Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: So, What would have happened if the South won the Civil War

This is topic So, What would have happened if the South won the Civil War in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003435

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 08-03-2004, 08:54 PM:

Sometime in the early 1960's as part of the centennial celebration of the American Civil War, Life Magazine ran a feature article written in a style historians now refer to as "alternative history". This was a particular attempt to forecast what events might have happened if the South won the war and how that would have indeed changed the course of World History as well. I have searched over the magazine's website (realizing it ceased publication in 1999) and cannot access any information regarding this piece in their archives. I believe it was written in an April, 1961 edition but not positive. In those days the magazine was published weekly. Generally speaking, the article summarizes, that although the South was victorious, the horror of two World Wars and a common purpose in stopping Communism would have eventually caused a reunion of the nation sometime in the 1950's. If the article was written today, I'm sure terrorism would be the key issue in reunification. After all, it seems to be the flavor of the month now. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-04-2004, 01:58 AM:

There was a series of documentaries on BBC radio - called something like What if?, I think, but it was a long time ago - which speculated what might have happened if key historical events had gone the other way. The English and American civil wars were covered, as was Harold kicking William's butt at Hastings, Napoleon winning Waterloo, Hitler winning WWII (surprise surprise) and Churchill winning the 1945 election. As far as I can remember, the American Civil War episode conculded that if the South had won, there probably wouldn't be a United States in the form it exists today, that there wouldn't have been any significant American involvement in either WWI or WWII.

I've tried Googling for anything on these programmes, but can't find anything.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-04-2004, 03:46 AM:

Part of the southern way of life was to "live and let live" Therefore, I do not think that communism would have been any concern of "the United states." You also have to take into consideration if the confederacy would have settled with a mere secession or if it would have gone to an extreme and kept fighting the union and took over their land. There are too many "what if" scenarios that it really isn't even worth worrying about. Sure the world would be different if Hitler had won WWII but he most likely would have been overthrown shortly afterwards by his own staff. Besides he was dying from Parkinson's anyway, some think that this is why he decided to open the eastern front. but then what if something else had happened, I could go all day.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-04-2004, 04:03 AM:

I agree. There is no point in such exercises. I tend to believe that history moves forward with a certain inevitability and that individual persons and events don't influence the larger developments too much. Maybe this or that war would have been a little longer or shorter. But on the whole, the world would be much the same as it is today.
If the officers trying to kill Hitler would have succeeded, WWII would have been a little shorter, but that's about the only difference it would have made. Or maybe they would have tried to obtain armistice conditions from the Allies which these wouldn't have wanted to agree to, then the fighting would have continued, and the war might have been a little longer because these people were more competent than Hitler.
I guess if the South had won, there would still have remained enough tensions to eventually start another civil war. I just wonder what the South would be called if they had permanently won, the Confederate States of America (CSA)? Or the Redneck States of America (RSA)?

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 08-04-2004, 09:22 AM:

Michael:

Being from CA via Germany, you might want to watch who you are calling a redneck.

The South is no different from the North or the West or anything anymore. There are alot of low-paying jobs in the service industry here, because all the good jobs in factories have moved to Mexico. We just want to survive and enjoy life JUST LIKE ALL OF YOU!

People seem to forget that before the war, slavery was also happening ABOVE the Mason-Dixon line.

Lets just drop this topic, please. The South LOST. This is America now. The people that still fly the Confederate flag are few and far between. Oh, they are out there, but most of them just look like idiots.

[ 08-04-2004, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Bruce McGee ]

Posted by Jeff Stricker (Member # 224) on 08-04-2004, 10:15 AM:

Amen Bruce, it's a non issue.

BTW, I'm hearing that quite a number of companies are moving work from Mexico to China! It's getting to expensive to manufacture in Mexico. Sad state of affairs. We need to fix things and get folks decent paying jobs they can be proud of and support their families.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-04-2004, 11:36 AM:

Actually I would classify a Redneck more as a low life breed of person and that it is caused by genes. They can actually be found all over the World, not just here in the States. Being form a certain part of this country, poor or of a color other than white does not also mean that you are a Redneck, there are many very intelegent aspiring poor folk of all colors out there that will succeed some day. Most Rednecks I've seen are dumb, ignorant, and act childish all the time, few of any ever succeed at anything really constructive.

They may have other names for them in other countries but if you put all of these people in one room they would all seem the same.

Mark

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-04-2004, 12:26 PM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
If the officers trying to kill Hitler would have succeeded, WWII would have been a little shorter...

Actually, would it? One possible scenario would have been the military professionals who replaced him pulling out of Russia (and possibly Africa as well) ASAP and throwing everything at the Western Front. Even if that had happened I think Germany would eventually have been defeated, because by then America was too deeply committed. But with the Nazi forces all concentrated against Britain and without the Russian Front sapping their resources, things could have gone on a lot longer and got a lot nastier.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-04-2004, 12:40 PM:

I doubt that. Considering the fact that some of the top Nazi's had already tried to make deals with the allies, I would bet that as soon as Hitler was gone they would have surrendered. I think they knew they were in deep doo doo. I do not remember off hand the exact structure or how the chain of command followed in Nazi Germany but I do know that Heinrich Himmler was not a leader and basically rode Hitler's coattails, he would not be able to take control of the war. Rommel didn't even know what was going on and as soon as he found out he would have probably resigned. I dont know enough about Eichmann or Goebles to say anything about them. Now Reinhard Heydrich, that is they guy I would be worried about.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-04-2004, 02:53 PM:

I confess I'd have to read up on precisely how the Hitler assassination plot was formed, who was behind it and what their motivations are (I might pull Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich off the shelf before bed this evening - for all its journalistic style, as far as I'm aware it's factually accurate).

If my memory hasn't totally seized up, Heydrich had been assassinated by then (1941, and the plot to kill Hitler was mid-43?) and Goering had long believed that Germany's air power had been spread far to thin thanks to the Russian and African front. Time for a bit of reading...

Posted by Robb Johnston (Member # 239) on 08-04-2004, 07:38 PM:

I have read alot of the alternate histories, many dealing with the battle of Gettysburg and what would have happened had the CSA won that battle. of those I would reccomend Mark Nesbitt's work.

The grand Daddy of all Civil War Alternate histories would be a series of books by Harry Turtledove that begins with "How few
Remain." In that book it begins with a private recovering the General Order that in reality fell into US hands and allowed Union forces to block the 1862 march north at Antietam. With that march into PA successful, the war ended after the battle of Camp Hill.

But that is just the prologue, they skip ahead 20 years to what we might call the 2nd Civil War, and from there he has produced 2 trilogies dealing with the fallout from that. For instance, IF England and France ahd backed the confederacy, then when WWI started the US might well have sided with Germany, and there would have been a huge American front to that war. In his books US/Germany won the great war, and as a result, the CSA gets plunged into financial chaos (instead of Germany) and the Hitler type person ends up coming into power in the CSA.

With the latest book WWII is about to break out. The next volume is out sometime this month, and I eagerly await it.

(My synopsis is very basic and summed up 7 novels so far in one or two paragraphs, check them out.)

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 08-04-2004, 08:14 PM:

Then again, instead of laying Leningrad & Stalingrad to seige, would the Germans have had enough manpower to win the Kursk battle then concentrate energies on repelling Normandy landings?

Posted by Darren Crimmins (Member # 1116) on 08-04-2004, 11:34 PM:

As far as where the "rednecks" came from, this had alot to go with the financial destruction of the South during the infamous Reconstruction Period after the war. Before the war, the two seperate regions were not that much different economically, assuming you include slaves as part of the southern wealth.

After the war when the remaining slaves were freed, the south had lost thier biggest currency, and the economy went downhill for years. The backlash is still seen today in some of the poorer southern states, and the "redneck" is somewhat a product of that. Now there were plenty of impoverished whites in the South, just like the North before the war, but it skyrocketed afterwards, and with whites competing more with the "inferior" blacks for jobs since the latter were freed, it created even more hatred, and more ignorance which is still seen today.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 08-05-2004, 12:13 AM:

The alternate history that I would worry about is what if Hitler had gotten ahold of the Holy Grail instead of Indy?

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-05-2004, 02:53 AM:

Well, you are correct that Heydrich died in 42, I had to look that up. However, my point still remains, I do not think that anyone else could have carried on knowing what they were doing. Heydrich seemed to be in it on his own and not just under Hitler. That is why he is the only one that I would have worried about.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-05-2004, 07:00 AM:

Oh, sorry. I didn't know Redneck was that derogatory a name.
The whole Wehrmacht conspiracy story is massively complicated. Basically, it has to be understood that most of the officers were old nobility. As such they were nationalist conservatives, but not necessarily Nazis. In fact, most of them kept a considerable distance to the party. But they liked that Hitler rebuilt the army, of course. Because Hitler knew that he could only rely on officer circles for as long as he acted in what they considered was the nation's interest, the SS was built up as a kind of party army. Most of the personalities mentioned above were in the SS. Dictatorships always develop that kind of inner dynamic because there are a lot of people who rise to high positions and don't like to give up their priviledges. That is why the officers did not want to simply get rid of Hitler - they did not want a civil war - and put their feelers out (as early as 1938 I think) to see how surrounding countries would react if they overthrew the NS regime. But especially the British prime minister was too afraid of Hitler to react to their plans, and so the war went ahead.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-05-2004, 09:35 AM:

Darren,
While thats undoubtly where the name "Redneck" came from I think in most places in the U.S. you will find a very different situation and meaning used for the term today.

Mark

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 08-05-2004, 02:21 PM:

quote: Michael Gonzalez
The alternate history that I would worry about is what if Hitler had gotten ahold of the Holy Grail instead of Indy?

Actually, according to Dr. Henry Jones Sr."If the Nazis win, the armies of darkness will march all over the face of the Earth." Sounds pretty scary... [Eek!]

AJG

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-05-2004, 07:21 PM:

I never quite understood that. Doesn't the Grail just give you eternal life, and that's it? The knight who had it was very old, but not exactly very powerful.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-05-2004, 09:22 PM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
I never quite understood that. Doesn't the Grail just give you eternal life, and that's it? The knight who had it was very old, but not exactly very powerful.

I guess the idea was that those faithful to Hitler would drink of the Holy Grail, and be invincible. Little did they know the cup could not leave the hiding place guarded by the Knight. Of course, those seeking eternal life could have come to drink of the cup there, but I recall they had to stay there to live forever.

"Choose Wisely"

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-06-2004, 06:21 AM:

Apparently the Grail also worked outside the chamber where it was kept, because it could cure Indiana's father. It looks like the only restrictions was that they didn't want it to be taken anywhere else. That caused the earthquake. But if they hadn't dropped it and just run out, they could have taken it away. But too late now.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 08-06-2004, 04:41 PM:

Alternative history, simply put, is not history at all. Historians deal with "what was", not "what might have been". When you deal with the "what if", you have left the realm of non-fiction, and anyone's point of view is just as valid as the next person's.

At least that's the point of view from this old history teacher. [Smile]

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 08-06-2004, 10:56 PM:

John's assessment of "alternative history" is absolutely correct. However, as the originator of this thread I'd like to explain that the reason why I am in search of the Life article is simply because I'm looking for primary source materials examining American reactions to Communism during the Red Scare. I'd like to compile this information and lecture on it this Fall at the college. Its a little crazy - yes, but as I said in the original post, according to the article the fight against Communism wold have supposedly reunited the nation. I'm not bringing up the Civil War to chide southerners into "na-na-na we won" or to piss anybody else off for that matter. Hell you should read the 1959 piece from Pravda reprinted in Boy's Life trying to prove that Boy Scouts are demolitions experts bent on destroying the Soviet infrastructure (trust me . . . freekin' hilarious!).

I would like to offer a few insights into the discussion thus far, though. Robb brought up some of Mark Nesbit's work in his post. This guy is most famous for his Ghosts of Gettysburg series. Entertaining reading, but too comercialized. I visit Gettysburg every year and know the battlefield fairly well. It seems most people want to hear the ghost bullshit when they're down there and have minimal understanding of the battle, the conditions, or even the terrain. Also, I believe it was Darren's comment on Reconstruction that got me thinking. It took the South over 75 years to be reintroduced to the mainstream in America following the conflict. I argue in my Modern America class that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was the opening action by the Federal Government in letting bygones be bygones. That was in 1933. World War II and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were also important actions as well. Yet, Darren is right in the end when he says some parts of the South have still to fully 100% recover. Absolutely remarkable when one thinks about it.

Well I hope we can keep this thread open and nobody gets mad. I'm still hoping to find the article (the initial reason for posting). C'mon, somebody's booth has to have a stack of Life magazines going back half a century. Please ... [Wink]

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 08-07-2004, 01:32 PM:

Aaron-

Interesting point you bring up about the TVA. It occurred to me that another area of Federal Government overtures to the South would be in the area of military bases. In part, that would be due to the backlash of Reconstruction and the revialization of the Democratic Party in forming "safe" congressional districts that built seniority and influence in Congress in the 20th century. Now that would be an interesting study. Ironic, too, as the South had the richer military tradition, both before and after the Civil War.

Sorry I can't help you with those old Life magazines. [Smile]