Projects combine: Realistic CSA victory with quasi-Fascist United Ireland

[Revolutionary Todyo]

Originally Posted by naraht

So why is the Union willing to take North Texas in payment then?

When is your POD, I'm curious as to how with a Confederate victory West Virginia ends up with the exact same counties (most specifically Morgan Berkeley and Jefferson) as OTL especially considering that Virginia was willing to go to the Supreme Court over the way in which those counties were assigned to the state of West Virginia.

What is the status of the Yucatan. I'm curious how a Mexico that strong, which apparently has conquered Guatemala still doesn't have control of the Yucatan.

And as for why to reannex at least some of it, to keep the White House from being a cannon shot away from a really messed up Foreign Country.

And I have a *really* hard time imagining that a CSA that is *that* messed up with a USA that is apparently not that interested in reconquest not breaking into pieces. Especially after the successful creation of a new state ripped from portions of two others.

To gain a warm water port, Texas is less densely populated then say the Mississipi or Atlantic areas, so it's easier to pacify.

I'm not an expert on the CSA, all I know is it was an unviable state. And I'm making this thread to come up with an exact POD, which if people agree I should combine this map project with my story project will make the POD during the Irish Famine. Other then that, idk a POD, Britain and France intervene I guess? The usual cliche.

It's autonomous at Americas behest, a restless region in Latin America would have had much interest from Confederate bussinesses and private adventurers. Mexico does control it, it's just autonomous, that portion of Guatemala annexed was during an intervention to overthrow a hostile government, which the US didn't really object too.

Capital moved back to Philly after the Civil War, besides which Virginia, whislt relatively more liberla then some of the Deep South, is still very densely populated.

Texas was the only major secessionist movement (along with the Indians in Sequoyah), with the other regions having enough of a population of Slaves or poor White people that they joined the revolutionary cause. And the new state was created after the revolution for the government to stick a lot of the freed slaves who didn't want to hang arond on their former plantations, as well as political dissidents.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary Todyo

To gain a warm water port, Texas is less densely populated then say the Mississipi or Atlantic areas, so it's easier to pacify.

I'm not an expert on the CSA, all I know is it was an unviable state. And I'm making this thread to come up with an exact POD, which if people agree I should combine this map project with my story project will make the POD during the Irish Famine. Other then that, idk a POD, Britain and France intervene I guess? The usual cliche.

It's autonomous at Americas behest, a restless region in Latin America would have had much interest from Confederate bussinesses and private adventurers. Mexico does control it, it's just autonomous, that portion of Guatemala annexed was during an intervention to overthrow a hostile government, which the US didn't really object too.

Capital moved back to Philly after the Civil War, besides which Virginia, whislt relatively more liberla then some of the Deep South, is still very densely populated.

Texas was the only major secessionist movement, with the other regions having enough of a population of Slaves or poor White people that they joined the revolutionary cause. And the new state was created after the revolution for the government to stick a lot of the freed slaves who didn't want to hang arond on their former plantations, as well as political dissidents.

The Union doesn't *need* a Warm Water Port in the same way that the USSR does. Philadelphia is iced over less than even St. Petersburg. And Baltimore would be even better, especially considering that ITTL the Union got the two counties of Virginia on the Delmarva, so the CSA can't blockade Baltimore. And doesn't Santo Domingo in the state made from OTL Dominican Republic count?

(West VA borders?)

The problem in the Yucatan is that you had a three way fight in some ways between the Mexican Central Government, the Spanish speaking landowners (and others that would be considered Hispanic today) and the native Maya. See the wikipedia article on the Republic of the Yucatan.

For a new state in the Confederacy to be created from within the borders of others implies a Stronger Federal Goverment relative to the States than the United States every had and the confederacy moved *more* toward State power. Also, I think the new state contains every state capital that Georgia had after 1807 (Milledgeville, Macon and Atlanta).

In regards to Canada, what butterfly led to Labrador being given to Canada rather than remaining as part of Newfoundland and what is the Provincial Capital of "West Ontario"? I'm curious as to whether this is more populated than OTL and why Manitoba's Provincehood was delayed more than 30 years (I'm presuming your map is sometime 1900-1910.) And how the heck did the British/Canadians get the entire Alaska Panhandle? I could see the agreement leading to a somewhat disconnected panhandle, but none at all???

[Revolutionary Todyo]

Originally Posted by naraht

The Union doesn't *need* a Warm Water Port in the same way that the USSR does. Philadelphia is iced over less than even St. Petersburg. And Baltimore would be even better, especially considering that ITTL the Union got the two counties of Virginia on the Delmarva, so the CSA can't blockade Baltimore. And doesn't Santo Domingo in the state made from OTL Dominican Republic count?

(West VA borders?)

The problem in the Yucatan is that you had a three way fight in some ways between the Mexican Central Government, the Spanish speaking landowners (and others that would be considered Hispanic today) and the native Maya. See the wikipedia article on the Republic of the Yucatan.

For a new state in the Confederacy to be created from within the borders of others implies a Stronger Federal Goverment relative to the States than the United States every had and the confederacy moved *more* toward State power. Also, I think the new state contains every state capital that Georgia had after 1807 (Milledgeville, Macon and Atlanta).

In regards to Canada, what butterfly led to Labrador being given to Canada rather than remaining as part of Newfoundland and what is the Provincial Capital of "West Ontario"? I'm curious as to whether this is more populated than OTL and why Manitoba's Provincehood was delayed more than 30 years (I'm presuming your map is sometime 1900-1910.

Santo Domingo is a protectorate, the Unon gained Key West in the peace treaty with the Confederacy. However they don't like the distance. Texas gives them direct access to the Gulf, as well as certain amount of prestige in reclaiming Confederate territory without the headaches invading say Virginia or Tennesse would entail.

Sorry I forgot to mention VA. It's a cliche, I don't know enough about the Civil War to work out a likely butterflies, however seeing as Wester Virginia is excluded from every Confederate victory scenario I've seen I fail to see how it should be an issue in this one.

You point? I realise it was an area of some unrest, there was a secessionist movement, the US helped to get everything worked out. I'm honestly not going into that much detail here, this started as a way of passing the time, there's no great amount of detail into much of it.

So for Alabama, Labrador, Manitoba? I don't know, but no one else has complained so I don't really care.

What's wrong with the Brits buying the Panhandle? They negotiated with the Union when Alaska was being purchased, they both bought it and then split it up.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary Todyo

Santo Domingo is a protectorate, the Unon gained Key West in the peace treaty with the Confederacy. However they don't like the distance. Texas gives them direct access to the Gulf, as well as certain amount of prestige in reclaiming Confederate territory without the headaches invading say Virginia or Tennesse would entail.

Sorry I forgot to mention VA. It's a cliche, I don't know enough about the Civil War to work out a likely butterflies, however seeing as Wester Virginia is excluded from every Confederate victory scenario I've seen I fail to see how it should be an issue in this one.

You point? I realise it was an area of some unrest, there was a secessionist movement, the US helped to get everything worked out. I'm honestly not going into that much detail here, this started as a way of passing the time, there's no great amount of detail into much of it.

So for Alabama, Labrador, Manitoba? I don't know, but no one else has complained so I don't really care.

What's wrong with the Brits buying the Panhandle? They negotiated with the Union when Alaska was being purchased, they both bought it and then split it up.

Missed the color difference on Santo Domingo vs. the US. What is Haiti, then? Prestige for selling weapons, meh.

It is the fact that the VA/WV border is *exactly* the same as the one that exists iOTL despite *lots* of issues in what counties would end up in WV both during and after the war.

In regards to Alaska, the fact that the Russians wouldn't have sold it to the British (great game in Asia and all).

You indicated that you wanted help, but if you don't care about making the map reflect a possible TL, why should I?

[Revolutionary Todyo]

Originally Posted by naraht

Missed the color difference on Santo Domingo vs. the US. What is Haiti, then? Prestige for selling weapons, meh.

It is the fact that the VA/WV border is *exactly* the same as the one that exists iOTL despite *lots* of issues in what counties would end up in WV both during and after the war.

In regards to Alaska, the fact that the Russians wouldn't have sold it to the British (great game in Asia and all).

You indicated that you wanted help, but if you don't care about making the map reflect a possible TL, why should I?

You're not exactly helping, more saying "I see many holes in this."
It would be better to say why it's a hole and what I could try to fix it up.

And yes I know about the Great Game, it was a joint purchase by the Brits and the Yanks, they then carved it up themselves.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary Todyo

You're not exactly helping, more saying "I see many holes in this."
It would be better to say why it's a hole and what I could try to fix it up.

And yes I know about the Great Game, it was a joint purchase by the Brits and the Yanks, they then carved it up themselves.

Having looked at both this thread and the thread that it was originally on, I don't see any mention of Canada at all, so there isn't enough TL to put a patch on.

Either you had a reason to separate Western Ontario, in which case, I'd like to understand it and help patch it up, or you just decided it looked cooler that way and no patch I could give would be useful.
(I'm just picking Western Ontario as an example).

[jabberwoky]

I Think your ideas sound awsome, moaism and mormanism is an intreaging mix.

[History_Pintobean]

To summarize, C.S.A. wins but collapses into extreme left-wing horror in the early 1900s, combine Fundamentalist Christianity with Maoism

Radical, Maoist socialism and Fundamentalist Christianity do not and would not mix.

The actions of Lenin in Russia, and subsequently Mao in China, illustrate a good picture of how they viewed religion in the long run. Both men were atheists/atheistic.

And to top it all off, Russia and China, prior to their revolutions, were two of the most devout countries in the world.

I think that if the Confederacy faced a Maoist-inspired revolution, the first thing a Confederate communist party would do is attempt to get rid of religion, and ultimately promote state atheism.

A radical socialist Confederacy would not be Christian. Over time, much like in the Soviet Union, people would stop believing. Of course, there would be quite a few hanger-on-types, but the Confederacy you are thinking of would in no way attempt to combine religion with radical socialist politics.

I'm being constructive. If you want the story to be realistic, then you should at least attempt to comprehend the ideology your trying to place onto a fictional Confederacy(Marxism-Leninism-Maoism).

If you want any help on formulating a realistic socialist Confederacy, feel free to PM me. I can provide some help and expertise.

What have you decided to call this new socialist Confederacy?

[Fiver]

East Texas and South California should still have enough of a population that they would become a states before most of the states directly north of the shown Union Territories. The Union always divided Arizona/New Mexico with a north-south border. If the Confederacy is fragmenting, I'd expect to see more than what's happened to Georgia and Alabama, and I'd expect those borders to not be straight lines.

If the Confederates are getting their butts kicked by the Mexicans, there would need to be a very strong reason by the Union doesn't seize Virginia north of the Rappahannock (as a buffer zone), east Tennessee (as Unionist) and Arkansas and Louisiana (to control the Mississippi River).

[Revolutionary Todyo]

Getting back on topic, rather then more people destroying my map (LSCatilina beat you all too it anyway), I assume the response is "No, do not combine your projects."

That was all I wanted.

[Hrvatskiwi]

Originally Posted by History_Pintobean

Radical, Maoist socialism and Fundamentalist Christianity do not and would not mix.

Actually, there is such a thing as Christain Communism, which is kinda similar to Maoism in many ways, such as the agrarian focus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Hrvatskiwi

Actually, there is such a thing as Christain Communism, which is kinda similar to Maoism in many ways, such as the agrarian focus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Um, Hrvatskiwi:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

• It may contain original research. Tagged since November 2010.
• Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since November 2010.
• It contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Tagged since October 2010.

And a quick google search lists several sites that regard Christianity and Communism as mutually exclusive (some written with a very obvious slant, but that's not the point).

[Hrvatskiwi]

Well, obviously it's not the best article on wikipedia, but there have historically been heavily egalitarian themes in many smaller Christian belief systems, and men (or at least Christian men) are generally considered equal. Some of the Hussites attempted to create communes. Just because of some of those disclaimers, doesn't mean the entire article is false or unreliable.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Hrvatskiwi

Well, obviously it's not the best article on wikipedia, but there have historically been heavily egalitarian themes in many smaller Christian belief systems, and men (or at least Christian men) are generally considered equal. Some of the Hussites attempted to create communes. Just because of some of those disclaimers, doesn't mean the entire article is false or unreliable.

Egalitarian beliefs and/or communes do not equal anything like Maoism. Not does an agrarian focus.

And it does mean that the article is not a reliable source of information.

[Hrvatskiwi]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Egalitarian beliefs and/or communes do not equal anything like Maoism. Not does an agrarian focus.

And it does mean that the article is not a reliable source of information.

It is far easier to debate this point if you put forward your definition of 'Maoism'.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Hrvatskiwi

It is far easier to debate this point if you put forward your definition of 'Maoism'.

Maoism: http://www.ibiblio.org/chinesehistor...aoist%20Theory

That ought to do nicely, unless you have a more objective source.

[Hrvatskiwi]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Maoism: http://www.ibiblio.org/chinesehistor...aoist%20Theory

That ought to do nicely, unless you have a more objective source.

That source states that: "Mao focused on the peasantry as a revolutionary force which, he said, could be mobilized by a Communist Party with their knowledge and leadership". Christian Communists, especially in the CSA, would likely focus on rural farmers (the American analogue to the peasantry) as the driving force, with religious leadership performing the role of a vanguard party. Also, there are several Christian fundamentalist sects that regard hard agricultural work as virtous.

"Unlike most other political ideologies, including other socialist and Marxist ones, Maoism contains an integral military doctrine and explicitly connects its political ideology with military strategy". This too fits in nicely. Confederate society is likely to be highly militarised due to being constantly threatened by a powerful Union. And adding a little Christian zeal, they could have a culture of defending their heavily Protestant society from the "heretical" Catholics of Mexico, and the polyglot, degenerate Union society.

[Tyr]

The Irish idea seems to be along pretty believable lines.
If the whole of Ireland wants to be independent then much of the Irish debate is nullified and it is far more likely that Ireland will break away from the UK in an entirely peaceful and orderly fashion.
IOTL it was the north insisting they remain part of the UK and sympathisers in the UK that were the route of much of the delay that led to the republicans getting stupid.
IMO if you have the whole of Ireland voting for home rule then you'll probally manage to get it in the 19th century.

That it would then have this other stuff happening....well, I have to say there that you can't ignore Britain. Even a 100% independent republic of Ireland is going to be strongly affected by the slightest of moves made by Britain. If the Irish government is under threat in a scenario where its relations with Britain are good then you'll probally get British help to stop things getting out of control.
Basically for a fascist/communist/whatever Ireland you probally need the same thing in Britain.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Hrvatskiwi

That source states that: "Mao focused on the peasantry as a revolutionary force which, he said, could be mobilized by a Communist Party with their knowledge and leadership". Christian Communists, especially in the CSA, would likely focus on rural farmers (the American analogue to the peasantry) as the driving force, with religious leadership performing the role of a vanguard party. Also, there are several Christian fundamentalist sects that regard hard agricultural work as virtous.

A very, very poor analogue to the peasantry. And regarding hard agricultural work as virtuous isn't the same as class struggle-centric

"Unlike most other political ideologies, including other socialist and Marxist ones, Maoism contains an integral military doctrine and explicitly connects its political ideology with military strategy". This too fits in nicely. Confederate society is likely to be highly militarised due to being constantly threatened by a powerful Union. And adding a little Christian zeal, they could have a culture of defending their heavily Protestant society from the "heretical" Catholics of Mexico, and the polyglot, degenerate Union society.

No, it doesn't fit in nicely. A highly militarized Confederate and zealouly Protestant society is heading towards fascism (in the sense of "GLORIOUS FORCE!", not necessarily Nazism), not Maoism.

[History_Pintobean]

I think that in order to do a "Red Confederacy" scenario, one must first understand communist ideology.

Your jumping into this scenario blind, which is never a good idea.

If we are to assume that the Confederacy has a Maoist revolution, then a vanguard party will suffice.

And as for American farmers, I agree that it is a very poor analogy for peasants in China.

There aren't enough of them in the rural Confederacy/south to orchestrate a replica of Mao Zedong's guerrilla war in China first of all.

Secondly, the peasantry, besides being more numerous in China, were historically bound to the land, or at least dependent on the landowners.

A major reason, if not the only reason, for them rising up was because they historically were without any land of their own. Farmers in America have land.

I envision the Confederacy as having a more classical, urban proletarian revolution then anything else, possibly led by a vanguard party.