kody
'All History is Connected' with the premise being a broad look at key historical events that lead into one another, a long line of dominoes that lead into the modern world
So many documentaries that I've watched seem to treat certain events as separate from each other, but after watching your videos for so long, I don't believe that is the case. Everything is connected, even before global trade routes became a thing, if something didn't happen in one part of the world, then it causes a knock on effect for the rest of the world too
just something to think about
Commander Critic
Genuinely not trying to be rude here but of course events are all connected. Every action and variable impacts an infinite probability of other variables and potential reactions. One Roman senator stumbling home drunk two seconds later than he did in our timeline in 57 BCE could have erased the ascent of Napoleon, or prevented the rise of the Song Dynasty in China. Everything is so intricately connected that it's almost absurd to contemplate.
Commander Critic my AP US History teacher would always say “History is linear, one even always causes another. It’s always been connected and it always will. “
@@_Cato_ I think not "everything is so intricately connected". A lot of things have, for lack of a better word, inertia behind them. Minor changes can be made without effecting major changes. Other things are much more pivotal, and even a minor change causes huge ripples.
For example -- the Wright brothers fail at Kittyhawk. There were half a dozen other inventors, in at least 4 countries (Sweden, France, Germany, Brasil) that would have had heavier-than-air craft within a couple of years. How do we know this? Because they did in our timeline. The DETAIL of who did it first is less important (in this case) than that it got done. Now, if Otto Lilienthal hadn't been killed when he was, heavier-than-air craft would have been a thing in the 1890's, giving air power a chance to develop for 20 years BEFORE the Great War. The consequences of that minor change would have had HUGE consequences, as both sides would have known of the effectiveness of (at least!) aerial reconaissance.
@@_Cato_ So right. I think the same way too ; heck, everything could be calculated if we had the data to do it instead of infinite(?) possibilities
Commander Critic that video exists. It’s called the history of the entire earth I guess. And it’s BEAUTIFUL.
(Ok so maybe it’s not exactly that, but it pours through all of the history of earth, starting with the universe forming, going through earth’s formation, evolution, humans.... all of humans....)
What if Britain made slavery illegal when the us was still a colony
Gavin Sinkula That’s a more realistic scenario than what Cody presents.
Gavin Sinkula I’m no historian, but I’m going to guess that the American colonies would have rebelled much earlier.
The British wouldn't have done that because the southern economy still was based on slavery. Britain made slavery illegal because they thought it was wrong, having much the same beliefs of the Northern states. The reason it was easy for Britain to outlaw slavery was because their national economy was not based on it, like America's was for half of the 17 century
@@januaryborn8976 no it isn't, Britain needed cheap labor for new crops in the new world, they were never going to not have slaves in the new world
@Britannic hayyomatt
The British banned slavery in 1835
One of the reasons why Texas seceded from Mexico is because slavery is illegal in Mexico
I thought you might enjoy this.
So, some friends and me were working on an alternate history story together. The core idea is "world War 2, but with airships"
Our initial POD is the American Civil War, where the confederacy won, forcing the union to recognize it as a sovereign nation. As separate countries, both elected not to get involved in WWI, turning the crushing defeat of the central powers into a slow decline as both sides gradually run out of money and willpower to continue the war effort.
Because the central powers weren't smashed the way they were irl, monarchies remain politically relevant.
Germany keeps the Kaiser, the British monarch keeps more power for himself.
Tsar Nicholas is a wiser man in our alt and only mobilizes his army in a defensive capacity, openly declaring neutrality, knowing that Russia has a lot of modernizing to do before it can hold its own in a European war. No war involvement means no trade embargo with the ottomans, no famine to fuel resentment of the Tsar, which means no support for the communists. Actually, the Russian monarchy is held in high esteem by the Russian people overall. As they see how the rest of Europe ripped itself apart, they largely feel that the Tsar made a wise and intelligent choice. So during that time Russia instead focuses on updating its military, industrial base, and agriculture.
The death of the zeppelin was twofold. In WWI, zeppelins were practically indestructible until the British developed incendiary ammunition. So we had them invent it earlier, giving the central powers time to develop better construction methods, armor, and fire suppression systems. These advances keep airships viable military options for decades. In the civilian sector, the Hindenburg incident was the first major televised disaster and the shock of it killed the public's trust in them. So instead, our first major televised disaster was an urban train derailment, robbing railroads of the public's trust instead.
The spark for the second world war itself had to do with lingering resentment from the first as countries on both sides are angry and frustrated at having sacrificed so much, and gained nothing. Though we haven't decided yet who actually fired the first shots
The problem with that is that without a diplomatically active Russia, World War I will not occur, both on the direct and the macro scale. Literally (one of) the direct reason that World War I happened irl was the system of alliances that was triggered by Austria-Hungary trying to force the Serbians into submission. The Russians were allied to the Serbians and the Germans were allied to the Austro-hungarians, and so the Russians called in their French allies to help fight Germany. This lead to Germany attempting to attack through Belgium to get to France, which caused the UK to join the war against the Germans because Belgium was the UK's ally. Without that system of alliances, hinging upon Russia as the first chain in the link, it'd literally just be Austria-Hungary beating up on Serbia and nobody would care enough to go to war - at best there might be some diplomatic protests but neither France nor the UK would care enough about Serbia to spark a war.
"Ah, but what about the growing militarization and sense of nationalism? There'd be a war sparked eventually, right?" Wrong. While Militarization and Nationalism certainly were certainly the background of World War I and could be considered as indirect causes, without a direct diplomatic cause there would be no war, and so without a diplomatically active Russia, there would never be a cause for war. The French and the UK were really only allies of circumstance, and before World War I their relations were really rather tepid at best. Without a strong ally of either the UK or Russia, France would never attempt an attack on the central powers as it'd be far too risky, and no other nation would have a reason to attack the central powers, or defend from them. Simply put, without Russia, World War I would never have happened. That's not to say Russia was the cause of the war, but a neutral Russia would remove one of the pieces of the puzzle that lead to World War I.
@@TheRedKing247 That's a fair point. One argument I would make though is that there weren't just treaties to consider, but also the underlying politics and military doctrine. As much as I'd love to type up a wall of text explaining it, extra credits has a great series of videos titled The Seminal Tragedy that explains it all far better than I could. I'd have to think about it, but I'm sure I could engineer some motivations for WWI. Ultimately though all of this is only relevant to the extent that it sets the stage for WWII. But that's the war our story is actually about, with changes made to WWI and the prewar period to generate the particular political and technological circumstances that will let us tell the best story.
@@michealdrake3421 I’m going to second what the other guy says by pointing out that the war was sparked essentially by a disagreement between Russia and Austria. Austria wanted war with Serbia which, due to Russian interests in the region prompted them to get involved, prompting Germany, France and Britain to join in. Unless you completely change the event that sparks the war Russia simply must take an active part, they are the ones that started it.
Other than that I quite like the premise of what you are going with. I think an alternative way of looking at the Russia thing could be to have Tsar Nicholas II die in the middle of the war, before he has the opportunity to ruin things by dismissing the competent generals and attempting to lead the army instead, the new Tsar can be a more sensible character who decides to pull out of the war and take on a more democratic tone with the central powers, which saves the monarchy.
That sounds kinda dope.
sounds like cringe shit
"Everybody will be free and equal."
*_The guy that wrote this down as the constitution had 100 slaves of his own._*
Don't you just love human hypocrisy?
Thomas jefferson also criticized slavery while owning slaves. Like even his opposition made fun of him for it
Because those aren't *humans* /s
Honest M'aiq supposedly he even had slave kid i’m not one of those “I’m going to rape a slave” kids...like a legit “I am in love with you let’s have a kid” kid
Maybe when he wrote "for ourselves and our posterity" he really did mean "ourselves and our posterity"?
Lincoln himself didn't believe in former slaves being equal either even though he's the one that freed them. Makes you think.
*random comment saying southern secession was due to economic reasons without posting sources*
but in technicality it can be argued that it was for economic reasons, after all the southern economy and much of the northern economies were dependent on the southern plantations and the slaves they held. before secession the Missouri compromise was what they held as the saving grace before the civil war, that was at least, until the Mexican-American war where the Missouri compromise would've tilted the political power to the north, which in turn would lead to abolition of slavery and the destruction of southern economies. things only made matters worse when a northern republican: Abraham Lincoln was elected to power, the south saw this as a threat to slavery, and thus their economy, and thus the first secession wave occurred.
not defending slavery, or the south, just saying the economic reason for secession does technically have some standing ground... it just so happens that standing ground is based entirely on slavery.
I feel no shame in saying, I love you for this Greywolfe. I would just like to add, that the Missouri Compromise was not necessarily the problem, but rather the part where they did not uphold it. The Missouri Compromise would have seen New Mexico, Arizona, Clark County (Nevada, but it would have gone to another state), and southern California entered as slave states when they were entered. The replacement compromise, the one which brought about the popular vote on whether to be a slave or free state, is what was the problem. It led to Bleeding Kansas, and only served to intensify partisanship and distrust.
I thought this was obvious but it’s surprising how many would disagree with this point.
What if I lost my virginity
Edit: No I won’t do any Alabama things either
We don't think about the impossible
Good question.. to bad we won't ever find an awnser
Tornado Watcher Damn man you didn’t have to do him like that.
@@thatonecountrythateveryone1658 I'm in the same boat though
You won't
One single invention, just being nonexistent, could literally alter the timeline and universe. Our multiverse is a crazy one
I didn't know there was an alternate history where the south could be poorer
Dan K , no civil war no war reperations.
Yeah, because Detroit, Newark, etc. are such great bastions of wealth. Oh, and West Virginia belongs to the North as well. The bastard state of the Union lol!
That is basically the consensus amongst the AH community if the South really did manage to pull off independence. Had the CSA gained independence, they would have to face the reality that they will be second or third fiddle to the USA in Great Britain's eye and may be poorer due to the Doylist hubris of the Southern leadership to adopt industrialization. In our timeline, the First Brazilian Republic (a strictly agrarian country with an export economy) rapidly collapsed following the GReat Depression precisely because of that dependence...
I don't see any Southerners moving up north, but I see plenty of yankees movin' into my State of SC for work and to get the hell away from the leftist hellholes that are Massachusetts, NY, and California.
@@ab5olut3zero95 you i hate the leftists
I really hate how you made Virginia and West Virginia separate even though they wouldn’t be in this scenario!
If you mean how half of it is red and half isn't, then I think that's just illustrating the differences in the parts of the state that caused it to separate during the civil war; the agrarian east and the mining dominated west.
yeah but then why not draw a line like that for every states cultural differences and you could bring up the fact that there is a bigger split for Virginia but then if you're only going to do this to Virginia then why even do it at all
The worst part about the alternate timeline is Texas getting split up
Very easy for certain regions to become intrisically loyal though... I dare say Texas has it's regional parochialism as exists everywhere. I live in the biggest state in my country, and the difference between the north and the south part is quite extensive; let alone the idea sometimes suggested of our state seceding from the rest of the nation.
But, think of the football rivalries within a divided Texas.
That and African Americans are probably treated absolutely horribly and not at all treated like humans with rights.
Something that you overlook a lot is how if you save millions of people’s lives, those people might end up doing something important
I love that version of the anthem at the end of the video. It made me remember that our anthem doesn’t suck, it’s just most modern renditions are garbage.
You know what I like? I like how he explains actual historical events in their proper context (like comparing cotton to the oil industry today)
What if AlternateHistoryHub loaded more often?
Whaddup Bullsith?
@Uncle Sam lol, its all good. I know Red Leader from another channel. If you like Star Wars you should check it out, it's called Thor Skywalker.
@@RedLeader327 not much! How are you?
Then he'd be like the infographics channel
The epilogue of this video is deeply moving and important to hear
Cody, you’re perhaps one of the best youtubers I’ve ever watched. You got me interested in history, and got me into my favorite subject. Hell, I even love your book! Love ya dude! ❤️
What if Roosevelt won in 1912?
A channel called whatifalthist did a video on that. He does alternate history videos too so go check him out!
@T_ C I wouldn't say that. I enjoy his videos, and if you don't, don't tell other people to not watch him.
If he got assassinated shortly after winning then back in the ussa
@@vlad-ns6yt To be fair it's kind of like saying "don't watch that show/movie it's bad" it's a completely reasonable statement.
tHE cIvIL WaR wASN't SlaVErY, iT WAs AbOUt StATeS' rIGhTs
A state's right to do what
*quietly* own slaves...
Ooh!
Alternate Prehistory Hub: What if cyanobacteria never evolved? :P
i ruined your very nice number of likes
@Eros Matthew Montallana Not 100% true, just it would have gone down much different but what would have gone down is very much a mystery. The logic you take assumes only chloroplasts could have created multi-celled life by releasing O2. I have a doubt and it would a very hard and unusual topic to cover. What humans did in the past and how they would have changed history is nothing compared to how the microorganism's past changes would have affected history.
Evolution ain’t true
@@vitaliiyakovlev2264 That is a convincing argument, but I think my rebuttal will be, "is too".
Nice to see you, my friend. It's been too long.
Oi emperor Wilhelm it’s be Bismarck and you suck!
One like = One Great War Victory
What if cotton was pronounced as "cott-un", not "coddin" lol
Then slavery would have prevailed until now and there's Nobama.
Also it’s apparently bridden, not Britain
That was pissing me off the entire time!
In an alternate universe there could be more hard Ts.
I'll see your "coddin" and raise you a "kawdin"
0:11 when your gf breaks up with you but says you can still be siblings
I approve
or cousins!
Aleppo2k16 kek
Or your mother
They had us in the first half, not gonna lie.
What’s that spaghetti western theme you used when you talked about the cotton gin? Such a banger
*Gotta feed those sheep.*
They seceded for State’s Rights. It’s just that the State’s right in question was slavery.
Not really true. The South was by 1860 opposed to state (and territorial) rights, in particular the policy of popular sovereignty, whereby states and territories could bar slavery. The South had in fact used the power of the Federal government from the beginning to insure an unfair advantage in national debates, from the creation of the Senate to the three-fifths rule, and even the building of a new national capitol that would become a Southern city in atmosphere. Fugitive Slave laws and the Dredd Scott decision were other examples of the South trying to convert the local practice of slavery into a national institution, protected and encouraged by the Federal government.
@@jaytee9207 "The South used the Federal government to its advantage"? Like I said, slavery was Federally protected. Slavery wasn't local neither was it regional. Slavery existed all over the country. It was already nationwide. Although along party lines, the Deed Scott case there were 6 justices from Northern states and 3 from Southern States. Northern and Southern Justices 7-2 with two Whigs from Northern States descenting.
Alex Wise yeah, they State Right to own slaves.
Jay Tee Lmao the south was against state rights? You do know that they seceded and created a Confederacy right? A confederacy is based around the states having more power than the federal government.
@@taylorv.2355 Slavery was nationwide and Constitutionally protected. Economic issue not morally. This video is so PC and false.
The civil war was about states rights...
...but states rights to do what exactly?
Ignore the Federal Govt.
@randallbesch2424
And what else?
Finally someone speaks about the Spanish Civil War.
Oh! What a disappointment!
What's stopping you from doing it?
Which one? Aren't you a lot like France where if nothing's going on ya just fight eachother as something to do?.
Yo spanish right?
Because i'm and i like the idea of the video but cody should study a lot.
What if Rhodesia won the bush war?
The wars not over. For Rhodesians never die.
Answer eventually the white supremacist government would be forced to grant equal rights to blacks in order regain access to the international market like south Africa did or collapse due to bankruptcy
@@christianweibrecht6555 even though the black supremacist took over and oppressed the whites like South Africa does today.
They would have withered away, eventually.
@@BifronsCandle that a what they said about America when we got our independence.
These remain consistently the most well written and well informed history videos on TH-cam. You continue to surprise me with how well done these videos always are.
It’s easier to understand the Civil War if you recognize that “slavery” entailed an entire economic system, and so for the abolition of slavery would be viewed like calls for instituting communism in America or for dissolving the USSR. It’s easy to condemn things in hindsight, but history is not anything close to the clean narrative often presented.
So, slavery still bad, but the scope of the problem is so massive that in order to fix it, there would have to be large societal changes to even begin repairing it?
@@nathanclark2424 exactly
@@Aurelian369_ nobody said it wasn’t
@@jaidenbrink I think more than half of the population of the South was uncomfortable with slavery at the time of the Civil War but they weren't willing to give up their way of life -- even though really the main ones benefiting were the plantation owners. They saw it as an attack on their way of life and the points of view literally split families. At the end the general consensus was that the war should never happen again. I don't know if the feelings about slavery changed too much because of the war.
Here's my problem with that view: Would it not have been theoretically possible to hire American citizens to work the cotton fields? Surely, some could have come from the North to do it if needed (heck, so could have Irish and German immigrants of the era for that matter). To me, it seems like the plantation owners just didn't want to have to pay fair wages for labor so that THEY THEMSELVES would have more wealth and power. This is a side to slavery hurting America that few ever talk about, it kept TENS OF THOUSANDS of jobs (probably many more than that) away from ordinary free Americans.
How about “What if England won the 100 years war”
Considering how many descendants of the Valois line were still alive, it was only a matter of time France would have become independent again. The War of the Roses would have been the perfect moment to become independent again.
@@FCGroningen1987 even still, this would be a fun scenario to look at
FCGroningen1987 actually the war of the roses happened because of the loss of English lands in France to France, so we don’t know
*MARTIN LUTHER KING HAS LEFT THE CHAT*
What are you on about, he is talking about the 1800’s
>adds Union soldier with his own book
>shameless plug
It is legitimately disturbing how many people try the "yes slavery was bad, but..." or the "we were both wrong" arguments in this comment section. No Slavery was not a good thing, and yes the federal government clearly had jurisdiction over said issues as stated in the Constitution. The Civil War explicitly happened because the South thought the very outspoken enemy of slavery got into office. And the reinforcement of a military base is totally normal. Everything regarding the confederacy very clearly implies it was about slavery.
Wait so USA basically be similar in a way to the eu in this alternate time line
Danrapx *Angry British noises*
Execpt you couldn't leave.
Ironic how one invention managed to change the entire course of history. Wonder if AirPods will have the same kind of effect.
These "what if" reasonings with large chains of events, while entertaining , are based on a long line of improbable assumptions. For them to work, it must be assumed that no other actions are taken to replace the one's that never happened. Like another solution being found to get cotton efficiently etc.
A new technology that could possibly change the course of history is coming! Oh no... He has AirPods on, he can't hear us.
Markus Haahr idk if you’re being serious or sarcastic but no idiot AirPods arnt important to that level
Jean what are you talking about? I’m being dead serious! What if China would launch a full on invasion of the USA but nobody in the US would even notice because they would all have AirPods and wouldn’t hear.
@@markushaahr9194 The US can fight a war half way across the world and the general public doesnt feel a thing. We wouldnt notice even if we didnt have airpods. Plus China doesnt have the capacity to project force across the world, only the US.
What if Rome Never Existed? Part III, please
Do you mean Rome the place or the Roman Empire?
@@RodneyLim03 Roman empire, Kody made video about if Rome never existed, he made 2 parts and told that there are some parts he didn't mentioned and he will discuss on part 3, check it out if you haven't seen it, it's really good scenario
Then we‘d all be gay, cause Johnny never left.
True
Johnny?
@@machida58 "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" The American Civil War song of The North
Here's the verse of the joke:
"And We'll all feel gay when Johnny Comes Marching Home"
@@Sinstarclair Being gay is awesome!
@@machida58 yo i gotta ask what the fuck is a pro male revoultionary
The atlantropa articals ad, is your equivilant of "WHAT?! You haven't played Tuber Simulator?"
PFFT
Lol
Or now, "WHAT?! You haven't played Raid: Shadow Legends?! What are you doing with your life?!"
Southern Cessation: “I am...inevitable...”
I would love to see "What if Al Gore won the 2000 Election?"
Especially to see how he would've handled 9-11.
Then we wouldn’t be able to learn about and prevent ManBearPig.
This isn’t a joke, I’m being totally cereal.
2 words: Lock box.
911 wouldn't happened...
Hahaha. Same. America is a duopoly so like Obama, nothing fundamentally changes.
I'm not gonna lie, that Texas split into 5 states scenario almost gave me a heart attack lmao.
What is all states were re-drawn to have the same square mile area?? 🤯
@@dgill441 in alaska 1/300 of the population would have a 1/5 of the senate
I want an alternate scenario where the the thirteen colonies united as one state with only the federal government as the only government. Without state governments, how would the country have evolved?
TonesTheGeek that’s an actually really cool concept !
In short, it wouldn't. That's exactly what they were rebelling against. Trying that would have simply been them staying under the Crown. Why bother with the change?
Torrence Yarborough the thirteen colonies basically wanted to be thirteen independent nations with their own interests and the biggest problem the continental congress had at the time was that the individual states were not willing to contribute equally to the war effort because they had their own governments to refuse. They were so obsessed with holding onto their own power and claiming territory under their influence that they nearly jeopardized the entire country's foundation. Even after independence was won, the state's insisted on making their own rules without any regards for the federal government's authority. Slavery was on its way out globally, other nations with single state governments abolished the practice without having a civil war. Jim Crow laws and segregation was in clear violation of both federal law and the constitution, governors used their authority to essentially commit acts of treason (Eisenhower vs Governor Faubus and Kennedy vs Governor Wallace) requiring the federal government to use military force against someone who is supposed to answer to a higher authority without question. Today the cost of living and the minimum wage is not standardized since each state can decide how much it gets to be at the whim of local industries who can pay for cheap labor in one state and sell their goods at an inflated price in another. The electoral college generates misleading election results as states are defined by only one political party and those not part of that party are all but forgotten (like say your a democrat in a red state, makes your vote seem pointless doesn't it). I want to see what the country would be like if it was just one state, one law, and one government.
Interesting concept, but in the time between the colonization and the revolution, the colonies had grown so much as separate colonies, they would've had such differing opinions that they would have had to form separate state governments.
@@ab5olut3zero95 It could have happened if scheming bastards like Hamilton had gotten more influence. But it's important to remember that each colony had its own Governor and government which existed independent of the others, even if they were all subservient to the British crown.
What if Edward VIII never abdicated in 1936?
Dick Head it’s an interesting idea but I don’t think too much would change. He’d just be forced out by parliament after Germany invaded Poland.
Queen Elizabeth would not have succeeded until 1972.
January Born Royal succession don’t work that way son
@@mcmilk107 Assuming he never had kids (just like in our timeline), Elizabeth would have been next in line when he died (assuming also her own dad was dead).
@@martinfawkes595 Kings can't exactly be forced out by parliament. Parliament derives its power from the crown. It was 1936 not 1680. The head-choppy, catholic-exiling days of yore were long past. The King wasn't even that powerful. It's doubtful that Edward would have been especially targeted merely for being one of many appeasers. This notion that Chamberlain was some effete fool who had the potential to save Europe from destruction and denied it is a product of hindsight. In the 1930s it was not clear to anyone what was going to happen. Europe had just been through a horrible World War 20 years before that didn't really solve anything. Condemning pacifism of the time is frankly a bit unfair in that lens.
What if the Mongol empire never rose to power?
// з а л н и й // х о д // а н а thats to big though it would just change the history of the entire world
GOD DAMN MONGORIANS DESTROYING MY SHITY WALL
OTTOMAN SUPPREMACY. They will eventually influence the world unlike the countries of Europe. The black death was like a spring board to European power as the "Roman"(Byzantine) empire was going away....That or Kievan-Russ influence
Then a lot of people would not exist, since dzjengis khan has the most offspring of all historical known persons
Absolutly amazing, like we say in Venezuela: “theres no harm that doesn’t come for good “ ❤️
Why Spanish male names include feminine names like Anne and Maria?
That warhammer 40k edit made my day
Alternate History Hub> Pornhub
Alternative Porn hub
0 I would watch that.
No man pornhub will always be the best
Richard Mingerhaufer Alternate History Hub On PornHub
What if Pornhub never
existed?
Idea: What if the Cold War never happened?
You could do a series of videos covering it, or even taking different events from the Cold War and changing it. Such as, what if the Berlin Wall was never erected, what if the Vietnam War never occurred, what if Russia and the U.S. ended on friendly terms after WW2, etc.
Watching these videos make me realize everything happens for a reason
What is that reason?
Idk about u but Dixie Land is the best anthem
I feel like the idea of the states are an alliance more than it is a nation is still alive, maybe not mainstream, but Cody really nailed it on this one with these ideas of states being on their own in a stronger alliance (union) and then the centralization and people recognizing themselves as Americans more, Awesome stuff!
I forgot about this channel happy I found it again
I’m watching this as I’m sewing cotton masks to donate. Really puts it into perspective.
Did you know that Stalin was born in Georgia.Thats right the man who defeated Hitler is a Confederate
Yep, born down south in Georgia, right on the coast ;)
No not that Georgia
I love you. Somebody make this meme a thing. I want Joey Steel to shooped into Robert E. Lee's hat.
Hitler defeated hitler
@@fuzzydunlop7928 No homo though
Which one are the Spanish nationalist? I am lost
MrOrangehorseman Spanish civil war joke
Hoi4 ha
The soviets.
@@merrittanimation7721 don't forget the Mongols
A1 steak sauce would have never been made
SLAVERY JUSTIFIED!
a glass of milk Is that true? I don’t know the origin of A1. Oddly enough, your comment reminded me that Coca-Cola would not have been invented.
@@patsflysfan2 Pepsi would never exist either.
This is a superior presentation! It elucidates our connectivity very well and is a good example how terrible, bloody, traumatic, events can lead to something far better. In context, it is profound, and interesting, a real eye opener on how we grow spiritually through time, chaos, and suffering. We are literally a better, more compassionate people from having gone through that "baptism through fire".
then the civil war wouldve never happened
Lol so simple
you should do what if The British Empire formed the Imperial Federation
Nice video doaent matter if it took to long. Also im getting ready to buy your novel.
I've read it. It's ok.
"And in part, the modern world wouldn't exist at all."
-Caleb, master salesman of alt hist
What would happen if Mexico won the Mexican-American war?
Then they will build a wall to protect themselves from American immigrants. 😂
They could not win the war
@@AsteroidSpy I was going to say the same thing. There is no way a small country like that could defeat the USA in a war. Well Vietnam did so... Well maybe Mexico can. The chances are very low though.
@@D00MMAST3R Vietnam won mostly due to the fact the US was across the world, Vietnamese guerrilla warfare, and the war was unpopular in the US.
Mexico on the other hand is right by the US, has mostly plains and a few mountains to work with instead of a dense jungle for guerrilla warfare, and the war would be more popular in the US, because no one gets drafted. Plus they also were a very new country back then, and the US military was just too much for Mexico to handle
@@AsteroidSpy no shit sherlock but thats why its called ALTERNATEhistoryhub
0:55 for those who don't understand what they were fighting for.....
What if The Australian Megafauna of the Pliocene and the Pleistocene never went extinct?
Alright so I don't understand three of the words in that sentence. Guess which ones?
qertysef - Pliocene and Pleistocene are regions of time given to vast periods of time, normally characterised by the environments and creatures alive at the time, such as the Cretaceous being the last age of the Dinosaurs. Megafauna basically just been big fucking plants 😂
Keaton Jones shit Yh sorry,in my own defence they sound very familiar 😅
@@ciarangrimes7912 ty ive not stepped into that area of science yet in school
Then British colonists would make them endangered like they did with African megafauna.
That beginning part where you state it so plainly why they seceeded is just beautiful~
Interesting piece... I wonder if slavery had died off naturally, as you put it, then the civil rights for blacks could have occurred at the same time as the Chinese out west? There would have been no resentment or entrenched Jim Crow laws that came about due to the way the Civil War and following Reconstruction eras were handled.
But at the same time it could be argued that all the various civil rights moments were related to each other, building off of the ground work laid by the ones before it, so equality could have been delayed for everyone (Asians in the West, Blacks in the South, Irish/Catholics in the North, Native Americans all over). We could have more of a system like you see in parts of Europe, no state defined racism, but a common racist belief held by many resulting in things like more wide spread and common employment discrimination. Or we could still view anyone who didn't fit the WASP category as being an 'Other' and not a true 'American'...
I always wondered how different the South would be had we kept federal troops in control of the South for longer. During military occupation civil rights takes a huge step forward but gets pushed back into the dirt as soon as the North leaves the South to run itself.
Brazil was the biggest importer of slaves into the Americas, and it died off in the 1880s. Yes. Slavery was dying off.
@@cadinbaldwin5020 jim crow was actually passed by northern picked senators btw
@Matthew Chenault "In other words, if the war was about slavery, then the war was completely pointless." You could say that about alot of wars. You could say the Spanish civil war didnt matter because "eventually" they dropped fascism anyway. The point Im making is it wasn't pointless to the people involved at the time. Tell a slave at the time he could be free in 4 years if there is a war or free in 20-30 years if there isn't, the war wasn't pointless to him or her. Yes to the span of human history, it may seem pointless, but to people there at the time, it may have meant everything.
@Matthew Chenault I think his point was, yeah it would have ended eventually, but would it have happened over the same timescale?
If Ultra-Instinct Shaggy fought for the south, there would be a confederate flag on mars right now...
That first minute is going to cause a firestorm in the comments
you forgot to put the up-wisconsin border for a lot of your maps
Ironic that Eli Whitney actually extended slavery when he wanted to end it.
I also don’t see racism being as long lasting and as toxic as in our timeline. Suffrage for all would likely occurred sooner, if not, no later than in our time line. But without the Civil War decimating our country and military, the US might have tried to conquer Mexico and the Caribbean instead.
wouldn't have happened.
No it wouldn't have. Slavery expands population, which expands political power over the House of Representatives.
@@jasonbelstone3427 You're ignoring that chattel slavery is a fundamentally flawed and inefficient system. It only works in agrarian societies that can emphasize cash crops. But the industrial revolution makes that obsolete.
Eventually it becomes more profitable to simply pay fellow citizens to do easier work that turns a higher profit, without having to worry about keeping them from killing you in your sleep.
The main difference is the slaves would've been sold back to traders instead of being freed.
Jason Belstone slaves didn’t have representation. Hence, you’re incorrect on it adding to political influence.
Matthew Bittenbender In a way they did through the 3/5 rule which unfairly inflated the number of Southern House of Representative members at the expense of slaves without giving them the vote.