My point still stands. Rapprochement would take a while even with a Confederate victory if it were to happen at all.
Cliches and unrealistic things to avoid in my Confederate victory scenario.
- Thread starter World Mapping
- Start date
I think time of victory will be important here. An 1862 victorious CSA will be much more likely to be cocky and stupid than an 1864 one that wins with Armies outside Atlanta and Petersburg. The more bloodied the CSA, the less stupid they will be.
Also no dismemberment other than W. Virginia. The war war is on some level about state Sovereignty and a US that throws in the towel has on some level agreed to respect that. There will be no shearing off a piece of Arkansas or saying that since Tennessee is mostly in Union hands it will somehow stay in the US. There might be free navigation of the Mississippi or such, but no state dismemberment.
I mostly agree with the first half of this - although I think even a late win is still going to be a cocky Confederacy - but I'm not as sure on the second.
If western Virginia is potentially a loss (despite the Confederate Virginians, including those from that part of the state, howling), I'm not entirely sure we can say nothing else is.
And if the US is willing to insist on northern Arkansas or Tennessee "or no treaty", what exactly does the Confederacy have to force the issue?
Last edited:
honestly pre gettysburg i'm pretty sure the CSA would demand at least part of it back, so I'm not sure
Here's a good map I found of the proposed State of Kanawha, that shows the percentage of slaves in each county:
I did see this happen in Britannia's Fist - well, attempted, with the French army in Louisiana not going for the whole state, just New Orleans. It obviously causes tension between the CSA and France, ultimately ending with nothing.
One issue is that Mexico has a long history of instability. A very long history. A Mexican Empire isn't going to do very well because it wasn't built on the popular support of the people but the French and Austrians. Mexico has a proud heritage that won't let them accept being the puppet of a European power, so we'll probably see several insurrections in Mexico to restore their freedom. If anything, the CSA might be more supportive of Mexican rebels if they can use it to their advantage to prop up a state as an ally, but that in turn runs the risk of getting the USA on them.
I think the point about the CSA not abandoning slavery easily is the most important of the ones raised so far, to which I'll add that no, I don't think economic pressure from Britain or anyone else would be remotely enough to convince the Confederates to give it up. IOTL they endured one of the worst wars of the 19th century in the hopes of holding onto their slaves. They'll laugh at sanctions. Doesn't help that sanctions themselves are one of the most overrated tools in international politics.
On the other hand, restricting immigrants would drive up wages, so you can expect the business lobby to push back hard against anything of that sort. And in the second half of the 19th century the business lobby pretty much always got their way.
On the other hand, restricting immigrants would drive up wages, so you can expect the business lobby to push back hard against anything of that sort. And in the second half of the 19th century the business lobby pretty much always got their way.
That's why I think it'll be something like the Congo Affair happening or the Boll Weevil breaking out in the 1920s and 1930s (or even a Great Depression analogue). But the Upper South isn't the Deep South and the South isn't as much of a monolith as a people think.
I've never thought about French invading Louisiana before. It just occurred me as a random scenario. Thinking about it, however, it would be the a bit similar to the Boer Wars. If the US was still bitter about the defeat, they could even help the French: give Louisiana away and take all CSA territories west from Mississippi or even ignite another total war.
The US would absolutely not tolerate France getting Louisiana at all. Monroe Doctrine and all that.
Remember to post this on the "proposals and war aims that didn't happen" thread!
Doctrines come and go, specially when your country is now divided in two. And they might think they could deal with the French later.
The only realistic campaign of expansion for the CSA I can see happening is, ironically, Cuba. It also, against the odds, has a decent chance of success. The only reason for that is because, depending on when it happens, Spain stands a very good chance of being a political and economic basket case. In the OTL 1860s the Spanish lost a major naval war in South America about the same time they had to concede defeat in the Dominican Republic, which ended up briefly toppling the monarchy, starting a series of civil wars, and then culminating in a restoration of a fundamentally different monarchy in the mid 1870s.
Cuba itself is also essentially divided into the islands planter elite, who tended to resent the peninsulares from Spain that lorded their "real Spanish blood" over the plantation owners and dominated the island economically, and of course the slave population. That actually gives them a decent chance of coopting the planter elite of Cuba who probably have more to gain by joining the slaver republic than continuing to be tied to the chaos of the Iberian peninsula. It's also barely 100 miles from the CSA while being a few thousand from Spain.
TL;DR, Cuba has a unique mix of issues that make it a realistic target for Confederate expansion.
Everything else on the wish list of the Knights of the Golden Circle? Nope, not happening.
Didn’t want to shamelessly plug my own work but I imagine attempts at Nicaragua or the Yucatán would go similarly lol
For the OP: the thing about power projection at this time in history is that it was tough. It wasn’t easy even for great powers like France or Britain to manage the logistics of sustaining forces abroad or overseas, and even a full-strength USA had lots of trouble. The Confederacy would have little ability to do it
Cuba had been on the "wish list" for southern politicians for LONG before the Civil War....
I think I did, last year sometime.... I could be wrong, I swipe a LOT of maps that strike my fancy for one reason or another
The big one for me that is less of a typical 'cliche' and more of just an important thing to keep in mind is that the South is *big*. It is economically and geographically diverse. For many writers the South's politics end at the point of the war, states rights and civil liberties. While these are important no doubt, there are many other dividing lines within the South, before, during, and after the war. The Upper South's more diverse economy would make it come up against the free trading, cash crop Deep South. Even within these regions there exist diverse interests; Piedmont Virginians would have a lot more in common with Deep South cotton planters than with it's their fellow urban middle class types, or any other combination there in. The point I'm trying to make is to find those fault lines that have divided the South, and how these have an impact on politics and war that the South engages in. Even within elites, there exist many differences in their own interests just as there exist many commonalities.
Some cliches to avoid would be to have the South abolish slavery at any point before the 20th century. Short of a war, desperate measures or act of God, I can't see a situation where the Confederate government officially abolishes the practice. If you don't want to have to deal with slavery this late in the timeline, you could still go ahead with it, but you should try and deal with the consequences. Confederate nationalists would be disgusted to have their nation's domestic policy determined by foreigners. I say these things, though, only if you want a relatively short Civil War with minimal bloodshed. If you decide to go for a longer Civil War, leaders may find their need for men drastic enough to promise emancipation for military service - but you'd need to get around some of the problems involved in that, such as whether slaves would even trust the confederacy or if the confederacy even has the room to be making offers to anyone by that point.
Expansion would have to be peaceful and multi-lateral, I feel. The most realistic option is them buying Cuba and the US either being too weak or too unwilling to intervene to stop it. Other options would be pressing their New Mexico claims post-war in a Peace Conference, possibly set up by the UK and France, but I doubt America would be too willing to give up land ceded to them.
Don't presume that slavery is the only reason the South never industrialized. Other reasons exist too, such as shifting cultivation being the main practice among planters and farmers, which requires a lot of land that can't be used for anything else. Or how the heat and humidity makes disease more common for cattle raising. Things like this are small but they contribute a lot to the narrow economic dimension that the South had both before and long after the war. Industrialization will be a long process for the South without major intervention by the government, Hamiltonian style.
Don't presume that all Americans will come to hate the south in some ancient blood feud. There will always be some animosity between the two nations, sure, but time will slowly march on and the idea that the CSA should "belong" to America will fade. Some may even believe friendly cooperation is possible because both could be considered "American" despite their separate legal existences. The same may exist in the South, although perhaps to a much more muted degree.
The idea of the confederacy as a feudal reactionary nation is very cliched, which while thematically appropriate as an antagonist to a modern, capitalistic north, is just not true. They desired to make the South a commercial hub, to make Charleston the New York of the South, and to allow the wealth from free trade to bring it the wealth that would allow for a stronger, more diverse economic order. Reactionary though they may be in their views on democracy, they weren't entirely opposed to modernity. Keep that in mind when determining what how that affects the ability of the Confederate state and federal government to govern, and how that affects slavery.
I apologize for the rambly nature of this, but I have a lot of thoughts on this topic!
Some cliches to avoid would be to have the South abolish slavery at any point before the 20th century. Short of a war, desperate measures or act of God, I can't see a situation where the Confederate government officially abolishes the practice. If you don't want to have to deal with slavery this late in the timeline, you could still go ahead with it, but you should try and deal with the consequences. Confederate nationalists would be disgusted to have their nation's domestic policy determined by foreigners. I say these things, though, only if you want a relatively short Civil War with minimal bloodshed. If you decide to go for a longer Civil War, leaders may find their need for men drastic enough to promise emancipation for military service - but you'd need to get around some of the problems involved in that, such as whether slaves would even trust the confederacy or if the confederacy even has the room to be making offers to anyone by that point.
Expansion would have to be peaceful and multi-lateral, I feel. The most realistic option is them buying Cuba and the US either being too weak or too unwilling to intervene to stop it. Other options would be pressing their New Mexico claims post-war in a Peace Conference, possibly set up by the UK and France, but I doubt America would be too willing to give up land ceded to them.
Don't presume that slavery is the only reason the South never industrialized. Other reasons exist too, such as shifting cultivation being the main practice among planters and farmers, which requires a lot of land that can't be used for anything else. Or how the heat and humidity makes disease more common for cattle raising. Things like this are small but they contribute a lot to the narrow economic dimension that the South had both before and long after the war. Industrialization will be a long process for the South without major intervention by the government, Hamiltonian style.
Don't presume that all Americans will come to hate the south in some ancient blood feud. There will always be some animosity between the two nations, sure, but time will slowly march on and the idea that the CSA should "belong" to America will fade. Some may even believe friendly cooperation is possible because both could be considered "American" despite their separate legal existences. The same may exist in the South, although perhaps to a much more muted degree.
The idea of the confederacy as a feudal reactionary nation is very cliched, which while thematically appropriate as an antagonist to a modern, capitalistic north, is just not true. They desired to make the South a commercial hub, to make Charleston the New York of the South, and to allow the wealth from free trade to bring it the wealth that would allow for a stronger, more diverse economic order. Reactionary though they may be in their views on democracy, they weren't entirely opposed to modernity. Keep that in mind when determining what how that affects the ability of the Confederate state and federal government to govern, and how that affects slavery.
I apologize for the rambly nature of this, but I have a lot of thoughts on this topic!
Well, hello there, OP. As a veteran of AH.com, and someone who's been considering writing a couple of these TLs, I think I can help you with a few things.
For starters, I think it goes without saying that you want to avoid the worst CSA-related cliches, like slavery ending voluntarily for example, but there's also a few other questionable cliches-and other, less common tropes-that would be best avoided.
1. The Confederacy as a wholly prosperous, and highly modern nation-Yeah, this is definitely one you'll want to avoid; too many CSA TLs have gone with this assumption, including many of them on this site. While @Leviticus does raise an interesting point in their most recent post:
It's also true that even though the CSA might not entirely reject modernity, my counterpoint here would be that one could still reasonably expect that there would be a lot of things holding back the Confederacy from becoming a truly prosperous nation(including, yes, the continued existence of slavery, and not just because of sanctions, etc.), instead of one that lags behind most/all of the rest of the West, and is heavily stratified(if not extremely so), with prosperity only residing in the hands of a powerful few, with little in the way of a middle class and lots of poorer citizens, even if it manages to survive all the way to the present day or close to it.
2. Strongly nativist Union(or at least more so than IOTL)-Yes, definitely avoid this one, too, if you can. Don't get me wrong, nativism(and racism in general) will, sadly, be somewhat of an issue regardless, but this cliche has popped up in a number of TLs that I have observed despite there not being any truly plausible basis for this, in pretty much any of them. Yes, one can point to the Chinese Exclusion Act, etc., but it's worth pointing out that, to a point, the severity, at least, of certain aspects of restrictionism were peculiar to OTL and a number of things could have changed for the better without that much difficulty.
And depending on the POD, you can even significantly reduce anti-Chinese racism in California and other Western states + territories without too much trouble before the 1880s or even by the outbreak of the war.....though there might have to be some major incident that discredits the local anti-immigration fanatics; maybe an out of the blue massacre or two, and/or some of them are caught aiding and abetting the Confederates? Both of these things are quite a bit more plausible than many might realize, FWIW. (Sadly, though, it's also true that anti-Asian racism could fairly easily have been worse east of the Rockies, and doing the former and avoiding the latter at the exact same time might well be genuinely difficult to do plausibly).
3.The Confederacy as a popular immigration destination-Nope. If even the re-unified U.S. IOTL was going to fall for widespread immigration restrictions, then why would the Confederacy would be any more lenient overall? In all likelihood, they'd be even more restrictive overall: as @NedStark correctly pointed out, the South was a hotbed of anti-immigration sentiment IOTL, and I would add, even in Florida and Louisiana(several Italian-Americans were once lynched in La. in the 1890s-sometime in 1891, IIRC?). The doesn't mean all immigration would be banned straight away, but it's not hard to see the C.S.A. clamping down on it early on in it's history, and even Western European Catholics(maybe even the French included) could be subject to severe restrictions, perhaps even based on ethnicity. And Orthodox immigrants wouldn't be treated too much better, not even Greeks(if significant anti-Greek discrimination could exist even in places like Omaha, NE IOTL, it could certainly be a problem in an independent South!).
That said, though, you might be able to make some exceptions-Confederates wouldn't necessarily be opposed to British-especially English-immigration, and certainly, at least Protestant Germans wouldn't be turned away, either, unless relations between the C.S. and these countries were really bad. (If you wanted to make things a little more interesting, you could try having the C.S.A. attract some immigrants from the Netherlands, Belgium or even Luxembourg, though Scandinavia might be pushing it a little too hard)
4. Predominantly Progressivism-based racial/ethnic based immigration restrictions, etc.-This one shouldn't be too hard to sidestep. Even IOTL, Progressives were no more likely than anti-Progressives to be opposed to large-scale immigration of people who weren't WASPs or others of northern European(and Protestant) extraction, and in some cases less so, and much the same also goes for racism, etc.; If anything, it would make more sense for the contrasts to be rather starker ITTL, and without the South to worry about, both nativists and the anti-Progressive types wouldn't have been as empowered(thus fewer of TTL's Progressives would then, plausibly, feel as inclined to appease devoted racists, nativists, etc.).
5. Britain and France, in particular, becoming longtime Confederate allies-This mainly only seems to come up because of Harry Turtledove's famous TL-191 series; while it may not necessarily be wildly implausible, it's just unlikely enough that this trope may be better avoided altogether, especially because Britain, especially, had just eliminated slavery in it's empire a couple decades earlier, and I doubt even many moderate[1a] Britons, let alone most liberals[1b], would have been happy with even rumors of a concrete alliance with a bunch of slavers.....so I'd recommend against this one, too, unless you really want to go for it.
That's not to say that the C.S.A. can't have European allies, but honestly, if one wants to go there.....why not go for at least Prussia and/or Germany, or even Austria-Hungary? Might be a bit harder to do the latter, since A-H was a majority Catholic country, but at the very least, not that hard to see the C.S.A. buddying up with Prussia or a conservative Germany at some point(depending on if German unification is butterflied or not)-there would be a potential complication in the person of Otto von Bismarck but removing him from power could make a crucial difference-maybe by 1880 or so? (I'd also suggest even considering Russia, but this would have to be after the passing of Alexander II, though, whenever that happens.)
6. The U.S. and C.S. as longterm friends, not just neighbors-Unless the Union is successfully taken over by a hard-right[1d] or even reactionary series of administrations for an extended period, this almost certainly wouldn't happen, and in fact, many liberal[1e] Americans, especially, would want revenge for the Union being broken apart; that would not only not heal anytime soon, but might in fact, last as long as the Confederacy itself does.
[1a, b, c, d, e]Yes, I know some may question the use of these word, but it's in relative terms, and they can be, and sometimes are, significantly more useful than many may realize(at least from the late 18th century and onward, anyway, if nothing earlier).
7. More widespread anti-black racism in the Union than IOTL-I've seen this trope crop up a few times as well, and it's another one that's of dubious plausibility at best; really do try to avoid this one if you can! Yes, racist backlash would eventually occur at some point, but to keep this short: in a world in which people have to be regularly reminded of the horrors of Confederate brutality, it very likely wouldn't be as effective in actually screwing over African-Americans as it sometimes was IOTL, in terms of overall discrimination, etc.; that's not to say that the severity of racism, per se, would always be less: in fact, it's possible that devoted racists-like nativists-could be even more overtly nasty in a U.S. where their influence was diminished relative to OTL(though that would eventually probably lead to even more pushback against them).
8. The World Wars, etc. turning out exactly as they were in our world-Mainly including this here because it's perhaps the most common trope overall, and just not for CSA victory timelines. Hey, I'm not saying you can't have a World War or two(or, heck, feel free to call 'em something else if you'd like!), and they can even happen in the same general time frame-it's just that it's a bit unlikely that Gavrilo Princip would still be able to shoot Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in that same exact city-that being Sarajevo-on the exact same day as IOTL with a POD circa 1860, so it might not hurt to take that into consideration, ya know?(That said, though, to be quite fair, a few bits of OTL history repeating, at least in a way, may not hurt your TL's plausibility that much-especially early on-provided it's not really overdone; though it can depend on the exact POD, and the likely magnitude of changes since then).
9. Ignoring non-state actors, and their use by nation-states-That's also a topic you may want to cover at some point, too; I kind of already mentioned the possibility of the C.S.A. being assisted by anti-immigration forces given an early enough POD, but nothing says said elements couldn't be manipulated afterwards, either. And it's more than possible that underhanded espionage by both sides could very well spark a major diplomatic incident or two, if not even a new war.
10. Repeating the use of OTL figures beyond a certain point-Okay, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, per se. But it also wouldn't necessarily be terribly likely for figures like, say, Barack Obama or George Bush to show up with a POD around 1860, especially if it's one that's liable to have a major short-term impact on the world-it's OK if you want to keep that sense of familiarity, but I really would sincerely recommend you try to find a point to start using fictional characters. (A rule of thumb I like to use is, I adjust it based on both the time the POD occurred and the magnitude of the POD in question)
Also, some general tips that I hope are also helpful:
1. In regards between convergence and divergence, don't be afraid to strike a balance between the two(but also, not relying too much on OTL history!)-Having been in this genre for over a decade myself, I can tell you that it can be a genuinely daunting task finding an optimal balance on a number of things, including on this topic. But honestly, don't worry too much if you can help it-if nothing else, just go with the flow, and then revise if/when necessary. To expand on this a little, while I've kinda already covered a few examples of OTL history that you might not want to repeat ITTL, that doesn't mean you have to radically change every little thing-for example, television can still be called television, the Internet can still be the Internet, etc., unless you really wanna go out of your way to make new and/or original terms(and some have).
2. Research is your friend-Yeah, this one is pretty straightforward, but do be careful with sourcing, as not everything you'll find is necessarily good quality(and sometimes you may just find utter crap).
3. Don't be afraid to take feedback into account-I think this is important, too. Even if you may not agree with the other person, at least try to acknowledge their viewpoint-though don't be afraid to correct somebody if you're at least reasonably certain or you know for sure that they're wrong about something.
4. Formatting is up to you-There really are many ways to write a TL-in chronilogical order or skipping and jumping between time frames.....many different ways you can set up TTL references(you can look at published works like Sobel's For Want of a Nail, or Internet originals like Look To The West or Lands of Red and Gold, for examples!).....and that's only for starters.
5. Just try to have fun-As it says on the label. At the end of the day, this is your project and don't be afraid to enjoy yourself.
If I may, an example of this being potentially complicated (but fascinating!) - take Patton of WWII fame. His grandfather may survive the war TTL (depending on how the war goes). His grandmother may very well never move to California. From there, a lot of changes are going to develop just by his father probably staying in Virginia.
Perhaps this timeline's George Smith Patton Jr. (if his father has a son) is a doctor and pacifist. Perhaps he enters the navy. Perhaps he dies young.
Naming him "David" but having him be basically OTL Patton in every meaningful way is not, IMO, the best way to handle chaos and butterflies.
But lots of things can happen.
Last edited:
You're essentially right as it relates to my point in that the Confederacy will be very stunted - I suppose my point was more specifically attacking the idea that southern elites were inherently reactionaries, and that slavery and modernity are at odds with one another in the mind of such elites.
Also, for both 3 and 6, I question these hard, especially the latter. I suppose it would depend on the circumstances of secession itself but economic and social interests are probably more likely to unite than divide the two nations. The North may be exceedingly revanchist, sure, and it would definitely be a big an important part for the first couple years (perhaps decades - just look at US-UK relations) but time heals all wounds. I could even see a section of the north (by no means big, of course) essentially saying that it was probably for the best to avoid bloodshed.
Again, though, that would depend on other circumstances. A Civil War comparable to OTL with a victorious Confederacy would definitely make my above point completely invalid, with any additional causalities just adding fuel to the fire. Plus, even if such a secession was bloodless, there would be so many tensions in US-CS relations that I can't see their relationship being anything but lukewarm. Still, I feel that sort of accommodation would have to be made, as the South is too lucrative of a market for goods and credit to be ignored.
(Plus I'd like to see the Confederate side of this more. Accusations of economic, political and cultural imperialism were commonly thrown at the north by fire-eaters, and, unless a strong financial system is established, I can't see the Confederacy being all too thrilled about still having to rely on Yankee credit and goods. The War's scars will only be the most painful division between the two countries but there's a lot to work with outside of that when dealing with foreign policy conflicts here)
Also while I do agree that the South was nativistic, I don't really think any sort of immigration controls would be enacted. The South received few immigrants in comparison to the North, so I doubt that immigration controls would be an issue pushed by the voting public outside of racially based ones. That trickle will dry up too as soon as the cotton boom of the late 1850s evaporates too.
But yeah, doing research and having fun is the big thing to do when doing this.