American Civil War cliches

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Inspired by the WW2 cliches thread, what are some cliches about TLs involving the ACW that you find particularly annoying? One of the ones that bugs me the most is that in every single Confederate Victory TL, there is always a surviving Mexican Empire. What in God's name is the reasoning for this? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the Confederates didn't give a damn about Maximilian AFAIK. Hell, they could easily supply the Republicans as much as the US did OTL. Not sure why every scenario has them propping up a corrupt, weak, and unpopular government as their closest ally geographically speaking.

Another cliche I hate about ACW timelines are the massive Confederate land-grabs. Doesn't strike me as the kind of thing they'd ever be likely to do. The even worse cliche, and God knows how it actually became common, whenever Texas becomes independent in a Confederate-Victory TL (which would probably be 90% of them) they make HUGE goddamn Mexican-landgrabs ON THEIR OWN! IIRC OTL Texas was pretty damn weak before joining the Union. What about Texas makes it stronger on its own?

[Jord839]

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

Inspired by the WW2 cliches thread, what are some cliches about TLs involving the ACW that you find particularly annoying? One of the ones that bugs me the most is that in every single Confederate Victory TL, there is always a surviving Mexican Empire. What in God's name is the reasoning for this? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the Confederates didn't give a damn about Maximilian AFAIK. Hell, they could easily supply the Republicans as much as the US did OTL. Not sure why every scenario has them propping up a corrupt, weak, and unpopular government as their closest ally geographically speaking.

Another cliche I hate about ACW timelines are the massive Confederate land-grabs. Doesn't strike me as the kind of thing they'd ever be likely to do. The even worse cliche, and God knows how it actually became common, whenever Texas becomes independent in a Confederate-Victory TL (which would probably be 90% of them) they make HUGE goddamn Mexican-landgrabs ON THEIR OWN! IIRC OTL Texas was pretty damn weak before joining the Union. What about Texas makes it stronger on its own?

1. Maximilian is usually around as a sign of increased relations between France and the CSA. With the CSA's undivided support, Max can be propped up, unlike OTL, and this in turn will keep France on the CSA's side in politics.

2. Which confederate landgrabs are you talking about? From the USA? Or Mexico? Or somebody else? Regardless, I expect the reasoning is the author of the TL wants to even the scales between the CSA and USA come rematch time, and giving them more land and resources helps.

3. Texas was significantly more advanced than large parts of Mexico, so a short war can conceviably be won. It helps that the closest regions of Mexico to Texas are the largely unpopulated Northern states, which Mexico City would be hard pressed to defend and more willing to give up. They certainly aren't going much farther than there though.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

1. Plausible, but the CSA could work on their friendship with France without pumping precious resources into protecting a fail-monarch south of the border. Also, what makes this cliche worse is that it pops up EVERY CS-Victory TL, even the ones where they don't win from French support, I'm sure. It gets to the point where I'm sure the sole reason most people do it is because Turtledove did it. Hell, you're actually the first person I've heard an explanation from after reading enough CS TLs.

2. Yes, but implausibility still overrules "cool-factor" or "fair-factor". The CSA in most scenarios tends to take Cuba, Sonora, Chihuahua every time, in addition to other territories much of the time too. This'd be another example of Turtledove-Did-It excuses, and you actually brushed up on another annoying and needless CSA-cliche: The inevitable CSA-USA War, round two.

3. Maybe nowadays Texas is more advanced than large parts of Mexico, but I don't think it was the same in the 1860's. I don't think Texas's adult, male white population was large enough to form an army that could take all of Mexico north of the City itself on its own.

[Eurofed]

Personally, one of the CSA victories clichès I find most irritating is the way they always manage to get all the border states, even the ones that stayed in the Union, if they win at all, Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky, the whole set. There is never a compromise peace where they win independence, but they are forced to give up the Union border states and Tennessee.

[lothaw]

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

3. Maybe nowadays Texas is more advanced than large parts of Mexico, but I don't think it was the same in the 1860's. I don't think Texas's adult, male white population was large enough to form an army that could take all of Mexico north of the City itself on its own.

Actually, Texas of 1860 was a lot different from Texas of 1840.

During the Civil War, Texas contributed over 70,000 men to the Confederacy for example. They'd need some outside help to sustain a prolonged conflict mind you, but it's not outside the realm of possibility, an independent Texas beating Mexico during this time period.

That said, even I the self proclaimed Texas Nationalist, find it hard to see Texas leaving the Confederacy seemingly on a whim as it does during some of these TLs.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Originally Posted by lothaw

Actually, Texas of 1860 was a lot different from Texas of 1840.

During the Civil War, Texas contributed over 70,000 men to the Confederacy for example. They'd need some outside help to sustain a prolonged conflict mind you, but it's not outside the realm of possibility, an independent Texas beating Mexico during this time period.

That said, even I the self proclaimed Texas Nationalist, find it hard to see Texas leaving the Confederacy seemingly on a whim as it does during some of these TLs.

Beating Mexico: Plausible. Taking all the territory north of Mexico City and sometimes even more than that without suffering MASSIVE consequences? Eh...

Another cliche: However plausible it is, the whole idea of every TL ending up in a world with a CSA/Britain/France vs. USA/Germany/Russia set of power blocs is just so tired that I might just start personal vendettas against everyone who does it from this point onwards. Isn't the point of AH to look at new ideas and What Ifs than to repeat Turtledove?

[lothaw]

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

Beating Mexico: Plausible. Taking all the territory north of Mexico City and sometimes even more than that without suffering MASSIVE consequences? Eh...

WANTING all that territory... eh...

[Bill Cameron]

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

Inspired by the WW2 cliches thread, what are some cliches about TLs involving the ACW that you find particularly annoying? One of the ones that bugs me the most is that in every single Confederate Victory TL, there is always a surviving Mexican Empire. What in God's name is the reasoning for this?

Hresvelgr,

There are tons of ACW cliches, but that isn't one of them. It's a realistic assessment of the geopolitical situation instead.

Not surprisingly because it was an OTL aim of the CSA government, nearly all CSA Victory scenarios involve some sort of foreign recognition. That foreign recognition will involve France and France is the power who put Max on the throne, so any recognition of the CSA by France will undoubtedly involve some sort of quid pro quo.

Of course, an official CSA acceptance of Max doesn't mean there won't be unofficial efforts to help oust him or that Max will remain on the throne for long.

About the cliched landgrabs, you're correct in pointing to their size. However, given the South's enthusiasm for the Mexican American War, Central American and Caribbean filibusters, and fears of being shut out of the western territories by the US Federal government, I think it's safe to say that a CSA will definitely be "frisky" south and west of her borders.

Of course, just how frisky a CSA gets will depend on her relationship with the US and how much of a leash her European patrons allow her.


Bill

[Hapsburg]

I always thought the CSA victory and Mexican Empire victory bits were just a combination of things the writer wanted to see anyway, and just thought "Meh. Why not throw both in?"

But, politically, it makes sense if France is the guy to support and supply the CSA. They'd probably form a kind of allied bloc in the region. Maybe tie in the Central American republics and Spain too, with her pretty little Caribbean empire.

[Emperor Norton I]

There's a failure to take into account US relations with Russia (which would likely end up similar to relations between the CS, Britain and France), and via Russia, Prussia which occasionally irks me and I consider it a cliche since the South gets off scott free and gets allies in Europe while the North wallows and never takes advantage of its own allies and possible allies.

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

There's a failure to take into account US relations with Russia (which would likely end up similar to relations between the CS, Britain and France), and via Russia, Prussia which occasionally irks me and I consider it a cliche since the South gets off scott free and gets allies in Europe while the North wallows and never takes advantage of its own allies and possible allies.

Very true, although the ability of Russia and Prussia to project force outside Europe before the balance of power is resettled to their advantage with German unification is limited.

[Emperor Norton I]

Russia may be somewhat limited, but is in 3rd place on the globe with France and Britain in Second and First, and would likely offer more raw power than those two to any conflict thus giving it an edge. Or, be a good ally post-war at least, which is never taken into account. Similarly, Prussia is a Hercules in the Cradle and will emerge in ensuing decades as a strong competitor and a good ally for the US (and the US will be its ally via Russia, who had good relations with Prussia in the latter 19th century).

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron

Hresvelgr,

There are tons of ACW cliches, but that isn't one of them. It's a realistic assessment of the geopolitical situation instead.

Not surprisingly because it was an OTL aim of the CSA government, nearly all CSA Victory scenarios involve some sort of foreign recognition. That foreign recognition will involve France and France is the power who put Max on the throne, so any recognition of the CSA by France will undoubtedly involve some sort of quid pro quo.

Of course, an official CSA acceptance of Max doesn't mean there won't be unofficial efforts to help oust him or that Max will remain on the throne for long.

First, even if the CSA recognizes Max, that does not stop the USA from funneling arms to Juarez and telling Nappy III that they intend to enforce the Monroe Doctrine just like they did in OTL. The CSA is unlikely in the extreme to interfere, because they are not going to want to go to war again with the Union over Mexico.

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron

About the cliched landgrabs, you're correct in pointing to their size. However, given the South's enthusiasm for the Mexican American War, Central American and Caribbean filibusters, and fears of being shut out of the western territories by the US Federal government, I think it's safe to say that a CSA will definitely be "frisky" south and west of her borders.

Of course, this all ignores the reason WHY the South was enthusiastic for the Mexican American War, Central American and Caribbean filibusters, and fearful about being shut out of the Western Territories. It wasn't simple imperialism. What they were looking to gain out of expansion abroad was new territory to be admitted into the Union as Slave States, to restore the balance in Congress against the rising political power of the North. An independent CSA won't be represented in the U.S. Congress anymore, and won't need to organize new Slave States in order to maintain a political balance there. So by winning the war and establishing it's independence, the CSA also has removed the motives behind antebellum Southern imperialism.

[The Kiat]

The south winning is a cliche. The south losing is also a cliche. So is the CSA taking Cuba. And allying with the British (the AHN Universe is guilty of this, at least until after the Great War). Let's see... oh yes, a black socialists movement seems a bit cliche. As does manumission used as a sort of tax relief for the plantation owners. Is there any AH cliche that hasn't been used for the Civil War yet?

[catboy637]

Originally Posted by The Kiat

The south winning is a cliche. The south losing is also a cliche. So is the CSA taking Cuba. And allying with the British (the AHN Universe is guilty of this, at least until after the Great War). Let's see... oh yes, a black socialists movement seems a bit cliche. As does manumission used as a sort of tax relief for the plantation owners. Is there any AH cliche that hasn't been used for the Civil War yet?

Alein invasion?

[araraya]

Originally Posted by catboy637

Alein invasion?

Actually I think there's a TL here with that.

[The Kiat]

I bought a book from Edward R Hamilton called

The Confederate States of America (what might have been) by Roger Ransom. It's counterfactual, and explores what might have developed in the Confedercay during its short existance.

[The Kiat]

Originally Posted by catboy637

Alein invasion?

Hmmm.... Let's see, aliens have invaded during the Cold War, after the Cold War, and WWII... sure why not.

Instead, try creating a steam punk Civil War, that might be a new one.

[Sigma7]

Originally Posted by The Kiat

Instead, try creating a steam punk Civil War, that might be a new one.

In the immortal words of Jeff Spiccoli

Awesome! Totally awesome!

__________________________________________________ ____


As for victorious CSA cliches:

Facist CSAs:

Seriously. This was an attempt by a group of Americans to form a nation of their own because they had a hard time accepting federalism!!!

The subservience to the state that's required for facism is considerably more than is required by federalism.

In other words:

Not. Gonna. Happen.


And the equally preposterous:


After emancipation, despite being despised, disinfranchised and holding few if any rights...blacks stay in the CSA.

That's the one that always leaves me saying "Are you kidding me?"

Instead, I think it goes a bit more like this...

Meet alternate history's 19th century "migrant/"undocumented" workers.

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

Inspired by the WW2 cliches thread, what are some cliches about TLs involving the ACW that you find particularly annoying? One of the ones that bugs me the most is that in every single Confederate Victory TL, there is always a surviving Mexican Empire. What in God's name is the reasoning for this? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the Confederates didn't give a damn about Maximilian AFAIK. Hell, they could easily supply the Republicans as much as the US did OTL. Not sure why every scenario has them propping up a corrupt, weak, and unpopular government as their closest ally geographically speaking.

Well, you obviously haven't read my Confederate Victory TL. Max gets thrown out a year earlier in that one.

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

Another cliche I hate about ACW timelines are the massive Confederate land-grabs. Doesn't strike me as the kind of thing they'd ever be likely to do.

Again, not something they do in my timeline.

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

The even worse cliche, and God knows how it actually became common, whenever Texas becomes independent in a Confederate-Victory TL (which would probably be 90% of them) they make HUGE goddamn Mexican-landgrabs ON THEIR OWN! IIRC OTL Texas was pretty damn weak before joining the Union. What about Texas makes it stronger on its own?

Well, I am guilty of that one. But Texas in the 1860s to 1870s was far more populous and potentially powerful than it was when it was a republic in the 1830s to 1840s. Thinking a new Republic of Texas in the 1860s or 1870s would be as weak as the former Republic had been is just a mistake. And in my timeline, Texas only takes the northern tier of Mexican States to start with, at a time when Mexico was pretty much a basket case. And later, when it absorbs the rest of Mexico, it has discovered the oilfields a decade earlier and encouraging massive immigration to offset the Hispanic population it gained after absorbing the northern Mexican states.