Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the South had won, then in 15-20 years it would have gone the route of Haiti and a massive revolt of the enslaved would have wiped out a major chunk of the population and all kinds of refugees would be fleeing north. It Sut eif the US Army would be sent to restore order or not. But if the new government of former enslaved people wanted to rejoin the US, I'm sure the process would go at a snails pace.
Lincoln would probably be remembered as the president who lost the South, but later be the President who said I told you so.
Why would there have been a major slave revolt in the Confederacy when there hadn't been for the past 200 years? Also, in Haiti slaves outnumbered whites by 15 to 1. In the south it was 2 to 1 in the other direction and guess who had all the guns. A slave revolt would have had no chance.
The CSA had agitators in the North willing to smuggle in ideas, supplies and supporters to help the enslaved; and they couldn’t be stopped from crossing such a massive land border. There is also no assurance that the US Army wouldn’t have continued to harass the CSA. Winning one war would be no guarantee we wouldn’t attack them later and try again to submit them to the Constitution. Even if that has failed in so many ways to this day.
In our timeline the war was massively unpopular in the north. There were major political factions in favor of ending it and the people were rioting over the draft in many places. And that's the timeline where the Union won. If they lost, it would be even ten times more unpopular, and the anti war faction would be running the country. A re-invasion of the south would be about as politically feasible as going back to Vietnam in 1985. Any politician that even suggested it would never be heard from again.'
edit: Note that more US soldiers died in the Civil War than in WWII, and that's in absolute terms. As a percentage of the population it was 6x worse. And in this timeline those men didn't die "bravely preserving the union" they were "sent to their deaths in vain by that idiot Lincoln and his stupid war." Imagine how well it would go over asking these people who had gone through this, many having lost brothers and sons, to do it again.
Most likely scenario is that the south wins at Gettysburg. The UK, realizing that at this point it will now take the Union at least another several years to win the war, recognizes the Confederacy. With a rebel army now unopposed in PA and, if still unable to occupy major northern cities, is at least able to raid and cut supply lines and cause chaos. Opposition to the already unpopular war explodes. Draft riots in this timeline are 10x worse and happen in more cities lasting weeks instead of days. Facing massive internal unrest and the prospect of the threat of UK entering the war on the side of the south, Lincoln is either forced to make peace with the Confederacy or stubbornly fights on but is soundly defeated by the Democrats in the 1864 election, who promptly end the war.
In either case he is a one term president regarded as the greatest failure to ever hold the office for fighting and losing a war that he could have easily won and causing the breakup of the United States not even 100 years after its founding.
If we're taking off from Gettysburg, it's Picketts Charge as the watershed moment. Either Lee not stupidly sending thousands of men to their imminent death or, since we're already deep into what if territory the Confederates make it up the hill. (I have an acquaintance who has done some reenactment and got to do Picketts charge on July 4 one time. From his perspective, as you start running at that hill, it becomes immediately apparent that nobody is making it up to the top to almost instantly be shredded by the well fortified Union forces.)
So, taking off from there, the Union forces retreat, Confederates are able to raze the Pennsylvania countryside at will through the fall, pretty much unopposed, and sit just ominously north of DC (if they're smart enough to avoid Picketts charge, they're smart enough to not attack the heavily fortified Capitol). Maybe Lincoln gets nervous and moves operations somewhere further out like New York City (Philadelphia is still probably too close to the ANV).
In any case, Grant is still shredding the western front, and Vicksburg falls the same day the ANV wins Gettysburg. In any case, this looks like a stalemate, rather than the massive Union victory that we get in our timeline.
From a European perspective, Egyptian cotton and the Suez Canal is often credited for why France and England ended up not recognizing the Confederacy. Maybe there's a snag in the construction. In any case, they don't *need* the souths exports by this point, as the Union blockade has cut them off for several years by now. If they interfere, it would be pushing for a recognition of stalemate.
And THIS is where I think the big change occurs. The power dynamic of US/European relations changes. The Monroe Doctrine is dead. There is no Manifest Destiny. The US doesn't become a world power, instead it's a little brother that needed dad to come back in and break up their fight.
Were also likely looking at the collapse of the union. If the southern states can secede at will, there's nothing stopping the western states from forming their own union, and internal differences between the Midwest and northeast from causing another civil war.
Lincoln would be looked at as the man who ended the Union. Only, it takes someone with a perspective of what our timeline is to understand just how massive this loss would be. There's no Spanish American War, so as Spains empire crumbles, their holdings in Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines just kind of collapse. Russia still has Alaska, maybe the Canadians purchase it, maybe Russia develops it as an eastern theater. There's likely no Panama Canal - the French had tried and failed and nobody seemed to be able to make it work. The Union army is decimated, so natives likely are able to retain control of the west. That is, until the Canadians or Russians decide to invade.
Japan likely emerges out of their isolation, even without Admiral Perry. The British were in east Asia and Russia was exploring their eastern frontier more (especially with the Americans not purchasing Alaska). With no American empire to stand in the way, Japan likely emerges as the big victor from WWII. They have the British, French, and Spanish empires retreating from Asia, and nobody in their way from solidifying control of Manchuria, Indochina, the Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, on down to Australia, who is isolated from their European allies by 10,000 miles. And the Chinese Civil War means their biggest threat in the region is too busy fighting itself to do anything to stop them.
Post-war Japan emerges as a world power, with massive industrial capacity, control of half of the planet, European factories decimated, and no real damage to their homeland. The power center of the Earth shifts dramatically east.
This kind of alternate history speculation at best has a 0.01% chance of being right, but a good way to reduce that to 0% is to make Pickett's charge succeed. A better option would probably have Lee killed in battle instead of Jackson, and then Gettysburg is lead by Jackson and/or Longstreet.
I guess I don't see this timeline as being as bad for the Union as you do. In terms of internal disagreements with the mid west, by my understanding this was only a disagreement between industrialists in the midwest and merchants in the east, and was resolved in the industrialists favor the second the south seceded, win or lose. In the aftermath of the actual Civil War differences were resolved very amicably even to the point veterans of opposing armies held reunions at the battlefields. The two countries had every incentive to restore trade and good relations, so I see them as more like a Canada/Mexico in relations with relatively free trade and another war between them being so unpopular as to be politically unthinkable.
Even with the loss at Gettysburg, if the Union was forced to sue for peace quickly thereafter, they probably take less losses than they did to take and occupy the south in the real timeline. I think the Union is a rapidly industrializing power, and a loss in the Civil War is not going to change that. Maybe delay it by a few years, but all the economic incentives are still in place so it will be unstoppable. And the south will follow for the same reason. The slavery issue is probably resolved within a few decades after. The Suez Canal still opens and demand for southern cotton wanes, and with slavery becoming absolutely intolerable to European powers, the south would probably be forced to abolish it in favor of share cropping which would not be met with too much resistance given that economically it wasn't much worse for the owners and cotton is no longer profitable anyway. Also the cheap free black labor force would be irresistible to investors in the north. Massive investment would flow south sparking rapid industrialization making the southern elite even richer and more powerful than they were before the Civil War. This is a very bad timeline for southern black people, because while now free, they will still have minimal rights and labor conditions in southern factories will be brutal. They will be free in name only. And the Union will, unfortunately, do nothing. Now that the south is in a different country they will look the other way just like we look the other way at the near slaves that build our electronics in Asia.
The north and south will have every incentive to cooperate on conquering the west, so I don't see this changing much. They would also have every incentive to ally to fight the Spanish. The south will want the territories in the Caribbean and the north the ones in Asia. The oil that was in the ground in the real timeline is still in the same ground, and as the oil industry gets started in the late 1800s the south, controlling Texas and the Gulf Coast, will be a major oil power. If the north has any remaining thought of reconquering the south, this will put it to rest. The millions of barrels of oil flowing north will make it impossible. King cotton has nothing on king oil.
The humiliation of Europe stepping in to end the Civil War will be short lived. This sort of thing is emotional and is quickly overshadowed by the reality that both the north and the south individually have massively more industrial and military power than any nation in Europe. I don't see WWI and WWII being much different either. The south will probably not be interested in fighting Japan since it has no Pacific holdings, but in this timeline the north still has probably 75% of the strength of the combined US with the south having the remaining 25%. And that's definitely enough to win WWI and probably enough to win WWII. Furthermore, the south will spend the entire war getting rich by sending an endless stream of oil and weapons to the north. So it will almost be as if the war was fought by the combined US anyway.
He would’ve had the most hated president in history because black folk wasn’t going to be slaves anymore. After the civil war it would’ve been carnage in the confederacy and then a full on refugee crisis because white southerners would’ve died than be ruled by Black Americans.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For the worse.
Understatement
I doubt Jefferson Davis would’ve been as magnanimous in victory as Lincoln was.
Lincoln and the Republican party would have been disgraced. He would never have been assassinated but would have headed west and become a socialist.
You've read *How Few Remain* by Harry Turtledove, haven't you?
I wondered how long that would take. 😆 I've read the entire series.
I got up to the first book in the *Settling Accounts* series and kind of just gave up after that.
Well done
If the South had won, then in 15-20 years it would have gone the route of Haiti and a massive revolt of the enslaved would have wiped out a major chunk of the population and all kinds of refugees would be fleeing north. It Sut eif the US Army would be sent to restore order or not. But if the new government of former enslaved people wanted to rejoin the US, I'm sure the process would go at a snails pace. Lincoln would probably be remembered as the president who lost the South, but later be the President who said I told you so.
Why would there have been a major slave revolt in the Confederacy when there hadn't been for the past 200 years? Also, in Haiti slaves outnumbered whites by 15 to 1. In the south it was 2 to 1 in the other direction and guess who had all the guns. A slave revolt would have had no chance.
The CSA had agitators in the North willing to smuggle in ideas, supplies and supporters to help the enslaved; and they couldn’t be stopped from crossing such a massive land border. There is also no assurance that the US Army wouldn’t have continued to harass the CSA. Winning one war would be no guarantee we wouldn’t attack them later and try again to submit them to the Constitution. Even if that has failed in so many ways to this day.
In our timeline the war was massively unpopular in the north. There were major political factions in favor of ending it and the people were rioting over the draft in many places. And that's the timeline where the Union won. If they lost, it would be even ten times more unpopular, and the anti war faction would be running the country. A re-invasion of the south would be about as politically feasible as going back to Vietnam in 1985. Any politician that even suggested it would never be heard from again.' edit: Note that more US soldiers died in the Civil War than in WWII, and that's in absolute terms. As a percentage of the population it was 6x worse. And in this timeline those men didn't die "bravely preserving the union" they were "sent to their deaths in vain by that idiot Lincoln and his stupid war." Imagine how well it would go over asking these people who had gone through this, many having lost brothers and sons, to do it again.
So let’s just assume that the lack of adherence to the rule of law continues!
So you think slaves would unleash a successful coup on the confederate government?
Not possible. They were outnumbered 2 to 1 in manpower and by 100 to 1 in wealth and weapons.
Would be seen as a weak leader
Just look at what the ‘Lost Cause’ losers are trying to do to his legacy today.
Abraham who?
Most likely scenario is that the south wins at Gettysburg. The UK, realizing that at this point it will now take the Union at least another several years to win the war, recognizes the Confederacy. With a rebel army now unopposed in PA and, if still unable to occupy major northern cities, is at least able to raid and cut supply lines and cause chaos. Opposition to the already unpopular war explodes. Draft riots in this timeline are 10x worse and happen in more cities lasting weeks instead of days. Facing massive internal unrest and the prospect of the threat of UK entering the war on the side of the south, Lincoln is either forced to make peace with the Confederacy or stubbornly fights on but is soundly defeated by the Democrats in the 1864 election, who promptly end the war. In either case he is a one term president regarded as the greatest failure to ever hold the office for fighting and losing a war that he could have easily won and causing the breakup of the United States not even 100 years after its founding.
If we're taking off from Gettysburg, it's Picketts Charge as the watershed moment. Either Lee not stupidly sending thousands of men to their imminent death or, since we're already deep into what if territory the Confederates make it up the hill. (I have an acquaintance who has done some reenactment and got to do Picketts charge on July 4 one time. From his perspective, as you start running at that hill, it becomes immediately apparent that nobody is making it up to the top to almost instantly be shredded by the well fortified Union forces.) So, taking off from there, the Union forces retreat, Confederates are able to raze the Pennsylvania countryside at will through the fall, pretty much unopposed, and sit just ominously north of DC (if they're smart enough to avoid Picketts charge, they're smart enough to not attack the heavily fortified Capitol). Maybe Lincoln gets nervous and moves operations somewhere further out like New York City (Philadelphia is still probably too close to the ANV). In any case, Grant is still shredding the western front, and Vicksburg falls the same day the ANV wins Gettysburg. In any case, this looks like a stalemate, rather than the massive Union victory that we get in our timeline. From a European perspective, Egyptian cotton and the Suez Canal is often credited for why France and England ended up not recognizing the Confederacy. Maybe there's a snag in the construction. In any case, they don't *need* the souths exports by this point, as the Union blockade has cut them off for several years by now. If they interfere, it would be pushing for a recognition of stalemate. And THIS is where I think the big change occurs. The power dynamic of US/European relations changes. The Monroe Doctrine is dead. There is no Manifest Destiny. The US doesn't become a world power, instead it's a little brother that needed dad to come back in and break up their fight. Were also likely looking at the collapse of the union. If the southern states can secede at will, there's nothing stopping the western states from forming their own union, and internal differences between the Midwest and northeast from causing another civil war. Lincoln would be looked at as the man who ended the Union. Only, it takes someone with a perspective of what our timeline is to understand just how massive this loss would be. There's no Spanish American War, so as Spains empire crumbles, their holdings in Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines just kind of collapse. Russia still has Alaska, maybe the Canadians purchase it, maybe Russia develops it as an eastern theater. There's likely no Panama Canal - the French had tried and failed and nobody seemed to be able to make it work. The Union army is decimated, so natives likely are able to retain control of the west. That is, until the Canadians or Russians decide to invade. Japan likely emerges out of their isolation, even without Admiral Perry. The British were in east Asia and Russia was exploring their eastern frontier more (especially with the Americans not purchasing Alaska). With no American empire to stand in the way, Japan likely emerges as the big victor from WWII. They have the British, French, and Spanish empires retreating from Asia, and nobody in their way from solidifying control of Manchuria, Indochina, the Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, on down to Australia, who is isolated from their European allies by 10,000 miles. And the Chinese Civil War means their biggest threat in the region is too busy fighting itself to do anything to stop them. Post-war Japan emerges as a world power, with massive industrial capacity, control of half of the planet, European factories decimated, and no real damage to their homeland. The power center of the Earth shifts dramatically east.
This kind of alternate history speculation at best has a 0.01% chance of being right, but a good way to reduce that to 0% is to make Pickett's charge succeed. A better option would probably have Lee killed in battle instead of Jackson, and then Gettysburg is lead by Jackson and/or Longstreet. I guess I don't see this timeline as being as bad for the Union as you do. In terms of internal disagreements with the mid west, by my understanding this was only a disagreement between industrialists in the midwest and merchants in the east, and was resolved in the industrialists favor the second the south seceded, win or lose. In the aftermath of the actual Civil War differences were resolved very amicably even to the point veterans of opposing armies held reunions at the battlefields. The two countries had every incentive to restore trade and good relations, so I see them as more like a Canada/Mexico in relations with relatively free trade and another war between them being so unpopular as to be politically unthinkable. Even with the loss at Gettysburg, if the Union was forced to sue for peace quickly thereafter, they probably take less losses than they did to take and occupy the south in the real timeline. I think the Union is a rapidly industrializing power, and a loss in the Civil War is not going to change that. Maybe delay it by a few years, but all the economic incentives are still in place so it will be unstoppable. And the south will follow for the same reason. The slavery issue is probably resolved within a few decades after. The Suez Canal still opens and demand for southern cotton wanes, and with slavery becoming absolutely intolerable to European powers, the south would probably be forced to abolish it in favor of share cropping which would not be met with too much resistance given that economically it wasn't much worse for the owners and cotton is no longer profitable anyway. Also the cheap free black labor force would be irresistible to investors in the north. Massive investment would flow south sparking rapid industrialization making the southern elite even richer and more powerful than they were before the Civil War. This is a very bad timeline for southern black people, because while now free, they will still have minimal rights and labor conditions in southern factories will be brutal. They will be free in name only. And the Union will, unfortunately, do nothing. Now that the south is in a different country they will look the other way just like we look the other way at the near slaves that build our electronics in Asia. The north and south will have every incentive to cooperate on conquering the west, so I don't see this changing much. They would also have every incentive to ally to fight the Spanish. The south will want the territories in the Caribbean and the north the ones in Asia. The oil that was in the ground in the real timeline is still in the same ground, and as the oil industry gets started in the late 1800s the south, controlling Texas and the Gulf Coast, will be a major oil power. If the north has any remaining thought of reconquering the south, this will put it to rest. The millions of barrels of oil flowing north will make it impossible. King cotton has nothing on king oil. The humiliation of Europe stepping in to end the Civil War will be short lived. This sort of thing is emotional and is quickly overshadowed by the reality that both the north and the south individually have massively more industrial and military power than any nation in Europe. I don't see WWI and WWII being much different either. The south will probably not be interested in fighting Japan since it has no Pacific holdings, but in this timeline the north still has probably 75% of the strength of the combined US with the south having the remaining 25%. And that's definitely enough to win WWI and probably enough to win WWII. Furthermore, the south will spend the entire war getting rich by sending an endless stream of oil and weapons to the north. So it will almost be as if the war was fought by the combined US anyway.
He would’ve had the most hated president in history because black folk wasn’t going to be slaves anymore. After the civil war it would’ve been carnage in the confederacy and then a full on refugee crisis because white southerners would’ve died than be ruled by Black Americans.