Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Beren Erchamion

What if The Union had lost The US Civil War?

94 posts in this topic

What if The Union had never found Robert E Lee's Special Order 191? It was that order that had all the information on the CSAs troop deployments and alot of other strategic information among other things. If we (The North) had NOT found that in all likelyhood the Confederate States would have won and stayed an independent nation. And then If the Union had lost who would they have allied with during WWI & II? Just think about it. (If you like this kind of thing there is a book by a guy called Harry Turtledove called How Few Remain) While slavery most likely still would have been abolished in the CSA it would have taken ATLEAST another generation if not two.And we would have probably fought the south again within a generation anyway.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything would be different. And I don't think we would be talking about it. The current history would be so flippin different!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy cow...

But thinking about it... slavery would have lasted 50 more years and ultimately abolished because of the trading embargo imposed by England (in those days world power #1) and the rest of Europe. Lincoln would have been hanged instead of shot. The industrial development of the USA would have been retarded by 75-100 years. Britain would still be world power #1 if they could have won WWI without the USA (very plausible because at the time the USA entered the war Germany was blowing out of the "last hole").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There's an author, Harry Turtledove who publishes books dealing with alternative history. One of his series involves the premise of the South winning the Civil War. I think that the "what if" premise in these novels is that someone goes back in time and gives the Confederacy 20th century gun technology.

But the emphasis is not on time travel. It's on the psychological consequences of this time warp for various historical figures. For example, I think Robert E. Lee ends up freeing the slaves because after seeing them in combat he can no longer morally justify slavery. He (ie- Turtledove) interjects one huge quirk into history, then goes back to reality and tries to project a logical future. The bizarre irregularity isn't his focus. The focus is an extremely realistic examination of what various people would do under alternate circumstances.

see wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Turtledove

Edited by Siara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holy cow...

But thinking about it... slavery would have lasted 50 more years and ultimately abolished because of the trading embargo imposed by England (in those days world power #1) and the rest of Europe. Lincoln would have been hanged instead of shot. The industrial development of the USA would have been retarded by 75-100 years. Britain would still be world power #1 if they could have won WWI without the USA (very plausible because at the time the USA entered the war Germany was blowing out of the "last hole").

The big question would the confederates in WWI and/or even a WWII sided with Germany? Hmmm. I don't know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The big question would the confederates in WWI and/or even a WWII sided with Germany? Hmmm. I don't know?

Well... the Confederacy was an agriculturally-based society. If they persisted on that track for an extra 90 years, they would have been a third world country by 1940.

Maybe the question is, "Would Germany have allied with them? What would they have had that Hitler would want?" Another parallel question is, "Would the Union States be a significant military force if they hadn't benefited from the proceeds of the South?"

Maybe if the North and South had split, North America wouldn't be of much interest to European countries and wouldn't be a player in WWII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well... the Confederacy was an agriculturally-based society. If they persisted on that track for an extra 90 years, they would have been a third world country by 1940.

Maybe the question is, "Would Germany have allied with them? What would they have had that Hitler would want?" Another parallel question is, "Would the Union States be a significant military force if they hadn't benefited from the proceeds of the South?"

Maybe if the North and South had split, North America wouldn't be of much interest to European countries and wouldn't be a player in WWII.

IF... the agriculturally based Confedarcy defeated the industrial North and continued to develop, the British would look to them as a threat. While Germany was a growing threat in Europe.

Would Germany allied with them? a good question... If Hitler combined forces scientifically and joined militaries. They would threatened the world, and I don't think Russia or China would of stop them. IMHO and taken with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no real idea what would have happened but it would surely have been different good or bad well lets just say im glad it happened like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

IF... the agriculturally based Confedarcy defeated the industrial North and continued to develop, the British would look to them as a threat. While Germany was a growing threat in Europe.

Would Germany allied with them? a good question... If Hitler combined forces scientifically and joined militaries. They would threatened the world, and I don't think Russia or China would of stop them. IMHO and taken with a grain of salt.

A German/Southern alliance? The Science and Precision of the Germans meets the Culture of the South:

Ve haff created die Perfekte Food, ja? Die Uber-Grit.*

--Jaylemurph

*Although it's a well-known fact the perfect Southern food is barbeque.

Edited by jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A German/Southern alliance? The Science and Precision of the Germans meets the Culture of the South:

Ve haff created die Perfekte Food, ja? Die Uber-Grit.*

--Jaylemurph

*Although it's a well-known fact the perfect Southern food is barbeque.

:lol: How about a German with a Southern accent. Can you imagine.

Edited by Bear's Quest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the immediate ramifications would have been a possible British and French military/logistical intervention, especially the French, who were eager to play a role. Also, Copperhead Democrats would have seen a big boost in numbers during the 1862 election. Lincoln and the Repubs would've tried to continue the war as best as they could, but they would have been severely handicapped. I don't think Lincoln would have been hanged, but it would have been nearly impossible to win re-election in 1864 barring any miraculous victories by the north between late 1862 and 64.

Although, while a Union victory after a defeat at Antietam (or wherever the armies ended up fighting in this What If scenario) would have been difficult, it would not have been impossible. Lincoln wasn't happy with McClellan, and, after another defeat, would have had enough support to replace him. Lincoln would have seen the need to move quickly, as Lee would still be in the north and somewhat weak and tired after the fight. If Lincoln wasn't too distressed after the defeat, he would have immediately replaced McClellan with one of the more aggressive generals, like Hooker or Burnside, who could organize reinforcements quickly and march fast (Hooker and Burnside were excellent at both, and Hooker was a good general who gets a bad rap for Chancellorsville). It's reasonable to assume that the What If defeat at Antietam would be due to McClellan withdrawing after a brief engagement thus giving Lee the field, so it's likely that the casualties would not have been as bad as the real Antietam and most of the Army of the Potomac would still be intact (I'm gonna go with this outcome, but even if it's wrong and the casualties were similar to Antietam, the North would have had to lose something like 40,000 men with minimal damage to the Southern army in order for the south to have the numerical advantage afterwards).

Let's say Hooker avoided his wound at the real Antietam and was given command. I'd say that if the above is correct, which I think it most likely is, Hooker (who always aimed to impress and show-up everyone) would have reorganized the army quickly, used the cavalry effectively like at Chancellorsville to attack Lee's exposed supply and stragglers, and then collided with a tired, undersupplied southern army as soon as he could.

Albeit the stars would have had to allign pretty well for this to happen and if it did I'm giving Hooker a pretty favorable prediction. But I'd say no matter what, the chances of a significant Union victory after the What If loss at Antietam would be about 4 to 1 against. Not that far off, though.

I dunno, I've always thought about this. Let me know what you guys think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The big question would the confederates in WWI and/or even a WWII sided with Germany? Hmmm. I don't know?

I doubt it, you have to remember that the US entered the war after the sinking of the Lusitania, which was transporting manufactured goods from the US to England. Industrialization in the US would have had a severe drawback if slavery would have been upheld. Slaves don't make good industrial workers.

So, I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

IF... the agriculturally based Confedarcy defeated the industrial North and continued to develop, the British would look to them as a threat. While Germany was a growing threat in Europe.

Would Germany allied with them? a good question... If Hitler combined forces scientifically and joined militaries. They would threatened the world, and I don't think Russia or China would of stop them. IMHO and taken with a grain of salt.

The point you are not getting is that there would have been no Hitler. Germany would have eventually surrendered in WWI, but a year or so later. The Versailles treaty would have been totally different with both the allies and the Germans being on the ground. There would have been no occupation of the Rhineland due to lack of forces/will. All that would have kept the Kaiser in Power. Instead of Hitler there would have been a Wilhelm III after Wilhelm II. Given the political spectrum under the Kaiser the NSDAP would not have a chance- much less absolute power.

ED:GARBLE

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I doubt it, you have to remember that the US entered the war after the sinking of the Lusitania, which was transporting manufactured goods from the US to England. Industrialization in the US would have had a severe drawback if slavery would have been upheld. Slaves don't make good industrial workers.

So, I doubt it.

The sinking of the Lusitania was a pretext for the United States to enter the war. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian-Hungarian throne, was the pretext that precipitated the war in Europe. The real cause was that the world changed so rapidly during the 19th century. Countries relationships to each other were drastically altered by the increased ease of transportation. Industrialization had drastically changed the lifestyles of the middle class (mass production allowed them to own more). Old political alliances no longer made sense because the commercial needs of the various countries had changed.

The western world was headed for war, and the specific incidents that triggered it aren't the true causes of the conflict. The Union had gone through these changes too. They were connected to Europe on all sorts of levels and it was inevitable that they'd be dragged into the war. It's hard to know what would have happened in the case of the Confederacy. Their society worked on the medieval feudal system, so they wouldn't have experienced the psychological trauma of modernization (assuming that they continued with their agricultural system). The Confederacy would not have had much to offer Germany. The fact that they were next to the Union and would be transporting their goods across an ocean would have been a huge problem. Northern airplanes could have easily taken their ports out. They didn't have the materials (metal) to have an airforce.

Edited by Harmon-E Cherry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

:lol: How about a German with a Southern accent. Can you imagine.

LOL. I lived in Bavaria for a while and took Berlitz German courses. Before that, I lived in South Carolina. The result was an auditory train wreck.

Edited by Harmon-E Cherry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The big question would the confederates in WWI and/or even a WWII sided with Germany? Hmmm. I don't know?

The Confederates may have declared war on Germany. One of the pretexts for the US war against Germany in the Great War was an intercepted communication between Germany and Mexico, urging Mexico to attack the US to prevent their entry in the war; in exchange, the Germans promised the return of Texas and the Southwest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Confederates may have declared war on Germany. One of the pretexts for the US war against Germany in the Great War was an intercepted communication between Germany and Mexico, urging Mexico to attack the US to prevent their entry in the war; in exchange, the Germans promised the return of Texas and the Southwest.

That is a likely scenario, but a mostly agricultural society would not been able to tip the balance in any direction I am afraid. That would be as if Argentina would have declared war on the Kaiser. He first would have had too look it up on his map before sending his ships there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even sure the Confederacy would have lived long enough to see World War I and especially World War II. Their currency was already crap by the time of Antietam and as someone said earlier slavery would have to be abolished after so many years anyway due to European pressure to do so. The main European interest in the south was cotton, and already England and parts of France were increasing their own production: that's why it wasn't imperative that the two immediately join the Am. Civil War when it began. It seems like the South would have either slowly negotiated a return to the United States or would have sunk to the point of being so weak that they basically became colonies of the North, who would either forcibly control the south or indirectly control it through economic and humanitarian aid IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not even sure the Confederacy would have lived long enough to see World War I and especially World War II. Their currency was already crap by the time of Antietam and as someone said earlier slavery would have to be abolished after so many years anyway due to European pressure to do so. The main European interest in the south was cotton, and already England and parts of France were increasing their own production: that's why it wasn't imperative that the two immediately join the Am. Civil War when it began. It seems like the South would have either slowly negotiated a return to the United States or would have sunk to the point of being so weak that they basically became colonies of the North, who would either forcibly control the south or indirectly control it through economic and humanitarian aid IMO.

Good probable scenario

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is interesting how everyone assumes the south was a bunch of dumb hicks who couldn't have prospered under the Confederate flag. It is possiblr that they would have caught and surpased the North in many regards. I tend to agree with most of you, but who knows. Different laws could provide different and unforseen results.

Oh yeah. Remember Grant owned slaves and Lee did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is interesting how everyone assumes the south was a bunch of dumb hicks who couldn't have prospered under the Confederate flag. It is possiblr that they would have caught and surpased the North in many regards. I tend to agree with most of you, but who knows. Different laws could provide different and unforseen results.

Oh yeah. Remember Grant owned slaves and Lee did not.

People in an agricultural environment are not dumber than those in a industrial one. Their priorities are different and therefore the industrial development slower.

There is this false assumption that the abolishment of slavery was because of the "goodness of the hearts" of the people of the North. While I don't doubt that there was a very vocal minority rallying for it, the great majority could not care less. More important was that little minority that needed industrial workers.

To understand the difference between an industrial worker and a farm slave we first have to see the "maintenance". On a farm you have a building that houses the slave, even if only the barn. You grow the food you need for him/her and so on. So as far as that, it is not a cost factor.

For an industrialist these are very well cost factors. All needs that have to be purchased, and more likely than not, at a higher price than the wages first paid to the liberated slaves.

So, besides the different priorities we would have had the cost factor hampering the industrial growth in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Confedarcy had no chance to win the war, they could of delayed the envitable by a few more years, maybe a slave revolt would of taken place if the North was seen to be losing and the last hope for freedom would breed desperation. The South had no Industry to keep up with the needs of the military as the SOuth was being depleted the North was hiting its stride. Unless France or Britain interfered directly the south had no chance. If by chance the South did ceced I think the North would not change I think the US might of been actually better off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an iteresting post but noone can give an even close to be true answer.

The point is it is not a question of what would the US would look like but what would the world look like?

Would we had a WWl, WW2, Irack, Taliban, A-Bombs, Rockets, Men on the Moon.......? Remember, just the faith of one person can change the whole history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is interesting how everyone assumes the south was a bunch of dumb hicks who couldn't have prospered under the Confederate flag. It is possiblr that they would have caught and surpased the North in many regards. I tend to agree with most of you, but who knows. Different laws could provide different and unforseen results.

Oh yeah. Remember Grant owned slaves and Lee did not.

It's not a matter of thinking that the Confederacy was a bunch of dumb hicks. It's a matter of looking at the locations of the various natural resources in North America and seeing that they didn't have access to iron mines (for example) . They did have oil, but at the time of WWI I don't think that was such a big deal.

I guess also, I don't see social systems that involve slavery as being all that strong. A huge portion of their population would hate the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If still separate, North would have sided with Hitler. Globalist bunch, Centralized power.

Slavery would have been abolished without the war...The war was not about Slavery but to preserve a corrupt union.

If the South managed to push through the North's propaganda, the people of the North may have joined the South and formed a new union, returning it to the Constitution.

"The Constitution may not be perfect, but it's better than what we've got now..." - (someone else said that but don't remember who)

The States should be soverign imo giving only specific and few powers to any central "union".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.