Why do you like a Confederate victory?
- Thread starter FinalTemplar
- Start date
From an author's perspective, making a less-than-perfect world is an easy way to generate attention, create drama, and get your readers emotionally engaged in what's going on. Global thermonuclear war, though obviously unwanted in real life, acts as a sort of macabre attraction to readers in-story. The same goes for genocide, slavery, mass murder, and use of weapons of mass destruction. It's an easy way to create a visceral effect, and describing the consequences in darkly vivid terms can get your readers to engage with the world. Utopias are boring to readers, while dystopias are horrifying in the sense of a car crash you can't bear to look away from.
As an end result, a *lot* of the most popular stories on-site tend to involve very dark, dystopic, or generally messed-up worlds. A lot of the trend towards considering C.S.A victories, I feel, comes from that dynamic.
As an end result, a *lot* of the most popular stories on-site tend to involve very dark, dystopic, or generally messed-up worlds. A lot of the trend towards considering C.S.A victories, I feel, comes from that dynamic.
Indeed, unless you're from Western Virginia, Eastern Tennessee, parts of Texas or Louisiana, Kansas, etc, etc.
Dirk_Pitt
Banned
Not really. The US would still have the industrial power house of the North, the vast agricultural lands of the Midwest-Great Plains region to attract immigrants, and the huge mineral wealth the far west to feed the factories and financial sectors in the east. They'd also have vast potential for a large military that, while demoralized by the loss in the ACW, would be itching to prove themselves in a fight if anyone else got any uppity ideas of secession. One of the things Turtledove got right in TL-191, in my opinion.
Economically the South always needed the North more than the North needed the South.
It's also my opinion that in a situation similar to TL-191, where Britain and France ally with the Confederacy, the US would try to find a partner in the far-east, like maybe Japan or China, to secure the Pacific. They'd also try to find a friend in one or more great power in Europe, perhaps Germany or Russia, or both(a reapproachment between the two isn't impossible; I've seen it in other TLs).
Last edited:
I think that while it certainly didn't have much impact immediately outside the USA a CSA victory would certainly have an impact on North American and European history. After all, I am not sure that the US would purchase Alaska from Russia and would probably not have gone after Hawaii. In addition, if the is a WWI in that world I am fairly certain that US uninvolvement or involvement in a different manner than in OTL would certainly affect European history.
They hate us 'cause we're beautiful.
In all seriousness: Basically, it is a big point in American history and so alternate Civil Wars are big with us Americans. Same as how everyone makes alternate WWII timelines because it figures so large in all our respective histories.
As for liking a Confederate victory, I'll admit I have more sympathy for Johnny Reb than most (I believe that self-determination is an absolute right and that cuts some of the moral high-ground out from under the Union) But the Confederacy's defeat was the best possible outcome short of preventing the war entirely. In addition to to obvious issues with slavery, a weakened US would be bad in the 20th century, and further war in North America would be awful. Plus, race relations suffer no matter what happens post-war (Turtledove's ASB time-travellers not withstanding).
So I wouldn't say there are many here who actually would like to see a rebel victory. Even if it is fun to entertain.
No claim of self determination can defend the confederacy. Because it ignores the crucial fact that the slaves had no part in the decision. Self determination is an absolute right but you don't get to be choosy about who is self determining.
Not the first, the kind of victory the South could win is independence and nothing more. The US won the Revolutionary War but was unable to dictate to the British Government what laws it had! There is NO WAY that the CSA could win so handily that it could trample on the sovereign rights of the US and I very much doubt they would even try. Not even Jeff Davis was THAT stupid!
The second is more likely but I have my doubts. People who were willing to fight and die for the Union are suddenly going to turn their backs on it and leave at once? Not likely. More likely they are going to try to do things that make it more difficult in the future.
Here's an alt civil war scenario that I like, the British help the CSA for whatever reason you can come up with including manpower and weapons, BUT...
This serves to infuriate the Northern populace due to, among other things possibly, the prolongation of the war and much more casualties. Eventually the US wins having just as large an army as they do IRL after beating the CSA. In retaliation they take enough of Canada with that huge army that the British eventually give up the rest.
Meanwhile during all of the Civil war fighting, some Canadians resent fighting at all in what they see as none of their affair while some others resent being on the side of the slave-holding CSA and refuse to fight in a war they oppose. This, on top of no or little British support due to them being stretched to the limit due to all of the global demands on their manpower, creates less military opposition when the US does eventually invade.
Post civil war this creates a huge gap between the British and the US. I wonder on what side the US would fall when WWI and II happens in this scenario.
As a possible POD, maybe the US does at least a little better in the war of 1812, not winning any territory in the end, but prolonging the war and forcing the British to commit resources they desperately need elsewhere. This causes the the Brits to lose one or more battles they should have won. This pisses off the British quite badly for quite awhile afterward, because many of them blame the US for their losses.
In between the war of 1812 and the Civil war the tensions mount between both sides because of the British impressing US citizens and ship/sailors as well as raiding of a US port/settlement or shipping convoy under False or Pirate colors with the US finding out anyway. Then along comes the Civil war and viola.
I know it's full of holes but, whatever I'm tired and don't care.
This serves to infuriate the Northern populace due to, among other things possibly, the prolongation of the war and much more casualties. Eventually the US wins having just as large an army as they do IRL after beating the CSA. In retaliation they take enough of Canada with that huge army that the British eventually give up the rest.
Meanwhile during all of the Civil war fighting, some Canadians resent fighting at all in what they see as none of their affair while some others resent being on the side of the slave-holding CSA and refuse to fight in a war they oppose. This, on top of no or little British support due to them being stretched to the limit due to all of the global demands on their manpower, creates less military opposition when the US does eventually invade.
Post civil war this creates a huge gap between the British and the US. I wonder on what side the US would fall when WWI and II happens in this scenario.
As a possible POD, maybe the US does at least a little better in the war of 1812, not winning any territory in the end, but prolonging the war and forcing the British to commit resources they desperately need elsewhere. This causes the the Brits to lose one or more battles they should have won. This pisses off the British quite badly for quite awhile afterward, because many of them blame the US for their losses.
In between the war of 1812 and the Civil war the tensions mount between both sides because of the British impressing US citizens and ship/sailors as well as raiding of a US port/settlement or shipping convoy under False or Pirate colors with the US finding out anyway. Then along comes the Civil war and viola.
I know it's full of holes but, whatever I'm tired and don't care.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Slaves didn't have any part in decisions before the secession, neither did women or Indians. Self-determination was done by those that could and did make the decisions at the time.
Here's an alt civil war scenario that I like, the British help the CSA for whatever reason you can come up with including manpower and weapons, BUT...
This serves to infuriate the Northern populace due to, among other things possibly, the prolongation of the war and much more casualties. Eventually the US wins having just as large an army as they do IRL after beating the CSA. In retaliation they take enough of Canada with that huge army that the British eventually give up the rest.
Meanwhile during all of the Civil war fighting, some Canadians resent fighting at all in what they see as none of their affair while some others resent being on the side of the slave-holding CSA and refuse to fight in a war they oppose. This, on top of no or little British support due to them being stretched to the limit due to all of the global demands on their manpower, creates less military opposition when the US does eventually invade.
Post civil war this creates a huge gap between the British and the US. I wonder on what side the US would fall when WWI and II happens in this scenario.
As a possible POD, maybe the US does at least a little better in the war of 1812, not winning any territory in the end, but prolonging the war and forcing the British to commit resources they desperately need elsewhere. This causes the the Brits to lose one or more battles they should have won. This pisses off the British quite badly for quite awhile afterward, because many of them blame the US for their losses.
In between the war of 1812 and the Civil war the tensions mount between both sides because of the British impressing US citizens and ship/sailors as well as raiding of a US port/settlement or shipping convoy under False or Pirate colors with the US finding out anyway. Then along comes the Civil war and viola.
I know it's full of holes but, whatever I'm tired and don't care.
Another scenario, the Brits help the CSA win the war. There is strong revanchist feeling in the US as a result. Military spending is considerably higher in this TL than OTL and it allies itself to Russia just after the war and Prussia\Germany in the 1870-1880s. It takes the US until the 1900s to be where it was in the 1880s OTL. WWI breaks out where it is the US/Germany/Russia/AH Empire vs. GB/France/Italy/Turkey/CSA. The US takes all of the CSA and all of GBs and France's American colonies and maybe a few islands in the Pacific. Russia takes GB and France's colonies in Asia and Constantinople. Germany takes parts of France and Italy plus some African colonies while AH takes parts of Italy and Africa.
Which means the decision and it's claims of self determination are meaningless. And your point here contributes to my point. Popular sovereignty cannot be made on a basis of the opinions of only part of the population, including slaves opinion in the vote there's no way secession would have passed, quid pro quo, secession was illegitimate and can't claim the right of self determination of a people.
Last edited:
Like? this American opposes the very idea of CSA independence (as well as virtually all secessionist movements...in fact possibly the one that created the USA itself). I'd have almost been a Loyalist in the American Revolution.
However, I enjoy (like) speculating on alternate histories in which the losers of major world conflicts win...such as Napoleonic victory, Central Powers victory, and Axis victory. Not so much how these fairly unlikely outcomes could have occured, but what the world would look like if they did. And as unlikely outcomes go, Confederate independence is probably more likely than the Germans and their allies winning either World War in the 20th Century.
However, I enjoy (like) speculating on alternate histories in which the losers of major world conflicts win...such as Napoleonic victory, Central Powers victory, and Axis victory. Not so much how these fairly unlikely outcomes could have occured, but what the world would look like if they did. And as unlikely outcomes go, Confederate independence is probably more likely than the Germans and their allies winning either World War in the 20th Century.
David S Poepoe
Banned
I agree with you. Honestly we are all more frustrated authors than historians. I don't necessarily believe that a Confederate victory would make a dystopian, no more so than a Union victory has created a utopian world. I do like to consider some ATLs as exercises in examining the differences in governmental structure and the debate between excessive centralization and loose confederation.
We are talking about the 19th century and must evaluate the concept of national "self determination" based on the contemporary views. In 1776, only a small fraction of American colonists strongly felt the Colonies must break from Britain. In 1861 it is completely irrelevant that blacks, women, and Americans Indians had no say in the South's decision. For that matter they also had no say in the decision by Lincoln to contest that secession. Today, with a popular referrndum, Scotland is possibly poised to secede from the United Kingdom. According to the Economist only a small percentage of the residents of Scotland will actually vote in the referrendum, and no one in the rest of the UK's opinion counts. Is that popular sovreignity?
Driftless
Donor
Self determination
Land owners, not anyone else used to be the only eligbile voters. Why? Because they had control of the power & resources
Indians and Women were not treated as full citizens with full rights. Mathmatically, that's well over half the population of most areas....
Blacks (and too often women) were not treated as human, but as property. Humans are not property
It's real hard to defend the indefensible.
Land owners, not anyone else used to be the only eligbile voters. Why? Because they had control of the power & resources
Indians and Women were not treated as full citizens with full rights. Mathmatically, that's well over half the population of most areas....
Blacks (and too often women) were not treated as human, but as property. Humans are not property
It's real hard to defend the indefensible.
Driftless
Donor
The essential difference for your Scottish example, is that some eligible voters, choose of their own free will not to participate. That's on them, and they get to live with the impact of their inaction. A wise woman once told me that she was going to vote, even though she though both candidates were "worthless a$$holes". She voted anyway, as she felt that gave her the functional right to complain about the outcome. If she did not choose to vote, she felt that she forfeitted any claim on complaint.