Uh, what?
Which Turtledove book has someone try to kill all blond people? I want to read that just to see how he manages to somewhat justify such random insanity!Question: Why do the Mormons always get screwed if the CSA wins?
- Thread starter thekingsguard
- Start date
Which Turtledove book has someone try to kill all blond people? I want to read that just to see how he manages to somewhat justify such random insanity!Uh, what?
The Darkness series, which is World War II with magic and dragons.
It also makes sense when you see that blondes are a specific cultural and nationality group in that series, and not one person in three across the entire planet.
Kaptin Kurk
Banned
I've always figured a victorious South would end up more akin to South Africa. Not in the same extreme, but slaves were still being imported into the south (illegally, both under the Constituion and international law) up to and during the war. I always figured a victorious south would continue to import slaves for at least another generation, under the table, as it were.
That would have killed their friendship with Europe. Not going to happen with a bigger, hostile neighbor.
Because if you don't move, you'll get killed? The Mormons had a long history of preferring to leave places rather than get killed. Kirtland, Missouri, then Nauvoo. In fact, in the Utah War, though there was some armed Mormon disruption of supply lines, the main Mormon response was to . . . evacuate the Salt Lake Valley. So why this sudden preference for getting massacred? Its not like Utah was a lush paradise.
Fundamentally, the Mormons aren't going to fight unless pushed very hard and absolutely unable to flee, or else pushed very hard and with a decent prospect of prevailing (presumably because of some strong outside help, though its going to have to be very strong indeed to tempt Mormons into armed resistance). But if Mormons have a decent prospect of prevailing, they have a decent prospect of prevailing. Which means that the trope of bloody Mormon revolt, then invariably bloodily crushed, is silly.
This.
When my great-something grandfather heard that Johnston's Army (the Mormon term for the U.S. response) was coming, he hid his documents underneath a rock, got his family loaded up in a wagon, and sent them off into the wilderness. He, on the other hand, got on a mule and rode with the "Mormon cavalry" to harrass the invaders to give the women and children more time to evacuate.
They never wanted to fight an open battle; at worst, they were going to try to delay the Army at Echo Canyon.
Actually, I'm quite sure he thought exactly that after the Great War trilogy, if not much earlier. The evidence from his other writings is overwhelming.
As to logic, I'm sure it seemed perfectly logical to him. He's just completely wrong is all. Wiping out a third of the country wouldn't have been a real plan. It doesn't follow as a reasonable consequence of anything else in the timeline except if you assume prejudiced people who lose a World War will always duplicate the Nazis.
There's also the Civil War with magic book (I forget the name just now). King not-quite-Lincoln wants to free the blonde serfs-look-not-slaves. Then there is a civil war over the issue.
There's also the fascination with Nazis, the Jewish people, and the Holocaust found in the Balance series and In the Presence of Mine Enemies.
Then the Japanese treatment of civilians is a centerpiece of their conquest of Hawaii (instead of Pearl Harbor).
He even did a short story set in Alabama where the ruling blacks disappear three civil rights workers (a southern white and two New York black Muslims) in the same swamp their equivalents died in in OTL.
The man's bread and butter is parallelism, and a big part of that, perhaps most, is minorities being brutalized in the near-modern era.
Ehhhh.... In those books they're a minority in not-Poland, but the entire population of other kingdom-states. And the blonde states aren't depicted like Serbia, say, but appear to be more like Belgium or France expies. But still, the kilt-wearing Nazis decide to do a holocaust.
Funny you should mention one person in three, since that's exactly what he has the CSA doing in TL-191.
I think their willingness to take unwise risks when it came to that sort of subject is fairly clear in the historical record.
Yes.
It might also be worth pointing out that the Kaunian blondes in the Western European analogs weren't even subject to the "special magecraft" program, which was aimed strictly at the blondes living in the Poland analog.
The one-in-three thing was to point out that genetic traits such as hair and skin tone and whatnot were pretty homogenous in Derlavai.
You mean like the manumission law that totally went against everything the CSA stood for, but was deemed totally necessary to keep the European alliances?
While I don't doubt the intent of the Confederate ruling class to keep the black man in his place no matter what, I don't think the South would risk pissing off their British ally by letting slavers tangle with the Royal Navy off Africa when there is a perfectly self-sustaining slave population at home.
With a number of vested interests in the powerful and influential upper South who *want* the slave trade to stay suppressed. Actually, one plausible outcome of a successful CSA is a new regional split on North-South lines that recreates the antebellum Union's problems in miniature.
So, where might the Mormon's leave to? Canada or Mexico I pressume? Maybe somewhere overseas, and if so, where? Might there be something of a Mormon dispora?
A lot depends on the details of how they're being forced out and when, but all else being equal I would assume Mexico is more likely, both because the US may be hostile to Britain at this point and because the Mormons may like their chances of relative autonomy better in Mexico. Hard to say, though.
I'm assuming that the Mormon interest in Mesoamerica will still happen in the 20th C. in this timeline (there are strong structural reasons for it), which means that ultimately the Mormons will probably interpret Mesoamerica as the promised land and view their eventual remove their as providential. Mormon beliefs actually makes them unusually fit for being an alien, anglo element in Mexico that nonetheless is strongly patriotic and committed to the Mexican country.
If it's quite prevalent in literature, one has to examine why it became a meme in the first place. In many ways, there are a number of things that come up in CSA wins timelines.
1) Confederate Cuba: It's a fun thought, but the politics of buying Cuba just don't match reality and the OTL Spanish-American War was the result of a freak accident that doesn't likely get replicated in the new timeline. Any Hispano-Confederate War would have to break out for a completely different reason.
2) Secessionist Mormons: Things would have to get pretty bad for this to actually happen. The Federal government would have to agitate them enough to make it happen. Either that or the British are extremely successful in penetrating the American West (unlikely) in a hypothetical Trent Affair War.
3) The CSA doesn't do very well and splinters: There's no reason why they couldn't do well. A successful nation in the 19th century didn't necessarily have to be a great power. Nations still traded with the United States and Brazil even though they had slavery.
4) Balkanized USA: This isn't very common, but there just isn't enough support for balkanization in the mid-19th century. In fact, the absence of the CSA would kill much of the sectionalism in the country. Maybe the UK decides it wants a puppet California in the event of the Trent Affair War, but by and large, the thought that the secession of the CSA would have been a threat to the very fabric of the Union was fear mongering. An independent CSA did not mean there would be an independent New England, an independent Utah, an independent California, or whatever.
5) Amendment banning secession: While it's not far fetched to think the Constitution would be amended to prevent secession, there's no reason to think that amendment would absolutely be ratified either. It's actually very hard to amend the Constitution and the threat of secession would still be a useful political tool especially in the wake of the ACW.
6) Slavery is carried on in perpetuity: While slavery was profitable when many nations abolished it, the late Robert Perkins often pointed out that real world factors would ultimately lead to the demise of slavery. The boll weevil is a particular menace that would drive many plantations out of business, which would ultimately cut down the demand for slaves and drive down the prices. That would ultimately help kill any under the table slave importation because the risk wouldn't justify the reward. You could work out the dynamics of immigration issues on your own, but the clock was ticking against slavery. While they couldn't stop it in Richmond, state governments certainly could if the influence changed drastically enough to force gradual (most likely) or full emancipation (extreme circumstance) in a state. It wouldn't improve race relations, so Jim Crow would probably prevail simply to prevent job competition with freemen (and due to racism of course).
7) Texas secession from the CSA: This is actually quite ridiculous. Texas barely had the majority vote to approve secession from the USA. Rather than remain independent, they joined the CSA.
8) The USA and the UK continue as mortal enemies: This is actually no guarantee either. There's actually zero benefit to either nation. They would resume trade and the UK would likely do whatever it could to play nice because defending Canada against a very hostile USA is a military nightmare and plus let's not even get into the economics of having to keep a strong standing force in Canada. It hasn't stopped nations before, but saner heads prevailed quite a few times in the 19th century.
9) The USA and CSA continue as mortal enemies: Like with the UK, there's no guarantee that this would be an issue. Certainly there would be revanchists within the USA, but must they always prevail? Maybe they actually could get along.
10) Nobody really learns anything (or no major butterflies): Depending on the war, the nations of Europe might pay more attention to military lessons from the war. If the UK and France get involved in a Trent Affair War scenario, then you can bet other European nations are going to be paying attention and making notes of what military doctrines work and which ones don't. Now whether the lesson is learned is a different matter entirely, but this all depends on the sort of war that unfolds.
Those are just ten things I can think of. Feel free to dispute points, but it plays into the general theme of Mormons getting screwed in CSA wins timelines.
1) Confederate Cuba: It's a fun thought, but the politics of buying Cuba just don't match reality and the OTL Spanish-American War was the result of a freak accident that doesn't likely get replicated in the new timeline. Any Hispano-Confederate War would have to break out for a completely different reason.
2) Secessionist Mormons: Things would have to get pretty bad for this to actually happen. The Federal government would have to agitate them enough to make it happen. Either that or the British are extremely successful in penetrating the American West (unlikely) in a hypothetical Trent Affair War.
3) The CSA doesn't do very well and splinters: There's no reason why they couldn't do well. A successful nation in the 19th century didn't necessarily have to be a great power. Nations still traded with the United States and Brazil even though they had slavery.
4) Balkanized USA: This isn't very common, but there just isn't enough support for balkanization in the mid-19th century. In fact, the absence of the CSA would kill much of the sectionalism in the country. Maybe the UK decides it wants a puppet California in the event of the Trent Affair War, but by and large, the thought that the secession of the CSA would have been a threat to the very fabric of the Union was fear mongering. An independent CSA did not mean there would be an independent New England, an independent Utah, an independent California, or whatever.
5) Amendment banning secession: While it's not far fetched to think the Constitution would be amended to prevent secession, there's no reason to think that amendment would absolutely be ratified either. It's actually very hard to amend the Constitution and the threat of secession would still be a useful political tool especially in the wake of the ACW.
6) Slavery is carried on in perpetuity: While slavery was profitable when many nations abolished it, the late Robert Perkins often pointed out that real world factors would ultimately lead to the demise of slavery. The boll weevil is a particular menace that would drive many plantations out of business, which would ultimately cut down the demand for slaves and drive down the prices. That would ultimately help kill any under the table slave importation because the risk wouldn't justify the reward. You could work out the dynamics of immigration issues on your own, but the clock was ticking against slavery. While they couldn't stop it in Richmond, state governments certainly could if the influence changed drastically enough to force gradual (most likely) or full emancipation (extreme circumstance) in a state. It wouldn't improve race relations, so Jim Crow would probably prevail simply to prevent job competition with freemen (and due to racism of course).
7) Texas secession from the CSA: This is actually quite ridiculous. Texas barely had the majority vote to approve secession from the USA. Rather than remain independent, they joined the CSA.
8) The USA and the UK continue as mortal enemies: This is actually no guarantee either. There's actually zero benefit to either nation. They would resume trade and the UK would likely do whatever it could to play nice because defending Canada against a very hostile USA is a military nightmare and plus let's not even get into the economics of having to keep a strong standing force in Canada. It hasn't stopped nations before, but saner heads prevailed quite a few times in the 19th century.
9) The USA and CSA continue as mortal enemies: Like with the UK, there's no guarantee that this would be an issue. Certainly there would be revanchists within the USA, but must they always prevail? Maybe they actually could get along.
10) Nobody really learns anything (or no major butterflies): Depending on the war, the nations of Europe might pay more attention to military lessons from the war. If the UK and France get involved in a Trent Affair War scenario, then you can bet other European nations are going to be paying attention and making notes of what military doctrines work and which ones don't. Now whether the lesson is learned is a different matter entirely, but this all depends on the sort of war that unfolds.
Those are just ten things I can think of. Feel free to dispute points, but it plays into the general theme of Mormons getting screwed in CSA wins timelines.
IIRC, there was originally a plan to head north, to the Bitterroot Valley in Montana, but that fell through for some reason. Failing that, they were going to head to the Utah/Nevada border area; some mountainous area there.
I had a concept of where US after loosing ACW gets more involved internationally, along with more repressive at home. So, US accepts the bid to buy North Borneo, so they're more involved in South East Asia. Clashes with China, especially over Korea, leads to US annexing Taiwan, and the Mormons move there. Eventually it is roughly 50/50 white/asian population wise but majority Mormon and an US state.
Man, I miss working on that TL, never posted anything.